"Livestock losses leave ranchers worn down by wolves."

Commentary on a Billings Gazette article and the political uses of anti-wolf sentiment.

5-16-2004

"Livestock losses leave ranchers worn down by wolves." By Mike Stark. Billings Gazette. May 16, 2004.

A better headline for this would be "Hysterical about wolves," perhaps "Fanning the Flames," or "Diverting Attention with Wolves." The article describes increasing anger in "ranching communities" about wolves and cites weak evidence that wolf depredations are increasing and becoming more widespread. I am skeptical about all of this. My view is that the actions by Carbon County, Montana and Park County, Wyoming are the result of local political leaders (political and economic "elites" to use academic language) stirring the pot.

Wolf depredations on livestock did hit a high last year, but just barely, and the number of livestock taken per wolf has declined over the course of the wolf restoration. The number of cattle officially recorded as killed by wolves was 64 last year (mostly calves, not adults). The previous high was 52. Moreover,  the increase was but slight in Montana and the number killed went down in Idaho. Sheep deaths hit a high of 211, but were it not for an incident in western Idaho, the number of sheep killed would have declined.  The pack responsible for killing the sheep in Idaho was not controlled because anti-wolf activists showed up to make a video and the ruckus they made disrupted control operations.

If you look at the figures cited in the article and compare them to the official web site at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/annualrpt03/2003TAB5b.pdf, you will see that over the years about 1 wolf has been killed for every 2 calf deaths (excluding the small number of cows).

The article highlights claims that wolves are killing livestock in new areas and cites the Beartooth Front (Roscoe, Luther and Red Lodge). This is flat out wrong. Wolves have been sporadically killing livestock there from 1996 to the present. Wolves raised a litter of pups on the Front as early as in 1996 (wolf 27F's). Wolves have been around the fringes of Red Lodge for years, killing a couple calves here and there. In the late 90s, I even put up a web page about wolves on the Beartooth Front.

Defenders of Wildlife pays fall retail value for confirmed wolf depredations and even pays for half of likely depredations. On top of this, Idaho ranchers get compensated by a special government fund over and above Defenders payments for the difference between their "historical loses" and the number of cattle or sheep livestock operators can't find at the end of the year. The fallacy in this should be obvious. . . every year some operators fail to find more livestock at the end of the year than in the past. No one mentions there must be another group that does better than usual. Unless the median number not found is increasing, the government is paying for bad luck while an equal number quietly enjoys their good luck.

The article says "Last year, the Washington, D.C.-based group* [Defenders] paid out more than $68,000 to ranchers who lost cattle and sheep to wolves." Spread out over 3 states that is trivial damage. If some other activity caused $68,000 damage spread out over these three states, would it make news anywhere, in any media?

The article tells how wolf frustration is resulting in the spreading of poisoning, the result of which has killed people's dogs and miscellaneous wildlife other than wolves. I know there is growing anger in the Salmon and Stanley, Idaho areas, Jackson, WY and other places that someone or some people are killing their dogs and threatening their families by spreading deadly poison. The poison is not winning recruits to the anti-wolf cause.

Finally, the Park County, WY (Cody) trespassing suit against Mike Jimenez and local pilot Wes Livingston is political harassment and attempted imprisonment, period. Not a shred of evidence has been released publicly that they violated any law. In fact, they did everything right by collaring a wolf pack that had eluded capture over the years. Had this happened in Idaho, the rancher probably would have come out, congratulated them and posed for a photo with a big grin while holding the head of one of the tranquilized wolves. I say this because it has happened numerous times in the past. The changes against Jimenez and Livingston should be laughable, but political persecution is never a joke. It is also an offense against many of the people in Cody who have a more balanced view.

The figures on losses in the Gazette article cited the Montana Department of Agriculture reporting 500 sheep killed by wolves. This is suspect. How do they come by that figure when the official tally was 86, and 500 is such a nice round number? Even at 500 (no doubt mostly lambs) it is less than half of their estimate of losses caused by our national symbol, the eagle, which was gleefully gunned down by Wyoming and Montana ranchers until public outrage stopped the practice in the early 1970s.

In summary, losses are but barely increasing. The number is trivial anyway. Wolves are not killing livestock in new areas, although it might appear so because most people, including reporters, don't remember back to 1995-6 and the location of losses over the years. There is no objective basis for anti-wolf anger. The only new developments are poisoning, legal harassment, and a politically inspired wolf lawsuit by the state of Wyoming. The legal harassment is the work of Park County politicians, but the lawsuit goes all the way to the top of Wyoming government.

Why are some politicians doing this? Here is a hypothesis. Lots of things are changing -- coal bed methane and gas drilling are disrupting and destroying ranches, the 4-year drought is horrible, ranches in scenic areas everywhere  are being subdivided. Local politicians either can't do much about this, are afraid of doing something, or are  ideologically incapable of dealing with oil companies and rural sprawl. For example, Wyoming has a huge budget surplus due to all the oil and gas activity. Unless there is a diversion of the citizens' attention, they might want it spent on better education, health care, aid to the aging population, and economic diversification. Wyoming could buy some land to support the wintering or migrating wildlife that is being displaced by oil and gas, instead of continuing with their disastrous elk feedground policy that has already caused the state to lose its brucellosis-free status.

Because the "leaders" are unwilling or incapable of leadership, they try to divert folk's attention. This tendency is strongest in Wyoming and but it goes all the way to the top of the state's reactionary government. They are using the classic "red herring" strategy. It needs to be exposed.

For years now, since the wolf restoration began in 1995, politicians and others have claimed a wolf will soon eat someone. It hasn't happened. What I fear is that by pouring political gasoline on some smoldering ashes, the flames of anti-wolf sentiment are going to get someone killed.  We already see the result of their scapegoating -- 21 dogs poisoned.

---

* This phrase . . . . - based group" is a journalistic ploy to make it appear a group has no local support. You never see it used outside the media. For example, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition has its main office in Bozeman, Montana and field offices is Cody and Jackson, Wyoming and Idaho Falls, Idaho. Members are from all over the United States but I believe the majority are from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Nevertheless, the media often call it a "Bozeman based group," even when the Idaho or one of the Wyoming offices is taking action.

If newspapers applied that same standard to themselves, I would refer to the reporter of the article as working for a "Davenport, Iowa-based newspaper chain" -- Lee Enterprises.

---

  Copyright © 2004  Ralph Maughan

Return to Ralph Maughan's wolf reports