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)----------------------------------------------------------
