Better husbandry
There were some interesting numbers put forward in a recent article titled, “Livestock losses to wolves rising in B.C.” (May 28), published in last week’s Alberta-based news source The Western Producer.
Further information is required to understand the larger picture and gain a better perspective of the claims at hand.
The article states that in 2014, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association reported 553 confirmed kills by wolves and another 249 losses by other predators.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The missing number here is 545,000. That is the count of B.C. cattle and calves on farms in the province, according to Statistics Canada (2013).
When we do the math, that translates to wolves killing .0101% of the cattle and calves across the province. When all predators are combined, that number increases to 0.0147 per cent, which is still well beneath what is portrayed in the article as a “problem spreading across the province.”
The article goes on to state that many incidents go unreported,. However, it is extremely important to recognize that throughout the lifespan of a domestic animal, weather, genetics, feeding, birthing and transportation all pose much greater risks to survival.
In the most comprehensive review ever done, a recent review of records collected over 25 years provided further evidence that hunted wolves kill more livestock the next year, according to the article “Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations,” published in the scientific journal article PLOS ONE (2014).
Similarly, research on dingos in Australia 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.
These findings bolster other studies that indicate that killing wolves can cause more problems for ranchers and that maintaining pack social stability is important in minimizing conflicts; implying that the only sensible solution lies in preventing livestock losses to natural predators through husbandry practices.
When wildlife managers and other partners come together to discuss wildlife problems and consider controls, can we hope to expect that contemporary research on wolf social dynamics will contribute to informed management?
Managing people and managing livestock are the most sensible, and perhaps only, ways to manage wolves where they overlap with domestic animals.
The province’s assistant deputy minister for forests, lands and natural resource operations stated in the article that compensation is only a partial solution. This could not be more true.
While compensation programs are helpful in reimbursing producers for financial losses associated with depredation events and may increase tolerance of natural predators, they are useless in addressing the issue of reducing conflicts — the ultimate goal.
It is vital that education about prevention-based husbandry practices become as important, if not more so, as the rancher workshops that have taken place across the province on how to verify kills.
When considering the responsibility inherent in managing public lands for biodiversity — conservation, ecosystem services, and Canada’s natural legacy, in combination with truly supporting the livestock production industry — this should not only be a question of who pays, but ultimately a question of best practices.
Science has proven that the type of husbandry used most often has a larger influence on predation than wolf population densities or wolf management techniques.
In essence, whether or not concerns are warranted as to increased numbers of wolves and other predators in ranching areas of Alberta and British Columbia, there are several proven methods to protect livestock through prevention.
Learn more about these options by downloading a free copy of A Rancher’s Guide; Coexistence among Livestock, People, and Wolves at www.WolfAwarenessInc.org.
Sadie Parr,
Executive Director,
Wolf Awareness Inc.,
Golden, B.C.
Farmers make decisions
Joyce Neufeld talks about “ideological blinkers” (WP, May 28). Hers, unfortunately, lead her to conclusions that are just plain inaccurate.
Her recollection of the CWB is very different than many others and is coloured by her insistence that farmers must not have the freedom to produce and market their own crops.
Farming has a tremendous future. That future comes from producers making their own decisions, marketing their own crops and seeding the crops that work best financially for them.
Farmers are capable of deciding whether to sell into the market or keep their production out of the market until they get a better price.
Gone are the days where a government-mandated monopoly makes all the decisions for our farming community.
David Anderson
MP, Cypress Hills – Grasslands,
Lost CWB is farmers’ loss
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz has quite prominently been receiving glowing press reports for doling out assistance to various agriculture organizations — $5 million here, $15 million there. One of the latest is the Alberta Wheat Commission. Its chairman, Kent Erickson, reports: “3 to announce funding of $742,725 of AgriRisk Canada funding for the Alberta Wheat Commission to develop the crop data and price reporting project.”
Where was Erickson when the Ritz-Harper government abruptly seized the CWB and dismissed the farmer-elected board, whose mandate was to manage the intelligent and orderly marketing of grain?
Probably cheering them on.
Where were Ritz and Harper when the subsequent 2013-14 marketing chaos ensued under their lack of management? Obviously, they never respected or understood the role of the CWB in orderly marketing.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Ritz for your “generous” support, but it will take a long time for your few millions (and Erickson’s thousands) to make up for the billions lost by western farmers caused by outrageous demurrage charges paid to cargo ships waiting in port, caused by greedy basis levies paid to grain handling companies, and caused by lost opportunities for prairie farmers to get their grain to market when prices were good.
When farmer-elected CWB board member Ian McCreary explained to Parliament the marketing and transportation turmoil that would result from their reckless changes, especially the extra pressure on western ports, Ritz had this to say, in part: “There’s going to be a lot more move off the combine. There’s going to be a lot more going to market positions earlier and get us away from starting our trucks and our augers at minus 40 in January.” (Hansard Nov 2, 2011).
Donald Thompson,
Rosalind, Alta.
