New West Feature
Stopping Wolves From Killing Livestock: Could It Be As Simple as an Electrified Flag Line?
Researchers looking at nonlethal wolf management make strides in a one-two punch known as "turbofladry."By Brodie Farquhar, 2-14-11
![]() |
|
| Defenders of Wildlife set up an electrified fence line on Lava Lake land, where an experiment yielded promising results in protecting sheep from wolves. | |
None of the many tools for deterring predators from killing livestock is able to claim it’s the proverbial “silver bullet” for the job, yet an innovative combination of two such tools has generated some encouraging results.
Dubbed “turbofladry,” it consists of flapping flags tied on a wire fence and the electric fence itself, which delivers a stinging zap to anyone (human, predator or livestock) foolish enough to touch a charged wire.
Fladry, an east European term, is simply a string of closely spaced strips of flapping cloth. Hunters have used strings of fladry to block unsuspecting wolves, then driven the wolves into a fladry bottleneck, where gunners were waiting. Incredibly, wolves won’t cross a fladry line to escape, even when they are desperate to do so.
Any movement in the cloth strips stimulates a startle or flight instinct in wolves.
Fladry has also been used to surround livestock, creating a barrier that wolves won’t cross – at least for awhile. Tests in the northern Rockies have effectively blocked wolves from entering an area until the wolves’ investigatory probes teach them the fladry isn’t a problem or a threat – generally a two-month process. (Interestingly, the hyper-adaptable coyote has never been deterred by fladry, not even for a little while, according to Minnesota researchers.)
Similarly, an electric fence is effective until a predator figures out a way to go over or under it, without getting zapped.
For three summers, Lava Lake Land and Livestock, which grazes sheep on the Sawtooth and Salmon-Challis National Forests, made use of turbofladry and experienced only one lost sheep to wolves. And that sheep wasn’t inside the turbofladry fence.
With more than 6,000 sheep, Lava Lake runs one of the largest sheep outfits in the region on more than 800,000 acres of private and public land. A few summers prior, wolves killed 25 sheep on one of their grazing allotments. With the help of USDA Wildlife Services in Idaho and Defenders of Wildlife, Lava Lake utilized a newly designed solar-powered turbofladry system, creating highly portable night corrals to protect a sheep band. Lava Lake also used guard dogs, night watches by herders and shotguns and cracker shells to deter wolves from approaching the sheep band.
While these bands consisted of more than 1,200 sheep in close proximity to wolves during late summer, they did not experience a single wolf depredation.
Just a quarter mile away, wolves had killed sheep and a guard dog in 2005.
“Wolves are what we call ‘neophobic,’ meaning they’re afraid of what’s new and unknown,” said Stewart Breck, a researcher for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services in Fort Collins, Colorado. They come up against lots of fences, Breck said, and have learned not to give them much mind.
When confronted with something new, like a fladry line, “they lead with their nose and mouth. If they get zapped, that creates even more fear.”
Turbofladry plays off that, using one deterrent to reinforce the other—“You have a scary thing backed up by a shock,” he said. As a result, habituation doesn’t happen as easily or quickly as it does when wolves encounter only single deterrents. It is the combination of flags and electric shock the creates a powerful adverse conditioning tool, said Breck.
A Fish Story
Another strong test of the turbofladry concept, said Suzanne Strong of Defenders of Wildlife, happened in a stock pond in Idaho that Idaho Fish & Game used for hatchery fish before moving them into high country lakes and streams.
“It turned out that a pack of wolves had their den nearby,” said Stone, “and they quickly discovered a bountiful supply of sushi.” The wolves made short work of the stocked fish. Idaho fisheries biologists were loathe to give up the convenience of the stock pond, but needed to protect the fish from the wolves. Turbofladry was used around the pond and, for weeks, no wolf ever penetrated the turbofladry line, said Stone. It took a big storm to create a small hole in the line, said Stone, and sushi time was back.
“I wouldn’t call that the ultimate test for turbofladry,” said Breck, “but it was effective.”
There are operational and maintenance issues as well, he said. Electric fences short out if they come in contact with vegetation, so they aren’t suitable in thick grass, he said. Turbofladry also requires more wire than fladry alone – an added expense, as well as a power source (solar panels) and storage (battery).
Testing and Spending
In the journal “Wildlife Research” last year, Breck teamed up with researchers from Utah State University, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota on a paper titled “Biological, Technical, and Social Aspects of Applying Electrified Fladry for Livestock Protection From Wolves.”
The researchers used captive wolves to test the effectiveness of keeping them away from food and also ran field tests in Montana, where they erected 14 kilometers of electrified fladry around treatment pastures. They never found evidence of wolves entering the treatment pastures. Researchers then determined a completed electrified fladry system would cost $2,303 for the first kilometer, $2,032 for each additional kilometer and required 31.8 person-hours per kilometer to install.
Importantly, the researchers believe that electrified fladry can be adapted to regular barbed-wire fences, thus reducing future costs.
“Costs are dependent on how much labor is involved,” said Defender’s Stone. “We partnered on the initial research in the USA, using 9 miles of fladry to enclose a ranch in the mountains near Salmon. We had to ride or walk that fladry line daily to ensure that the flags were not getting caught on barbed wire or bushes. Though the test was very successful, we decided to never again try it on such a large scale. It’s much more cost-effective in smaller units such as night corrals, which are still large enough to contain more than 1,000 sheep.”
Defenders of Wildlife has partnered with several dozen ranchers in wolf country, utilizing turbofladry night corrals. And, so far, there’s no evidence that wolves have become habituated to turbofladry, she said.
“What’s really encouraging,” said Stone, “is that the concept is being adopted independently, by ranchers who are not partnered with us. We’re seeing reports of turbofladry being used in Europe, South Africa and Australia,” anywhere there are wild wolves or dogs preying on livestock.
Stone argues that although a single bullet is cheap, there are many other costs associated with lethal control, such as the expense of helicopters or planes used to shoot wolves from the air. And lethal controls are often a short-term solution, she said.
“Reseachers at the University of Calgary, led by Dr. Marco Musiani, revealed that new wolves will often move into vacant territory in less than a year after depredating wolves are killed,” said Stone. “If the original problems—carcass pits, diseased or injured livestock, untended animals, etc.—still exist, the new wolves will often start killing livestock on the same ranches, which starts the whole cycle over.”
Wolves are highly social, Stone said, and if an alpha pair learn to avoid livestock, then that learning is passed down the generations. If a pack’s leadership is exterminated, survivors and replacements don’t have their teachers, and they get to make their own mistakes, which, said Stone, can be fatal for livestock and wolves alike.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
"Turbofladry also requires more wire than fladry alone – an added expense, as well as a power source (solar panels) and storage (battery)."
Conventional fladry is just on a non-conductive cord like baling twine. I think you mean here that electrified fladry requires more electrical energy to sustain a sufficient voltage than an equivalent length of electric fence wire that has no flags.
The flags on a line of electrified fladry draw down the voltage, so you need a far stronger fence energizer for a mile of fladry than you would for a mile of plain single-wire electric fence.
but keep pushing the alternatives....you might find something that works that does not cost an arm and a leg......
I would tell DOW the same thing if I were a canadian rancher. This cow is more agressive towards wolves, therefore she is WORTH more. Wanna buy some and send them to Montana?
Too bad it does not prevent the annihilation of ungulates. If the population of wolves are not managed,..they continue to flourish,...spread out to seek more prey and regardless of pretty little flags, livestock and household pets will fall to predadation. It still blows my mind that the DOW would favor the population of one species at the cost of the decimation of several species. but of course, the wolf is just the pawn for the anti-hunters to bring down the population of all other species so that hunting is eliminated all together.
State wildlife agencies are way too dependant on hunting/fishing license sales to even countenance the "decimation" of big game species. Maybe they reason they are not in freak-out mode is that they understand the tenants of Biology 101 -- that predator/prey numbers rise and fall in tandem, and alway have done so.
The only predator capable of driving prey species to extinction is Man (look at how many times we've done that).
What folks forget is that for the past century or so, the absence of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone has thrown the ecosystem out of kilter -- and we've accepted this as "normal," when it is anything but normal. We're now in the uncomfortable stage of re-establishing a new normal, and folks who got spoiled with above-normal herd sizes don't like that.
There were jsut over 2000 elk left in the northern herd inside the actual Yellowstone part, and the wolves on the northern range were at least 37, that means they have killed approximately 150 more elk since the end of the count in mid December. There is nearly 4 months left until calves come, at 70 dead elk per month that will pull the herd down much further.
The folks who want lots of wolves should be the ones taking care of them and putting fladry in their yards, they could use colors to match their houses etc. and have as many as they want.
The problem is the outer end element of the prowolf movement. Those who think they can have a total "wilderness" without people involved in the equation. Those are the ones that stir the debate. Just like the outer element on the other side that wants every wolf removed.
There are places where wolves should be, and there are places where they should not be.
The debate continues, with more wolves invading areas and more cattle and wildlife losses. No doubt some exaggerations are occuring as to what wolves are doing. But there is no doubt that they are causing problems in some areas also.
Predator/prey relationships are concrete, no doubt. Not every elk will be killed in Yellowstone. When the wolves run out of adequate prey, they will have to move, or quit reproducing, or starve, whatever. I do wonder about the moose population in yellowstone. Seems to me it is dropping fast, maybe to fast.
I guess my concern is for the moose. Are they easier to kill than elk? A perferred prey? Are the elk numbers keeping the wolf numbers higher than normal, thus causing more predation on moose? The last count on moose was 114 in 2010, down from 1200 in 1995. Time will tell.
I guess alot of us don't want to see elk numbers plummet to the point of no hunting or permit hunting only.
I have been going to Yellowstone since 1941 or 42, never saw a wolf, and there were always a lot of people there, and they all seemed to be enjoying themselves. Even now a lot of folks never see a wolf, nor even look for them. A little anecdote, once a bunch of us were photographing a grizzly across form Indain Creek, he stopped and asked us where the moose were, he'd seen a sign there were moose and that is what he wanted to see. I see wolves pretty often, but never look for them.
What is your reason for wanting to destroy other folks property, just hate people that are different than you?
Cattle ranch or a hobby farm next to an urban center?
Regardless,..I am pointing out that Canada has the right idea,..allow hunting to control the wolves.
How about a little common sense to the issue? I personally know a few canadian ranchers. I have hunted some crown land up there in the past and I asked the fella who runs cattle up there how they deal with wolves.....no problem, he says. Really? I asked. Yep. We have a problem, we shoot em! If we can't get em that way, we get em with the sleds (snowmobiles) and I even know a few guys who poison em. Usually they are no problem because a few local fellas up here do some trapping. Keeps them thinned down and they don't do much damage unless they pack up.
So all the poppycock that DOW is spreading about how the canadians do things is bullcrap, pure and simple. Those canadians are gonna say what sounds good and nice and they are gonna do what they have to do to keep livestock predation to a minimum.
Rich, your nonnative bovines are the number one industry in all three states! Don't like cows, move back to California! This is our economy, man, and those cows are not going anywhere.
My neighbors weren't convinced at first; but, they eventually tried some of my bulls as heifer fresheners and many, if not most, of them turned believers. For example, one of the more skeptical of them runs charolais, He was losing heifers, broke down or in calving, and calves when he put the heifers with his charolais bull and losing heifers, calves and cows to predation. Now, he runs a little heifer herd with a longhorn bull up close to the house. The bull keeps the predators off; the heifers calve easily that first time; and, once the heifers have calved, they can graduate to the cow herd with the charolais bull where he also keeps a few senior longhorn cows mixed in to teach the charolais how to defend themselves and act like a herd under range conditions.
No rancher here, but somebody that worked for more than a few of em in the past.
We dehorned all those cows every spring.
How do you ship cattle with those long horns?
Mulie, ibid to everything you have said. Nice comments. We need to go hunting sometime......
End Headstart for kids, but spend any amount of money to protect wolves from any death.
It is time for reality folks, we can't afford anymore of this BS.
LOBO WATCH
Todd, nobody said nature was pretty, in fact wolf kills are ugly. However, that is the way nature works. Is watching wildlife officials shoot elk in the head at point blank range in Rocky Mtn. NP pretty? The elk there are so damn tame that you can walk among them and they just look at you like you are another elk. They have no fear of anything. Is that the way an elk is suppose to behave?
Go to Rocky sometime and look at the landscape, or should I say what is left of it. The sections of fences are getting bigger and bigger, trying to keep what remains of the Aspen alive and the willows don't look much better. And it's been proven that hunting doesn't do any good in changing their grazing habits.
Now go to Yellowstone and look at the Aspen and see if they are regenerating themselves. YES they are and so are the willows and all of the wildlife that live in those areas. The wolf has changed their grazing patterns. The population of coyotes is down by 50% in some areas, and the Pronghorn are back. This really isn't about the Elk or the Wolf, it is about trying to reestablish a BALANCE. Everyone is so used to having massive herds of Elk around that when those numbers decline to below big game park levels they cry foul. Why should we care if all of the native plant species, trees, and other wildlife are gone, as long as we have elk to hunt.
As far as the cattle go, Mike has the right idea. Just like the Elk, most cattle have no idea how to defend themselves, we have bred that trait out of them. Bringing in the Longhorns who do know how to defend themselves will teach the others how to defend and breed it into them.
It would also be helpful if the rancher got off of his lazy butt and cleaned up the carcasses. Leaving them around encourages wolves and other predators to scavenge which can lead to predation on live animals. As far as cows being invasive species, in reality they are. They have no place in the national forests, they destroy the vegetation, tear up the streams, and are not an asset to the environment in general. But considering that many ranchers have their loans banked on their grazing allotments, the more the better in their opinion.
You are a liar. The aspens are not regenerating in Yellowstone. Your kind never stops...one lie after another.
Wolves have been nothing more than a negative factor in what was once America's wildlife wonderland.
Where do you live...surely not anywhere near where this disaster is playing out. Take you unproven therories and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.
You are a phony.
Toby Bridges,
LOBO WATCH
And Todd, this scare tactic about wolves destroying agriculture is pure nonsense. The entire livestock productivity of the Rockies is about five percent of national livestock production. I'd personally hate to see ranchers vanish, but if they did, consumers would see nary a hiccup in the price of hamburger or steak. Wildlife Services's own stats indicate that wolves are teeny-tiny players in predation on livestock -- top honors go to coyotes, by orders of magnitude. Any livestock loss can be painful to livestock owners, so a tip of the hat to Defenders for working on non-lethal controls.
Facts matter.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901111636.htm
The problem with people like you is that if someone does not agree with you, you attack, attack, attack....be it their income, their livihood, anything so you can run down anyone who gets in your way.
One wolf killing one cow ANYWHERE is a hardship on those folks. Many wolves killing thousands of elk and saying that is ok is ridiculous. Wolves completely destroying an entire moose population is absurd.
The law is about to be changed little mikey, and your spoff about raising longhorns? Yea, right. Another internet pretender. You can be anything you want here, right? What a joke.
You are not worth commenting back to, and I won't in the future.
Big Sky...that's why they call him the REAL MIKE...
Since Yellowstone biologist Doug Smith and the likes of the Center for Biological Disaster or the Destroyers of Wildlife are on such a role...heck, let's just see how much we can really screw up ol' Yellowstone.
regarding aspen regeneration science, please submit "wolves AND aspen" to the Google search engine, then use Research and specify articles since 2010. While the research mentioned by Todd is in that mix of over 1,000 scientific journal articles, it seems to be heavily outweighed by papers that report aspen regeneration and attribute it to wolves creating a "fear environment" that pushes elk off the riparian zones and gives aspen, willow and cottonwood a chance to grow.
I've not sampled beyond the first Google page of links, so there may be more articles that say it really isn't happening. However, I'd hold off on making blanket claims until there is a comprehensive survey of the literature and we can see whether Todd's much-beloved article is an outlier or a harbringer of something more significant.
I believe you need to go back and read my comment. I stated that ranchers need to clean up their carcasses. It's a proven fact that leaving dead animals around encourages scavenging which promotes predation. I did not say ANYTHING about using the system, period.
Good. Thanks for clarifying.
FACT: Domestic dogs kill more livestock annually by FAR than wolves.
I agree with everyone that knows domesticated livestock is the real invasive species, species that brought with them weeds, pollution of the landbase and the poor health of those eating them.
What do you guys want??? If it weren't for my ancestors that settled this land, you would still be over the pond. There would be no USA. By now, you would probably be speaking Russian and saluting papa Lenin.
FACT - People who do not include protein from red meat are not as healthy. I have a number of friends who don't eat meat and are constantly complaining about not having energy. Two of them secretly went back to eating red meat. They didn't tell anyone but I noticed they were doing better. So I asked what they were doing. Both admitted to returning to eating red meat. Both admitted that their bodies needed it. Both asked me not to tell anyone.
It's unfortunate that you can only think in such black and white terms, ie people today live longer than the Natives did, therefore we were justified in stealing their land and slaughtering them and the native animals to the brink of extinction. If the settlers had been descent,they would have seen themselves as guests, and would have learned to live peacefully alongside the Natives. Eventually, they could have worked together to create a USA/ Turtle Island that would have included the best of both worlds, that might have even developed into a technologically advanced, sustainable society.
Instead, extremists such as yourself believe it's okay to steal land, dishonor treaties, wipe out entire animal species, and commit genocide because it results in a better future for "your ancestors." You even apparently brag about it.
All remaining American Indians please stand up and give a big thanks to Cibola's ancestors for bringing you a much improved quality of life.
How despicable. How disturbing. Your idea of progress is Westernized, biased and myopic.
You might not be able to understand what I'm saying here, but other cultures, other people, they have, and had, different ideas about what progress is, and was. Just because it's not your value system doesn't mean it's wrong.
Everyone's life span was short an filled with labor hundreds of years ago, many still are.
You have no idea about a lot of things, but certainly you can have no idea how different cultures would have "progressed" given difference historical turn of events. So don't tell me nonsense like I'd be saluting Lenin by now. It's silly.
I for one am not thanking anyone responsible for the state Western ideas of "progress" have put this planet and it's inhabitants into.
Do I wish the founding fathers honored their agreements with the Indians? Absolutely! You know nothing about me so don't presume. Back in the 70's we were begging the game departments to limit hunting. We saw the decline of deer. They didn't listen. We begged law enforcement officers to enforce litter laws. They didn't listen. We told forest rangers to let fires burn instead of stomping them out. They didn't listen. We live on the land. We saw what civilization was doing to it. We feel our ideas are better than yours and in the case of forest fires, it is only in recent times that eco-fools have seen that what we were saying was true.
The paradox is that you are advocating the same thing you purport to hate. You are stealing our land. Yes, our land. In one state alone, in the past 20 years, over one million acres of private land has been turned back to the government. Any new environmental law or species you support steals land away from private individuals. In the early 60's the secretary of the interior reassured congress that the US government would never own more than 50 million acres. That number is up over 150 million. When is it going to stop?
Invasive species??? You won't let us eliminate wild horses or burro's. You won't let us eliminate feral pigs. We try to get rid of silvery minnows that weren't native but you say, "oh, they have been around long enough so let them be called native". We told you that spotted owls needed open ground to find their food. But you shut down logging. Now larger owls are invading the remaining open areas where the spotted owl exist and their numbers are in decline.
Go live in the middle east for a while. Maybe then you will be thankful.
I'm not sure why you would say making real efforts to respect and cooperate with a Native population who had inhabited a region for over 10,000 years, rather than exterminate them because they are seen as un Christian savages, is being warm and fuzzy. To me, that just seems like the moral way to behave as a human being, and it could have been pulled off if the settlers had not been such a traumatized and selfish people.
To make the assumption that if we had cooperated, another country would have simply taken over in the future is not a good argument for committing genocide in a foreign land, is it? But this wasn't the reason for Western takeover: it was greed, manifest destiny, and cultural centrism, along with the nobler goals of the pursuit of freedom, which ignored the freedoms of those who were already there.
We can't change the past, but we can come to terms with it, and think carefully about how we act towards one another. The war in Iraq is a perfect example of why we need to examine the past, rather than dismiss it.
I'm also not sure why you would tell me not to make assumptions about yourself, and then put words in my mouth about silver minnows, and the rest. I'm sure you made some good points about forest fires, owls, etc, but that's not what I was talking about.
Take care,
-Luke
" On a NOLS backpacking trip in bear country we carried something similiar to turbofladry, a portable electric fence approximately 6' x 6' charged by four "C" batteries to store the group's food: It worked! " lmao, in Alaska my friend camps in this fashion with the electric fence surrounding his camp, he still has the fire arm because bears stll break in and cause problems. Your little set up worked because nothing hungry enough challenged it. I'll keep putting mine between the trees on a line.
"Fact" - wolves, elk, bison, all manner of wildlife, and (American Indians) lived in abundant balance before people with guns arrived."
You mean before that European boat with that pilot named America floated by, and got the place named after him. What were those Indigenous peoples called before that European name you used was placed onto them, by Europeans.
And as far as the rest of your drivel;
Historical writings prove it is evident that many early day expeditions, even though far off the beaten track, failed to find the mythical virgin range of luscious grass that we have been led to believe existed. This early day picture of perfect range conditions, drawn by theories with vivid imaginations, completely ignores the fact that buffaloes and antelopes by the millions (the great buffalo herd has been estimated as high as 30,000,000 head) roamed the plains at will, that devastating prairie fires were frequent and at certain times of the year would burn down into the roots and destroy grass, particularly in the lighter soils, and that the water development was far from what it is today.
The report of Rev. Samuel Parker, 1836, dealing with conditions on the Oregon Trail between Fort Laramie and what is now Douglas, Wyoming states, " We found very little grass for our horses and mules, owing to three causes, the sterility of the soil, the proximity of the mountains, and the grazing of numerous buffalo and antelope."
Father P.J. DeSmet's account, 1841 and 1842, describes conditions in the region of the Snake and Yellowstone rivers, as follows, " Our beasts of burden were compelled to fast and pine, for scarcely a mouth full of grass could be found.....A journey so long and continuous through regions where the drought had been so great that every sign of vegetation had disappeared, had very much exhausted our poor horses..
It has been the common assumption of so-called experts that the range prior to occupancy by the white man was in perfect condition.
Senate Document 199, generally recognized as the bid of the Forest Service for control of all the grazing lands under government supervision, uses as its base for comparison 100 per cent as representing virgin condition such as is found along railroad right-of ways, fence corners, cemeteries, etc. The practical stockman at once inquires: Of what benefit is a country in a non-use condition'? Was not the grass grown intended to be used and useful rather than to be allowed to mature to the 100 per cent non-use condition referred to above, and was this condition properly pictured? And he resents the implication that he has depleted the range to the extent that its present condition is estimated to be below a non-use condition in carrying capacity. instead, he contends, and we offer much evidence to support his claims, that in many instances carrying capacity today exceeds that of the early days referred to, although there have been substantial changes in types of grass, coarse rank grasses of an early day being replaced with shorter and more nutritious types. Further more, as one digs into the record of the past it becomes clear that the conditions in the days before the plains were populated by domestic live stock were by no means as perfect as now pictured...
Comparing millions of domestic dogs to the actions of local wolves is just stupid.
They have absolutely none of that "science" they keep harping about to back one iota of their claims and statements.
From the very start, the pro-wolfer environmentalists have been fightin' with blanks...and they now see the writing on the wall. As an old rancher friend of mine likes to call them...What A Bunch Of Idjuts!
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Amazing. That Toby Bridges either ( a) advocates something illegal , (b) libels and slanders all the way to Missouri and back , and NewWest lets him slide on by , trail of slime behind. In good company , I might add, but Old Tobias is always the point of the spear...
HELP WANTED : Comment forum moderator. Must have thick skin and sharp pen. Spelling and grammatical skills requisite. No experience necessary , but must be able to tell reasonable considered opinion from a red herring or pile of bilious felgercarb.
Apply at NewWest....please hurry!
Modern Ag made the difference.
Why would we want to go back to that?
The bigger question was how many wolves were out there in that area before the white fellas showed up? No one really knows.
We do know that wolves were plentiful on the plains. Lotta bison to eat, follow, etc. Lotta elk and antelope. Those days are gone. Wolf Point Montana got its name from stacks of wolf pelts left by wolffers. Thats what they called those fellas back then. They left the pelts at Wolf Point for the steam ships to pick up. When the buffalo disappeared, so did the wolves.
The bigger question is what will happen if no control is used on wolves in the near future. Will we lose most of the game? Obviously if the wildlife the wolves feed on were to disappear completely, then the wolves would also. That point is mute.
Cattle losses aside, do we throw a multimillion dollar hunting industry out the window to have thousands of wolves?
It appears that nature works find without man, but man lives here now.
Dewey, I have to agree with you on the grazing fees. Don't know why the almost free grazers get to outcompete the fella grazing private land, at a rate about $10.00 a pair (or more). The program should at least pay for itself and it would put them in line with all the other producers that don't have cheap grazing. You made some sense on another post. I dunno why you drag yourself down by name calling.
All the dribble about the past makes no difference today. Keep in mind that various native tribes took land from each other since they first arrived here.....yes, they came across the land bridge some 10,000 years ago, and tribes deciminated or ousted other tribes on a regular basis. In fact, many tribes played the game with the whites when they arrived. The whites helped them destroy their enemies, like the crow with the sioux. I live by a reservation. You could start a whole new commentary about how to fix that, and I can tell you, you still won't fix it.
Bonnie, more than a few families in Idaho utilize that elk meat as a cheap source of meat in the winter. Why give it all to the wolves?
Check your history about ungulates to find out why elk were killed in droves by the Park Service in the early 1960's - they were over grazing. It devastated the outfitter business. Now outfitters want more elk to have around for their clients to kill.
What about the 5,000 elk I saw outside Ennis, MT? Easily 5,000 - as they were on either side of the highway as far as I could see.
We are conflicted in this country with the idea of controlling anything wild because we fear anything we can't control. Heaven forbid we have to learn to understand the full scope of the entire environment and all ecosystems.
Why won't anyone show me where it says in the Constitution of the United States where it says that men and women who wish to kill an animal are guaranteed an animal to kill?
Anyone wishing to kill for food will find plenty of deer everywhere or almost anywhere in the U.S. They will also find elk in many places. Many hunters kill elk younger than or at breeding age.
Stupid, fearful, arrogant men tried to wipe out the wolf because they thought they knew more than any system, including God, and thought and could and should do "it" better.
Hatred of the wolf is deep seated and based on fear and ignorance. We have far more to fear from armed humans who kill out of fear, anger, hatred, or just plain meanness. Take a look in the mirror -
In the meantime I support any creative efforts to guard stupid cattle from wolves outside of poison and trapping , sterilization and suffocating unless that is what you want done to the humans who propose it.
If you go to church does it help the congregation?
And, while you call people by the names you use could you or would you say it to them in person?
While you hate one or more of predators in the world for whatever reason you have, have you ever considered that humans have done far more damage to the natural world than the wolves you hate, have been death to hundreds of species ourselves. Lakes are dried, land is flooded, extraction industries have left millions of acres of land dead and left all the species that depended on that land dead. We are the worst murderers that have ever existed.
And while you debate perceptions about aspen, elk, and other species and whether or not there will be any left in the tomorrows to come, what are you doing to help the world? feed hungry people, help make jobs, contribute to your community? Have you been kind to a stranger today? yesterday?
What is more important in this world - hate and fear or kindness and a willingness to try to understand how we are part of an environment and ecosystems that we can help or help to kill.
How does sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what wolves are doing to our wildlife resources and ranching community help anything at all?
Wolves are not the sanitarians of nature you've been led to believe. They are nothing more than the wildlife equivalent of cancer...destroying everything living they come into contact with.
Peace and harmony to you too.
I don't hate wolves...but I do detest people and organizations who use wolves as pawns to achieve a very anti-human agenda.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
My corner of Wyoming east of Yellowstone has no shortage of elk or wolves. Both are increasing at about the same rate, wolves tapering off somewhat due to " aggressive" management by Wildlife services. Half the wolves eradicated last year in all of Wyoming were killed west of Cody by WS. None were taken for eating too many elk. I only wish the wolves had more appetite for Mule deer and were willing to come in closer to them...we have an excess of deer that has built up over the years due to skewbald range management
Bottom Line: there are plenty of Elk ( and deer) for man and wolf. Plenty of meat to eat. I see the root problem with wolf management as lying at the feet of certain interests groups who cannot or will not accept the fact they are not the Supreme Being when it comes to wildlife management . I use an Ecology Chess metaphor . The stockgrowers and the commercial hunters and sport hunters are just another player and set piece . As such , they and their " movements" are constrained , to use the chess analogy. Problem is, they want full authority over wolves everywhere all the time every day of the year. Natural law and ecology does differ with that supposition , and were there a court of constitutional law for ecology , most of modern wildlife management and so-called " conservation" would be thrown out. Especially when the contested case was a wildlife-ranching conflict or the ever popular " hunting rights " hue and cry , vs. hunting privilege and managed hunting with the ultimate goal of sustainable quotas. In my neck of the woods , population objectives were long ago violated by cow-towwing ( bull-towwing?) to the trophy class and commercial hunters , and this continues to degrade herd balance. I'm looking straight at the trophy bull elk outfitters who surround Yellowstone with my mind's eye when I say that.
I noted today that Wyoming's Game and Fish Department budget has climbed to over $ 75 million , but only $ 32 million of that comes from hunting license fees, and that is falling year to year. Wyo G&F;recieves $ 16 million in FEDERAL grants and reimbursements for its budget. Of all the big game species licenses and hunted, only Pronghorn pay their own way . Elk must be heavily subsidized from other sources beyond license fees. Habitat work is a suprisingly small figure in the Wyo G&F;budget, only $ 2 million , roughly the same amount spent by the state on the elk feedgrounds.
Finally , nearly all the negative impacts attributed to wolves by ranchers and the hunting lobby have been blown way out of proportion. Can you say " propaganda" ? Old Joe Goebbels would be proud to know his methodology is still being used today by Westerners. What's worse, we seldom if ever hear about the positive value of wolves at all in the regional and national media. The exceptions are in a few niches, such as the occasional NewWest piece or more often the nicely moderated discourse at Ralph Maughan's blog.
Were I the J. Goebbels of the pro-wolf wildllife advocacy groups, I would ferdamnsure begin a strident ' good propaganda' campaign to educate folks about the positive value of wolves and the essential mechanisms of ecology. The former is very much a component of the latter.
After what MT Governor Schweitzer did this week in flaunting the law and the Feds, ecological education is needed now more than ever.
As a matter of fact, you DO hate wolves...
Proponents of this Western paradigm defend it violently, completely unaware of the short and long term consequences; how they are actually working against their own best interests. They consider anyone with different values than them to be extremists or "anti human". "Anti human" is what Westerners did to the Indians; genocide. Anti human is war. Anti human is destroying the very planet humans need to survive.
It's remarkable that certain people consider others with values different than their own, to be anti human. It's easier, simpler mentally, to just right other people off in this manner I suppose. It requires little.
The wolf is just a proxy is a recycled system of destructive ethnocentric violence. Easily interchanged with Indians, Muslims, grizzly bears, mountain lions and so on. It all comes from the same traumatized collective.
The themes you wrote about Carolyn, kindness to others, gardens, etc I wish to add compassion, remorse and personal transformation and enlightenment. These are concepts that should be nurtured and understood. I'm well aware that to those who want to uphold their idea of the status quo, find these values laughable, unrealistic and weak. Mocking them as "warm and fuzzy", "peace and love", or Kumbaya in nature. But we know this is only because they themselves are traumatized, scared byproducts of Western culture. They don't know what real power is and they are confused. They honestly think that violence and pointing a gun in someone's face, figuratively or literally, is real power, that money is real power, that a jacked up 4 wheel drive superduty is real power, that mob rule is real power. And they are wrong. Real power is much stronger, enduring, steady, bottomless, creative, compassionate, intelligent.
I do have a question, who do so many easterners come out here to see wildlife when they have such a wildlife paradise back there where they care so much and demonstrate it daily?
people hated because they are of one religion or another. Animals do not call names, do not maim hundreds of thousands of humans,
do not ask us to hate any one. Unlike humans who , every day, write articles asking us to hate one or another of a group of people or animals.
I'm sorry that you hate so deeply that it is more important to promote that hate than do all you can to help all the men, women and children you can to have better or happier lives and to help your community thrive in healthy ways. Or to volunteer in a school to help disadvantaged children, or work at a food bank.
Perhaps you do all these things. Perhaps not.
Ok Dewey, about that 32 million or whatever....Do you think it should just be sh-- canned so we can have wolves? Or should they be somewhat controlled?
Even Toby does not think we could eradicate all of them, if that was the intent.
Whats wrong with some control?
Carolyn, you seem like a nice lady, but in the real world, you are out to lunch. Karma does not pay the bills.....
Look at your legislatures, in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Most don't even have a stake in this, yet they want CONROL. Why? Because the feds are sitting on their hands on this, and the local people are suffering.
Let yellowstone be the great experiment. I wanna see if any moose are left in 10 years.....but leave the rest of us out of it.
Managed wolf hunts statewide and targetted removal of genuinely problem wolves by livestock agents is obviously the goal. Wolves as wildlife, alongside other apex predator such as bears and cougars managed thus and so .
Treating wolves as nuisance shoot on sight predators ( the Wyoming Model) and allowing livestock people to extend their "Control" to all wildlife on a whim based on their cattle baron heritage, e.g. Montana DOL bison slaughter, is not the way to do it, however.
Local people are not suffering. If so, please name them and list their dollar losses and what , if anything, they did to prevent those losses in advance.
Thge "Feds" are not sitting on their hands. Those hands are handuffed behind them by lawsuits. If you look at the litany of lawsuits brought about wolves that have actually prevented delisting , the majority of them were brought by anti-wolfers and the States , not the enviros. State management of wolves had no problem getting approved in Montana and Idaho, but it was the Wyoming leadership that has monkeywrenched the process.
Please keep that in mind. The wolf landscape is best appreciated without the polarized glasses.
Wolves, and their effects, will be an issue as long as they exist on the landscape.
It is clear that wolves are such an active and prolific predator, where present they drive ungulate populations -- often in directions that the human owners don't want.
I for one am grateful that Wyoming stood on their hind legs and said, a deal was a deal, this and no more.
The crude fact remains, if the true impacts of wolf reintroduction had been known at the time it was done, the constant goal-post-shuffling, the ever-increasing irrationality and deception from Green groups, plus the constant judicial imprudence, all the false assurances and broken promises and outright freakin' lies, the cages would never have been opened.
For example, Toby equates wolves to a "cancer" on wildlife. Wonder how he might explain why wolves didn't eradicate big game in the past, but populations rose and fell with prey populations?
The uber-predator species is Man, who has exterminated many dozens of species and has been known to kill for fun or prestige, rather than need or hunger. (Safari Club, anyone?)
Hard to figure out where this irrational, unreasoning fear and hatred comes from. Wolves are not the biggest, baddest predators (that's us). They're not even among the top livestock killers -- mere pikers compared to coyotes and feral dogs. I see a lot of projection among the wolf haters, projecting that which they most fear among humans, at wolves. Wolves are wolves, not anthropomorphized characters drawn out of our darkest history or literature. Toby and Todd, have you ever considered reading "Never Cry Wolf" by Farley Mowatt?
Human hunters have gotten used to over-populated herds of elk and are quick (and wrong) to blame herd declines on wolves alone.
How many wolves live around your town?
How many animals have you doctored after surviving a wolf attack?
Have you ever had to put an animal down that was too badly hurt after a wolf attack?
Have you listened to the screams of the guard donkey after wolves castrated and ate part of him?
How much have you spent protecting your animals from wolves?
How much sleep have you lost leaping out of bed at night to check your animals when the howling starts?
Some people have a lot of nerve putting labels on others when they have not walked a mile in their shoes!
Wolves belong in the wilderness, not on main street.
Comes with the territory.
Sorry about your difficulties with wolves.
Never heard of a wolf on " main street" before.
A few disgruntled exasperated ranchers losing a few head of livestock in the wildlife conflict zone are the price we all pay.
All= millions of Americans who support wolves, vs. < 25 Montana or Wyoming ranches that have serious wolf issues upon their hearth.
Just as I reluctantly "support" ( tolerate) a thousand stupid things my government and my fellow Americans do before noon each day in order that I have my day in the sun.
Sorry for your loss, but it doesn't alter my belief that we need wolves restored. What losses there are due to wolves do not come anywhere near the critical mass necessary to alter the restoration or begin wholesale elimination of wolves now going forward. Ranchers claiming livestock losses from depredations simply do not have the numbers to push that case, even when they amplify the negative impacts ( as they most surely do ).
What did those 200 Wisconsin cows die of a couple weeks ago ? Eating spoiled sweet potatoes ? Attack of the Killer Yams ??? Those 200 cows in one swoop were 4.4 times the total number of cattle taken by wolves in all of Wyoming last year. ( 45 confirmed wolf kills...even if it were ten times that I would still make the same argument, because over 45,000 Wyoming cattle died last year from all causes, wolves being 1/10th of 1 percent of those....)
Sorry for your losses. You might consider moving.
You are wrong...I don't hate wolves. I hate people like you. Phonies who will lie...lie again...and lie some more to cover for the damage wolves do to wildlife and livestock.
Isn' t that right Cody Coyote?
Inky, or is that just another Cody Coyote...Dewey...Wyomng Native name? Please spend some time studying the Lewis & Clark journals...there were many stretches of their trip where they nearly starved to death...because there was no game. Hmmm! I wonder why that was.
Dewey...There are four bills in congress right now...and the list of organizations signing on to endorse them has become mind boggling...your wolf-loving world is imploding on you. I've heard that the shooting has already started here in Montana.
TLM...the fact is, the likes of Dewey...Inky...and Real Mike have not had any proven facts to work with since the start of this entire fiasco. Their side simply made up all of their science, ignoring the wolf science that has been ongoing in Russia and Scandinavia for more than a hundred years. Just spend some time reading the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan or the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement filed by USFWS...then compare all of the claims and predictions made in those documents with what wolves have done since being dumped here...and you'll quickly realize just how ignorant our wolf experts were. Trouble is, we didn't have any wolf experts. They have been trying to make it up as they go...and still can't get it right.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH