Bullshit. Success would have been a wilderness bill for MT. Wolf payments for ranchers are fine, but they are just more money out the door to protect an animal that deserves to be here. Take a stand Jon, get a state wide wilderness bill for MT in the works.

I second the Bullshit. Mr. Tester, if you'd study some history of your own state, you'd find that wolves were part of the heritage before greedy cow growers showed up.
I'd say that these "Welfare Ranchers" receive enough subsidies. Talk about a "socialist system"...they can't make it without government help. I don't see hard working folks in other industries getting the financial bailouts that the livestock operators receive.

Tester is held hostage by NREPA supporters, and that does not give him room to deal with fellow legislators in neighboring states. Montana is getting 360,000 acres of Plum Creek Timber land, in a billion dollar sweetheart deal for NGOs, for Montana, all financed by the rest of us. PCT is getting over a thousand dollars an acre for cutover land over 15 years. Last week, in New York State, The Nature Conservancy sold a Danish firm over 90,000 acres TNC controlled well managed timberland in the Adirondack Preserve. It was sold with conservation easements, with a fiber contract to be filled for local mills, and for $361/acre....So Montana, by the hand of Baucus, provides back door funding for TNC and TPL, who get paid their "expenses" (watch those close in on 30% of the sales price) for "facilitating" a deal done in Congress, funded in the Farm Bill, the dollars of which are always hung on farmers just like food stamps and school breakfast, lunch and dinner money. Montana is paying three times the real value of timberland in the current market in another Baucus "sweetheart" deal for Big Timber. If farmers get 10% of what is in the Farm Bill, I'll put in with you. But be damned sure Big Timber got taken care of. By Baucus. And Montana got taken care of. The American taxpayer got his pocket picked for a 1$Billion dollars just so Montana could gain a land management liability. That is what they got, you know. A liability. All the costs of protection and no funding for management when state budgets are broke. The Baucus deal is like getting a free dog. You still have to pay to neuter it, to give it shots, to feed it, to train it. Montana is getting "free" land. Sure, and I have some worn out wedges and chain to sell for new price. Who in Baucus' office do I call?

So Montana Wilderness is a stretch right now. The Obama Administration is handing out money like Hallowe'en candy, and the great American middle class is on its way to being broke. Big time broke. If you think the Senate Finance Chair is going to do a Ted Stevens for Montana, I think that ship sailed. I don't know if many noticed it, but Stevens' bill to build a road through a USFWS refuge in Alaska was part of the Omnibus Bill. So is a huge commitment to Restoration Forestry which is about logging. Removing fuels and spacing trees. Restoring overstocked stands to pre-European forests. Trees are to be cut. And not on an acre here and there. 50,000 acres and more in each block. Someone needs to read the bill in its entirety. It is what log drivers on the river call a "bag boom." The Omnibus "bag boom" Wilderness bill collected all the related bills that had not had hearings, had a congressional supporter, into one, and passed it. All the bills (logs) from many congressmen and states get caught up in one Omnibus Bill (bag boom), and sold. The Omnibus Bill is the catch brand. Sorting out the ramifications comes later. There are going to be surprises. And the Chief's Office of the USFS is now the most surprised. The got handed a mandate not of their making, nor of the Green NGO community's.

And for that reason, new Wilderness legislation is going to get more than a close eye if and when any ever gets a hearing. There is not going to be another Omnibus Bill riding the freshet of a new administration honeymoon and congressional goodwill, stuffed like a pinata. That time has come and gone. Montana was not "shovel ready." Untie your horses and mules from NREPA, and find support, in Montana, by Montanans, for a Montana Wilderness bill. That might have a slim chance in time. Another WFU fire season in the Wilderness will undermine support. Two more and your cause is lost.

Tester Say's, "In Montana, we call that common sense"
Every where else it is called sloppin more gravy in the public lands welfare ranches' trough.

Tester's letter is simply embarrassing. Let's withdraw the substantial subsidies for ag in Montana and see if they're still the #1 industry.

He acts as if wolves weren't a part of the landscape prior to the advent of welfare ranching, or that their reintroduction somehow differentiates them from cold fronts of viruses or other things that kill cattle.

That they pose a significant "threat" to the cattle industry is laughable; Tester's own numbers suggest, and BTW - they wholly absolve ranchers of the need for responsible management of livestock, placing the burden of responsible ranching practices (guard dogs, etc) squarely on taxpayers.

Either way the Livestock owner should have the right to shoot a wolf if it is caught harming their livestock, without being 'in-trouble'. I'm not saying chasing a wolf for miles, or shooting it any farther than say 1/4 mile off their property line, with PROOF the wolf was harming the livestock. You don't always have to kill something to teach it something. A few shots in the dirt in front or behind will help to educate a wolf that McDonald's farm is maybe not as healthy as first thought. (Details could be worked out) you deplete the wolf numbers too much and they will end up back on the 'endangered' list, and you can't protect your own. I don't know about other people but we were always brought up to check herd on the livestock daily. And if you couldn't, reduce the herd so you can.

Wouldn't it be nice if Sen Tester bragged about the wilderness in Montana that was protected in this "Omnibus" huge Wilderness bill rather than touting how we can kill wolves?

This is more drivel. Nothing more than cheesy bribery to somehow mute the angst over those mangy mutts. Just unleash the guns, okay? You won't even need to buy us any ammo!

Save your State some money Mr Tester. Just let the ranchers do alittle 'predator control' like we do up here in Alaska. They will learn very quickly.

Your 'Common Sense' sounds like more collectivist subsidies.

Senator Tester -

Less on rancher welfare, more on a wilderness bill. Thanks.

Dave Skinner -

You are perhaps one of the most ignorant forum posters I have ever come across. The only thing that comes out of your keyboard is paranoia and hate.

Gosh, Mike, you just haven't been paying attention. Skinner also spews greed and selfishness and ignorance and...

By the way, do you think Michael Dukes can see Russia from his house? Do you think he might be fighting the good fight against "collectivist" wolves?

As bitter as you lefties are, one would think the money for wolf eaten livestock came out of your pockets instead of the pockets of families who try to raise food for people. You'll have soemthing to cry about when the Pres stops deductions for "non profits. You may have to actually go to work for real....if you can find a job.

Well, MoreBS, at least you got your name right.

This state could use a strong dose of uncommon sense!

GOOD LORD!!! Can We EVER discuss this animal without letting our own hostile bullets of anger, mistrust and pessimism unleash on one another! The really sad thing is that reasonable people on both sides of this debate should celebrate what has become over all a prime example of modern collaborative conservation compromise! Yeah I know, a lot of snappy, politically correct buzzwords in there, and folks who are at the extreme of either side are probably, alternately gagging or giving me the middle finger on this, but to those of us whose position on the issue is the same as the location of you spoilsports fingers - We're pretty encouraged!!
I still fondly recall when wolves were actually exciting fresh news, back in the 80s as the "magic packs" appeared up the North Fork Flathead and Ninemile, reminding us that up there in the land of 'Eh ,things were still wilder than even Montana. I was astonished at the overall National support that then during the 90’s propelled an artificial re-introduction that was already well under way naturally, yet I was all for it as at that point they really were endangered and did need our help. Now they’re so common they’ve almost become boring, not to mention how often I'm almost certain they’re going to take out another dog of mine while skiing or working in the woods-since here in MT. they are literally just about everywhere!! Please don’t get me wrong I personally LOVE! wolves, BUT! I am sympathetic to how frustrated and disenfranchised those that hate and misunderstand wolves such as Anti-Wolf hunters, outfitters and ranchers have become since I do call some of those people friends, even if I think they’re a little hysterical about it at times.
They needed to de-list and come up with a guaranteed compensation program, not only to level the perception of the playing field by proving that eastern enviros don’t win every court battle, but also due to the fact that they really are starting to be a little too densely populated in some areas and starting to wreak havoc in relation to there own carrying capacity and localized over-predation of elk. Of course I’m kidding about an animal as magnificent, primal and surreal ever truly becoming “boring”, but as much I appreciate them I think they’re about where they should be in regards to a recovered stable population base that in time will find a healthy predator-prey equilibrium not seen in these parts since they’re absence. If the situation appears to be turning towards the negative - we can and I believe as a state will act appropriately. Here in MT, shouldn’t we be focusing on using the ESA for truly endangered native species like Mountain Caribou or isn’t Rangifer Montanus a sexy enough species for Defenders of Wildlife?! Didn’t know Caribou were native to Montana and Idaho? Can’t blame you-most people don’t! So that’s my point exactly – there’s an animal I would get excited about seeing a recovery plan developed for!!! They should be here just as much as wolves, which already ARE in stable un-endangered quantities!!!

