Wolves & Livestock -Prevention is Key to Coexistence.

See more links at bottom of page for resources and references.

 

For decades, if not centuries, public and government have been killing wolves and other predators to protect livestock. For example, the U.S. government was practicing lethal control on coyotes for 80 years in an effort to increase sheep production, only to realize that this had no effect on the sheep industry! (2) The real culprits were increasing production costs and decreasing product prices.

 

READ this 25 year comprehensive review about the Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations, by Wieglus and Peebles (2014).  This long-term view provides more evidence for a positive correlation between the number of wolves killed one year and the number of livestock killed by wolves the following year.  In other words, killing more wolves lead to more livestock losses the next year.  

 

In 2002, the BC Wild Predator Loss Control and Compensation Program was initiated, with compensation funds coming from the Ministry of Agriculture and lands. Under this program, ranchers are compensated for 75% of the value of an animal lost. In Alberta, ranchers are compensated 100% for livestock losses confirmed to wolves.  In the Northwestern USA, compensation programs have been in effect for 20 years. These mitigation efforts are to minimize the chances of ranchers taking things into their own hands by shooting predators on their property that they view as a possible threat.

 

Look at the facts:

-2005 research done in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming indicated that LESS THAN 3% of all livestock mortality was due to wolves, grizzly bears, and black bears COMBINED! (2)

​

Total livestock losses due to non-predators was at least 89%, with respiratory and digestive problems contributing the most (between 8 – 32%), (2).

​

This study points out that total cattle losses due to wolf depredation in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming  are minor when compared to other causes of death, (2).

​​

Misperceptions

Misperception #1: Wolves cost the livestock industry too much.

​

Fact: there are only a few losses each year which has minimal effects on the industry. However, to an individual rancher losing even a few animals seem like a lot. This leaves an angry impression which is often exaggerated and this is the voice that gets heard.  If your ranch is within the territory of a wolf pack and there are no problems, ranchers are advised to LEAVE THE PACK ALONE; they may be protecting livestock from wolves that are more prone to go after livestock (1).

​

Misperception #2: Wolves kill for fun and in excess of what they can consume, often referred to as "surplus killing" .

​

Fact: Surplus killing is considered uncommon in the wild, however a few documented cases do exists (3).

Wolves may not return to a carcass once it is disturbed by humans, leading to the thought that excessive killing is occurring when it would not have (1,2). This could also lead to wolves killing another animal to replace the food source they have just lost (1).

 

The number of wolves feeding on an animal may not be able to consume the entire amount (1). In the wild, any leftovers would provide for scavengers and contribute to biodiversity.

 

Surplus killing does occasionally exist among sheep in the Northwestern US, but has not been documented in cattle. (2)

 

Livestock and domestics display poor anti-predator behaviour, which are reactions recognized in nature to deter predator advances (2). Sheep especially have prey traits that make them more vulnerable to predators (2). It is important for wolf conservationists to acknowledge that some livestock depredation is caused by wolves each year, although minimal. Livestock production and wolf habitat often overlaps, and where they do, there will occasionally be losses. It is valuable to recognize both sides of the story, and by investigating concerns we can discover the facts.
 

Issues of safety are most often unwarranted. The real dangers are poison on a landscape, more guns and traps. The REAL issue is tolerance.

It is essential for people of all backgrounds to work to recognize wolves as an important part of an ecosystem, not something to be liked or disliked, to improve tolerance. Note that a deep-rooted social identity often influences an individuals’ tolerances more than actual encounters with wolves and other predators. Regulations or guidelines can also be viewed as threat to private property rights and government interference. Perceived risk can be as important as actual experience in shaping attitudes… education is iperative.
 

 Wolf Awareness is working proactively towards forming working partnerships among various shareholders, at the individual and organizational level,  to facilitate the development of community-level working groups focussed on coexising with wolves and other large carnivores.

​

References for above:

1.  MacKay, Andy. (2005). " Mitigating Cattle Losses Caused by Wild Predators in British Columbia, A Field Guide for Ranchers". Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, [

2. Muhly, T.B., Musiani, M., (2009). Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern U.S., Ecological Economics.

3. www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-d7-depredation-surplus.html

 

According to world renowned wolf biologists Dr. David Mech and Dr. Luigi Boitani, in their co-authored textbook Wolves, Ecology Behavior and Conservation, the most rational and effective approach when dealing in areas where wolves and livestock overlap is:

 

1. Prevention by providing incentives to improve protection of livestock (fences, guard dogs, shepherds, etc.)

2. Compensation of farmers for damage

3. Elimination of individual wolves causing damage

Many predator-friendly ranching practices are inexpensive but an initial investment into providing this type of information and making it accessible to livestock producers is necessary.  Some of the more commonly used and discussed techniques include: confining or concentrating flocks during periods of vulnerability, establishing a human presence using herders, synchronizing birthing to reduce the period of maximum vulnerability, and pasturing young animals in areas with little cover and in close proximity to humans.  One of the most basic provisions for not attracting predators to areas where livestock is being raised is to remove dead livestock immediately from pastures. 

​

Monitoring the health of domestic animals regularly is critical to ensure dead and weaker domestics are cared for and managed responsibly, as these present more of an opportunity to wolves and other predators.  If a producer can remain “unattractive to wolves” by promptly managing for dead and sick livestock, as well as maintaining a strong human presence, livestock depredation rates should decrease in most areas.

​

As conservation of biodiversity has become a global issue, efforts have been made to restore wolf and other predator populations that were exterminated in the past.  In many of these areas, ranchers may have grown accustomed to a predator-free landscape and many practices fostering preventative husbandry practices have been forgotten along the way.  It is imperative that education be provided to livestock producers to ensure that these tools are not left out of the toolbox.  Just as essential as recognising the available tools is that ranchers apply management practices that benefit rangeland health which simulataneously reduces conflicts with large carnivores, as described by Keystone Conservation in "Livestock Management for Coexistence with Large Carnivores, Healthy Land and Productive Ranches" (2015). 

​

Livestock producers may have also become accustomed to externalizing the costs of production in many aspects.   Just as any business or corporation would be responsible for environmental impacts and/or investing in protection of business assets, so too should this apply to livestock producers or any independent party.  Responsible management practices are key to the successful outcome of any proprietor.

​