You guys are using logical fallacies...

Did I say livestock predation doesn't occur?

oh hey, since you guys like science so much I thought I would post a few more studies done on livestock depredations.

First one is: Managing Wolf Conflict with Livestock in the Northwestern United States, from Carnivore Damage Prevention News 3:2-5.




Since 1987 total confirmed minimum livestock losses in NW Montana totaled 82 cattle, 68 sheep, 7 dogs, and 2 llamas. Depredations averaged 6 cattle, 5 sheep, and less than one dog annually. Agency control killed about 3 wolves a year…. Minimum confirmed livestock losses have annually averaged about 4 cattle, 28 sheep, and 4 dogs in the Yellowstone area and 10 cattle, 30 sheep, and 2 dogs in central Idaho.

$150,000 in compensation has been provided to producers in MT, ID, WY since ’87.

In a recent two year study, "Calf survival was 95% and 98%. Wolves killed calves that were the lowest weight, less guarded by people, nearest to an active wolf den, and in the heaviest forest cover, suggesting that wolves tested and hunted cattle like wild prey and attacked the most vulnerable animals."

p.3

In general, research indicated that wolves often lived near livestock (primarily cattle) and other domestic animals but conflicts were uncommon considering the potential for depredation.

exposed carrion can attract wolves to areas with livestock and increase the encounter rate between wolves and livestock.

Wolf depredations on livestock are an insignificant impact to the livestock industry in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and the vast majority of ranches never have problems, but a few individual small livestock producers can be greatly impacted.

The (Fish and Wildlife) Service has permitted livestock producers to shoot wolves actually seen attacking livestock, and in a few chronic cases… to shoot wolves on sight.




This one is from Minnesota: Trends and Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 181

Verified complaints (of livestock depredation by wolves) averaged 30 per year, and the number of farms where depredations were verified averaged 21 (from 1975-1986)…. About 0.33% of the farms within the range of the wolf in Minnesota were affected annually, assuming a total of 7,200 farms.

The explanation proposed was that vulnerability of whit-tailed deer fawns in summer was directly related to previous winter severity, and wolf depredations on domestic animals were inversely related to fawn vulnerability. That is, when fawns were difficult to capture, wolves turned to domestic prey…. Generally, the winters of lowest WSI (winter severity index) values (i.e., mild) were followed by summers of highest verified complaints and vice-versa.

Depredations generally occurred in remote parts of farms, but sites included distant pastures to within a few meters of farm buildings. Losses near buildings were usually in early spring when wolves were visiting livestock carrion that had been disposed of outside the farmyard during winter…. Aside from totally wooded pastures, areas with a mosaic of fields and forests seemed to present the greatest opportunity for depredations. Wolves were reluctant to cross large open spaces.

Leaving livestock carcasses near farmyards or in pastures during winter and spring centered wolf activity there at calving time. Allowing calving on pastureland also drew wolves to easy prey. And allowing livestock access to large wooded areas prevented them from being easily monitored.

In British Columbia, wolf control is denied and improved husbandry recommended if faulty husbandry practices are directly responsible for wolf conflicts (Tompa 1983a, 1983b).

we observed that payment for losses did not encourage operators to correct management practices or try nonlethal methods. We consider the Minnesota compensation program successful and well worth its cost, but suggest that payment be reduced or withheld when correctable husbandry practices seem responsible for depredations.

A small fraction of the farms in wolf range were affected annually, and the effect on livestock production as a whole continued to be negligible



Here is another one from Minnesota. By a non governmental agency since we all see your paranoid.

Assessing Factors that May Predispose Minnesota Farms to Wolf Depredations on Cattle. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:623-629.



the total proportion of farms in wolf range that suffer verified wolf depredations is only about 1% per year

All but 3 of the 11 farm characteristics and management practices we assessed were similar for chronic and matching (non-depredated) farms, with one factor being equivocal (Tables 1-4). The 3 factors that differed were size of farm, number of livestock, and distance of livestock from human dwelling, and these factors were correlated (r2=0.09-0.37, P=0.001-0.05). The chronic farms were larger (491 vs. 292+/- 71 ha), had more cattle (158 vs. 82+/- 18), and had herds farther (mean maximum distance =2.8 km vs. 1.8+/- 0.5 km) from human dwellings (Table 1).

The equivocal factor was method of carcass disposal. Contrary to expectations, more farms with chronic losses reported properly disposing of carcasses than did matching farms not suffering cattle depredations (Table 5). However, WS personnel indicated that they had observed evidence of at least an intermittent carcass dump on all except 2 of the 41 farms with chronic losses.

False reporting about livestock carcass disposal also may have been a problem with chronic farms. This interpretation is supported by the disparity between interview results from farmers suffering chronic losses and the recollections of WS personnel. This disparity may be due to the different periods covered by the 2 types of data collection. Our survey covered only 1998, whereas the recollections of WS personnel spanned a decade or more. Perhaps some chronic farms had carcass dumps prior to 1998 but no longer have them. Potentially all these factors were operating.






Last one, if you've read this far thanks.

Wolf Depredations Remain a Controversial Issue The Global Challenge of Living with Wolves, pp 2-3



Nearly all wolf depredations in the Midwestern states and in Montana occurred on private land, while more than 80% of depredations in Idaho, and about half of those in Wyoming, have been on federal lands

In the northern Rocky Mountains from 1997 to 1999, verified wolf losses amounted to .01 percent (1 in 10,000) of all sheep losses, and .03 percent (3 in 10,000) of all cattle losses.

Where lethal control is allowed, 168 wolves (5.5 percent of known wolves in those areas) were lethally removed in 2000 (presumably not including those killed surreptitiously).

Of course I'm sure you believe none of this because it's all a vast conspiracy to drive the rancher out of buisness!!

Livestock predation does occur. It is the huge, world ending problem that ranchers would like us to think it is? No it's not. Look, regardless of how outraged you are, and how much you hate the government, and how much you hate scientists who keep your elk and deer herds healthy, you have wolves and you will always have wolves so you better start educating yourself and stop spouting rhetoric that isn't doing anything except making you look like an ass.

You know, I don't expect you guys to understand population dynamics, animal behavior, predator-prey relationships or any of that other "scientist" bull crap but if you close your mind to things that might, JUST MIGHT, slightly change your view of the world, then you truly are ignorant. That is just sad. No more posts from me on this topic. Some people only see what they want to see. Much to their own detriment.