Prairie dog editorial from Rapid City Journal

[Liberty Belle]

USFS is as arrogant and disconnected from the land and landowners as the SD GF&P.

Prairie dog management plan ruining our ranch
By John & Carol Sides, who ranch near Smithwick.

SMITHWICK - My grandparents established our ranch many years before the federal government acquired the grasslands of South Dakota. Although our ranch has thrived despite prairie fires, blizzards, droughts and low prices, the current policies of the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the state of South Dakota are as great a threat as our ranch has ever faced.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the black-tailed prairie dog sets forth the policy of the USFS and South Dakota and is full of unanswered questions, half-truths, plans for the mismanagement of our nations' natural resources, and simply punitive measures against the people of our region.
What the DEIS fails to mention is more important than what is actually written into the plan. There will be no poisoning of the prairie dogs on hundreds of thousands of the interior acres of the national grasslands of South Dakota. Thus the plan allows for these lands to be infested and destroyed over the next 10-15 years. South Dakota acquiesced in this decision and did not assist the counties in appealing.

The DEIS only allows for chemical control of the prairie dogs in some, but not all, national grassland areas adjacent to private or tribal properties. Although the USFS and the state claim that there will be a "buffer zone," their plans require destruction of private property before the USFS will take any action. At the point a landowner can prove to the USFS' satisfaction that the prairie dogs are destroying his land and coming from the national grasslands, then the USFS will decide what action is appropriate.

The Forest Service may control the prairie dogs up to a 10th, quarter, half, or a full mile from the private property, depending on what version of the plan is adopted. The version most likely to be adopted provides a maximum "buffer zone" of either .25 or .5 miles. This is consistent and agreed to by South Dakota's plan.

In terms of our ranch, the DEIS does not guarantee any chemical control of the prairie dogs coming off of the grasslands. The DEIS states that because our ranch is entirely surrounded by national grasslands, the USFS could simply decide to do nothing about the destruction of our property.

The most likely response of the USFS will be the construction of "vegetation management fencing." What this means is that a new fence will be built .25 miles inside the current fence and cattle will be severely reduced or eliminated between the fences. This will cost a lot to build and maintain and will be utterly ineffective. This is what the USFS considers to be their "good neighbor buffer zones." We believe this policy is simply punitive toward our family.

This "plan" not only harms our ranch business, it also destroys the forage for other wildlife. We are permitted by the USFS to graze cattle in Hay Canyon. This area is to be managed as grouse habitat, which is supposed to provide good ground cover for grouse - the same ground cover the USFS desires for the "vegetation management fencing buffer zones."

Six or seven years ago, prairie dogs started moving onto our allotment and grouse numbers decreased as the prairie dogs became more prolific. I haven't seen any grouse on our allotment for the past three years. The grouse have moved to private land where prairie dogs are controlled. According to the DEIS, the USFS solution will be to cut cattle numbers.

The USFS is also in denial. The DEIS states, "None of the alternatives would have a significant influence on the economic dependency and diversity of local communities in the project area." This is completely misleading. In Fall River County, 20 percent of all cattle are run on the federal lands. Based on a $500 calf, this means that $13.7 million are generated off federal lands. Many businesses in small towns are just hanging on and depend on ranchers running cattle on the national grasslands; both are threatened.

The USFS trivializes again by saying, "Given the relatively minor part of the landscape occupied by the prairie dog, it is highly unlikely that prairie dog colonies are a significant source of atmospheric dust across the Northern Plains." Thousands of acres are not minor. Topsoil in the Northern Plains can vary from an inch or less to several feet, and we're seeing this blow and wash away.

It is shocking that the USFS can treat the wind and soil erosion taking place on dog towns so casually when the wind blows dust raising several hundred feet into the air. Testimony was given in Pierre this year in front of a state Senate subcommittee that a dam, which a family used for years to water ski on, is now a mud flat due to prairie dog town erosion.

It is a shame that while one government agency works to protect air, water and the soil, another is attempting to ruin good grasslands and watersheds.

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "USFS is as arrogant and disconnected from the land and landowners as the SD GF&P."

What a cheap shot by LB!

The Sides family has a legitimate problem with pr. dogs and you will not meet finer folks.

John and Carol Sides are surrounded by FS land on three sides with P. dog towns that are not being controlled adequately. They are within 2 miles of the reservation with large pr. dog towns on the reservation as well. Combine that with the drought and you have a severe pr. dog problem. The migration of pr. dogs onto their property is unlike any I have ever seen.

I was the one who personally organized the pr dog poisoning effort on John and Carol Sides private property.

Ask them if GF&P was arrogant about their concerns and disconnected from the land?

Did we solve their problem? Only temporarily!

Until something is done on the USFS land that borders them and the reservation pr. dog towns, pr. dogs will be a constant battle for these folks.



~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

LB: "USFS is as arrogant and disconnected from the land and landowners as the SD GF&P."

SH: "What a cheap shot by LB!"

That was no cheap shot. That was aimed directly and intentionally at USFS and GF&P, NOT at the Sides family.

The Sides family has our sympathy. They are dealing with a problem common to all of us who have to deal with either of these governmental agencies. It may interest you to know that the Sides' letter has been posted on www.sdlockout.com and it was posted there because we wholeheartedly agree with their sentiments.

I commend you for organizing the prairie dog poisoning on their land and I am more than ready to admit that in the case of prairie dog management, GF&P is a vast improvement over the feds. That doesn't make GF&P any easier to deal with when it comes to that agency's propensity for trampling on private property rights.

I don't know the Sides family. I'm sure they're fine folks and I was very impressed with their well-written letter to the editor. I do know several of the families who are in the same boat as they are, some that I'm related to, and most of the families I know are also involved in the SD Lockout. They don't have any more faith or trust in John Cooper and his policies that we do.

SH: "Did we solve their problem? Only temporarily!
Until something is done on the USFS land that borders them and the reservation pr. dog towns, pr. dogs will be a constant battle for these folks."

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "That was no cheap shot. That was aimed directly and intentionally at USFS and GF&P, NOT at the Sides family."

That was another totally inappropriate cheap shot at GF&P which has nothing to do with USFS policies on pr. dog control. Never said it was a cheap shot at the Sides family. Once again you took my statement out of context. Par!

Nobody is more frustrated about USFS pr. dog control policies than we are and nobody understands the Side's frustration more than I do personally.

Unlike those who just provide sympathy, I actually killed their pr. dogs.



~SH~

 

[Jinglebob]

SH;
Did you kill the praire dogs out of the goodness of your heart, or were you hired to do it?

 

[Anonymous]

JB: "Did you kill the praire dogs out of the goodness of your heart, or were you hired to do it?"

Both! I volunteered for the work because my workload had slowed at the time. We also poisoned more acres than was required.

Do you think someone who reads about it can understand the situation as well as someone who has been there?

Did you think someone who is paid to do a job is less concerned than someone who isn't?

Did you have a point this time?



~SH~

 

[Jinglebob]

SH;
My point was, that if someone brags on doing a job, that they were paid to do, it's kind of an empty brag. Good for you for going the extra mile.

Just because a person is paid to do a job doesn't mean they don't care. That might just be why they took the job in the first place. But so many of us have experienced Goverment help that didn't seem to care. And other people working other jobs as well, of course.

I'm starting to understand why you have written, what you have, at the bottom of your pages. SHEESH! Chill out dude and don't be so defensive. Ask a simple question and you seem to take it as an offense against you or your job.

I don't know if those who read about something can understand as well as someone who see's firsthand. If they have an imagination, they probably can get some understanding. Some of us have seen what uncontrolled praire dogs can do to pasture and praire. I'm glad I don't have any ground next to the US government.

Oh and one more question, and don't get defensive here, do you enjoy killing praire dogs and trapping animals by the leg and if so does it give you a sensation of power? I personally hate to kill animals, but will, to stop suffering and to stop a problem caused by overpopulation.

 

[mrj]

Jinglebob, that last sentence pretty well fits the "cheap shot" category!

Why would you assume anyone, or is it just SH, would "enjoy" killing animals that need to be eliminated because of the problems they are causing, or "get a sensation of power" from doing so?

People who very much appreciate and love animals occasionally need to be able to do what is necessary.

You claim that category for yourself. So, why do you even ask that question if not to imply SH is less of a good guy than you are?

MRJ

 

[Jinglebob]

MRJ

Why do hunters hunt? If it's just for the pleasure of being out in the wide open, they can do that without killing an animal.

If it's for meat, ie. food, they could shoot does, but very few will.

I don't think that my question was a cheap shot, just curiuos as to why SH does what he does. Maybe time for some introspection on all of our parts.

Some people like the sensation of power by "outthinking, overpowering, conquering" someone or something else. I was not alluding to SH's manhood or anything else. Or implying that he was anything. I just asked a simple question. So that I would have a better understanding of why he does his job.

Would you have been as quick to jump to the defense if I had asked the question of Sandhusker, Nebrusker, Hat or R-Calf? Or of anyone else. What are your reasons for for jumping to SH's defense now? What are your motives?

 

[smalltime]

This is just my opinion .There are difrent kinds of killing jinglebob.Some is your fun kind and some is your everyday kind .Like your fun kind is when you and the wife and kids load up the car with the tent and food and guns andgo camping and shoot a12 point buck.Then theres your every day kind like choping chickens for dinner.I don t think your question was a cheap shot .

 

[Anonymous]

jB: "My point was, that if someone brags on doing a job, that they were paid to do, it's kind of an empty brag. Good for you for going the extra mile."

I was not bragging on doing my job JB. I was responding to a cheap shot by LB suggesting that GF&P does not care about this pr. dog problem when we were the ones that took action.

When you focus on my response as opposed to the cheap shot that elicited that response, it says a lot about you and your bias Jinglebob!

There is no winning with someone who only wants to see what they want to see.


Jinglebob: "Just because a person is paid to do a job doesn't mean they don't care. That might just be why they took the job in the first place. But so many of us have experienced Goverment help that didn't seem to care. And other people working other jobs as well, of course."

Working for the government breeds complacency. Why? Because there is so many sideline critics like you out there that will criticize the response ("bragging") as opposed to the cheap shot that elicited that response ("USFS is as arrogant and disconnected from the land and landowners as the SD GF&P"). There's no satisfying some people.

At this point, I have yet to become complacent because I don't focus on the sideline critics or the cheap shots from the "I have an axe to grind with GF&P" crowd, I focus on those who appreciate what we do.


JB: "Oh and one more question, and don't get defensive here, do you enjoy killing praire dogs and trapping animals by the leg and if so does it give you a sensation of power? I personally hate to kill animals, but will, to stop suffering and to stop a problem caused by overpopulation."

Do I enjoy killing pr. dogs? I poison pr. dogs because it needs to be done. My satisfaction or enjoyment comes from seeing grass grow back where pr. dogs used to create their devastation which returns the productivity of that land back to the rancher. I enjoy that! I enjoy spending time with other ranchers and pr. dog poisoning can become a social event much like a branding.

Do I enjoy shooting pr. dogs? Absolutely! Why? Because they are destructive little animals and prolific as heck and their populations need to be kept in check. I enjoy shooting pr. dogs because it's biologically justified and a great way to make sure my coyote rifles are still sighted in. The pr. dogs that I shoot are "compensatory mortality" to those that would migrate out of an overpopulated pr. dog town and be killed by other predators. Shooting pr. dogs is both biologically and economically justified and I enjoy the target practice based on those justifications.

Do I enjoy trapping animals by the leg? I do not trap animals by the "LEG", I trap animals by the "foot" or "paw" if you will. You sound like someone who is living in the Bambi world of large bear traps with great big teeth. Sheeesh!

I use modified traps with laminated or thickened jaws, offset jaws, adequate swiveling, and shock absorbing springs on the chain. Do I enjoy trapping? Absolutely! Why? Because coyote populations need to be thinned out and problem animals removed from complaint areas. Coyote trapping is challenging and has been profitable at times when furs were worth more money.

If you have been led to believe that coyotes suffer in traps can you explain the coyotes that I have observed in traps sleeping, snapping at flies, scratching themselves, or coyotes that have watched as birds flew by? Does that resemble "suffering" behavior to you?

Does any of this give me a sensation of power? BWAHAHAHA! You sound more like a California transient animal activist than a cowboy poet. You need to stop reading animal rights propoganda and start living in the real world.

No, I don't get any sensation of power by killing animals but I do find the art of trapping a coyote challenging. I have to get a coyote that lives in a 24 square mile area to step on a 2" trap pan. That's where my satisfaction comes from.

From a fur harvesting standpoint, the coyotes that are not removed die of mange when they are overpopulated and trapping is one of the best means to remove that surplus population. Would you prefer that coyotes die of mange as opposed to a bullet in the head after being trapped? Most antis would!

If you are going to show concern for a coyote in a trap who is simply restrained with a numbed paw that they cannot feel, why are you not equally concerned about the lamb that was taken down and killed by that same coyote or the heifer that had her rear end ate out because she was paralyzed during calving?

Are you equally concerned about that?

Oh and one more question and don't get defensive here, do you like holding a hot iron brand to a calf or do you do it because it needs to be done?

Unlike Marty Robbin's, "I can see by your outfit that you are a cowboy", I am more impressed with the "shor nuff bronc buster in his continental suit" that took the money from the fence sitting critics. Something tells me those fence sitters were probably wearing loud colored high top boots with their pants tucked in and spurs with rowells as big as their hats reciting cowboy poetry. Are we still having fun?



~SH~

 

[katrina]

Does anyone know if there is any effort to regrass the areas that the prairie dogs kill? I see that some places the grass has been killed by the prairie dogs and weeds are growing...

 

[Jinglebob]

"I was not bragging on doing my job JB. I was responding to a cheap shot by LB suggesting that GF&P does not care about this pr. dog problem when we were the ones that took action.

When you focus on my response as opposed to the cheap shot that elicited that response, it says a lot about you and your bias Jinglebob!"

I guess I didn't think LB gave you a cheap shot. And what do you know about my bias's?! LOL

"There is no winning with someone who only wants to see what they want to see."

Amen on that one brother!


Jinglebob: "Just because a person is paid to do a job doesn't mean they don't care. That might just be why they took the job in the first place. But so many of us have experienced Goverment help that didn't seem to care. And other people working other jobs as well, of course."

"Working for the government breeds complacency. Why? Because there is so many sideline critics like you out there that will criticize the response ("bragging") as opposed to the cheap shot that elicited that response ("USFS is as arrogant and disconnected from the land and landowners as the SD GF&P"). There's no satisfying some people. "

So if someone has a different opinion than you they are taking a cheap shot? Sorry, I still thought it was a free country and that people could form their own opinions after thinking and reacting to stimuli and situations. I agree with LB as far as her take on GF&P and I think there are probably people who work for USFS who fit into the same small box, tho' so far I've had little dealings with them. As far as that goes, I didn't say you were bragging, I ASKED you if you were. You are so defensive!

"At this point, I have yet to become complacent because I don't focus on the sideline critics or the cheap shots from the "I have an axe to grind with GF&P" crowd, I focus on those who appreciate what we do."

Good for you!


JB: "Oh and one more question, and don't get defensive here, do you enjoy killing praire dogs and trapping animals by the leg and if so does it give you a sensation of power? I personally hate to kill animals, but will, to stop suffering and to stop a problem caused by overpopulation."

"Do I enjoy killing pr. dogs? I poison pr. dogs because it needs to be done. My satisfaction or enjoyment comes from seeing grass grow back where pr. dogs used to create their devastation which returns the productivity of that land back to the rancher. I enjoy that! I enjoy spending time with other ranchers and pr. dog poisoning can become a social event much like a branding.

Do I enjoy shooting pr. dogs? Absolutely! Why? Because they are destructive little animals and prolific as heck and their populations need to be kept in check. I enjoy shooting pr. dogs because it's biologically justified and a great way to make sure my coyote rifles are still sighted in. The pr. dogs that I shoot are "compensatory mortality" to those that would migrate out of an overpopulated pr. dog town and be killed by other predators. Shooting pr. dogs is both biologically and economically justified and I enjoy the target practice based on those justifications.

Do I enjoy trapping animals by the leg? I do not trap animals by the "LEG", I trap animals by the "foot" or "paw" if you will. You sound like someone who is living in the Bambi world of large bear traps with great big teeth. Sheeesh!"

Again, I was ASKING and not inferring anything. Yea, I've had to shoot a lot of "Bambi's" to end there sufferering from poorly placed shots. Some by me, some by unknowns. Also cripples along the road. I hate to see an animal suffer. If the traps catch by the paw why do they refer to them as"leg hold traps"?

"I use modified traps with laminated or thickened jaws, offset jaws, adequate swiveling, and shock absorbing springs on the chain. Do I enjoy trapping? Absolutely! Why? Because coyote populations need to be thinned out and problem animals removed from complaint areas. Coyote trapping is challenging and has been profitable at times when furs were worth more money."

Why just the coyotes, why not the deer or antelope or any other species that is overpopulated? What about fox?

"If you have been led to believe that coyotes suffer in traps can you explain the coyotes that I have observed in traps sleeping, snapping at flies, scratching themselves, or coyotes that have watched as birds flew by? Does that resemble "suffering" behavior to you?"

Never seen it so I really couldn't say. But if you are telling me that this is true, than it must be.

"Does any of this give me a sensation of power? BWAHAHAHA! You sound more like a California transient animal activist than a cowboy poet. You need to stop reading animal rights propoganda and start living in the real world."

I've been "living" in the real world for a long time now Scotty. And I feel I need to read their propaganda so as to better defend myself and those like me who make a living from the land and cattle.

"No, I don't get any sensation of power by killing animals but I do find the art of trapping a coyote challenging. I have to get a coyote that lives in a 24 square mile area to step on a 2" trap pan. That's where my satisfaction comes from.

From a fur harvesting standpoint, the coyotes that are not removed die of mange when they are overpopulated and trapping is one of the best means to remove that surplus population. Would you prefer that coyotes die of mange as opposed to a bullet in the head after being trapped? Most antis would!"

No, I agree that trapping is much more humane. Many died from mange in this ara and they looked pitiful. Too bad there wasn't a monetary reason to trap and/or shoot them so that more wouldn't have had to suffer needlessly.
And a shot to the head is sure better than jumping on them to crush their ribs, as the man who used to trap here did. He didn't want any blood to ruin his set. He would get very upset when I would find a critter in one of his traps that he hadn't bothered to check for several days, and I would shoot the critter to end it's suffering. By the way, all of the ones he had were most definatley caught by the leg or ankle and were not sleeping when I found them. He must have had different traps than they have now. Of course, that was 25 or 30 years ago.

"If you are going to show concern for a coyote in a trap who is simply restrained with a numbed paw that they cannot feel, why are you not equally concerned about the lamb that was taken down and killed by that same coyote or the heifer that had her rear end ate out because she was paralyzed during calving?"

Who said that I am not concerned with the cruel death of a calf or lamb? You seem to be putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my mind. Maybe you better go back and re-read what I posted. I wouldn't want you to get confused. Thats the problem with asking you a simple question SH, you can't just give a simple answer, but have to try and tear the person down who asked the question.

"Are you equally concerned about that?"

Yes I am. I hate to see anything suffer.

"Oh and one more question and don't get defensive here, do you like holding a hot iron brand to a calf or do you do it because it needs to be done?"

I don't like it and yes I do it because it needs to be done. I have been branded myself, so I know what the poor little guys are feeling. I don't particularly enjoy castorating calves, but it has to be done and better to do it quick and as painlessly as possible.

"Unlike Marty Robbin's, "I can see by your outfit that you are a cowboy", I am more impressed with the "shor nuff bronc buster in his continental suit" that took the money from the fence sitting critics. Something tells me those fence sitters were probably wearing loud colored high top boots with their pants tucked in and spurs with rowells as big as their hats reciting cowboy poetry. Are we still having fun?

You bet we are having fun.
If you were to go back and re-listen or re-read the poem and/or song, I think that given more thought you might realize that the "cowboy in the continental suit" was in all actuallity a real cowboy who was dressed in that costume so as to set the guys up and win the bet.
How someone dresses has very little to do with what that person does to make a living. At least in public that is. While doing the work at hand most people wear what is called for in their current line of work, ie. a cowboy wearing boots with the pants tucked in would denote someone who rode for most of his/her living. Or as I do, because I have fat little calves and it's more comfortable to wear my pants that way!
There are those who emulate and admire certain occupations and traditions, so they dress as someone would who does the work of that occupation. Yes, you will see dudes and wannabe's dressing up like hunters and cowboys and loggers and I suppose every other kind of occupation there is. I went to school with a young man that wanted to be a Marine when he grew up and he would dress as a Marine and "blouse" his pants into his boots in the accepted style of Marines of that time.
You seem to have a problem with the fact that I or anyone else would recite or write "cowboy Poetry". Is it because of jealousy? Please don't denegrate anyone else because of my writings or actions. If you don't like my asking questions of you, just say so. I will gladly quit. If you don't like poetry, than please don't read or listen to any. If you feel that writing, reciting or reading poetry makes one less of a man or a lesser "hand" than so be it. Some of the best cowboys and ranchers I know read, recite and/or write poetry. I admire anyone who goes to the effert to memorize or write something in verse or ryhme and than hase the intestinal fortitude to get up in front of a bunch of people and "spill their guts". Maybe you ought to give it a try sometime. I know it can get the adrenaline goin'. Funny, they say that public speaking is one of the most common fears. But I digress.
As for the cowboys on the fence in the poem/song, I would imagine at least one had the talent to write poetry or how else would we know of the events that transposed in the poem/song?
I have spent many happy hours swapping stories and/or poems with a bunch of good hands. If a story is written in verse and ryhme it make it easier to remember. Hence, commercial jingles.
And those "rowels as big as their hats" are much more humane than the tiny dime sized ones. Spurs are not meant for punisment, but for accentuation, by those who know what they are doing. "To elevate and lengthen the stride", is I believe how it is put.
From the above writing by you, I would be led to believe that you are good at what you do and enjoy your job. You just seem to not want anyone else to hold a different opinion than you do as you are hasty to make amends or retorts, depending on who disagree's with you, whenever certain subjects come up. Those who you feel you are superior to, you put down, malign and verbally try to beat up with mis-quotes and twists of the persons own words. As I wrote somewhere on this site before, you don't seem to be too bad of a feller, but maybe you should be a little less defensive.
If a GF&P officals took the time to come to my ranch and visit with me about my problems, than I would certainly have a better opinion of the outfit he worked for. And as I've stated before, I've only really had a problem with one CO and that was because he lied to me. Once burned, twice shy.
Don McCrea was a good guy and did a good job by me when he was stationed here. Give me a call sometime and we'll visit about Don and GF&P programs and perhaps we can take this up where others won't be so bored by our musings and arguments. Hell, for that matter, drive up and we'll have tea and crumpets!

 

[Jinglebob]

Katrina

I think that mother nature will grow the grass back if there is nothing to eat it off again. Most of our native grasses have strong roots and will have regrowth if given time and moisture. Some weeds may come in at first, but in time grass will grow where the weeds give the grasses protection. Kind'a like a cover crop with alfalfa.

 

[Anonymous]

JB: "I guess I didn't think LB gave you a cheap shot. And what do you know about my bias's?!"

If you don't think the following statement is a cheap shot at all employees of GF&P, then your bias screams.

LB: "USFS is as arrogant and disconnected from the land and landowners as the SD GF&P."

How can you say you are not biased when you support a statement that claims that GF&P, which does not differentiate between anyone in GF&P, is disconnected from the land and landowners?

I grew up on a ranch, I am passionate about ranching and all it entails, I remain involved in ranching, and I was involved in controlling the pr. dogs on Side's property. Knowing that, how can GF&P be disconnected from the land and landowners?

That statement is bullsh*t and you are a fool to defend it.


JB: "So if someone has a different opinion than you they are taking a cheap shot?"

No, if someone makes a baseless allegation towards GF&P that they cannot support, then it's a cheap shot!


JB: "I agree with LB as far as her take on GF&P..."

Then why did you ask what I knew about your bias? Your bias is obvious.


JB: "Yea, I've had to shoot a lot of "Bambi's" to end there sufferering from poorly placed shots. Some by me, some by unknowns. Also cripples along the road. I hate to see an animal suffer."

How do you know they are suffering? Did you ask them? No, you ASSUME they are suffering because you are putting human emotions and feelings into animals.


JB: "If the traps catch by the paw why do they refer to them as"leg hold traps"?"

Who is "they"?

I don't know many trappers that refer to them as leghold traps because they do not catch animals by the leg, they catch them by the foot or paw. Only biased animal rights zeolots refer to them as leghold traps because they want to create the image that they catch animals by the leg and break bones.


JB: "Why just the coyotes, why not the deer or antelope or any other species that is overpopulated? What about fox?"

Why do trappers just trap coyotes and not deer or antelope?

Because a deer and antelope leg is different than a coyote foot and deer and antelope can be shot more readily than a coyote.

Why not fox? Fox are trapped, just like coyotes.


JB: "I've been "living" in the real world for a long time now Scotty. And I feel I need to read their propaganda so as to better defend myself and those like me who make a living from the land and cattle."

Looks like you have bought into their propoganda more so than using it to better defend yourself against them. If that was not the case, you would not have had to ask if trapping gives me a "sensation of power". That's animals rights propoganda through and through.

Unlike you, I won't bore you with my phsychoanalysis of your "sensation of power" question.


JB: "And a shot to the head is sure better than jumping on them to crush their ribs, as the man who used to trap here did. He didn't want any blood to ruin his set."

They don't jump on them to break their ribs. What good would that do?Some trappers tap them on the nose to stun them then step on their heart to stop their heart. You should have been asking more questions rather than assuming to understand what you were observing.

Many trappers do that with fox to keep the blood from ruining the pelt, to keep the blood out of the truck, and to keep blood away from the set so as not to distract them from the lure or bait in the hole.


JB: "He would get very upset when I would find a critter in one of his traps that he hadn't bothered to check for several days, and I would shoot the critter to end it's suffering."

How do you know it was the same animal in the trap for several days. He may have removed the first animal and caught another. I have been accused of the same thing by those who ASSUME it is the same animal.

It's also illegal to tamper with peoples traps or the animals in them. Did you know that? I don't like anyone messing with my traps or trapped animals either unless I asked them to. In many cases I ask landowners to check them for me. You are not doing any trapper a favor by killing his critters for him if the weather is such that the animals fur starts to slip by the time he gets back.

Again, how do you know that animal is suffering? Of course it doesn't want to be there but once the circulation is cut off to the paw, it's simply restrained like a dog on a leash. They can't feel the trap beyond the initial capture. That's why skunks and raccoons sometimes chew the part of their foot that is below the jaws of the trap because they cannot feel it.


JB: "By the way, all of the ones he had were most definatley caught by the leg or ankle and were not sleeping when I found them. He must have had different traps than they have now."

The point is that I have seen enough coyotes and fox sleeping in traps to know that pain is not an issue as you assume by your "suffering" comments.

I have no idea what types of traps your trapper was using but I know what is being used today by professional trappers. Fox traps will seldom catch fox by the leg and coyote traps will seldom catch coyotes by the leg. Coyote traps may catch fox a little high. Perhaps you saw someone use coyote traps on fox. In areas where both coyote and fox can be caught, the trapper will use coyote traps which are a little too big for fox.


JB: "Who said that I am not concerned with the cruel death of a calf or lamb?"

You mentioned the ASSUMED "suffering" of trapped animals so I asked why you are not equally concerned with the cruel death of a calf or lamb that was killed by that supposedly "suffering" coyote in the trap?

A sentence that ends in a "?" is a question not a statement!


JB: "Thats the problem with asking you a simple question SH, you can't just give a simple answer, but have to try and tear the person down who asked the question."

Oh cry me a river. I respond to what has been stated and I can see through biased questions.


JB: "If you were to go back and re-listen or re-read the poem and/or song, I think that given more thought you might realize that the "cowboy in the continental suit" was in all actuallity a real cowboy who was dressed in that costume so as to set the guys up and win the bet."

I understand that. That doesn't change the fact that someone who dresses like a cowboy may not know much about cattle and ranching.


JB: "....a cowboy wearing boots with the pants tucked in would denote someone who rode for most of his/her living."

Or someone who wanted to present that image.


JB: "Or as I do, because I have fat little calves and it's more comfortable to wear my pants that way!"

ok!


JB: "You seem to have a problem with the fact that I or anyone else would recite or write "cowboy Poetry". Is it because of jealousy?"

I have no problem with anyone reciting or writing cowboy poetry. I actually enjoy it and I have already told you that I thoroughly enjoyed one of your poems.

You call me paranoid?

My only point was that there are those who dress and act like cowboys and there are those who actually are.


JB: "As for the cowboys on the fence in the poem/song, I would imagine at least one had the talent to write poetry or how else would we know of the events that transposed in the poem/song?"

Someone made it up?


JB: "And those "rowels as big as their hats" are much more humane than the tiny dime sized ones. Spurs are not meant for punisment, but for accentuation, by those who know what they are doing. "To elevate and lengthen the stride", is I believe how it is put."

Interesting! I have yet to see a professional horse trainer wear large rowells on their spurs. Perhaps they should attend your clinic.


JB: "You just seem to not want anyone else to hold a different opinion than you do as you are hasty to make amends or retorts, depending on who disagree's with you, whenever certain subjects come up."

I have as much right to correct wrong information as someone else does to present it.


JB: "Those who you feel you are superior to, you put down, malign and verbally try to beat up with mis-quotes and twists of the persons own words."

What the heck are you talking about "feel superior to". Man you are losing it. I don't feel "superior" to anyone, I just call bullsh*t when I see it and will continue to do so. If you don't like that, I don't care.

As far as the "misquotes" and "twists", you make that allegation but you offer no examples to back it. Same-O, same-O!

If you don't like my posts, don't read them. It's that simple. I'm not changing anything to fit someone else's idea of how I should post.

Have a nice day!




~SH~

 

[Jinglebob]

JB: "So if someone has a different opinion than you they are taking a cheap shot?"

No, if someone makes a baseless allegation towards GF&P that they cannot support, then it's a cheap shot!
JB- I am not making baseless accusations against the GF&P. I am making the statement that when a GF&P official or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't have prior invitation or a legal warrant, and then comes onto my land, they are tresspassing. Remember this all started from the Open Fields BS, which seems to me to just be an excuse for someone in authority to tresspass, as then they don't have to come up with a reason for probable cause. Any other law offical has to have a warrant or probable cause and I feel that we should hold ALL law enforcement officials to this standard. If it's good enough for the police and sherriff dept, then why isn't it good enough for the GF&P.


JB: "Yea, I've had to shoot a lot of "Bambi's" to end there sufferering from poorly placed shots. Some by me, some by unknowns. Also cripples along the road. I hate to see an animal suffer."

How do you know they are suffering? Did you ask them? No, you ASSUME they are suffering because you are putting human emotions and feelings into animals.
JB-I might assume something is suffering if they are caught and pinched by the leg or foot. How do you know that they are not suffering? When I see a deer with it's guts hanging out or a broken or shot off leg, I assume that it is suffering. I have had broken bones and know that they are painful and I am certain that animals feel pain. I don't like to see anything suffer.

JB: "If the traps catch by the paw why do they refer to them as"leg hold traps"?"

Who is "they"?

I don't know many trappers that refer to them as leghold traps because they do not catch animals by the leg, they catch them by the foot or paw. Only biased animal rights zeolots refer to them as leghold traps because they want to create the image that they catch animals by the leg and break bones.
JB_ I'm not sure who "they" are either. Seems to me I've read it used in that context in several outdoor magazines. As I don't trap anything but mice and praire dogs, I was not aware that traps are different now than when I was a kid and saw quite a few animals caught at or above the ankle. Guess I'll have to refer to them as paw or foot hold traps from now on.

JB: "Why just the coyotes, why not the deer or antelope or any other species that is overpopulated? What about fox?"

Why do trappers just trap coyotes and not deer or antelope?

Because a deer and antelope leg is different than a coyote foot and deer and antelope can be shot more readily than a coyote.

Why not fox? Fox are trapped, just like coyotes.
JB- I meant the shooting of over populations of deer and antelope. And isn't it possible to snare a deer by the foot? Isn't there a law about snares, that they have to have a stop on them so as not to catch deer?

JB: "I've been "living" in the real world for a long time now Scotty. And I feel I need to read their propaganda so as to better defend myself and those like me who make a living from the land and cattle."

Looks like you have bought into their propoganda more so than using it to better defend yourself against them. If that was not the case, you would not have had to ask if trapping gives me a "sensation of power". That's animals rights propoganda through and through.

Unlike you, I won't bore you with my phsychoanalysis of your "sensation of power" question.
JB- Check down below for the reply to this one.

JB: "And a shot to the head is sure better than jumping on them to crush their ribs, as the man who used to trap here did. He didn't want any blood to ruin his set."

They don't jump on them to break their ribs. What good would that do?Some trappers tap them on the nose to stun them then step on their heart to stop their heart. You should have been asking more questions rather than assuming to understand what you were observing.

Many trappers do that with fox to keep the blood from ruining the pelt, to keep the blood out of the truck, and to keep blood away from the set so as not to distract them from the lure or bait in the hole.
JB- This was fox I was refering to. And he may have told me to "tap" them on the nose first. It's been so many years ago that I can't recall for certain. But I do remembering him saying to do it for the very reasons you stated.

JB: "He would get very upset when I would find a critter in one of his traps that he hadn't bothered to check for several days, and I would shoot the critter to end it's suffering."

How do you know it was the same animal in the trap for several days. He may have removed the first animal and caught another. I have been accused of the same thing by those who ASSUME it is the same animal.

JB- Because on my daily rounds of checking and feeding cattle I would use glasses to scope his sets to see if he had anything caught. And I could tell by the tracks whenever he was there. I can track a little too SH.

It's also illegal to tamper with peoples traps or the animals in them. Did you know that? I don't like anyone messing with my traps or trapped animals either unless I asked them to. In many cases I ask landowners to check them for me. You are not doing any trapper a favor by killing his critters for him if the weather is such that the animals fur starts to slip by the time he gets back.
JB_ I did not know that it was illegel at that time. When I did take a fox from his traps I brought it in and left it for him out of harms way. He would stop and check to see if I had picked any up for him. If the fur is starting to slip aren't you leaving them for too long before you skin them?

Again, how do you know that animal is suffering? Of course it doesn't want to be there but once the circulation is cut off to the paw, it's simply restrained like a dog on a leash. They can't feel the trap beyond the initial capture. That's why skunks and raccoons sometimes chew the part of their foot that is below the jaws of the trap because they cannot feel it.

JB-I wasn't aware that after the circulation was cut off there would be no pain. I'm not real certain that I buy into this theroy. But it sure might be true.


JB: "Who said that I am not concerned with the cruel death of a calf or lamb?"

You mentioned the ASSUMED "suffering" of trapped animals so I asked why you are not equally concerned with the cruel death of a calf or lamb that was killed by that supposedly "suffering" coyote in the trap?

A sentence that ends in a "?" is a question not a statement!

JB- So if a fox or coyote is caught in a trap it feels little, if any pain. But if a calf or lamb is cut by the teeth of a fox or coyote, it feels pain. And in no way am I stating that I think it is not somewhat cruel to have a calf or lamb bitten, or eaten by a fox or coyote. But there seems to be a different threshhold of pain between animals from what you have stated in your previous posting.
Deer that are deathly wounded are to be left to die whenever and however, but a calf or lamb in the same situation is to be done what with? Leave it to see if it will survive? Because calves and sheep are domesticated animals are we to think that they suffer more from wounds than animlas that are non-domesticated? I don't quite follow your reasoning here.
When I see an animal that is what I would assume to be suffering, and there is very little chance for it's survival, I think that a quick shot is the best option.
And why is the death of a calf or lamb cruel, but not the death of a wild animal?


JB: "If you were to go back and re-listen or re-read the poem and/or song, I think that given more thought you might realize that the "cowboy in the continental suit" was in all actuallity a real cowboy who was dressed in that costume so as to set the guys up and win the bet."

I understand that. That doesn't change the fact that someone who dresses like a cowboy may not know much about cattle and ranching.

