OT - Kills Wolf to Save Cattle, Violates Endangered Species

[don Tomás]

Sounds like ranchers are between a rock & a hard spot.
Tom
=============================================
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 1001b.html

Rancher Kills Wolf to Save Cattle, Violates Endangered Species Act
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 01, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - A Montana rancher killed a wolf to protect his cattle herd, and now federal officials say he violated the Endangered Species Act. This apparently extreme instance led one conservative analyst to claim that the act is doing more harm than good, because it forces landowners to "shoot, shovel and shut up."

Roger Lang is a California entrepreneur who owns the 18,000-acre Sun Ranch, south of Ennis, Mont. Over the last 10 years he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help ensure that his ranch is set up and operates legally, especially in conformity with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Lang has experimented with fences, herders, and other nonfatal means to prevent his livestock from being killed by wolves, which had virtually been wiped out in the area during the 1970s but were reintroduced by federal officials in 1994.

After five yearling heifers were killed this summer, Lang decided to become more aggressive in dealing with the pack, which numbered 13 wolves, including seven pups.

"That's a lot of mouths to feed," the ranch owner, who obtained a permit to kill two adult wolves on his property, told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

Instead, Lang's employees, shooting from a distance, killed a pup in July and wounded the pack's alpha female. As a result of those injuries, the female was unable to run with the pack and spent the next two weeks hovering near the rancher's cattle, seeking easy prey.

But an employee on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) saw the wounded animal and began chasing it. After hitting the wolf several times, the employee pinned it under the vehicle, Lang said.

"Once it was pinned down, it was trying to take (the employee's) leg off," Lang said. "He couldn't jump off the ATV. What would happen if the wolf escaped? He did the best he could with an awkward situation."

A colleague eventually arrived and shot the animal, said Lang.

In a written statement, Lang called the pup's death "an honest mistake" and said: "I accept ultimate responsibility for this event because I set a tone that proved to be too aggressive. I also accept responsibility for any lapses in the training of my ranch team."

While Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator of the Northern Rocky Mountains for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told Cybercast News Service on Friday that he couldn't comment on the specifics of the case, he did provide information regarding Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act, which Lang has been charged with violating.

"When we reintroduced wolves in 1994, we passed special regulations that allowed landowners to shoot a wolf that was actually biting or grasping their livestock on their private land," Bangs said. "The idea was to provide flexibility that's not normally in the Act."

Eleven years later, he said, "we liberalized those rules" to allow a farmer or a rancher and their employees or family members on their private land or their grazing allotments "to shoot any wolf they thought was in the act of attacking their livestock."

Bangs emphasized that the phrase "in the act" is defined as "chasing, molesting and harassing so that an attack is imminent. You're allowed to do that without a permit" even though "you can't trap them, you can't poison them, and you can't hunt them on your place."

"We also issue shoot-on-sight permits in places that have had chronic problems" with wolves, he stated, but they aren't "freebies to hunt down wolves anywhere. The federal regulations are still in place."

"In some situations, guys go beyond the spirit of the law and the rules, and they end up doing stuff they shouldn't do," Bangs added. "In those situations, they can be prosecuted."

'Bad for species, bad for people'

However, Brian Seasholes, an adjunct scholar with the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), told Cybercast News Service that "if someone like Roger Lang can't get along with the ESA, then maybe nobody can."

The main threat to wildlife in the United States and worldwide is loss of habitat due to human activity, he said, and "the feds clamping down on Lang will have a chilling effect on the conservation of the wolf and other endangered species in Montana and other western U.S. states."

"Wildlife authorities can't be everywhere, and more often than not, they aren't," added Seasholes, the author of an NCPA report entitled "Bad for Species, Bad for People: What's Wrong With the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix It." As a result, "landowners are the ones who bear the true cost of living with wildlife."

Because farmers and ranchers tend to be "land rich and cash poor," they may decide to quietly "shoot, shovel and shut up" or, more detrimentally, "make their land inhospitable to wildlife by erecting high fences or eliminating sources of water, he stated.

"That's the great tragedy of the Endangered Species Act," Seasholes added. "If one had deliberately tried to write a law that would do enormous harm to wildlife, it would be hard to top the ESA."

