Rancher

=Stakeholder: Rancher= By: Grace G 11/6/08 I am a rancher; my position is that wolves should not be reintroduced in Colorado. I do not support wolves because by not reintroducing them into Colorado it will reduce illegal killing of the wolves by ranchers, who have the right to protect their livestock if a wolf attacks on their property. So if one wants the best for the wolves, one should not reintroduce them into Colorado, because they will go onto a rancher’s land and may be killed. Many people think that one cow being killed by wolves is not very costly to a rancher. But when a cow gets attacked by wolves the rancher not only loses the cow that was attacked but the meat of the cow’s that was near the attack. This is because wolves harass the cows before they attack and then the cows get scared and don’t gain weight for about three days. The average cow gains 2.5 pounds per day. Let’s say the farmer owns 1,000 cows. 1,000cows x 2.5 pounds x 3 days=7,500 pounds of meat lost due to sacred cows, in additional to any cow who died. Even if two or three livestock killed by wolves were mine it would cost me a fair amount of money. The majority of people who are for wolves think that wolves are needed to create a healthy ecosystem, but the environment has the ability to adapt when faced with changes. For example, when winter comes around and the weather changes, the ecosystem doesn’t shrivel up and die! It adapts: bears hibernate and birds migrate or adapt in some other way. The point is that the ecosystem in Colorado will not die without wolves. My allies are the private hunting guides because wolves will kill the deer and elk that they hunt. This would cost them to lose a lot of their profit. Other allies of mine are Estes Park residents because they might be scared for their pets, which may be eaten by wolves or scared of wolves themselves. Compromises A compromise I have made with a national park representative and an environmentalist is that wolves would live in Rocky Mountain National Park, but the government would pay for fencing around any ranchers land who is affected by wolves and pay for every cow or sheep that was killed due to a wolf attack. I think the ideal wolf management plan for all stakeholders to agree on is for wolves to be reintroduced into Colorado. The government should pay for a working security plan for ranchers, (fences, tranquilizers, ect.)And to pay for every cow or sheep death lost to a wolf. There should also be a hunting season to balance out the wolf population livestock and environmentalist s will get to study wolves. Tourist company owners will benefit from the tourists that come to see wolves and hunting guides will profit from people who want to hunt wolves during the hunting season. Wolves not living in Colorado will benefit the ranching and Estes park community. Wolves are not needed in Colorado and there is no reason why wolves should be reintroduced here. I found this information at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ASV/is_2_24?pnum=4&opg=55315090&tag=artBody;col1 http://coloradocattle.org/website/newpages/wolfview.htm http://www.hcn.org/articles/video-still-howling-wolf
 * Stakeholder Analysis**
 * Position and Rationales**
 * Allies**
 * Ideal Wolf Management Plan**
 * Conclusion**

Hugh Friday, November 5, 2008 Wolves in Colorado My stakeholder is a cattle rancher. We do not want wolves coming into Colorado. They are a threat to the land, the sheep, and the cattle. For wolves it is natural to eat the livestock and they continue coming back and slodering the livestock. They also do not just eat the cattle because they are hungry, they kill the livestock like it is a game to show how tough they are and they want to show off to the other wolves in the pack. So not only do they kill it, they don’t even use the meat and eat it. If wolves do come into Colorado they will kill a fair amount of cattle, which will lead to us not earning as much money because we cannot sell the cattle. We are raising the cattle for us not the wolves. Environmentalists say “it’s a cattle or two you can spare that”. Really they are wrong. Not only is it bad to lose that but when the wolves attack it puts the entire herd in shock, Cattle normally gain 2.5 pounds each day, but when they go into shock they stop eating for about three days so that will bring to a standstill of them gaining weight for three days. There are about a thousand cattle in a heard so 2.5x3x1000=7500 pounds of meat plus the one or two cattle I just lost. In total I lose 10,000 pounds of meat. Environmentalists think it is essential for a healthy ecosystem but it is not. They cattle and sheep will be dying all the time because the wolves are eating the cattle. Living with that thought that one of your sheep and/or cattle are being killed right now especially at night you will not be able to sleep with that thought in your head. “We work hard to raise cattle but all that work just gets wasted on the wolves”. I think if wolves do come into Colorado we should not have to pay for a fence. It costs over 100,000 dollars on average per fence, and I do not want to pay that money because it was not my choice for the wolves to come to Colorado. There are not all that many people who are our allies, but some of the Estes Park residents do not want wolves in Colorado. Some of them believe it is a threat to pets small children and the land. Some other of our allies are private hunters they believe that if wolves do come into the state they will kill off most of the elk population, and because they have not taken the wolves off the endangered species list they will not be able to hunt them. If wolves come back into Colorado, we will begin finding cattle scattered on the ground dead. We will begin losing our money rapidly. I do not want wolves coming into Colorado; it is a threat to not only the land but to other living animals. If they are to come into the state we should be given money to purchase and set up a fence. It needs to be high enough that not only will the wolves not get in but it also needs to be high enough that the cattle will not get out. In addition think we should be given the right to kill the wolves if they are to attack cattle or more than one cattle. I strongly disagree with the idea that wolves should come into Colorado and anticipate they don’t come into the state.
 * Position**
 * Rationale& Evidence**
 * Adversary**
 * Allies**
 * Conclusion**

