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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:15PM
You didn't kill them. You killed an insignificant portion of them.
If you actually kill them, the problem goes away. It's been done. Sadly, you kind of need government support, and these days you'll be lucky if you don't face government opposition.
We can't help but alter the environment. Our farmland, sprawling suburbs, roads, water diversion, and particularly the invasive species we introduce have ensured that. What we should hope for is that we at least make the environment more suited to our needs. This sometimes means causing extinctions.
Yes, yes, killing predators has effects in the ecosystem. Those effects aren't all bad. Change happens. Maybe herbavores cause a forest/meadow transition; both can be lovely. Hunting the herbavores is also an option. We're long past having things be pristine, and anyway that wasn't the perfect ideal for us humans. There is no moral/ethical imperative to just let nature be, with wild and dangerous beasts running about.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:50PM
Agreed. Having large predators around (not necessarily preying on the herd even, just around in general) has been fairly conclusively shown to be beneficial for pretty much every type of herd animal though. It forces them to bunch up and keep on the move, so it's also better for the local vegetation (assuming you'd like to use 100 acres instead of 400 acres to feed the same number of animals anyway). So, as long as they don't start preying on us or become overpopulated, it's better to leave them be.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:14PM
This only applies to ranges, not farms.
Confined, rotation grazing has the same effects, no predators needed.
The supposed benefit of large predators is that they keep mesopredators under control, but even that can change with a single hard season, a changing of the guard, or simply a change in tastes.
It's not an effect that can be relied upon, and when it goes bad, people go broke. Or build CAFOs. Or both.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:17PM
Apparently it makes more effective use of the land than rotational grazing even. No actual predators needed, mind you. The same has be done by simply riding out every day and annoying the herd until they decide it's time to move along.
It is, however, an effect that can be relied upon unless you allow overpopulation of the predators to occur. The losses to the herd from a small but present predator population are going to be less than calf mortality without predators. Absent any predator population, cattle at least do not stay together and keep as close an eye on their young. This is a bad thing. Young animals are every bit as stupid and suicidal as young humans when left without oversight.
If you're really worried about predation of your herd though, run a jack and jenny pair in with them. They will stomp anything short of a bear's ass into the ground if it gets near the herd and you still get all the benefits of your herd animals actually behaving like herd animals.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday September 05 2016, @07:41PM
Forgive my ignorance. What is a Jack and Jenny pair?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 05 2016, @08:04PM
Donkeys. A male (jack. the origin of jackass. jennyass apparently just didn't catch on.) and a female (jenny). Old rancher's trick to run them with the herd if you have coyotes or what not around because they will stomp most predators into a bloody spot in the ground if they even get close.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:26PM
shown to be beneficial for pretty much every type of herd animal
For some values of "beneficial" this is true. A predator controlled herd of deer or elk will not over-populate their range, and each animal will probably have more food and be fitter, able to out run the predator.
However, this view is from a wildlife management point of view where culling the herd is NOT seen as a cost center, but rather as a "good thing". The incremental cost of an additional dead deer is nothing to the wildlife biologist. (Incremental cost to farmers and humans in general of an additional LIVE deer can be significant, as they have found in places like Wisconsin and Kentucky where deer with no predators have caused untold crop damage and highway crashes).
Farmers and ranchers, on the other hand, don't look at the incremental cost of of a killed steer as a beneficial culling of the herd. They have a whole different point of view on the concept of "beneficial". They have no particular problem culling their own herds as the need arises.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:38PM
That's actually not what I was talking about. If you take a herd of cattle on land barely considered large enough for them and force them back into wild herding behavior via predation, in a very few years you will have a herd several times as large that is able to get by just fine using exactly the same land. The problem is ranchers don't understand how horrible a managed herd is for sustainable ranching of the land vs a herd behaving like a wild herd.
It's counter-intuitive but it's true. You end up better off if predators are eating your cattle occasionally. The cost of a calf here and there is nothing compared to being able to run even as low as twice as many cattle. And you can expect significantly better results than a simple doubling of the land's capacity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:38PM
Not really, if you kill the predators, other predators move into the area to fill the void. Unless, you're seriously suggesting that we start killing people to solve the problem, you'll never remove the predators from the ecosystem.
We've tried it in the past and you wind up with all sorts of unintended consequences that are really tough to address.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:51PM
If you kill all the wolves you'll soon have a rabbit problem.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @10:10PM
And if you kill all the rabbits, you'll have a plant problem. Kill all the plants and the animals will take care of themselves. It's an ecosystem and plants provide the energy for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:36AM
Snakes eat rabbits. There are dog breeds meant to get rabbits.
Not that rabbits are all that terrible! They aren't big enough to cave in the front of a car. They don't kill humans, aside from that one in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
Rabbits taste wonderful. Lay out traps for them. Eat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:57PM
so I think we should just kill all the nonhumans.
hm. maybe we could keep farm animals, since some of us like to eat meat.
but we should definitely kill everything else.
as long as there are no wild ecosystems, everything should be fine, right?
PS: that was sarcasm. I think the OP is a moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @10:51PM
We've got the neutron bomb. Let's use it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @04:11AM
So when you say "with wild and dangerous beasts running about" is that the homo sapiens you are talking about?
With their ever-present war machines spewing destruction?