SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for Biological Diversity reports via Common Dreams
Killing predators such as wolves, mountain lions and bears in order to protect livestock may have intuitive appeal, but a rigorous review of multiple studies that was published today shows little or no scientific support that it actually reduces livestock losses. In fact, in some cases it even leads to increases in livestock loss. These conclusions directly counter the reasoning behind the common practice of killing predators in response to livestock depredations--as carried out by the secretive federal program, Wildlife Services, and many state game agencies.
"This study [paywalled] shows that not only is Wildlife Services' annual killing of tens of thousands of wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, cougars, and other animals unconscionable--it's also ineffective", said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Our government should ground the aerial snipers, pull the poisons and remove the steel leghold traps in response to these findings."
The unexpected finding that carnivore killings can increase depredations is likely based on disruption of the predators' social dynamics--namely, by removing dominant animals that maintain large territories, these killings release sub-adult animals that are less-skilled hunters and thus more likely to target domestic animals.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:15PM
I don't really have much of an opinon on the effectiveness of killing predators.
I can most definitely say that if a predator is taking my livestock, I'm going to try to kill it.
In practice, my attempts aren't any more effective than the article claims. The big cats in this part of the country stick to the river bottoms. An individual has about zero chance of tracking a cat through the bottoms. Even a small group of men on horse back has a slim chance of tracking down a cat.
We've lost a number of animals to cats, ranging in size from large to humongous. My total cat kills is one. Just one. That was a bobcat that denned up in an abandoned building instead of staying in the river bottoms.
Those cats are funny though. We may not see any evidence of big cats for four or five years, then they seem to terrorize everyone within miles for a year or two.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:34PM
> I can most definitely say that if a predator is taking my livestock, I'm going to try to kill it.
Build a wall.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:49PM
You won't be doing yourself any favor. Having large predators around has been shown to dramatically decrease calf mortality, increase the number of cattle a given plot of land can support by a fairly amazing factor, and increase sale weight.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday September 04 2016, @10:48PM
I agree, and we call them dogs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 04 2016, @11:44PM
Indeed. You'd basically want a variation on a sheep dogs but trained to harass rather than herd. You'd need to ride out and bother the cattle on roughly a daily basis though. I wouldn't trust the dogs to do their job sufficiently without overdoing it minus supervision.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:36PM
That's not surprising. In all the years I've spent in the back country, including entire summers, I've rarely even come across signs of cats in the area. We've got cougars and bobcats in the area, but I've seen more bears. The only wild cat I've seen in person was a cougar that had been hit by a car.
Cats are quiet and solitary and for the most part avoid human contact.
IIRC, cougars are pretty much the only animal that the state allows people to use lures on any more.