Wolves pounce on hunting dogs

[huntinfool]

thats ok Tenbears every one is entitled to one I'm sure that I won't agree with you on some other issues too... lol but it sure is fun to argue the point huh?

 

[Ten Bears]

I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but we only differed on the degree to which wolves will eat livestock. Not much of a debate there. Like you said, based on their familiarity with livestock could = whether livestock is viewed as food source right away or not.

 

[BuzzH]

When a reasonable person looks at the number of wolves present, the amount of livestock grazing public lands at a subsidized rate, and the total losses of livestock due to predation by wolves...its really a non-issue. I also think that if a rancher wants to graze federal lands...they should decide whether the risk is worth the cheap grass. What they shouldnt get... is any compensation for their losses on public lands. Dont like the risk, keep your cows in your own yard.

Also fair to note, the numbers of livestock losses are WAY below what was accepted in the EIS.

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ, why don't you give us some numbers. I think that every grazing animal taken by a wolf should be paid for.

 

[1_pointer]

I think that every grazing animal taken by a wolf should be paid for.

Why? Just curious.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten beers,

Do you think we should compensate ranchers for losses to fox? coyotes? eagles? weather? disease?

All of those are many times more likely to kill livestock...

"Each year the Montana Department of Agriculture provides a list of causes of death for sheep and lambs.

According to the state's figures from last year, 500 sheep were killed by wolves in Montana. Coyotes were the leading cause of death with 11,800 kills. Other factors more deadly than wolves were weather, 6,300 deaths; disease, 8,200; foxes, 1,000; eagles, 1,200, and bears, 800.

Compilation of those losses is partially funded by the Montana Woolgrowers Association. Similar statistics are not available for cattle because funding is not available.

Since 1995, 301 cows have been confirmed kills by wolves in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, including a high of 64 last year, according to federal figures.

More:

"The 1994 environmental impact statement outlining wolf reintroduction said wolves in the Yellowstone National Park area would kill between one and 32 cattle yearly, an average of 19 animals.

It also predicted the wolves would kill between 17 and 110 sheep, an average of 68.

The same document predicted a recovered wolf population would number about 100 wolves.


However, there are now at least 300 wolves in the greater Yellowstone area.

If you calculate the averages, losses to wolves since 1995 have averaged 16 cattle and 68 sheep, well within the averages even though there are three times the predicted level of wolves.

 

[Ten Bears]

Because there are some instances like these:

It had to happen sometime. In recent years, despite the growth of the wolf population in Idaho, livestock depredations have become so few they hardly make the news any more.

While this doesn't seem to have hit the media yet, this week a pack of 4-5 wolves attacked sheep east of Burgdorf, Idaho and killed 52. This was on top of several recent depredations in this area of the Payette National Forest.. The total number of sheep killed now is over 100.

Reports are the wolves were not deterred by guard dogs or gunfire. The dead sheep apparently belong to several public land operators including Carlson Livestock. The latter was showcased a couple years ago for their massive and effective use of Great Pyrenees guard dogs, greatly reducing not just wolf kills of sheep, but also a reduction of depredations from coyotes, bear, and cougar, which in total were far greater than wolf kills.

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/burgdorf-sheep-depredation.htm

As of Tuesday, wolves were listed by Defenders as the confirmed or probable cause of death for 110 cattle, 442 sheep and six other animals this year. Almost all of those losses were in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. A handful were in Washington, Utah and the Southwest.


In 2003, the tally was 55 cattle, 210 sheep and 15 other animals.

Predations have climbed steadily.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2004/12/29/news/01wolfpredationsup.txt

Economic Impacts of Wolf Reintroduction
By Jay Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grey wolves (Canis lupus) were virtually eliminated from the Western United States by the 1930s. Fear of wolves by early American settlers combined with livestock losses began a national campaign for mass extermination. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Predatory Animal and Rodent Control Service spent millions of dollars hiring and supplying trappers to eliminate any trace of the wolf in the wild. Federal support for elimination came in the form of subsidized bounty programs that started in the late 1800s and continued as late as 1965, offering $20 to $50 per wolf. Public input changed the view of the United States Government, and wolves received legal protection with the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.

Reintroduction

Canadian wolves began to successfully recolonize Northwestern Montana in the early 1980s, and in 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves from Southwestern Canada were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park (31 wolves) and central Idaho (35 wolves). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began recovery efforts in Idaho with the release of 15 wolves in 1995, and another 20 were added in 1996. The Idaho wolf population had steadily increased to an estimated number of at least 261 in 2001, representing a minimum of 17 packs. Of those, 14 packs have an estimated 82 pups on the ground that will be of reproductive age within 24 months1.

From a recovery stand point the reintroduction has been quite successful. Wolf numbers have grown ten-fold over this 5 to 6 year period. Unfortunately, there is an ever-increasing negative side to this success story. In 1995 Idaho Wildlife Services began its first responses to reported wolf depredations to livestock and livestock guarding dogs.



History of Wolf Depredation

Fiscal Year 1995

Wildlife Services conducted 2 investigations of reported wolf predation to cattle, but neither of these reports was confirmed.

Fiscal Year 1996

Wildlife Services conducted 6 investigation of reported wolf predation. In 2 of these cases, wolves were confirmed as the cause of death for 1 calf and 30 sheep. In the other cases wolf depredation was probable2 on 2 claves and possible3 on 2 claves, 8 sheep, and 1 livestock guarding dog.

Wildlife services expenditures were an estimated $16,000 in federal funds on addressing wolf related issues, conducting depredation investigations, and wolf control actions.

Fiscal Year 1997

Wildlife Services responded to 11 complaints of possible wolf predation on livestock. Four of these were confirmed wolf depredations, 0 probable, and 4 other. Confirmed wolf predations were 1 calf, and 29 sheep. Possible predation attributed to the death of 2 calves and 1 cow.

Expenditures = About $20,000 in Federal funds

Fiscal Year 1998

Wildlife Services conducted 15 wolf predation investigations. Of these investigations, 5 involved confirmed wolf predation, 0 probable, 5 possible, and 6 other. Confirmed livestock depredations were 4 calves, 4 cows, and 5 sheep. Probable depredations were 9 calves and 4 sheep. Possible depredations were 2 calves, 10 sheep, and 1 bull.

Expenditures = About $36,820 in Federal funds

Fiscal Year 1999

Wildlife Services responded to and investigated 50 reports of possible wolf predation. Of those 50, 15 were confirmed wolf predation. Confirmed livestock depredation included 9 calves, 1 cow (bred heifer), 57 sheep, 1 livestock-guarding dog, 2 livestock guarding dogs (injured). Probable depredations were 5 calves and 10 sheep. Possible depredations were 11 calves, 1 cow, and 1 horse.

Expenditures = $77,722 in Federal funds.

Fiscal Year 2000

Wildlife Services responded to 55 complaints of wolves killing, harassing or chasing livestock and/or livestock guarding dogs. Of those 55 investigations, 24 were designated confirmed. The numbers of livestock depredations are as follows: confirmed, 15 calves, 55 sheep, 3 horses, 1 burro (harassing/chasing) cattle and stock dogs (unspecified amount) (harassing/chasing). Probable depredations were 2 calves, 3 sheep, and an unspecified amount of harassing/chasing horses and cattle. Possible depredations were 5 calves, 47 sheep, 2 goats, and 1 stock dog.

Expenditures—Idaho Wildlife Services spent $135,880 in Federal funds responding to complaints of reported wolf depredation and for other wolf related costs.

Fiscal Year 2001

Wildlife Services conducted 34 wolf related investigations in Idaho. Of the 34 reported wolf-related investigations conducted, 22 involved confirmed depredation or involvement. Total animal numbers are as follows: confirmed killed, 10 calves, 1 cow, 62 sheep, 1 colt injured, 1 incident involving human safety concerns, 1 guard dog killed, 7 incidents of various animals being harassed/chased unspecified amounts. Probably wolf depredations were 8 calves, 1 cow, 2 sheep, and 1 incident of cattle being harassed. Possible depredations were 2 calves, and 2 calves injured.

Expenditures = Idaho Wildlife Services spent approximately $158,290 in Federal funds responding to complaints of reported wolf predation, conducting control, preventative control, and management actions, and for other wolf related costs. (Idaho Wildlife Services 2001)



Costs to Livestock Producers

It is clear from the preceding information that livestock loss is real and documented, and that losses are increasing at a very rapid rate. What does the future hold? If wolf numbers continue to grow at their current rate, Federal land grazers will be forced out of business at an equal or greater rate. A two-year study showed that one confirmed wolf depredation equal 6 actual kills, which means, due to the vast and rugged landscape, the amount of carcass consumed, and decomposition over time, five out of every six wolf kills cannot be proven. The current compensation plan managed and funded by Defenders of Wildlife (www.defenders.org) pays only for confirmed wolf kills. Bjorge and Gunson (1985) were able to recover one out of every 6.7 missing cattle during their study, and suggest that wolf-caused mortalities were difficult to detect. “Thus, current compensation procedures may require adjustment to fully cover losses incurred from wolf depredation.” (John K. Oakleaf, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho)

With this information it is clear that some producers are taking annual losses in excess of ten percent. This 10% may seem insignificant, but in this time of very tight agricultural margins that amount of added costs is critical. For example, if a producer is running a 200 head herd of beef cattle, with a normal average death loss of 5%, and a 10% retention of replacement females (to maintain herd numbers) this leaves 170 head of sellable calves annually. The average annual cow costs for Idaho is about $400. This figure is an average of all the input costs to run 1 cow for 1 year (includes feed, animal health, etc.) For this herd of 200 head the annual cost would be $80,000. In a good market year the average weaned calf would bring $550 for a total calf payment of $93,500 then subtract costs of $80,000 the producer is left with a gross annual income of $13,500 (not exactly getting rich). Now for the sake of comparison, lets take this same producer on the same year, but add an additional 10% death loss due to wolf depredation. The producer’s number of marketable calves decreases from 170 to 150. Using the same dollar figures, the calf payment is now $82,500 and annual expenses remain the same $80,000. This producer is left with $2,500 gross annual income. The producer in this example would be out of business, there is simply not enough money to run another year.



Conclusion

Wolf reintroduction has been technically very successful. Increasing, uncompensated economic impacts to certain inhabitants of the reintroduction area probably will require federal action to protect that group. One such action is a fair and adequate compensation program administered by the Federal Government. Second is a management system, which keep wolves wild and allows people to protect their personal property.

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/wolves-cattle.htm

 

[SageGhost]

talking to a U>S>D>A> vet and U>S fish and wildlife animal biologist tommorrow.....
ill post everything they tell me to settle this........thats the beauty of being in the beef industry, i get to chat with people on the front lines !! not people from other states talking about wolves here in idaho...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Sage, Great!! I'll be interested in what they say.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Quote:
I think that every grazing animal taken by a wolf should be paid for.

Why? Just curious.

I would say the animals should be paid for, if only because that was one of the trade off's for the wolves to be brought back.

 

[Ten Bears]

That was one of the promises.

 

[ELKCHSR]

But just as usual, bring the libs bring on their grandiose ideals with great intentions, but find out that sticking to their promises over the long run is just to expensive and not very realistic.

 

[BuzzH]

Hey cheese,

You really are clueless arent you?

Please provide any proof that a rancher has not been reimbursed by the "libs" for confirmed livestock losses due to wolf predation...

Good luck, and apparently the "libs" are living up to their end of the bargain.

You really dont "get it" do you?