Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


GRANTS PASS, Ore. - Oregon's wolves are back under the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act.

A federal judge in Montana on Thursday overturned the Obama administration's decision to give wolf management to states, including Oregon.

About 14 wolves are now in northeastern Oregon since they started swimming the Snake River in 1998 from Idaho, where they were reintroduced as part of a federal effort to get them off the endangered species list.

For the past year, Oregon has taken the lead on dealing with wolf kills on cattle and sheep.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has issued a kill order on two wolves in the Imnaha pack over livestock kills. The order is being challenged in federal court by conservation groups.

Probably local dogs packing up making the livestock kills, they kill far more livestock than wolves.

Wolves always get credit for those kills because the rancher gets reimbursed by the wolf people.

houndawg wrote: Probably local dogs packing up making the livestock kills, they kill far more livestock than wolves.

Wolves always get credit for those kills because the rancher gets reimbursed by the wolf people.

Maybe the rancher should build a dog / wolf park & hire the fed enforcement officer from Baltimore as a bouncer....

Appaholic wrote:

houndawg wrote: Probably local dogs packing up making the livestock kills, they kill far more livestock than wolves.

Wolves always get credit for those kills because the rancher gets reimbursed by the wolf people.

Maybe the rancher should build a dog / wolf park & hire the fed enforcement officer from Baltimore as a bouncer....

houndawg wrote: Probably local dogs packing up making the livestock kills, they kill far more livestock than wolves.

Wolves always get credit for those kills because the rancher gets reimbursed by the wolf people.

Seriously....where do you get this shit?

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote: Probably local dogs packing up making the livestock kills, they kill far more livestock than wolves.

Wolves always get credit for those kills because the rancher gets reimbursed by the wolf people.

Seriously....where do you get this ****?

Conservation groups reimburse ranchers for confirmed wolf kills.

Domestic dog packs kill more cattle than wolves.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Seriously....where do you get this ****?

Conservation groups reimburse ranchers for confirmed wolf kills.

Domestic dog packs kill more cattle than wolves.

# of dogs in America -- 77 million
# of wolves in America --9,000

Yeah, Einstein....I'm sure domestic dog packs probably DO kill more cattle than wolves, given that there's approximately 8,556 dogs for every wolf.

But given their small (at least relatively) population, wolves do an incredible amount of damage to cattle, pets, wildlife and (recently) people.

It's going to be VERY hard to put this toothpaste back into the tube....

AZGrizFan wrote:But given their small (at least relatively) population, wolves do an incredible amount of damage to cattle, pets, wildlife and (recently) people.

So do motorcyles vs cars, but we haven't outlawed them yet & straight pipes are a bigger quality of life issue IMO....

AZGrizFan wrote:It's going to be VERY hard to put this toothpaste back into the tube....

That's the same thought I get whenever I think of the federal welfare teet that is taxpayer-subsidized grazing "rights" on federal lands....

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Conservation groups reimburse ranchers for confirmed wolf kills.

Domestic dog packs kill more cattle than wolves.

# of dogs in America -- 77 million
# of wolves in America --9,000

Yeah, Einstein....I'm sure domestic dog packs probably DO kill more cattle than wolves, given that there's approximately 8,556 dogs for every wolf.

But given their small (at least relatively) population, wolves do an incredible amount of damage to cattle, pets, wildlife and (recently) people.

It's going to be VERY hard to put this toothpaste back into the tube....

You understand why a rancher wants to attribute as many lost cattle to wolves as possible, instead of coyotes or dogs, right, or do I have to spell that out slow for you too?

BTW, digestive problems kill more cattle than all predators combined. Using cattle as an excuse to eradicate wolves just doesn't get it. (Real men would raise buffalo and let the wolves take their chances).

Toothpaste back in the tube. Now you're sounding like grizzaholics drama-queen ass.

Where'd that little bitch go after his recent episode, anyway?

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:But given their small (at least relatively) population, wolves do an incredible amount of damage to cattle, pets, wildlife and (recently) people.

So do motorcyles vs cars, but we haven't outlawed them yet & straight pipes are a bigger quality of life issue IMO....

AZGrizFan wrote:It's going to be VERY hard to put this toothpaste back into the tube....

That's the same thought I get whenever I think of the federal welfare teet that is taxpayer-subsidized grazing "rights" on federal lands....

go start a thread on it then.

houndawg wrote: You understand why a rancher wants to attribute as many lost cattle to wolves as possible, instead of coyotes or dogs, right, or do I have to spell that out slow for you too?

BTW, digestive problems kill more cattle than all predators combined. Using cattle as an excuse to eradicate wolves just doesn't get it. (Real men would raise buffalo and let the wolves take their chances).

There's plenty of reasons to eradicate wolves. Cattle deaths are way down the list, in my opinion.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote: You understand why a rancher wants to attribute as many lost cattle to wolves as possible, instead of coyotes or dogs, right, or do I have to spell that out slow for you too?

BTW, digestive problems kill more cattle than all predators combined. Using cattle as an excuse to eradicate wolves just doesn't get it. (Real men would raise buffalo and let the wolves take their chances).

There's plenty of reasons to eradicate wolves. Cattle deaths are way down the list, in my opinion.

Well, I was going with cattle because that's the bs grizzasniffle was trying to sell, (instead of just coming out and saying that he has an irrational fear of wolves and wants them gone).

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:But given their small (at least relatively) population, wolves do an incredible amount of damage to cattle, pets, wildlife and (recently) people.

So do motorcyles vs cars, but we haven't outlawed them yet & straight pipes are a bigger quality of life issue IMO....

AZGrizFan wrote:It's going to be VERY hard to put this toothpaste back into the tube....

That's the same thought I get whenever I think of the federal welfare teet that is taxpayer-subsidized grazing "rights" on federal lands....

Yeah, all them rugged individuals and their federal subsidies.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:

So do motorcyles vs cars, but we haven't outlawed them yet & straight pipes are a bigger quality of life issue IMO....



That's the same thought I get whenever I think of the federal welfare teet that is taxpayer-subsidized grazing "rights" on federal lands....

go start a thread on it then.

It's not an obsession of mine....

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
There's plenty of reasons to eradicate wolves. Cattle deaths are way down the list, in my opinion.

Well, I was going with cattle because that's the bs grizzasniffle was trying to sell, (instead of just coming out and saying that he has an irrational fear of wolves and wants them gone).

Agree. At least your honest AZ. I respect that more than using the weak, culture-of-fear, "the-sky-is-falling-wolves" reasons most of the anti-wolf crowd regurgitate ffrom hunters/ranchers/etc. Just say you don't like them, they compete with your hunting/livestock & leave it at that....I feel the same way about any limpdik riding a harley with straight pipes (when their wives allow the "rebels" to go away for the weekend) & wish we could shoot them on site on the Blue Ridge Parkway....

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:But given their small (at least relatively) population, wolves do an incredible amount of damage to cattle, pets, wildlife and (recently) people.

So do motorcyles vs cars, but we haven't outlawed them yet & straight pipes are a bigger quality of life issue IMO....

AZGrizFan wrote:It's going to be VERY hard to put this toothpaste back into the tube....

That's the same thought I get whenever I think of the federal welfare teet that is taxpayer-subsidized grazing "rights" on federal lands....

It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything when a bunch of cattle eat grass on vast tracts of land out west that would otherwise be used for.......well....nothing...

Appaholic wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Well, I was going with cattle because that's the bs grizzasniffle was trying to sell, (instead of just coming out and saying that he has an irrational fear of wolves and wants them gone).

Agree. At least your honest AZ. I respect that more than using the weak, culture-of-fear, "the-sky-is-falling-wolves" reasons most of the anti-wolf crowd regurgitate ffrom hunters/ranchers/etc. Just say you don't like them, they compete with your hunting/livestock & leave it at that....I feel the same way about any limpdik riding a harley with straight pipes (when their wives allow the "rebels" to go away for the weekend) & wish we could shoot them on site on the Blue Ridge Parkway....

I couldn't care less if ranchers shoot wolves, I'd shoot them when I could if I were a rancher, too. I'd also swear that every head I lost was due to wolves and seek payment from the wolf people.

Now, your hunters are just whining because most of them couldn't bag anything that isn't sick, lame, or weak, and those are the ones the wolves tend to get. In reality, wolves will do wonders for the quality of the deer and elk herds, and the goodhunters will still get theirs.

BDKJMU wrote:

Appaholic wrote:

So do motorcyles vs cars, but we haven't outlawed them yet & straight pipes are a bigger quality of life issue IMO....



That's the same thought I get whenever I think of the federal welfare teet that is taxpayer-subsidized grazing "rights" on federal lands....

It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything when a bunch of cattle eat grass on vast tracts of land out west that would otherwise be used for.......well....nothing...

Actually federal grazing permits generate income for the gobment. Unfortunately, and to what Appy is pointing to is the insanely low monthly cost of grazing on federal lands, $1.85 per AUM.

Feeding an animal as large as a cow and her calf(s) on private lands is worth about $30 a month.

This can only be seen as public welfare for the biggest and richest ranching corporations in the country. In my state, that means the Hunts, Philip Anchutz, Earl Holding, and Sam Kroenke.

Wedgebuster wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything when a bunch of cattle eat grass on vast tracts of land out west that would otherwise be used for.......well....nothing...

Actually federal grazing permits generate income for the gobment. Unfortunately, and to what Appy is pointing to is the insanely low monthly cost of grazing on federal lands, $1.85 per AUM.

Feeding an animal as large as a cow and her calf(s) on private lands is worth about $30 a month.

This can only be seen as public welfare for the biggest and richest ranching corporations in the country. In my state, that means the Hunts, Philip Anchutz, Earl Holding, and Sam Kroenke.

And if they were required to pay $30/month/AUM, hamburger would be $8/lb and a T-Bone would cost $30 at Safeway and people would throw a hissy fit.

Pick your poison.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:

Actually federal grazing permits generate income for the gobment. Unfortunately, and to what Appy is pointing to is the insanely low monthly cost of grazing on federal lands, $1.85 per AUM.

Feeding an animal as large as a cow and her calf(s) on private lands is worth about $30 a month.

This can only be seen as public welfare for the biggest and richest ranching corporations in the country. In my state, that means the Hunts, Philip Anchutz, Earl Holding, and Sam Kroenke.

And if they were required to pay $30/month/AUM, hamburger would be $8/lb and a T-Bone would cost $30 at Safeway and people would throw a hissy fit.

Pick your poison.

Only the fat cats can have these leases nailed down. The small beef producer has to grow or buy his own feed, and has no place to graze his cows and calves for $1.85 a month.



..And I seriously doubt, those rich fuckers share their profits with the mom and pop beef raisers.

My sister and her husband run a 6000 acre cattle ranch up the Bitterroot Valley in Montana...Approximately 800-1000 head. 4000 of those acres are leased from the forest service (now, I have no idea what they PAY for those acres...)

I would hardly call them "fat cats". They ain't exactly livin' in a mansion.

Dave leuschen and Earl Holding up here, and they are millionare and billionare. The cows get all stuffed up on the green summer grass then put on a show of liquid shit shooting for the next three months. Campgrounds, highways, streams, and lakes covered in runny cow shit.

Least when ALL of the elk are gone, there should be no shortage of "slow elk" to dine on.

Some of the small guys here are having success with pasture fed and finished beef because of Chicagos near-bottomless market for organin food and food raised without pesticides and hormones. They use portable fence, overgraze an area, and move the fencing. A guy at the farmer's market who does it says he hasn't had johnson grass come back since he started using that method.

Wedgebuster wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything when a bunch of cattle eat grass on vast tracts of land out west that would otherwise be used for.......well....nothing...

Actually federal grazing permits generate income for the gobment. Unfortunately, and to what Appy is pointing to is the insanely low monthly cost of grazing on federal lands, $1.85 per AUM.

Feeding an animal as large as a cow and her calf(s) on private lands is worth about $30 a month.

This can only be seen as public welfare for the biggest and richest ranching corporations in the country. In my state, that means the Hunts, Philip Anchutz, Earl Holding, and Sam Kroenke.

That's exactly what I'm referring to....have the same issues with forest service land with trees & mining/drilling interests. Don't mind anyone utilizng the land (responsibly) via mining, forestry, grazing, etc. as it is the "people's" land. However, those industries should pay fair market value to cover the costs of both access (roads & other infrastructure) as well as the use itself.

Appaholic wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:

Actually federal grazing permits generate income for the gobment. Unfortunately, and to what Appy is pointing to is the insanely low monthly cost of grazing on federal lands, $1.85 per AUM.

Feeding an animal as large as a cow and her calf(s) on private lands is worth about $30 a month.

This can only be seen as public welfare for the biggest and richest ranching corporations in the country. In my state, that means the Hunts, Philip Anchutz, Earl Holding, and Sam Kroenke.

That's exactly what I'm referring to....have the same issues with forest service land with trees & mining/drilling interests. Don't mind anyone utilizng the land (responsibly) via mining, forestry, grazing, etc. as it is the "people's" land. However, those industries should pay fair market value to cover the costs of both access (roads & other infrastructure) as well as the use itself.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure what my sister's husband's family pays for the grazing rights to the 4,000 acres. I DO know that part of the "expense" is waived because the family maintains the earthen dam at Bass Lake, up in the mountains just East of the Idaho state line. They go up twice a year on horseback and do repairs, etc. for the Forest Service.