Back in Montana, Lang told Cybercast News Service that he regrets what happened and "totally supports" the ESA, even though he said the law is "vaguely worded," which leads to "misunderstandings" over its provisions.

"The 24 wolves that were reintroduced in 1994 are now 1,200 in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana," Lang said. "If we don't manage them, there's going to be more and more conflict in which cattle will die, wolves will die, and people are going to make mistakes."

"If we can play a small part in bringing the dialogue to a national, rational level, then we're delighted, even if we got our wrists slapped along the way," he added.
[/url]

[CraigC]

Seems like ranchers and farmers end up paying the price for the perfect world envisioned by so many suburbanites and city folk who just don't get it.

I'm a big proponent of the three S's myself.

[Mike D.]

I wonder how he got caught? Did he turn himself in? If it was me there'd lots of dead and buried wolves. Shoot, shut up, shovel.

The wolf population is escalating faster than the territory can support them. Tme to thin 'em out.

[Rusty]

S,S,S, with a small amount of quick lime.

Rusty <><

[gcs]

And don't forget to tie the transponder to a long haul truck rig.

[Ysabel Kid]

And don't forget to tie the transponder to a long haul truck rig.

What happened to the concept of property rights in this country? The wolf was on HIS property attacking HIS property.

This country has gone nuts...

[handirifle]

And don't forget to tie the transponder to a long haul truck rig.

What happened to the concept of property rights in this country? The wolf was on HIS property attacking HIS property.

This country has gone nuts...

Way beyond nuts.
Some farmers are not being permitted to farm their land due to the ESA and some freakin tortises out here.

And we won't even talk about the stupid Condor issue!

[don Tomás]

Way beyond nuts.
Some farmers are not being permitted to farm their land due to the ESA and some freakin tortises out here.

And we won't even talk about the stupid Condor issue!

Way Way beyond nuts. I seem to remember something about a farmer being prosecuted because his tractor ran over a kangaroo rat or something.

Hey! Talk nice about the Condors; they do taste like chicken, after all...
Tom

[ScottT]

Here is part of the problem:

In a written statement, Lang called the pup's death "an honest mistake" and said: "I accept ultimate responsibility for this event because I set a tone that proved to be too aggressive. I also accept responsibility for any lapses in the training of my ranch team."

In this part of the country, you would NEVER see a rancher issue such a statement, it would be as if he had cut his cajones off.

[AmBraCol]

Here is part of the problem:

In a written statement, Lang called the pup's death "an honest mistake" and said: "I accept ultimate responsibility for this event because I set a tone that proved to be too aggressive. I also accept responsibility for any lapses in the training of my ranch team."

In this part of the country, you would NEVER see a rancher issue such a statement, it would be as if he had cut his cajones off.

This explains it, Scott.

Roger Lang is a California entrepreneur who owns the 18,000-acre Sun Ranch, south of Ennis, Mont. Over the last 10 years he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help ensure that his ranch is set up and operates legally, especially in conformity with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

He's a foreigner. They do things different in the People's Republic of Kalifornia and he's not learned from the locals yet. Nor does he seem to be teachable. He invested "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to comply with the ESA - and still gets stung. If even a Kalifornian who's eager to lick the hands of the overlords gets nailed - there ain't much hope for anyone else short of S-S-S...

[ScottT]

I have to wonder why such a person would get involved in ranching to begin with.....romantic fascination?

And I don't mean that in a homosexual or beastiality way.

[AmBraCol]

I have to wonder why such a person would get involved in ranching to begin with.....romantic fascination?

And I don't mean that in a homosexual or beastiality way.

That's probably it. The Good Lord knows where he got his money, but something lead him to think "Ranching's for me!" and he dove in head first. Kind of reminds me of the old saying "If I had a million dollars I'd ranch until it was gone." only with current land prices it'd take more than that just to get started in many places. He probably watched too many Disney movies along with "City Slickers" and who knows what else - and decided "That's the ticket!"

[Mike D.]

Even here in CA no rancher I know would dare act like that fool. He's prob'ly a displaced Los Angeleno who's cash heavy and brain light.

[gamekeeper]

Seems to me that while you are all taking the rancher for a fool for being honest no one has mentioned the "good ole boys" that balls'd up the shooting and then ran the wounded wolf over with an ATV !!!
Talk about a Cluster #*#*!!!

