Grizzly Bears, Livestock, and Payments....

[JoseCuervo]

Ranching in Idaho and Montana is a pretty safe game. Everytime some wolf or bear eats one of your range maggots, you get a check from the Environmental groups.

GRIZZLY BEAR LIVESTOCK KILLS DROP IN 2004; ONLY 26 LIVESTOCK LOSSES REPORTED


Defenders of Wildlife Payments to Affected Ranchers Drop by $6,000

MISSOULA, Mont. - Defenders of Wildlife paid $12,795 in grizzly bear compensation funds to ranchers and sheep growers in 2004, representing a 32% drop from the previous year. Payments were for one horse, 9 cattle and 13 sheep that were confirmed kills by grizzly bears and an additional three calves that were most likely bear kills. In all, Defenders has paid $112,668 in compensation from The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust since its founding in 1997.

“Prevention and compensation are crucial for grizzly bear recovery in the West. While overall losses may be small, individual ranchers feel the sting when it’s their sheep or cattle.” said Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife. “These initiatives help prevent problems in the first place, and promptly compensate local people when they do occur.”

Defenders works to reduce the number of conflicts in grizzly habitat through The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Proactive Carnivore Conservation program. This approach uses cost share agreements to prevent problems with large carnivores. Projects include erecting electric fencing to create secure calving grounds and sheep bedding grounds; purchasing livestock guardian dogs; and retiring grazing allotments in key habitat. Since its creation, Defenders has invested $191,462 for 53 pro active projects that directly curtails grizzly bear and human conflicts.

“Defenders of Wildlife believes our program is making a difference and we will continue to work in cooperation with private landowners and state, tribal and federal officials on preventing grizzly bear conflicts,” said Minette Johnson, Northern Rockies Field Representative for Defenders. “And although we are very worried about the record number (31) of grizzly bear deaths in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem this year, we know none were killed as a result of conflicts with livestock.”

Livestock losses to grizzly bears average just 16 cattle and 19 sheep a year in Montana and Idaho compared to total losses of 173,000 cattle and 65,000 sheep due to other causes in 2003 according the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yearly compensation payments for grizzly bear damage average $14,865 a year, ranging from a record low of $10,679 in 2002 to a high of $18,919 in 2003. Defenders’ compensation program covers losses in Montana and Idaho only, since the state of Wyoming has their own program.
Defenders pay 50% of the full market value when the cause of death of the livestock cannot be verified but circumstantial evidence suggests that it was probably a grizzly bear.

For maps and other details on grizzly compensation visit www.defenders.org/wildlife/grizzly/grizcomp.html.

For more information on The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Proactive Carnivore Conservation program visit www.defenders.org/wildlife/new/facts/pro.html.

Defenders of Wildlife is one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and habitat, and was named as one of America's Top 100 Charities by Worth magazine. With more than 480,000 members and supporters, Defenders is an effective voice for wildlife and habitat. To learn more about Defenders of Wildlife, please visit www.defenders.org.

 

[A-con]

Key words being "confirmed" and "most likely".
I have been told (by a Montana rancher) that the burdon of proof (that it was grizzly or a wolf predatation) is completly on the rancher, and so high that only a small fraction ever get compansated.
I'm just repeating what I heard, but it makes sense. If the ranchers really could get paid for all their losses, why would they oppose wolfs and grizzlys ?

So before we get into a pissing contest, whats your opinion Gunner, do the ranchers really get paid for all (or most) of their losses from grizzlys and wolfs ? or is this just another smoke screen to devirt attention from the truth as I have been told.

 

[BuzzH]

A-con,

I wouldnt believe anything that comes out of the mouth of most ranchers in MT or anywhere else.

When was the last time you heard one say he was getting a great deal for grazing a cow/calf pair on BLM or FS land for a whopping $1.48 an AUM?

The formula used to calculate their loss is 165% value for any confirmed loss. The theory is that it makes up for the ones they cant confirm.

I personally think they shouldnt get a damn thing, like any other business they should assume the risk involved with their CHOICE of a business.

If some crook robs a store, the defenders of retailers dont compensate the store for 165% of the value of the stolen goods.

More welfare for ranchers, they take with both hands.

 

[Nemont]

I wouldnt believe anything that comes out of the mouth of most ranchers in MT or anywhere else.

When was the last time you heard one say he was getting a great deal for grazing a cow/calf pair on BLM or FS land for a whopping $1.48 an AUM?

The formula used to calculate their loss is 165% value for any confirmed loss. The theory is that it makes up for the ones they cant confirm.

I personally think they shouldnt get a damn thing, like any other business they should assume the risk involved with their CHOICE of a business.

If some crook robs a store, the defenders of retailers dont compensate the store for 165% of the value of the stolen goods.

More welfare for ranchers, they take with both hands

.

Buzz,
You sometimes take the cake. First off why do you think Defenders compensates ranchers? It is a voluntary payment not tied to the government. Did you read the article at all?

“Defenders of Wildlife believes our program is making a difference and we will continue to work in cooperation with private landowners and state, tribal and federal officials on preventing grizzly bear conflicts

Even the part that says they work to reduce grazing allotments that are in areas that could lead to grizzly vs. cattle should be viewed positively.

Did you take a look at the map of compensated kills?

did you read this part:

Defenders of Wildlife is one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and habitat, and was named as one of America's Top 100 Charities by Worth magazine. With more than 480,000 members and supporters, Defenders is an effective voice for wildlife and habitat. To learn more about Defenders of Wildlife, please visit

You must have a hell of an ego to assume that you know more then an organization that is in the business of habitat and wildlife protection.

NO WHERE IN THE ARTICLE DID IT MENTION PUBLIC LANDS RANCHERS OR THE BLM OR THE FS. I think why you don't like the defenders PRIVATE program is that it shows cooperation with ranchers and that it can work. Your hatred doesn't allow you to consider cooperation with anyone.

I also can't figure out why you would oppose a voluntary, non government payment to any group. You say you are for wildlife then explain what is wrong with this program. I have no doubt you understand public lands policy and such but sometimes you become a raving idiot when your hatred shines through.


A-con I will say this. The rancher you talked to is incorrect This is direct from the Defenders website:

Through The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust, if a landowner suspects that a grizzly has killed livestock, he or she should cover the remains with a tarp, to protect the remains, and immediately call state or federal officials. Defenders relies on those officials, tribal biologists or animal damage control experts to examine suspected losses and confirm or deny the claims. If agency officials verify that a grizzly bear killed the livestock, an agency representative fills out a report and sends it to Defenders of Wildlife. There is no paperwork for the rancher

.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Ranchers know the risk of wolves and grizzlies, they shouldnt be compensated for known risks. If they dont like the assumed risks, get a different job.

End of story.

Sorry, but in my opinion they deserve nothing for predator losses.

 

[Nemont]

Your analysis is a little flawed. First you say this:

If some crook robs a store, the defenders of retailers dont compensate the store for 165% of the value of the stolen goods.

Then you say:

Ranchers know the risk of wolves and grizzlies, they shouldnt be compensated for known risks. If they dont like the assumed risks, get a different job.

Why don't you berate the retailers for going into business knowing there is a risk they may be robbed. The retailers have the option of purchasing insurance against the loss associated with a robbery. Have you tried to buy insurance against a grizzly or wolf kill. Doesn't exists, therefore Defenders filsl the place of the insurance company. They do it voluntarily and is doesn't cost the taxpayer any money.

Granted the ranchers didn't pay a premium to Defenders for that insurance but conversely the retailers don't have their government working to increase the number of robbers who may rob their stores. The government is working hard to increase both the grizzly and wolf population which will lead to higher predator losses.

That is all.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

All business comes with risks, some accept it, other expect someone else to accept it for them.

If a retailer BUYS insurance, they're paying their way.

Do these ranchers that accept money from Defenders of Wildlife belong to the organization at least and pay dues like other people who belong to the DOW? Do they pay a similar amount to them that would an insurance agency?

Let me just take a guess on that....

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
I edited the above post addressing the payment of premium prior to reading your response.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Double post.

 

[280]

neumont is schooling buzz

 

[BuzzH]

280....

Speaking of schooling, you must lack plenty...

I believe its Nemont not neumont, and also you must have been asleep last week when your third grade teacher taught you about using upper and lower case letters.

 

[280]

Nemont is schooling Buzz!



damn i crack myself up!

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Nice try with this one here: "The government is working hard to increase both the grizzly and wolf population which will lead to higher predator losses."

The government is REQUIRED by law to increase the number of grizzlies and wolves as per the Endangered Species Act. Since ranchers that live and operate in the United States live under the laws and regulations of the United States, elect officials that make the laws, etc. they should again know the risks involved with living under the various laws. If they dont, thats their problem.

 

[Nemont]

Since ranchers that live and operate in the United States live under the laws and regulations of the United States, elect officials that make the laws, etc. they should again know the risks involved with living under the various laws. If they dont, thats their problem.

You know what, I agree with that, accpetance of risk is part of life and living under the laws and regulation is the way it is. . What I am having a tough time figuring is why you care that Defender's is willing to step up and pay for private property losses.

Please Note I don't view it as "schooling" you. I am trying to figure out why you view it as something that is equal, or a least akin to, public lands grazing. Private rancher is compesated by private foundation. What could possibly be wrong with that?

It is not the same thing as a someone robbing a retail establishment. Totally different scenario.

What is an acceptable amount of loss for a livestock producer? They can't (or at aren't supposed to) shoot the offending grizzly or wolf, they can't purchase insurance against the loss to predators, even if the cattle stay on private deeded land the predators don't respect those boundaries so what should a producer do. Accept the losses or accept a volutary payment from a private source?

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

Every Rancher I met at the wolf meetings said they could care less about getting compensated for their lost livestock. What they wanted was to be able to protect their livestock when and if they needed to. No permits, no phone calls to USFWS for permision, no threat of legal action if they did. Now they can protect there livestock, and I bet this issue will be a non issue soon, at least concerning the wolves.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

My biggest complaint is that in nearly every single freaking aspect of managing the land or wildlife, ranchers have something to bitch about.

Let me set the scene here:

The elk/deer eat our hay and crops, why? Because 60% of public lands are in poor condition due to grazing. Where would you rather live if you were a deer/elk on over-grazed public land or nice private land? Oh, and guess who's getting to only pay $1.48 an AUM, and taking with both hands?

Next step, landowner wants the FWP to get those pesky critters off their land, but the hunters litter on our land, tear up the roads, leave gates open, etc. Plus I want some money for all that "damage" and for letting the hunters on. Great, hears some Block Management money, take with both hands again. Better idea, lets lobby the FWP for landowner tags so we can sell them for whatever we can get out of the PUBLIC wildlife, take with both hands again. If the landowner doesnt want compensation for hunting or want to allow hunting, then they expect damage money from the State, take with both hands again.

Then, under the law, the government increases the griz and wolf population, which in turn, according to the same ranchers are "killing all the elk" that they have too many of and want shot anyway...but the catch is they kill a cow every now and then. They want money for that too, take with both hands again.

No matter what, the one group that sacrifices nearly nothing and gets something for nothing, in nearly every case is the welfare rancher. They arent happy with taking the occasional handout, they whole-heartedly expect to be compensated or subsidized nearly every step of the way in every single way possible.

What deals to other businesses get that come even close to this kind of assurance?

Not one.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
Did the ranchers demand payment from Defender's? I don't know I am asking.

Are you telling me that deer and elk wouldn't prefer to feed on hay meadows even if the public lands are in good condition? That is not what I have observed around here. Even on some of the Huge ranchers that are all private land and the range is in good condition the elk and deer still prefer hay meadows and grain fields. The scene is not as neat and compact as you say it is.

The article didn't mention welfare ranchers, once. It didn't even hint that it was an issue regarding public lands.

As for what other industry gets subsidized: Sugar farming, Gallo wineries, Multi Nations corporations with marketing, anyone living in a western state, the list is long and distinguished of people at the trough. It isn't just ranchers.


BTW I am not pro landowners permits nor am I saying ranchers are innocent in all of this. I think that if a landowner doesn't allow public hunting then NO money for damage should ever be paid period. But that isn't the issue in this.
Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I dont know if they demanded any compensation, but in the EIS for wolf reintro. there was mention of ranchers being compensated by the DOW.

The thing that bothers me is most ranchers bitch and complain about everything, in fact, I've met very few that didnt bitch about predators, weather, cattle prices, big-game, small-game, hunters, BLM, FS, State, politics, tree-huggers, Game Departments, taxes, the government, etc. etc.

If I ever meet a rancher that can carry on a conversation for 10 minutes without bitching about something eating away his profits, I'll buy them a pack of marlboros and a fifth of crown royal.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,

Fair enough. I agree that rancher enjoy griping about just about everything. Locally here they all pretty much hate the FWP regardless of what it does or does not do. So agreed.

Also most of the ranchers I know have quit smoking and now chew Copenhagen, most don't drink the good stuff instead prefer Black Velvet. So maybe you would want to offer up Cope. and BV.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Ok, how about copenhagen and Crown Royal. I figure if I buy them the expensive stuff, they wont find something else to bitch about...