On the Range
Stop Welfare for Wolves
By George Wuerthner, 10-06-09
I recently spent some time roaming around Beaverhead County south of Butte. Everywhere I went on public lands I saw cattle wandering loose without any human supervision. These cows are nothing more than four-legged picnic baskets to predators like wolves.
While I appreciate the generosity of local ranchers in their efforts to maintain fat and healthy wolf packs, I cannot condone such practices. It leads, after all, to lazy wolves. Why would a wolf spend its energy trying to pull down a sleek, fast elk, when it can far more easily secure a nice slow, fat, cow?
I am against all welfare. Look what it has done to people. We all know that welfare just promotes a lifestyle that leads to moral decay of people. People on welfare just sit around watching TV and eating lousy food, and making babies. We don’t need couch-potato wolf packs.
Plus just like all the junk food snacks eaten by welfare moms and their kids, eating fatty- artery clogging, hormone- doped up cattle is not really a healthy diet for wolves either. I am concerned that our wolves are not getting a balanced and healthy diet when they spend their time munching on cows.
It’s just irresponsible and reprehensible for ranchers to be leaving their cattle all over the land so they are easily caught by wild predators. Keep in mind that what made America great is its work ethic. Welfare for Wolves is not the answer. It’s time to remove all these four -legged picnic baskets from the public lands and make wolves earn a real living. Just as in national parks if you leave a picnic basket out for a bear to grab, you will get a fine. We should be doing the same to ranchers who are promoting unnatural food addictions through their husbandry practices.
New fed program for elderly wolves, "Meals on Hoof's."
Comment By hrikwhelz, 10-07-09Your excellent bit of satire points up the issue that has bothered me ever since first hearing, decades ago, about ranchers sending their herds and flocks out, largely unattended, onto the "open range" of Nevada, where I lived at the time -- and then some of them bemoaning the mountain lions or coyotes or other predators (wild dogs, anyone?) that might take down a hooved meal now and then.
Damnit, these lands are OURS, ALL of ours, and not just for grazing. You want to graze there? Fine. But tend to your herds. Don't go killing OUR wildlife (by legalizing the immoral "hunting" of wolves, mountain lions, bears and other non-game wildlife) -- to compensate for your shameful, lazy inattentiveness . . .
Very funny, George.
Less funny is the fact that we're now paying for these meals directly:
http://www.lcsun-news.com/new_mexico-news/ci_13505116
As if the ridiculously low grazing fee, drought payments, EQIP fund, endless other subsidies and undue political clout aren't enough, ranchers need compensation for the advantageously-looted "picnic baskets" too. It's the cowboy way!
I love it!
Comment By Dewey, 10-07-09I live in Cody WY which tries to sell itself to the outside world as a "Real Western Tourist Destination ". Folks come from all over the world wanting to see "real" cowboys. We have to break the news t them gently...there are very few cowboys left to be seen , only the cows.
Comment By lfehl, 10-07-09Great article George!
I for one certainly enjoy great Montana beef, but there has to be some sense of responsibility by ranchers for the risks of grazing on PUBLIC lands where most of the public like to allow their wildlife have first priority. This goes for competetion with bison too. From what I can tell...and I do not profess to be a biologist...conflicts with wolves and bison are over competetion for land access, not really the natural process of having wolves or bison on the land.
Ok, one of the reasons rent on public lands is low is because there are additional risks and expenses a rancher incurs because they have to make improvemets to land they don't own, the number of predators in the area and the general productivity of the range. What this article fails to acknowledge is the damage wolves are causing cattle and sheep on private property, often within sight of towns. 1 cow was killed outright and 2 had to be put down because of the extent of their injuries within less than one mile of downtown Cascade, Idaho on private land. Do we put up electronic fences and collar all the wolves so they don't pass off public land? This will cause some problems for connectivity of the wolf packs, but fair is fair. If we can't graze cattle on public lands why not ban all wolves from private property unless they have permission from the landowner to enter. I care about the cost and quality of the meat I eat but I care more about the immediate physical threat of wolves on my property. We end up with meat either raised outside this country with fewer regulations and safeguards or meat raised in feedlots. Yum! I prefer my beef raised locally and on grass, but if I have to make this trade off so that we can keep wolves off private property that would be a tradeoff I could consider. I hope you realize that the last comments were made facetiously.
Comment By Demarcated Landscapes, 10-07-09Becky,
And who, pray tell, is responsible for the (presumably lower) "productivity of the range" on public lands? Public lands ranchers! Who pays for many of the "improvements" that ranchers "have" to make? Taxpayers. We're so sick of hearing about how hard it is to ranch public lands and that's why the grazing fee is so dreadfully low. Hey, if it's that hard, STOP DOING IT. No, seriously. Ranchers should ask their congressperson for a one time payment to get the hell out of their unsustainable hobby and they won't have to worry about the wolves anymore. The wolves will resume feasting on all the deer and elk that finally have enough to eat.
As for your comments about getting feedlot or foreign beef, only 2 percent of all the beef in the U.S. market is raised on public lands in the eleven western states. Many of those cows get shipped to a feedlot to fatten up anyway, after coming off the "range" too skinny to be worth much. Now, maybe you've got a local producer, a local slaughterhouse, and a local grocery store, but chances are, there's some big corporation making money on your food preferences.
P.S.: You could just stop eating beef. Plenty of people have, and lived!
Let's just go to productivity- an irrigated pasture is able to produce more grass per acre and more pounds of beef per acre. An steep pasture is less productive because of the energy needed to tavel across it. Shallower soils hold less water and produce less grass to be harvested. Planting improved forage mixes increases yield per acre. The list goes on. These things are not under the ranchers control. These things are recognized in the established rents.
Why should I stop eating beef? I really enjoy it. Fabulous taste and aromas. It allows grass, which I don't eat to be converted into something I enjoy. It helps keep ranch land in production so that I can gaze across someone else's property to the mountains without seeing so many houses. Do you think that there won't be more beef imported into the US if prices go up beacuse our production goes down? Do you think that if we all become vegans that there will be a need for fewer acres in food production? Do thing some of the ranches will become housing developements or Tamarack Resorts or Yellowstone Clubs?
Physical threat by wolves on private property Becky?
sounds like shameless fearmongering
Cattle aint got no place in the arid west.
One cow per acre in Minnesota
One cow per hundreds or thousands of acres in arid western pulbic lands....
hmmmmm should we irigate pasture and befowl our precious western riparian areas to raise an animal that is more easily raised in wetter climes?
It sounds like George is a vegetarian and believes everyone slse should have to be so he can have his way. Does he mean the enviros will make up all of the money that ranchers have been paying for grazing rights weile the hikers get a free pass? Oh yes, George are you going to pay for pasture for what ungulates the wolves have left so they can make it thru the winter, you know the pasture that ranchers provide for winter wildlife graze?
Comment By Hmmmm, 10-07-09tracker, you may think they are only coming for us to take our property rights away, better worry about what you have that enviros might want.
Comment By Forever Wild, 10-07-09George, your article was excellent. I just returned from Glacier National Park, where cattle had slipped in on the east side of the park because the lake is extremely low near the cattle guard. Seeing cattle inside of Glacier is disturbing and I saw them there last year also.
One powerful way to help wolves is to completely stop eating beef.
You obviously don't live where I do. How many wolves have you seen on your property? Perhaps you should have a dozen or more on your property before you make your comment about fear mongering. These aren't friendly wolves and they aren't afraid of people. At least now we have a hunting season and can perhaps put a little fear of man into the most troublesome ones. I don't dispute that they have a place in the woods, but they have had very little to fear from man so far and are very bold. You have to see an animal they have torn up and left to die to really fully appreciate the wolf.
Comment By Hmmmm, 10-07-09Forever, the cattle you saw on the east side were probably from the Blackfeet Nation. If you think you were disturbed at the sight of a cow, think how the Blackfeet feel seeing a white man on what was once their land.
Comment By Forever Wild, 10-07-09Hmmmm - I understand what you're saying and completely agree with you.
