By Ryan Benson, BIG GAME FOREVER
Livestock producers and sportsmen have tried to educate the general public on the impacts from unmanaged wolves. Unfortunately, they continually deal with misinformation that is widely published as authoritative. Some of the misleading statistics even come from government agencies whose methodologies fail to account for the scope and scale of actual loss. In other words, a lot of well-intentioned people are confused by what is really going on. A rancher from Montana recently wrote a great letter detailing this situation. It is worth reading.
A Bit of Background
At the recent wolf-delisting hearing in Washington D.C. a very nice woman approached me. I had just finished my turn at the microphone in support of the pending national wolf-delisting. I had talked about the impacts to hard working families in rural America, the loss of wildlife and the hope that predator numbers can be returned to more balanced numbers through responsible management.
"I have some information on ways ranchers and farmers can protect their livestock without harming wolves!" she shared excitedly. She continued, "just give me your email and we can produce some win/wins here." It was evident that she was sincere in her offer and was genuinely trying to be helpful.
Hard Working Rural Communities Bear the Burden
What she didn't know is that I have spent countless hours in the homes of livestock producers across the country who have tried "non-lethal deterent" strategies like flaggery, hot fence and even range riders. Not only are these techniques extremely expensive, but they had failed to slow livestock kills from wolves. When these ranchers explain the shortcomings of these techniques, they are often attacked for being "untruthful" or being a "wolf-hater." I truly sympathized for these hard-working families that are paying a heavy price for the federal government's experimental wolf programs. In fact the data strongly suggests that they bear most of the economic burden from wolf depredation.
Rancher's Letter Everyone Should Read
A friend recently sent me a link to a letter written by a hard-working Montana rancher. The letter explains that his calf survival has plummeted from 5% loss to approximately 33% loss since the wolf-program started. Based on the economics of ranching, this is the difference between making a living and losing the farm. Here is a couple of great quotes from the letter:
"I read Gretchen Smith’s letter in the winter 2011 issue of Range that characterized wolf impacts for last year in total at 75 head of cattle, and that this loss was compensated for through the reimbursement program. I also read in Western Ag Reporter of Carter Niemeyer’s position that adverse affects of wolf harassment are minimal on livestock & wildlife. If these points were true I think we stockmen, sportsman, and people like us who simply enjoy all wildlife and not just predators would be overjoyed."
"Stockmen experience some death loss and infertility in the best of circumstances. Our norm was 4% – 5% unbred cows with a low death loss under 1% before wolves were a factor. Now our negative cattle trends mirror the negative wildlife trends in our area. In my experience these negative wildlife and cattle trends directly relate to the increase in wolf numbers, the increase in wolf encounters with cattle & wildlife, and the increase in wolf depredations."
I strongly encourage you to read his full article at: http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-years-experience-dealing-with-wolves-on-montana-ranch/
Real Data Should Internalize all Economic Losses to Ranching and Hunting Economies
A few interesting points from his letter. First, the writer feels that livestock impacts from wolves follow similar trends to elk population decline. Second, some non-lethal tactics which showed some promise in the early stages, are less successful when wolf numbers and predation increase. Third, economic impacts are not just from confirmed kills, they also extend to unconfirmed kills, lowered pregnancy rates, aborted calves, low weights from stress and grazing disruption all combine to produce a bleak economic picture for many ranchers. Fourth, wolves are difficult and expensive to manage.
It is interesting to note that wolf-advocates go to great lengths to censor this type of information. Biologists and scientists who write correct data are ruthlessly attacked. Funding is pulled from researchers. Authors of articles are rebuked publicly and privately. Pressure is exerted in a litany of ways to prevent dissemination of correct information. The combination has led many residents of rural communities to loose faith in the system. Many of the people I have talked to wonder why their stories are ignored by the media and by many politicians from urban districts.
The Time and Expense of Restoring Wildlife, Balancing Wolf Numbers
Thank you for supporting these hard-working Americans. State management of wolves is a common-sense solution to allow state's to manage wolves in a responsible manner. Good people across America have been hurt by the delays in wolf-management. States are faced with an expensive "clean-up" effort after years of uncontrolled wolf numbers. The good news is that many states now have authority to restore numbers to more balanced levels. The question is, how long it will take. Wolf populations are highly resistant to management. Removals can be very expensive. Even small reductions in wolf-populations are difficult given restrictions on wolf-management tools and techniques.
Who will pay for moose, elk and deer restoration?
Who will pay for wolf management and wildlife resoration? At this point it appears that states are stuck with the bill. This is a particularly difficult situation for state wildlife agencies. Delayed wolf management has decimated biologically and economically important wildlife herds in these states. As a result, states have an significant added expense at the same time dealing with millions in lost annual revenue. Some wolf-advocates are now pushing for abandoning the user based North American model and replacing it with more general fund taxes. Which begs the question, should these states bear the burden for a federal government program that didn't work out as promised? It is just one of a number of difficult questions resulting from years of litigation and delays which prevented states from protecting wildlife populations and livestock in their states. It is becoming increasingly clear that sportsmen and ranchers will once again play an important part in restoring wildlife populations and restoring balance to these hard-hit areas. I hope we are equal to the task.
Ryan Benson
BIG GAME FOREVER
http://biggameforever.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment