Prepare to Protect Producers

Living with Wildlife is not as easy as some may wish. Living with wildlife in a large metropolis may mean a property owner will be confronted with raccoons, rats and mice, and several rambunctious squirrels. Living with wildlife outside of a city has a greater impact. That impact increases exponentially as people in the landscape become fewer. Just outside an urban area, and beyond, property owners will be interacting with a greater a variety of ordinary and endangered species and face more of a financial burden. Preventing interaction with species ranges from how to store refuse to how much of a property is restricted due to county, state, and federal policies. Some people see these additional burdens and restrictions as a simple price for others to pay in order to say they live in a state that they may share with such species. But the simple truth is no matter where you live in the state, you will be sharing in the cost of species adoration. Those who produce those things needed including wool, leather, meat, wheat, produce, lumber, and minerals are bearing the financial burden of lost production that all will pay for through the higher costs to produce, taxpayer monies for creating state programs to deal with certain species, and legislative time to produce laws to deal with these species. There is also the cost of litigation the taxpayer will bear as Corporate Environmentalists try and force their will through the courts. It is no wonder the cost of living explodes as we Live with Wildlife. The rare individual who honestly does not think he needs or uses any of these products may think the price to pay is worthwhile. However, that individual would certainly be rare and would have to be living in a bubble that would still depend on other individuals who do benefit from our producers. Does that person live in a house, wear clothing, use a cell phone, computer, vehicle? Do others who need to dress, communicate, and eat provide the labor and skill to enable anyone to live in any area? Of course the answer is yes, and illustrates the individual's responsibility to think clearly and carefully about ideals and policies that certainly have a cause and effect impact on the lives of all people. Currently the ideal of Living With Wildlife is being played out with one particular re-introduced species, specifically wolves. This year, one rancher is facing the loss of a minimum of 24 from his herd of sheep due to wolf attacks and is being forced through the circumstance of wolves to move his heard from a privately held grazing contract which not only fed the sheep, but kept the threat of wildfire lower through grazing. This has resulted in considerably costly State expenditures as well as those to the rancher, and the property owner. These articles will shed light on the situation. Encounters with wolves are annually common in areas where those who produce for others live. This can be seen by viewing legislatively required reporting of encounters with wolves at this WDFW webpage: There are many circumstances and expenses brought to bear on the public due to the ongoing desire of some to embrace an unrealistic and damaging ideal of wildlife. These articles provide insight to the promotion of ideals beyond the threshold of what is reasonable. And how far-reaching and self-serving this has become: In this region, there are already too many encumbrances to production, the redistribution of Caribou a recent among them: The USDA Forest Service is now contemplating adding Grizzly Bears to the list of animals to be re-introduced to our producers, landowners, and those who love to recreate. Is it time for more individuals to look very closely at the cost/benefit to these types of actions? It is clear the cost is far more extensive that what is paid at the retail level, and goes into the lives and living of all Washington State Citizens. Loss of work: It should always be noted that when a well funded Corporate Environmentalist group is asking for a "fill in the blank" species to be saved, they are almost always asking for that species to be reintroduced. Saving implies they already exist in a region and need help, this misleading language most likely is calculated to engender monetary and general support for an ideal that does not exist. Is this a good use of money? There is no evidence that Grizzly Bears do exist in Washington State vague references not withstanding. Prudent, open-minded individuals would want to see all sides to the story, including the cost/benefit realities. And seek to find information and opinions of farmers, ranchers, and those who will be living with this re-introduction plan as it progresses this fall. Well informed opinions should be submitted to the government when the time finally comes to ask the public for comment. This blog will be tracking the process.

September 1, 2014