FOR 
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Money wasted on killing wolves in Big Lakes MD  
August 
8, 2012 -Alberta wolf bounty programs have been receiving attention 
recently.  The MD of Big Lakes is one 
example of numerous programs across the province, providing $300 for each wolf 
turned in since 2010.
In 
three years, Big Lakes has spent approximately $87,000 on wolves claimed through 
the bounty program.  People from the area 
as well as across the country are justifiably concerned that this is not an 
ecologically sustainable practice, nor ethically sound.  Many wolves killed had never killed 
livestock, many of them never would have.
The 
real shame is that the situation is being portrayed as having two sides; those 
who want to protect livestock and those who want to protect wolves.  The irony is that both of these objectives 
could be met simultaneously through working together.  A large amount of money has been invested 
within Big Lakes to kill wolves.  If 
preventing livestock losses is the goal, that money could have been better 
used.
Wolf 
Biologist Marco Musiani has spent more than a decade investigating the 
correlations between wolf depredations and raising livestock.  His research has indicated that culling 
wolves has not 
been shown to reduce depredation, immediately nor long-term.  Indeed, there is no evidence to show that 
indiscriminately killing wolves works as a long-term solution; depredations 
occur in areas that have been practicing lethal control for decades.  
Musiani 
has described this approach as 
            “a short-term response to 
depredation that does not decrease wolf-depredation at a           regional scale nor over 
long-term”.
In 
fact, in certain parts of North America, killing wolves indiscriminately through 
trapping may have lead to increased depredation rates on livestock the next 
year.  This may be due to more wolves 
present in these areas following a disruption of their social structure or maybe 
wolves avoiding traps had learned to prey on livestock, and become more 
dependent upon domesticated animals as a food source as pack mates are 
removed.  Similar research on Dingo’s in 
Australia also documented pack 
disintegration (loss of social stability regardless of population size) 
following indiscriminate lethal control methods.  In this research there appeared to be an 
increase in attack rates on 
livestock when using poison 
baits.
Council 
members of Big Lakes MD have stated that preventative measures would be 
extremely expensive.  The following cost 
comparisons have been  made using 
information gathered by John A Shivik of the US Department of Agriculture  in his journal article in BioScience,  March 2006  
(“Tools for the Edge: What’s New for Conserving Carnivores?”), and 
through personal communication with  wolf 
biologists, ranchers, and individuals providing electric fence 
workshops.
LIST 
of Cost Comparisons at $87,000 and duration of 
effectiveness
Fladry:  Cost estimate $781/km.  Could purchase 111.4 km. Duration 60 days 
Electric 
Fencing: 
Cost 
estimate -$250 for Super Energizer IV voltmeter- 50 mile range (if 
off grid $450)
- 
grounding plates $17 or rods (rebar)
-rebar 
posts every 10-12 feet ($600 to $700 per ton)
-stucco 
wire roll 100 feet $80, or ¼ mile tensile steel $25
Could 
purchase -348 
voltmeters or 5118 grounding plates or 134 tons of rebar posts or 108,750 feet 
of stucco wire or 870 miles of tensile steel.
Duration 
of effectiveness would be unlimited as long as fence was properly constructed 
and maintained.
Turbofladry: 
Cost estimate $1328/km.  Could purchase 
65.5 km.  Duration unlimited as long as 
fence was properly constructed and maintained.
Livestock 
Guardian Dogs: 
Cost estimate $300 - $1000 initial cost, then $500 per year.  Could purchase 108 guardian dogs (at $800 
each).  Duration of effectiveness is 
approximately the lifespan of guard animal, typically 
years.
Carcass 
Removal Programs: Cost 
estimate 9¢/lb for ruminants where programs occur, with a minimum $75 
charge.  If the average calf weighs 525 
pounds at weaning 1160 calves could have been removed (at $75).  If the average cow weighs 1800 lbs, then 537 
cows could have been removed.  In some 
parts of North America Fish and Wildlife will donate the truck and fuel 
costs.  Often funds are generated through 
rancher donations, conservation group donations, local taxes, and grants.  Duration of effectiveness is 
ongoing.
Range 
Riders:  Cost estimate $110/day for 2 months/year is 
$6,600.  In some parts of the US tourists 
are paying for the opportunity to do 
this.  Could provide  range riders for 13 ranches.  Duration of effectiveness is 
ongoing.
Fladry 
is a simple, inexpensive yet effective method for deterring wolves from entering 
a pasture.  It is a line of flags hung 
outside a pasture to dissuade wolves from crossing it and entering the 
area.
TurboFladry 
is Fladry combined with electric fencing, and although more expensive, this type 
of set up has proven very effective at keeping wolves out of a given area.  Initial costs may appear high, but the 
effectiveness and longevity for preventing depredations should also come into 
consideration.  As well conservation 
goals should also be included in the equation.
Husbandry 
practices where predators share the landscape with domestic stock can have a 
major influence on whether or not wolves will be attracted to an area.  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.  
Carcass removal programs occur in parts of Alberta where Grizzly bears 
are overlapping with ranchers.  
Monitoring the health domestic animals regularly is critical to ensure 
dead and weaker domestics are managed, 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. 
Currently, 
there is no known place in North America where livestock is the majority of wolf 
prey.  This is not always the case in 
other countries where wolf populations have been all but decimated, such as 
Europe and Asia.   It becomes necessary 
to identify that wolves account for approximately 1 – 3 % of livestock losses on 
a large scale in North America, with weather, calving, and digestive problems a 
far larger concern for producers.
Wolf 
researcher and biologist Marco Musiani has identified that seasonal patterns can be seen in livestock calving, 
grazing practices, and variation in wolf pack energy requirements.  Understanding these patterns can help improve 
planning and management, and potentially alleviate conflicts.  
It 
is also paramount to consider the benefits and costs involved in ecosystem 
services that are provided for by wolves as a top predator and keystone 
species.  Wolves help to maintain the 
health, balance and biodiversity of natural ecosystems.  The Big Lakes Regional District has been 
advertising lake estates as a “natural way of living”, which is indeed something 
to boast about.  Especially as wilderness 
areas and natural predator-prey ecosystems are becoming more rare, and thus 
precious on a global scale, around the world.  
Residents of Big 
Lakes have indicated that the elk population in the area may be increasing, and 
wreaking havoc on canola fields.  This is 
just one other agricultural concern that may arise when tinkering with the 
natural system begins.  
Local 
sustainability also embraces a land ethic.   
Aldo Leopold described this basic principal in the following way, “A 
thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of 
the biotic community.  It is wrong when 
it tends otherwise.”  Local 
sustainability is not just about taking care of the people in our community; it 
also requires stewardship of the plants, animals, land and water around 
us.
The MD of Big 
Lakes will be reconsidering the continuation of the bounty program this 
September.  
-----------------------------------------------(30)----------------------------------------------------------