Comment By Common Sense, 10-07-09I hope to goodness this article is 'tongue-in-cheek!' I am interested to know what the author does for a living that provides a product for our society. The ranchers and farmers of today, one of the few sectors producing goods necessary for human life, are under attack from special interest groups that produce nothing but words and inflammatory rhetoric, such as this article.
To the issue at hand - do you, George, expect to see a cowboy watching each and every cow? There are folks watching and herding the livestock and following the guidelines set forth by the public lands agencies. I urge you to contact any rancher that has cattle on public lands impacted by wolves and get a first-hand account of the true story.
Reading your biography, I understand that you were a range technician. As such, you understand that grasses evolved with grazing. Will you move the elk through these same areas to ensure the regrowth and non-wolfiness of the rangelands? FWP and multiple professional papers prove that elk follow cattle. Left to their own, the elk overuse the forage, as in the Lamar Valley.
Please do not publish such inflammatory mis-information.
IF every cow that set foot on public lands in Wyoming Montana and Idaho at some point during the year were to suddenly vanish without a trace, the beef market would register a brief seismic shock ---a Beefquake--- but 45 days from now there would be little evidence of the loss and life as we know it would go on . In the case of Wyoming, 1.4 million distinct cattle are present at some part of the year, but only about 400,000 are shipped to market. The nation consumes something like 40 million cattle annually . I do know that Wyoming is below the median of states that produce beef cows...it is outproduced by such rugged individualist cowboy states as Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Hawaii, Georgia and about 30 other states. It would've been much wiser for Wyoming to retain the Bison as its red meat crop , or perhaps import the the Himalayan Yak instead of some Scottish bovine. Cattle are not native to Wyoming; are in fact alien exotic species not suited to the environment here. Questioning the economic business model of the public land portion of the existent cattle industry in Wyoming is fair game. I suspect the conclusion would be it is nowhere near being justifiable when set against the feedlot and closed pasture methods of the nearby Midwest and those 30+ states that outproduce Wyoming. Especially when Wyoming's entire agriculture bottom line produces a measly 2 percent of its gross wages but takes six percent of its population to do it.
I do not know what number of cattle are grazed on public land and how many animal-days or total AUM's are alloted for public graze. I do know every cow on a public tract is eating grass that could just as well go to wildlife, and in fact competes with wildlife in intensive areas. I also know that New York and Ohio no longer have elk herds , but Wyoming does. Elk used to live everywhere in the continental US except the Gulf Coast and the hot deserts , but have been pushed back to mainly the Rocky Mountains and some one-off game farms " ranches". Pushed as much as anything by cattle barons , of that is not too inflammatory.
Oh hell...let's inflame a little. When Mr. Hmmmm above tries to defend ranchers and all the money they pay for grazing right and to provide winter habitat for wildlife, he's pretty much blowing smoke into his Stetson. The federal grazing fee is presently the same today as it was when the Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934.... $ 1.35 per AUM if I recall , and that was lowered from an exorbitant high of $ 1.75 or so a decade back , when ranchers claimed those high grazing fees were breaking them at the bank. Yeah right, an adult cow and her calf getting public grass for four cents a day in real dollars...same dollars as The Great Depression, and 170 million acres of public land to graze on and they still can't make a decent living without a gamut of supplemental subsidies , giveaway ag loans , and some extraordinary tax breaks at least in Wyoming) ? Don't get me wrong. I eat local Black Angus beef. But I could survive on Argentine imported beef in order to provide more Elk habitat and convert wolves to it. I'll compromise and just buy Colorado beef instead, because Wyoming ranchers hate wolves so much I feel no obligation to further subsidize their zealot ilk with my Elk..
Wyoming carries around 105,000 Elk , almost all of them on public land for most of the year. They are obviously outnumbered by cattle, almost 15-to-1. But guess what , Mr. Hmmmm..... the Elk population in Wyoming is still increasing right alongside those pesky wolves and in spite of competing for grass with farmed cattle. Up over ten percent since last year's elk census. Wyoming gross cattle numbers are down from 1.75 million to 1.35 million in the last few years, but wolves only killed about 0.0002 percent of them. Wolves are hardly devastating the Wyoming beef cow industry- they would hardly have any measureable impact on it at all if as George rightly points out cattle were not sacrificially gifted to wolves by lazy ranchers and nonexistent cowboys in the first place.
So it appears to me that the more cattle we remove from Wyoming's public land, the better it is all the way around.
Dewey, you are wrong about elk increasing with the wolves, take a look at teh numbers, the real ones, not what Smith says.
Enviros put out the info that timbering was not paying it's way, and they got rid of timber companies, now guess what, the forests are burning, and the NFS badly needs that money now. Instead teh taxpayers have t dig it up. Meanwhile the enviros who are so afraid someone else will not pay enough when they use the land, are themselves getting a free ride, they are too lazy to even build their own trails, the rest of us pay for their trails to be built and the trailheads too.
Now they want to get rid of the food producers too.
Hmmmmm.... my Wyoming Elk population numbers aren't derived from whomever " Smith" is. ( Doug Smith ?) They are the Wyoming Game and Fish's own annual statewide aerial census numbers of Elk present outside of Yellowstone in midwinter . These same numbers are used to set hunting seasons and range con forage, etc. by the various agencies I requested and got that data from a wildlife biologist at the Cody regional office. The guy heading the Absaroka Elk Ecology Study , actually.
The rest of your comment, however, isn't worth the space or time of a rebuttal.
Dewey,
Feel free to eat the imported beef. Please do not burden your local health care providers when you fall ill, as other countries do not have the regulations that American beef producers follow to ensure the safety of their product.
You also write that Ohio and other states no longer have elk. Why don't you support returning elk to these states and leave the wide open spaces of the great plains states alone.
http://gf.state.wy.us/services/news/pressreleases/07/03/23/070323_2.asp Dewey, you might want to check this press release out. It's on the Wyoming Game and Fish website and seems to indicate that elk counts are down and down more in areas currently occupied by wolves. I also read on that site that elk counts were up in feeding areas. Also on their site, elk numbers peaked in 1996 in Wyoming.
Comment By Hmmmm, 10-07-09Dewey, you are so right, there are still plenty of elk in the wolfless areas. It is only where the heavy infestations of wolves exist that the elk are being destroyed. Part of the Sunlight Basin falls into this situation. what they can't kill they are running until they starve. There are 6000 of the 19,000 Northern elk herd left, and most of those are in Montana, not Yellowstone. There is no plan or way to stop the slide either.
hy don't you who are so concerned about what rancher pay grazing fees, tell us how much you pay to use a parking area at a trail head.How much you pay to use the trails, hw much to use the camp areas. Feel free to chime in George, about how much you pay to sue our lands out here for hikeing.
I love Goerge! He exemplifies classic eastern thought. The colony of Montana is to be the playground of the beautifull people. I hear Goerge is sprearheading the reintroduction of the wolf to the dense forests of his home state of Vermont. Bravo! After all, wolves thrive in the dense forests of Northern Minnesota-why not Vermont? Why not Goerge?
Ya know, I can't think of one endangered species east of the Mississippi (well. there are a few). How come 98% of endangered species are west of the Missisipi? Surely some must be reintroduced to achieve balance and harmony. Vermonts ecosystem must be collapsing!
I need to get real! Why should any good Vermonter sacrifice "rover" and suffer inconvinience when we have Montana to sacrifice for us. Just knowing there are free wolves in Montana makes me feel so much better about myself when I'm stuck in this traffic jam. Peace and love dude.
Great job George. Finally, after all these years of cows destroying our streams, riparian areas and native grasses, people are writing about this socialized business, otherwise known as welfare ranching. I'm sick of seeing friends and businesses going under and the cow people getting benefits and subsidies. If they can't make it ....tough.
Time to rid all public lands of their crap machines and let the fish and wildlife prosper.
Tell us how you really feel, George. Or did Jon Marvel put you up for this one?
Comment By Dewey, 10-08-09Hmmmm-----the figures on local Elk populations and desired numbers in the Cody region , that I recieved last month from Wyo G & F personnel :
2008 Post-Season Population Estimates ( Winter 2009 aerial census) by herd unit:
Cody - 6,700 (objective 5,600)---> over objective by 1100
Clarks Fork - 5,400 (objective 3,000)---> over objective by 2400
Gooseberry - 4,100 (objective 2,700)---> over obective by 1400
In other words, in the areas west of Cody , the G & F desires to has 16, 200 Elk but only wants 11,300. There are about 5000 too many Elk in those herds.
More importantly , each of those herd units has one or more wolf packs associated with it , although the Gooseberry unit had some or all of its wolves taken out this last summer, If I recall. About three weeks ago Wildlife Services removed three wolves from a pack that had killed one calf and another cow who was put down.
But it's obvious that Elk numbers are increasing on top of their associated wolf packs. and yes, the actual Wyoming statewide Elk count did in fact increase from 95,000 to 105,000 in the past year, and those increases occurred in both Wolfy and Non-Wolfy areas. It would appear that milder winters and wetter springs and habitat/forage improvement are the prime factor. Any real ecologist will tell you that wild ungulate herds should never be allowed to steadily increase and plateau for long periods of time, The populations need to "crash" back to a low level every few decades, then rebuild usig the stronger surviving animals while the habitat itself rebuilds When Wyoming Game Fish or any other agency manages to keep game herds for consistently high in population , steadily so, they are making a big ecological mistake, It's simply wrong to manage Elk herds, for instance, to yield a big harvest of huntable animals by keeping the herd counts way high . By doing so, game agencies are " farming" Elk instead of letting natural cycles rule. The do this to maintain license revenues, duh! But it's not good management over the long haul. Elk are wildlife, not crops.
By the way , Becky---that Wyo G & F report you linked to is three years old info . It is seriously questioned by non-Game and Fish analysts. You'd have to send some time with Bill Rudd of WY G & F to realize how much he hates wolves. Wyo G&F;is attempting to foist all Elk herd problems onto the backs of wolves wherever possible. Rudd is the leading antagonist, and he's out of control. The Wyo G & F talks out of both sides of their mouths too much.
What do you know about the big Absaroka Elk Ecology Study that began two years ago north and west of Cody , and will continue its field work for another season till next Spring when the tagged Elk collars fall off and the data is assimilated for crunching ? Do you now anything at all about the AEES and who's behind it and the premise for it ? Be careful, it's a loaded question....
All bantering aside, the cattle ranch industry is only hanging on by the goodness of the congressional teat. The real beef industry in the west is mostly further east as Dewey has pointed out.
Grassland beef may actually taste better; but I doubt it.
If ranchers enjoy their hobby so much, they should be willing to pay to fence their pets and provide them with protection from our wildlife.
I want wild wolves.
I can be quite happy enough with feedlot beef.
Too funny, George.
Comment By logger, 10-08-09Most cattle outfits in the West are "cow calf" operations. They grow the calves and ship em to the corn country to fatten up. I'd like to know the percentage on how many yearling feeders are shipped to the wet country from the arid west. Theres no "free ranging" herds of cattle in Illinois. They're not gonna waste high value corn land on growing calves.
Dewey, share with us your utopian "alternative" to the last 100 years in the West. If you were king for life and could turn back the clock to 1850, how would you rewrite history to come up with your desired outcome for today. How would you like to see the West today? Anyone can throw stones at glass houses, but let us look inside your glass house. Don't just dip your toes into the water of critizing todays establishment, dive in and immerse all of us in "your" establishment. Defend your Nirvana agianst all comers. I'm sure you've thought that far ahead, but have you thought of the ramifications? Now it gets sticky.
Where will you draw the borders? Is Texas, Kansas, California apart of the utopia where hate was just a legend and war was never known? Are you to be a refugee too, or will you be exempt to live here? Will the Native Americans be the "oil sheiks" of the west. The Flathead Res cuts a lot of timber ya know. Certainly they won't be hunting Buffalo on horseback. Civilization is relentless as it is attractive.
Where would the copper in your cell phone come from? Not from Butte. You do realize thats it's very possible the copper in your I pod came from the toxic acid hole of the Berkely pit(recycled of course). I'm not aware of any copper mines east of the Missouri. In fact, I'm not aware of any mines east of the Missouri that produce the heavy metals that go into your computer.Tell us all the correct way to live without. Of course, why should you live without when everyone else lives with plenty.
Logger--- you asked about my "Utopian" alternative to the West . I don't have one. You plucked that out of your...uh, hat...and presumed it upon me.
I will contribute one ' alternative' for my home state of Wyoming that wold solve a great deal of livestock-wildlife issues , by merely changing one small word in the Code of the West and Wyoming constitutional bedrock. Change "Out" to "In" ...as in Fence Out to Fence In. Wyoming is b law a Fence Out state. If you do nt want stray cattle coming on your place, its not the cattle owner's fault or even his responsibility...it's YOUR responsibility to fence them out ! The cattle have more rights and the ability to trespass than any human. They get a free pass. But it goes a lot further than that .
Basically , Fence Out is what allows ranchers to throw cows on the mountain and leave them untended, or graze them hither and yon without fulltime tending or even 24/7 responsibility. It's a very clear legal doctrine that says livestock have preemptive rights that supersede other legal bindings , such as possession and property. It is PRECISELY the Fence Out exclusion that allows ranchers to claim damages and compensation for cattle killed by bears and wolves on public land. They have that manifest working for them to add to claiming damages on their private land as well. They have their beefCake and get to eat it , keep it, and get paid for it , always. It is s-o-o-o-o countermanding to law about ordinary property and possessions
If, however , we went to a universal Fence IN legal framework, then the livestock owner is fully responsible for his stock at all times , and if they trespass or transgress it is his responsibility to make good and deal with it. With Fence In , if a stockman doesn't want wolves or bears attacking his cattle on public land, it's up to that rancher to keep his livestock " In" , which is a euphemism for under his control and keep at all times. If those cattle are loose or they are untended and get attacked by wolves, it isn't the wolves fault under Fence In.
But under Fence Out, it might be, and by defacto policy usually is worked as such.
What I'm saying here is ranchers need to take better care of their allegedly valuable livestock ---be responsible for them 24/7---when they place them off their private property onto public land. And further, that rancher cannot nor should not be allowed to claim damages and compensation for cattle lost to wolves if they were in fact untended on public land or otherwise neglected or not under his management control at the time. That's one reason , I presume, that Grazing Fees are so low. It presumes the rancher will incur additional time and expense in protecting his four legged property, and is therefore incumbent on the rancher to do just that if he expects to see that cow come October. And why wouldn't he ?
It could not be simpler: your cows are your cows. The wolves are the public's wolves, as are all wildlife. If the " public" wolf comes on private property and kills a "private" Fenced In cow, then by all means you have the right to take away the wolf and be paid for the cow , more or less. But ---that right should not extend out to the public side of the equation. If the private cow is put on the public's land, the protections and legal remedies of Fenced In not conveyed unless that cow is being cowboyed.
The rancher cannot expect to have the best of both worlds, and the wolf none.
I wouldn't want to live in Utopia. I was born in and choose to stay in Cody , Wyoming. What I do want is a level regulatory playing field for domestic stock and wild animals. And I want the wildlife of my state to enjoy the benefits accorded to livestock, not be penalized by them.
( I'm also ignoring the last two paragraphs of your comment above , which are just more yukked up rhetorical redneck hairballs.)
What an excellent story and wonderful idea! But it is quite clear that the ranchers may be just as lazy as those on welfare when they do not watch their stock. A person made a wonderful point in a comment on a similar topic. That point was that shepherds had watched their flocks for over 1,000 years without the need of fences or firearms. The only difference today is the laziness and silly expectations. Farmers want to complain and say it is on private land that they are openly wandering, but how the heck is the wolf to know that. I think if I saw a nice clean refrigerator in the middle of a pasture, private land or not, I'd have to take a peak to see what's inside especially if I'm hungry.
Wonderful article. Thanks.
In response to Becky.
You know I've worked hands on with wolves for over three years. Even with constant human interaction most of the wolves are very skittish of humans. For a wild one not to be a bit afraid of humans is totally ridiculous and I'd have to be a fool to doubt my own experiences over another person's foolish perceptions. As the article implies, these people need to be more attentive to their animals and stop expecting all wildlife to understand your selfish desires so ranchers can sit on their rumps and point their fingers.
Demarcated Landscapes
Oh my gosh! I love your reply to Becky! But you must realize these people, "the salt of the land" *cough*, are stubborn, ignorant, and selfish. It'd quite difficult to get a point across to someone who embodies those attributes.
And Becky,
Don't allow wolves on "private lands"? Jeez, you are so very narrow-minded if you really believe that the only watching you should do over animals is for the wolves and other predators. No-no-no. You need to be watching YOUR animals. And how much beef is generated from open range cattle compared to the regular Walmart beef anyway? A small percentage. Get real. For people to support such a thing and place so much reverence to the importance of free-ranged cattle is a very flawed ad skewed debate. There are many things wrong with our foods. Why don't you start attacking processed foods instead rather than wolves? As the point described in this article demonstrates, it would be just as foolish to leave a duffle-bag full of money in a front lawn of a run-down neighborhood. But that's private property too, right?
So wolf, are you saying if we come on your campsite on public land, it is a free for all for anything we want, if you are not watching it?
Comment By Wolf-of-Samhain, 10-09-09Todd:
You are a member of the human species and involved with human interactions unlike wildlife. To expect wildlife to understand what a human calls his and hers is silly. I expect any human to know better should they have IQ over 1. If I am camping on public lands and my stuff is left unattended, that would be my own problem for not watching it but that does not make it legal for a person to steal it. They would, however, get away with it though because there was, according to your analogy, no witnesses.
Would it be a free-for-all? Well, that depends on the asshat.
Uhhh, you said you would invade an untended refrigerator. Or are you saying you are not a human? Besides you are using the public lands for free, isn't your criteria, "not paying enough"? And nothing hardly qulaifies as "enough".
Comment By Tears, 10-09-09Wolves - we love to hate them, fear them, demonize them, and love them. How many of the above writers have studied all the available material on wolves - everything they need, all their pack/family interactions. How many have studied the history of man and why men kill animals? How many have looked at the numbers of wild animals killed for something other than food and studied the anthropology of the killing of what we call predators. How many hate a wolf because it killed an animal we want to kill. How many have studied what is in a man that he is afraid of that he cannot face so he kills a wolf and teaches the killing of a wolf.
Why does anyone put cattle out and then hope a wolf will not consider them for food.
Food fact: for survival we do not need to eat meat. and while it is a way of life in the west, land in the east supports more food which supports more cattle than our arid land.
one last question: How do cattle benefit land?
Todd:
You hold a very...how should I say - distant debate. I said this: "I think if I saw a nice clean refrigerator in the middle of a pasture, private land or not, I'd have to take a peak to see what's inside especially if I'm hungry." Don't take me out of context. But if you want to debate such a silly thing, lets demonstrate your arrogance. If that fridge was behind a fence, no I would not peak in to see what's inside. If I was starving, being a human, I'd go and knock on there door to see if I may have some of their food. If the fridge was not behind a fence and there were no signs to address that land as private, I'd take a peak. If I was starving and there was actually food inside, I'd eat a bit. Humans will associate refrigerators with food and wolves will any prey animal the same. A prey animal that is not very bright (like a cow) might as well be as threatening as a fridge is to a human.
Now - the key topic here is fenced in or not. The fridge in this analogy is not fenced in and should there be no signs (signs that a human can read) that states "private property", curiosity alone will guide most to check that fridge.
You want to take me literal in such a analogy rather than see the point behind it. Tell me, do you do this out of spite, like the spite you use to kill things you dislike, or out of sheer ignorance and/or stupidity, like how you take care of your livestock? I'm not a city boy nor am I a country boy either. I have an education in both fields from living self-sustainably in the wild to legally and morally generating money in the city. You sir, sound like a mooch and an uneducated, ill-informed, disgruntled jerk-off with no more value than toenail clippings. Sure, the clippings will biodegrade and contribute back to the nitrogen system and so will you when your under the ground. That is your value to me. How old are you anyway? 30's or 40's and still acting like a child? Surely an educated man could come up with a stronger debate than that petty garbage. I'm sick of you people, to be frank. You call yourself the salt of the land, I call you the salt on an open wound. How are you going to help our environment or do you even care outside of your own self and family? Forgive the rudeness or not, I care not. I care as much about you as you do about wolves and other things you don't understand yet label as "pest". The average method for uneducated ranchers for what they call pest or vermin (which is bullets and gun powder) under many tests have proven to be backasswards from something that actually works and is permanent. Studies have shown that the problems get worst. You don't have a clue how to "manage" nature and the human species is still learning how to do their best in management but the truth is that humans have only been here for 2M+ years which is shit compared to the 30M+ many of our mammals have been here for. And you, a dead-beat raised and educated with in the confines of your po-dunk town understand proper wildlife management? These senators and politicians that profit off of you guys love ignorant/stupid people because of the revenue you all generate - for them. Way to contribute. Too bad the only good contribution you could make is to the nitrogen cycle. I am political and I am well informed and you can bet your ass I'll be addressing my state senators to press against this delisting and get you people back on a leash since you don't know how to control yourself. As James Madison pressed to decrease the voting value of uneducated people and place more value into those that were (which was the first step to our electoral college), the same applies here. Uninformed/uneducated people do not need to be "managing" the land via violence which seems to be the only thing they know. Peace.
You get those rednecks, Dewey!
Comment By Ciaron, 10-09-0920 points for you Wolf!
I have nothing else to say (for the moment) seeing as Wolf already did so.
I'll take two points and donate the rest to wolf conservation, thanks.
Comment By former spud, 10-11-09I have no problem protecting my stock. It is called a 7.62 x 51mm @ 2610 ft per second. In the hands of a skilled marksman it is quite devastating to any varmint and I have plenty of patience to sit, wait and watch, a skill I learned in another life. In my semi-retired state I get a great deal of enjoyment just sitting and watching, that which is mine. As a utilitarian I find the wolf to be of little value except in the most remote areas. When he crosses into mine he has no value at all.
Comment By London, 10-11-09Bugs/virsuses/bacteria etc come from FILTH. Just look how the FDA approved meats industry dunk these Beef/Pork/chicken carcasses into vats of water and feces. Their loaded with growth hormones, bugs you name it. This is why meats kill people more now than ever. This is why I hunt elk and deer. Go enjoy your lazy city white neck people packaged meats at your grocery, at your cafe, all you want.. Go ahead and finally destroy the right to free range cattle, yes I agree get the cattle and sheep off public lands, get those animals into the pens where the filth is, they can be raised in it, and killed in it, and you white necks can eat it all up..The sooner the better.. Get those filthy toxins in your blood streams and then I can live in peace again.. Just that campylobacter connected to chickens can trigger a life-threatening bloodstream infection in people with a weakened immune system. That's why I don't eat filthy chicken meats or pork's. Industrialize all foods, bring in foreign foods, dependence on delivery from our foes is a wonderful idea. Less people, less houses, less wanna be lands managers..
Comment By Wolf-of-Samhain, 10-11-09London:
That looks like a familiar post. Too bad you keep posting inaccurate information. Like yogurt, its loaded with bacteria. They call it pro-bacteria. but then again, you don't have to eat yogurt to get the bacterias that our bodies need to survive, after all we did evolve from such. Or are you one of those crazy Christians that believe the Earth is only a little over 3,000 years old? On that note, if bacteria did come from filth and we are as humans are a product of bacteria, I could see the relationship. Such a silly American with a foreign screen name.
I see nothing wrong with hunting deer, elk, and other ungulates so long as you do so out of necessity to survive or live within reasonable comfort (ie: don't make enough money to feed yourself and you family). But, you out way too much value into free ranged stock when only a small fraction of that meat goes to market (>2%). Wake up.
Former Spud:
Semi-retired huh? Well that makes sense considering the further back in generations, the more mistakes we've made. Stagnate thought patterns and traditions that no longer apply will die with these older generations. Enjoy believing you truly "own" something rather than just be responsible for it. Of course you don't see the value of the wolf and other predators when you come from such a misguided line. So, did your family have slaves when that was legal? Did you "own" them too?
