CATTLE PRODUCERS OF WASHINGTON 

ban grazing allotments, oppose welfare ranchers

PEOPLE We have to agree on one thing!! These threats from CPOW need shut down! We have the research for fighting against the total banning grazing…. This very grazing is destroying the Environment we have to leave to Our Children’s Children! What do you intend to do about it? Will the Masses allow a few Old West Mentality Ranchers continue issuing threats or will you take action?

PREDATORS MUST BE MANAGED:

No citizen should be forced to allow predators of any kind to kill or maim his flocks, herds, pets, small animals, and in some cases—his family or loved ones.

Since the state or federal government claim ownership or management of these predators, they should be responsible for removing any predator that violates this basic principal.

If these governing bodies are unable or unwilling to perform this requirement, then it becomes the obligation of the county sheriff to perform this task.

If the sheriff is unwilling or unable to accomplish this obligation, then it becomes the right and the duty of the affected citizens to accomplish this very necessary mission.

Source: CATTLE PRODUCERS OF WASHINGTON | Working for the cow-calf producer

Coexistence between wolves and livestock is a delusion with The Old West Mentality

 

protect the wolves, sacred resources,

The next time one of these collaboration rollover groups asks for your money, consider giving your funds elsewhere. Look for organizations that challenge the dominance of livestock on public lands! Look for Organizations that dont roll over and have the Goal of Protecting YOUR Public Lands for you, that have put in the research and have come up with a way to stop this terrible decimation of our environment!

They refuse to acknowledge even that Cattle can be taught, or to recognize Peer Reviewed Science!

Article By George Wuerthner

It is a popular notion among some conservationists that the way to win acceptance for predators like wolves is to work with rural communities and ranchers. Gaining their support certainly helps wildlife managers justify killing packs or individual wolves whenever they prey on cattle.

But these control tactics have limited application. At best, they reduce conflicts in targeted areas and have no significant effect on the distribution or survival of native predators. At worst, they add to the delusion that widespread co-existence between predators and livestock is possible.

The killing of seven members of the Profanity Peak pack in Washington illustrates how a wolf pack paid the ultimate price for merely trying to eke out a living in a place where unfenced domestic livestock had been released to graze.

Hundreds of cattle were released on the allotment, and salt blocks used by cattle were placed near the den site. That led to wolf depredation on cattle followed by the killing of pack members. (More on the Profanity Peak pack here.)

A growing body of scientific research now shows that killing problem wolves often begets yet more conflicts. Whether the killing is done to protect livestock or for “sport” by hunters, it tends to skew wolf populations towards younger animals less skilled at hunting. Loss of individual pack members can also result in changes in a pack’s ability to hold a territory, pushing the animals into new areas where they are less familiar with native prey. Both outcomes often lead to livestock getting killed by wolves.

Even “predator-friendly” operations harm native wildlife. When ranchers use noisemakers like boat horns or firecrackers, shoot at predators to scare them, or otherwise harass wolves and other predators, this hounding and stressing of our wildlife is considered legitimate. But why should conservation organizations pay for range riders or organize volunteers to harass public animals like wolves to protect someone’s private livestock?

In effect, these groups are saying that wolves, coyotes and other native wildlife do not have a “right” to live on public lands that are being exploited by ranchers. Cows, not native to the West, have preference.

If I were to harass elk on a winter range, force bald eagles away from their nests or in other ways harass our wildlife, I would likely risk a fine. If I were to go out into the midst of a herd of sheep grazing on public lands and start shooting guns or firing off firecrackers to stampede the herd, I would risk imprisonment. But when it comes to harrying wolves, somehow this kind of harassment has become legitimate.

The negative impacts of livestock on our native wildlife go even further than harassment or lethal control — something that none of the “collaborative” groups ever mention to their membership or the press. Just the mere presence of domestic livestock often results in the social displacement and abandonment of the area by native ungulates such as elk.

If one assumes that elk select the best habitat for their needs, then displacement to other lands reduces their overall fitness. And we cannot forget that on many public lands, the vast majority of forage is reserved and allotted to domestic livestock, leaving only the leftovers for native wildlife.

If we assume that one of the limiting factors for native wildlife is high-quality forage, and that less nutritious feed means fewer elk, deer and bighorns, then we are literally taking food out of the mouth of our native predators.

When there is a conflict between private livestock grazing public lands and the public’s native wildlife, such as grizzlies, coyotes and wolves, just which animals should be removed? That is a question that “collaboratives” never ask. It is always assumed that if predators are causing problems for ranchers, the predators, not the livestock, should go.

This assumption adds up to direct and indirect subsidies for the livestock industry. As long as the dominant paradigm is that a rancher’s livestock has priority on public lands, we will never fully restore native predators to our lands. That is why we need to reframe the narrative and recognize that domestic livestock are the “problem” for our native wildlife.

 

Source: Coexistence between wolves and livestock is a delusion — High Country News

Cattle grazing is a climate disaster, and you the taxpayer are paying for it 

oppose welfare ranching

The federal government should greatly reduce or  totally eliminate livestock grazing on public lands! They are Mismanaging your Resources!! Join The Howl Today that will be heard around the world!

We now have the Language from a Prominent Trust Expert to call these Ranchers out, and get them off of our Federal Lands. But We will need your help to do it!! Take your Power away from these wealthy Cattle Associations today before they ruin Our Children’s Environment to a point of no reversibility !

The rules governing cattle grazing on federal lands are so obscure that your average climate change correspondent hasn’t given much thought to them. But now that a gang of pathetic losers with guns has occupied a federal wildlife sanctuary in Oregon to gripe about the federal government’s audacity to set rules for how ranchers use publicly owned land, it’s worth taking a look at this policy.

As it turns out, ranchers using federal land, like the Bundy family that is leading the occupation and the Hammond family in whose name they took up arms, are recipients of massive federal subsidies for activities that exacerbate climate change and damage sensitive ecosystems. It’s time the taxpayers stopped indulging these whiny welfare queens and kicked them off the dole.

Why this land matters to the climate

Grasslands are, like trees, essential carbon sinks. Shrubs and grasses breathe in carbon dioxide and thereby regulate atmospheric concentrations of carbon. Loss of grasslands contributes to rising rates of carbon in the atmosphere and therefore to global warming. These lands are also important habitats for threatened species and their ruination contributes to the ongoing massive loss of biodiversity. Only 5 percent of the original grasslands in the U.S. remain.

Climate change can cause the degradation or loss of grasslands because drought and heat waves damage or kill plants. This problem is currently plaguing the West. And, in a vicious cycle, that contributes even more to climate change.

Putting cattle on these grasslands just leads to more problems: The livestock can rip plants to shreds, push other species toward extinction, and turn the land to dust.  “In the arid West, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of species endangerment.” The group explains: “Cattle destroy native vegetation, damage soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned to dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale elimination of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of native fire-carrying grasses has starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone to unnaturally severe fires.”

In 2012, a study by Oregon State researchers found that climate change is worsening environmental stressors on Western grasslands, and therefore the federal government should consider reducing or eliminating livestock grazing on public lands.

At the core of this current kerfuffle in Oregon is a dispute over the penalty for ranchers who illegally set fire to federal grassland. The militants who took over the wildlife sanctuary think the prison sentence set forth in federal law is inherently invalid. But from a climate perspective, the behavior at issue is totally unacceptable.

In the face of an overwhelming climate crisis, you would think the federal government would make preserving and protecting these carbon sinks the overriding purpose of its land management. You would be wrong. Instead, the government leases out 270 million acres of public land in the West for livestock grazing. It’s just as outrageous as leasing out public land for coal mining and oil drilling.

How cattle hurt the climate

Even aside from their impact on grasslands, cattle are terrible for the climate.

Cows emit methane — a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more damaging than carbon over 20 years — when they burp, fart, or poop. As CNN recently noted, “14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry’s role — 65% — comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.” A pound of beef has about the same carbon footprint as driving an average American car 70 miles.

This is far worse than most foods. The Environmental Working Group found that beef has the second highest carbon footprint of any common food after lamb. Pound for pound, it is twice as bad for the climate as cheese and pork, four times worse than chicken, and more than 14 times worse than broccoli.

And that’s not even considering the other unsustainable aspects of beef, such as using land and water much less efficiently than plants or chickens to produce food. There’s just no reason for our government to actively promote cattle raising and beef.

Taxpayers are subsidizing these ranchers

If the federal grazing-lease program were enormously profitable, and the profits were put to some good use, then there would at least be a counterargument in the program’s favor.

Instead, the program is a big money-loser — a giant taxpayer subsidy for an environmentally destructive industry. As FiveThirtyEight points out, “In 2012, the [federal government’s] fees for grazing were 93 percent cheaper than the average market rate in 16 Western states ($1.35 versus $20.10 per AUM, which is a fancy acronym for the amount of land needed to support a cow and her calf for a month).” These minimal grazing fees are the same ones Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy refuses to pay.

Keith Nantz, a rancher in Oregon, wrote Friday in The Washington Post that “many ranchers must lease [federal land] to create a sustainable operation.” By “sustainable,” he means profitable, not eco-friendly. If it’s unprofitable to raise cattle on private land, why is it the taxpayers’ responsibility to bail him out? Some things are worth taxpayer dollars: education, national defense, health care. But beef?

What should we do?

The public should use the land it owns not for subsidized, carbon-intensive economic activities like cattle grazing and fossil fuel development, but for climate change mitigation and adaptation and habitat preservation.

Nantz complained in the Post that the federal government pushes ranchers around by creating new rules to protect endangered wildlife. He wants the feds to defer more to the ranchers on issues like whether to protect endangered species.

OK, here’s my counter-offer: Nothing. You don’t like being told where, when, and how to graze your cattle on public land? Then get them off public land. The ranchers frame their complaint as being about government overreach, but what they really object to is federal policies that balance their interests with others’.

