Post by: idahohuntr on December 03, 2014, 08:42:57 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/03/killing-wolves-protect-livestock-doesnt-work-study/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/03/killing-wolves-protect-livestock-doesnt-work-study/)
Rob Wielgus noticed something interesting when he studied reports of wolf attacks on sheep and cattle in the Northern Rockies.
When wolves were killed to reduce livestock predation, the number of dead sheep and cows rose the following year.
“It’s counterintuitive,” Wielgus, director of Washington State University’s Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, said of the study’s results. “People think, let’s kill the wolves and get rid of the problem. But it doesn’t work that way with carnivores. Sometimes, the punitive solution is causing the problem.”
Shooting or trapping problem wolves, particularly the pack’s leaders, disrupts the pack’s social structure. “If you kill the alpha male and female, the pack fractures,” he said. “Instead of one breeding pair, you may have two or three.”
More pups are born the next spring and the potential for livestock attacks increases, Wielgus said.
His research, published today in the journal PLOS ONE, questions the accepted practice of killing wolves that prey on livestock. It analyzed 25 years of data from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
More dead wolves correlated with more dead livestock, until more than 25 percent of a state’s wolf population was removed, Wielgus (pictured, right) and data analyst Kaylie Peebles found. Then, both the number of wolves and the number of livestock attacks dropped the following year.
___________________________________________________________________
more on the link
Post by: billythekidrock on December 03, 2014, 08:46:42 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 03, 2014, 08:49:31 PM
Why is it interesting? This is not new news.Really? It was published today.
Post by: billythekidrock on December 03, 2014, 08:52:00 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 03, 2014, 08:56:50 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 03, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
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.
Post by: Birdguy on December 03, 2014, 09:01:34 PM
Interesting...
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/03/killing-wolves-protect-livestock-doesnt-work-study/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/03/killing-wolves-protect-livestock-doesnt-work-study/)
More dead wolves correlated with more dead livestock, until more than 25 percent of a state’s wolf population was removed, Wielgus (pictured, right) and data analyst Kaylie Peebles found. Then, both the number of wolves and the number of livestock attacks dropped the following year.
___________________________________________________________________
more on the link
:dunno: Sounds pretty simple to me if we kill better than 25% of the wolves it helps the issue and would protect livestock in the long run. Thus killing between 98 and 100% of the population every year would mean less wolves and more livestock. Almost like it was before wolves were brought back. Almost too easy :bash:.
To the casual observer it seems our fore fathers were wise beyond their years :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on December 03, 2014, 09:09:32 PM
I like that kind of math
Post by: idahohuntr on December 03, 2014, 09:10:38 PM
25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack.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.
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.
Post by: mountainman on December 03, 2014, 09:21:54 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 03, 2014, 09:22:31 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2014, 09:24:48 PM
We should divide up amongst ourselves and start killing each other as they did when this great country was founded.
:chuckle:
Post by: Alchase on December 03, 2014, 09:34:02 PM
And the "oh the alphas mate" myth has been disproved for decades. Like the wolf special on NatGeo about the "Rise of the black wolf" they stated all females come into estrus, no way a male will let that happen without responding, as soon as the Alpha male is distracted, some other male does the dead.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 03, 2014, 09:43:55 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 03, 2014, 09:46:07 PM
We should divide up amongst ourselves and start killing each other as they did when this great country was founded.
:chuckle:
Pretty sure that's happening as we speak.
Post by: Alchase on December 03, 2014, 09:46:24 PM
Then the 25% left would be sustainable.
Post by: Alchase on December 03, 2014, 09:57:02 PM
Uhm ya...............
Post by: villageidiot on December 03, 2014, 10:10:57 PM
It's amazing anybody would even bring this idiotic idea up. WOW!
Post by: RadSav on December 03, 2014, 10:15:31 PM
Post by: Humptulips on December 03, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
RadSav beat me to the post by 12 seconds
Post by: idahohuntr on December 03, 2014, 10:37:52 PM
By removing the resident animals, you might exacerbate the situation” in the long-term. But that doesn’t reduce the short-term value of killing wolves to halt ongoing livestock attacks, Pierce said.
As usual, a little bit of science which will be exploited by both sides - DoW will say this means you shouldn't kill any wolves; the other side will say go big or go home.
Post by: AspenBud on December 04, 2014, 08:49:22 AM
Wonder if this is the same fool that sold the WDFW a bill of goods on the cougar situation. "Killing mature toms just leads to more cats." Nice to see they are doubling down on the rhetoric. Of course all this BS is true to an extent as long as your base line is limited. Expand the time line and that base line holds more truth and results reflect more of an appropriate conclusion.
Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 04, 2014, 09:07:02 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 04, 2014, 11:14:27 AM
it's compensatory loss. It's not strange at all. Hunters kill subadults that would have died anywayWonder if this is the same fool that sold the WDFW a bill of goods on the cougar situation. "Killing mature toms just leads to more cats." Nice to see they are doubling down on the rhetoric. Of course all this BS is true to an extent as long as your base line is limited. Expand the time line and that base line holds more truth and results reflect more of an appropriate conclusion.
Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
Post by: headshot5 on December 04, 2014, 11:27:45 AM
Quote
Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
Post by: mountainman on December 04, 2014, 11:54:01 AM
:yeah:QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
Post by: AspenBud on December 04, 2014, 12:49:47 PM
QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.
My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.
Post by: idaho guy on December 04, 2014, 03:15:00 PM
QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.
My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.
No that is not it. Headshot already answered your question. After you removed hounds you removed the most effective tool for managing lions and the population exploded. You are killing more cats randomly because you are over run with cats and people are seeing more and shooting them because there are way more! Large toms definitley kill sub adults in their territory but hunters most likely are killing way less percentage wise than the total population vs what was killed as a percent with hounds.
Post by: AspenBud on December 04, 2014, 03:59:43 PM
QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.
My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.
No that is not it. Headshot already answered your question. After you removed hounds you removed the most effective tool for managing lions and the population exploded. You are killing more cats randomly because you are over run with cats and people are seeing more and shooting them because there are way more! Large toms definitley kill sub adults in their territory but hunters most likely are killing way less percentage wise than the total population vs what was killed as a percent with hounds.
The percentage take relative to the actual population is certainly lower than when hounds were allowed to run. But that's not the argument. The actual number of lions killed every year hasn't really changed since the ban, if anything more have been shot, or at least reported as such. Either the dogs were scaring the cats or some unreported killing was going on prior to the ban...or both.
I'd like to see hounds back in WA, but that doesn't mean I don't find the current situation a bit curious. :dunno:
Post by: mkcj on December 04, 2014, 04:02:29 PM
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113505 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113505)
And as you read it you will see it is nothing more than if's, maybe, could be, possibly and might, as to come up with a conclusion that he wanted. There is no way you can do a study on state wide date to get results of what a pack will do if hunted, but what is interesting is a study referenced in the end of the study from Canada that states
"By contrast, Bjorge and Gunson (1985) found reducing the population from 40 to 3 wolves in 2 years in Alberta (a 10 fold reduction to near extirpation) resulted in a decline of livestock depredations for two years - followed by subsequent recolonization and increased depredations thereafter. Tompa (1983) also found that lethal control prevented conflict for more than a year in some areas of British Columbia. It should be noted that these 2 studies examined wolf control and livestock depredations at a fine scale (grazing allotment or wolf pack territory or management zone)."
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 04, 2014, 04:06:41 PM
Post by: idaho guy on December 04, 2014, 04:14:41 PM
QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.
My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.
No that is not it. Headshot already answered your question. After you removed hounds you removed the most effective tool for managing lions and the population exploded. You are killing more cats randomly because you are over run with cats and people are seeing more and shooting them because there are way more! Large toms definitley kill sub adults in their territory but hunters most likely are killing way less percentage wise than the total population vs what was killed as a percent with hounds.
The percentage take relative to the actual population is certainly lower than when hounds were allowed to run. But that's not the argument. The actual number of lions killed every year hasn't really changed since the ban, if anything more have been shot, or at least reported as such. Either the dogs were scaring the cats or some unreported killing was going on prior to the ban...or both.
I'd like to see hounds back in WA, but that doesn't mean I don't find the current situation a bit curious. :dunno:
You probably are right on cats moving on or deeper in the woods when run by dogs. I have seen that happen or at least think that has happened after running a lion with dogs and not shooting it. It doesnt matter, but I think you are missing the point more lions are killed because there are MORE lions to harvest.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 04, 2014, 04:19:16 PM
I think the numbers taken by hound hunters were controlled by WDFW. Hounds are pretty effective and could've put a serious hurt on the cats in a short time, so from my understanding WDFW didn't want a free for all and only gave out a certain number of tags based on what they wanted taken. They could nearly get that exact number with hounds. Now it is OTC for tags, unlimited, and whatever is harvested is mostly all incidental.QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.
My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.
I would guess if WDFW still had hound hunters around, they could've added a few tags and kept the numbers where they liked. Now it is basically tea leaves and chicken bones.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 05, 2014, 02:05:10 PM
incorrect.QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
hunters are killing the same number of cats as pre ban, but they are killing more subadults. Those subadults would have had a proportionately higher mortality rate than mature cats. So, the harvest can remain the same (in numbers not in composition) and the population can grow, because the cats would have likely died anyway.... Compensatory loss
Post by: denali on December 06, 2014, 02:12:23 PM
Dr. Wielgus presentation at the Wolf Management Research Symposium at UofW... (Go Gougs)
We as sportsmen are in for a looong futile battle :bash:
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2014, 05:53:13 PM
incorrect.QuoteSomething strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.
What doesn't add up? Their are more cats now then ever. We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population. However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.
hunters are killing the same number of cats as pre ban, but they are killing more subadults. Those subadults would have had a proportionately higher mortality rate than mature cats. So, the harvest can remain the same (in numbers not in composition) and the population can grow, because the cats would have likely died anyway.... Compensatory loss
Since that is the case they either need to bring hound hunting back OR loosen the rules and allow more take. If people cant be more selective like with hound hunting then they may as well make the season year round, or offer up other way of making it easier like cheaper tags.
IMO the State should offer a predator combo. Cougar, bear and small game for a smoking cheep price. Back when they had the Deer, bear,cougar id always get that combo but since they no longer offer it i dont.
Post by: wolfbait on December 06, 2014, 08:08:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfY4MoMCJcU&index=5&list=PL9TrRLEAvvhZX4duPQejN29ChSMTKTwDa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfY4MoMCJcU&index=5&list=PL9TrRLEAvvhZX4duPQejN29ChSMTKTwDa)
Dr. Wielgus presentation at the Wolf Management Research Symposium at UofW... (Go Gougs)
We as sportsmen are in for a looong futile battle :bash:
Believe It: Killing Wolves Works
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 6, 2014
There is much ado about a paper published this week, with headlines such as "Killing wolves to protect livestock doesn't work in the long run" and "Kill this wolf and more sheep will die." (The paper is linked below.)
Even the research host university (Washington State University) reported "researchers have found that it is counter-productive to kill wolves to keep them from preying on livestock. Shooting and trapping lead to more dead sheep and cattle the following year, not fewer."
Similar headlines are repeated in the current news cycle, but it's obvious few reporters read past the press release. I did read the journal article, and attempted to examine the data upon which the paper is based – which I could not do fully since:
1) some of the data is unavailable,
2) the literature citations are incomplete,
3) the first two references I checked did not say what the paper alleged, and 4) the researchers did not specify which counties in the tri-state research area were included in its numbers for each year.
Regardless, WSU’s flawed paper seems to be an exercise in comparing variables to seek out correlations without causation. (For examples, read The Ice Cream Murders or Cracked’s piece on broken science, both linked below.)
The WSU paper is based on the assumption that breeding pairs of wolves "are responsible for most livestock depredations," yet this vital assumption was not examined as part of the research, and the literature citation used to support the statement doesn’t support the allegation. While it is known that some breeding pairs are responsible for livestock depredations, no citation indicated that they are "responsible for most livestock depredations," and that type of data for the 25-year time period and region involved in the WSU study has not been produced. Incidentally, when we’ve had wolves killing our family’s sheep, they weren’t part of Wyoming’s tally for breeding pairs.
The researchers started with the assumption that breeding pairs are the important data set, and proceeded from there, using statistical modeling over a very large scale (the tri-state region of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho) rather than on a smaller scale, such as regions where wolf packs reside and come into conflict with livestock – areas on a scale where previous research has revealed that lethal control reduced depredations in subsequent years. It’s generally accepted that removal of carnivores causes an immediate reduction in livestock depredations for a year or two, but the cycle begins anew when carnivores once again fill the vacancies. That’s the way of non-static ecosystems.
The selection of what data was used in the WSU research paper is important, and is center to my criticism of the entire paper and its nonsensical final result. Yellowstone National Park’s wolf packs and breeding pairs are part of the WSU data set, yet these wolves only come into contact with livestock if they leave the park.
And of course the researchers used only cattle and sheep deaths that agency professionals could "confirm" as wolf kills, despite the fact that research has indicated that for every sheep or calf confirmed as killed by wolves, up to 7 are killed by wolves and are not confirmed. The researchers also did not include other livestock that were injured by wolves but not killed, or livestock kills that were determined by agency personnel to be "probable" wolf kills.
The WSU researchers only included wolves that were killed "by livestock owners or through government control methods" – not wolves killed during legal hunting and trapping seasons in the region, or other sources of mortality. This data exclusion seems odd, since the paper begins with the statement "Predator control and sport hunting are often used to reduce predator populations and livestock depredations ..." Although Yellowstone’s wolf numbers are used WSU data, the number-one cause of mortality in the park’s wolf population is instraspecific aggression (wolves killing other wolves) , but this was excluded from the study because only wolves killed by "livestock owners or through government control methods" were included in the data set.
In another odd selection of data, the WSU researchers included wolf kills that were made by agency personnel in order to reduce predation on declining wildlife populations (and where there had been no livestock depredations).
The WSU paper did not factor in the number of incidents of livestock depredation, which can be a significant. While the total number of dead livestock is important, the number of incidents is revealing as well. For instance, the number of confirmed and probable wolf depredations on sheep increased in Idaho in 2013, including one incident resulting in the death of 176 sheep in Idaho. Interagency reports indicate that a decline in losses would have occurred with the exception of this single incident. A similar incident occurred in Montana in 2009, when 120 adult rams were killed in one incident (a huge increase from the 111 sheep killed in the state the year prior).
This cherry-picking of data is concerning, and to prove that point I’ll do my own cherry-picking from the researcher’s data in a moment.
The researchers concluded, "It appears that lethal wolf control to reduce the number of livestock depredated is associated with increased, not decreased, depredations the following year, on a large scale – at least until wolf morality exceeds 25%."
Neglected is the fact that once wolves begin preying on a livestock herd, the depredations don’t magically stop – the wolves often return, until control action is taken or the livestock are removed. It may be convenient to pretend that the depredations would not increase if the wolves are not removed, but it is not realistic. Despite the variety of non-lethal measures already in use by livestock producers, wolves still manage to kill livestock, and often the only feasible way to stop the depredations is to kill the wolf or wolves responsible for the depredations. Data from Wyoming in 2012 reveal that 27% of Wyoming’s wolf packs were involved in more than three livestock depredation events, and that there are some areas where wolf depredations on livestock are chronic – areas where the expanding wolf population moves into high density populations of livestock and, in these chronic conflict areas, it’s only a matter of time before wolves are killed after the predictable livestock depredations occur. One wolf pack was responsible for 43% of Wyoming’s cattle depredations in 2012, and three packs were responsible for 70% of the sheep depredations.
Some packs that are counted as breeding pairs are not identified as breeding pairs each year, and Wyoming research revealed: "Overall, it appeared that natural factors unrelated to known mortality sources were the primary cause of non-breeding status" for the majority of packs not classified as breeding pairs. Only three packs of 11 breeding pairs from the year prior were downgraded because of mortality from confirmed livestock depredations.
The 25% number mentioned above is interesting as well – that’s the growth rate of the region’s wolf population every year. If control efforts exceed that 25%, the wolf population (and number of breeding pairs) begins to decrease – and, lo and behold, results in fewer livestock depredations, according to the WSU researchers. But that doesn’t make the headlines.
The WSU study has inspired me to do my own cherry-picking of the paper’s data. In comparing the data from the first year to the final year (1987 and 2012), what jumps out at me is that the number of sheep in the wolf-inhabited counties of each of the three states declined while the wolf population boomed. The number of sheep declined by more than 11% in Wyoming; 70% in Idaho; and 57% in Montana – during the same time period that the minimum wolf population increased by 6,150% in Montana; 1,219% in Idaho; and 4,778% in Wyoming.
It’s also worth noting that the WSU paper simply looked at numbers taken from specific data sets, and did not consider how each wolf population was managed – be it through sport harvest or agency management. It’s an important factor as well, as noted in the annual interagency report prepared for Wyoming, which notes: "During this period of wolf population growth, wolves also expanded in range and recolonized new areas. Beginning in 2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service switched to a more aggressive approach to wolf control following confirmed livestock depredation, leading to a decrease in the number of livestock losses despite an increase in the overall wolf population. Since 2000, wolves have commonly recolonized areas outside {northwestern Wyoming’s trophy wolf hunting area}, but have rarely persisted more than a year or two before being removed for confirmed livestock depredation. These persistent damage problems and subsequent control actions limited range expansion of wolves into unsuitable habitat even while under Endangered Species Act protections. The state of Wyoming developed its wolf management framework to likewise restrict wolf range expansion into these areas of unsuitable habitat and high livestock density by designating wolves as predatory animals in these areas."
The interagency report noted that in general, wolves living in areas with relatively high native ungulate densities and relatively low exposure to domestic livestock have caused fewer conflicts with livestock than wolves that recolonized areas of unsuitable habitat where large numbers of livestock grazed on private and public lands, especially those areas outside the trophy wolf hunting area.
The WSU paper concludes: "Further research is also needed to account for the limitations of our data set. The scale of our analysis was large (wolf occupied areas in each state in each year) and the scale of some other studies were small (wolf packs). Simultaneous, multiscale analysis (individual wolf packs, wolf management zones, and wolf occupied areas) may yield further insights. "Although lethal control is sometimes a necessary management tool in the nearterm, we suggest that managers also consider testing non-lethal methods of wolf control because these methods might not be associated with increased depredations in the long-term."
Non-lethal control efforts are part of everyday ranch life in the tri-state wolf range, but are not appropriate in all situations. As state and federal officials noted in the Wyoming’s 2012 wolf monitoring report, non-lethal control is often not applicable or cost-effective in many areas in Wyoming due to: 1) specific wolf packs chronically killing livestock year after year; 2) unpredictable travel patterns and movements by wolves; and
3) very large wolf home ranges that covered vast areas including very large grazing allotments. The interagency report noted, "In instances when non-lethal control methods were ineffective, wolves were killed through agency control actions in an attempt to prevent further livestock depredations."
The WSU research paper conflicts with more comprehensive studies conducted on a smaller scale (grazing allotment, wolf pack territory or management zone), causing the WSU researchers to note: "It appears that wolf control is associated with reduced depredations at the local wolf pack scale but increased depredations at the larger wolf population scale."
Those who want to jump on the bandwagon of killing wolves only results in more livestock deaths may want to reconsider. The reality is that when wolves inhabit areas used by livestock, some livestock will be killed, and some wolves will be killed in response. What really matters is that we take action to minimize the damage to all.
Read more @
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 06, 2014, 09:07:07 PM
Post by: villageidiot on December 06, 2014, 10:34:05 PM
I have a very similar comparison I am doing with laying hens. The hens started eating their eggs. I started using "deterrents", first of which was placing fake plastic eggs in the nests which worked for a short time till they figured it out. Secondly I darkened the nests with pieces of tarp so they couldn't see very well to peck the eggs. This worked also until they persisted and were able to eat eggs anyhow. Then I gave plenty of oyster shell which didn't help any. Next was use a "range rider" to watch the hens. This worked some but when I left to relieve myself they ate more eggs. I tried one more thing and that was to raise a whole lot more hens up that never had ate an egg. Problem was I did not remove the old egg eaters and they taught the young hens how to eat eggs. The only way I solved the problem was to KILL every hen in the chicken house and replace them with a whole new flock of hens.
This is not complicated and very logical. I was reluctant to kill any of my hens because you see I really like chickens and my eyes were closed to accepting reality because I was in love with my chickens. Bi standers told me I was stupid and waisting .my time but I was closed minded and could not hear. I now have finally seen the light and all my old Jenny's had to die to solve the problem.
Post by: cougarbart on December 06, 2014, 10:56:42 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 07, 2014, 06:39:04 PM
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.
Post by: birddogdad on December 08, 2014, 09:24:10 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 08, 2014, 09:32:12 AM
2) Several pieces of information that have studies listed in the text are not listed in the reference section
3) In the figures portion the R2 values are LOW.... below what I would consider scientifically valid i.e. Figure 3 has an r value of .45 Figure 4 has R2 Value of .32!!
4) PLOS allows Researchers to choose their peer reviewers from a list. I could not find the reviewers for this paper. "Pay to publish"
Can anyone tell me how much the WDFW payed for this study?
Post by: Special T on December 08, 2014, 09:47:58 AM
While attending CWU our capstone market Research class did a Recruitment study to increase attendace for the university. 12 of us spent the whole quarter doing a study/survey to guide the CWU President. We recieved an A on the porject and did the work equilivant to what a independed firm would do for $50-60K. Mind you we PAID to do this for the school so we didnt have any direction we were trying to push this... Well the president didn't like the direction the study lead us so he hired a "Marketing director" to tthe tune of $150K a year that steered the information more to the Presidnets liking. Nevermind the fact that our Prof had owned his own marking firm before he started teaching.
I have stories of a couple of other projects i did for the University that were a total waste, except that i learned a lot...(A lot of how gov doesntwork so well)
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 09:55:41 AM
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.
Post by: denali on December 08, 2014, 11:23:16 AM
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.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 08, 2014, 11:27:00 AM
WAcoyotehunter: You have brought up many good points...I think there may be some misunderstanding though...Ok...
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.
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 (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."
Post by: Special T on December 08, 2014, 12:35:13 PM
http://labstats.net/articles/pvalue.html (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.
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack.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.
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: mountainman on December 09, 2014, 09:00:27 AM
:yeah:25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack.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.
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: magnanimous_j on December 09, 2014, 09:07:18 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on December 09, 2014, 09:09:27 AM
Quote
maybe encouraging the wolves to be self-limiting and concentrating on taking the weakest of prey animals and leaving the bigger, stronger ones alone.
:yike: :bash:
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2014, 09:20:25 AM
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.
Post by: magnanimous_j on December 09, 2014, 09:28:07 AM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on December 09, 2014, 09:35:04 AM
25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack.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.
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2014, 09:40:29 AM
25% of the statewide population...not 25% of a pack.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.
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. :twocents:
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. :tup:
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2014, 09:44:11 AM
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?
Post by: KFhunter on December 09, 2014, 09:54:21 AM
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.
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2014, 10:18:20 AM
Post by: jasnt on December 09, 2014, 10:28:48 AM
we need to delist statewide and just use coyote hunting rules for wolves.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
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.
Post by: wolfbait on December 09, 2014, 11:43:11 AM
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.
Have you been hitting the bottle KF? Remember WDFW's pro wolf group and the wolf plan? The only time any wolf packs are confirmed is when WDFW have no other choice.
Everything you suggest makes perfect sense, but that would be opposite of those who promote wolves.