Sorry to disappoint you wolf, but as the father of ten I have more than guaranteed my gene pool will be here long after I am gone.
Several of them have followed in my foot steps and are crack shots also. Makes a Daddy proud.
Now, that is disappointing. Still popping out kids like the good old days huh?
Comment By Auntie Bushmaster, 10-13-09I've been threatened more often (by a factor of 100) and worse (by a factor of 1,000,000) by free-ranging yuppie hounds than ever by any wolf, cougar, feral lupine, or whatever the hell terror USDA's fence-stringing minions are whipping up this week.
Oh to live long enough to see the entire human drama gone and forgotten.
The article ignores one of the biggest concerns with the increase in wolves--that's right, wolf flu. "What is Wolf Flu?" you ask. All I can tell you is that if you thought Swine Flu was bad, just wait until you get a dose of Wolf Flu!
And who is behind wolf flu? Well, do you is that it's just a coincidence that the word "Influenza" spelled backwards is "A New Liberal." Connect the dots, people!
-Jon Cheever.
To Cheever,
Just out of curiosity, did you ever go to grammar school? I've got some bad news for you. "Influenza" spelled backwards is "A Zne Ulfnl". But that was probably one of your good-ol-boy jokes. I'm laughing on the inside. You cemented your ignorance with your Swine Flu/Wolf Flu comment. First of all, if you've done any research you'll find Swine Flu is just as bad as the common cold. Trust me I got Swine Flu earlier this year and I recovered in a day or two. Swine Flu is only dangerous for toddlers and retards; so you better be careful. Second; Wolf Flu? WTF! Was that seriously your lead up to your good-ol-boy joke?
LMAO Canis Lupus! Love it *wink*
Comment By Frank, 10-16-09George is right. We should stop subsidizing ranchers and let the market decide these issues. We'd be doing them a favor, actually. They work hard trying to make a living by ranching.
If they weren't subsidized, they'd realize that they could make a lot more money by subdividing their ranches. A lot of Californians are eager to leave their state, and they have big money to spend on new Montana spreads. If Montana ranchers were splitting their land into ranchettes instead of actually ranching, they'd be bringing lots of new money into the state--and they wouldn't have the headaches of dealing with wolves, etc.
Montana is such a vast place, that we can handle a lot of newcomers in a lot of subdivisions. It is a future that makes a lot of sense, a future that we can thank George for doing his best to hasten along.
Good points Frank. The ranches in mountain areas could be sold for trophy ranches. They would shut off access to the "public land in the mountains in many cases, but then the hikers wouldn't need to take so much time off from work and they could earn more money instead of playing on land they could no longer get to.
Comment By Jed, 10-17-09I'll say.
But with our luck those rightwingranchers would all sell to ex-cops from Orange County...
you guys all piss n moan about public grazeing land like its yours and not the ranchers cattle,how many of u have actually took the time and walked on this public land.the farmers actually pay for the privelage to graze there,i no most of you will piss n moan u pay with taxes so tooshay the farmers pay twice.we have public land here in mn. as well we dont use it for cattle its all for the public,dont see anything better with you people when you come from the cities with all your fancy gadgets for a week of hunting and leaveing garbage all over the woods.its just one big party with a truck load of beer big playground for you,these ranchers are not useing your land,there land how ever you look at it for a play ground its a buisness its there livelyhood just as you have a job in a bank or where ever.ask youself this with your 9-5 job if your jobs were being over taken by people with greencards you wouldnt be pissed,how about if someone brokein to your house would you shoot to save your property is it morally alright to shoot the two legged wolf and not the four legged wolf thats takeing property from the rancher.now i have private property fenced in and still lost 38 calves and four cows in a month to 17 wolves in this pack,dnr even watched these wolves in my pasture and put it in the paper they were stocking my cattle,the problem is i get paid for three only the rest probables you want fair or do you want all wolves shot.you must play fair if you want ranchers to play fair.far as welfare ranchers its the other way around i fed 30,000 dollars to welfare wolves.for you people that watch to much discovery channel watch humane society with all your over populated dogs and cats in your back yards,makes me wonder how you can possibaly take care of wild dogs.its simple and thats what were saying CONTROL THE NUMBERS OR WE WILL
Comment By Dewey, 12-10-09I encourage the residents of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho to not purchase any beef originating in those states. There are many reasons for doing this , foremost being to send the cattlemen a message from Modern Times . But there's no reason to waste the space ... the gentleman whose response just appeared above this one makes the case against welfare ranching and the faux economics of the western red meat business better than I ever could. He also makes a great case for paying more attention in sophomore English class.
Comment By mnrancher, 12-11-09how can you send a message to the cattlemen from modern times when the wolf lovers are trying to get the past back of hundred years ago.maybe your land there isnt suitable for cattle it sounds like a different battle there,just want ranchers off your public land all together thats fine and dandy.i dont argue the piont theres room for wolves either where i have the problem is the lie that goes on in my state your state and all the rest of the states.dont no the number of wolves they agreed upon there but here was 1,600 wolves then to be delisted still on list at 4,000 wolves and still want more.we are saposed to sit there and watch wolves kill our cattle,the wolves here have figured it out much easier to kill cattle fenced in than to chase a deer.all we want is to get the numbers down where the wolf round table agreed upon.i only had 100 cows small third generation farm and lost half my income to wolves and wont get paid just like my nieghbors lost 28 calves another 26 another 11 out of all these calves15 calves were paid for.now far as what every body considers property is different i guess,if somebody robbed your place you would want it replaced whats the difference with our cattle.i lost my ranch over this four legged wolves killed my calves two legged wolves wiped me out and there should be a season on both.but by all means dont eat beef that will solve all your problems eat wolf
Comment By RedNecKs-R-Dumb, 12-11-09mnrancher,
Perhaps you weren't reimbursed because you couldn't prove the supposed attacks that happened to your stock or someone elses stock happened by wolves at all. 60% of all predation attacks are from coyotes while bears, cougars, and wolves make up the remaining 40%.
I really wish you people would stop trying to justify your reasoning because you reasoning is biased and not scientifically sound. I mean seriously? How many of these threads from numerous sites have these white trash people stating "Kill em' All"? Hmmm.... that's right, all of them.
Why don't you go ahead and admit it? Just say, I hate wolves and I blame them for all my problems because they are a competition to me.
I mean really. You don't care about the science, do you? You just want to kill them, right?
You people are scum no more valuable then ABC gum on the bottom of my boots.... military boots not the redneck/white trash or egocentric homophobic type. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that stereotypical of me? Guess it would have been worse if I brought up how you hate the city, loath gays, and have bad teeth too. Oops, too late. You're probably Christian as well. Did you know that Christians make up over 90% of all the inhabitants in our federal prisons? Hmmm.... interesting. Oh, that's right! You hate science and understanding so why would you look at statistics? What a bummer. Seems there is no helping you people. Perhaps we should just give up on what is morally right, become science hating Christians, and live in our arrogance blaming all the world and the things in it our god doesn't help us with. yeah, that's the solution. We should be degenerate assholes just like you.
Redneck you are obviously so full of hate that you neither know nor care about other people...at least until you find the meat counter bare at the local store. DOW only pays for a small number of the actual kills, in the northern Rockies the esitmate by Dr. Mech, is ranchers are paid for about 1 out of every 7 to 9 cows, I suspect Mn is the same. That means food producing families are the ones paying dearly for the entrtainment of those who want wolves. The wolf introduction was designed to drive families off the land.
An example of how DOW weasles out of payment is the 122 rams killed in a privbate pasture in Montnan. 20 of them were so consumed that inspectors could not detect the extreme trauma that is the hallmark of a wolf kill. Now there is no doubt that wolves killed them when they killed other hundred, but because they ate too much of the 20, they got paid half their value since the were "probably" killed. It would kind of be like loosing your home in a fire and getting paid for half of it because probably all of it burned but there wasn't enough left to be sure.
Dewey, I really like your Christmas spirit wanting to destroy the jobs and property of others. Unfortunately this adminsitration may have us all there sooner than later.
"The wolf introduction was designed to drive families off the land."
LMAO! Really?! Now that one I haven't heard. Makes sense why you people hold on to your resentment so much but that's hardly true. Surely you can't prove this propaganda can you? Let me guess, if you could they'd kill you. What a pity.
"An example of how DOW weasles out of payment is the 122 rams killed in a privbate pasture in Montnan."
It was 120 and happened on a ranch near Dillon. Funny thing is that this supposedly happened in mid August (around 8/20/09) less than a month away from the decline to the preliminary injunction to protect wolves (9/09/09). Hmmmm... Kind of interesting. Also what's interesting is the amount of payout the alleged victim was told to receive. What was it again? Oh that's right, $350 per dead sheep. That's $42,000, right? Now here's the screwy part, I can't find photos of the incident or (via topographical imaging) the place where it could have logically happened. Then I started investigating their taxes for both properties that couple owns. What's this??? They aren't listed? How very interesting. My friend, a former military CID agent looked that up and showed me the data. Would you like to see them as well as all the referenced factual information I've just digressed? Who wouldn't try to avoid paying someone that is trying to screw you over and claiming an incident happened when nothing like it has ever happened in recorded history? Mass killings by predator animals usually involves a cliff or horrible stampede where ungulates are killing themselves and each other (thus the topographical images of the alleged attack).
You're very flawed and misguided. You don't want me to send you scientific data supporting my claims and you don't want to change either. You say I'm "obviously so full of hate that you neither know nor care about other people" Did you mean know how to care? First off, learn to address yourself clearly and spell check your writing less you sound like a fool. Secondly, I care about many people. Of course I would know how to care for them when i already do this. They just aren't your type of people. I care about the people that value all of natures gifts and fight to protect them from people that do not...people like you. You have no want or desire to learn anything about something you've labeled as "bad" in your life and care nothing about anything but your friends and family. What if by your family dying you'd save 10,000 lives that you do not know. Which would you choose?
Most of you people are all about my family, my friends, my dog, my religion, my land, my cattle, me, me, me. Well, screw you and what you call yours. There is where my hate lies. Selfish, uneducated, overzealous, degenerate scum.
alot of name calling from a guy that sounds like a milatary prick.all your scientific data is just that,people sitting by there desk comforts of a office a pen and paper.you have all data dont you so when this wonderful bunch of sientific minds come up with the numbers here of 1,600 wolves to be delisted what happend now we have 4,000 wolves.do you really think these sientific noodle heads live with wolves no we do.all of us stupid people make everything you eat the only thing we dont make is your plastic bag or box you preheat and ready to eat in five minutes.i shouldnt have to put up with 17 wolves in my private pasture,but its people like you that would say if you cant handle it move so the wolves can roam where they did a hundred years ago,and i know wolves killed my calves and them 17 wolves will not be bothering anyones cattle again
Comment By RedNecKs-R-Dumb, 12-13-09mnrancher
Nice grammar you have there. I bet you were at the top of your class unlike those scientist that sit at a desk. Well, maybe it's not a desk but a whole lab designed to be able to have a person of certain skills use it to its fullest potential and create new machines, cures for diseases, or other things that aids human existence. Hmm, no those people are dumb and you're much greater than they are. We should just devote ourselves to people that live in the hills knowledge with their superior education. God, where would you be hadn't the scientist made you your duct tape?
Oh btw, I have lived in the mountains and in the desert. I've also lived with wolves for 3 years. I've chopped wood and hauled water but I've also pushed paper documents and till. But don't you worry, you're so much smarter than me. Daddy taught you well or good, as you'd say. And yeah, I've served my country. What about you? What have you given back to the well being of our nation?
You're so arrogant. The pen is mightier than the sword. The science is real, it's legit, and it's made by people with more understanding than you. If the intention of wolves being placed there was to "run the people off" I'd say good. Hope you go homeless if you've the stagnate mentality as you do. I saw a sign posted in Idaho: "Tag a Wolf Get a Free Pizza and Pitcher of Beer" and that's what you call rational and educated? I think I'll stick to the scientist's education and you can continue drinking and shooting things to make you feel better about yourself since you're so miserable. Hell, go ahead and beat your wife while you're at it. Do it in the name of God. You'll still go to heaven, right?
you sure are a hot head.yes i might have just a high school education and no i dont have a temper like yours and dont wish to beat my wife either.i merely said all these scientific people have the data from a desk ,they have no knowledge of the areas they put these dogs other than on a map.you can pick on my grammar and have no schooling thats all fine we all dont need college degree to figure out you is a milatary baby.
Comment By Bigsky, 5-13-10Interesting comments. I get such a kick out of the wolf hugging croud that cares so little for the "welfare ranchers". Guess that shows you how little they really know about real life. Ever wonder how much the redneck hater and the wolf hugger fellas pay to use that public land? Nothing. I keep hearing that these ranchers don't pay enough. I guess that means they are welfare people. Ridiculous. Just like this wolf saga. We have thousands of wolves in canada and alaska, why in the world did they put them here? "Balance the ecosystem?" "Apex predator"? In the process, they are destroying thousands of animals, some of them possibly to the point of extinction, as least in some areas. Even yellowstone is hurting. 1995, 1,200 moose in yellowstone, 2010, 117. Is that even a sustainable population of moose? Somebody should sue about that. What is this science you are talking about, wolf hugger? The science I see is little game left in many parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. I only see game herd drastically falling in numbers where wolves abound. This is not a "bear problem" or a "global warming problem", this is a wolf problem, period. I know how you people gloat over the "hunters and rednecks" and all that, but don't you care a bit about the other animals that are being destoyed at a ever increasing rate? Look at the data you so proudly like to point to. Wolves in an area for more than five years, elk and moose populations plummet. Every family in the neighborhood of a wolf pack has to be on guard 24 hours a day. Oh, thats right, we can grow cows elseware, wolves are more important than people, I forgot. Can't wait to meet a few of you wolf huggers......
Comment By 4th Gen Wyo, 5-13-10Hmmm...somebody's 7th grade junior high science teacher wasn't doing the job in Little Bigsky's classroom back when he was in school. Some of the others , too. Guess we need some edjikayshun reform in Montana.
P.S. The GYE Moose population was crashing before Wolf 1 was let loose from the pens in 1995. Half of the northern range YNP elk herd died in the icestorm of the winter of 96-97. And every cattle rancher in Wyoming and probably western Montana could have all his cows sucked up into UFO's tomorrow and nobody would miss them a month from now.
The high country public lands western beef rancher has ALWAYS been a Nonessential Threatened species. I'm just not sure they are worth reintroducing and protecting. Oh wait...we tried that. Huge waste of money. They can't pay their way without the rest of us subsidizing their insolvent business model.
And as a matter off fact I do pay for my public land use...the unsubsidized full fee and undiluted taxes , not the special rancher rate and lowball tax specials.
Hmmmm....You pay nothing for the land, that is a fact. People who run stock on it do. PUBLIC LAND is also mutliple use land, and how much of it is actually grazed anyway? Unfornately for this fella, he only sees his side of the argument. You can pretend that the moose population is plummeting because of global warming, bad winters, etc and keep pretending. Its the WOLVES that are doing it. Just like they are doing it across the three states. Like they say, those wolves gotta eat to... In every area wolves have occupied for at least five years, elk and moose populations have dropped significantly. Your "science" is flawed. Nice comment on the 7th grade stuff, I am not sure you made it that far in school anyway....but that is typical of the people hating wolf hugging croud. It is also typical of the wolf huggers to avoid the TRUTH of the issue and pick on grammer, sentence structure, etc. Anything to show they are superior to other humans in knowledge. Maybe read a few books on how the canadians and russians deal with wolves. To bad you can't buy an education on common sense.......
Comment By 4th Gen Wyo, 5-13-10Let's pencil it out. Mr. bigsky You get to put a cow and her new calf onto MY public land for 120 days give or take, June 1 to October 1. For this blessed privilege you pay me $ 1.35 per month for the both of them. The USDA Forest Service gets to rake in the vast sum of $ 5 .40 total for your grazing privileges. During those four months the Cow/Calf put on 2 lbs. of weight a day each on the best grass to be had anywhere. You put 480 pounds of beef on your bottom line for five bucks. Today's cattle price was about 96 cents a pound, so you got $ 450 worth of meat for $ 5.00.
We all know that $ 1.35 AUM graze fee is so underpriced and under market value as to be a giveaway. That's not Multiple Use...that's abuse. Corruption . Welfare ranching. Ad absurdum...
Where I live, in northwest Wyoming, a 5 year study is being done on Elk ecology . Last week the lead scientist gave a talk on preliminary results. Pregnancy rates in migratory cow Elk are low, and they are only breeding every there time. Why is this? The data points conclusively towards POOR NUTRITION ( grass). The cow elk have 50 pounds less fat at the end of summer than they should. The vegetation is just not there for them in late May and early June and especially after calving ? Why ? A change in climate , primarily the snowmelt and spring precip, has reduced forage production in early summer. This has been observed to be declining since the early 1970's when the first LANDSAT earth resources satellites started doing systematic scans. Today , you can see the daily NDVI infrared image courtesy of NASA's Rapid Response MODIS team , which is tuned to chlorophyll.
The elk aren't eating well. The grass is poorer. Water is scarcer. Late summer is no smorgasbord like it used to be for herbivores. Especially cow elk and all the moose. All of them , who have lost their old growth forest and preferred habitat in te ast 25 years. The moose population in parts of northwest Wyoming started crashing long before the first wolf was let loose. It's not wolves that are keeping that grass from growing like it did two generations ago when elk numbers peaked .
The wolves of course get mightily blamed. But it's not their fault.
The science makes liars out of hunters, outfitters, and ranchers .
What little good grass there is in the Absaroka Range I want to go to the wildlife...the native species. It's their home. The grass should not go to the alien exotic bovines before the native ungulates. Not to introduced English and Scottish cows who are getting a free ride on my public lands on my dime.
Your concept of Multiple Use is actually Singular Abuse. Public Land Grazing is a waste of money, especially in prime mountain graze. Time for the cows to go somewhere else .
The elk and their companion wolves will take care of themselves , especially with less competition from grass guzzlers .
Ok, so you say $1.35 per pair is to low. So raise it, or argue to raise it, anyway. I see public land as public, and grazing should be allowed. How much and where is up to the managers of that land. I guess I don't see the light on the "before wolf" theory you have. Now I am not dictating taking all the wolves out of the picture, won't happen if I wanted that anyway. When it comes to the scientists, I have seen both sides of that picture. I hear poor grass for elk, no willows for moose, both overpopulated, etc. Then I look at the numbers. Elk herd steady, then wolves, elk herd declining. Moose steady, then wolves, moose numbers dropping. Every article I read says the same thing, be it on the bitterroot elk herd in Montana, the northern yellowstone elk herd, the moose in yellowstone, or the moose in my backyard. They say what you are saying, no grass, reproduction rates low, even global warming. Populations have fluctuated in the past. Funny thing is, in every area where they are having these problems, wolves are present. What appears to me is that no one wants to raise the rath of people (possibly like you?) about the subject. Now I have listened to Jim Beers, Robert Fanning, and a few others and do not see the points you are trying to make. Tom Bergerud, a wolf biologist from British Columbia, sums up what I feel, and he actually has experience with the problems wolves cause, something that our local biologists do not have. His quote....."I predict that you are going to have major impacts from wolves in this state…I predict major elk decline…wolves repeatedly depress moose, caribou and elk populations while studying them throughout Canada…I’ve watched herd after herd [of caribou] go EXTINCT across Canada…The problem, wolves have no know predators to keep them in balance with the ecosystem."
—— Tom Bergerud, 1994
Top British Columbia wolf expert
So, you can see that biologists themselves don't agree with any one course of action. What I do see, and those around me, is alot less wildlife around since the wolves arrived. The bigger question is, will their be any left in some areas?
I can see that you definitely have a problem with cattle grazers, but I don't. They are just people trying to make a living. Need more regulation? Lobby for it. But taking people off the land or making excuses about wolves being their first is ridiculous.
So big sky how many days are YOU spending on MY public land leaving waste everywhere and paying nothing?
Let's make it simple, either everyone pays market price to use public land or no one does, but you can't charge ranchers more and ultimately the consumer, which may be too poor to buy meat, so hikers and back packers can have free access.
better reread that post, Todd. I don't know where you are coming from.....
Comment By Wolf Huger, 5-15-10Glad to see some good data brought to the table again. Thanks General. As for Sky's wolf researcher quote, hooey. Quite simply put. I have worked with wolves hands on for over 3 years. I would like to continue doing such work but I am afraid of "who" I would be working for. Even wolves at wolf sanctuaries are under USDA regulations and they all have to be certified. Though I could get a job tracking down wolves and recording data in good faith and love for the species, where is my data being reported to and for what purposes? So the USFG can convolute it and bring it out of context? I simply do not trust those involved with the USFG or the associated. Even David Mech has taken an extreme about-face on his stance right as this was all happening September of last year. I have right here on my desk an old National Geographic magazine from February 1963. It is addressing the introduction of wolves to the Royal Isle region. David Mech played a role there. The wolves in this region have been found to have bone deformities already from being cut off from other wolf packs which led to inbreeding. The wolves there were never under proper protection from a myriad of threats including poor supervision.
And for some numbers Sky, 66% of Montana and 65% of Idaho is open grazing land. That roughly 95,000 square acres in Montana and 54,000 square miles in Idaho. That's a lot of welfare. Its not like your waking up at 4am to break your back paving roads either. You stick some livestock out in a field that you don't pay for, round them up to have them shipped out to the slaughter house, and then you want to complain about predators killing your unsupervised animals that have a very low IQ... And you want tax payers to pay you for it twice over? The rights to use the public land and then the price of the head of cattle. Get off your ass and stop mooching. As the saying goes, "You don't pay; you don't play"
Wolf huger, huh? Yes I am, and proud of it. I have hugged a wolf, several of them in fact. Got photos too. I've also hugged niggers (as you might call them) and homosexuals. I'm just a nigger lovin', wolf huggin', realist that appreciates all life but not the lives that discriminate against others like the mentioned above. Like how slaves were used to make the wealthy richer and lazier, ranchers want to sit on there asses and get paid for it. You disgust me. Your values do not exceed your own life. And if you want to say people are so much better than animals, stop acting like you care about the elk and moose. You're only using that as a means to get more people to agree with you so you all can hate wolves and "Wolf hugers" together. Fortunately, most have an education. Get with the program, freeloader.
Sure you do bigsky, but you don't like to admit that those who pay nothing for using the land are being two faced when they insist that ranchers should pay MORE than they pay. Every user should pay something, including you. If you want ranchers to pay market price to use public land, then it is only fair that hikers, campers, back packers, etc pay market price also.
Comment By bigsky, 5-15-10Nice post, wolf hugger. Glad to know what side of the fence you sit on. I see you equate not liking wolves to being some sort of a racist. Typical of your croud. Does the education you talk about give you the right to throw people off the land, and then give it to the wolves? Won't happen. To those of you who would like to take that 66% of Montana and 65% of Idaho and turn it into a wildlife sanctuary, good luck. Won't happen. Funny how the wolf croud gets so emotional about an animal that basically kills all unglulates around it. The "apex predator" that we cannot live without? More jargon from the jobless, antipeople croud who care so little for their fellow man. Keep hiding behind that false college degrees and maybe use some common sense someday.
So your argument is that with the present number of wolves we now have we will have inbreeding? Like on Royal Isle? Funny how I read about one of your wolves moving from southern Idaho and forming a pack in Glacier. Must be like....600 miles? Seems to me that inbreeding is not gonna be a problem.
