Wolves filling up on cattle in SW Alta.

[Grizzly Adams]

From Alberta Farmer.

http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/201...stern-alberta/

Grizz

[wwbirds]

Guess it doesn't surprize anyone. Would you tackle a moose or elk if cows were readily available and offered so much less less resistance.
When glassing for elk and moose we often refer to "slow moose" if we see a cow in the foothills.

[338Bluff]

This statement grinds my gears!

"Ranchers who lose cattle to wolves, cougars, or bears can receive compensation funded by revenues from hunting and fishing licences, paid by the Alberta Conservation Association and the provincial government."

If my licence fees have to pay for something it had better be 1080, snare wire, helicopter flight time and cartridges.

[calgarychef]

I'm happy to pay the landowners for depredation losses from our licence
Fees. Just as I'm happy to hunt on their land. Hopefully they'll remember that when I go and respectfully ask permission to hunt.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I'm happy to pay the landowners for depredation losses from our licence
Fees. Just as I'm happy to hunt on their land. Hopefully they'll remember that when I go and respectfully ask permission to hunt.

Sure they will remember. They will remember you had no choice or say in the matter and would of bought your licence anyway regardless. Lol, wonder how many would donate to the fund if it was separate from licensing fees....

[358 win]

They dont get the full value of animal.

[KBF]

Originally Posted by 358 win

They dont get the full value of animal.

X2. And when talking to some individuals who have lost livestock don't get anything.
All to common to be denied because not enough evidence that the animal wasn't sick and fed on later. As well to much had been eaten to confirm what kind of death.
So guys are happy if they get anything.

[Zuludog]

Hopefully landowners will grant access so that hunters can the wolves.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by KBF

X2. And when talking to some individuals who have lost livestock don't get anything.
All to common to be denied because not enough evidence that the animal wasn't sick and fed on later. As well to much had been eaten to confirm what kind of death.
So guys are happy if they get anything.

Usually not very hard to tell at all. If an animal dies from sickness the area is confined and not much blood. If an animal is pulled down while alive there is a struggle area and a lot of blood throughout the area and I mean a lot of blood.

[waterninja]

I'm really "biting my tounge" on this thread, but I will say that wolves seem to be getting out of control all over AB.

[KBF]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Usually not very hard to tell at all. If an animal dies from sickness the area is confined and not much blood. If an animal is pulled down while alive there is a struggle area and a lot of blood throughout the area and I mean a lot of blood.

That you are correct. that's what I'm saying is that's the excuse 90% of the time when it gets investigated.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I'm happy to pay the landowners for depredation losses from our licence
Fees. Just as I'm happy to hunt on their land. Hopefully they'll remember that when I go and respectfully ask permission to hunt.

I'm pretty sure they would rather not have their stock getting killed and eaten by wolves. Not saying that they don't need compensation but fix the problem and keep your bandaids.
If my favourite cow gets killed by a wolf pack the weekly auction market average is poor compensation. Don't forget the frustration factor involved in trying to convince the government that it was an actual kill and not scavenged.

Spend the money on a cull.

[molly]

Why not increase the grazing fees and take the compensation out of that? Really, why should hunting licenses pay for the predation of livestock? Hublet and I spoke about this very thing this summer to a rancher down there, a friend of ours, who has suffered loss of cattle to wolves and he agreed with us 100%.

[schmedlap]

And I am someone with no ranching or real farming experience ... admitted, so don't go off on me as some "urban" idiot (?).

The wolves were here long before the cattle. Ranching is a business (or is it now a publicly subsidized non business?). One of the risks of the business, conducted in wolf territory, is predation from wolves, et al. (cougars, grizzlies, etc.). There are available means of mitigation (such as various beasts that deter wolves, like Sicilian Donkeys, or just plain human shepherds?). So, your solution is to kill all the native beasts, at public expense, or to compensate businessmen, who take the well-known business risk (?) of just such predation, voluntarily (?). Sorry, it makes very little sense to me - and I am a business-person with the very different risks inherent in my own business.

So, give me your rational arguments as to why I should support public efforts, at public expense, to kill off the natural and original inhabitants of the land, just because it is inconvenient to your particular industry. Tell me why it is more important to serve your direct interests than to preserve just a little corner of "nature" for my kids. Tell me where I have erred in my viewpoint. I will be very objective in assessment of rational, unselfish, arguments.

