Protecting livestock: Ranchers should be allowed to kill wolves
chatnoir
Protecting livestock: Ranchers should be allowed to kill wolves
by Ted Chu, guest opinion Friday May 22, 2009, 6:11 AM
Ted ChuThe recent opinion by Oregon Cattlemen's Association President
Bill Moore ("Ranchers deserve to protect their property," May 6)
rekindled conclusions I reached regarding wolf management before
leaving Idaho in 2005, where I worked for many years as a wildlife
biologist. My area of responsibility fell between the central Idaho
wolf recovery zone and Yellowstone National Park.
As wolf populations expanded along with depredations on livestock,
each incident created a major fuss between opposing interests among
the public, the agencies and posturing politicians.
Huge sums of money were spent investigating and documenting kills of
livestock and wolves. Prosecutions and lawsuits were threatened,
headlines written. Wolves suspected of depredations were captured --
often using helicopters at $1,000 per hour -- fitted with expensive
radio collars and their movements monitored 24/7/365 by paid staff and
volunteers.
Ranchers and biologists employed an array of nonlethal techniques to
discourage wolves from attacking livestock. And although Defenders of
Wildlife provides compensation for wolf kills, this does little to
alleviate the frustration of ranchers forced to stand back while their
livestock are threatened.
All this can be largely avoided in Oregon. The Legislature should make
it legal for landowners to shoot wolves on their private property
under any circumstances. Many wolf recovery supporters will knee-jerk
howl at this notion, but it will ultimately work to the advantage of
wolves. Had this approach been used right from the start in the
Northern Rockies, I'm certain there would be just as many wolves alive
as there are today, at much less taxpayer expense and social stress.
Individual wolves will be still be killed, but under this approach the
rest will get smart in a hurry and retreat to the public lands. This
is where they belong and realistically is the only place they can
survive and avoid trouble. Remember, the goal is a recovered wolf
population consisting of viable packs. The fate of individuals within
the pack is not as important as maintaining the pack.
In exchange for granting landowners authority to kill wolves on their
lands, those who utilize state and national lands for grazing would be
required to protect their livestock while there using only nonlethal
methods. Ranchers now pay below-market value for these privileges. One
argument used to justify the lower fees is that they suffer higher
predation losses "out there." Yet in addition to being so compensated,
they commonly demand that federal government trappers kill native
predators for them primarily at taxpayer expense. This antiquated
practice should be discontinued while we're at it.
Moore resorted to hyperbole, referring to the wolf as "a marauder
intent on maiming or killing." Tempted with an attractive nuisance,
the fattest, softest, easiest prey ever, wolves should not be killed
for reacting predictably while on public land. Allowing property
owners to protect their livestock on their private land, no questions
asked, will allow them to practice their proclaimed cherished Western
tradition of self-reliance. Individual wolves addicted to easy but
unnatural "prey" will be removed from the population as they would be
anyway. And wolf recovery will still occur on schedule.
Ted Chu of Garibaldi is a wildlife biologist