HOOK AND FUR By Bob Brown Washington State University recently reported two of its researchers have found it was counter-productive to kill wolves to keep them from preying on livestock. The researchers claim shooting and trapping leads to more dead sheep and cattle the following year, not fewer. No doubt for some people and especially farmers, cattlemen and the hunting populace, that's a pretty hard statement to swallow. How can controlling a segment of a wolf population and for that matter any wildlife species, be counter-productive? In its Dec. 5 edition, the Columbia Basin Bulletin reported WSU wildlife biologist Rob Wielgus and data analyst Kaylie Peebless say that for each wolf killed, the odds of more livestock depredations increase significantly. The trend continues until 25 percent of the wolves in an area are killed. Ranchers and wildlife managers then see a standing wave of livestock depredations. Moreover, that rate of wolf mortality is unsustainable and cannot be carried out indefinitely if federal relishing of wolves is to be avoided. The gray wolf was federally listed as endangered in 1974. During much of its recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains area, government predator control efforts have been used to keep wolves from attacking sheep and livestock. Since delisting in 2012, sport hunting has also been used, but until now, the effectiveness of lethal control has been what Wielgus and Peebless call a widely accepted, but untested hypothesis. They analyzed 25 years of lethal control data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Interagency Annual Wolf Reports in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. It was found that killing one wolf increases the odds of depredations four percent for sheep and five to six percent for cattle the following year. If 20 wolves were killed, livestock deaths double. They also found lethal control of cougars disrupted their populations so much younger, less disciplined cougars attacked more livestock. Wielgus said wolf killing likely disrupts the social cohesion of the pack. While an intact breeding pair will keep young offspring from mating, disruption can set sexually mature wolves free to breed, leading to an increase in breeding pairs. As they have pups, they become bound to one place and can't hunt deer and elk freely. Occasionally, they turn to livestock. Under Washington's management plan, wolves will be a protected species until there are 15 breeding pairs for three years. Wielgus added wolves account for between one and six percent of all livestock deaths. A minor threat compared to other predators, disease, accidents and dangers of calving. Last summer an on-going study of non-lethal wolf control was conducted. Three hundred sheep and cattle were radio-tagged in eastern Washington wolf country. None were killed by wolves. Wielgus admitted there will be some depredations and encourages more non-lethal interventions like guard dogs, range riders on horseback, flags, spotlights and risk maps that discourage grazing animals in hard-to-protect, wolf-rich areas. Wielgus said the only way you're going to completely eliminate livestock depredations is to get rid of all the wolves, and society has told us that that's not going to happen. Adrian Treves, associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin, and Jeremy Bruskotter, associate professor of human dimensions of wildlife management at Ohio State University, said in their co-authored article "Gray Wolf Conservation at a CrossroadsGÇ¥ that gray wolf policy in the U.S. swings between federal, state and tribal authority under a patchwork of management regimes in different states and regions. "The flux in wolf policy and current litigations reflects an important and contentious debate about the balance between meeting human needs, conserving nature and biodiversity. We anticipate broad social and political acceptance of wolf policy if lethal management of wolves balances the public good with the wildlife trust doctrine. That means most wolves will be protected if they range on public lands and avoid threatening private property. Local judgments of threat will certainly vary. Wolves implicated in attacks on pets, livestock or bold enough to threaten people or approach residences would be targeted for lethal management, whether through regulated hunting or government sanctioned selective removal. In addition, proactive removal from areas where the presence of wolves is deemed too risky for the public good might enjoy public approval, unless it is contrived only to alleviate a threat to wild game or to allow people to use public lands for recreation or profit. We are confident local solutions that balance human needs with wolf conservation can be devised-á The critical step will be for policymakers to reject the policies advocated by vocal minorities at either extreme and to consider what policies and management options are acceptable to the (often silent) majority.GÇ¥ In our view, the measure of success for any proposal solution would be increased acceptability of both wolf populations and wolf policy. Acceptability depends on reducing perceived and real threats posed by wolves and the reciprocal threat people pose to wolves. Addressing only one of these would be an incomplete and ultimately ineffective solution. -á Bob Brown is a freelance outdoors writer living in Roy. He can be contacted at robertb1285@fairpoint.net
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment