I don’t know whether even that incident counts as a documented fatality, since the autopsy could not confirm the type of animal responsible. I seem to recall some speculation that it might have been a bear instead.
Can you link directly to the cites your talking about? The only cite I could find in that thread from Colibri was about a possible fatal wolf attack in Canada. And the only relavant cite I could see in Charlie Tan’s posts in that thread was the one I already mentioned was the one I already mentioned about the extreme rarity of wolf attacks (12 recorded in the last hundred years for all of North America).
Perhaps I’m missing the links your talking about, but I still don’t see how that thread supports “Wolves certainly do attack people in the US fairly regularly”, but rather the the opposite claim.
But read Zoe’s much better cite above, which does a much better job then the original article to give an idea of whats going on regarding the management of wolf populations in the American west.
If we are taking the place of wolves as predators and eating the prey then I see it’s to our benefit to limit the number of wolves. If OTOH the prey population is not being hunted at numbers high enough then we either need to increase the number of natural predators (wolves), or increase the popularity and availability of hunting. I favor the latter however because I see it as a much better way to get meat then ranching.
Interesting…I’ll be back after a good night sleep and a chat in the morning with a buddy who lives in Great Falls Montana. Hopefully he can point me to some other stats cites.
I’m really too drunk atm to make any useful comments…but:
Um…assuming this is correct, and assuming my brain is actually funtional atm to understand what its says, you are saying 1 fatal attack PER DECADE?? Seriously? I would hazard to guess that more people die from swallowing tooth picks PER YEAR than this. Do you not see the probability here is ridiculously low??
As for how many attack are ‘fended off’, I haven’t looked at the thread…but I’m guessing that more people fend off attacks by domestic or semi-domesticated DOGS per year than wolves in your decade period. I’d be willing to bet on this in fact without bothering to look it up actually.
I’m sorry…but you have 1200 wolves and millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of cattle and sheep…there is simply no way in hell that this problem is as big as some are making it out to be. If all 1200 wolves killed a fucking cow a DAY, it would hardly cut into the population increase (sorry, can’t think of the term…too drunk), let alone pose a serious threat. And we all know, don’t we, that every wolf isn’t exactly killing a cow or sheep a day…don’t we?
-XT
I believe they are now fully protected in a several countries, with compensation being paid for damages, but not necessarily lethal force being used to retaliate ( i.e. they would pay for a dead sheep, but not necessarily hunt down the wolf ).
Most countries even with full legal protection enshrined do allow for for permitted killing of problem animals, it’s true. But this report seems to indicate that where exceptions are made from that protected status, it is usually for livestock issues, not as a game animal conservation issue as you suggested ( WARNING! PDF ):
No, you didn’t. I don’t know why I made that conflation in my mind - likely because of the juxtaposition of the proposed solution in Idaho. My apologies.
I’m not really sure I agree with a statement as strong “is almost always necessary”, though I’m sure some ranchers might strongly disagree. I think compensation programs are necessary ( well, appropriate, anyway ), but culling may or may not be depending on circumstances.
Agreed. In some cases it makes sense. Though I believe you have to be very careful to winnow out political pressure to expand hunts in the absense of good science.
Again, agreed. The wolf/moose population crashes on Isle Royale are a good and well-documented illustration ( though perhaps also a bit exaggerated oweing to the closed nature of the system ).
Which is fair enough. On the other hand…
Given the hysteria which often seems to surround the reintroduction of large predators, I think it is appropriate to read requests to de-list like this with a sceptical eye. I’m certainly not going to back the OP as a blanket proposition, but it seems worthwhile to dig into this issue. Even just if the question how much damage is society willing to tolerate to maintain a certain wildness? So one report from a Fish and Game supervisor for the Salmon River region ( which in wording seems pro-wolf ) states that:
“At the time wolves were released into Idaho, the elk herd in the Salmon Region numbered approximately 28,000 animals. The current estimate gained by aerial surveys and hunter harvest information is approximately 25,000. While this estimate is lower, it is important to note several facts: the estimate still exceeds the Elk Plan objective by about 1,000 animals; all elk zones in the Region have generally been meeting plan objectives; and some high population units have deliberately been reduced through cow harvest to reach objectives. In addition, data gathered from a new radio collaring study initiated in 2005 shows 85 percent deer survival and 82 percent elk survival in the Salmon Region and Units 50 and 60A in the Upper Snake Region. Biologists consider 80 percent doe survival and 85 percent cow elk survival normal and sustainable. Elk mortality factors included hunter harvest (52 percent), mountain lions (30 percent), wolves (7 percent), malnutrition (7percent), and unknown predation (4percent). Deer mortality resulted from lions (32 percent), hunter harvest (18 percent), accidents (14 percent), unknown causes (14 percent), wolves (9 percent), roadkill (9 percent), and malnutrition (4 percent). In addition, deer numbers are limited in the region by habitat condition and weather both of which can significantly impact deer populations.”
Is 7-13% too much and does that warrant cutting the population as heavily as the governor wants? Why no push to cut the ( much larger ) lion population by a similar proportion or does the wolf’s recent reintroduction make it just an easier political target? I’ll admit that perhaps I’m just suspicious by nature on such things, but there you are.
And there is nothing wrong with opinions, even in GD :).
Well, that’s certainly not my argument. I’m not sure I even have one ( my objections to your European comparison might have been more what I imagined you were arguing than what you were - sorry again, if that is the case ). I’m more curious, as it sounds you might be - is 700 to 100 ( based on that perhaps intemperate soundbite ) appropriate? I just seem to be inclined to suspecting it’s not.
In 2006 they are blamed for the deaths of 29 cows, 205 sheep and 4 dogs in Idaho. I believe these economic losses are reimbursed by the state.
- Tamerlane
Bullshit.
Gall Dern Hampsters ate my post! Well here’s what I can get from the top of my head.
I’ve been to some of the western townships of Montana, and to Coeur D’Alene Idaho to visit friends and go fishing. Could I have been mislead? Of course, but I was under the impression I there are HUGE ranches up there, with 10,000+ head of cattle. Additionally, there were even larger ranches with more.
Regardless, I am not trying to make a blanket statement as to how the population of wolves chould be dealt with, I’m merely stating that what Governor Butch wants to do [have a wolf kill off down to 100 animals] seems way to excessive to me. Why do that? Would he be getting more votes from the ranchers? Would he be saving hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep? I doubt it.
Was there not a large Canadian study of wolf populations and their effect on elk herds done by Farley Mowat? I know much of the study was a farce, or extremely exaggerated…but didn’t something come of it?
You were mislead.
Claiming a ranch with 10,000+ head of cattle is small would be a gross misrepresentation of fact. The reality of the situation is something like this: the average rancher in western Montana maintains a herd numbering anywhere from 750 to 2k. Which isn’t to say a number like 10,000+ is outside the realm of possibility, but any operation with those numbers would be absolutely gargantuan.
And while I agree taking the wolves off the endangered species list is an unsettling proposition, I’m equally disturbed by the complete lack of sympathy and understanding certain people have for the ranching community. So allow me to play the devil’s advocate.
A common misconception I want to dispel immediately involves the impact a wolf can have on a herd of 2k cattle. To the uninformed, it may seem almost inconsequential when a wolf eviscerates a single cow among a herd numbering in the thousands. This is untrue for a number of reason:
While it varies from ranch to ranch, the number of fertile heifers is relatively small. Couple this with the fact that a bull of acceptable genetic composition and seed is a rare commodity (and as such, very expensive), you have a situation where a loss of important livestock becomes a serious injury to a ranch of any size.
Ranching isn’t an occupation renown for having a large profit margin, either. In fact, between the cost of maintaining the herd and keeping up with incidentals, profits are almost non-existent; indeed, the debt-load for many ranchers is massive to the point of being suffocating.
Another common misconception is that a cow has to be killed in order for the herd to be affected negatively. Also untrue.
Cattle are injured. Maimed. They are also incredibly stupid animals: it’s not uncommon for a wolf to chase them into barbed-wire fencing (repeatedly). Their cyclic breeding patterns are interrupted. In especially traumatic cases, they refuse to eat and become increasingly emaciated.
Instead of playing devils advocate, lets see some hard numbers. Obviously you are disputing Tamerlane’s earlier statement that “In 2006 they are blamed for the deaths of 29 cows, 205 sheep and 4 dogs in Idaho. I believe these economic losses are reimbursed by the state.”. That would be in an entire state mind you…not a single ranch of 2k head of cattle. 29 whole cows in A YEAR. You must be disputing this, because even if every cow was killed on the same ranch ( :dubious: ), we are talking about 29 cows out of your theoretical 200…or a bit more than 10%. Yes, perhaps heavy losses if this theoretical were true…but not exactly earth shattering, especially if those cows were re-imbursed by the state (are you disupting this as well?).
So…rather than lead us through some fantasy scenerio, lets see some cold hard numbers. Exactly how many cows are killed in a given month? Year? How extensive is this problem? A key question I personally have is WHERE were these cows killed, by and large? Was it on privately owned and operated ranches, or were the cows killed grazing on BLM land?
-XT
How did you reach the conclusion that I’m disputing Tamerlane’s cite? I’m not. I see no compelling reason to doubt the numbers he’s given are anything but accurate as far as an official count goes.
I’m not speaking from a foundation of hard numbers. I’m merely speaking from personal experience on behalf of the ranchers in western Montana. The loss of even a single heifer or bull can be fiscally crippling to a smaller ranch. That’s not a “fantasy” scenario by any definition of the word.
Once again, I’m not advocating repealing the protection wolves are offered by the endangered species list. I’m just trying to shed some light on why ranchers have such fear and apprehension of wolves. Feel free to take my comments at face value: I have no cold-hard numbers to give you.
Fair enough. I misunderheard you and appologize, FWIW.
Then I don’t see how small ranches can stay in existence to be honest. Cattle, especially free range cattle, die…all the time. I live in New Mexico and see dead cows all the time when I’m out and about where they graze. Not only that, but according to Tame’s post, mountain lions are seemingly a much bigger problem…even accidents (14% according to Tam) and unknown causes (presumably disease or maybe humans in black helicoptors or space aliens…again 14%) is higher than the figures for wolves.
To me, given these things, it SEEMS that the problem is one of ignorance and fear, of mis-perceptions…not reality. If a small ranch can’t afford the death of a single cow, then that ranch shouldn’t be free ranging its cattle…and probably isn’t a viable concern if its so vulnerable. Because 29 cows a YEAR in a state doesn’t sound like an aweful lot to me (especially if the state is paying the ranchers for their losses)…
I respect that stance and sorry if I came off as hostile or something. I didn’t mean too. I DO know why ranchers feel the way they do…I just think they are basing their ‘feeling’ on something other than the facts, and that they are driving policy by this ignorance and fear. I have a distinct lack of sympathy with this attitude…especially since much of the land these folks are grazing their cattle on is OUR friggin land (i.e. its BLM land).
-XT
I also suspect that this irrational amount of fear towards wolves by western ranchers is self defeating. Based on Zoe’s cite above, it does indeed sound like its time to allow managed hunting of wolves, which would have the added benefits of decreasing the already low number of wolf predations on livestock and produce revenue for the states. My guess that at least part of the reason the F&WS is dragging its feet on delisting the wolves is a worry that politicians like “Butch” will be pressured by ranchers to allow the animals to be overhunted with the goal of wiping them out rather then simply holding them to a managable number.
Another reason some people are eager to de-list is the anticipated $$$ that will be generated by hunters.
I would think a common ground could be reached. Opening the wolf population to delist them and make them available to hunting will open the gates to every Tom, Dick and Jane whose got a gun to go out and kill an animal they have no reason to kill if they are not a rancher, or someone else thus harmed by the wolves. Limited hunting by the ranchers and game personnel I would not be against, or opening a special week of hunting with the purchase of EXPENSIVE tags I could see as well.
But opening the flood gates and having a longer season with low cost tags would in my opinion endanger the wolves yet again.
That’s what they have in mind, as far as I know, but it would be regulated by each state.
It’s more likely each state would allow only a certain amount of ‘wolf tags’ on the market. Those individuals wishing to hunt the animal would be entered into a lottery.
One, it needs to be kept in mind that Butch says a lot of bombastic things with his tongue firmly in cheek. He’s got a “good ol’ boy” reputation and shoots from the hip in terms of his public comments. Idahoans (and I am a former Idahoan) know this and, in general, love him for it. They also take his comments as general statements about what he wants to do, not as strict policy pronouncements. So when he says he wants to eliminate all but 100 wolves, it’s probably best not to take him seriously. He’s playing to the crowd. Let’s wait and see what the Idaho Fish and Game Department proposes before getting so upset over this.
Two, wolves are unpopular in Idaho. They were imposed without Idaho’s consent and the state never wanted them. The people in the areas with wolves don’t like them and they do kill livestock. For people to sit here and denigrate the people who hate these wolves is a bit ridiculous. The people here aren’t affected by them. The people in Idaho are, so they should be able to manage them.
Three, there will not be an open hunting season on wolves. As mentioned above, it would likely be a system where you have to draw a tag through a lottery process. It would cost a lot and only a limited number of tags would be given. This is a perfectly sensible way of dealing with this issue.
Got any figures on how much livestock we are talking about? Based on what I’ve seen so far in this thread, we are talking about the equivelent of someone worried about stained teeth while smoking 3 packs a day…i.e. people who have a somewhat tenuous grasp of probability statistics. And THATS what I, personally, an denigrating here. Perhaps I’m not grasping the extent of the problem here…which is why I’m open to some cites concerning the extent of said problem. If wolves are cutting such a swath through the ranchers cattle (on non-BLM land), then it should be fairly easy to show that, and then to judge for ourselves.
As for the folks from Idaho having wolves imposed on them against their will…well, I have to admit I’m more sympathetic to that arguement than any others thus far put forth. Certainly its a bad thing when a state is told to do something by the federal government…especially when the residents of that state are firmly against it. Do you happen to have any polls on this (I want to note…this is for my own curiosity, I’m not doubting you at alll here) before the re-introduction? I think it would be a good thing to toss in the pot of this thread, and as I said, its the one arguement thus far that, to my mind, seems viable.
-XT
From page 3 of this PDF regarding a poll done by Boise U in 2003 (I flipped through the site and couldn’t find any mention of wolves in the more recent surveys, but I was skimming and might have missed):
So I don’t think its accurate to saying that Idaho is having wolves imposed upon it against its will.