How much would you give up to save wild horses?
 

Please, for once, answer a poll truthfully.

You big talkers on the environment, put your money where your mouth is. This is the choice ranchers and farmers and fishermen face. I'm honest. If the Wyoming ranchers came and gave me a case sure to generate a seven figure fee to go after the wild horses, it'd be martini time.

Watch. All the people who have been ganging up on poke will be too scared to vote in this poll. I predict poke will be too gracious to vote in it.

I employ someone to come over to my house and vote in CG polls. She comes over about 4-5 times a week and votes for me.

You will have to wait until tomorrow for her to vote on my behalf. Sorry.

This is a ridiculous poll. It's not about the mustangs, but the cattle and the truly endangered species.

Based on our conversation about the wolf, the question should be: If you were a rancher, how likely would you tolerate a loss of a cow once every two years, for which you'd be compensated, in order to allow the wolf to return from the brink?

To the extent ranchers aren't being fully compensated for their losses, that should be fixed.

The best question would be: How much would you be willing to contribute to a fund to compensate ranchers for cattle losses from wolves?

And this poll is irrelevant to the agreement we reached earlier: it's not about the money at all. It's about federal control of what they view as a local issue.

Levin responded with Levity. If he truly wants to ruin himself financially, he should do so immediately.

Of course I did; this is a ridiculous poll that proves nothing.

I'd be willing to donate a few hundred bucks to the wolf compensation fund. And just b/c I'm not willing to ruin myself financially for the wolf does not mean I'm a hypocrite or lack empathy for the ranchers. I think the ranchers should be fully compensated, but I don't think I alone should have to do it. As of now, the wolf compensation fund is well funded, but it sounds like they need to up the payment to ranchers (although they try to pay market rate, it appears). So SU's whole point with this poll is ridiculous and self-serving.

The real question is whether I'd tolerate some sparse cattle loss for the sake of the wolf if I were a rancher. The answer is absolutely I KNOW I WOULD.

SU? Self-serving? Bite your tongue!

So vote that you'd pay $10,000 a year. You'd be lying, but go ahead.

In many cases it's financial ruin they face.

I'm sure you would too, but if you were a rancher your definiton of sparse would be pretty damn different than the one you have now, and I KNOW THAT IS TRUE.

Prove this BS that you just pulled out of thin air. You're completely ignoring the fact that the government and wildlife agencies compensate for the loss.

The Fund made 76 payments in 2008 totalling %107,990. They made 152 payments in 2007 totalling $239,862. http://www.defenders.org/resources/p...tion_trust.pdf

It does NOT equal financial ruin for ranchers. Pure horseshit.

IF YOU HAVE A SHRED OF HONOR YOU WILL WRITE A CHECK OUT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION TOMORROW FOR $15,000 (I want to see you spending $10,000 net of the tax deduction). How much do you think cows are worth? Go in right now and tell your wife you've committed to SeattleUte to donate $15,000 to Greenpeace.

It would be sparse and rare.

Surprised you fellows haven't brought up the strongest argument for robust cattle ranching in the West -- permit the destruction of our environment to help preserve the South American rainforests that are being wiped out in the name of McDonald's hamburgers.

Then why do the ranchers care if loss of cattle is cost free?

As I wrote before, blindman -- IT IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, but the fact that they HATE FEDERAL CONTROL OF WHAT THEY VIEW AS A LOCAL ISSUE.

And my wife can read; she saw that I wrote: "I think the ranchers should be fully compensated, but I don't think I alone should have to do it." So I'm not going to pay $15,000 right now to the Fund; I'll donate a few hundred bucks and send you the receipt. The loss to the ranchers is a cost we all should bear.

I just adopted a wolf mom and pup from Defenders of Wildlife with my $250 donation. I'm no law firm partner for whom this is meaningless change. It hurt our budget to do this. At least Defenders will be sending me a certificate with a picture and name of the mom and pup I've just adopted (so long as lamepoke or goatnipper hasn't shot them before the certificate arrives). They're also sending me a 40" long super plush wolf stuffed animal -- perfect for cuddling at nights as I mourn the spiteful slaughter.

If you want proof, I'll boardmail you the receipt.

No its not, it's about ranchers receiving pennies on the dollar for loss of their livelihood. They take the inadequate payout because they have no choice. But when they can get five times that price at the auction house what makes you think they do so willingly?

You should never take the "gift." It reduces your write-off.

"How is the livestock value determined?
Defenders takes the rancher's assessment of the animal's value and compares it with current auction reports and livestock prices as reported in regional newspapers. If there is a significant difference, the local county extension agent determines the price. Our maximum payment per animal is $3,000. The Trust does not compensate the rancher if the livestock is covered by an insurance program or an existing state program.

What type of livestock is covered?
We compensate for sheep, cattle, horses, mules, goats, llamas, donkeys, pigs, chickens, geese, turkeys, herding dogs and livestock guarding dogs.

Will ranchers be compensated for time and energy expended dealing with livestock losses to wolves?
No. It is impossible to develop a program that completely insulates ranchers from all wolf-caused impacts. The intent of our program is to address the primary concern articulated most frequently by ranchers -- actual livestock losses.

How long will the compensation program be in effect? How can we be certain the trust will not run out?
The compensation trust will be maintained for as long as the wolf is on the endangered species list in that wolf recovery area. Through continuing donations from members and supporters, Defenders maintains a $200,000-plus trust to pay for compensation. The interest is reinvested, so the trust will continue to grow unless rates of livestock loss increase dramatically. If demands for the trust increase, Defenders will expand it accordingly."

http://www.defenders.org/programs_an..._questions.php

That's some nice fluff, but the numbers you posted earlier showed an average payment in the 200's for this year. Far below the market price.

It's easy to write a piece that makes it sound like you're doing something noble when in fact you're not. If you parse deeply into that FAQ nowhere does it say they pay market value and nowhere does it say they've ever paid $3,000.00, a hefty sum most likely inserted to distract the casual reader. I'll give them credit, it's very skillfully written to deceive. On the other hand I'm shocked, shocked I say, that a great and upstanding organization such as the whatevers of whatever would outright lie about the true nature of this so-called conservation program of theirs.

The state extension service reconciles any difference in compensation figures between the rancher and Defenders, you ingoramus. Take it up with the extension service. And when you do, ask if there's anything to be done for your potato warts.

Where does it say they pay that price? Nowhere.

Like I said it's well written.

My hell I quoted it for you, but here it is again:

"Defenders takes the rancher's assessment of the animal's value and compares it with current auction reports and livestock prices as reported in regional newspapers. If there is a significant difference, the local county extension agent determines the price."

Get over your persecution complex. Defenders is not out to get you or screw the ranchers. They came up with a pragmatic solution that you can't stand b/c it strips away your reason for being at the moment.

It's a nice piece of propaganda, well written to lead the reader to the intended false conclusion.

Now I just think you're trolling; you can't be this blind and paranoid. In fact, I feel quite sheepish b/c now I think you've been trolling the entire time. Got me -- hook, line, and sinker.

Some years ago my brother snagged a wild colt from some private property of a friend in Southeastern Utah. The colt was young enough that it was domesticated over the course of several years of hard work. It was a beautiful paint, just like Tonto's horse. He had to put quite a bit of time and money into the horse, vet bills, etc. I'd be willing to spend some money to save a wild horse I could own.

Good poll SU. You've finally outed UD and YO as the enviro-kooks that they are.

Wild horses are kind of cool, but they don't inspire me much. They basically are a bunch of domesticated animals that escaped from the Spaniards. It's like a pack of wild poodles. Or siamese cats.

Could poodles survive in the wild? Seems like the hair issue would make them victims to natural selection.

The best way to save wild horses is to declare a mustang season and give Goatnapper the only permit.

Not to worry. There are no pet salons on BLM land so their fur would grow long.

I got a much better chance of tagging a mustang's ass than Kyle Whittingham!

1.7 on a 10 point scale.

Will it hurt your feelings if I call you Sister Struthers, eh Meathead?

WTH? You think I care about SMPoo?

Notice the 46 carries for 3,987,897,999 yards for the two SMU tailbacks. BYU's illustrious middle linebacker, WAC DPOY and team captain did a hell of a good job that everning of never tagging any Mustang ass.

I hoped I didn't have to explain it all to you Waters, but considering the time it took to explain that Cows can help to decrease the chances for forest fires it all seems to point that unless Farrah reinstitutes the Laurel Thigh Clamp you might just keep getting dumber and dumber. I think that now you are now the 5th smartest poster on this site behind Adam, landpoke, Sassy in Relief Society and tooblue!

Wasn't KW on that team?

No kidding. How are cattle and "invasive species" yet horses are not?

Some of these envirowankers think escaping from the Spanierds is a real accomplishment or something...........