Thanks, Jon. The wolf kill bill makes sense.

So whaddaya call "rancher welfare" other than more hate rhetoric, Mike with No Last Name, and Mike with No Real Last Name?
Typical Komsomol graduates...I bet you both have put in your application to be "mentors" at those residence areas in the Americorps bill. Pass on the brainwash and get paid? What a deal for you!
JTSE, I used to be like you. Thought it was kind of neat when Diane Boyd was reporting on the repopulation of real wolves into the North Fork. I was thinking then that they would be all right and once the population started denting big game numbers or harassing ranch stock, there'd be a delisting and appropriate management tools would be used.
Boy, was I wrong, and boy, what an education it has been.

Skinner, "rancher welfare" is not hate rhetoric.

Besides, you should hate welfare in all it's forms, but you're not mentally consistent enough (that the nicest way I can put it) to build a cohesive view on much of anything.

Anyway, ranchers are on welfare. They couldn't make it without government checks.

Now, personally, I am mostly okay with that, there are good reasons to keep ranchers afloat, but don't kid yourself, we the taxpayers are and have been keeping ranching in business for a very, very long time.

Anonymous Al,
Since we're on the topic of consistency, what the heck is so consistent about supposedly providing agricultural "welfare" while at the same time spending money on something that makes it so that the "subsidy" of compensation payments are needed?
Furthermore, if you insist on standing in judgment of my mental "consistency" then I insist that you do it on an equal footing, not from under some anonymous rock like a slug.
As an example, Larry Kralj and I are diametrically opposed, same with George Wuerthner and Matt, Steve, the whole bunch. We insult each other regularly and with relish. Consistently.

Skinner, reread my comment, you invented a question and topic I did not address. (you did a awkward job at it too, I might add)

As far as being anonymous. Tough shit. I have my reasons. Besides, ideas are not slaves to their originators.

Skinner is one of the rightwingloons who is quivering in fear and loathing that a left winger is calling the shots.
I am pleased by that alone; but hold out some hope for a total rollback of the Reagan revolution and the Nixon Southern Strategy..

NO ONE should be "calling the shots" on other people's lives!!! This is the USA, NOT the USSR. If you want wolves, you pay for the cost of feeding and managing them and where you live, don't expect others to pay for your entertainment.

Dave- nice to see your posts... they are about the only ones on here that DON'T "spew" paranoia, hate, name-calling and other b.s.

I mean, just how constructive is it to throw around terms like 'rightwingloon,' or assert that someone is 'quivering in fear' because they disagree with you, or, best of all, claim a hidden and compelling need for anonymity?

Oh, and "Al," can you name me a rancher that's getting government checks for being a rancher? Straight-out welfare checks, not payment for products or services? (BTW, you misspelled "its" in your first post on this thread...)

And horst- Reagan and Nixon together left a legacy of a pair of the most bureaucratic, repressive and authoritarian governmental environmental organizations this country has ever experienced, so what's your beef there?

Keith, I also failed to use the word "is" or contract the word "that" with the verb "is" (as in "that's") in my first post, but what's your point?

A quick and by no means thorough read of your post reveals a fragment sentence, a run on sentence, and improper capitalization. Not that I care, do you?

Regarding welfare, here are a few definitions that, upon careful study, might help. Good luck.

Welfare: financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government

Corporate welfare: financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies, given by the government to profit-making companies

subsidy: financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place

You just took in the whole country there, Al. Every last one of us gets some sort of subsidy.

Yeah Todd, I can see you're as clever as Keith and probably Skinner too. This game reminds me of my 3 year old endlessly asking why.

You're right of course, we all get "some sort of subsidy." (Congratulations.)

There are interesting binds this revelation of Todd's puts us in, but unfortunately I don't have the inclination to fully follow up on them here. Suffice I hope to skip the lead and cut to a few of the more practical questions:

Should all activities be subsidised, should all activities be subsidised equally? If not, which ones should receive money, which ones shouldn't? Why? Who picks the winners?

HINT: Don't just answer the questions Todd/Kieth/etc., think about how the answers apply, I'm not going to walk you through this.

--------

You know the funny thing is, I can't figure out what you two are so worked up about. Near as I can figure, you're either ranchers that have a big personal investment in the delusion that you can make it without government assistance, or you two are just upset because I challenged your hero Skinner on a basic point he was arguing (namely that any reasonable application of the term "welfare" to ranching is not "hate rhetoric" but is in fact a reasonable description of the current economic relationship between ranchers and government).

Please feel free to go back and reread my original post if it's helpful (please try to look beyond the typos Kieth).

Any way, I'm done. Like my three year old, it looks like you guys won. (Kieth, please accept my deepest apologies for any additional typos in this post, I find this discussion tiresome and it makes me prone to mistakes)

Al, one of your mistakes is in assuming that all ranchers get subsidies...they do not, not all ranchers even have grazing permits. That does not protect them from wolf predation. The wolves could care less whether the livestock is grazing on taxable land or government land.
Now if you want to talk about welfare, how about the entirely taxpayer funded indtroduction of the Canadian wolves to ranch country & Yellowstone so the enviros didn't have to spend their time and money to see them where they actually live? They go to Yellowstone and spend their money to stay in nice motel rooms so they can spend a lot of time with little risk.
Logically if they were trying to restore some "natural balance" of a bygone day, they would have started in the original 13 colonies where Americans first settled. Guess they didn't want it that natural.

Todd; On part I agree, but I have to remind you that Yellowstone was set aside for the natural wonders, as well as the wildlife. There are very few parks in the 1st 13 colonies that were set aside for that purpose. Yellowstone was. BUT I still say if Ranchers would restrain from 'unnecessary' kills, i.e. chasing an animal for 35 miles to kill it just because it is a wolf, and for no other reason than it is a wolf. But were allowed to fire some warning shots, (maybe the ultimate kill shot, IF on your property, and IF it is guilty of harming livestock) ranchers could 'teach' the wolf, as well as LEGALLY 'protect' their livestock. As to reimbursing the Rancher, that should be in only 'devastating' kills not just one or two. Or should you reimburse Ranchers for diphtheria deaths, distemper deaths, and scours deaths, Larkspur/Lupine deaths, just to name a few other types of livestock losses? (Insurance?) There is a risk that is taken to produce livestock, and that is all part of the 'game'. There is a 'meet-in-the-middle' answer to this dilemma but there has to be give and take.
People say the Rancher's were here and they shouldn't have re-introduced the wolf. Well, Personally I didn't want the 'Bail-out' our Gvt. did, but they did it, now I have to adjust. Kind of like the Rancher, the wolves are here, now it's time to adjust.

First of all less than 10% of the wolves are in Yellowstone. Second, I can't find much to indicate that wolves were ever much of a factor in Yellowstone, in fact during one special on Yellowstone wolves a biologist mentions finding some ancient bones in a cave that they felt indicated wolves were present at some time in history, ?pre man? That appeared to be the basis for the so called REintroduction. I suspect they found dinosaurs and mammoths bones too. I don't know that they even had a hide to compare DNA to in Yellowstone.
I don't believe it was a rancher that chased the wolf down on a snowmobile.
I would be upset at someone helping themselvs to a thousand dollars out of my checking account, maybe you are rich enough it doesn't matter. I realize that they lose livestock to other causes, but that does not justify the deliberate introduction of something to destroy more. It would be like insisting a store allow shoplifters to help themselves since they suffer other kinds of losses anyway.

So what are your thoughts about introducing cattle to destroy Bison? It goes both ways you know. With a mindset like you showed in your last post it is obvious why there is a problem.

Just to add. It doesn't matter if the intent of introducing cattle was to destroy Bison, it is happening. Just like the wolves were NOT re-introduced to destroy cattle.

"one of your mistakes is in assuming that all ranchers get subsidies...they do not,"

"Every last one of us gets some sort of subsidy."

There are two main questions here. What's the ideal situation for wolves in the Northern Rockies and what do we need to do to get there?

Ideally, wolves will have a hunting season, ranchers and other livestock/pet owners will be allowed to defend their animals and the risk of wolves for the agriculture industry will be considered as natural as a harsh winter.

To get there, ranchers need to be less angry and environmentalists need to accept that some wolves will die. Tester's law is an important step towards lessening some of the resentment that rural Montanans have towards wolves because of the reintroduction. Subsidies for livestock killed by wolves are not ideal in the long-term, but they'll help us get to a better situation.

Erin

Oh yeah,

Damn fine job, John.