As far as Todds comments go, I agree with you. Make em all pay. Personally, I would rather see the cost structure as it is now (for ranchers). Guess I was giving the wolf hugger above something to think about. Just keep in mind Todd, its PUBLIC land, not YOUR PUBLIC LAND, and I don't leave my garbage. In fact, I pick alot of stuff up left by others. Besides, I don't wanna argue with you. Their are enough wolf worshippers out there to keep me busy until at least we can get some control on this issue. Keep in mind that these people don't just want cattle on public land, they don't want anybody but themselves on it. Their goal is to stop all mining, timber cutting, or anything that a man can do to earn a living. To them, its about trying to turn back the clock 300 years. Free the buffalo! Free the wolves! To heck with people. Keep up the fight, just tone it down a bit, and pick you friends wisely.
Bigsky I only used the "my public land" to make a point with those who want thsoe who produce food off "their" public land. There are far too many people who want to have exclusive use of the land.
Comment By Wolf Hugger, 8-08-10"False college degree"?
Hmmm...So you're saying you don't have one.
Oh. These people do:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10900217
Eat it.
Wolf hugger, in todays world, even a antiperson like yourself can get a college degree. Sorry fella, but I don't consider degrees that require you to show up just to get the degree a quality education. From your comments you appear to be in that realm. But, thats besides the point. All the biologists in the the world and all the studies we are wasting stydying wolves with taxpayer money does not change the fact. Wolves are indiscriminate killers that need to be eliminated completely for the lower 48. Now that Malloy have sold out the people of Montana, people will have to take matters into their own hands.
Comment By Wolf Hugger, 8-10-10Wow, bigsky. You really are dumb. Perhaps you shouldn't be mad at others for being smarter than you and actually get an education yourself. I know learnin's hard and all, but you really might consider bettering yourself as a human being rather than beating your wife.
Now, am I not a people person? Of course I'm a people person, hence how I am able to communicate and remain understood even to lowlife's like yourself. And now, like many other degenerate losers of Idaho and Montana, you're suggesting going vigilante. Now, if you had a college degree...strike that, if you had any proper education at all (and no, yours uncle's mother's cousin doesn't count especially if they're missing teeth) you might understand that doing such things only makes it worse for your cause.
You calling me an "anti-person" (not sure that's a word, but okay) and saying that college degrees are "fake" then saying you're going vigilante really makes it sound like you resemble these qualities yourself. Lets see, you live in the country away from most people, you don't think education is important because you're segregated from the rest of the world, you believe you can do whatever you want without repercussion, and you have animosity towards those things you don't understand and lack all desire to understand. I'd say you'd be the "anti-person" as you call it. An educated man would call the combination of these traits a degenerate but then again, inbreeding is definitely degenerate so you likely have two things against you. You are a cretin, degenerate hillbilly that should really learn to calm down and have a little respect for those that have a college degree and brought to you your internet, your tractor, your pickup truck, and your plastic Sojo dip cup. Science is important and education gets more sophisticated by the day. If you think college is easy, you're likely just too afraid to fail in which case, you already did sense you don't even have the balls to try. I guess that's why you prefer rubbing your gun rather than your cock because the other is so much harder to find.
On the plus side, you might have learned some new words today!
Hooray for you!
Again bigsky, you lose.
Another typical comment of the wolf hugging croud who can only see the nose in front of their faces. As usual, they resort to name calling and the "uneducated line". What a joke. Just what degree do you have? Perhaps natural resources? art? What is it? By all means inform me of your "credentials" that make you such an expert? Perhaps if you woke up and saw the damage these creatures are causing to PEOPLE you could see some realism in life. By the way, I have a BA and a masters degree. I guess my biggest problem is that the reality of the wolf issue gets in the way of what the professor says. Yes, your "science" is flawed and now local people are forced to take care of the problem. Keep spouting the negative, it shows your true colors.
Comment By Dewey, 8-11-10bigsky----you have a BA and Masters...in WHAT ?
Revisionist History ? Faux Economics ? Western Literature ? Steam Tractor Maintenance ? Albanian Superstition ?
Because I see no evidence of comprehension of wildlife biology.
Our education system certainly has shortcomings, or hands out degrees too liberally ..send three boxtops and $ 5.00 to :
So---where exactly are all these affected people and damages these creatures are causing? Compile that for us , Add it up, put it here for all to read...
... because the sum total of losses due to wolves is SQUAT ,and the damages caused to people are hyperinflated with no sense of scale to the overall livestock industry. Squat. Statistically closer to zero than a fraction of one percent. Yet you would have us believe a predation on one herd and loss of a cow here and there is a declaration of war on all ranchers everywhere and a death sentence for all wolves , is it ?
Who's being unreal now ?
Dewey, just because you have a that kind of degree doesn't mean the rest of us do or even knew about it.
The money that comes out of the individual families bank accoount hurts, no matter hwo much money is lost in other ways by other people.
One expample, the 122 registered rams in Dillion were all killed in one pen, but 20 were not be confirmed because they had been consumed!
That is just one, thre are a multitude of others. Each of those registered rams were probably worth several hundred, so that is a few thousand stolen from the owners.
The Devil Dogs from Hell! Worse than cockroaches spreading TB, worse than flesh eating bacteria, worse than man eating wharf rats. Coming to a theater near you soon!
Comment By Dewey, 8-11-10Todd--- I will be the first to tell you that Wolves have a genuine weakness for sheep anywhere they come across them. Not wild sheep, since you cannot find an instance of wolves taking bighorns. But domestic seep are irresistible to wolves.
But those ranchers near Dillon that had 120 of their sheep succumb to wolves had previous trouble with wolves and DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT. The did not protect their flocks or take preventitive measure. Burn me once, shame on you ( wolves) Burn me twice, shame on me. Therefore they re not entitled to one dime of compensation. Serves them right. Let the other sheepers take note. Maybe they need to be sheepherders again , or take them somewhere else. The wolves are back where they belong.
Then again , IMHO, sheep are there to be eaten , first come first serve. Domestic sheep are the unwanted unneeded species here, not the native North American wolf. Nobody I know sheds tears or gets upset when a few sheep get taken by wolves. I'm with the wolves on that one. No great loss. Domestic sheep are one of the tragedies of the settling of the West .
Tell me , more, Todd. Where are all the losses, the tragedies, the gore from wolves.
Why do ranchers keep making it so easy to feed wolves a fresh meal, then whine and hold their hand out for " compensation" ?
It really is as George Wuerthner describes it: more rancher welfare, which is a two way street I might add.
Dewey, you might want to read up on the wolves a little more. They ahve killed big horns in the aprk and then therie is this excerpt form D. Mech's book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_mXHuSSbiGgC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=wolf+killed+big+horn+sheep&source=bl&ots=cNh11ul0fc&sig=byq0ECTppjVzJgtOUIIwbwu2cPw&hl=en&ei=6RBjTJryEo-K4Qbm9eHdCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q;&f;=false
Yes, wolves are opportunists and I'm not surprised they took a Yellowstone Park bighorn or two. Ford trucks and UPS trucks kill big horns there, too.
Perhaps you failed to note Mech's prose where he said bighorns were the least of the wolves prey of wild ungulates. ( Only because there were no proghorn , I guess)
However, Wyoming Game & Fish and the USFWS guys always remark on how amazed they are that wolves are not bothering big horns in general. There are three wolf packs residing in or near the North Fork of the Shoshone west of Cody where many hundreds of bighorns winter down low. Never a reported kill of same by wolves. They did kill a Game & Fish biologists dog up in Eagle Creek meadows , though . The guy let his dog run free while he was setting up camp, and the wolves had it down in no time. He should've known better, but did not.
As I said above, the Dillon MT people who lost 120 sheep can blame themselves as much as wolves. They were warned and took no precautions. Perhaps that was intentional on their part. I've never heard back about that...
Ha Ha, the prowolf propaganda machine reminds me of the nazis propaganda in Germany! How you can justifiy the death of 125 sheep as being the fault of the people is beyond me. Do you realize what an economic loss that is? The old addage crops up, "wolves were here first". Well, PEOPLE live here now, get use to it. No doubt as the elk herds crumble whereever wolf populations have been around for awhile, people will not stand by and shot "wolf". They will (and are) doing something about it. Keep up with the prowolf spittle because thats just what it is. I had a friend watch 4 wolves take out of mountain goat. I sure have not seen many sheep (none) in the park lately. Another prowolf coverup in the making......
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/stop_welfare_for_wolves/C564/L564/