Bounties on problem predators may create unanticipated problems, says Sadie Parr of Golden, B.C.
A decision was recently made by the council of the Municipal District of Big Lakes (the area around High Prairie, Alta.) to place a $300 bounty on wolves.
Is this decision representative of the local community? Biologists are against the decision. Fish and Wildlife presented to council against the decision too, as they have been handling livestock losses adequately and most producers are satisfied.
Before the bounty, Fish and Wildlife was responding to incidents of concern efficiently through investigations, reimbursements and removal of problematic animals.
Read Also
Anaerobic digestion seen as possible emissions solution
Cattle manure is one of the feedstocks that can be used in anaerobic digestion systems.
Council made the decision to put a bounty on wolves with no initial budget in place, but plans to use leftovers from other control programs. Taxpayer dollars will be contributing to an unethical, scientifically unsound practice, which offers no long-term solution to people concerned about livestock losses.
Perhaps saddest of all is that livestock producers are being misled into thinking that a wolf bounty will decrease incidents of livestock losses. In reality, indiscriminant killing of individuals from stable wolf packs can lead to more predation incidents by inexperienced juveniles or from other species, such as coyotes and domestic dogs that are more prone to prey on livestock.
Recent research in southwestern Alberta was aimed at predicting predation risks based on husbandry practices compared with landscape and biophysical features.
In this area, culling wolves for livestock purposes has traditionally been reactionary to losses, but there is no evidence to indicate it is an effective long-term solution, as depredation by wolves has been occurring in the study area for decades despite lethal control practices, according to the study.
To save livestock, to save wildlife, to save any semblance of human stewardship, we must become aware that livestock losses due to wolves occur minimally over a wide scale, although they will happen each year.
Often, one or a few people are hit hard and suffer the losses representing an entire region. This is the voice that gets heard, when on a grander scale livestock losses due to wolves are not a major concern because most deaths are caused by digestive and respiratory problems.
Research done in 2005 in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming indicated that less than three percent of all livestock mortality was due to wolves, grizzly bears and black bears combined. Total losses due to non-predators were at least 89 percent .
Predator friendly ranching options do exist. These have proven to be fairly inexpensive, uncomplicated and effective. Prevention is imperative. Even compensation programs should include, prioritize and encourage preventive management practices.
In this modern day, coexistence and prevention are obligations for responsible livestock producers as biodiversity and large predators are in decline on a global scale.
Aside from potentially creating problems with livestock, killing wolves can have a negative impact on ecosystems. Mesopredators such as coyotes may become more problematic if wolf numbers become too low.
Such animals can have higher rates of incidents of killing livestock and they are more adaptable to human settlement areas.
Why not spend local money on local ranchers by providing funding for education about prevention and incentives such as fencing, audio-boxes, range-riders, manuals, a website, seminars, etc.?
Fish and Wildlife’s practice of removing target individuals that have proven to be problematic can coincide.
I recall a conversation with a representative of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association two years ago: “I tell people if they know their livestock is on wolf territory and they are not having any problems, do nothing. Or you may create problems by opening up that territory to more problematic species or even individual wolves.”
The wolf hunting incentive was put in place because council members were concerned about livestock losses. If this is really the case, maybe council should invest in ranchers rather than hunters.
Livestock producers will suffer. Ecosystems will suffer. Wolves will suffer. Is this how tax dollars should be spent?
Locals should become aware and involved in these decisions. This money could be spent on addressing this issue long-term through education leading to prevention of livestock losses.
Let us learn the truth about wolves and other species, because we are all dependent upon each other for clean air, water and food, and ultimately, joy.
