In response to a recent letter to the editor regarding wolves. The wolves that have been introduced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are not native. They are from Canada and are bigger and much different than the native gray wolves.
It is difficult for farmers and ranchers, who are a minority of less than 2%, to have the other 98% that do not have a clue tell them what they should be doing. And that includes environmentalists. That 2% is feeding the other 98% and you are trying to put them out of business.
The question is: How are you qualified to draw a conclusion on an extremely important problem that has been imposed on cattlemen by people who live in cities? Cattlemen have lost a significant amount of income as a result of this experiment without any say in this matter, which affects their livelihood and puts them and their families in danger as they live where the wolves live.
As to the cost of wolves regarding loss of production, many studies in Montana, where they were first introduced, have proved the cost is considerable, not only in lost animals but in total production as they cannot graze normally.
Sadly, there is not enough space and time to educate people about the complexities of ag as it requires more ability and tenacity than most people have.
Question: Why should cattlemen have no say and have to bear the expense of an experiment that our great grandfathers already figured out (that wolves are predators and have no value)?
Why aren't wolves evenly distributed in the state? You do not want them in your yard!
Regarding grazing fees, they only look cheap to you! Cattlemen have been severely cut back and fees and have increased, and logging has been eliminated so now we have forest fires that cost the taxpayer millions.
The Indians log, graze and kill wolves! All of the things that were done to make this country great are no longer good. The new generation of educated idiots is in charge now!
Example: The WDFW purchases a ranch or farm that the owner was making a living on and it must have had wildlife on it, or why would they buy it? They purchase it and five years later it has less wildlife and now it is an expense to the taxpayer. They buy an alfalfa farm, then they quit farming the alfalfa and again it goes from supporting a family to a welfare farm that the taxpayers now support, and we call that progress!
From an 84-year-old who is proud to have been a farmer and rancher and knows how tough it is — we should be careful when we criticize the people who feed us!