Wolves in Colorado Landis H. 11/6/08

Bold Statement Wolves kill livestock and are a nuisance that Coloradans should not have to deal with. Position I am a cattle rancher. I believe there should be no wolves at all. None. Rationale Wolves kill livestock. It is a fact. What if they kill a cow that weighs over 900 pounds? That cow represents a large sum of money the rancher does not obtain. Plus, what about all the other cows that are traumatized while the wolves attack their victim? The cows usually gain about two pounds a day. If they are traumatized they do not gain anything for a day. If you have 2,000 head of cattle and one cow is killed and all the rest are traumatized then you lose 4,000 pounds of beef. That represents a large sum of money. Rationale Wolves also surplus kill, which is when they kill for fun. In Britain they killed 403 sheep at once by herding them off of a cliff into a ravine. The sheep were found with wolf bite marks on their legs. The bodies were smashed on the ground below. There are various government-run programs to attempt to stop the conflict between ranchers and their livestock, and wolves. One program is compensation which is not very effective because cows do not gain weight when they are traumatized. If a cow is killed by wolves you lose thousands of dollars due to traumatization of the rest of the herd, yet you only get compensated for one cow. Another strategy is to provide range riders. Range riders are government-hired riders who patrol a ranch for free. The problem with this is if you have 1,000 acres it will take a lot of riders to patrol it. Allies Other stakeholders who share my opinion are hunting guides and some Estes Park residents. Hunting guides do not want wolves because the wolves will reduce the elk population and therefore the guides’ salary. Any Estes Park citizen in their right mind will oppose wolves because the wolves will pose threats to dogs and, God forbid, toddlers in their town. Opponents Stakeholders that disagree with my position are: some Estes Park residents, tourism company owners, recreationalists, and national park reps. Tourism company owners want wolves because they can give wolf tours which earn good money for them. Recreationalists just want wolves because they like to watch them. National park reps want wolves because they think wolves are going to be good for the environment by balancing out the elk population. People who disagree even more strongly with my stakeholder’s view are environmentalists and defenders of wildlife. Both of them think wolves will benefit the world environmentally. There are multiple reasons why I disagree with my opponents. First off, environmentalists and defenders of wildlife are wrong that we need wolves to keep the environment steady. By increasing elk hunting we can keep the elk population steady and therefore the population of other animals. My explanation also addresses the concerns of the National Park reps. To answer the concern of the recreationalists, there are plenty of wolves in the nation. You do not necessarily need wolves in your state. The same applies to tourism companies. There is one simple answer: if you are that passionate about wolves, then just move! For any Estes Park people who want wolves, what is there to gain from them in your town? If any resident can answer that I will be impressed. Compromises It is hard for ranchers to make compromises. No matter what, we have livestock losses unless there are no wolves. Some uncaring environmentalists say “Just build a fence” but building a fence costs over $100,000. As I said before, we cannot possibly patrol all our land at once and therefore protect our animals. The only way we ranchers can possibly keep our business which is an important part of the economy is to not have wolves. Ideal outcome Our ideal outcome is having a no wolf law that would relocate any wolves that come to Colorado. That way our environment and economy are both fine. Conclusion The bottom line is that there are plenty of wolves everywhere else, so why do we need them here? Our elk population is doing fine and there are no true reasons to have wolves. Thomas November 4, 2008 ** Stakeholder Analysis ** ** __Position__ ** I am a rancher and I have a cattle ranch in Colorado. I am very much against the re-introduction of wolves into the state because of the danger to my livestock that wolves bring. The existing program which has re-introduced wolves to Yellowstone Park is an example of what ranchers fear. The program has resulted in the wolves leaving the boundaries of the park and they are moving further and further afield. Wolves and livestock don’t mix. They kill cattle and cattle are my livelihood. We don’t need a predator that’s killing our livestock, which is the way we make our living. In active reintroduction programs in Montana and Idaho, the federal government has granted special permits to ranchers that enable the ranchers to kill wolves that attack livestock. It took $24 million and more than two decades to bring wolves back. Eight years ago, the Mexican gray wolf was reintroduced to the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico Wolf pairs have been added over the years, with a goal of establishing a population of 100 wild wolves. The main issue for ranchers, of course, is that wolves kill livestock. Ranchers fear large losses of income due to wolf predation. Very few people visiting Yellowstone Park would ever get to see a free-roaming wolf, while landowners and ranchers would be continually subjected to livestock losses and harassment by wolves. I believe that any wolf on any given night, if there happens to be a calf there, they will kill it. It was 12 years since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park…federal officials say the sharp rise in the wolf population in the region justifies removing them from the endangered species list. The species had been near extinction. It had been eliminated from the wild decades earlier, because it preyed on livestock. Today, as many as four dozen wolves roam those mountains. But that’s only half the number that program managers had hoped for. The wolves were bred in captivity and when first released have to learn to live in the wild. Alternatively, I might accept a proposal to relocate my ranch to another location, where there are no wolves to endanger my cattle. That would be the ideal scenario. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/233/wolves-rancher.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584866 http://www.actionabioscience.org/biodiversity/johnson.html http://www.thebeckoning.com/wolves/attitudes.html [|http://www.gilawilderness.com/local/wolfprotst.htm]
 * __Rationale__ ** The way I see it, my livestock is free food for wolves. Even if just one cow is killed, I actually stand to lose far more than that because of the impact of that one kill on the rest of the herd. Cows are sensitive creatures and when they are scared, don’t eat well, and so would not be as productive to me and my ranch. I would therefore lose much more money than simply losing one cow.
 * __Evidence__ ** In the past, human populations have driven wolves from all other areas by hunting them down. This has forced them into the wilderness, which was generally protected and hard for bounty hunters to reach. As wolves are being re-introduced, local residents fear losing land they use for ranching and recreation because of the wolves. Whilst it has been proven that wolves are highly adaptable and can survive in wilderness settings, in actual fact they frequently choose not to. This leads to the fears that we ranchers have.
 * __Allies__** Some of my allies in this issue are hunters and some National Park representatives. Hunters are concerned that wolf populations reduce the numbers of Elk and other game to hunt. Some National Park representatives are fearful that environments with wolves are not stable and therefore it could be difficult to control their territories.
 * __Compromises__ ** I may have to compromise with the tourism guides or environmentalists. I would be prepared to accept some areas of land with boundaries or fences that cannot be breached to keep the wolves in their designated spot.

Ryan P. 11/17/08 ** STAKEHOLDER ANAYLSIS ** **__ Position __** **__ Rationale and Evidence __** I know many other ranchers agree with me. For instance, Freddie Botur, who lives in Daniel, WY, has had wolves attack his cattle. As he explained in the video, //Still Howling Wolf//, usually his steers gain about two pounds a day. When they get stressed out by a wolf, they do not eat or gain weight for about two days. That means that 1,000 steers don’t gain weight, which means he loses almost 5,000 pounds of meat. If the average pound of meat costs around $3.00, in those two days, Freddie Botur loses about $15,000. In addition, I worry even more because of the following statistics provided by the organization Wolf Trust: Between 1976 and 2001, 1,437 cattle have been killed in eight states. In those same eight states, and in that same time period, 1,384 sheep were killed, 245 dogs were killed, and 1,393 fowl were killed. That adds up to 4,459 animals killed by wolves in only 25 years. The Colorado Cattleman’s Association agrees with me. They think that the reintroduction of wolves was completely unnecessary. The other predators that live with elk and deer, such as coyotes and bears, can keep them under control with the occasional hunter that shoots one or two. That will keep the healthy ecosystem going. Therefore, we do not //need// wolves. **__ Allies __** The people that would support me are hunters, hunting guides, other ranchers and residents that don’t want wolves in their backyards. Some residents are concerned about wolves because they have small children or pets that are easy prey for the wolves. Hunting guides don’t like wolves because if the wolves kill the deer, it is harder for them to find game and they lose money. Many hunters would agree with me because they kill deer for a living. When the wolves kill the deer, it means less money. **__ Compromises __** I do have compromises, however. The people that I would compromise with are national park representatives, environmentalists, recreationalists, animal rights activists, tourism companies, defenders of wildlife and some Estes Park residents. Say a wolf killed one of my cattle, it would be great if I could get the same amount of money from the government or an animal rights organization that I would have gotten had I had the opportunity to sell the cattle. I would even take ¾ of the market value for the dead livestock. If they did not go for those compromises, I would ask them to help me make my area more secure. For instance they could help me build and pay for fences that are sturdy enough to keep wolves out and my livestock in.
 * I am a rancher and I despise wolves ** . I live in Colorado and I have learned about wolves that attack cattle in Wyoming. I don’t want wolves coming here again. A pack of wolves attacked my ranch and killed four sheep. They then came back and killed more of my sheep. That is why I hate wolves. I am a rancher and I make a living by selling cattle. Wolves are a threat to my livestock. How can I sell cattle and make money if wolves are reintroduced and kill them? I am against the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado.

Most people think putting up a fence is a good idea. But, like most ranchers, I have too much land to easily put a fence around. If I put up a fence, I would make no profit or even be in debt because the average cost of putting a well-constructed fence around a farm is a little over $100,000. If someone had the idea about building a fence, I would compromise and say I would put it up but ask for help both purchasing and constructing it to make sure that the wolves stay on the outside. **__ Ideal Mediation Result __** In the end of this mediation I hope to walk away with some sort of way to get wolves off my land. Whether it is not reintroducing them into Colorado’s wilderness, having permission to shoot them, getting help to build a fence or getting the same amount of money for their kill, any compromise with wolves off my land I will work with. In conclusion, if wolves are reintroduced to the wild in Colorado, I will do anything to keep them off my land.

Alison November 17, 2008 __Introduction __  Americans have differing views on wolves. As a rancher I have a strong opinion people don’t agree with. People may dislike me because of my views; however I am giving food to eat, so they should try to respect me. __Position __  I think wolves should not be reintroduced in to Colorado. As my fellow rancher Martin Davis said, “It made me angry because this is our property ... We don't need to have a predator that's trying to kill our livestock, the way we make a living. And you can't do anything about that.”  **__Rational and Evidence __** ** The reason that I believe that wolves should not be reintroduced into Colorado is because they are prey on my livestock. I earn my living and support my family by ranching to provide meat for American families. ** As Harry Soulen said, “I think these damn wolves ought to be treated just like coyotes. When you see them out there, you should be able to take care of the problem, shoot ‘em, get rid of them any way you can.”  “Since 1995, ranchers are permitted to shoot wolves but only when they were caught attacking livestock. In 2005, under a new ruling, ranchers in Montana and Idaho are now able to shoot wolves they witness harassing their cattle before the wolves actually attack.”  In order for a rancher to get reimbursed by the government they must prove that it was wolves that did the damage to their livestock. Many times that is not possible - but the Fish and Game [commission] can tell by the way the animal was killed if it were dogs, wolves, or whatever,” Aileen Anderson. If a wolf kills one of my cows or sheep, that’s not the only animal which I lose. The others get harassed both physically and emotionally which can cause them to lose up to two point one pounds a day. The animals may lose that much weight for two and a half days and that could be as many as 1,000 steers, cows or sheep losing weight. “I didn’t just lose one steer. I lost a hell of a lot more money,” Freddie Botur. A sheep farmer in Wisconsin says he has watched a growing pack of wolves harass his sheep and kill one. Most people live off meat. It gives protein and iron to the bones. If wolves kill or hassle my animals, the world could be in danger. Meats could decrees or even disappear, if wolves come back. I think the impact of losing cows, sheep and/or steer is worse than not bring the wolves to this one area. “Reintroduction to Colorado, Yellowstone Park is a waste of taxpayers’ money, the wolves were here before the reintroduction,” Aileen Anderson. Beside my loss of livestock and the decrees of meat in America, the plan to reintroduce wolves cost a lot of taxpayer’s money. It’s a waste of money that we could be spending on more important issues.  __Allies and Compromise __  Many people disagree with my views on wolves, but some agree like a privet hunter, Estes park resident, and an outfitter. A number of people are starting to appreciate me because if I weren’t maintaining the open area in its natural state, condos and subdivisions would start to be built. There are still many people who I would have to make a compromise with, like animal rights activist, defenders of wildlife, environmentalist, national park representatives, recreationalist, and tourism companies because they all would like wolves to be in Colorado. If it were up to me, there would be no wolves in sight. Even though I don’t want wolves any where near my ranch, my compromise would include with wolves. Most of the community wants wolves, so I think we could put a tag on all the wolves that are reintroduced. If a wolf with a tag harasses my steer, cow or sheep, I can kill it. If a wolf with a tag kills one of my animals, I should be repaid for the loss of my animal. That plan would not benefit me if wolves without a tag stressed out or killed my animals because I could do nothing but watch that animal die or get hurt for life. __<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'; color: rgb(136, 36, 204);">Ideal Mediation Result <span style="font-weight: normal; font-family: 'Arial Black'; color: rgb(136, 36, 204);"> __ <span style="font-family: Arial; color: rgb(120, 46, 189);">I would want the mediation to end up saying wolves should not come to Colorado, but if wolves come to Colorado I would want a compromise that does not jeopardize my livestock. I am for sustainability, but I do not want wolves near me and my ranch at all. Wolves are not the way to maintain the environment because they kill the food people eat. If I find a wolf near my ranch I will go bananas. As a rancher, I do not like wolves at all.