[Vision2020] Mixed news for Wolves
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Wed Jan 31 16:23:42 PST 2007
To make a long story of ignorance, hysteria, and stupidity short:
At one time in Boundary County in the 1980s a neighbor's sheep were being
occasionally savaged by what some Jim Hagadorn type "experts" insisted were
wolves, mainly on the basis of the size of the canine footprints found at
the scene. Sure enough, these "experts" staked out the meadow, even
tethering a sheep as bait, and one night in a matter of seconds killed three
"wolves" out of a larger pack.
Upon closer examination, however, these "wolves" turned out to be dogs of
two other neighbors which frequently engaged in pack behavior with other
dogs in the neighborhood.
Paw prints are not conclusive evidence. In my experience there are domestic
dogs out running wildlife, domestic cattle, sheep, etc in numbers that far
exceed those of wolves. This was even true in the 1950s in Boundary County
when there was a healthy population of wolves and not nearly as many people
and dogs.
We had big horn sheep then too. We could see them periodically with
binoculars from our front window on two different rocky escarpments. They
were eradicated also. Not by wolves, but by two poaching families who liked
to brag about it afterward.
Until the Southwick cattle kills have been observed by reliable witnesses
who know what wolves look like and see a wolf make an actual kill or
pursuit, I'll reserve judgment on the cause of death there.
One cannot help to have sympathy for farmers who lose livestock for any
reason. Hysteria will not solve the problem. Perhaps intelligent
discussion might engender some solutions including subsidized fencing.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com>; "Sunil Ramalingam"
<sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mixed news for Wolves
> Mark
> Some of your statements are ture and some can be questioned. The
> government does pay for verified losses. These things are hard to verify.
> As you said there has been one payment in Latah county. The loss in the
> Soutwick area has been considerably grater than that. In any case this is
> an unnecessary expense.To attribute losses to vultures is ridiculous.
> vultures feed on carcasses but do not kill any cattle. I have seen them
> eating on something that is still barely alive. But they were not the
> cause of death to a health animal. Think about the size of a vulture and
> the size of a cow. Owls and Eagles will prey on small rodents and cats,
> but not on cattle.
>
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Mark Solomon msolomon at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:47 -0800
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com, "Sunil Ramalingam"
> sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mixed news for Wolves
>
>> For those who may not be aware of it, Defenders of Wildlife maintains
>> a livestock predation fund to compensate any rancher who Fish and
>> Wildlife Service says has lost stock to wolves. According to
>> information on their website, the fund has made 412 payments totaling
>> $536,985 to cover the loss of 514 cows, 1421 sheep and 57 "other
>> animals" from 1987 to 2005. One payment for cattle is listed for
>> Latah County.
>>
>> The following is from the Defenders website:
>> http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/new/wolves/loss.html
>>
>> * In the continental U.S., health issues such as respiratory
>> problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were
>> overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.
>>
>> * Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in
>> 2005.
>>
>> * Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves
>> killed that year.
>>
>> * Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and
>> vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.
>>
>> * Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses
>> as were lost by wolf predation.
>>
>> * Predation by coyotes was the largest cause of sheep loss in
>> 2005, accounting for 23% of all losses, followed by health problems &
>> weather-related issues.
>>
>> * In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5%
>> of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005.
>>
>> I'm not going to argue that there isn't a traumatic loss when the
>> animals you've raised are killed by a wolf, but the economic loss is
>> minimized if not zeroed out by the compensation fund. Plus, when you
>> look at the causes of livestock loss listed above, wolves are way
>> down the list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> At 3:03 PM -0800 1/31/07, lfalen wrote:
>> >I don't know that they have said that directly, but the loss of
>> >livestock to wolves does not seem to be of a concern or is
>> >minimized. That is the same thing.
>> >
>> >Roger
>> >-----Original message-----
>> >From: "Sunil Ramalingam" sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>> >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:37:08 -0800
>> >To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mixed news for Wolves
>> >
>> >> Roger,
>> >>
>> >> How many people have said here they don't care about the livelihood
>> >> of
>> >> livestock producers?
>> >>
>> >> Sunil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>> >> >Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>> >> >To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> >Subject: [Vision2020] Mixed news for Wolves
>> >> >Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:01:20 -0800
>> >> >
>> >> >Will
>> >> > I am mostly in agreement with your statements on a balance in the
>> >> >ecosystem. however I do not think that killing off old cow elk has
>> >> anything
>> >> >to do with the productive of young ones. One thing that is missing
>> >> is the
>> >> >disregard of the effects on livestock. I understand that you folks
>> >> do not
>> >> >care about the lively hood of livestock producers, which is why you
>> >> do not
>> >> >take this into consideration or downgrade it. I do not have a
>> >> problem with
>> >> >maintaining some wolves, but they need to be controlled. They are
>> >> much more
>> >> >dangerous than coyotes. I am a believer in multiple use. This
>> >> includes
>> >> >everyone, including livestock producers. I am a supporter of The
>> >> Nature
>> >> >conservancy. I used to be a member of the Audubon Society, but their
>> >> views
>> >> >have became too one side. The Sierra Club has always ben too radical
>> >> for
>> >> >me. As an aside, I was raised in the middle of what is called the
>> >> Owyhee
>> >> >Initiative. Our place was about 50 miles from Jordan Valley, Oregon
>> >> and 80
>> >> >miles from Bruneau, Idaho. I supp!
>> >> > ort the
>> >> >Owyhee Imitative as do most of my former neighbors that still live
>> >> there.
>> >> >
>> >> >Roger
>> >> >
>> >> >=======================================================
>> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >> > http://www.fsr.net
>> >> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> >=======================================================
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> =======================================================
>> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >> http://www.fsr.net
>> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list