The Bundys, their compatriots, and the politicians who kiss their asses, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, argue that states and individuals should be able to misuse grasslands ad infinitum. But if the federal government were to hand them over to anyone, the morally and ecologically responsible recipients would be the Native Americans from whom this land was originally stolen in the first place, not a rentier class of entitled white men who want to exploit it.

Source: Cattle grazing is a climate disaster, and you’re paying for it | Grist

Study paid for by Beef Council, tries to gain credibility

protect the wolves

Bob did a good Job at ridiculing the study, but could use some assistance, so we volunteered to educate the Public.

You forgot to mention just how biased the whole “20” minute Results were being paid for by the Oregon Beef Council… to go along with how much Ranchers Love their Cows…. sure do…. all the way to the bank with no remorse on methods of slaughter.
  Ranchers Should be prohibited from owning any more livestock than their own land will support on its Own. That means no imported feed btw. Being the single largest source of destruction to our environment, right behind humans justifies that request…
That study is a sad attempt to once again place a shadow over Our Sacred Species.  Would have been better to have had a Traditional Native American response in there Winking smile Although with all of the corruption, greed and influence coming out of the Cattlemen’s Groups…..  probably wouldn’t have made any difference. Especially these days…. when a Reporter promises to print the real study….. they don’t even come close as evidenced by Our last Interviews in Wyoming.

So right away the Burns-based animals have home-field advantage.

Not to mention the fact that the Idaho-based herd might have been feeling a bit of stress if they thought they would have to spend the rest of their life in the remoteness that is Burns.

“The animals were separated into different pens scented with wolf urine. Wolf howls were piped in over a stereo. Three trained dogs that resemble wolves — two German shepherds and one collie-Alaskan malamute — paced outside the corral during the 20-minute study period.”

Yep, my college professors always told me there’s nothing like a 20-minute study period.

Bob we couldnt help but LOL, they couldnt even bother with a Peer Review like real Studies, Probably because Oregon Beef Council footed the bill

According to Cooke, “The cows from Burns couldn’t care less, but bloodwork from the cows from Idaho showed biomarkers indicating extreme stress.”

Yes Bob, thats because they were just shipped on a truck, thinking it was their last ride!

That’s what 20 minutes in Burns will do to you.

Trust me on this. I’ve been there.

In the decades-long battle between those who love wolves and those who raise cattle, a new study from Oregon State University suggests that cattle that witnessed a wolf attack on their herd never forget the experience.

Which, I suppose, is no surprise. Then again, if cattle worry about their own mortality, they should be more concerned with the folks raising them than with a pack of hungry wolves.

I learned about the innermost fears of cows from reading Andrew Theen’s piece in The Oregonian, one of the few “statewide” newspapers remaining in our country.

Wrote Theen, “Cows whose herd comes under attack by wolves remember the experience and show symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, Oregon researchers say.”

I’m not sure cows can experience anything even remotely akin to PTSD, but the story did catch my attention.

Theen cites a study by Oregon State professor Reinaldo Cooke that appeared recently in the Journal of Animal Science, which explains why I missed it the first time.

“When wolves attack a herd of cattle, Cooke said in an interview, the surviving animals’ life experience is ‘completely altered’ by the event.

Animals become jumpier around humans and pets, the cows give birth to smaller calves, and the animals are more likely to get sick.”

Full disclosure, Cooke’s study was paid for by the Oregon Beef Council, which was no doubt pleased with its findings.

Noted Cooke, “Those cows are grazing out there, man, and they know what wolves can do. Every time they hear wolves howling, even if it’s two miles away, they go through the stress process. Every time they do that, they don’t eat, they’re always on alert.”

Fair enough, but I suspect that’s a concern best raised with Mother Nature.

“Oregon Wild, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, criticized the use of PTSD to describe nature. ‘PTSD is a very serious condition afflicting millions of Americans,’ Oregon Wild said in a statement. ‘It is incredibly disrespectful for it to be used by an industry association to make a point that should be obvious to anyone who has ever seen a nature documentary: prey don’t like predators.’ ”

Prey also doesn’t like predators.

What really intrigued me was the “experiment” that was run to justify the conclusion.

“OSU took 10 cows from a commercial herd in Idaho that survived a wolf attack to Burns (Oregon) for the project. They also gathered Burns-based animals that had never seen a wolf.”

So right away the Burns-based animals have home-field advantage.

Not to mention the fact that the Idaho-based herd might have been feeling a bit of stress if they thought they would have to spend the rest of their life in the remoteness that is Burns.

“The animals were separated into different pens scented with wolf urine. Wolf howls were piped in over a stereo. Three trained dogs that resemble wolves — two German shepherds and one collie-Alaskan malamute — paced outside the corral during the 20-minute study period.”

Yep, my college professors always told me there’s nothing like a 20-minute study period.

According to Cooke, “The cows from Burns couldn’t care less, but bloodwork from the cows from Idaho showed biomarkers indicating extreme stress.”

That’s what 20 minutes in Burns will do to you.

Trust me on this. I’ve been there.

Source: Bob Dunning: Even cows feel stressed when they’re threatened

Protect The Wolves

Facebook By Weblizar Powered By Weblizar

Categories

%d bloggers like this: