Vicious beasts kill 2 goats and 3 or 4 guard dogs over a year’s time-

I saw this story Dec. 8, but it said the Mitchell Mountain Pack had over the space of several years killed two goats and a guard dog here and there at the “Sieben Ranch.” I just figured that was a typical wolf overreaction story that hardly merited reporting.

Then I learned maybe there is a reason this massive 125,000 acre ranch is just called the Sieben Ranch. It is owned by Montana Senator Max Baucus.

FWP plans to take out entire Mitchell Mountain wolf pack. By Eve Byron. Helena Independent Record.

Oh yes, this was done by Wildlife Services at taxpayer’s expense.

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

108 Responses to Wolf pack killed by government on Senator Baucus ranch

  1. avatar JimT says:

    Sad to say I am not surprised at all. Baucus is one of those of the Imperial Senate mentality..my dung doth not smell, and verily, I shall summon some mercenaries to smite my enemies.

    I was hoping that the incident with his former paramour on his staff and then nominating her for a US Attorney’s position would catch up with him, but it looks like the health care issue is saving his butt. I still hope his own party censures him, but after giving in to Lieberman so easily, it is clear the Dems still have no spines.

  2. avatar Elk275 says:

    I do not think that Max Baucus owns a portion of the Sieben ranch anymore. The last time that I talked with him, we were talking about the gold mine in Lincoln, Montana and that the Sieben ranch owned a portion of the proposed mines plans. He said that he no longer owned any of the ranch.

  3. avatar JimT says:

    Easy enough for someone to go to the local government office and check the records. I wonder if by not owning it, he means he created a trust who technically would own it, but I can’t believe if he is still connected to it in any way…kids, etc…he is calling the shots.

    Regardless, my opinion of Baucus stands, especially after his posturing and performance on the health care bill in his committee. DC needs a housecleaning badly…both sides of the aisle.

  4. avatar jerryB says:

    According to Baucus”s “natural resources” aide in D.C., with whom I spoke this afternoon,” the senator owns the ranch and his brother manages it.”
    He owns 125,000 acres, maybe that’s just a portion of it.

  5. avatar Tilly says:

    All for GOATS??? So weird. Seriously, GOATS? Hold the goat cheese.

    Haven’t heard of much public lands goat ranching before.

  6. avatar Elk275 says:

    Tilly

    The Sieben Ranch is 125,000 acres of fee land — private land. The Sieben Ranch is a part of Block Management and all of us have access to it part of the year.

  7. avatar JimT says:

    One would hope that a US Senator would be sensitive to the issue, and not just give in to killing off the whole pack. But, then I guess, a whole bunch of voters would call him a weenie.

    I also suggest he try another guard dog breed. The bear dogs of Mongolian descent are supposed to be very fierce. Perhaps the lines of other guard dogs have gotten too domesticated to do their traditional jobs properly.

  8. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Amazing how two dead goats and a dog justify killing wolves. I have never heard of goat ranching on that kind of scale.

  9. avatar jerryB says:

    John Baucus is past president of the Montana Wool Growers Association and his wife Nina is committee chairperson.
    Looks like they have both sheep and goats on their ranch.
    There was a big horn die off in the Helena area that was attributed to domestic sheep a year or 2 ago. Don’t know the exact location…….

  10. avatar Salle says:

    And there you have it, once again it’s the landed gentry…. at taxpayer expense.

  11. avatar Erin Barca says:

    Essentially the pack is being killed for interfering with ‘noxious weed and pine control’:

    “The ranch was originally a sheep ranch and partially converted to cattle due to economics and labor issues. They currently run 2 bands of ewes in the upper Blackfoot River, 1 band of mixed yearling ewes and goats on weed control projects in the Spokane Hills, and 1 band of goats for weed and pine control on the main ranch, north of Helena. With the lack of periodic wildfires to remove excess pine encroachment, the ranch has added a goat enterprise to the ranch in an effort to control both pine and noxious weeds. When trying to maintain range condition on a ranch of this scale, it is cost-prohibitive to hire additional labor and use chemicals to control the pine and weed problem.”

    From: http://www.undauntedstewardship.montana.edu/sieben.htm

    More info: “According to Nina Baucus, who runs the Sieben Ranch with John Baucus, “One of the biggest problems with the goats is predators.” Nina and John Baucus lease about 3,200 goats from the Doolings in an experiment to control the weeds and conifer encroachment on their ranch range lands. She says that so far, since last June, there have been 100 to 150 goats killed. On the ranch, the most common predators are coyotes and mountain lions. When I asked Ann about using donkeys or lamas, she said that she had tried them both, but the goats just travel over too much of an area, even in just a day, to really allow any “care-takers” to be profitable.

    Another thing that Nina says has been a pretty big problem is the lack of fences on the ranch. The Sieben Ranch is huge. Roughly, it encompasses around 100,000 acres. They raise cattle and sheep on the ranch. The few fences are enough for the cattle, and the sheep are with sheepherders. The goats don’t have anyone to watch over them as they try to tackle their first winter on the range. Because of this, the goats can pretty much wander almost anywhere that they want to. This means that the goats are able to get places, even where they aren’t wanted.”

    From: http://mtwow.org/cultural-control-goats.html

    Information on the experiment: http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/205617.html

    “Sieben Ranch provided the land and goats for the project.”

    Nina and John Baucus are also on the USDA’s National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee.

    According to MFWP’s reports for the year, wolves have not bothered the cattle who are fenced. Nor the sheep who have a herder. The goats wander unsupervised, and the dogs are warning invisible men.

  12. avatar kt says:

    Erin Barca: THAT list is enough to cause a Gagging Health Care Emergency Room Emergency!

    And for Max and Melodee and all the Baucus Clan goat nonsense wolf murderers: Here ya go. Black and blue.

  13. avatar vielfrass says:

    What is the significance of the word sieben (seven)?

  14. avatar kt says:

    Vielfrass; I don’t know German, but maybe Seven Deadly sins.

    Just try Googling Bacchus bacchanalian goat or something similar.

    I think the goats have special, sick, Bacchus family symbolism.

    Maybe Max and the Bacchus clan are living out their own Greco-Roman demi-God Powertrip version of twisted ranching and lording it over everyone – and wolf-baiting.

    http://www.carnaval.com/bacchus/

    A Bacchus is a he-goat … or something.

    AND

    http://www.hoogsteder.com/publications/journals/journal-9/bacchus

    Bacchus god of wine

    In classical antiquity ceremonies celebrating the wine god Dionysus or Bacchus were the scene of orgiastic rites. In a state of ecstasy the followers of the cult of Bacchus, known as Bacchantes, carried out the most heinous acts that included tearing wild animals limb from limb.

    The Ranch sounds like the Baucus Clan’s Own Private Montana version of a C Street cult ….

  15. vielfrass,

    According to an article on the web, “Henry Sieben purchased it [the ranch] in 1897.”

  16. avatar nabeki says:

    I actually came across this yesterday when I was doing some research on the Mitchell Mountain Pack…was tracking down their territory and found they lived mostly on the Sieben Ranch..then found… Low and behold it was owned and operated by John Baucus. So I put two and two together and bingo. That’s Sen. Baucus brother and the family ranch. The thing I can’t figure out is all the articles that have appeared recently about the Mitchell Mountain Pack…why was Senator Baucus name not mentioned or even the Siebens Ranch name mentioned? Hmmmmm, interesting.

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  17. avatar JimT says:

    Perhaps a reporter at the Times would be interested in this story since it is connected to a Senator….

    So, let’s see. The essence of Nina’ story is that the goats who are basically let go on their own are killed( poor husbandry) and the ones who are minded in some fashion (sheep and cattle) are not.

    Nina, there are temporary fences that could be used with the goats, and then guard llamas and dogs could be used. These fences are commonly used with sheep in the Northeast and work very well, and are not expensive. Just takes a bit of effort to manage the placement.Tjere are even solar chargers to provide the shock. But, I guess it is easier to essentially put the goats out there as bait for the wolves, and then yell FOUL and have the WS buddies come in and kill the wolves….

  18. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    JimT or Anyone

    What is the cost to purchase, say two good (appropriate breed and temperment for livestock use) “guard dogs.” including training, feeding and annual vet maintenance?

  19. avatar jerryB says:

    Here ya go folks……ask the senator

    http://baucus.senate.gov/?p=contact

  20. avatar outsider says:

    Im a little confused here, is the ranch private property or public land?

  21. outsider,

    Of course, the ranch is private. The wolf control was paid for by the government.

  22. avatar outsider says:

    So if its private why the outrage? I though we wanted the Livestock owners to get off public land and go back to their private property where they belonged. If the wovles are killing livestock on private property don’t you think that they should be removed? Shouldn’t the landowner have a the right to say what happens on their private property?

  23. avatar outsider says:

    Ralph are you saying that you wouldn’t have a problem if the ranchers killed the wolves and not the goverment?

  24. avatar Salle says:

    If it’s taking place on private property, the taxpayers shouldn’t be picking up the tab.

  25. avatar JimT says:

    WM..

    I have no idea what guard dogs cost; I would hope the rancher would be smart enough to purchase adult dogs, trained by a professional.It is a business investment decision, WM, and I expect their cost would be less than replacing the free roaming goats? And purchasing guard dogs for free roaming goats…you are just setting the dogs and the goats up for ambush by much smarter wolf packs. The goats should be confined to a certain acreage by movable fences, the results of weed control assessed, and then decide if they are having a positive effect or if the weeds are winning.

    I think the better questions are: what did the Doolings expect when they leased the goats and there was no protection given to them by the Baucuses? What was the cost of the leasing to the Baucuses? How much money did the Doolings lose, or where their losses covered by the lease agreement? Insurance? And if they are losing that many goats in a year, basically, and the impact on the weed control isn’t turning out the way they would like, why continue the arrangement of basically sending the goats out for slaughter? Could it be to justify the wolf pack killing once and for all? Could a rancher be that cynical? Given the Baucuses’ position on the WS Advisory Board, I don’t think they are sympathetic to wolves.

  26. avatar JimT says:

    Ralph would know better, but I suspect WS killing services are available to private land owners as well as public land owners.

    Outsider, no, I don’t expect a private rancher to sit idly by while “Livestock” are being killed. But with the sheep and the cows, there have been no killings reported? Why? Because they are fenced? Goats not fenced=dead goats. Do you think the private rancher has a professional if not ethical obligation to not send livestock out basically as snacks for wolves?

  27. avatar Salle says:

    “Do you think the private rancher has a professional if not ethical obligation to not send livestock out basically as snacks for wolves?”

    …or bait?

  28. avatar Ryan says:

    WM and JimT,

    Its been discussed on here before, guard dogs are at best snacks for wolves, wolves generally kill competition they encounter. Coyotes, guard dogs, hounds etc all fall into this category.

  29. Guard dogs can and do deter wolves, but it takes more than one or two of them.

    Sufficient guard dogs to do the job requires a fair amount of dog food. I wonder how many people are aware that this is often provided by slaughtering some of the sheep and feeding it to the dogs, something that would be a capital offense if done by the wolves.

  30. avatar gline says:

    It doesn’t matter if Max Baucus doesn’t own part of the ranch anymore. His “environmental advisor” in DC should be advising John and Nina to not leave goats out in wolf country left alone. The Baucuses say predators are a financial burden, but online I found this regarding Tom and Ann Doolings leased goats to the Baucus’: “The three most useful products from the approximately 4,000 goats that Ann and Thomas Dooling raise are the goat’s ability to be useful for weed control, the goat meat, and the cashmere that the goats produce. (1) With the three combined, the Doolings are making quite a profit. There could be some room for more non lethal methods for the predators if one is making quite a profit off of cashmere….

    What about the fact that this IS wolf country and cougar country etc. Comes with the territory. If many of us MT citizens want wolves, the MT ranchers of 100,000+ acres need to find some way to deal with it.

    Ralph where did you get this information??? I don’t the see the news link.

  31. avatar jerryB says:

    Salle
    Salle Says:
    December 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
    “Do you think the private rancher has a professional if not ethical obligation to not send livestock out basically as snacks for wolves?”
    HA!!!….Ranching ethics????? Maybe 10%
    Why not send them out? They get reimbursed.

  32. avatar gline says:

    Will they (Baucus et al) be killing all of the cougars, coyotes and bear on the ranch as well?

    “According to Nina Baucus, who runs the Sieben Ranch with John Baucus, “One of the biggest problems with the goats is predators.” (2) Nina and John Baucus lease about 3,200 goats from the Doolings in an experiment to control the weeds and conifer encroachment on their ranch range lands. (2) She says that so far, since last June, there have been 100 to 150 goats killed.” http://mtwow.org/cultural-control-goats.html

    But according to FWP, “The wolves killed a guard dog in June 2008; a domestic goat in October 2008; a domestic goat and guard dog in March 2009; a guard dog on Nov. 2; and another guard dog on Nov. 30.”

    Which stat is true??

  33. avatar Salle says:

    Actually, JimT said that, I only added to it.

    Lest we forget the tax breaks one gets for having livestock on property, it’s a way to skirt property tax. If the livestock get eaten, there’s the reimbursement. It’s a win-win situation for the property -owner-hobby-rancher tax-wise. Not a good scenario for wildlife no matter how you look at it.

    Landed gentry on display at taxpayer expense.

  34. avatar gline says:

    Why doesn’t anyone from the MT wolf team offer information on this blog?

  35. avatar gline says:

    Wondering about MT state compensation program for livestock losses via wolves (used to be DOW program)… and if it is set up to work now.

  36. gline,

    I got my information by a simple search for “Sieben Ranch.”

  37. avatar gline says:

    No- the information that they were killed already. there is no news on that that I see…

  38. avatar gline says:

    Sorry, should have been more clear about which information – I was referring to the title of the story.

  39. avatar jerryB says:

    gline Says:
    December 16, 2009 at 10:40 AM
    Why doesn’t anyone from the MT wolf team offer information on this blog?
    Good question for Sime.
    casime@mt.gov

  40. avatar gline says:

    Ralph you must have inside sources..

  41. avatar JimT says:

    Ralph, along with what I was saying earlier, there is more use of guard dogs in Europe, I think. And those lines would actually be truer to the roots of the dog’s instincts than American lines of Pyrenees, or Borzoi, etc. Most breeds, even working breeds, are now mostly companion dogs, ignoring for the moment the rightness of that or the fairness to the dog…I knew a neighbor who had two Australian Shepard dogs with no jobs…nice dogs, but I think they were slowly going insane being yard dogs with nothing to herd or chase.

    Most of the sheep folks I knew in Vermont (mostly Churros from lines from the Navaho) used llamas…worked out wonderfully, but there were fences, and monitoring by the owners.

  42. avatar gline says:

    Ralph??? How did you find out that the wolves have been killed already?

  43. avatar JimT says:

    On Ralph’s point on the diet, that approach, would fit right in with the current “movement” in dog circles to return dogs to a a more natural,raw diet….

  44. avatar outsider says:

    Gline you said

    “What about the fact that this IS wolf country and cougar country etc. Comes with the territory. If many of us MT citizens want wolves, the MT ranchers of 100,000+ acres need to find some way to deal with it.”

    So I suppose that when the ranchers “deal with it” by trapping, shoting and poisoning the wovles you wont have a problem with it? This is not public land were talking about it private. These ranchers don’t want the preditors on their land eating their livestock. It would be no differnt than somebody camping in your yard and then eating your cat or dog and saying well you just need to deal with it or watch you pets more closely. Part of the reason that this country is so great is Private property rghts. So a few individals have a bigger “Yard” than others the concept is still the same. How would you feel about this ranch being subdived up into 2500 40 ac min ranches or trophy homes?

  45. avatar gline says:

    No, “Outsider” obviously I would have a problem with poisoning, trapping, baiting, shooting of the wolves. That is a silly thing to say. I am quite sick of the private property argument.. If you own thousands upon thousands of acres, you can kill wolf packs, all the cougars, coyotes and griz bear as well?? That is ludicrous. This is why the Gray wolf needs to be protected.
    People/ranchers need to be stewards of our national heritage which is the gray wolf and other predators. Wish I was here back in 1897 with a great grandfather that was given 100,000+ acres … but my great grandparents were in Ireland at the time…
    This is not about subdividing 100,000 acres over a pack of wolves eating 2 goats per year, hence completely wiping out the rancher financially. I’m sure these people got some cash… more than me by far. It is Senator Baucus’ family for C sake.

    I want the ranchers to think of wolves as a heritage and themselves as stewards- not take the easy way out and kill a wolf pack over a few cashmere wearing goats…
    it is just wrong to do this. What happens to the next wolf pack that moves in? Are they supposed to know to not kill the aimless wandering goat in their territory. I’ll be sure to post some signs for them…

  46. avatar outsider says:

    Gline if the property owner so chooses they can high fence the whole property and keep all wildlife and public out, it is after all private property. The idea that ranchers will think of wolves as a heritage goes against their very being stewards, they dont want their livestock or wildlife killed unless they can make a profit from it, and thats their right, and how they make their money so they can pay their taxes, hire labor, support comunties, and enjoy what they and their forfarthers have built up. I really dont think most ranchers want all wovles gone but are probably a little sick of haveing them shoved down their throuths, and then told deal with them they’re natural. Most would veiw them as a good barn cat, you know its there but you very rarely see it.

  47. avatar JimT says:

    Outsider,

    Actually the whole law of private property rights, access, fencing that damages wildlife, a collective asset…is not that cut and dry, but way too boring and complicated to set forth here. I would recommend you audit a law school class…IF you can stay awake…~S~

    I understand some of what you are saying, but I have to disagree with the idea that ranchers are not stewards of the land; I think that is part of the problem we all deal with; their lack of taking responsibility in some cases in living WITH nature instead of seeking to subdue it all the time for only human benefit. I think my notion of private property and its management is more in the egalitarian end of theory, more community and commons oriented.

    Here are some books on this historically complex subject if you are so inclined.

    http://www.questia.com/library/law/legal-theory/private-property.jsp

  48. avatar outsider says:

    Jim T have you ever drove across TX and tried to hunt or veiw wildlife? If were not carefull thats what going to happen here in the west, all the private property will be fenced and acess denied to all but a select few that have the dinaro to pay the access fees. All will suffure, wildlife will have more obsicals in in their way, ie; fences that block migration routs, or prevent proper flight distance when they encounter preditors. Hunters will have less free or cheap hunting opertunities. Wildlife watchers will have less wildlife to watch. And we all know how well the goverment does with managing things, hell in no time at all there would be no wildlife left on public lands, or they would spend billions buying them or bringing them in from other privatly held herds, not really a future picture I want to see happen. So I say we work with these land owners, if they dont want wolves on their property maybe we should make the effort to keep them off. Is there not enough public land for the current wolf population? A little good will goes a long ways and it has to start with one side being the bigger person. Right know all we seem to is complain and sue not a good way to earn friends or trust.

  49. avatar outsider says:

    sorry should have read if they dont want wolves on their property

  50. avatar JimT says:

    Outsider,

    You make it sound as if the environmental side has been the ones not obeying permit conditions, or demanding their way or the high way, and the history simply shows this has been the rancher’s tactics, aided by state and federal politicians and judges like Brimmer. So far, I see nothing in the posturing of the ranchers, public or private, to show me they are willing to make changes in their husbandry practices to live with the presence of predators as part of a whole and healthy ecosystem. I am tired of the blame game they play and demand all the sacrifices be made by the green side of the table. THEIR hostility has led to the litigation; the abuse of the land, the loss of habitat for species….those things lead to litigation.

    No, I have managed to avoid Texas my entire life…~S~. And I am hoping you are not saying as Texas goes, so goes the West. If that is true, we should all move to Vancouver BC really really quick.

    The egalitarian notion of private property rights and management would fit nicely with a world where folks didn’t put humans first all the time, and made changes to restore the wild lands and inhabitants; where the word share would be the linchpin. Things like land trusts and easements are part of that philosophy. I think it is a healthier way to deal with the conflicts…

  51. avatar Erin Barca says:

    gline,

    You quoted: “…She says that so far, since last June, there have been 100 to 150 goats killed.”

    Then pointed out: “But according to FWP… (wolves killed 2 goats and 4 guard dogs in two years)”

    And asked: “Which stat is true??”

    This count includes goats killed by coyotes and cougars.

  52. avatar Elk275 says:

    gline

    The people of Montana do not want wolves. Maybe if your grandparents had given you 100,000 plus acres and you had grown up all your life on the land then maybe you would think differently. There is very little profit in livestock operations as I watched my father lose over 1 million dollars in the 70’s trying to fullfill his dream. Private property is private property and if you want things different leave the state of Montana or try to change the laws.

  53. avatar nabeki says:

    My problem with the ranch is it’s so huge…125,000 acres, there is no way on heaven or earth that you can police the entire ranch. The wolves made there territory there…that’s how big it is. Wolves disperse this time of year and they may be aggressive toward dogs that they deem competition. Being a guard dog carries an inherent risk. Also these goats and sheep eventually end up slaughtered themselves…so the boo hooing over livestock falls on dead ears. They are also compensated by Defenders and the feds..and in my opinion that should stop. If we compensate ranchers they have no incentive to change.

    So goats traveling over a huge ranch willy nilly are certainly going to get into trouble with wolves that live there. Guard dogs are a perceived threat by wolves.

    One other thing and I’ll say it again. Why has nobody in the media mentioned Baucus name or the fact he and his family own the ranch? That should be news.

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  54. avatar Jeff N. says:

    Elk275,

    Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that the people of Montana don’t want wolves or are you just speaking for yourself and the small circle of people you associate with?

  55. avatar Elk275 says:

    Jeff N

    Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that the people of Montana WANT wolves or are you just speaking for yourself and the small circle of people you associate with?

    I will bet you if it was put on the ballot that the wolves would lose. It would be interesting.

  56. avatar Jeff N. says:

    Elk275,

    I do not recall making that claim. Can you tell me where I made that claim?

    However, you wrote “the people of Montana don’t want wolves” so back it up Elk……where’s your data? Or maybe your just talking sh1t.

  57. avatar Save bears says:

    nabeki,

    Defenders No longer has a payment plan in place to compensate livestock owners, the Feds don’t either, and it is difficult to ascertain if the Montana program is even active at this point in time..but the defender program stopped when the wolves were delisted…

  58. avatar Save bears says:

    I have a completely different feeling on this one, as it is private land, owned by and individual family and not public lands, if it was public lands, my opinion is, you get what you pay for, but beings it is private land, I know what I would do as most of my associates that own land would do..this may not be a story that you like, but the rules are indeed different than the issues we talk about most of the time on here….

  59. avatar nabeki says:

    I called the Missoulian and asked why the Baucus family wasn’t mentioned as owners of the Sieben ranch, when they released the info about the wolves? They are sending an email to Helena to ask that question.

  60. avatar Elk275 says:

    I have no data and it is a circle of friends and people I meet. Most the people that are and were pro wolf believe that they now need management.

  61. avatar Save bears says:

    I am sure it is not hard to find out who owns the land, as that is a matter of public record in the state of Montana, as far as who owns this ranch really has no bearing on the actions, there are many large ranches in the state of Montana with many land barons….and a good many of them are only part time residents at best..

  62. avatar Elk275 says:

    If one want to find out who owns what land then go to this web site: http://nris.mt.gov/gis/OwnMaps.asp?Map

    There is a web for corporations which I have never used but it would not be hard to research

  63. avatar nabeki says:

    Save Bears…
    It’s news if the ranch is owned by a Senator of the state where the action is being taken. Definitely news.

  64. I have a good survey that cost a lot of money and was never released (internal consumption).

    I can tell you this. The state where people support the wolves the most is Idaho, followed by Montana and Wyoming.

    Opinion at the extremes is what counts politically, of course. Most consumers of polls don’t realize that. That number is mixed too. However, the anti-wolf extreme is the one with institutional and interest group support at the local level. That’s why wolf supporters counter from where they have the advantage — nationally.

  65. avatar gline says:

    SB how many of owns 100,000 acres?? Tis a lot of land to “own”.

  66. avatar Save bears says:

    Nabeki,

    your definition of news and my definition of news run on entirely different levels…

  67. avatar Save bears says:

    gline,

    Quite a few in the state of Montana own spreads that large, you would be amazed how many of them I spoke to when I was doing my work for FWP, we used to target the large land owners when it concerned free ranging herds of bison, I know of three separate ranches that are over 250.000 acres and many over 100,000

  68. avatar kt says:

    Save bears,

    Hard to understand how anyone could think that exposing the acts of politicians and/or their close relations getting publicly subsidized killing done for them was not in the public interest and not newsworthy.

    Here’s a great Baucus clip. Baucus accosted by Teabaggers.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/teabaggers-armed-with-youtubes-confront-max-baucus.php

    Where did they get the lady with the fat chihuahua?

  69. avatar Save bears says:

    kt,

    Glad to see your talking to me again, I would be more interested in who actually made the call to WS before I pass judgment.

    I think anytime wildlife is taken out, is news, no matter who the owner is, but I am far more interested in who actually called for the action and the reasons for it, but I think far to often, the focus becomes the politician and not the action, and the action is the problem..

  70. avatar Salle says:

    What I would like to know is how the funding for WS is assessed and what part the state pays and what part the fed (APHIS) pays of the wages and costs of helicopter etc.. I find it interesting, also, that the predations took place weeks ago, in the latest incident, but the others were over a year ago or more. Was it just that “now was a good time” to kill wolves? Perhaps because the pelts are more valuable during winter?

    http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/12/15/outside/hjjaihjahiefgh.txt

  71. avatar nabeki says:

    Save Bears..
    If you don’t think it’s news that our Senator owns a ranch with his brother, where WS is planning a wild west show, with guns blazing to take out a pack of wolves, then I’m not sure what your definition of news is?

    http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com

  72. avatar Layton says:

    nabeki,

    “Being a guard dog carries an inherent risk.”

    Kinda funny that a (domestic) guard dog runs a risk — but, if the greenies had their way, being a (wild) wolf wouldn’t carry ANY risk. Doesn’t that seem a bit weird??

  73. avatar Layton says:

    “Perhaps because the pelts are more valuable during winter?”

    Oboy, another conspiracy theory!! JFWIW, unless there is an interest in doing a necropsy for some biologist, or to pick up a radio collar, the carcasses aren’t even picked up. At least in any of the “control” incidents that I know of personally. The two WS guys that I know both claim that they would rather not even touch “the stinkin’ things”.

  74. avatar jon says:

    Hello Ralph, I have seen a lot of hunters claim that the wolves in Idaho are a non native species. I’m pretty sure that the wolves now in Idaho are indeed the same wolves as the ones that were wiped out before in Idaho. Any thoughts on this and do you come across a lot of hunters making this unproven claim that the canafian grey wolf is a different wolf than the ones wiped out before in idaho?

  75. avatar Salle says:

    except when they want to pose for a picture with their kill…

    http://wolves.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/danskinwolf0025.jpg?w=700&h=525

  76. avatar gline says:

    Just found out from Sime et al the Mitchell Mtn pack has NOT been killed yet. There is still time to call them and tell them you do not want this.

  77. avatar Dawn says:

    Alright so here I am hiking with a friend of mine and a dog and it was on public and private land here in Wyoming, we came across so many cows that truthfully I could have taken them out ! This is in the backcountry not in a open field . No one was around to watch and protect these cows which hello is the ranchers product, this area is known for coyotes, mt lions and maybe wolves , where were the ranchers ? All I saw was alot of cow shit ! Kinda ruined the hike . Moral of the story is if you want to ranch except the enviroment, this is not the 1800″s anymore .

  78. avatar gline says:

    Elk 275 you are full of BS.

  79. avatar gline says:

    Amen Dawn…

  80. avatar gline says:

    Mitchel Mtn pack still lives for another night or two. Goats prevail evidently. Wish the wolves well …

  81. avatar Dawn says:

    Also want to say that the cows were on public land and we did not hike the private land which you had to read the bullet hole signs carefully !

  82. avatar Dawn says:

    Good point Saves bears

  83. avatar gline says:

    Dawn, C Sime wolf coordinator for MT got a complaint from Baucus et al, hence the call to the teat of WS…

  84. avatar nabeki says:

    Layton,
    There is a risk being a guard dog. The Mitchell Mountain pack’s territory encompasses a good portion of the ranch….it’s huge. Wolves are very territorial especially this time of year when they’re dispersing, so they see dogs as competition.

    I think wolves have an extremely hard life under the best of circumstances. I wouldn’t want to be kicked in the ribs everytime I had dinner.

    Now they are being hounded by hunters and Wildlife Services. Yeah being a wolf right now is just peachy.

  85. avatar nabeki says:

    Hope everyone keeps writing FWP and WS about these wolves.

  86. avatar Si'vet says:

    Outsider, let me help you out a bit. Through an unfortunate turn of events I visited several prowolf sites with regards to predators. My first real goal was to see if I could understand the riff between prowolf and non, and see what I was missing. I even TRIED to do like you and ask some questions and share some info, trust me “outsider” you are an outsider. The folks on these sites are “predators” not the big rough and tough wolf type, but calculating and sneeky hide behind a computer type. Example: note how they start out and try to make you think that wolves are being killed over 2 goats and a dog, then the truth slowly starts to ooze out. Then they start in, it’s the ranchers fault for not having enough dogs to cover off 125,000 acres and “that’s too big of ranch anyway” ranchers shouldn’t have dominion over there own private property, they should in fact check with these groups,get a list of acceptable type animals and practices to use on their private property. They know or should know there isn’t a single dog or several dogs of any current breed that could with stand a full on wolf pack attack, but it’s an easy solution, right. It would be interesting to know how many of these prowolf people would let the Senator or another ranchers dogs come into their private yards and kill their cats etc. and do nothing,” that’s different” their yard isn’t thousands of acres and they are not public officials, besides their cat was there first. In fact PW’s “protect their” web sites from unapproved participants, because it’s theirs. Here are just a few more examples of the rhetoric > I could go on for hours; Don’t want private individuals to hunt predators, but want to bitch and moan if the goverment steps in. “taxpayer money” similar to the taxpayer money spent to reintroduce the wolf, do you remember being given a choice. Don’t want livestock raised on ranches, don’t want livestock raised in “Factory’s” on farms. Your not going to tell them what wildlife they can look at, but they want to dictate what you eat. Then use false advertising to try and sway others, check out howling for justice web site, watch their little video and see how they flash a pile dead coyotes across the screen so most city folks would think it’s a pile of wolves. What I have found useful, is they post phone numbers and adresses for a lot of folks you would normally have to spend time looking up, so you can let them know you support them and the difficult job they have of trying to please everyone. You can also get vendor info and let them know there is always 2 sides to each coin. I have also had the opportunity to share their views with several very large ranchers and have found it a great way to gain access to private property, as they start to realize we have more in common. Outsider here’s a secret, if you were to have enough dogs to protect 125,000 acres, can you just imagine, it would be like introducing small pox to native americans,hmm. Anyway just beware of sheep in wolves clothing.

  87. avatar JB says:

    Si’vet:

    Yep, a lot of pro-wolf folks are just like the anti-wolf people: completely unwilling to see things from the others’ point of view. Unfortunately, your rhetoric suggests that you are no better than they are. You had more credibility when you were trying to insist that SFW isn’t anti-predator; which, in my opinion, is like trying to convince people that the sky is not blue. Only the people who never look up for themselves will believe you.

  88. avatar Si'vet says:

    Ouch, JB I am really hurt now, I just wanted YOU to give me credibility, and yes that’s exactly what I did, insisted that SFW was pro predator, and not pro wildlife “with examples”, again your ooze, no facts, just shots, can’t dispute the facts. Oh and by the way I will never use the term “that you had more credibility” when referring to your opinions, I guess in order to compete I need a booklet of cute little quotes to hide behind, oops your wool is showing.

  89. avatar JB says:

    What facts?! And what quotes am I hiding behind? Are you referring to the distinctly anti-predator/anti-wolf quotes from Don Peay (SFW’s founder) that I cited in an earlier thread? Seems to me these are more factual than anything you’ve presented.

  90. avatar JB says:

    You know, I wouldn’t have a problem if you just came out and said, “I want more elk and fewer wolves.” It’s your bullshit assertion that SFW is pro wildlife that pisses me off. SFW only cares for species they can kill; they have proven this time and time again.

    Look, I don’t need to post quotes, I encourage people to look up SFW’s opinion pieces on predators and decide for yourselves. Here are a few to get you started:

    Idaho: http://www.sfwsfh.org/index.cfm?pID=3&pcID=10

    Wyoming: http://www.wysfw.org/wy__wolf_comment_

  91. avatar Si'vet says:

    Wow you just make it up as you go. Did I quote Peay, did I say they were Anti- anything, NO, did I give examples of what they do with some of the funds they raise, don’t believe me ask Ralph about the fencing etc. Are they going to litigate against relisting the wolf yup. Quote’s referring to your little closing didi. If you think you can puff up and itimidate me like you have others on this site, think again.. Ba, Ba

  92. avatar Save bears says:

    If SFW only cares about species they can kill, then why are they not supporting wolves? With the way things are going with the wolves, if this was true, it would seem they would want a whole lot more of them!

  93. avatar JB says:

    Si’vet:

    I’m happy to rely upon the quotes and position statements of SFW for my assertion that they are anti-predator. I’ll put them up again any “facts” that you can summon (if, in fact, there are any).

    You said: “In fact PW’s “protect their” web sites from unapproved participants, because it’s theirs. Here are just a few more examples of the rhetoric > I could go on for hours…”

    Yet Ralph allows people like you to post here. Seems you could go on for hours, but I’m still waiting for those facts you promised.

  94. avatar JB says:

    Save bears:

    My opinion is that they (SFW-style hunters) do not value wolves for ANY purpose. They view wolves simply as an obstacle to the maximization of ungulate hunting opportunities.

  95. avatar Si'vet says:

    “I want more Elk and fewer wolves.” I want the wolf numbers at or close to what the original ESA called for. I dislike wolves a lot less than people like you. You know what pisses me off, are sheep like you who read a few quotes, take others comments add your own spin, and think you can muscle your Bullshit opinions on everyone. PS I want more: mule deer, Pikas, antelope, sagehens, moose, cedar wax wings, mountain blue birds, white sturgeon, mountain quail, yellow finches etc. and fewer people like you. Hopefully this clears it up for you. Ba Ba

  96. avatar JB says:

    It does indeed. And thanks for showing your true colors. Sadly (for both of us, I’m afraid) everyone in this country is entitled to their own opinion, bullshit or otherwise.

    FYI: I’ve read more than “a few quotes”. I’ve been personally involved in this issue for the past seven years. I’ve also been at a number of meetings and watched SFW’s founder go red in the face preaching his hatred of wolves; so you’ll excuse me if I call BS when I hear people defend this group.

    Still waiting for those facts?

  97. avatar william huard says:

    JB.

    At least you weren’t called an anti- That’s what these “sportsmen” call you when you question the lack of ethics. We are working on the defective gene that makes them think that they have the right to decide what species of animal are worthy and which ones are not. The ones that are worthy usually end up on a wall. I found it humorous when SFW tried to spin the latest derby event as a “wildlife benefit event” or that the slaughter of coyotes is wildlife conservation! Isn’t it the vampires at SCI that say “Promoting Wildlife Conservation Worldwide”. What a bunch of wonderful human beings these conservationists are.

  98. avatar Si'vet says:

    Wow, seven whole years, I better stay in the back seat where I belong. I’ve been involved at the meetings, and on the ground for forty years with regards to predator an nonpredator species. Go back and read my original post, better yet. jump on howling for justice and pull up the video, they are coyotes. there’s a fact. I stated a thread or so ago I am not an SFW member, I have seen first hand what they have done that benefits all wildlife, drive down I 15.. fact. Go back to the magazine where you posted the quote from Helms and link to the amount of funds raised for Deer, elk, habitat. guzzlers etc. do you think that all other wildlife are kept off. Fact .. I hope my true colors were camo, would it help if my face went red. Ba Ba

  99. avatar Si'vet says:

    Oh boy here comes the rest of the pack, or should I say flock. Willie would that be the same defective gene that would encourage a person (like you) to post how big and strong you are and work out 4 times a week. Gimme a break. ANTisportsman, for you it’s ba ba blah

  100. avatar william huard says:

    Si’vet
    I’ve met people like you my whole life. You ain’t shit my friend.

  101. avatar JB says:

    “Wow, seven whole years, I better stay in the back seat where I belong”

    Well I’m afraid you’ve got me. I’ve only been “on the ground” for 36 years. Still, I’ve never given any credence to the idea that wisdom can be equated with age/experience. Any intelligent person learns from their own experiences; wisdom–at least in my view–is the ability to learn from others’ experiences.

    Moreover, I find it funny that you discount my experience/expertise while claiming you “want the wolf numbers at or close to what the original ESA called for.” This statement goes a long way toward showing your lack of familiarity with the specifics of the NRM wolf recovery issue. First and foremost, the ESA does not say anything about wolf numbers, it simply provides a legal framework for protecting and recovering imperiled species; second, while the 1994 EIS specified a minimum of 100 wolves in each of the three states as ONE of the criteria for recovery, it did NOT “call” for wolves to be managed at or near these populations, and these populations were not the sole criteria for recovery. Those ARE fact that you can verify for yourself:

    Click here: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

    “I have seen first hand what they have done that benefits all wildlife, drive down I 15.. fact.”

    If fencing along I-15 is the extent of your factual evidence, then I feel even more confident in my position. FYI: Fundraising is meaningless. It is how these funds are spent that actually makes a difference for wildlife.

    “I hope my true colors were camo…”

    Nah, too much green in camouflage.

  102. avatar Si'vet says:

    Oh no you haven’t, tough guy. And you can bet we’re not friends. Honestly you could work out and pose in front of the mirror all day, and try to impress shut ins I couldn’t laugh an harder. Oh by they way, you crack me up when you refer to Gov. Otter as Butchy. This coming from a guy who lives in a state that elected a pro wrestler as gov.. Keep the laughs coming willie. ba

  103. avatar william huard says:

    Well, I’ve had about as much fun as I can handle for one day. Nice talking to you there Si’vet. I feel compelled to go wash my hands after our interaction.

  104. avatar Si'vet says:

    JB, you are so wise, when you are traveling down I15 to get out of zion, and you don’t hit a deer, or a coyote feeding on a deer or raven or golden eagle feeding on a coyote, you can just sit back and think of all those funds that went straight towards killing wolves. and yes I posted in haste on stating the ESA my mistake. ba

  105. avatar Si'vet says:

    FYI willie when I saw you joined I put on gloves.

  106. avatar Si'vet says:

    JB. willie, it’s late I am thru as well, I am going to have to resort to bifocals, the small print gives me a head ache.

  107. avatar josh sutherland says:

    JB I know you dislike SFW, but they have done a tremendous job here in UT. And yes they did work for LESS cats being killed in UT. They have put millions and millions of dollars into habitat here in UT. Habitat that ALL animals use, not just ungulates. But birds, coyotes, cougars you name it they are on there. Obviously they are going to be more pro-ungulates than predator, thats the whole point of the org. SFW is a group of hunters. I dont see DOW arguing tags numbers and ungulate populations in UT, or giving advice on seasons and what weapons should be used, because they dont represent hunters. They represent people who want to save “endangered” animals. Thats their target audience.

  108. Most people are proud of what they have done and want recognition, but not many people here are clueless about outdoor adventure, science, hunting, fishing, volunteering, and so forth. They have different experiences and different values.

    This is a pretty unpleasant thread. I don’t want this to happen again.

    I was at a wildlife meeting tonight and didn’t catch this thread, but I have to end it now. .

Calendar

December 2009
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: