Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

Where "up North"?

I know folks in the Yellowstone area and the NM and AZ areas can apply to 
the Bailey's Fund.

I think the interesting point that ranchers like to ignore is that with the 
reintroduction of the wolves, which largely feed on elk and very small game 
btw, is that the coyote population has been severely reduced.  *Most* sheep 
looses are due to coyote predition and the wolves have put a dent into those 
looses.

With the coyote problem, it would seem that sheep ranchers would have 
already had the dogs.  The ones out here sure do.  And a big part of the 
loose problem isn't coyotes or wolves, it is plain old-fashioned dogs! 
Precious and FiFi who wouldn't so such a thing were responsible for almost 
every calf, lamb and foal kill we had!  We bought Russian Wolfhounds for 
just that reason when we had sheep.  Fast, silent and deadly accurate on 
dogs and they never chased or worried the cattle, sheep or horses.

Lynda
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gloria Morris" <gloriamorris59 AT gmail.com>


> In my past, as a sheep farmer, I corresponded at some length with a sheep
> farmer up North, who had to deal with re-introduced wolves. She called 
> them
> the government's wolves. The government brought them in and then failed to
> compensate farmers for their inevitable losses. To contend that wolf
> re-introduction costs little is to ignore the farmer. In order to continue
> farming, the sheep farmer had to get a large pack of sheep guardian dogs.
> One or two could not keep the wolves at bay. I believe she told me they 
> had
> to have 7 or 8 of the large dogs. These dogs are not cheap to acquire,
> and they are not free to maintain. This is a cost, an added burden, borne 
> by
> a farmer who is not of unlimited wealth and resources.