Oregon Wolves...The Next Spotted Owl

[marshworm]

Just finished reading through ALL of the posts on EVERY wolf thread. No wonder Mz. Ifish needed to create another room for us to play in

First off let me be clear I am not a fan of the wolves however I am smart enough to know that total eradication of them is not an item on the table.

In the 60's if someone said "one day there will be no logging on public lands anymore" they would have been labled dummer than a pile of sawdust. A spotted bird changed the landscape and the lives of all of us albeit some more than others. I can't remember the last time I read or heard anything good or bad on how the little feathered fella is doing? But the rest of us well we yelled screamed and cussed as the plight of the logging industry was argued over and finally settled by those "smarter than us" and over time we adapted as one mill after another closed.

In the 80's if someone said one day there will be no cattle grazing on public lands anymore they would have been labled dummer than a cow pie.
This time the "spotted owl" has no wings, four legs, sharp teeth and prefers filet mignon rather than mice and shrews. I'm hearing, reading and watching daily as the same story unfolds before us. We all are yelling, screaming and cussing as the plight of the cattle industry is being argued over and will be one day settled by those "smarter than us" and with time we will adapt again as one ranch after another stops grazing their cows on public lands.

I have the same sad feelings for the cattle industry today as I did for the logging industry years ago. Beef when I buy it is going to cost me more just like lumber did and still does. The ranchers lives are going to be turned upside down, the hunters are going to have more competition, the naturalists well with the help of the "spotted wolf" they will get what they wanted with this one just as they did before. And in the end we will all adapt again.

As this wolf saga unfolds remember come election time that laws, rules and regulations are made not by the ODFW but rather by the Oregon legislature and the folks we send to Washington. Who is really responsible for the killing of cattle in eastern Oregon?

[johndeeregreen]

Congradulations with nailing it on the head. Very well said.

[flipperdog]

You may be scoffed at by "lupis lovers" but you are right on!!!!
When I lived in Montana, I remember Montanans smirking at the state I was born and grew up in. We are following in California's footsteps, and notice, that state is not on any upswing. Boy are we in for a tough ride!!!!

[fishhead69]

I know first hand from research Ive done in the past, comments Ive read, that Enviro agendas change with always the times.
First it was spotted owl, then logging, then cougars and bear, now public lands grazing, then it will be road densities,,(wait, thats already happening!), then wolves, then,,whatever they think of next.
Its a cycle, (issue, agenda, success, move on) to the next one.

[Pan Fry]

What you need is to get some of those ranchers into the legistlative offices. I would guess you'd see some rapid changes or suggestions in wolf managment pronto. I lived in Oregon most of my life, enjoyed it and visit my folks often.
I now live in Idaho and we have a rancher as our Govenor.
He's a big advocate for sportsmen and pro wolf management. He went toe to toe with the Feds on the wolves. I'm aware the political atmosphere differs quite a bit between the two states. But......it would be effective.

[Don Becker]

Several posts were removed. Let's be mindful of the rules for this sub-forum, please. Ifish Staff

[Keta]

Originally Posted by fishhead69

I that Enviro agendas change with always the times.

Their "agenda" does not change but they use different tools to obtain their final solution.

[crabbait]

Originally Posted by marshworm

./.
In the 60's if someone said "one day there will be no logging on public lands anymore" they would have been labled dummer than a pile of sawdust. A spotted bird changed the landscape and the lives of all of us albeit some more than others. I can't remember the last time I read or heard anything good or bad on how the little feathered fella is doing? But the rest of us well we yelled screamed and cussed as the plight of the logging industry was argued over and finally settled by those "smarter than us" and over time we adapted as one mill after another closed.

That's interesting. As I recall, the mills closed because it was more profitable for the timber industry to ship whole logs prompting a law banning exportation of whole logs from public land (while they continue to ship whole from private land).

In the 80s we were cutting far faster than the trees grew. The log truck drivers on the CB radio complained constantly that they couldn't make any money hauling the "p-poles" that were left. The timber industry wanted to log the remaining old growth since they had nearly expended other profitable forests. That is where the spotted owl came in as I recall.

