Predators and Ungulates Is Coexistence Possible?

[Sunnily]

Inna Lukina
Dr. Ellen Louise Hart
Writing 121
December 3, 2012

Predators and Ungulates
Is Coexistence Possible?

“Wolves have never been compatible with raising livestock” (“Wolves in The Wild”). This is a common opinion of owners of livestock. In the past, the eternal problem between wild predators and domestic animals was already solved by a deliberate effort to eradicate wolves. “In 1843 the first wolf bounty was established and Oregon's first legislative session was called in part to address the ‘problem of marauding wolves’. By 1913, people could collect a $5 state bounty and an Oregon State Game Commission bounty of $20. The last recorded wolf bounty was paid out in 1947” (“Bringing Wolves Back”). Such a small incentive brought the species to a complete extinction. Only “in 2008, wolves began to establish a fragile foothold in the state” (“Bringing Wolves Back”). And now it seems that people learned the lesson. Wolves are considered endangered statewide by Oregon’s Endangered Species Act. “Killing an animal protected under the federal ESA is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, one year in jail, or both” (“Frequently Asked Questions”). According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife update, the wolf population is now at 58. Wolves are returning to Oregon.

However, we cannot call the current situation the happy end. Looking at the lie of the land in Canada as a similar example, it’s even better to call it a new beginning. While in Oregon, after the absence of wolves over half a century, their number hardly got to the top of fifty, it is so astonishing and incomprehensible to see such news, published in Vancouver Sun, “Contest offers cash prizes for wolf kills in northeastern B.C.” In fact, wolves in Canada also were shot and poisoned even in the parks during many decades until their almost complete annihilation (“Wolf Research”). But now “the province’s draft wolf management plan showed that B.C.’s ‘wolf harvest’ is at its highest since 1976, when the species was declared a fur-bearer on which royalties are paid to the Crown; a high of 1,400 ‘wolf removals’ occurred in 2009, the plan said” (Pynn). And today a wolf bounty is established anew. The history repeats.

What is this? Is it a new try to control wolf population using the old method? But it seems that people have just learned such a sad lesson. What are arguments of the content’s founders? “It’s just kind of a social thing that’s gotten bigger every year,” said Rich Petersen, a hunter and realtor in Fort St. John who is co-sponsoring the event. “It’s not a contest to exterminate wolves, not an organized thing where we go out and shoot every wolf in the country. If you are driving down the road and see one and you happen to shoot it and you’re in this contest, you have a chance to win something” (Pynn). Considering the prize $250 - $1000 and up for the largest wolves, a booby prize of $150 for the smallest wolf and draws for prizes such as a rifle and free taxidermy work, the claim sounds doubtful. It is obvious that many hunters, taking into account that the cost of enter is only $50, will want to join to the contest.

In spite of that, I was appeased by Guy Lahaye, a school teacher and president of the North Peace Rod and Gun Club, which is another co-sponsor. He was very convincing when in his interview Monday he said, “The purpose of the hunt is to ‘reduce the number of wolves,’ especially in agricultural areas but also the 6.4-million hectare Muskwa-Kechika Management Area in the Northern Rockies. We’re not talking eradication of wolves, but we are talking sustainable numbers so ungulate populations can survive as well” (Pynn). When I read this, I realized that deer hunting, for example, is normal and legal. Why wolf hunting has to be forbidden if its population is out of danger now? Moreover, the contest aims to only large predators, and the wolf population has to be controlled while ungulate populations have to be defended as well.

It is not understandable for me why people make such claims as UVic scientist Chris Dalimont. “This is not about putting food on the table or feeding families, this is about feeding the egos of small men with big guns,” he said. “There is this focus on size. I’ll leave that up to psychologists as to why, but it seems to dominate those interested in hunting for trophies” (Pynn). If it is necessary to control the wolf population, why do not mix business with pleasure? If it is prohibited to hunt wolves, why are deer and pheasant hunting allowed? Yes, wolf hunting is not for food, but no one will die without deer meat. Both, wolf and deer hunting are a mere amusement or hobby today. It is not about feeding a family any more, as it was in the past. Because of that, I find this argument irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I personally don’t perceive such a hobby like killing of animals. Once my good friend invited my son for a hunt, but I didn’t allow him to go because I don’t want a teen seen killing of living creature. I actually don’t know for what he would need such an experience. But often parents who love to hunt take their children with them and teach them and pass the tradition to them. And it’s good. They have the time together in nature, and it’s so great when skills are inherited from parents to children. I don’t want to condemn anyone. It’s everyone’s own choice.

In fact, the hunting contest brought out a rush of indignation. Experts, first of all, criticize such method of control of population. Dalimont, a conservation scientist in the University of Victoria geography department, also added a disturbing assertion. “The biological irony’ of the contest is that by taking out the big dominant wolves in a pack hunters only create more problems. It’s the worst thing they could be doing,” he said. “Remove the older animals and it leaves a bunch of teenagers in the landscape and they could do things that older more mature wolves do not, such as prey on livestock” (Pynn). Paul Paquet, a research scientist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation in B.C. who has studied wolves for 40 years, even called on the province to ban such contests. “It’s really questionable,” he said. “It’s hunting from a motivation of hate.” He added it’s a “back-door way to control wolf populations to improve their hunting opportunities. That’s really what they’re up to” (Pynn). I, as a dilettante, don’t know how the contest will influence wolves’ behavior and can only trust experts’ opinion. If we cannot trust a scientist who studied wolves for 40 years, whom should we trust at all?

On the other hand, Al Martin’s statement, a consultant to the 40,000-member B.C. Wildlife Federation, sounds very sober. He said that “the hunt is unlikely to have much impact on populations of wolves or ungulates, such as moose or deer” (Pynn). This is another aspect. Yes, deer hunting starts every fall, and their population is still high. In addition, I heard an opinion that because of wolves the deer population is reduced twice. Striving to find a proof for this opinion, I discovered an interesting article in news of University of Wisconsin website “Deer, Wolf and Hunting: Professor Shines Spotlight of Data on a Durable Debate,” written by David Tenenbaum. The article says, “In general, scientists estimate that the average wolf kills 17 to 20 deer per year, which comes to about 20,000 kills in the northern two-thirds of Wisconsin” (Tenenbaum). It seems a very big amount. Is deer population is still out of danger? Timothy Van Deelen, an associate professor of wildlife management at the University of Wisconsin-Madison answered in his interview, "I'm a population ecologist, and it's a difficult question whether wolves are real competition for hunters. There is the potential for competition, but everything about the evolution and life history of the white tail deer is designed to offset losses to predation." Indeed, he added, “There are hunters who are unlucky to have a bad experience at the local level, but at the statewide level, I am not seeing significant wolf impacts” (Tenenbaum). So, in his opinion, the hunters who complain that there are less deer are just unlucky and bad hunters, but the level of deer population is almost the same. I would trust him because he is a hunter as well. It is not only a look from a scientist’s office.

However, even if the contest doesn’t have much impact on deer population, and if the Canadian experts are right, the young wolves, without the mature big dominants, may more redirect to livestock. Then, the problem will go to the next level, and the livestock will be in dangerous that will raise a new rush of indignation. It will be already not a competition between wolves and hunters, but financial interest of farmers will be touched. They killed wolves even there were only one or two of them in whole Oregon. The owners, nevertheless, are quite understandable. According to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), only two wolves in Baker County, for example, killed 30 domestic animals (28 sheep, 1 calf and 1 goat) during only the spring and summer of 2009. How many animals would then be killed by 1000 wolves? It’s incredible.

Of course, there are some non-lethal preventative measures that are used to prevent livestock depredation. For example, the typical methods are removing bone piles and carcasses that can attract wolves, flagged fencing (sometimes electrified) around livestock operations, RAG (radio-activated guard) boxes that emit a noise when a collared wolf approaches, guard dogs and range riders monitoring (“Frequently Asked Questions”). However, how we can see, all of them require extra efforts, time and money that certainly don’t cause joy to livestock’s owners, and, in addition, often these preventive methods don’t work. Certainly, every businessman wants to reduce his expenses as much as possible. But how far are we ready to go? Is wolf eradication a way to save money in order that there will not be a necessity to spend them for preventative methods? Every business has its inputs, and these non-lethal methods and some losses have to be included in basic necessary expenses of livestock industry. It is a question of changing minds, actually. Furthermore, the government supports the wolf program. The Oregon fiscal biennium 2011-13 budget, for instance, is $608,269 (“Frequently Asked Questions”)

We need to save wolves not only in order that the species of animals will exist, but the wolves are an essential part of the forest ecosystem. Also, “science continues to demonstrate the positive impacts of wolves on the landscape and the critical role played by big predators, and interest in their return is fueling tourism in Oregon's wolf country and elsewhere in the west” (“Bringing Wolves Back”). Wolves are native to Oregon, and they have a rightful place on the landscape. “For a state that prides itself on its green reputation, the extermination of wolves is one of our greatest environmental tragedies. Their return represents an opportunity at redemption” (“Bringing Wolves Back”).
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the situation is more complicated that it seems from outside. There is no one simple solution which may satisfy all stakeholders. All, farmers, hunters and wolf protectors are right, each from their own side. While I have been reading many diverse opinions, I was trying to form my own one. It is a difficult question even for experts, not saying about common people. However, I see that there is only one development of the situation. The number of wolves in Oregon will rise, perhaps rapidly, and it is necessary for livestock’s owners to find a way to live in a peaceful neighborhood with them. And I believe they will be successful.



Works Cited
“Bringing Wolves Back Home to Oregon.” Oregon Wild. Web. Sep. 2012
www.oregonwild.org/fish_wildlife/bringing_wolve...
“Frequently Asked Questions about Wolves in Oregon.” Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Feb.13, 2012. Web. www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/faq.asp
Pynn Larry. “Contest Offers Cash Prizes for Wolf Kills in Northeastern
B.C. Conservation Scientists Condemn Cash Reward for Hunter Who Can Kill Biggest Animal”, Vancouver Sun. Web. Nov 19, 2012 www.vancouversun.com/news/Contest+offers+cash+p...
Tenenbaum, David. “Deer, Wolf and Hunting: Professor Shines Spotlight of Data on a
Durable Debate.” University of Wisconsin, News. Web. Nov.15, 2012. www.news.wisc.edu/21272
“Wolf Research and Monitoring.” Kootenay National Park of Canada. Parks Canada.
Web. July 10. 2009. www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/kootenay/natcul/natcu...
“Wolves in The Wild: Room for Livestock, Too?” Editorial Seattle Times. Oregon Wild.
Web. Sep.10, 2012. www.oregonwild.org/about/press-room/press-clips...