[H380]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

And I am someone with no ranching or real farming experience ... admitted, so don't go off on me as some "urban" idiot (?).

The wolves were here long before the cattle. Ranching is a business (or is it now a publicly subsidized non business?). One of the risks of the business, conducted in wolf territory, is predation from wolves, et al. (cougars, grizzlies, etc.). There are available means of mitigation (such as various beasts that deter wolves, like Sicilian Donkeys, or just plain human shepherds?). So, your solution is to kill all the native beasts, at public expense, or to compensate businessmen, who take the well-known business risk (?) of just such predation, voluntarily (?). Sorry, it makes very little sense to me - and I am a business-person with the very different risks inherent in my own business.

So, give me your rational arguments as to why I should support public efforts, at public expense, to kill off the natural and original inhabitants of the land, just because it is inconvenient to your particular industry. Tell me why it is more important to serve your direct interests than to preserve just a little corner of "nature" for my kids. Tell me where I have erred in my viewpoint. I will be very objective in assessment of rational, unselfish, arguments.

This could get interesting real fast .

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by 358 win

They dont get the full value of animal.

Ranchers who lose cattle to wolves, cougars, or bears can receive compensation funded by revenues from hunting and fishing licences, paid by the Alberta Conservation Association and the provincial government.

“If you have a confirmed loss due to predation for any animal except for coyotes, 100 per cent of the market value is reimbursed,” said Boyce.

I don't get this at all. Why would hunters have to pay for a farmer's cow? I could see compensation for damage from ungulates if in fact they allowed hunting to help control the population.

[Kaz Dog]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

And I am someone with no ranching or real farming experience ... admitted, so don't go off on me as some "urban" idiot (?).

The wolves were here long before the cattle. Ranching is a business (or is it now a publicly subsidized non business?). One of the risks of the business, conducted in wolf territory, is predation from wolves, et al. (cougars, grizzlies, etc.). There are available means of mitigation (such as various beasts that deter wolves, like Sicilian Donkeys, or just plain human shepherds?). So, your solution is to kill all the native beasts, at public expense, or to compensate businessmen, who take the well-known business risk (?) of just such predation, voluntarily (?). Sorry, it makes very little sense to me - and I am a business-person with the very different risks inherent in my own business.

So, give me your rational arguments as to why I should support public efforts, at public expense, to kill off the natural and original inhabitants of the land, just because it is inconvenient to your particular industry. Tell me why it is more important to serve your direct interests than to preserve just a little corner of "nature" for my kids. Tell me where I have erred in my viewpoint. I will be very objective in assessment of rational, unselfish, arguments.

Good logic, that I can see!

[338Bluff]

Meh. Dont feed the trolls.....or the wolves! LOL

[H380]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Ranchers who lose cattle to wolves, cougars, or bears can receive compensation funded by revenues from hunting and fishing licences, paid by the Alberta Conservation Association and the provincial government.

“If you have a confirmed loss due to predation for any animal except for coyotes, 100 per cent of the market value is reimbursed,” said Boyce.

I don't get this at all. Why would hunters have to pay for a farmer's cow? I could see compensation for damage from ungulates if in fact they allowed hunting to help control the population.

The bold type statement is a total joke . A local colony lost almost 20 head of sheep in the last 2 years to our nonexistent grizzlies and hasnt received a cent .

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by H380

The bold type statement is a total joke . A local colony lost almost 20 head of sheep in the last 2 years to our nonexistent grizzlies and hasnt received a cent .

It says in the article that missing animals don't count. Is there anything left for evidence when a Grizzly takes a sheep?

[Bushmonkey]

To my knowledge (I have a bit of knowledge of AB farming.. not a lot)
-If F and W determine its a predator kill, farmer gets auction value. It's a good deal for the farmer.
-it's VERY tough to get a officer to verify it was a predator kill. They seem to use every excuse they can to say it wasn't.
-not all farm animals get compentsation. Only those that are considered revenue I believe. So cows yes, donkey no.

-farmers HAVE to have livestock insurance. If their cow get's out and gets hit by a car, this insurance pays the damage done by the cow. If they have a predator kill, it should come from this insurance, not from liscense costs.

[Bushmonkey]

Originally Posted by H380

The bold type statement is a total joke . A local colony lost almost 20 head of sheep in the last 2 years to our nonexistent grizzlies and hasnt received a cent .

most likely because F and W won't say its a predator kill. If they say it is, they get the cash. If they say no, they don't get a cent

[Bushmonkey]

Originally Posted by MK2750

It says in the article that missing animals don't count. Is there anything left for evidence when a Grizzly takes a sheep?

This is the point I made with a officer before.

Not many farmers can count their head everyday. So even if they count every 2nd day and realize one head is missing. It's tough to sometimes find a bone from that animal. Most often by the time you find a missing animal, there is nothing left to determine it was a predator kill. F and W officer's will always say "well the animal probably died of sickness and than the predators found it after it died".

The only way you'll get a confirmed predator kill is if you find the kill within an hour of it happening (for wolves and coyotes anyways)

[roper1]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

And I am someone with no ranching or real farming experience ... admitted, so don't go off on me as some "urban" idiot (?).

The wolves were here long before the cattle. Ranching is a business (or is it now a publicly subsidized non business?). One of the risks of the business, conducted in wolf territory, is predation from wolves, et al. (cougars, grizzlies, etc.). There are available means of mitigation (such as various beasts that deter wolves, like Sicilian Donkeys, or just plain human shepherds?). So, your solution is to kill all the native beasts, at public expense, or to compensate businessmen, who take the well-known business risk (?) of just such predation, voluntarily (?). Sorry, it makes very little sense to me - and I am a business-person with the very different risks inherent in my own business.

So, give me your rational arguments as to why I should support public efforts, at public expense, to kill off the natural and original inhabitants of the land, just because it is inconvenient to your particular industry. Tell me why it is more important to serve your direct interests than to preserve just a little corner of "nature" for my kids. Tell me where I have erred in my viewpoint. I will be very objective in assessment of rational, unselfish, arguments.

Reasonable post but one miniscule $$$ compared to what we pay twits that build in flood plains, houses, roads, railways, the odd skating rink......

[KBF]

Originally Posted by MK2750

It says in the article that missing animals don't count. Is there anything left for evidence when a Grizzly takes a sheep?

Read his statement again. Think about it, if they were lost the word grizzly would not have been mentioned.
Lost as in they were taken by a grizzly, killed, eaten. Actually in this case they were torn up and several had to be put down in the end.

Know the colony well. Bears hit on 2 occasions. The second time was 1 week short of a year apart.

And the fact that the sow was caught in a live trap. Cubs caught next evening.
And these bears were 25 miles from the mountains.

[lannie]

Originally Posted by KBF

Read his statement again. Think about it, if they were lost the word grizzly would not have been mentioned.
Lost as in they were taken by a grizzly, killed, eaten. Actually in this case they were torn up and several had to be put down in the end.

Know the colony well. Bears hit on 2 occasions. The second time was 1 week short of a year apart.

And the fact that the sow was caught in a live trap. Cubs caught next evening.
And these bears were 25 miles from the mountains.

Livingstone Colony had a bunch of sheep killed by a grizz. Is this the same place you are discussing?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by H380

The bold type statement is a total joke . A local colony lost almost 20 head of sheep in the last 2 years to our nonexistent grizzlies and hasnt received a cent .

Or maybe they didn't receive a cent because sheep are NOT included in the predator compensation program?

[skidderman]

If a farmer gets compensated for a cow what he does not get is future generations that cow would have produced which is the real purpose of raising cattle. I for one have no problem seeing farmers get compensated. What does it matter where it comes from. Do people actually think the licence money doesn't go into general revenue? As far as permission goes it is idiot hunters that think they have the right to hunt that is causing permission to be shut down. No need to blame the farmers, just look in the mirror. If someone came into your yard without permission and ran over your lawn what would you think? Some people just don't get it and likely never will.

[deerguy]

Ah yeah, good to see so,e of the anti rancher type come out of the woodwork. Reimburse the rancher, this is a no brainer. The only stipulation I'd have is he has to allow hunting.

[Newellknik]

More predator hunters ....like in the USA .you never see doggies outside
Of national parks down there. I understand ranchers
Nobody on their land and cow insurance . Nice ! Obviously you can't
Have it both ways ......Start poisoning them again .....What's more
Important a few dead birds or steak on the plate ....pass the salt
And pepper .