[Hobie]

Seems to me that while you are all taking the rancher for a fool for being honest no one has mentioned the "good ole boys" that balls'd up the shooting and then ran the wounded wolf over with an ATV !!!
Talk about a Cluster #*#*!!!

I agree with the sentiment. That's a circus for sure.

[BlaineCGarverakaTubbyTuba]

Perhaps a page from Civil Disobedience History: A mass demonstration, HUNT?, involving a few hundred or more. When laws are blatently infringing on rights, overwhelming public support is needed. Also, from a page of past history, one must be prepared to pay the price along the way.

[AmBraCol]

Seems to me that while you are all taking the rancher for a fool for being honest no one has mentioned the "good ole boys" that balls'd up the shooting and then ran the wounded wolf over with an ATV !!!

Yep, they loused up too. I can't imagine running over a wolf and pinning it with an ATV - and not having the means of putting it down permanently. Someone hadn't had their morning ration of coffee yet - or were otherwise "asleep at the wheel". I wonder if the ranch hands are from Kalifornia too... The good ol' boys I know would have had at least a pair of fencing pliers and probably a knife or three, not to mention some sort of shooting iron on board. It's a complete circus for sure. Starting with the clowns who claimed that wolves would "never bother livestock"...

[plattski]

The wolf is as much a native of this land as any one of us and a darn sight more competent in making a living than most. When we reintroduced wolves here in the Rockies there was a plan that when they got to a certain population, which is where they are now, they'd be pulled off the Endangered Species list and either made a big game species, fur bearer or a varmint. That's exactly what is happening. Ranchers and government shooters here in Montana have mowed down a lot of wolves since 1994 whenever they got into the stock, and the enviros have paid off damage claims to smooth ruffled feathers. Coyotes kill a lot more stock than wolves but some people just hate or fear the wolf. Soon enough we'll be hunting them as big game here, you wait and see. Then a lot more folks will like 'em and want a wolf tag along with their elk license. Personally I'd rather see them kept under control by the state fish and game guys since they'd do a better job than most hunters (good luck trying to catch a wolf that isn't on a kill), but either way wolves will be under the gun and they'll be fine - keep 'em out of the valleys and stop 'em from eating our pets. That ol' boy in Ennis needs to get some new hired help if he wants to stay out of jail. I know a bunch of ranchers who are fine with wolves - most have no problems at all and if they do the smart ones use the system to get rid of wolves and then milk some cash out of the greenies. We've been losing stock to predators since we first showed up here in this great land. Next thing you know people will be complaining about how winter is killing our stock, except then you'll be so busy shovel, shovel, shoveling you'll already be shut up.

[Rusty]

Here in Florida where we were the last state to pass fence laws it's still legal to dispose of any thing or anyone who is harming live stock.

I can't imagine anyone even bothering to make a report of such a thing. What did he expect a reward?

Rusty <><

[rimrock]

Supposedly, it's legal to shoot cougar in Texas if they're bothering your livestock. Game wardens keep saying they just want to know about dead cougar to learn about their biology. There are just rumors (at least for me) that cougar are plentiful here in central Texas. But, only God and I will ever know if I kill one that's messing with my stock. I don't need that much government help.

[20cows]

In Texas, the cougar is not protected at all. See one, shoot one. It does not matter if it is in the act of doing anything but breathing at the time.

If the cat is there, it has "potential", if it's dead, it doesn't.

The Texas dept of wildlife would like to know if you shot one, but there is no penalty for doing so as long as discharging a firearm is legal with regards to all other factors in the situation (not on a public roadway, w/in city limits, etc.).

[CanadianCowboy]

Perhaps a page from Civil Disobedience History: A mass demonstration, HUNT?, involving a few hundred or more. When laws are blatently infringing on rights, overwhelming public support is needed. Also, from a page of past history, one must be prepared to pay the price along the way.

up here we have case law that says if there is a legal way to do something, and the gov/bureaucrats refuse to issue permits or allow such things to be done, then doing it illegally is the only option, then it is no longer illegal


I have been tempted to try this case law out on carrying a pistol, but need alot more money for the defence to get everythign pinned down further first


I am also in th ecamp of shoot the wolves, and bury them deep