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: 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.