NOW: Appeals Court rejects move to stop wolf hunt

JGRuby · Sep 22, 2011

clownbuster thanks for you opinion - it was very entertaining at most and in my opinion ignorant at best. Anyone that feels that they are entitled to others dollars / handouts rates pretty low in my book.

James Ruby

Swedish K · Sep 22, 2011

a few years back - I think it was about 3 years after the wolf re-introduction into the Yellowstone area I stayed near one of the entrances for a snowmobile trip. The first night we were there about 2A.M. I heard howling outside and looked out from the window in the lodge - an entire pack of wolves were out in the snow covered meadow across from the lodge howling at the moon. While this was a magnificent scene watching the pack howl at the moon and at the time I was in support of the re-introduction of the wolf population to the area I now know that I had been misguided by the pro wolf propaganda. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have brought them back but I think they should have taken more time to find a more appropriate sub-species of wolf to repopulate with.

I recently read an article (wish I could recall the publication) that went in detail about the difference between the original wolf population and the larger and more aggressive population that was introduced. They talked about how the experts were all in favor of reintroducing the wolf and had warm and fuzzy feelings about doing so until several of them realized the difference between the original and the ones being brought in. By the time they found out and started to protest the media blitz about how it was a step in the right direction and the political brownie points that were to be had they were basically told to sit down and shut up so as not to offend some politicians and risk their agencies future gravy train funding.

JG clearly has his head in the sand when it comes to the differences in the original wolf population and the population that was brought in to repopulate the region. I will say that he is entitled to his opinions regardless of weather I agree or not, as I am sure many don't agree with my opinions on some issues.

If the pro wolf clan is so adamant to keep wolf hunts from occurring then why haven't they come forward with another population control method? Say maybe something like they do in Nevada with the wild horse population? They often round up the mares from the wild horse population and inject them with a form of birth control to keep the population from getting out of hand... Just a suggestion that the pro wolf people might start thinking along those lines instead of thinking the wolf should be allowed to expand their numbers infinitely.

I find it interesting that the last few pro wolf people I spoke with sure wanted to try to convince me that the wolf population should be unhindered by man regardless of repercussions but they certainly don't want to know anything about how they kill. I have seen what they do to elk. They will try to take the weakest or youngest most of the time but their favorite thing is to take a calf but not kill it right off - often the mother will try to defend the calf and they will run in and rip open its belly while finishing off the calf. Then they vanish into the brush nearby and wait for the mother to die a slow death often taking hours and with her intestines spilled in the brush she can't go anywhere. to avoid the risk of her kicking / stamping them and possibly killing them they wait and once she finally bleeds out they have 2 meals for the price of one. Not exactly a pretty site. I think a video of this happening should be shown to all of the wolf huger types and see what they say after seeing it.

OK enough of the soap box... carry on

clownbuster · Sep 22, 2011

JGRuby said:
clownbuster thanks for you opinion - it was very entertaining at most and in my opinion ignorant at best. Anyone that feels that they are entitled to others dollars / handouts rates pretty low in my book.

James Ruby

Yes, Ruby, I know, having worked and hunted in the previously mentioned states for the last two decades vs. you sitting behind your computer bashing people who have actually been outside and have actually experienced things you clearly have zero experience with (other than what you have researched on Google/Wikipedia), and voicing against your uneducated rant which has obviously become more about your secret mean-on for ranchers and less about wolfs, I understand how you believe my FACTS to be ignorant.
But genius, please tell the lowlife class how paying the Fed money to graze Fed lands is a handout, or what you referred to as 'others money / handouts? Dumb-dumb, when you enter a contract with someone, and pay them money for what they are selling, yes you are entitled to it. Welcome to American Western Capitalism.
Ranking low in your book? People usually have to meet me to figure out I'm a lowlife. You don't know me boy, so don't assume to do. Go pound your leg in your a$$.

JGRuby · Sep 22, 2011

Clownbuster - opinion just validated - thanks for your time - if you pay less than the cost of the services that you receive and others have to foot the bill- it is a hand out.

James Ruby

Redcap · Sep 22, 2011

clownbuster said:
Yes, Ruby, I know, having worked and hunted in the previously mentioned states for the last two decades vs. you sitting behind your computer bashing people who have actually been outside and have actually experienced things you clearly have zero experience with (other than what you have researched on Google/Wikipedia), and voicing against your uneducated rant which has obviously become more about your secret mean-on for ranchers and less about wolfs, I understand how you believe my FACTS to be ignorant.
But genius, please tell the lowlife class how paying the Fed money to graze Fed lands is a handout, or what you referred to as 'others money / handouts? Dumb-dumb, when you enter a contract with someone, and pay them money for what they are selling, yes you are entitled to it. Welcome to American Western Capitalism.
Ranking low in your book? People usually have to meet me to figure out I'm a lowlife. You don't know me boy, so don't assume to do. Go pound your leg in your a$$.

clownbuster · Sep 22, 2011

JGRuby said:
Clownbuster - opinion just validated - thanks for your time - if you pay less than the cost of the services that you receive and others have to foot the bill- it is a hand out.

James Ruby

Ongoing offtopic argument: You are implying the cost of Fed land programs, vs. income to the Fed from cattle grazing on Fed lands? WHY do you give a sh!t what the Fed charges ranchers to graze its land? Or do you think the ranchers should pay every dime, all $132M (as of 2004) of what it takes to manage Fed land programs? I get it, obvious personal problem noted. Original argument: The wolves need proper management as they are making a large impact on the wildlife AND the Fed should have told the cattle ranchers they were introducing wolves into lands they were leasing from them.

JGRuby · Sep 22, 2011

So here are some details
These are not my facts - I have included the source and the excerpt - so what do you guys say about those facts.

Public lands: Federal grazing fee amounts to a 'handout' to ranchers, enviros claim -- 02/05/2009 -- www.eenews.net
"The Government Accountability Office reported that the federal government spends at least $144 million each year managing private livestock grazing on 235 million acres of federal land, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees -- for a net loss of at least $123 million per year. The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service manage 98 percent of public land used for grazing, and accounts for the majority of federal grazing subsidies. Public lands ranchers were charged the federal minimum of $1.35 per cow per month to graze public land in 2008; fees on equivalent private grazing lands averaged $15.90 in 2007."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Livestock Grazing Programs
Total Federal Expenditures for USFS and BLM Grazing: $466 Million

Table III summarizes known direct costs and imputed indirect costs of the Forest Service and BLM livestock grazing programs. It also includes the documented cost of predator control on western public lands that directly supports public lands ranching, for a total of $466 million.

Table III
Direct and Indirect Forest Service and BLM Costs
and
Directly Attributable Costs of Other Federal Agencies
Cost Annual Appropriation
($ millions)
US Forest Service direct costs $53
US Forest Service indirect costs $177
BLM direct costs $73
BLM indirect costs $155
Predator control on Western Public Lands $8
TOTAL $466

Revenues: $6.1 Million

The Forest Service deposited $1.6 million to the federal treasury from grazing fees in FY 2000. 10 The Bureau of Land Management collected approximately $4.5 million. 11

Profit or Loss: - $459.9 Million

The total known cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing programs is $466 million annually. Revenues to the federal treasury are approximately $6.1 million from grazing fees, which means only 1.3 percent of the annual cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing programs is recovered from user fees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. WESTERN PUBLIC LANDS AS AN EXAMPLE
Basically, low lease rates provide a major federal subsidy for ranchers who use these lands, and a subsidy that, in many (but not all!) cases, results in degraded land.

Over the West as a whole, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) finds that grazing fees cover about 1/6 of the cost of administering the leases and managing the lands (2005; Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution). Basically this is a Federal subsidy to ranchers. Federal subsidies are not unprecedented of course. The US Forest Service often earns less money from timber sales than it put into the land, road building, planning, and so forth. And production by farmers in the US is routinely subsidized by the government in various ways.

However, do subsidies that often result in degradation of the resource (as in the case of the overgrazed portions of federal lands) make sense? (Keep in mind that this subsidy largely benefits huge corporations; Western Rodeo, for example, has permits to lease 4.6 million acres of public land in the west! In addition, public lands ranching makes a fairly small contribution to jobs and the economy in the western 11 states: Public lands ranchers provide about 0.06% of all jobs in the western 11 states, and contribute approximately 0.04% to the region's income.)

James Ruby

JGRuby · Sep 22, 2011

Clownbuster - I had pretty much forgot about this thread until I received your post. I even tried to move past the ranchers and the land grazing issue ( I consider this issue important since part of my taxes goes towards it ) because as you point out it is off topic - I am planning to let this thread die - your choice. You win if you deem it necessary.

James Ruby