Wolf introduction out west has been a financial disaster for hunting, ranchers and the economy.

[Hunter007]

22 minutes ago, virgil said:

Which are the animals in Central Park that 'let people get very close' because they associate people with food?  I haven't been to Central Park in a while.  Maybe it's changed since my last time.

The Birds and squirrels  there .Let you get a lot closer then normal  .

 

 

 

[left field]

2 hours ago, Rattler said:

Ranchers have always accepted losses.  They just want to be able to control their losses.  

I don't know why you keep saying it's a complicated issue.  It isn't.  It's a political issue where one side has the law protecting it's interests in opposition to the side losing money.  The law is also fleecing the taxpayers for the cost of avoiding the resolution.

It could be fixed overnight if the law was actually working for the people instead of the wolves.

But, some people love animals and hate people.  They're complicated.  (Not referring to you here)

Ranchers have been compensated by friends of the wolves to the tune of 1.5 million. 

There are many sides that seem to be in opposition and even the science is unsure. Add in politics, money, legacy, emotion; and you have the makings of a situation that make a single broad sweeping solution complicated. 

Is your simple solution letting ranchers determine what the number of acceptable wolves is? If they’re anything like the “the only good coyote is a dead coyote” farmer down the road from me then I think it’s a nonstarter.

i have no idea what the federal cost is for reestablishment, but I don’t mind my share.

I’ve known too many people to love them  unconditionally; and I’ve experienced too many animals to hate them for their nature.

1 hour ago, Storm914 said:

The Birds and squirrels  there .Let you get a lot closer then normal  .

I live a few blocks from the park. It’s a bloodbath these days now that squirrels and starlings have lost their fear of man. 

[Hunter007]

52 minutes ago, left field said:

Ranchers have been compensated by friends of the wolves to the tune of 1.5 million. 

There are many sides that seem to be in opposition and even the science is unsure. Add in politics, money, legacy, emotion; and you have the makings of a situation that make a single broad sweeping solution complicated. 

Is your simple solution letting ranchers determine what the number of acceptable wolves is? If they’re anything like the “the only good coyote is a dead coyote” farmer down the road from me then I think it’s a nonstarter.

i have no idea what the federal cost is for reestablishment, but I don’t mind my share.

I’ve known too many people to love them  unconditionally; and I’ve experienced too many animals to hate them for their nature.

I live a few blocks from the park. It’s a bloodbath these days now that squirrels and starlings have lost their fear of man. 

I was down near the bronx zoo not to long ago sterlings everywhere and they don't seem to care that there people even feet from them . You never see that in places that hunt them . Same with the squirrels .

The wolf issue should be handled by wildlife management treated like any  other big game species , Like deer  is my answer .

People that want to pretend humans,  farmers don't exist and are not now part of the environment. they  shouldn't be involved in any decisions like that .  

 

 

 

 

[wolc123]

 

[Rattler]

On 6/13/2019 at 2:34 PM, left field said:

Ranchers have been compensated by friends of the wolves to the tune of 1.5 million. 

Is your simple solution letting ranchers determine what the number of acceptable wolves is? If they’re anything like the “the only good coyote is a dead coyote” farmer down the road from me then I think it’s a nonstarter.

I have no idea what the federal cost is for reestablishment, but I don’t mind my share.

If friends of the wolves put up 1.5 million for compensation, that amounts to about 1% of the money the ranchers have lost.

I never suggested the ranchers get to decide how many wolves are acceptable.  I said the government, which created this problem, must decide what level is required to fix the problem, and the ranchers get to act when wolves attack their cattle, sheep and pets. 

Nobody got to decide if reintroducing wolves out west was a good idea or not.  The government just did it in deference to the wolf's special interest groups, ignoring the warnings and protests from the people who knew they would suffer from it.

What ever the cost of reestablishment might be, anyone wishing to pay their "fair share", is welcome to do so, but they have no right to demand everyone else do so as well.

[left field]

Can I ask where you got the 150 million in total losses number? I can't find this anywhere.

Not sure we're getting anywhere here. I think it is a good idea and if it costs money in terms of compensation and/or means that some ranchers have to alter the way they run their animals, so be it.

I have heard wolves late at night in Algonquin. It's life changing.

[Hunter007]

On 6/9/2019 at 4:26 PM, Hawk914 said:

I would think the right amount of hunting and trapping would keep the wolfs overthere in check , With out having to get rid of all of them altogether. 

 

Leave it  to to crazy greeny types to make a  easy solution complacated  see to many wolf's around shoot them  , and stop when the numbers are down enough that there not a threat to livestock , end problem that simple . 

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Hawk914

[dbHunterNY]

On 6/11/2019 at 6:54 PM, airedale said:

.....Below are few photos of hunting dogs that met the Wolf wrath and this happens a lot. Many folks I have talked to just quit hunting with dogs because of this. Speaking for myself money is no compensation for the time spent training and the bond developed between me a good hunting dog. Seeing those dogs pictured makes me very angry to say the least. Some serious hunting of Wolves needs to be done....

exactly.  i think the reintroduction of wolves and what they have done in the parks is awesome.  it all ends outside of the park boundaries though. they aren't necessary when we're serving as a predator.  plus human and wolf confrontations makes things even more complicated. like anything else that's preyed on most will stick to where it's safe. them being territorial only the strongest and most thriving will be in the parks. once a wolf leaves the park it's like nature inside the park, only now the wolf isn't the apex predator.  wildlife, including wolves, should be conserved and not protected.

[left field]

Who is at the apex of consideration here?

Is it the wolf? The rancher? Nature lovers? Government? Hunters? People who kids and pets are apparently being snatched up by wolves? The Spotted Owl?

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by left field

[dbHunterNY]

Who is at the apex of consideration here?
Is it the wolf? The rancher? Nature lovers? Government? Hunters? People who kids and pets are apparently being snatched up by wolves? The Spotted Owl?
 

None are at the apex. If it was solely people, wolves would be removed entirely and hunting would be allowed in the parks.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk