Killing wolves to protect livestock doesn’t work in long run

[denali]

Thanks for the link wolfbait.

One of the worst trends I've seen in recent times, is the tolerance of the scientific community for politically correct activism perpetrated as science.  Until the last 30-50 years, even minor misconduct would get a researcher run out of the scientific community and roundly denounced.  As a scientifically educated former scientist, I find this extremely offensive. 

This research is exactly that.  Pretty disingenuous stuff really.

I watched the Q&A session wolf symposium video and found Wielgus to be extremely biased and arrogant.

the problem is this is settled science as far as the advocates are concerned, and they have the ear of policy makers and probably many at WDFW. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

WAcoyotehunter: You have brought up many good points...I think there may be some misunderstanding though...

The state legislature funded the large carnivore research lab at WSU to evaluate non-lethal alternatives, including retrospective analyeses like this one.  I don't believe WDFW specifically sought to send money to that lab...even though the acknowledgements suggest WDFW fully supported and paid for this work.

On point 1 - I think that is the general consensus...their conclusions are not solid given the nature of the data they used.  The authors did acknowledge the geographic scale is large and not focused on the pack level...which makes it much more difficult to say killing a few in a pack actually led to increased depredation by that pack in subsequent years. 

Point 2 - I didn't look...if that is the case that is surprising and suggests some uncareful work (and review of the work!)

Point 3 - R2 values are still statistically signficant...that is what the p-value indicates below those R2 numbers.  Sample size plays a big role in whether R2 values are statistically significant (i.e., not a matter of chance)...a few dots and an R2 of 0.85 may not be significant, whereas a R2 of .45 with a lot of data points...may still be significant and indicative of a meaningful trend. Regardless of R2 values though, as others have mentioned, correlation does not prove causation. 

Point 4 - Reviewers are typically kept anonymous, and while authors can suggest reviewers it is ultimately an editorial decision. Scientific editors are usually very concerned with maintaining integrity and are unlikely to seek out "favorable" reviewers. 

Ok...

Take a second look at the Barber study and get back to me.  Pay special attention to WSU Discussion portion relating to Harper, then look at Harpers study and pay attention to the section titled "General Depredation Recurrence Rate" then at "Discussion".  It's pretty clear that the WSU paper fails to mention most of the information and cherry picked the portion that supported the hypothesis that they we campaigning.  http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/newsroom/NR_NCGB_sighting7_1_11.pdf 

I am not a statistician.  Explain to me what the p value means.  With the exception of one figure, all p values = .0001  The graphs look like darts to me, not as linear as I would like for my own research.

I don't know about funding, but I would not be so quick to assume where this money came from.  The Study says "Funding for this research was solely provided by a research grant from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife."

[Special T]

Here is a good article on P value
http://labstats.net/articles/pvalue.html
Excerpt

•P = 0.05 does not mean there is only a 5% chance that the null hypothesis is true.
•P = 0.05 does not mean there is a 5% chance of a Type I error (i.e. false positive).
•P = 0.05 does not mean there is a 95% chance that the results would replicate if the study were repeated.
•P > 0.05 does not mean there is no difference between groups.
•P < 0.05 does not mean you have proved your experimental hypothesis.
A p-value means only one thing (although it can be phrased in a few different ways), it is: The probability of getting the results you did (or more extreme results) given that the null hypothesis is true.

[bearpaw]

Why is it interesting? This is not new news.

Good affirmation to not go around half-assed killing wolves - gotta do it right.

WDFW half assed killed the wolves on the sheep conflict in Stevens CO, they wacked the alpha female then quit the job before they got even 25% of them making the situation worse rather than better.  They need to go in and get at least 25% of them according to this article, 50% would be a marked improvement.  100% would be best.

25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack. 

The increase in depredation with less than 25% harvest is what I found new and interesting btkr...had not seen an estimate provided like that for wolves before.

I think that a 25% reduction of wolves in any given area would produce the results needed to lower livestock losses in that area. For example, it's pretty obvious that killing a wolf in Whitman County will not curb livestock losses in Stevens County, you need to kill wolves in Stevens County or Whitman County and possibly their neighboring counties to reduce livestock losses in either area. 

Another thing to consider is that Wielgus is who is responsible for the failing Washington cougar management, I think the guy is a predator lover using his position to promote his agenda.

[mountainman]

Why is it interesting? This is not new news.

Good affirmation to not go around half-assed killing wolves - gotta do it right.

WDFW half assed killed the wolves on the sheep conflict in Stevens CO, they wacked the alpha female then quit the job before they got even 25% of them making the situation worse rather than better.  They need to go in and get at least 25% of them according to this article, 50% would be a marked improvement.  100% would be best.

25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack. 

The increase in depredation with less than 25% harvest is what I found new and interesting btkr...had not seen an estimate provided like that for wolves before.

I think that a 25% reduction of wolves in any given area would produce the results needed to lower livestock losses in that area. For example, it's pretty obvious that killing a wolf in Whitman County will not curb livestock losses in Stevens County, you need to kill wolves in Stevens County or Whitman County and possibly their neighboring counties to reduce livestock losses in either area. 

Another thing to consider is that Wielgus is who is responsible for the failing Washington cougar management, I think the guy is a predator lover using his position to promote his agenda.

[magnanimous_j]

PMan said something similar, but it seems to me the answer would be to find packs that are raiding livestock and eradicate the whole pack. Over time, that would shift the genetic profile of the whole population to be more cautious and wary of humans. That would have an added benefit of making them more cautious about their prey too, maybe encouraging the wolves to be self-limiting and concentrating on taking the weakest of prey animals and leaving the bigger, stronger ones alone.

[Gringo31]

maybe encouraging the wolves to be self-limiting and concentrating on taking the weakest of prey animals and leaving the bigger, stronger ones alone.

 

[Special T]

PMan said something similar, but it seems to me the answer would be to find packs that are raiding livestock and eradicate the whole pack. Over time, that would shift the genetic profile of the whole population to be more cautious and wary of humans. That would have an added benefit of making them more cautious about their prey too, maybe encouraging the wolves to be self-limiting and concentrating on taking the weakest of prey animals and leaving the bigger, stronger ones alone.

If they gave people the right to shoot on site, wolves would learn very quick, just like they have in ID and WY. They arent dumb animals but the WDFW has shackeld us to an bad Wolf Plan.

[magnanimous_j]

PMan said something similar, but it seems to me the answer would be to find packs that are raiding livestock and eradicate the whole pack. Over time, that would shift the genetic profile of the whole population to be more cautious and wary of humans. That would have an added benefit of making them more cautious about their prey too, maybe encouraging the wolves to be self-limiting and concentrating on taking the weakest of prey animals and leaving the bigger, stronger ones alone.

If they gave people the right to shoot on site, wolves would learn very quick, just like they have in ID and WY. They arent dumb animals but the WDFW has shackeld us to an bad Wolf Plan.

That would work. But I think deliberately seeking out the ones with more aggressive genetics will get it done faster.

[KFhunter]

Why is it interesting? This is not new news.

Good affirmation to not go around half-assed killing wolves - gotta do it right.

WDFW half assed killed the wolves on the sheep conflict in Stevens CO, they wacked the alpha female then quit the job before they got even 25% of them making the situation worse rather than better.  They need to go in and get at least 25% of them according to this article, 50% would be a marked improvement.  100% would be best.

25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack. 

The increase in depredation with less than 25% harvest is what I found new and interesting btkr...had not seen an estimate provided like that for wolves before.

I think that a 25% reduction of wolves in any given area would produce the results needed to lower livestock losses in that area. For example, it's pretty obvious that killing a wolf in Whitman County will not curb livestock losses in Stevens County, you need to kill wolves in Stevens County or Whitman County and possibly their neighboring counties to reduce livestock losses in either area. 

Another thing to consider is that Wielgus is who is responsible for the failing Washington cougar management, I think the guy is a predator lover using his position to promote his agenda.

I don't think 25% is enough in sheep country and marginal in cattle country.  In the wedge I suspect they got 75% of the wolves and that was effective in preventing direct depredation but ineffective in that the wolves still keep the cattle off the higher parts of the range and keep them down low where over grazing is a problem.  Before wolves the cattle would disperse all throughout the range and overgrazing wasn't a problem.  Had WDFW only killed 25% in the wedge I think the wolves would have absorbed the loss and kept on killing cattle.


In sheep country 90% or more is likely to be the only solution, that'll give livestock guardian dogs a chance to do their work and not get killed themselves.  Sheep are just too tempting.

[bearpaw]

Why is it interesting? This is not new news.

Good affirmation to not go around half-assed killing wolves - gotta do it right.

WDFW half assed killed the wolves on the sheep conflict in Stevens CO, they wacked the alpha female then quit the job before they got even 25% of them making the situation worse rather than better.  They need to go in and get at least 25% of them according to this article, 50% would be a marked improvement.  100% would be best.

25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack. 

The increase in depredation with less than 25% harvest is what I found new and interesting btkr...had not seen an estimate provided like that for wolves before.

I think that a 25% reduction of wolves in any given area would produce the results needed to lower livestock losses in that area. For example, it's pretty obvious that killing a wolf in Whitman County will not curb livestock losses in Stevens County, you need to kill wolves in Stevens County or Whitman County and possibly their neighboring counties to reduce livestock losses in either area. 

Another thing to consider is that Wielgus is who is responsible for the failing Washington cougar management, I think the guy is a predator lover using his position to promote his agenda.

I don't think 25% is enough in sheep country and marginal in cattle country.  In the wedge I suspect they got 75% of the wolves and that was effective in preventing direct depredation but ineffective in that the wolves still keep the cattle off the higher parts of the range and keep them down low where over grazing is a problem.  Before wolves the cattle would disperse all throughout the range and overgrazing wasn't a problem.  Had WDFW only killed 25% in the wedge I think the wolves would have absorbed the loss and kept on killing cattle.


In sheep country 90% or more is likely to be the only solution, that'll give livestock guardian dogs a chance to do their work and not get killed themselves.  Sheep are just too tempting.

You are probably correct. 

[Special T]

PMan said something similar, but it seems to me the answer would be to find packs that are raiding livestock and eradicate the whole pack. Over time, that would shift the genetic profile of the whole population to be more cautious and wary of humans. That would have an added benefit of making them more cautious about their prey too, maybe encouraging the wolves to be self-limiting and concentrating on taking the weakest of prey animals and leaving the bigger, stronger ones alone.

If they gave people the right to shoot on site, wolves would learn very quick, just like they have in ID and WY. They arent dumb animals but the WDFW has shackeld us to an bad Wolf Plan.

That would work. But I think deliberately seeking out the ones with more aggressive genetics will get it done faster.

Well the WDFW complains about cost and letting people educate the wolves costs nothing... But then again we have all been Slow Played by DoW and the department anyway.

Ive been looking for an article that i read last week but cant find it now. It was about a Montana rancher who's cousin had a ranch down in Tx... The Texan cousin made a bet while visiting his Mt Cousin that  his pitbull Pig Dogs could take care of his wolf problem... and after some training  and a second trip up to MT the pitbulls tore up a bunchof wolves.... Anyone else see this article?

[KFhunter]

we need to delist statewide and just use coyote hunting rules for wolves.


It sounds drastic, but the actual amount of wolves killed will remain low.  They just aren't easy to hunt.


It'll educate wolves that humans are bad news
It'll give livestock owners a measure of control
It'll give hunters some worth as ranchers allow them on their property to hunt wolves


I'll even advocate for body gripping trap permits in livestock areas, give the trappers some skin in the game with padded footholds.



Wolves aren't going to hurt by such rules, they'll still be here, but maybe there'll be a better balance and give the rural landowners some control over their livelihood.

[Special T]

KFhunter I agree that is what SHOULD be done. politically its not feasable. Just look at how hard it was for ID to get where its at today... And its citizenry SUPPORTS those efforts, and by large ours does not. 

[jasnt]

we need to delist statewide and just use coyote hunting rules for wolves.


It sounds drastic, but the actual amount of wolves killed will remain low.  They just aren't easy to hunt.


It'll educate wolves that humans are bad news
It'll give livestock owners a measure of control
It'll give hunters some worth as ranchers allow them on their property to hunt wolves


I'll even advocate for body gripping trap permits in livestock areas, give the trappers some skin in the game with padded footholds.



Wolves aren't going to hurt by such rules, they'll still be here, but maybe there'll be a better balance and give the rural landowners some control over their livelihood.

couldn't agree more!  Even though we are able to shoot them if in the act of attacking livestock or people.  I believe most attacks will happen at night.  Hard to shoot what you can't see.  They need to have a reason to avoid humans and human scents.  It could also help our dfw and the state, by having to have the proper licenses to hunt/trap them. I think it would also boost some nonresident sales as well. Washington's wolves have never been hunted/trapped. Sofar they are uneducated, this may give a slightly better success rate for a short time. Putting extra money in to our wildlife.  Its been proven that hunting and trapping alone can not stop growth. Seems like a win win to me