smedz
Ursus abstrusus
Recent Graduate
Posts: 410 
|
Post by smedz on Apr 25, 2021 6:47:03 GMT -5
After learning of the state of Idaho wanting to kill 90% of the wolves to protect livestock, I decided to do some research to see how serious the issue really is. Over 2 million cows and 180,000-210,000 sheep. 2018: 163 livestock killed by wolves; cows: less than 1%;sheep: less than 1% 2019: 156 livestock killed by wolves; cows: less than 1%; sheep: less than 1% 2020: 84 livestock killed by wolves; cows: less than 1%; sheep: less than 1% So in other words, wolves kill less than 1% of all livestock in Idaho. This is seriously what people are worried about? The ranching industry has done an amazing job of corrupting people into thinking this is an actual problem when in reality it's the complete opposite. They want you to think it's a problem that way you will support killing wolves in large numbers. Sources 1.) www.idahofb.org/.../wolf-depredations-of-idaho... 2.) www.idahofb.org/.../wolf-livestock-depredations.... 3.) agri.idaho.gov/main/animals/cattle/.... 4.) agri.idaho.gov/main/idaho-livestock/ |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 25, 2021 7:10:04 GMT -5
Reply #1281 - I just posted this on Facebook.  |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Apr 25, 2021 13:06:16 GMT -5
smedz This is from Will Troyer's book:
In the 1950s, Most people felt that the more wolves killed using predator control measures, the more deer would be available for hunters. The most common method of taking wolves in Southeast Alaska was to poison them.
|
|
smedz
Ursus abstrusus
Recent Graduate
Posts: 410
|
Post by smedz on Apr 25, 2021 15:18:22 GMT -5
Reply #1281 - I just posted this on Facebook. Where can I find it on Facebook? |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 25, 2021 16:08:32 GMT -5
Reply #1281 - I just posted this on Facebook. Where can I find it on Facebook? It can only be seen by those on my friend's list, unless some of them share it. You can copy and paste it on yours too.  |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 26, 2021 9:58:09 GMT -5
smedz This is from Will Troyer's book:
In the 1950s, Most people felt that the more wolves killed using predator control measures, the more deer would be available for hunters. The most common method of taking wolves in Southeast Alaska was to poison them.
How's the new book coming Kodiak? |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 26, 2021 10:24:46 GMT -5
In the several books I read concerning the historical grizzly, the word "Strychnine" came up frequently. The common reasoning of the people back then was, "the only good predator is a dead predator". Cougars, wolves, coyotes, and bears were all shot on site, caught in steel traps, or poisoned with strychnine. The strychnine company was obviously doing good business. The grizzly, even more so than the wolves, were hunted relentlessly because they were the most feared. Unfortunately; a great many people today are still in this same mind-set.  |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 26, 2021 12:11:38 GMT -5
In the several books I read concerning the historical grizzly, the word "Strychnine" came up frequently. The common reasoning of the people back then was, "the only good predator is a dead predator". Cougars, wolves, coyotes, and bears were all shot on site, caught in steel traps, or poisoned with strychnine. The strychnine company was obviously doing good business. The grizzly, even more so than the wolves, were hunted relentlessly because they were the most feared. Unfortunately; a great many people today are still in this same mind-set. Sad but true. If left alone the balance in nature usually takes care of itself. No need to interfere. If there were no wolves you could feasibly have overpopulations of Deer, Elk in the territories were they co-exist. Every animal has it's place in the ecosystem. Unfortunately when a few cattle are killed The knee jerk reaction of the ranchers is to eliminate every Wolf in the territory. I can certainly understand the loss of livestock, it's their means of making a living. However, I would also think it's possible to remove problem Wolves who have learned to be dependent on livestock as they are easy pickings. My opinion, without knowing the actual numbers is that livestock loss to wolves is minimal. There is no easy solution, however, complete eradication of a species is certainly not the answer IMO and detrimental to the ecosystem. IMO to survive Wolves need a healthy fear of man, when they lose that fear is when we start seeing problems. How do we instill that healthy fear? Some will point to hunting for that fear. Hunting creates pressure and pressure makes them weary. In a way they are probably right but at what cost to wolf numbers.... Currently Wolves have been delisted and hunting seasons are left up to the state fish and wildlife agencies to determine. Lots of pressure I assume will be put on by farmers and ranchers to allow hunting in many of the states especially where there have been livestock predation. Thankfully one of the few things I agree on with our Governor of Minnesota is he is against hunting wolves in Minnesota. This flip flop of list then delist as I see will continue when Wolf numbers drop below an acceptable margin. I'm guessing most of you would be against hunting Wolves even if it was strictly controlled by game and fish. Once a determined quota is met the season is over... Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 26, 2021 13:50:23 GMT -5
If I own cattle, and wolves were killing less than one out of every hundred, I would not take such drastic measures to stop it. Have these folks never heard of guard dogs bred for guarding livestock?
When the American Indians saw wolves killing a bison, they were careful not to disturb the wolves from taking their share.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 26, 2021 13:52:34 GMT -5
I edited my post. Please re-read the whole post and give me your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 26, 2021 14:15:23 GMT -5
A shotgun loaded with blank shells will work quite well to chase off wolves or coyotes. Even bears. Anything really loud; like fireworks. In those locations near farms and ranches, in wolf country, outlaw hunting so that the natural prey of the wolves are not kept too low to support a wolf population. But still, I would own two or three really courageous big dogs to guard the flock/herd. About population control, I am a firm believer that man's interference is completely unnecessary. Well; those are my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Apr 26, 2021 14:47:34 GMT -5
smedz This is from Will Troyer's book:
In the 1950s, Most people felt that the more wolves killed using predator control measures, the more deer would be available for hunters. The most common method of taking wolves in Southeast Alaska was to poison them.
How's the new book coming Kodiak? |
|
smedz
Ursus abstrusus
Recent Graduate
Posts: 410
|
Post by smedz on Apr 26, 2021 15:59:28 GMT -5
In the several books I read concerning the historical grizzly, the word "Strychnine" came up frequently. The common reasoning of the people back then was, "the only good predator is a dead predator". Cougars, wolves, coyotes, and bears were all shot on site, caught in steel traps, or poisoned with strychnine. The strychnine company was obviously doing good business. The grizzly, even more so than the wolves, were hunted relentlessly because they were the most feared. Unfortunately; a great many people today are still in this same mind-set. Sad but true. If left alone the balance in nature usually takes care of itself. No need to interfere. If there were no wolves you could feasibly have overpopulations of Deer, Elk in the territories were they co-exist. Every animal has it's place in the ecosystem. Unfortunately when a few cattle are killed The knee jerk reaction of the ranchers is to eliminate every Wolf in the territory. I can certainly understand the loss of livestock, it's their means of making a living. However, I would also think it's possible to remove problem Wolves who have learned to be dependent on livestock as they are easy pickings. My opinion, without knowing the actual numbers is that livestock loss to wolves is minimal. There is no easy solution, however, complete eradication of a species is certainly not the answer IMO and detrimental to the ecosystem. IMO to survive Wolves need a healthy fear of man, when they lose that fear is when we start seeing problems. How do we instill that healthy fear? Some will point to hunting for that fear. Hunting creates pressure and pressure makes them weary. In a way they are probably right but at what cost to wolf numbers.... Currently Wolves have been delisted and hunting seasons are left up to the state fish and wildlife agencies to determine. Lots of pressure I assume will be put on by farmers and ranchers to allow hunting in many of the states especially where there have been livestock predation. Thankfully one of the few things I agree on with our Governor of Minnesota is he is against hunting wolves in Minnesota. This flip flop of list then delist as I see will continue when Wolf numbers drop below an acceptable margin. I'm guessing most of you would be against hunting Wolves even if it was strictly controlled by game and fish. Once a determined quota is met the season is over... Thoughts? These are just my thoughts, but when it comes to livestock we have to remember one thing. Livestock is business and in business one will probably have to adapt to changes. Say a rancher has a wolf problem and wants to try something non-lethal. If one method they try doesn't work, they must try something else. Basically adaptability is the name of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Apr 26, 2021 16:25:39 GMT -5
These are just my thoughts, but when it comes to livestock we have to remember one thing. Livestock is business and in business one will probably have to adapt to changes. Say a rancher has a wolf problem and wants to try something non-lethal. If one method they try doesn't work, they must try something else. Basically adaptability is the name of the game. I'm all for non lethal methods if you can make it work. brobear mentioned using guard dogs and that is a good idea providing it's a lone Wolf doing the killing and not a whole pack. A pack of wolves will tear a dog (even a couple dogs) to shreds. Other non lethal methods would work providing you catch them in the act. However, wolves are not only cunning but smart. I doubt very much any wolf is going to take down a steer while the owner is in sight or even in the vicinity. These things likely happen at night on the range in total darkness. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 26, 2021 18:00:20 GMT -5
www.philmontscoutranch.org/museums/setonmemoriallibrary/lobo/ Lobo, the King of Currumpaw Lobo (Spanish for “wolf”) was the leader of a wolfpack that roamed the Currumpaw River Valley of northeastern New Mexico in the early 1890s. He and his pack were notorious for preying on the vast cattle and sheep herds of the area. For several years local ranchers tried to trap and kill the members of the pack. Lobo possessed such cunning, however, that he was able to detect their poisons and traps. Due to his knowledge of wolf behavior, Ernest Thompson Seton, a naturalist and the author of the Boy Scout Handbook, was employed by the ranchers to rid them of Lobo’s pack. His first attempts at trapping and poisoning were to no avail. However, he learned that a small, white wolf called Blanca often ran ahead of the pack. Seton concluded that the wolf must be a female, for Lobo would have killed any male committing a similar act. Later he determined that the white wolf was, in fact, Lobo’s mate. Having identified the big wolf’s mate, Seton set about to capture her. He killed a cow as bait, severed the head from the body and set traps around both. When Lobo and the pack came to inspect the kill, Blanca broke in front and was caught in one of the traps. Seton killed Blanca and used her body and scent to lure Lobo into traps. He tried to keep Lobo alive, but the great wolf eventually died suffering from the loss of both his freedom and his mate. Seton recounted the capture of Lobo in his most famous book, Wild Animals I have Known, (1898).
|
|
smedz
Ursus abstrusus
Recent Graduate
Posts: 410
|
Post by smedz on Apr 27, 2021 19:15:30 GMT -5
coyotes-wolves-cougars.blogspot.com/search?q=john+laundre&updated-max=2016-10-16T22:48:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=19&by-date=false What are they complaining about??? by: John Laundre At the risk of sounding like tooting my own horn, I would like to highlight a few aspects of a chapter I wrote on the impact of predation on livestock. This chapter came out in a book titled " Animal Welfare in Extensive Production Systems"(you can purchase by clicking on the link above--available on Amazon-- (Animal Welfare). In this chapter I analyzed the data, the real numbers, not the emotions, of just how much of an impact predators have on livestock. As we all know, one of the driving forces behind the wanton killing of predators is that they supposedly are "massacring" our domestic livestock. Literally, taking food out of our mouths. In this chapter I was asked to provide an objective analysis of just how severe this problem is. Are predators really that much of a threat to our livestock, in this case those grown out on the landscape or "extensive" production systems. This is opposed to "intensive" ones where livestock are grown under more controlled, e.g. penned conditions. Not surprisingly, most of these animals grown in extensive systems are primarily in the 11 most western states of our country. To do this I looked at the extensive data the USDA keeps on livestock, including losses for various reasons. I specifically looked at cattle and sheep, the two main animals most people are concerned about relative to predators. Here, for sake of space, I will present only data on cattle. What did I find? First of all, we do raise an impressive number of cattle (almost 10 million head) and sheep (almost 3 million) out in the wild and thus susceptible to predation by primarily pumas, coyotes, and now in many areas, wolves. Second, regarding cattle, losses to predation in these 11 states amounted to ONLY 0.5%, yes less than 1% of the total number of animals exposed to predation! On the other hand, losses of cattle for a variety of other reasons represented 7.6% of the total number of animals raised. So ranchers are losing up to 15 times as many animals for reasons OTHER than predation! Economically, predation losses represented only 0.3% of the total value of all cattle grown in extensive systems. Again, non-predatory losses were at 6.3% (21 times higher!). Ranchers are losing more cattle and money from a variety of PREVENTABLE causes than from predators! These causes range from accidents to cattle rustling! How about specific predators? Wolves represented only 0.1% of the total number of animals raised. Pumas and coyotes were even lower at 0.02% and 0.01%. Again, predation is just NOT a very big problem, especially relative to other physical and economic losses ranchers face! Yet ranchers seem to spend a lot of time complaining about it. I liken it to the little boy with his finger in the dike as the dike to his side is breaking apart. If ranchers out west are in economic hard times, it is NOT because of predators! The rest of the chapter looks at the numbers for sheep as well as addresses the fact that predation losses, like the rest, are not distributed evenly across ranches. Some ranchers experience even less predation impact while others more than the average. I also look at predation on a global scale and again, the U.S. is not unique; predation losses worldwide are just not that high. Not high enough for sure to justify the mass elimination of predators from the landscape. I also address way in which even the low losses from predators can even be further reduced, e.g. use of guard dogs. Overall, I hope that this objective analysis of a very emotional subject leads to, as I end by saying "insights not into how we win the war against predators but into developing a truce that we and the native predators can both live with". John Laundre (R.I.P)
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 28, 2021 3:00:58 GMT -5
Both historically and today, how are predators being looked upon and treated by humanity. Please use tact and maturity in posting as many of us have strong feelings on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 28, 2021 4:48:46 GMT -5
thehappypuppysite.com/russian-bear-dog/ Russian Bear Dog – The Caucasian Shepherd Breed. Russian Bear Dogs are also known as the Caucasian Shepherd or the Caucasian Ovcharka. Some even call it the Caucasian Mountain Dog. The Russian Bear Dog was originally bred to guard livestock. A large and powerful breed, they weigh up to 170lbs and stand at around 30 inches tall. These guarding dogs are loyal and loving to their families, but wary of those they don’t know.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 28, 2021 4:52:11 GMT -5
www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/karelian-bear-dogs-keep-bears-away These dogs scare bears away—to protect them. Karelian bear dogs are a new, non-lethal tool for wildlife agencies concerned with ursine visitors getting too comfortable around humans. www.thesprucepets.com/karelian-bear-dog-breed-profile-4628302 Karelian Bear: Dog Breed Profile. One of the most popular dogs in its home country of Finland, the Karelian Bear dog is used to keep bears away from human-inhabited areas of state parks in the United States. However, it's not a breed that shows up often in America. This ancient breed that likely originated in Northwestern Europe is known for its intelligence, loyalty, and courage, as well as its ability to help hunters bring down large animals such bears, elk, and moose.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 28, 2021 5:09:26 GMT -5
www.offthegridnews.com/how-to-2/why-donkeys-are-often-better-than-dogs-at-guarding-livestock/ Why Donkeys Are (Often) Better Than Dogs At Guarding Livestock. It’s not uncommon to see dogs in pastures with livestock to serve as protection from predators, but many people do not realize that donkeys can be excellent guards, as well. They are typically suited for protecting calves, sheep and goats, and will easily fend off canine attackers, fox or even bobcats. Of course, as it is with dogs, they should not be expected to take on several attackers, such as a pack of dogs.
|
|
