How much would you give up to save wild horses?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

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.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

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.

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

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

[Levin]

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.

[landpoke]

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?

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Levin

They're also sending me a 40" long super plush wolf stuffed animal -- perfect for cuddling at nights as I mourn the spiteful slaughter.

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

[Levin]

Originally Posted by landpoke

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?

"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

[landpoke]

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.