Wolves again

[jorgensen.travis]

End of the day predator loss reimbursement is no different the Crop/ habitat depredation/ land owner tags.

You either find away to work with landowners that tend to control prime habitat including wintering grounds or they get elected State Ag Sec/commissions to push legislation bills that demand massive wildlife reductions.

People love the thought of lots of animals, until the are writing massive checks, at that point it’s easier and cheaper to just mandate significant wild ungulate herd populations reductions.

Buying tolerance is the most effective way to better and maintain good wildlife populations.
Landowners have a direct ability to influence wildlife populations, positively if they are influenced correctly. Same hold for their tolerance of Apex predators

This is the intellectual conversation I was referring to.
Well said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jorgensen.travis]

I'm not sure how to respond. He just has no clue period. The ranchers I know are way more concerned about the environment and wildlife than any urban dwelling (deleted). The ranchers life depends on it. Wolves in no way shape or form help wildlife such as elk and deer except helping themselves to the buffet. Half the reason ranchers complain about elk eating their hay is because the wolves pushed them there. Ranchers have a tough life. the only way to make a million dollars ranching is to start out with two million.

This is the non thought out rhetoric that provides me entertainment as a side effect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randle]

This is the intellectual conversation I was referring to.
Well said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then why start with as blanket statement that is comparing ranchers to a welfare recipient that In some cases have never worked a day in their lives.
I would also add that ranchers and farmers in know, worked that land along side their parents and grandparents, thus EARNING the ground. The way they make millions is to sell and create traffic and congestion with new subdivisions.

 

[jorgensen.travis]

Since the thread was named “Wolves Again”, I assumed it was a continuation of the previous thread that was based on a video that I considered to be propaganda to generate public funding to ranchers. That’s where I drew the parallel of ranchers seeking public funding to welfare recipients seeking public funding. Definitely an exaggeration, but my point is to push back on the idea that we should automatically back this agenda just because it’s anti wolf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

This is the non thought out rhetoric that provides me entertainment as a side effect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How's this for thought out;
You are clueless. I live in hay farm and ranch country. There is no similarity to ranchers and welfare recipients. Welfare recipients drive better cars and have nicer clothes. I have never seen a welfare recipient out in -20 degree weather feeding or doctoring a cow. I am sure there are big ranchers who can afford to miss a cow or two but why should they. You wouldn't like it if the government came and took an extra $1000 or two when ever they wanted out of your pay check. Even if you couldn't afford it. Whether we like it or not the wolves are here so why should some hard working rancher have to pay extra for them. I guess we need to raise hunting license and tag fees to pay the ranchers to feed the wolves. Then it wouldn't be welfare from the government. I think you should come out and see what ranching is all about before you sit back and throw stones.

 

[87TT]

Since the thread was named “Wolves Again”, I assumed it was a continuation of the previous thread that was based on a video that I considered to be propaganda to generate public funding to ranchers. That’s where I drew the parallel of ranchers seeking public funding to welfare recipients seeking public funding. Definitely an exaggeration, but my point is to push back on the idea that we should automatically back this agenda just because it’s anti wolf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I must have watched a different video as I didn't get that conclusion. it was about wolf management and why we need it. I'm sorry if your pro wolf goggles won't let you see that.

 

[sneaky]

You’re right about our food coming from cattle, and agricultural farmers. It’s a necessary thing to support our population. However it does come with costs. I believe farming practices have wiped out habitat for wildlife across our nation. I’m not going to stand behind farmers and ranchers when they complain about elk, deer, and bison destroying their crops or competing with their cattle for grass. Therefore I won’t stand behind them on the wolf issue. Even though the wolf issue benefits us as hunters. I feel like a hypocrite cherry picking issues that I want to align with. I’m also against government spending in general. Many ranchers and farmers have inherited their wealth, so I have a hard time finding sympathy for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God forbid their dads and granddads busted their asses to set them up with a way to make a living. Damn libertarians are as bad as liberals.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

This is the intellectual conversation I was referring to.
Well said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The intellectual conversion certainly didn't start from your end

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

The intellectual conversion certainly didn't start from your end

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Conversation, damn autocorrect

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jorgensen.travis]

How's this for thought out;
You are clueless. I live in hay farm and ranch country. There is no similarity to ranchers and welfare recipients. Welfare recipients drive better cars and have nicer clothes. I have never seen a welfare recipient out in -20 degree weather feeding or doctoring a cow. I am sure there are big ranchers who can afford to miss a cow or two but why should they. You wouldn't like it if the government came and took an extra $1000 or two when ever they wanted out of your pay check. Even if you couldn't afford it. Whether we like it or not the wolves are here so why should some hard working rancher have to pay extra for them. I guess we need to raise hunting license and tag fees to pay the ranchers to feed the wolves. Then it wouldn't be welfare from the government. I think you should come out and see what ranching is all about before you sit back and throw stones.

They do take it out of my paycheck. That is where subsidies come from. If they raised license fees, it would still be government money. The capitalist way would be to raise the price of beef. Then the people that buy beef, myself included, would pay more for it. I would be perfectly fine with that. Subsidizing the cattle industry, or any other industry, is a way to redistribute wealth. Anything that is paid for in part by income tax is disproportionately funded by people who make more money. The lower income people benefit because the end cost is lower. Are we thinking about this kind of stuff, or just trying to win an argument on emotion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoh Down]

Funny how the article mentions that there are only 3 "known" wolves in the wedge pack. I hunted the Wedge area late archery in November of last year, and there are far more wolves than 3.

 

[100percent]

They do take it out of my paycheck. That is where subsidies come from. If they raised license fees, it would still be government money. The capitalist way would be to raise the price of beef. Then the people that buy beef, myself included, would pay more for it. I would be perfectly fine with that. Subsidizing the cattle industry, or any other industry, is a way to redistribute wealth. Anything that is paid for in part by income tax is disproportionately funded by people who make more money. The lower income people benefit because the end cost is lower. Are we thinking about this kind of stuff, or just trying to win an argument on emotion?



Sent from my iPhone

 

[100percent]

Ridiculous!! Very slippery slope on Capitalism! Ranchers were in strong opposition to reintroduction of wolves. History says Capitalism exterminated the wolves, don’t you think??? That’s usually how capitalism works! No, offense to my Canadian friends out there, but, all my rancher friends in Idaho and Montana would prefer to drive way up in Canada to see a wolf!

 

[87TT]

They do take it out of my paycheck. That is where subsidies come from. If they raised license fees, it would still be government money. The capitalist way would be to raise the price of beef. Then the people that buy beef, myself included, would pay more for it. I would be perfectly fine with that. Subsidizing the cattle industry, or any other industry, is a way to redistribute wealth. Anything that is paid for in part by income tax is disproportionately funded by people who make more money. The lower income people benefit because the end cost is lower. Are we thinking about this kind of stuff, or just trying to win an argument on emotion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once again clueless. They can't just raise the price of beef because areas that raise beef and the GOVERNMENT didn't place wolves don't have the disadvantage of dealing with them. They didn't ask for the wolves. You wolf people who live in your cities and are blissfully clueless about how a rancher makes a living and how hard it is, did. These people don't want a handout, just a level playing field and to be able to support their families.

 

[jorgensen.travis]

Once again clueless. They can't just raise the price of beef because areas that raise beef and the GOVERNMENT didn't place wolves don't have the disadvantage of dealing with them. They didn't ask for the wolves. You wolf people who live in your cities and are blissfully clueless about a rancher makes a living and how hard it is did. These people don't want a handout, just a level playing field and to be able to support their families.

That’s a good point about competing with non wolf area ranchers. It’s kind of funny that you’ve lumped me with the liberals from the city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jorgensen.travis]

Ridiculous!! Very slippery slope on Capitalism! Ranchers were in strong opposition to reintroduction of wolves. History says Capitalism exterminated the wolves, don’t you think??? That’s usually how capitalism works! No, offense to my Canadian friends out there, but, all my rancher friends in Idaho and Montana would prefer to drive way up in Canada to see a wolf!

I don’t know. I guess in a way you can say capitalism exterminated the wolves. Seems like a lot of people would think that’s a good thing. I really do believe that ranchers and agriculture farmers destroyed the habitat and caused the decline of wildlife throughout our country. That’s not say that the actual rancher or farmer is a bad guy. Or that it’s not a necessary thing to support our culture. Just think about it for a minute. If a much larger portion of our land had been designated national forests long before settlers had claimed it, wouldn’t the wildlife situation be much better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RCB]

They do take it out of my paycheck. That is where subsidies come from. If they raised license fees, it would still be government money. The capitalist way would be to raise the price of beef. Then the people that buy beef, myself included, would pay more for it. I would be perfectly fine with that. Subsidizing the cattle industry, or any other industry, is a way to redistribute wealth. Anything that is paid for in part by income tax is disproportionately funded by people who make more money. The lower income people benefit because the end cost is lower. Are we thinking about this kind of stuff, or just trying to win an argument on emotion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you suggesting that ranchers who lose livestock to wolves should not be reimbursed by some level of government? Just asking to understand your opinion concretely.

Personally I’d be fine with a purer capitalist solution in the abstract. The problem in this case is that these ranchers now are at a competitive disadvantage (relative to ranchers outside of wolf country) because of government actions in the first place - ie the decision to reintroduce wolves. Makes sense, arguably, for the government to attempt to rectify the problem they’ve imposed.

 

[jorgensen.travis]

Are you suggesting that ranchers who lose livestock to wolves should not be reimbursed by some level of government? Just asking to understand your opinion concretely.

Personally I’d be fine with a purer capitalist solution in the abstract. The problem in this case is that these ranchers now are at a competitive disadvantage (relative to ranchers outside of wolf country) because of government actions in the first place - ie the decision to reintroduce wolves. Makes sense, arguably, for the government to attempt to rectify the problem they’ve imposed.

I don’t like the idea of the government giving them money for lost cattle. I really wish they didn’t reintroduce wolves in the first place (more government intervention). That complicates things. I wonder if people would think differently about this if the wolf population was natural. I think once there’s money involved, there’s always going to be an effort to manipulate numbers and increase funding. Again, I’m not hating the players, just the game. I started this off with an rather offensive post. It’s was mainly to bring up a point that this is a complicated issue that we shouldn’t just jump on the band wagon after viewing it at face value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[100percent]

I don’t know. I guess in a way you can say capitalism exterminated the wolves. Seems like a lot of people would think that’s a good thing. I really do believe that ranchers and agriculture farmers destroyed the habitat and caused the decline of wildlife throughout our country. That’s not say that the actual rancher or farmer is a bad guy. Or that it’s not a necessary thing to support our culture. Just think about it for a minute. If a much larger portion of our land had been designated national forests long before settlers had claimed it, wouldn’t the wildlife situation be much better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, a slippery slope of what if's! Reality is that wolves are tough on stock and this subsidy is a fair indemnity. If I was a wolf, I would eat veal every chance I got versus chasing elk and deer all over the country! Wouldn't you?

 

[nodakian]

This thread started about a pack in WA, and it appears that some folks assume that pack is the result of government reintroduction. I don’t know about the Wedge pack specifically, but my hunch is it descended from the wolves that migrated from Canada into NW MT and north ID decades ago. Wolves have been in NW MT since the early 1980s. I frequently found tracks while hunting, and I first heard a howl in the spring of 1989 near Plains. The Feds reintroduced wolves in the Yellowstone area in 1995 or so.

However, no matter the source, I don’t love them, and they need to be controlled. The stories about changing behavior patterns and population decline of ungulates are true. Hunting in NW MT pretty much sucks anymore.

It seems like the folks around Yellowstone have a good case for “reparations” since the situation was forced on them. I’m also sympathetic to folks who deal with migratory wolves when the government would not allow more aggressive management.