Study: Why Killing Wolves Doesn’t Prevent Sheep From Getting Killed
Read Time:2 Minute, 37 Second
Let’s just call it revenge killings. The science tells the wolf-murdering ranchers that killing these magnificent creatures in no way limits predation, on the contrary, the latest research says just the opposite. As a matter of fact the idea that shooting wolves keeps them from preying on livestock looks like it’s going up in flames.
From TakePart.com:
by Taylor Hill
Armed with 25 years of data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington State University researchers reviewed traditional wolf management efforts.
“I had no idea what the results were going to be, positive or negative,” Rob Wielgus, a WSU wildlife biologist and coauthor of the study, said in a statement. “I said, ‘Let’s take a look at it and see what happened.’ I was surprised that there was a big effect.”
For each wolf killed, the researchers found that the odds of death by wolf predation rose 4 percent for sheep and 5 to 6 percent for cattle.
But why do wolf predation incidents increase if there are fewer wolves in an area?
Wielgus and fellow researcher Kaylie Peebles think killing individual wolves—especially alpha males—disrupts the breeding structure of the pack and can end up creating more breeding pairs, as younger males split off and form their own families.
When there are more pairs of wolves with young pups, they are less likely to venture out and hunt than to prey on easy targets like sheep and cattle.
The battle between wolves and ranchers has been going on since gray wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1974. The reintroduction of wolves in the Northern Rockies in the 1990s sparked a recovery of the species. Wolves expanded from Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho into Washington, Oregon, and even California. But as that range grew, wildlife agencies began to kill wolves suspected of preying on livestock.
The government removed gray wolves from the endangered species list in 2012, and hunters have already exterminated more than a third of the 1,600 wolves thought to live in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
The current killing rate “is unsustainable and cannot be carried out indefinitely if federal relisting of wolves is to be avoided,” according to the study.
In Washington state, the study was met by disapproval by the pro-livestock group Washington Residents Against Wolves. Jamie Henneman, a spokesperson for the organization, told The New York Times that the study was “not clean science.”
“They just want to get rid of wolves,” Wiegus told the Times regarding Henneman’s criticism. “Livestock lobbyists are pretty much vehemently opposed to my research, but in terms of hard science, it stood the test.”
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
“you liberals.” It’s fun to be the punching bag for anything anyone thinks Obama did or didn’t do. Of course it tags the comment for the junk file, but still. . . What there is about trying to reduce a predator population that’s particularly “liberal’ escapes me but as Plato said about the sanity entering into a rivalry with a madman. . . . and by madman he meant a Republican, of course.
But the story adds strength to my notion that farmers and agriculture are a substantial threat to wildlife and particularly predators and I think far more so than trophy hunters. Farmers and the lure of simplistic solutions to complex problems.
Even more repugnant than shooting wolves from helicopters like the Genius Palin is poisoning them, which of course poisons other animals and is generally disgusting for many reasons.
Up until recently I lived in “farm country” and the farmers loved to shoot raptors, and poison wild hogs. They didn’t care about penalties or even the morality of it, they did it because they feel entitled. Don’t like farmers much.
You liberals can thank Barack Obama for this. He’s the one that made the deal with republicans early in his reign to delist wolves in order to get a budget deal. Weasel fuck.