JB- Oh so true. There are imposters in all walks of life. But if someone poses as a doctor or lawyer there is a legel remedy. But not so with those who claim to be a cowboy or a rancher or enviromentilists or many others. Doesn't seem to fair to me. Imposters can get you hurt fast and bad.


JB: "....a cowboy wearing boots with the pants tucked in would denote someone who rode for most of his/her living."

Or someone who wanted to present that image.

JB- See above.


JB: "You seem to have a problem with the fact that I or anyone else would recite or write "cowboy Poetry". Is it because of jealousy?"

I have no problem with anyone reciting or writing cowboy poetry. I actually enjoy it and I have already told you that I thoroughly enjoyed one of your poems.

You call me paranoid?

My only point was that there are those who dress and act like cowboys and there are those who actually are.
JB- We agree then on this. Glad you like poetry.


JB: "As for the cowboys on the fence in the poem/song, I would imagine at least one had the talent to write poetry or how else would we know of the events that transposed in the poem/song?"

Someone made it up?

JB- Most poems/songs about cowboys are taken from actual expierences and then worked around to make them more humorus or interesting. Many are true, with a little artistic license. I would imagine something very similar as what happened in the poem/song, took place. And yes of course, some are just the fabrication of an active mind and imagination. Strawberry Roan was written from an actual occurence involving the author/artist, Will James.


JB: "And those "rowels as big as their hats" are much more humane than the tiny dime sized ones. Spurs are not meant for punisment, but for accentuation, by those who know what they are doing. "To elevate and lengthen the stride", is I believe how it is put."

Interesting! I have yet to see a professional horse trainer wear large rowells on their spurs. Perhaps they should attend your clinic.

JB- Guess you need to get out and around some more than! Larger rowels cover more area, so therefore they taske more pressure to apply the sdame amount of force. Check out some of the fellers from further west. And of course, as with anything, there needs to be knowledge in the use of the tools.
As far as a clinic, if you have anyone in mind, just have them give me a call. I think I've attended most in the area and I'm sure anyone with similar intrests as mine would give me much to think about and we could have great gab sessions. I imagine I could offer some things that some are not aware of yet.


JB: "Those who you feel you are superior to, you put down, malign and verbally try to beat up with mis-quotes and twists of the persons own words."

What the heck are you talking about "feel superior to". Man you are losing it. I don't feel "superior" to anyone, I just call bullsh*t when I see it and will continue to do so. If you don't like that, I don't care.

As far as the "misquotes" and "twists", you make that allegation but you offer no examples to back it. Same-O, same-O!
JB- Please reference what you said, below.

JB- You said, and this is a direct quote from above, SH-"Looks like you have bought into their propoganda more so than using it to better defend yourself against them. If that was not the case, you would not have had to ask if trapping gives me a "sensation of power". That's animals rights propoganda through and through.

Unlike you, I won't bore you with my phsychoanalysis of your "sensation of power" question.

JB- I never stated or used the words TRAPPING. I wrote KILLING. You took my words and meanings and twisted them around to present a different meaning than what I asked you.
I am sorry if I bored you. Surely wasn't my intent! And if by using the words "sensation of power" you think that I am an animal rights activist, then you would be wrong. All though if I was a better person than I am, I probably would be an animal rights activist, but not in the sense that you seem to be refering to. I think animals ought to have our respect and I don't think anyone should make any animal suffer needlessly. Now I'm worried that you will twist my words and meaning on this and probably take it out of context.
But get this straight and please don't try to mislead or misconstrue my words. I know of no decent rancher or horseman or stockman or anyone who deals with animals on a day to day basis, as we ranchers do, who will purposely go out of their way to harm or injure an animal.
We ranchers and stockmen should take the words "animal rights activist and enviromentilest" back from the greenies and wacko's out there who have no knowledge of who really provides for and cares for the animals and the enviroment, or the true meaning of those words!

 

[Juan]

" Something tells me those fence sitters were probably wearing loud colored high top boots with their pants tucked in and spurs with rowells as big as their hats reciting cowboy poetry. Are we still having fun? "
I showed this to someone and they said "Hey I know that guy."LOL

 

[Anonymous]

JB,

JB: If a GF&P officals took the time to come to my ranch and visit with me about my problems, than I would certainly have a better opinion of the outfit he worked for.

Have you called your present CO and invited him out? That might go a little way towards answering some questions you might have.

 

[TXTibbs]

What about the recent Cougar problems in the Black Hills? JB i bet if one of them cougars packed off your toy poodle from under your door step you'd call someone and complain....and have the cougar taken care of. That just happened to a lady out there.....lol...i laughed histerically reading the article. The lady described how the cougar crept in and snatched her poor poor little Jack Russel right from between her legs and then slowly walked off with the twitching dog in its mouth! ha ha. Call me cold hearted, but I find that funny....especially when the lady was one of those that prolly wouldn't even swat a fly. And yet they (the SDGF&P) don't see fit to open a season in the Hills. Crap Wyoming has one, why can't South Dakota bite the bullet and open one! They need to. I'd love to track down a lion with a pack of hounds and tree him up.

 

[Brad S]

SH,
In Kansas we've had success by fencing a big dog town and letting the coyotes do the rest. Also we put up some tall hawk stands. But we have taller grass and less dog propagation than SD. Do these tricks not work in SD? Also some guys shoot dogs, is this not complete enough control? or do you have more dogs than shooters?