As for "no logging on public lands", 2010 showed between a 26% and 32% increase in timber harvest on public lands to over 500 million board feet despite a very soft housing market. Read it yourselves right here:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/newsroom/n...1/NR1136.shtml

Originally Posted by marshworm

In the 80's if someone said one day there will be no cattle grazing on public lands anymore they would have been labled dummer than a cow pie.
This time the "spotted owl" has no wings, four legs, sharp teeth and prefers filet mignon rather than mice and shrews. I'm hearing, reading and watching daily as the same story unfolds before us. We all are yelling, screaming and cussing as the plight of the cattle industry is being argued over and will be one day settled by those "smarter than us" and with time we will adapt again as one ranch after another stops grazing their cows on public lands.

I have the same sad feelings for the cattle industry today as I did for the logging industry years ago. Beef when I buy it is going to cost me more just like lumber did and still does. The ranchers lives are going to be turned upside down, the hunters are going to have more competition, the naturalists well with the help of the "spotted wolf" they will get what they wanted with this one just as they did before. And in the end we will all adapt again.

As this wolf saga unfolds remember come election time that laws, rules and regulations are made not by the ODFW but rather by the Oregon legislature and the folks we send to Washington. Who is really responsible for the killing of cattle in eastern Oregon?

Why should the public subsidize cattle ranching on public land? I can understand the need to control predator numbers to protect wildlife but cattle aren't the public's business. Predation is just part of the cost of doing business.

[Keta]

Originally Posted by crabbait

Why should the public subsidize cattle ranching on public land? .

The grazing leases are at market value, not a subsidy.

[Smoked Salmon]

Are there two separate issues in both these situations?

As far as the spotted owl goes, there was a decline in mill activity in the late 80s/early 90s anyway, and while the closure didn't do mills any favors, it wasn't the sole cause of the industry shift.

Now we have a situation where a lot of people are questioning (for the past decade) the practice of private cattle grazing on public lands. Enter the wolf, which is going to become a scapegoat for the beef industry. They're going to have to graze private land "because" of the wolf, not because of the decades of damage they have done to the public resource. I'm sure we'll see some prices increase, but it won't be because grazing private is any more expensive than grazing public. After all, the government charges market value for the lease. Right?

[Vans]

Originally Posted by Keta

The grazing leases are at market value, not a subsidy.

Has there actually been a modern study of the financial impact of cattle on public lands? Considering the habitat destruction they cause it seem unlikely that current lease costs do not accurately reflect the true cost to the tax payer.

[nehalemguy]

Originally Posted by Vans

Has there actually been a modern study of the financial impact of cattle on public lands? Considering the habitat destruction they cause it seem unlikely that current lease costs do not accurately reflect the true cost to the tax payer.

Can you please post this study and its origin?

E

[Keta]

Originally Posted by Vans

Has there actually been a modern study of the financial impact of cattle on public lands? Considering the habitat destruction they cause it seem unlikely that current lease costs do not accurately reflect the true cost to the tax payer.

If you don't think the price is high enough bid on leases, that will increase the market value. And if you get a lease you can chose to run cows or not.

BTW, modern grazing practices and regulations are not the same as they were in the past.

The problem wolves cause will not be confined to public land.

[marshworm]

[QUOTE=crabbait;3947581]That's interesting. As I recall, the mills closed because it was more profitable for the timber industry to ship whole logs prompting a law banning exportation of whole logs from public land (while they continue to ship whole from private land).

In the 80s we were cutting far faster than the trees grew. The log truck drivers on the CB radio complained constantly that they couldn't make any money hauling the "p-poles" that were left. The timber industry wanted to log the remaining old growth since they had nearly expended other profitable forests. That is where the spotted owl came in as I recall.

As for "no logging on public lands", 2010 showed between a 26% and 32% increase in timber harvest on public lands to over 500 million board feet despite a very soft housing market. Read it yourselves right here:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/newsroom/n...1/NR1136.shtml

CR
You are aware that in the 80's the timber harvest on federal lands in the Pacific Norhwest was approx. 5 Billion board feet per year. I'm tickled there was a nice increase however small it is but compared to what was being harvested before several issues curtailed it the numbers we are cutting today pale considerably.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr465.pdf

It's amazing the twists that are put on an issue by our governments. The above is rather interesting reading

Have a really good year CR...all the best to you

[Smoked Salmon]

fwiw, the 5billion figure wasn't sustainable. blame the bird if you please, but it was far from the only cause. Similarly, we're speaking of, in Oregon, fewer than 30 official wolves. They aren't the make-it-or-break-it predators for ranchers. But, management better be prepared for the increase in population, because this apex predator will become a more expensive competitor every year.

[marshworm]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

fwiw, the 5billion figure wasn't sustainable. blame the bird if you please, but it was far from the only cause. Similarly, we're speaking of, in Oregon, fewer than 30 official wolves. They aren't the make-it-or-break-it predators for ranchers. But, management better be prepared for the increase in population, because this apex predator will become a more expensive competitor every year.

SS,
You and I are on the same page. I realize it was not sustainable and also agree the owl was not the only issue however the owl was what some hung their hat on to change things and I believe the public in general was swayed more by the owl than the other issues. The wolf will be used in the same manner by the same types. I agree the ranchers need to re-evaluate their business practices however it appears again the public in general is being led to believe the wolf problem exists because of the grazing of cattle on public land which we both know is not the only issue with the wolf.

As has been, is, and always will be the case, change in all things is inevitable and unpreventable. How each of us adapt to the ever present changing that takes place is an individual decision. However to take the stance that we will resist change or make excuses why we shouldn't or can't change will only leave us lying on the ground run over by the change itself

A good 2012 to all of us

[ehunter]

Why do we have to accept change? The whole reason woves have been introduced in Yellowstone and beyond was to have a impact on hunting and it has big time.

Originally Posted by marshworm

SS,
You and I are on the same page. I realize it was not sustainable and also agree the owl was not the only issue however the owl was what some hung their hat on to change things and I believe the public in general was swayed more by the owl than the other issues. The wolf will be used in the same manner by the same types. I agree the ranchers need to re-evaluate their business practices however it appears again the public in general is being led to believe the wolf problem exists because of the grazing of cattle on public land which we both know is not the only issue with the wolf.

As has been, is, and always will be the case, change in all things is inevitable and unpreventable. How each of us adapt to the ever present changing that takes place is an individual decision. However to take the stance that we will resist change or make excuses why we shouldn't or can't change will only leave us lying on the ground run over by the change itself

A good 2012 to all of us

[Smoked Salmon]

But, the change is happening. You can either adapt to it, or let it control you. Most businesses have contingency plans ready for market changes. This is just another market change. Businesses that are prepared will prosper, while those that complain about heifer deaths will not prosper.

[mtn300]

I agree 100% with ehunter why do we have to have this shoved down our throat. Ifish comments never cease to amaze me almost makes me ashamed to belong to this forum. Pretty black and white either you want wolves or you don't period. Spotted Owl didn't help our friends out at all when they had to sell their logging business. I vote no wolves

[afp]

That's interesting. As I recall, the mills closed because it was more profitable for the timber industry to ship whole logs prompting a law banning exportation of whole logs from public land (while they continue to ship whole from private land).

I think a more accurate explanation was because of the macro economic practices of the late 70s, a great recession occurred in the late 70s and early 80s. In 1979, mills began closing because they did not have the resources to continue operating at a loss. By around 1982-1983 the right macro economic practices had been in place long enough where mills could operate profitably again, but the spotted owl fallacy shut down vast areas of forest land and the mills without their own forest land could not operate at a profit.

The funny thing is most of what the environmentalists called old growth was (and is) second or third generation reprod. Trees are a renewable resource, and there is very little "greener" concept than making buildings out of wood from sustainably harvested forests.

Nowadays, many mills cannot process logs larger than 30" in diameter which precludes the use of old growth trees, and a careful eye needs to be kept on older reprod stands so the trees don't grow to big.

Regardless of all that, wolves will indeed become a tool the environmentalists will use to curtail logging, just as wolves are now a tool to shut down hunting. I don't know if it started out this way, but environmentalism has become nothing more than a method to force power and money into the hands of an elite few. No one who really cared about the environmemt would introduce another apex predator into an already strained ecosystem..........

[freespool]

Originally Posted by marshworm

Just finished reading through ALL of the posts on EVERY wolf thread. No wonder Mz. Ifish needed to create another room for us to play in

First off let me be clear I am not a fan of the wolves however I am smart enough to know that total eradication of them is not an item on the table.

In the 60's if someone said "one day there will be no logging on public lands anymore" they would have been labled dummer than a pile of sawdust. A spotted bird changed the landscape and the lives of all of us albeit some more than others. I can't remember the last time I read or heard anything good or bad on how the little feathered fella is doing? But the rest of us well we yelled screamed and cussed as the plight of the logging industry was argued over and finally settled by those "smarter than us" and over time we adapted as one mill after another closed.

In the 80's if someone said one day there will be no cattle grazing on public lands anymore they would have been labled dummer than a cow pie.
This time the "spotted owl" has no wings, four legs, sharp teeth and prefers filet mignon rather than mice and shrews. I'm hearing, reading and watching daily as the same story unfolds before us. We all are yelling, screaming and cussing as the plight of the cattle industry is being argued over and will be one day settled by those "smarter than us" and with time we will adapt again as one ranch after another stops grazing their cows on public lands.

I have the same sad feelings for the cattle industry today as I did for the logging industry years ago. Beef when I buy it is going to cost me more just like lumber did and still does. The ranchers lives are going to be turned upside down, the hunters are going to have more competition, the naturalists well with the help of the "spotted wolf" they will get what they wanted with this one just as they did before. And in the end we will all adapt again.

As this wolf saga unfolds remember come election time that laws, rules and regulations are made not by the ODFW but rather by the Oregon legislature and the folks we send to Washington. Who is really responsible for the killing of cattle in eastern Oregon?

Less than 5% of US livestock production is raised on public range land, that's 5.5 million acres to produce 5% of the total US output.
Drop in the bucket, and if you consider the fact that range land is leased for under the fair market value, and grazed land is done so at the expense of the wildlife, perhaps it's time to retire this welfare system.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by afp

I think a more accurate explanation was because of the macro economic practices of the late 70s, a great recession occurred in the late 70s and early 80s. In 1979, mills began closing because they did not have the resources to continue operating at a loss. By around 1982-1983 the right macro economic practices had been in place long enough where mills could operate profitably again, but the spotted owl fallacy shut down vast areas of forest land and the mills without their own forest land could not operate at a profit...

Truth be told, you need to review the historical facts.

By the mid to late-1980's, the timber industry needed congressional action to release them from their USFS timber purchase contracts.

On speculation, the Timber Industry bid up the contracts more than the timber was worth, and then couldn't pay the American public the price due.

[afp]

Originally Posted by garyk

Truth be told, you need to review the historical facts.

By the mid to late-1980's, the timber industry needed congressional action to release them from their USFS timber purchase contracts.

On speculation, the Timber Industry bid up the contracts more than the timber was worth, and then couldn't pay the American public the price due.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. The timber contracts lost value because of a downturn in the housing caused by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Again, the issue was macroeconomic policy.

[STGRule]

AGAIN...... We do not require you to agree with everybody, but we do require you to disagree respectfully. Remember this is a "one strike and you are out" sub-forum.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by afp

Perhaps you should take your own advice. The timber contracts lost value because of a downturn in the housing caused by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Again, the issue was macroeconomic policy.

I don't dispute the cause at all, nor will I argue it.

But the inarguable fact is the timber industry bid up the price; couldn't make the payment due to the USFS; and then sought and got, Congressional action to release them from their contracts. Sweet deal - if you were an industrial purchaser.

[afp]

Originally Posted by garyk

I don't dispute the cause at all, nor will I argue it.

But the inarguable fact is the timber industry bid up the price; couldn't make the payment due to the USFS; and then sought and got, Congressional action to release them from their contracts. Sweet deal - if you were an industrial purchaser.

What the timber companies were doing was engaging in business practices according to a certain set of rules, then congress changed the rules, killed the economy, and killed the timber industry. If congress had stayed out of it, no bailout would have been needed. While I do not support coporate welfare, I do consider that in this case, the federal government broke the contract by changing the rules after the contracts had been let. It was only right that the let the timber companies out of the contract. I can promise you if the industry had known what congress was going to do, the timber prices would not have risen so high.