Here we go again

Here I go again.  Wolves.  One of my tree hugger friends said that most of the cow/calf attacks were from dog packs rather than by wolves.

Bull!

Sorry for the bovine pun, but it's true.  That statement [cow/calf attacks were from dog packs] is patently wrong.  No rancher would make that mistake where the statement says 'most' of that attacks are by dogs.  Trust me, you will not mistake a wolf track for a dog track.  The largest dog track doesn't even come close to a wolf's track.

Example:  spread your hand out on a flat surface.  That is approximately the size of a wolf's track.  Now look at the paw print of, say, a great dane.  Not even close to that size.

Wolves have developed huge paws to aid them in hunting in the winter.  Winter time is their best, most plentiful time to feed because prey is slowed down by large snow drifts and lack of food sources.  Wolves dine quite easily on elk, bison, deer and, yes, cows and calves.  A wolf pack that has targeted a herd of cows will come back over and over again until they kill the entire herd.  The wolf will continue killing even when his belly is so distended from eating that he can hardly run.  But that makes no difference -- ability to run fast -- the cow/calf/sheep is easily caught by a less than nimble wolf.

Do I want wolves eliminated?  No way.  They deserve to be in the wilderness just like any other animal.  The operative word here is 'wilderness,' not the rancher's back yard.  If you open a season on wolves, they will move higher into the wilderness rather than dining on your t-bone steak.

Nuff Said!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Idaho gets more from feds ‘cause it needs more

Disparity in what we get vs. what we send to Washington due to poverty more than geography

   From their exchange on “Meet the Press” July 30, you’d assume broadcaster Tom Brokaw and Idaho Republican Congressman Raul Labrador agree the Gem State is getting a hefty share of federal pork — highway construction contracts, research and military installations as well as workers.

   You’d also conclude because so much of that money comes with strings attached, it costs Idaho more to use that money.

   You’d be wrong.

   First the dialogue:

   Brokaw: “You know, I’ve been looking at the numbers across the country about what states are beneficiaries of federal aid. You’re probably a big beneficiary for a lot of reasons. You’ve got national forest land. The last numbers that I saw, you get a buck-28 back for every dollar you send to Washington. Now, that additional — that 28-cent premium, what would you be willing to give up? How much of it?”

   Labrador: “You know, if we got rid of that premium, what we would start doing is actually controlling our own destiny, and it costs us actually 30 percent more to use federal money. So I think it would be wash. If you look at the schools, if you look at the roads, every time you do something with the federal money because of the regulations and all the different things you have to do, it actually costs you about 30 percent more to use that money.”

   Here’s what you need to know. A 2006 Tax Foundation study is that statistic’s source. As you might expect, states such as Idaho with a lot of federal land, a sparse population that can’t maintain its sprawling highway network without federal subsidies and national assets — Idaho National Laboratory in eastern Idaho or Mountain Home Air Force Base in the west — get more money back from Uncle Sam than we send in taxes.

   Others, such as New York or California, lose on the deal.

   Since then, the numbers have changed. With ramped-up deficit spending, just about every state is getting back more then it sends to D.C., although Idaho still gets proportionately more, Tax Foundation analysts say.

   Still, if it’s just a matter of being a rural Western state with lots of federal lands and a massive highway system, why is Idaho getting so much more than Utah (its “premium” is 11 cents) or Washington (it actually loses 12 cents on the dollar)?

   Not because Idaho is big, rural, a public lands state or has a few large federal contracts.

   The culprit is Idaho’s poverty.

   It ranks 30th in median household incomes. So people here don’t pay as much in income taxes. In fact, 39 percent of Idahoans who file income taxes make so little money that they pay no tax at all. That’s the 10th-highest rate in the land — and the highest among its neighbors. In Washington, 28 percent of income tax filers have no liability, ranking the state 43rd.

   Being poor also explains the premium. Idaho gets so much federal money because its people need so much. It’s not highways or national forests. It’s federal benefits. It’s transfer payments. It’s Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and disability. It’s welfare. It’s federal refundable tax credits for low-income working families. Idaho has one of the most favorable federal matches on Medicaid — 70 percent — in the country. Fourteen percent of the population is on food stamps.

   It may be, as Labrador’s staff insists, that the state’s poverty stems from federal policies.

   For now, however, cutting Idaho’s “premium” is not about eliminating red tape or taking charge of Idaho’s destiny. If Idaho were forced to pay its way, the pain would be real and profound across much of this state.

   It would not be “a wash.”

   nThis view is from the LewistonTribune editorial board in Lewiston.


But wait a minute, didn't Governor Butchie Otter-be smarter say we would take none of that there guvmint money?  We would just go it on our own without the help of those terrible Liberals over there in Washtown.  How hypocritical.  And you,  Republican Congressman Raul Labrador, are the worst of the Tea Party worst.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------