6 ms·

I can't read the article (well, past the first paragraph and a half) but I live in the area where the wolf population is returning (southern NM) and it is very

I can't read the article (well, past the first paragraph and a half) but I live in the area where the wolf population is returning (southern NM) and it is very controversial around here. When you get out of the city, and drive through little ranching towns, you see billboard and lawn signs about eradicating the Grey Wolf. At some level I sympathize with the ranchers. Their livestock don't live in controlled pens, they have grazing permits with BLM and they just wander the empty parts of the state, which makes them susceptible to natural predators. At the same time, my environmentalist nature applauds the return of animals like this to the ecosystem.

throwanem 7y ago
Paying for a few extra cows doesn't seem like it'd break the bank.
- everdrive 7y ago
  We can do our part buy buying less beef.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    There are a lot of good reasons to buy less beef, but I don't see how it's going to make ranchers less inclined to shoot wolves.
    - everdrive 7y ago
      If enough people bought less beef there'd be fewer ranchers.
- chasd00 7y ago
  If you lose an animal just before you take it to market you've lost your entire investment in that animal. I wish I knew the numbers exactly but any $0.00 ROI is going to have a big impact on a portfolio's average return. Also, consider losing an animal also means any animals it could have produced as offspring are also lost. Granted, most males are castrated at some point iirc.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    Paying the ranchers for animals lost to predation, is what I mean. A side of beef is half a cow. Usually a dressed side, all fees included, runs about a thousand dollars, a little more or less depending on who you get it from, when, how, etc. That's the consumer price, so a wholesaler probably gets less on a commercial sale, but if we're already (rightly imo) supporting the return of predator species to their ancestral habitats, paying ranchers a couple grand per wolf-killed animal doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Of course, they'll shoot wolves anyway, every chance they get.
- tengbretson 7y ago
  > a few extra cows If the solution here is just writing-off the lives of animals, then why bother defending the lives of the wolves?
  - elhudy 7y ago
    Hate to break it to you, but the cow's lives were written off when they were born.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    Because I value the lives of wolves, and not the lives of cows.
- astrea 7y ago
  Surely "a few extra cows" requires more than slapping down $5 at your local Walmart.
mulander 7y ago
My wife is an animal behaviorist specializing in pastoral dogs, non-lethal prevention of livestock loss and wolves in general. She blogged how simple things like fences[1], live stock guarding dogs[2] and human behavior and awareness[3] can reduce loses. We have a much higher wolf presence here in Europe (and especially in Poland where we both live) and a mix of the above plus government reimbursements for eventual loses help co-exist with the species without issues. [1] - https://k9hacking.com/the-fence-color-for-livestock-protection/ https://k9hacking.com/the-fence-color-for-livestock-protecti... [2] - https://k9hacking.com/lgd-adolescence-draft/ https://k9hacking.com/lgd-adolescence-draft/ [3] - https://k9hacking.com/yellowstone-wolf-pups-accident-flight-zone-recon/ https://k9hacking.com/yellowstone-wolf-pups-accident-flight-...
- Loughla 7y ago
  The issue with all of that is you're underestimating or misunderstanding the areas being spoken about. Fences are a no go - these are Federal lands being managed by the Bureau of Land Management. There are rules for that. Dogs could work, but I'm not sure how you would maintain the dog, as the pasture animals tend to roam loooooonnnngggggg distances. And the issues of the wildlife becoming accustomed to cars or being fed are zero issues. There are not enough people out there to do so BLM lands are actual wild spaces.
  - kayfox 7y ago
    I wonder how effective guard llamas are with cows...
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    In WA state a variety of non-lethal methods are preferred and attempted before lethal culling is allowed. Wolves are smart so some always eventually learn to circumvent/ignore non-lethal methods and begin targeting livestock. Non-lethal methods help reduce the requirement for lethal culling but they will not eliminate the need for it. Wolves will out grow their habitat if not carefully managed. Usually, recreational hunting serves this purpose well, but until wolves can be hunted, the state will have to do the culling.
  - 7y ago
valuearb 7y ago
Predation losses should be part of the cost of using public lands.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  You're being downvoted, but this is absolutely correct. Paying for a cheap BLM grazing license just entitles you to let your cattle graze on BLM land. It should not (and does not) entitle you to exterminate wolves living on that land. If a rancher wants wolf-free grazing land, they're free to buy their own land, fence it, and manage the grass on it.
  - elhudy 7y ago
    Should we be wary that an unintended consequence of this is increased public land selloff?
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  In WA, the state manages wolves in the eastern part of the state, and the feds manage the wolves in the western part. The gray wolf population has been growing every year in eastern Washington, so culling is required to limit predation of livestock and decimation of other game animals. I always suggest the state should capture the problematic gray wolves and re-home them in the western part of the state. Plenty of room in the western foothills of the Cascade mountains or on the Olympic peninsula for more wolves. It never seems to happen though. So it may be inferred that west-side Washingtonians (the liberal/progressive parts of the state) are not really interested in saving wolves if it causes themselves any economic or personal hardship.
greendave 7y ago
I never understood why we should be expected to subsidize ranchers by giving them nearly-free* access to vast quantities of land. If they want to keep cattle, let them buy their own land and graze on that. (And by 'nearly-free', in 2015 the cost per head/month was $1.70 on federal lands).
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Due to the structure of Congress, ranchers are disproportionately represented in the Senate and House. Also, it's part of the food overproduction thing we do to make sure we have enough food for natural security reasons (like with soy, corn, milk, etc.).
- bpodgursky 7y ago
  BLM land is held in trust for the people to use. It's a commons. In Nevada, for example, the federal government owns 81% of the land. Similar in Utah and elsewhere. You can't just say "buy your own enormous tracts of land" when it's mostly held by the federal government. You're inverting the relationship of the government and the people when you approach land management with a mindset of "the government is being generous by granting access to the land". The BLM and federal land management have existed to prevent over-grazing and other tragedy of the commons scenarios. In a very meaningful sense, these ranchers DO own the land, and have chosen to work cooperatively in the past rather than try to parcel the lands out. If you really, really want to privatize these lands, you can, but I don't think that's a better outcome in the end than responsible land management. The point of holding resources in trust by the government is to help the people, not make a profit. Do you really want the federal government to try to make a profit by charging the highest highway tolls they can get away with? What about charging for beach access? The point of federal resource management is to preserve the resources for the people. Not extract maximum revenue from the people.
  - ffdjjjffjj 7y ago
    In practice of course the only people who benefit from this “commons” are the ones who own lots of cows. It seems like it would be far more fair to charge a higher price and distribute that money equally to citizens.
triceratops 7y ago
Protection drones in combination with guard and herding dogs? Drones could patrol overhead and warn about incoming wolves, and employ noise or other techniques (some humane version of flash bang grenades?) to scare them off. Guard dogs to form the next line of defense. Breeds like the Anatolian Shepherd are well-suited to scaring off wolves.[1] Other breeds can keep the herd together. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_Shepherd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_Shepherd
- grogenaut 7y ago
  we would have heavy coverage of drone delivery and drone powered internet before this became physically or economically feasible. I don't think you understand the remote is of some of these areas or the sheer acreage involved. also wolves are smart I think as soon as they realize that the flash bangs are going to hurt them they're going to start ignoring them. this happens with all sorts of noise makers that are used to remove predators from an ecosystem such as things to scare herons away from fish breeding areas.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    > I think as soon as they realize that the flash bangs are going to hurt them they're going to start ignoring them What about something like bear mace then? Extremely unpleasant but won't kill wolves.
    - grogenaut 7y ago
      you're going to fly multiple drones around for months across thousands of miles of territory (including forests) using who knows what recharging mechanism carrying bear mace on it and then accurately target a pack of wolves as a method for deterrence?
      - triceratops 7y ago
        Ok, I put my hands up. I was just spitballing but I clearly don't know enough to be useful. :-)

throwanem 7y ago

Paying for a few extra cows doesn't seem like it'd break the bank.

everdrive 7y ago
We can do our part buy buying less beef.
- throwanem 7y ago
  There are a lot of good reasons to buy less beef, but I don't see how it's going to make ranchers less inclined to shoot wolves.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    If enough people bought less beef there'd be fewer ranchers.
chasd00 7y ago
If you lose an animal just before you take it to market you've lost your entire investment in that animal. I wish I knew the numbers exactly but any $0.00 ROI is going to have a big impact on a portfolio's average return. Also, consider losing an animal also means any animals it could have produced as offspring are also lost. Granted, most males are castrated at some point iirc.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Paying the ranchers for animals lost to predation, is what I mean. A side of beef is half a cow. Usually a dressed side, all fees included, runs about a thousand dollars, a little more or less depending on who you get it from, when, how, etc. That's the consumer price, so a wholesaler probably gets less on a commercial sale, but if we're already (rightly imo) supporting the return of predator species to their ancestral habitats, paying ranchers a couple grand per wolf-killed animal doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Of course, they'll shoot wolves anyway, every chance they get.
tengbretson 7y ago
> a few extra cows If the solution here is just writing-off the lives of animals, then why bother defending the lives of the wolves?
- elhudy 7y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but the cow's lives were written off when they were born.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Because I value the lives of wolves, and not the lives of cows.
astrea 7y ago
Surely "a few extra cows" requires more than slapping down $5 at your local Walmart.

mulander 7y ago

My wife is an animal behaviorist specializing in pastoral dogs, non-lethal prevention of livestock loss and wolves in general. She blogged how simple things like fences[1], live stock guarding dogs[2] and human behavior and awareness[3] can reduce loses. We have a much higher wolf presence here in Europe (and especially in Poland where we both live) and a mix of the above plus government reimbursements for eventual loses help co-exist with the species without issues. [1] - https://k9hacking.com/the-fence-color-for-livestock-protection/ https://k9hacking.com/the-fence-color-for-livestock-protecti... [2] - https://k9hacking.com/lgd-adolescence-draft/ https://k9hacking.com/lgd-adolescence-draft/ [3] - https://k9hacking.com/yellowstone-wolf-pups-accident-flight-zone-recon/ https://k9hacking.com/yellowstone-wolf-pups-accident-flight-...

Loughla 7y ago
The issue with all of that is you're underestimating or misunderstanding the areas being spoken about. Fences are a no go - these are Federal lands being managed by the Bureau of Land Management. There are rules for that. Dogs could work, but I'm not sure how you would maintain the dog, as the pasture animals tend to roam loooooonnnngggggg distances. And the issues of the wildlife becoming accustomed to cars or being fed are zero issues. There are not enough people out there to do so BLM lands are actual wild spaces.
- kayfox 7y ago
  I wonder how effective guard llamas are with cows...
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  In WA state a variety of non-lethal methods are preferred and attempted before lethal culling is allowed. Wolves are smart so some always eventually learn to circumvent/ignore non-lethal methods and begin targeting livestock. Non-lethal methods help reduce the requirement for lethal culling but they will not eliminate the need for it. Wolves will out grow their habitat if not carefully managed. Usually, recreational hunting serves this purpose well, but until wolves can be hunted, the state will have to do the culling.
- 7y ago

valuearb 7y ago

Predation losses should be part of the cost of using public lands.

gamblor956 7y ago
You're being downvoted, but this is absolutely correct. Paying for a cheap BLM grazing license just entitles you to let your cattle graze on BLM land. It should not (and does not) entitle you to exterminate wolves living on that land. If a rancher wants wolf-free grazing land, they're free to buy their own land, fence it, and manage the grass on it.
- elhudy 7y ago
  Should we be wary that an unintended consequence of this is increased public land selloff?
pnw_hazor 7y ago
In WA, the state manages wolves in the eastern part of the state, and the feds manage the wolves in the western part. The gray wolf population has been growing every year in eastern Washington, so culling is required to limit predation of livestock and decimation of other game animals. I always suggest the state should capture the problematic gray wolves and re-home them in the western part of the state. Plenty of room in the western foothills of the Cascade mountains or on the Olympic peninsula for more wolves. It never seems to happen though. So it may be inferred that west-side Washingtonians (the liberal/progressive parts of the state) are not really interested in saving wolves if it causes themselves any economic or personal hardship.

greendave 7y ago

I never understood why we should be expected to subsidize ranchers by giving them nearly-free* access to vast quantities of land. If they want to keep cattle, let them buy their own land and graze on that. (And by 'nearly-free', in 2015 the cost per head/month was $1.70 on federal lands).

gamblor956 7y ago
Due to the structure of Congress, ranchers are disproportionately represented in the Senate and House. Also, it's part of the food overproduction thing we do to make sure we have enough food for natural security reasons (like with soy, corn, milk, etc.).
bpodgursky 7y ago
BLM land is held in trust for the people to use. It's a commons. In Nevada, for example, the federal government owns 81% of the land. Similar in Utah and elsewhere. You can't just say "buy your own enormous tracts of land" when it's mostly held by the federal government. You're inverting the relationship of the government and the people when you approach land management with a mindset of "the government is being generous by granting access to the land". The BLM and federal land management have existed to prevent over-grazing and other tragedy of the commons scenarios. In a very meaningful sense, these ranchers DO own the land, and have chosen to work cooperatively in the past rather than try to parcel the lands out. If you really, really want to privatize these lands, you can, but I don't think that's a better outcome in the end than responsible land management. The point of holding resources in trust by the government is to help the people, not make a profit. Do you really want the federal government to try to make a profit by charging the highest highway tolls they can get away with? What about charging for beach access? The point of federal resource management is to preserve the resources for the people. Not extract maximum revenue from the people.
- ffdjjjffjj 7y ago
  In practice of course the only people who benefit from this “commons” are the ones who own lots of cows. It seems like it would be far more fair to charge a higher price and distribute that money equally to citizens.

triceratops 7y ago

Protection drones in combination with guard and herding dogs? Drones could patrol overhead and warn about incoming wolves, and employ noise or other techniques (some humane version of flash bang grenades?) to scare them off. Guard dogs to form the next line of defense. Breeds like the Anatolian Shepherd are well-suited to scaring off wolves.[1] Other breeds can keep the herd together. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_Shepherd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_Shepherd

grogenaut 7y ago
we would have heavy coverage of drone delivery and drone powered internet before this became physically or economically feasible. I don't think you understand the remote is of some of these areas or the sheer acreage involved. also wolves are smart I think as soon as they realize that the flash bangs are going to hurt them they're going to start ignoring them. this happens with all sorts of noise makers that are used to remove predators from an ecosystem such as things to scare herons away from fish breeding areas.
- triceratops 7y ago
  > I think as soon as they realize that the flash bangs are going to hurt them they're going to start ignoring them What about something like bear mace then? Extremely unpleasant but won't kill wolves.
  - grogenaut 7y ago
    you're going to fly multiple drones around for months across thousands of miles of territory (including forests) using who knows what recharging mechanism carrying bear mace on it and then accurately target a pack of wolves as a method for deterrence?
    - triceratops 7y ago
      Ok, I put my hands up. I was just spitballing but I clearly don't know enough to be useful. :-)