7 ms·

I'm sympathetic to the ranchers as its costly to lose animals, but in a lot of ways I still think a simple economic solution would have kept this from getting t

I'm sympathetic to the ranchers as its costly to lose animals, but in a lot of ways I still think a simple economic solution would have kept this from getting that far. If the wolves are technically owned by the federal government, then they could have paid for each animal the wolves eat (at final market price). Frankly, a Fish & Wildlife person driving out with a check would have solved quite a lot of this at a much cheaper price. The North American wolves are not their European brethren in body count (far from it).

almog 10y ago
That kind of solution could create a Cobra Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect) where ranchers feed wolves with their stock. I'm surprised that livestock guarding dogs were not mentioned in the article. Some breeds are known to prevent attacks by merely displaying aggressive behavior toward predators without actually harming neither the wolves nor themselves.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Could, but I doubt it. I can almost see some older milk cows or breeding animals going that way, but there is a bit of difference between the cost of raising cattle and cobras. Raising cows for wolf food has all sorts of side effects that ranchers would understand to be bad.
- mrfusion 10y ago
  Alpacas are good guard animals I think. Not sure for wolves.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    The Swiss seem to want llamas[1] because dogs are bad for tourists(?!?). I was taught you bought a donkey[2]. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX5GvhIF2j4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX5GvhIF2j4 2) https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/guard-donkeys-ranchers-turn-to-crabby-equines-to-watch-over-livestock/ https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/guard-don...
    - justinator 10y ago
      Both lammas and donkeys are used here locally. The neighbors use a donkey.
- jxcole 10y ago
  It wouldn't really be a Cobra Effect. In the Cobra Effect, the net number of Cobras (which were trying to be eliminated) was increased instead of decreased. If farmers start breeding livestock intentionally to be eaten by wolves, it's hard to see how this would have a net negative effect on the wolf population. Maybe you're suggesting the wolves would forget how to hunt because they are constantly being fed by ranchers? This might be possible. Either way, the key to implementing a policy like this would be testing it out with a small subset of Wyoming and measuring it's effects. Also, one should be careful not to over incentivize ranchers towards feeding wolves, but compensate them justly.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    The other difference from the Cobra effect is that feeding wolves would result in a whole lot of problems for the rancher (as in life and limb to family). Those problems are enough of an incentive not to do those things. You really, really don't want a predator to learn free meals are on your land. You already have to manage the land use when ranching.
  - almog 10y ago
    Yes, I wasn't suggesting an increase in the wolves population but rather that this solution could worsen the rancher's problem (of the ranchers) by educating the wolves to feed on livestock rather than hunt elks and deer. Strictly speaking, under ideal condition wolves live longer, so an increase in population is also possible.
onychomys 10y ago
They already have that, albeit at the state level rather than the federal: http://liv.mt.gov/llb/usdacontact.mcpx http://liv.mt.gov/llb/usdacontact.mcpx
- protomyth 10y ago
  Yeah, different state, but too slow, too painful, and not quite enough money. The government needs to pay above the final sale price because of the inconvenience. The premium and quick delivery are worth it to protect the wolves.
  - khuey 10y ago
    Paying above the final sale price will definitely create some perverse incentives.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      No, it really won't. I'm talking a simple charge mostly to cover the additional expenses of dealing with a carcass and contract problems (some cattle are under contract). I'm not talking double or even a high percentage, just enough so we won't hear serious b_tch_ng about the price. Sometimes failure to deliver and disposal causes its own problems.
      - dsp1234 10y ago
        If a rancher gets above sale price for a steer, even a pitiful 5%, then that rancher is going to find ways for this steers to get killed by wolves (for example by having them graze on public lands next to a den of wolves). What incentive would a rancher ever have for preventing the wolves from killing the steers? If the wolves don't kill a steer, well then there's the hassle of taking it to market and getting market price. If the wolves kill the steer, then they get market price plus 5%, and don't have to even find a buyer.
        protomyth 10y ago
posguy 10y ago
I'd be a touch less sympathetic, the 800 animals lost to wolves a year out of a population of over 1.6 million is infinitesimally small, if anything it shows wolves are not a notable threat to herds grazing on public lands. Another article about a similar situation that trhway posted below: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-denali-wolf-20120521 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-dena... TLDR: Hunter kills a horse in a creek, fouling it for the local residents who rely on it & making them boil their water so its drinkable (very expensive to do). Said hunter used dead horse to kill the majority of one of the most well known wolf packs out there, this hunter successfully fucked over the locals water supply, and gave the National Parks Service hard data that getting rid of the buffer zone was bad (as these wolves were part of their study. Seems ridiculous to allow people to shit all over state & federal lands, creating serious health hazards and killing tourism.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Every head of cattle is still a lot of money for those ranchers. If its only 800, then the government should have no problem getting the money for a cheap solution. Using one idiot to brand all ranchers is pretty reprehensible especially because waving that bloody shirt has no part in the argument I put forward.
  - posguy 10y ago
    Why should the government subsidize ranchers? Seriously, the fact that ranchers got away with unrestricted grazing and nary a threat from other wildlife for decades was a gift, and if ranchers thought the government would allow them to continue to trample their local ecosystems unimpeded indefinitely, then they were really off their rocker. Also, I'm not branding ranchers here, just idiots with guns calling themselves "hunters", which the asshat in the aforementioned article is far from being. Idiots like him have caused public sentiment about hunting to turn negative, which is bad for the rest of us as that means more restrictions & rules.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      The government isn't subsidizing ranchers, its paying for the damage caused by something it basically owns. If a bison left the national park and rammed your car, you might fairly believe you were entitled to some compensation. I can tell you from experience that talking to your insurance company will be non-fun. What association should I draw from your response with that story to my proposal? He was an idiot, but there are idiots everywhere.
jle17 10y ago
Indemnification doesn't seem to deter farmers from complaining. Where I live (France) we have a totally anecdotic number of wolves and bears (there are so few bears that they are almost all descended from a single male), and the state is paying for killed animals at or above market price, yet opposition to their reintroduction and lobbying for their killing persists. It made news today that a single wolf has been photographed on a road in a small town (La Ferrière) and already the mayor is taking the opportunity to ask for "regulation", claiming that sightings of the animal occur every day in his town (one might wonder why, if that's the case, a blurry photo of a single individual makes national news...).

almog 10y ago

That kind of solution could create a Cobra Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect) where ranchers feed wolves with their stock. I'm surprised that livestock guarding dogs were not mentioned in the article. Some breeds are known to prevent attacks by merely displaying aggressive behavior toward predators without actually harming neither the wolves nor themselves.

protomyth 10y ago
Could, but I doubt it. I can almost see some older milk cows or breeding animals going that way, but there is a bit of difference between the cost of raising cattle and cobras. Raising cows for wolf food has all sorts of side effects that ranchers would understand to be bad.
mrfusion 10y ago
Alpacas are good guard animals I think. Not sure for wolves.
- protomyth 10y ago
  The Swiss seem to want llamas[1] because dogs are bad for tourists(?!?). I was taught you bought a donkey[2]. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX5GvhIF2j4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX5GvhIF2j4 2) https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/guard-donkeys-ranchers-turn-to-crabby-equines-to-watch-over-livestock/ https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/guard-don...
  - justinator 10y ago
    Both lammas and donkeys are used here locally. The neighbors use a donkey.
jxcole 10y ago
It wouldn't really be a Cobra Effect. In the Cobra Effect, the net number of Cobras (which were trying to be eliminated) was increased instead of decreased. If farmers start breeding livestock intentionally to be eaten by wolves, it's hard to see how this would have a net negative effect on the wolf population. Maybe you're suggesting the wolves would forget how to hunt because they are constantly being fed by ranchers? This might be possible. Either way, the key to implementing a policy like this would be testing it out with a small subset of Wyoming and measuring it's effects. Also, one should be careful not to over incentivize ranchers towards feeding wolves, but compensate them justly.
- protomyth 10y ago
  The other difference from the Cobra effect is that feeding wolves would result in a whole lot of problems for the rancher (as in life and limb to family). Those problems are enough of an incentive not to do those things. You really, really don't want a predator to learn free meals are on your land. You already have to manage the land use when ranching.
- almog 10y ago
  Yes, I wasn't suggesting an increase in the wolves population but rather that this solution could worsen the rancher's problem (of the ranchers) by educating the wolves to feed on livestock rather than hunt elks and deer. Strictly speaking, under ideal condition wolves live longer, so an increase in population is also possible.

onychomys 10y ago

They already have that, albeit at the state level rather than the federal: http://liv.mt.gov/llb/usdacontact.mcpx http://liv.mt.gov/llb/usdacontact.mcpx

protomyth 10y ago
Yeah, different state, but too slow, too painful, and not quite enough money. The government needs to pay above the final sale price because of the inconvenience. The premium and quick delivery are worth it to protect the wolves.
- khuey 10y ago
  Paying above the final sale price will definitely create some perverse incentives.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    No, it really won't. I'm talking a simple charge mostly to cover the additional expenses of dealing with a carcass and contract problems (some cattle are under contract). I'm not talking double or even a high percentage, just enough so we won't hear serious b_tch_ng about the price. Sometimes failure to deliver and disposal causes its own problems.
    - dsp1234 10y ago
      If a rancher gets above sale price for a steer, even a pitiful 5%, then that rancher is going to find ways for this steers to get killed by wolves (for example by having them graze on public lands next to a den of wolves). What incentive would a rancher ever have for preventing the wolves from killing the steers? If the wolves don't kill a steer, well then there's the hassle of taking it to market and getting market price. If the wolves kill the steer, then they get market price plus 5%, and don't have to even find a buyer.
      - protomyth 10y ago

posguy 10y ago

I'd be a touch less sympathetic, the 800 animals lost to wolves a year out of a population of over 1.6 million is infinitesimally small, if anything it shows wolves are not a notable threat to herds grazing on public lands. Another article about a similar situation that trhway posted below: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-denali-wolf-20120521 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/21/nation/la-na-nn-dena... TLDR: Hunter kills a horse in a creek, fouling it for the local residents who rely on it & making them boil their water so its drinkable (very expensive to do). Said hunter used dead horse to kill the majority of one of the most well known wolf packs out there, this hunter successfully fucked over the locals water supply, and gave the National Parks Service hard data that getting rid of the buffer zone was bad (as these wolves were part of their study. Seems ridiculous to allow people to shit all over state & federal lands, creating serious health hazards and killing tourism.

protomyth 10y ago
Every head of cattle is still a lot of money for those ranchers. If its only 800, then the government should have no problem getting the money for a cheap solution. Using one idiot to brand all ranchers is pretty reprehensible especially because waving that bloody shirt has no part in the argument I put forward.
- posguy 10y ago
  Why should the government subsidize ranchers? Seriously, the fact that ranchers got away with unrestricted grazing and nary a threat from other wildlife for decades was a gift, and if ranchers thought the government would allow them to continue to trample their local ecosystems unimpeded indefinitely, then they were really off their rocker. Also, I'm not branding ranchers here, just idiots with guns calling themselves "hunters", which the asshat in the aforementioned article is far from being. Idiots like him have caused public sentiment about hunting to turn negative, which is bad for the rest of us as that means more restrictions & rules.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    The government isn't subsidizing ranchers, its paying for the damage caused by something it basically owns. If a bison left the national park and rammed your car, you might fairly believe you were entitled to some compensation. I can tell you from experience that talking to your insurance company will be non-fun. What association should I draw from your response with that story to my proposal? He was an idiot, but there are idiots everywhere.

jle17 10y ago

Indemnification doesn't seem to deter farmers from complaining. Where I live (France) we have a totally anecdotic number of wolves and bears (there are so few bears that they are almost all descended from a single male), and the state is paying for killed animals at or above market price, yet opposition to their reintroduction and lobbying for their killing persists. It made news today that a single wolf has been photographed on a road in a small town (La Ferrière) and already the mayor is taking the opportunity to ask for "regulation", claiming that sightings of the animal occur every day in his town (one might wonder why, if that's the case, a blurry photo of a single individual makes national news...).