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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:59PM
Yes, sir. Next time I see a possum actually chowing down on my poultry, I'll just stand there and admire the raw beauty of nature.
And when it comes back again, and again, and again, teaching its babies to do the same thing again, and again, and again, I'll do the same.
I will revel in the incredible fecundity of these creatures, and not touch them, because that would surely make no difference whatsoever.
Raccoons? Same deal. Skunks? Goes double! Coyotes? Bring them on.
Of course, any effects on predation that I've seen as a result of shooting these in the past were strictly and only placebo effect.
Maybe I'll use fladry and guard dogs - uh, non-lethal guard dogs, of course - and that will stop those possums in their tracks.
Huzzah for an unbiased media!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @04:37PM
Oh please.
Are you so dense that you think macro policy issues are the same as individual actions?
It is right there in the TFS:
"Wildlife Services' annual killing of tens of thousands"
Huzzah for illiterate loud-mouths!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:05PM
Go read the article. In detail.
They're proposing specific individual actions on the part of farmers and ranchers. (More expensive, and frequently less effective, by the way.) Methods to which I made specific reference in my comment, in fact. The only reason that the Wildlife Services people are doing these things on the macro level is because (I hope you're sitting down for this) individual farmers and ranchers have largely been banned from doing so (with some variation owing to local jurisdictions and rules, depending on the animals in question and so on).
What was actually not mentioned in the submission is that the CBD is a well-known pressure group about as biased as Greenpeace, just with fewer ships and less patchouli.
If you want some specifics on the reasons why farmers and ranchers have not turned to fladry, guardian animals or range riders as their sole solutions, I can give you some shorthand answers:
* Fladry doesn't work for long, because of habituation. It's like people putting half-full coke bottles on their lawns in the hope that that will keep dogs from shitting there. It might work for a week or two. Maybe. Or not.
* Range riders are expensive. You need, in any extended area, more than one, and it's a full-time, all-night, on-call position that requires specific skills and equipment. If folks like the CBD really believed their own propaganda, they'd be recruiting volunteers - but they aren't.
* Guardian dogs are also expensive, need extensive training, need to be fed and watched and have only a few years' working lifespan.
The actual study is paywalled (because of course it is) but if it's anything like lots of other well-known studies in the field, it largely concludes that a shuffle in the predators' dominance hierarchy brings changes in predation patterns, and that these patterns are largely unpredictable, save for the fact that they will happen periodically anyway because of the death of old dominant predators.
The article also, quite specifically, refers to a claim (it's in the summary as well) that old techniques of control are ineffective and should not be used. This isn't just a macro recommendation, but also a micro recommendation. It does not, however, bear inspection. Whether you're talking about feral cats, feral hogs, or simply densely populated bears, long experience shows that ignoring the problem not only does not make it go away, but allows it to get much, much worse at an astonishing clip.
The fact that they specifically called out wolves makes it vastly more amusing, since wolves have such a high natural rate of increase that trying to compare one year to the next is an exercise in optimism.
Now all that's pretty important, and interesting, but there's another facet that is so frequently forgotten: on paper, farmers are supposed to be compensated for the actions of protected predators (so that they have a reason not to simply extirpate the predators themselves) but on the ground experience has shown that government agencies will bend over backwards to find excuses not to do so - because animals are expensive, budgets are tight, and farmers are all conniving, money-grubbing liars. The result of this is that farmers have simply stopped reporting, and not merely stopped reporting, but have actively stopped cooperating with government agencies. When you have a government agency that has pretty much defined itself, by its persistent actions, as an enemy, it can expect about as much willing cooperation as the police in some of the more infamous parts of, say, Chicago.
There's your macro effect right there.
But don't let me stop you from preening yourself at your incisive insights. You obviously live the life. You're knee deep in the realities, not merely during the day, but every night when you hear the screams of the dying, and jump up to defend your own.
Good luck out there, and good hunting!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:42PM
> They're proposing specific individual actions on the part of farmers and ranchers. (More expensive, and frequently less effective, by the way.)
Two of the studies that used sound methods found that non-lethal measures, specifically guard dogs and fladry (ribbons attached to fences to scare predators away from lambing pastures)
Yeah, guard dogs and ribbons on fences. So much more expensive than having a government department do wholesale slaughter for you with other people's tax money.
> Fladry doesn't work for long, because of habituation.
Says you. Unlike the actual people who did a scientific evaluation.
> It's like people putting half-full coke bottles on their lawns in the hope that that will keep dogs from shitting there. It might work for a week or two
That doesn't work at all.
> But don't let me stop you from preening yourself at your incisive insights. Y
Your entire post was one big jerk-off of self-confirming biases and dismissive ignorance. And you accuse me of preening? That's rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:15PM
The only reason the government is doing any slaughter at all (not wholesale, by the way - usually grudging, local and temporary) is because they've stopped the local people from doing exactly that. I'd far rather spend a few bucks on bullets and actually address the problems I have than pay the government a lot more to do a worse job of it.
Guardian dogs are a lot more expensive than you think. They're big, live in hostile climates, need training and a lot of feeding. Yes, this is expensive, and after a "negative predatorial interaction" they need replacement.
As for fladry and habituation, I have a cool, ultra-scientific experiment that you (yes, you!) can do from the comfort of your couch. Google "fladry habituation" and get a lot more views than a couple of studies, such as why it stops working, what can be done about it (not much, in the long run) and estimate relative costs of maintenance.
So, not just says me. Says lots of people. But don't take my word for it. Go check it out. From sources other than the pro-wolf lobby.
Oh, you know, I'm asking too much of you. Here, let me help.
http://alcambronne.com/2011/05/18/what-the-heck’s-fladry/ [alcambronne.com]
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1301&context=etd [usu.edu]
http://controlpredators.com/special/13.html [controlpredators.com]
That will get you started; all from the front page of the Google search mentioned above. Easy reading, including a thesis for that extra frisson of sciency goodness!
Now maybe I'm ignorant. I mean, I've just studied the topic and lived with the reality. But I'm ignorant. Perhaps I'm biased - yup, us poor ign'ant country folkses don't get no balanced view, sir. But dismissive? I would never, ever dare to dismiss the wisdom of the benevolent city lights. That's where professors live! Them's real smart, or so my cousin tells me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:37PM
It's been know for decades that there is a species that is naturally protective and which bonds readily with the prey species.
Guard llama [wikipedia.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:26PM
Right. It's also been known for decades that llamas, just like guardian donkeys, can end up on the wolf menu. Llamas are fine for coyote and small stray dogs. Wolves, large stray dogs, coydogs and coywolves? Not so much.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:12PM
You could also put up some fencing and not locate your chicken farm in the middle of a forest, but that's up to you.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @05:20PM
Holy crap, why didn't I think of that?
OK, time to fence in the chickens instead of letting them run free in the jungle, and burn down all the trees because they're the problem!
Irony aside, your presumptions are all wrong. Not in a forest, do have fences, but the only fence that hasn't been defeated yet is a concrete wall. Weasels can slip through chicken wire, and kill an astonishing number of chickens. Critters can, and will, climb fences, fence posts and also burrow underneath. Smarter critters even learn how to open gates.
But I'm sure the CBD will be interested in your ideas about every farm being a biological Fort Knox.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:16PM
The stuff you were using obviously has holes that are too big for the purpose.
(I'm the guy who has repeatedly noted that things are often given inappropriate names.)
You're supposed to be the one with the big brain.
Surely you can think of an effective, economical solution to your problem.
If you can't think of one on your own, I'm pretty sure that a visit to your local hardware guy would result in a recommendation.
Perhaps simply something with smaller holes. [google.com]
a concrete wall
Sounds like you are the type who would use a howitzer to kill flies.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @06:24PM
Right.
I just need to find the magical fencing wire that doesn't break, change its shape, rust out, and is strong enough to resist attack by hungry critters.
Here's a hot tip for you: invent that wire, make it affordable (doesn't even have to be particularly cheap, in the big picture), and crank it out by the square mile because you will have an army of farmers beating a path to your door.
While you're planning this wire, bear in mind that a weasel (depending on variety) can push through a hole the size of a quarter or less, and that a hungry raccoon will tear many holes easily that size in welded mesh.
But when you have that stuff built, let the world know. I might be one of your best customers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:27PM
A common theme to most message boards is that the usual players comment on things that while sounding practical, the people have very little experience in. Hence a lot of idiocy gets passed around as wisdom from the ancients.
The major commenters here aren't usually that bad, but as always there are some major gaps in their theories to actual practice.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:21PM
um, if life gives you possums, eat mo possums ! ! !
problem solved, no charge...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @10:43PM
Oh, I'd eat so much possum, but the smart people at the Center for Biological Diversity tell me it don't help none. I'll just end up with more possum. Infinite possum, forever!
But if I put up fladry, that'll fix them possums right up, yessirree.