If you hunt elk...

[Jamie6.5]

Save yourself the trouble Jaime. Just rub a cheese grater over your junk for a bit, it's less painful than "debating" with JGRuby

OUCH!

 

[JGRuby]

Heck I think outch to that as well.
I am shocked at the total number of grey wolves - estimated if correct to be beween 52000 to 60000 in North America only 9000 in the US.. However given that we have less than our fair share here in the state of Oregon - I support the reintroduction of wolves into Oregon - the were here first and due to the ranchers, farmers and trappers greed they would still be here from the initial group. I for one am tired of seeing nature destroyed by the greed of a few men to justify thier own personal gain.


<broken link removed>

James Ruby

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Heck I think outch to that as well.
I am shocked at the total number of grey wolves - estimated if correct to be beween 52000 to 60000 in North America only 9000 in the US.. However given that we have less than our fair share here in the state of Oregon - I support the reintroduction of wolves into Oregon - the were here first and due to the ranchers, farmers and trappers greed they would still be here from the initial group. I for one am tired of seeing nature destroyed by the greed of a few men to justify thier own personal gain.


<broken link removed>

James Ruby

Suppose somebody came by and slashed all your tires and broke all the windows in your house about once a month. Furthermore, suppose that you watched them do it and the local police told you that not only couldn't they arrest the perpetrators, but you aren't allowed to do anything about it, and if you did they would arrest you, not the perpetrators. Suppose that things were this way because some other people used to live where you do now, and it's really their land, even though you bought it, and that their ancestors were there first. How would you feel? Eastern Oregon ranchers cannot afford to lose a $2000 steer once a month any more than you can replace all your tires and windows once a month. Would you be OK with the government telling you to just walk away from your property and your home? Didn't think so...

 

[Redcap]

Suppose somebody came by and slashed all your tires and broke all the windows in your house about once a month. Furthermore, suppose that you watched them do it and the local police told you that not only couldn't they arrest the perpetrators, but you aren't allowed to do anything about it, and if you did they would arrest you, not the perpetrators. Suppose that things were this way because some other people used to live where you do now, and it's really their land, even though you bought it, and that their ancestors were there first. How would you feel? Eastern Oregon ranchers cannot afford to lose a $2000 steer once a month any more than you can replace all your tires and windows once a month. Would you be OK with the government telling you to just walk away from your property and your home? Didn't think so...

/thread.

 

[JGRuby]

Point taken - now lets assume that you are living somewhere and all of a sudden someone decides they want where you live so they decide to poison, shoot and kill in anyway possible not only to the point where you and your family are killed off but your whole species becomes extinct across states. This is what the ranchers, farmers and trappers have done to the wolf population in the lower 48. I think it is a crime what the ranchers, farmers, trappers have done - and now that some one is trying to make it right these same ranchers, farmers and trappers are complaining.

Lets just agree to disagree - I fully understand the point that is being made - the wolf's are effecting the ranchers lively hood. I have been told how a wolf will attack you but there are very few recorded instance. I have been told how the wolf decimates the elk population yet I am not seeing documented evidence of this. Everyone seems to be working off from emotions on this topic. What is not being understood is the reason the wolf are being reintroduced is because these same ranchers killed them off in the first place and take no responsibility for thier actions. Again the destruction of nature for the benefit of a few men.

James Ruby

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Again the destruction of nature for the benefit of a few men.

James Ruby

So I guess you are a vegetarian.

 

[JGRuby]

NO sir - I do eat meat - I even hunt - however not a very successful one I will admit - but to me there is more to hunting that pulling a trigger. If I thought that pulling a trigger on something would lead to its extinction I could not do it. Thats why we have game management. There are lots of places in this country that do not have to kill off a species to make a living. We raised beef cattle - initially polled herfords and later other white face crosses. To my knowledge the grain and hay we fed those cattle and the cattle themselves did nothing to cause a species to become extinct - I could be wrong.

Out here in Oegon the ranchers think they should be able to open range thier cattle - let them out in the spring and bring them in during the fall and nothing should happen to the herd. If a cow gets hit while it mosing down the midle of the road it is the vehicle operators fault not the rancher who turned thier cattle lose. I have seen many cattle on the middle fork of the John Dey road going to and from Austin Junction. I know this as I hunt Desolation and Northside and when we do our scouting we always have to worry about cows being in the roads - this is on government property - not on private property owned by the ranchers or thier families. There have been times I have picked up rocks simply to get them away from us not intentionaly to hurt them. I have seen dead cattle and calf carcasses out there - by the time we see them they are typically white bones with maybe a tinge of green but I have seen them. I dont know what killed them - I am assuming not wolf's.

Personally if you see a wolf terrorizing your cattle or livestock - shoot, shovel and shutup but to think that simply because you see a wolf means that he is killing your livestock. When I was a kid we did this to dogs chasing White tail deer - I even shot my dog one time for doing it. Yes I am sure that wolves kill some livestock as they kill game. I am sure that some people murder and kill but does that mean that all people are bad. I think not. I also feel that wolfs benefit some species and plants. There is the case of the Willow trees in Yellow Stone coming back for example.

James Ruby

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Thats why we have game management. There are lots of places in this country that do not have to kill off a species to make a living.

The wolves and cougars didn't get the memo from the ODFW about how many deer, elk, and cattle they are allowed to harvest in a given year (if they draw a tag).
I used to hunt deer in central oregon and we'd fill our tags every year. There are so few deer left in the areas I hunted now that it's not even worth going there anymore (and it wasn't humans that wiped them out). Lots of cougar poop with deer hair in it, but no deer left.
On the bright side, maybe the wolves will kill off the cougars once they've eradicated all the deer and elk.

 

[hermannr]

Mr. Ruby A couple of your statements show you know very little about the cattle industry, so may I give you some information you can keep.

Those cows you see on Federal or state land are all accounted for, you pay the state or Feds "rent" if you will, based on the number of Cow/calf pairs for X munber of pairs on your lease, for X number of months per yer on the FS, BLM or SF lands. These "leases" for the right to graze on public lands are very specific and very valuable.

I almost purchased 160 acres on the John Day many years ago for very little money, why? The lease that was attached to it had been stripped and only the private land was for actual sale for about 10% of what the Rancher that had it for sale had paid for it, however there was only about 15 acres of usable ground in that 160 acres, all down by the river.

We have Open Range here in our county too...basically what open range means is, you have to fence your neighbors cows out, not your cows in. OK

As for predation..each major preditor has their own way of killing their prey. You can look at the dead prey animal and tell if it was killed by a wolf, bear or cougar. Wolfs kill by hamstringing their prey. When they prey can no longer stand up and use their legs the pack just goes in and guts it...yes, while it is still alive.

The way I understand the law, if you catch a preditor "In the act of predation" you can shoot it...basically you can protect your property. However, you cannot shoot (out of established season and F&W goals) if the preditor is not actually taking down a live animal.

Does it make a difference? how about last sale of 17 netted $14K, or almost $1000 a mature breeding cow. Is that the kind of tax the rancher wants to pay so some city gal can sit out in her $500,000 motor home and listen to the wolves howl.

 

[JGRuby]

Hermannr
Thank you for the education - I agree with most of what you have stated - one point in particular I disagree with - the fences that supposedly keep the cattle out or yours in are mosttly running perpendicular to the road - meaning they are free to walk down the middle of most roads - I feel that you ranchers use that as a money maker when one of your cows in the middle of the road gets hit especailly when they dont belong there in the first place.

The leases are very vaulable because they are being paid for by taxpayers. There is no way that most ranchers could afford to own the property needed to suport the size of the herds they run on open range. This open range just so happens to be where the wolves are at. Also the food that the cattle eat is the same food that the elk eat. So in short we the tax payers that hunt elk are having to compete against your cattle for resources. Since the government can make more money off the ranchers the elk take a back seat. The wolves also get blamed for this reduction in resource by saying the elk are being killed off thats why we have fewer elk.. But then the ranchers will let you hunt thier property for a significant fee. On top of that the amount money it costs to support the leases is significantly less than the real cost of maintaining that land. Us taxpayers are actually footing the unpaid difference. Kind of a hand out. Just ask yourself how much a bale of hay goes for today and how long can a cow live on one bale of hay - maybe a week - how many weeks are the cattle on the range per year and how much does it cost to range a cow for a season?

So in short I support the wolves and feel that the reason they are having to be reintroduced is because they were wiped out originally and the people that did it assume no responsibility for it. I have stated my postion - I will stand by it.

James Ruby

 

[orygun]

I dont know what killed them - I am assuming not wolf's.

James Ruby

Hey Sling Blade, why don't you correct this joker on his misspelling or incorrect word usage?

Oh I get it. You only poke at the ones that don't share your point of view.

JG Ruby, I don't think we need to hear about your "ideals" when it comes to free range livestock again. You beat it to death in the last wolf thread. If we eradicated this reintroduced, non native wolf from the United States, it wouldn't be extinct.

 

[fishkisser101]

Not sure what the pissing contest is about, but am pretty sure you'll enjoy this (if you haven't already):

Dogs In Elk

--mja

 

[JGRuby]

Orygun - if you dont want to read what I write that is your option but to tell me what i can write about is not. Again if you dont like my opinions ignore my posts. Your option. Basically you are trying to control my freedom of speech as I see it. It aint going to happen.


This is pretty simple:
Wolves are here first
Men move in and find competition from wolves
Men kill off wolves
Certain men try to recitfy a wrong and reintroduce the wolf.
Wolf are not wanted by other men due to personal gain.
These same men claim many different but untrue claims against the wolf.
These same men now try to eradicate the wolf a second time.
Saner men try to prevent this eradication.


James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

Orygun - if you dont want to read what I write that is your option but to tell me what i can write about is not. Again if you dont like my opinions ignore my posts. Your option. Basically you are trying to control my freedom of speech as I see it. It aint going to happen.

James Ruby

I don't think that is what he is saying JG.
I believe he is just pointing out that you apparently don't understand the meaning of the term "extinct." After all, your own argument precludes the possibility.

Furthermore, that "ideals" rarely if ever, exist in nature.
Whether they are your ideals or someone else's makes no difference.

 

[JGRuby]

The wolves had been wiped out in their native territory of Oregon - O ( zero ) wolfs in Oregon were spotted between 1947 and reintroduction of the wolves in thier native territory - to me that means that they were extinct in Oregon - whats so hard to grasp?

Ideals are one things - but we have a method to correct a wrong.

James Ruby

 

[Sling Blade]

Gentlemen, I believe the term most appropriate for your discussion is "extirpated".


You're welcome.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

JGR: You are entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own reality. Facts are facts, and when you manufacture your own version of the truth it's impossible to hold a conversation with you.

My extended family owns around 10,000 acres. We don't use "open range". The land in question and the livestock on it are private property, all of which is fenced and gated. Your contention that cattlemen like their cattle in the road so they can get hit and the rancher can collect damages is just plain silly. What planet do you live on? And we don't "rent" hunting rights. We can't let anyone who is non-family use the property for hunting or other activities for fear of lawsuits. We don't have grazing leases anywhere else.

Here's a question for anyone else who's interested (I know I'll just get nonsense from JGR): If the wolves are the property of the State of Oregon (as I'm sure they legally are), and they come onto my private property and kill my livestock, which is also my property, isn't the State of Oregon responsible for the damage their livestock does to mine? Isn't feeding their wolves my livestock, and their wolves making my real estate useless a "taking" of private property for public use?

5th Amendment to the US Constitution: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The State of Oregon has now suspended any restitution for losses of livestock to wolves due to budgetary constraints. Prior to that it was nearly impossible to prove that a wolf did the damage (which is required for restitution) without seeing it actually attacking the animal. If the State of Oregon can't or won't compensate ranchers for losses of livestock and real estate value, then it seems to me that ranchers would be within their rights under the US Constitution to prevent those losses by any means necessary.

 

[orygun]

Orygun - if you dont want to read what I write that is your option but to tell me what i can write about is not. Again if you dont like my opinions ignore my posts. Your option. Basically you are trying to control my freedom of speech as I see it. It aint going to happen.


This is pretty simple:
Wolves are here first
Men move in and find competition from wolves
Men kill off wolves
Certain men try to recitfy a wrong and reintroduce the wolf.
Wolf are not wanted by other men due to personal gain.
These same men claim many different but untrue claims against the wolf.
These same men now try to eradicate the wolf a second time.
Saner men try to prevent this eradication.


James Ruby

I don't think I'm trying to control your "freedom of speech", I'm just telling you that I don't agree and don't want to hear it.

I certainly don't agree with your views. That's ok. But, just as you don't want to have your freedom of speech infringed, be assured that every time you spout your crap against free ranging ranchers and that the wolf we have is the one that belongs here I will give you grief. That's the way the world turns.

Too bad there isn't a "pissing match" simile!

At least this time you use eradicate instead of extinct.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And BTW, JGR, wherever it is that you live, the Native Americans were there first, but your ancestors killed them off or drove them away. What if I advocate that we re-introduce the Native Americans to wherever it is that you live. They'll have diplomatic immunity, as representatives of another nation. They'll be allowed to do whatever they want to, like camping on your property, appropriating anything of yours they take a liking to, killing your pets and children, and burning down your house. I'll sit here on the internet waiting for you to complain so that I can rub it in and tell you how wrong you are, how you picked the wrong place to live, and how it's all your own fault.

 

[coyote223]

JGR: You are entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own reality. Facts are facts, and when you manufacture your own version of the truth it's impossible to hold a conversation with you.

My extended family owns around 10,000 acres. We don't use "open range". The land in question and the livestock on it are private property, all of which is fenced and gated. Your contention that cattlemen like their cattle in the road so they can get hit and the rancher can collect damages is just plain silly. What planet do you live on? And we don't "rent" hunting rights. We can't let anyone who is non-family use the property for hunting or other activities for fear of lawsuits. We don't have grazing leases anywhere else.

Here's a question for anyone else who's interested (I know I'll just get nonsense from JGR): If the wolves are the property of the State of Oregon (as I'm sure they legally are), and they come onto my private property and kill my livestock, which is also my property, isn't the State of Oregon responsible for the damage their livestock does to mine? Isn't feeding their wolves my livestock, and their wolves making my real estate useless a "taking" of private property for public use?

5th Amendment to the US Constitution: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The State of Oregon has now suspended any restitution for losses of livestock to wolves due to budgetary constraints. Prior to that it was nearly impossible to prove that a wolf did the damage (which is required for restitution) without seeing it actually attacking the animal. If the State of Oregon can't or won't compensate ranchers for losses of livestock and real estate value, then it seems to me that ranchers would be within their rights under the US Constitution to prevent those losses by any means necessary.

That right there is the big gleaming problem of their whole wacked out plan. If they want wolves to make a come back, fine. I'm not really against the idea. However, another protected predator is the last thing we need in Oregon.

If they are going to force them down our throats, they have to allow people to protect life and property without becoming criminals. Especially if they won't pay damages for their goofy plan. If the wolves were really meant to exist in the west, they should be able to survive without federal protection. Just like Mr. Coyote survives the endless assaults,,,

I still say Forest Park is a great spot to re-introduce the wolves. Then JG and most of the other people that want them, could go see them every day,,,