Wolves
- Thread starter AWS
- Start date
I have seen the stats on the numbers of livestock that the ranchers were paid for but that isnt a fair representation of the actual numbers killed,and I doubt there is any accurate way to get them.Just because vehicles kill a large number of animals it makes it ok to reintroduce a predator that decimates heards?PLEASE!I do know that the elk numbers in the Yellowstone drainages are the lowest they have been since they started keeping track of thier numbers.Our overall game numbers are at an alltime high nation wide,who really knows what thier numbers were like before the wolves were trapped and hunted on a wide scale,out here in the west we had huge heards of buffalo and the wolf packs followed them everywhere they went and fed off thier young and old,those heards are gone so the wolves have to feed on deer,elk and livestock.When you remove several million head of buffalo from the ecosystem you make other game a food source and the wolves adapt.If you read reports from hunters and explorers of the 1800s they talk about the huge packs of wolves that were present wherever the buffalo were,Im pretty sure this slow moving,massive food source kept the pressure on the elk and deer to a minimum.When someone advocates and defends the impact that wolves are having on our sportsmen and landowners they are definetly a "wolf hugger" in my book,they are either very uninformed or they have a unspoken agenda.
Last edited:
mikegranger
Well-known member
Mauser,
Yes, game numbers are down in some areas and up in others. Wildlife populations are cyclic, never static.
Nonya, you took the bait. My vehicle comment is ridiculous. My point exactly! We would never in our wildest dreams consider taking away something as cherished as vehicles. Yet they kill more deer and elk than wolves. We accept that level of mortality without batting an eye. Vehicle mortality is what we call compensitory mortality. But, wolves are not as valuable to some and therefore the mortality they inflict is not acceptible and therefor additive mortality. I disagree with that logic.
I had this very discussion today with an individual walking into my office looking for another place to hunt. He wanted to get away from the wolves. I would be a fool to sit here and say wolves do not affect harvest. They do! What I'm saying, and will continue to say, is at some point we will be allowed to hunt wolves, and at that point, we hunters will have control over the impact wolves have on big game. Currently that control does not exist. You were right on the mark in comments about the Governor of Wyoming. I believe this issue would be rather mute at this time if his department would have gone to the effort that MT and ID have on managment plans.
I've included the following for your reading pleasure. It may take a couple of times reading through the document to grasp, but it's worth it.
http://fisher.forestry.uga.edu/popdyn/Compensation.html
Yes, game numbers are down in some areas and up in others. Wildlife populations are cyclic, never static.
Nonya, you took the bait. My vehicle comment is ridiculous. My point exactly! We would never in our wildest dreams consider taking away something as cherished as vehicles. Yet they kill more deer and elk than wolves. We accept that level of mortality without batting an eye. Vehicle mortality is what we call compensitory mortality. But, wolves are not as valuable to some and therefore the mortality they inflict is not acceptible and therefor additive mortality. I disagree with that logic.
I had this very discussion today with an individual walking into my office looking for another place to hunt. He wanted to get away from the wolves. I would be a fool to sit here and say wolves do not affect harvest. They do! What I'm saying, and will continue to say, is at some point we will be allowed to hunt wolves, and at that point, we hunters will have control over the impact wolves have on big game. Currently that control does not exist. You were right on the mark in comments about the Governor of Wyoming. I believe this issue would be rather mute at this time if his department would have gone to the effort that MT and ID have on managment plans.
I've included the following for your reading pleasure. It may take a couple of times reading through the document to grasp, but it's worth it.
http://fisher.forestry.uga.edu/popdyn/Compensation.html
Mike I agree with a lot you are saying I am partners on some livestock in Wy and between the bears and wolves it is taking a toll. Don't tell me I don't know because we never had the loses we have now in the early 90's. To have someone that has no money invest to say that just part of the bisness and so you just have to over come it is BS. If controls are not put in place soon there is going to be more lawsuites in Federal court and so on. You can't just tell a person who has lives in these areas if they don't like it to move. For many fo these livestock producers it is the only way for them to live. Most have fought drought,fires,and blizzards now they have a preditor problem far worse than most of the wolf counters think. The bank doesn't discount their loans because you have cattle killed by wolves and bears. Being sorry because you have a lose isn't enough. You push a man into a corner to protect his lively hood he will do things he knows are wrong but has no choice. You are better off shooting your mother in law than a wolf and we all in the livestock buniess know that. This is a reason there is not the SSS tactic. Right now a bred cow is worth from 1100 to 1500 dollars a piece.
It takes about 2.5 years from the birth of that hiefer calve to get a calve out of her and to have a wolf kill her is not only costly but makes you bitter. The wolf has it place but not with out controls and Wy needs them and soon
Mauser
It takes about 2.5 years from the birth of that hiefer calve to get a calve out of her and to have a wolf kill her is not only costly but makes you bitter. The wolf has it place but not with out controls and Wy needs them and soon
Mauser
Now that is a complicated way of looking at it,but there are many other factors to consider,severity of winter kill,disease,ect ect.I honestly question the Wy Gov. intentions,he has to know he will never get what he is asking for and he has to know a lawsuit against the Federal Govt will only stall things for years.Why would he choos ethis route just when he had the chance to take things into tyhe states hands and start regulating thier numbers.I hope he doesnt pull this same sh** when the grizzly delisting goes foward,a friend in Wy told me the griz are pouring out of the park in record numbers,partially due to the loss of the elk herds due to the wolves.I dont want to see wolves totally removed from my state i just want them kept in check,you can only have so many predators in the ecosystem before the prey is decimated,and if we hunters/sportsmen want to continue being one of the predators the wolves have to be regulated,aggresivly.
HighPlainsDrifter
New member
NorOnt,
You can quote me all you want and I will steer you directly to the other site so you can see for yourself exactly what I was talking about. The bad experience was on "The Coyote Gods" forum and was between me and the person who runs the site. It was a personality conflict and nothing more. This is a difference of opinion which, if conducted like adults, can be healthy and beneficial. Ultimately we can all agree to disagree. You seem to be taking this whole thing personally NorOnt. As for the other thing, go check for yourself. I have received plenty of PM's from people on that site and this site in regards to that situation and none of them were negative. Read this first.
http://www.coyotegods.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/62535/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD
Then read this thread.
http://www.coyotegods.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1864078/an/0/page/0#Post1864078
You judge for yourself if I was wrong or right on the money. I have nothing to hide.
Nonya, spoken like a true outfitter and not a rancher. Funny how your profile seems to support that as opposed to your claim you are directly involved in the ranching business. I am not a save the wolf type, nor do I belong to a save the wolf organization. Reading my profile might shed some light for you. The reality of it is I am sick and tired of the people who are willing to cry about the worlds problems but who are not willing to be part of the solution. So far I have not heard you, or Mauser or NorOnt or Coyotebrains or any of the others who made their anti wolf comments offer any solutions that present sportsman in a positive light. Through all of this, all of you have continued to refuse to acknowledge the fact that each and every person who calls themselves a hunter has a responsibility to be an ambassador for our sport. You have failed to fulfill that obligation yet you still want the right. I am not asking you to embrace the wolf. I never have asked you to do that and I respect your feelings. But please be responsible, act responsible and be careful what you say. Be a part of the solution and dont give others the ammo they need to try and take our hunting heritage from us.
You can quote me all you want and I will steer you directly to the other site so you can see for yourself exactly what I was talking about. The bad experience was on "The Coyote Gods" forum and was between me and the person who runs the site. It was a personality conflict and nothing more. This is a difference of opinion which, if conducted like adults, can be healthy and beneficial. Ultimately we can all agree to disagree. You seem to be taking this whole thing personally NorOnt. As for the other thing, go check for yourself. I have received plenty of PM's from people on that site and this site in regards to that situation and none of them were negative. Read this first.
http://www.coyotegods.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/62535/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD
Then read this thread.
http://www.coyotegods.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1864078/an/0/page/0#Post1864078
You judge for yourself if I was wrong or right on the money. I have nothing to hide.
Nonya, spoken like a true outfitter and not a rancher. Funny how your profile seems to support that as opposed to your claim you are directly involved in the ranching business. I am not a save the wolf type, nor do I belong to a save the wolf organization. Reading my profile might shed some light for you. The reality of it is I am sick and tired of the people who are willing to cry about the worlds problems but who are not willing to be part of the solution. So far I have not heard you, or Mauser or NorOnt or Coyotebrains or any of the others who made their anti wolf comments offer any solutions that present sportsman in a positive light. Through all of this, all of you have continued to refuse to acknowledge the fact that each and every person who calls themselves a hunter has a responsibility to be an ambassador for our sport. You have failed to fulfill that obligation yet you still want the right. I am not asking you to embrace the wolf. I never have asked you to do that and I respect your feelings. But please be responsible, act responsible and be careful what you say. Be a part of the solution and dont give others the ammo they need to try and take our hunting heritage from us.
I have been watching the Wyoming plan closely. From what I understand the Wyoming plan initially met all the Federal Fish and Wildlife requirements. They have a plan intact to keep appropriate level of breeding pairs in the the areas designated. If I remeber correctly they had to maintain something like 12 breeding pairs of wolves in the designated area. When they submitted their wolf mangement plan they were then told that they needed to maintian 12 packs of animals, way more than what was initially stated. They are also pushing to get wolves on their predator list in the areas outside of the "management area". This again was initally approved by the Fish and Wildlife area since the goal was to repopulate only the areas in the management plan. There plan is simlpy to do what they were told they had too and that was to maintain X number of wolves in the area. Can you really blame WY for the plan? They did meet the requirements put forth. The problem is all the wolf advocates hold too much power. In this case once it got out that WY would allow a shoot on sight outside the designated area. Why should it matter how WY deals with populatiuons outside the objectives of the introduction program? If they are meeting the minimum requiremnts then why can't they protect other areas? This is why there is a hold up. WY is, and with good reasonning fighting for their rights as a state to protect its income, ranchers and way of life, it is unfortunate that most states would not fight so hard. The govener is doing most of the state feels is right.
Should wolves be around? I really do not think they should. They were wiped out once, but large populations will change hunting as we know it. Add to the fact that you are placing an excellent predator into areas where wildlife have not seen such for 30 years. I can't help but think that wolves will drop all prey populations really really low at first then eventually they will balance out. States will drop lic. numbers, lic prices will increase to make the difference. Hunters will once again loose access to lic. the cost will put other out of the sport, and states loose huge amounts of revenue and so on.
Yes the anti-hunters are pushing for wolves simply cause they hate us hunters and look forward to preplacing us with natural means.
I too look forward to getting a wolve in the lower 48, but think WY isdoing right by sticking to their fight.
Interesting to note that there are still government trappers and Federal ADC.
As far as ranchers, yes they should not have to put up with anything on their property. If they see a wolve in the same pasture as stock then they should get to shoot it, just like a yote. Well that got real long...
Should wolves be around? I really do not think they should. They were wiped out once, but large populations will change hunting as we know it. Add to the fact that you are placing an excellent predator into areas where wildlife have not seen such for 30 years. I can't help but think that wolves will drop all prey populations really really low at first then eventually they will balance out. States will drop lic. numbers, lic prices will increase to make the difference. Hunters will once again loose access to lic. the cost will put other out of the sport, and states loose huge amounts of revenue and so on.
Yes the anti-hunters are pushing for wolves simply cause they hate us hunters and look forward to preplacing us with natural means.
I too look forward to getting a wolve in the lower 48, but think WY isdoing right by sticking to their fight.
Interesting to note that there are still government trappers and Federal ADC.
As far as ranchers, yes they should not have to put up with anything on their property. If they see a wolve in the same pasture as stock then they should get to shoot it, just like a yote. Well that got real long...
mikegranger
Well-known member
Mauser, I haven't even ventured into the effect on ranchers. I'm strictly talking about the effect on hunters.
The ranching industry has fought wolf re-introduction forever. I understand their point very well having grown up on a farm/ranch. But, we have millions and millions of acres of public land where the wolf has just as much, and actually more, right to reside than does a hereford. Every citizen in this country pays taxes to support those lands, and those citizens are saying they want wolves. Does a ranchers desire to make a living off of public lands outweight all other taxpayers desires? Most would say no.
Wolves respect no land boundaries, thus there are no "canadian" wolves, just grey wolves up here in the north country. Grey wolves will just as well kill a calf on private land as it will on public land. That's why the re-introduction efforts would never have gone through without compensation for private landowners. I personally believe the compensation program has worked well. It's not perfect as everyone who cries "wolf" does not receieve compensation. It must be proven. Sadly, that's the state of affairs we live in. When I was young, a mans word was true and he had pride in that fact. That is no longer the case.
Hopefully we have discussed this matter at length and it is time to move on. Thanks for the manner is which we have kept this discussion above board. I've been in public meetings where tempers flare and everyone gets ticked. There is value in being able to think about what you say, before you say it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
The ranching industry has fought wolf re-introduction forever. I understand their point very well having grown up on a farm/ranch. But, we have millions and millions of acres of public land where the wolf has just as much, and actually more, right to reside than does a hereford. Every citizen in this country pays taxes to support those lands, and those citizens are saying they want wolves. Does a ranchers desire to make a living off of public lands outweight all other taxpayers desires? Most would say no.
Wolves respect no land boundaries, thus there are no "canadian" wolves, just grey wolves up here in the north country. Grey wolves will just as well kill a calf on private land as it will on public land. That's why the re-introduction efforts would never have gone through without compensation for private landowners. I personally believe the compensation program has worked well. It's not perfect as everyone who cries "wolf" does not receieve compensation. It must be proven. Sadly, that's the state of affairs we live in. When I was young, a mans word was true and he had pride in that fact. That is no longer the case.
Hopefully we have discussed this matter at length and it is time to move on. Thanks for the manner is which we have kept this discussion above board. I've been in public meetings where tempers flare and everyone gets ticked. There is value in being able to think about what you say, before you say it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
I have a question. Is the land where the ranchers are running cattle that are impacted by wolves predominately private or public land?
Quote:
you can only have so many predators in the ecosystem before the prey is decimated,
If the predators are able to completely decimate the prey populations, there are more problems than just predators.
Any one who has ever studied predator/prey relationships knows that the number of prey regulate the number of predators and not the other way around. When prey populations are high, predator populations respond with an increase in production. When prey populations decline (not necessary due to predators) predator populations in turn decline though reduced production and attrition.
Don't take my word for it, check the literature on any predator/prey relationship you want to mention.
Like Mike said, animal populations are cyclic. We have seen a period of high deer and elk populations (due in part to the eradication of large predators) and are now possibly entering into a period of reduced numbers.
Quote:
you can only have so many predators in the ecosystem before the prey is decimated,
If the predators are able to completely decimate the prey populations, there are more problems than just predators.
Any one who has ever studied predator/prey relationships knows that the number of prey regulate the number of predators and not the other way around. When prey populations are high, predator populations respond with an increase in production. When prey populations decline (not necessary due to predators) predator populations in turn decline though reduced production and attrition.
Don't take my word for it, check the literature on any predator/prey relationship you want to mention.
Like Mike said, animal populations are cyclic. We have seen a period of high deer and elk populations (due in part to the eradication of large predators) and are now possibly entering into a period of reduced numbers.
I have hunted and trapped all my life and been a livestock producer If you are a voice for the sportsman I think I will sell my guns. Who are you to tell me or any other person what thier obligations are? Because we don't see everything the way you do we are not adults? All you want to do is cause trouble. Mike has been very helpfull in getting out a lot of imformation. I will be in the Casper area in the next month and would really like to buy you a beer. Mauser
In the wolf areas we are already at reduced numbers,as I said before Yellowstone basin elk numbers are at an all time low,and this is forcing the wolves and grizz to move out of the park.WY you think I sound like an outfitter?I sound like a sportsman and someone with personal experience in the matter of livestock lost to wolves.My family runs 220 head of cattle on three different pieces of land that we own,me,my Father and Uncles do all the upkeep and winter feeding/calving work,is that involved enough for you,I dont know where you are coming from with this but I can understand why you had problems with a mod on another site,you seem to enjoy baiting people who feel strongly about a topic,maybe your not a save the wolf type maybe your just a throw salt in the wound type,Im done responding to your rhetoric.Mike you are right on about the boundrys,they dumped these wolves in a large tract of public ground and expected them to stay there,wolves dont understand private property,land or livestock,they just do what wolves do,and that is travel,reproduce and kill.I wish Wyoming all the luck in the world with thier plan but I doubt any state will ever get them clasified as a predator that can be killed year round for any reason,there is no way to regulate thier hunting with a plan like that,as much as I would like to see it Im not holding my breath.Now the wolf huggers are rasing hell about the number of wolf pups that died from Parvo,yet another attempt to stall the states take over of thier managment,they are already planning to capture as amny wolves as possible to vaccinate them,whats wild about an animal that runs around with a radio collar and is captured from time to time to vaccinate it?maybe well get lucky and the parvo will keep thier numbers down.
Songdog has made some good points. It is true we all need to be advocates for hunting. As sportsmen we truely need to do all we can to work within the limits of the law. I have seen the SSS mentality more than once on this site and it is wrong. I am not saying that Nonya and Mauser fit this catagory. But I too have failed to see where either have given a good responsible solution. I believe that they should be pushing for population control by means of hunting. Also there is no real way to determine the value of stock at any given time. In the process you must make a ton of assumptions. Current market price in some cases may not be fair and in other cases it can be fair. Ranchers just like all other business owners are going to have losses. They need to plan for those appropriately. Every business has it share of wolves. Insider trading, fraud, natural disasters etc. The problem with american agriculture is not wolves, it is not natural disasters it is not anyone person. The problem with Ag in the US is that ever since the 1920's it has not functioned as a free market enterprise in a free market economy. Government subsidization has led Ag in the United States to where it is now. If you really want ranchers to make a good living then take out all government funding, allow ag to function on a true supply and demand system. In the US we spend on average 9% of our disposable income on food the lowest percentage in the world. Why, cause the government has made it that way. Agriculture, food production has the highest demand of anything on the planet, yet people often spend more money on golf then they do on food. If you really want to change Ranching and farming and truely preserve it for the future have the government step out and play on a true supply and demand market.
Did someone say beer?????? HYMMMMM BEER....
WYSongdog Welcome to the site. Glad to see your aboard. We may not all agree at times, but thats why we are here. If we all had the same thoughts feelings etc. there would be no point to this. But in this case we can all agree to disagree.
Cheers
WYSongdog Welcome to the site. Glad to see your aboard. We may not all agree at times, but thats why we are here. If we all had the same thoughts feelings etc. there would be no point to this. But in this case we can all agree to disagree.
Cheers
Thanks Mike and Yellowhammer I hope it all works out I think Mike you have a good handle on the imformation side If I offended either of you I am sorry. Education is the key here plus honesty I know what you are saying about the so called kills and the real kills but believe me I don't see the livestock producer taking things into thier own hands they don't want any trouble as long as the Feds like you trat them with respect. Right now just like it has always been hard to make things work. Thanks again
Mauser,
It really doen't matter to me one way or the other if you have had government subsidy. The point is government involment in a way is hurting ag way more than it is helping. With all the various programs producers are actually encouraged to over produce thus flooding the market and creating a suplus. This inturn drives down the market value of goods. The large producers, like ConAgra etc. know this. They know that no matter how much they make they are garunteed a minimum price by the government. Small farms/producers can't compete with the larger ones simply cause the government is so involved. This is the true demise of the family farm. Hate to see it. Also the cost of food in the US is cheap, not reasonable. Reasonable would be a price that forces consumers to make choices and also allow producer to make a decent living. There are other deveoped contries that spend as high as 30% of their income on food why should we be different?
It really doen't matter to me one way or the other if you have had government subsidy. The point is government involment in a way is hurting ag way more than it is helping. With all the various programs producers are actually encouraged to over produce thus flooding the market and creating a suplus. This inturn drives down the market value of goods. The large producers, like ConAgra etc. know this. They know that no matter how much they make they are garunteed a minimum price by the government. Small farms/producers can't compete with the larger ones simply cause the government is so involved. This is the true demise of the family farm. Hate to see it. Also the cost of food in the US is cheap, not reasonable. Reasonable would be a price that forces consumers to make choices and also allow producer to make a decent living. There are other deveoped contries that spend as high as 30% of their income on food why should we be different?
The one thing i hope all can agree on is that our opinions vary as do our personal experience with the matter,watching news reports and reading info of a website gives you a different perspective than say going out to check on your cattle on your privateland and finding three dead calves and relizing your gonna have to find another way to pay your property taxs that year,the irony is that tax money is funding the very same program that reintroduced the problem.Your level of personal experience in the matter could seriously change your outlook on the situation.
HighPlainsDrifter
New member
Mauser and Nonya, I really think you have me all wrong. I think you know exactly what I mean about a sportsman having an obligation to act in a manner that would not fuel the fire for the anti hunting groups and I would hope on some level you would agree with me. Nonya, you took a crack at me with the save the wolf org comment and I took one back with the outfitter statement. For that I apologize. I really dont think we are that far off from agreeing at least in principle. It was neither of you that I was referring to about poaching or SSS because neither of you made comments to that effect. Some did though and it was them I was referring to. I would truly like us as sportsman to take an educated look at the problem that we are facing and taking steps to get involved and resolve the situation in a manner that would be positive to those looking in. There are many, many people out there who are riding the fence when it comes to the issues about wolves, hunting rights and the right to bear arms. Those fence riders could go either way. The obligation I was speaking of Mauser is to represent ourselves as sportsman in a way that those fence riders would think "those sportsman are a reasonable and responsible group and I think when they talk I can listen" instead of "what a bunch of self serving idiots who have the morales of a criminal" I would sit with you any time Mauser, because I dont hold a grudge because we dont see eye to eye, so feel free to PM me and I will tell you how to contact me. Nonya, its not fair for you to compare our disagreement here with the confrontation I had with John- Henry at the other site. The circumstances were very different and unless you reviewed my links, you have no idea how that went down. Its like comparing apples and oranges. There is absolutely no need for there to be any bad feeling whatsoever between any of us because we engage in a heated debate over a controversal issue. I am more than willing to move on.