home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! THE COMING DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S. ECONOMY Paul Craig Roberts on the plummeting dollar, the soaring trade deficit and the hollowing out of the American economy. PLUS a special feature by Jennifer Loewenstein on Palestine after Annapolis and the horror that is Gaza. "Humanitarian catastrophe" only begins to describe it. PLUS Allan Nairn on the butchers of Dili. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great holiday presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email for Only $35 a Year and Receive a Free Copy of
"Imperial Crusades: a Diary of Three Wars" by Cockburn and St. Clair
|
Today's Stories December 18, 2007 R. F. Blader December 17, 2007 Mike Whitney Tom Barry Uri Avnery Greg Moses Allan Nairn Patrick Bond Stephen Lendman Charles Jonkel Laray Polk Stephen Fleischman December 15 / 16, 2007 Peter Linebaugh Howard Zinn Standard Schaefer Raymond J.
Lawrence Alan Farago Saul Landau Jenna Orkin Ahmad Samih
Khalidi Robert Fantina Missy Comley
Beattie Ramzy Baroud James L. Secor Elijah Wald Website of
the Weekend
December 14, 2007 JoAnn Wypijewski John Ross Jacob Hornberger Andy Worthington Allan Nairn Dave Zirin Dave Lindorff Misty MacDuffee Ben Terrall Dr. Mustafa
Barghouthi Website of the Day
December 13, 2007 Paul Craig
Roberts Mike Whitney Ron Jacobs Norman Solomon Peter Morici Sandy Mayes Franklin Lamb Jacob Hornberger Nadim Rouhana Dave Zirin Website of the Day
Allan
Nairn Alan
Farago Ray
McGovern Winslow
T. Wheeler Evan
Jones James
Petras Joel
Hirschorn Joshua
Frank Sherry
Wolf Dan
Bacher Website
of the Day
December 11, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Diana
Johnstone Paul
Craig Roberts David
Macaray Ralph
Nader Andy
Worthington Martha
Rosenberg Steve
Champion / Kim
Nicolini Michael
Dickinson Website
of the Day
Uri
Avnery Debbie
Nathan JoAnn
Wypijewski Steve
Kelly Donna
J. Volatile
December 8 / 9, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Brenda
Norrell Saul
Landau R.
F. Blader Ray
McGovern Allan
Nairn Linn
Washington, Jr Paul
Craig Roberts
December 7, 2007 Sean
Penn Arthur
Versluis M.
G. Piety Pam
Martens Alan
Farago Allan
Nairn Col.
Dan Smith Alice
Slater Robert
Weissman Website
of the Day
December 5, 2007 Mike
Whitney Sharon
Smith James
Petras Ron
Jacobs Dave
Zirin John
V. Whitbeck Peter
Zinn Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Alan
Farago Heather
Gray Website
of the Day
December 4, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Andy
Worthington Paul
Craig Roberts Ray
McGovern Winslow
T. Wheeler Allan
Nairn Russell
Mokhiber Nikolas
Kozloff John
V. Walsh Ghada
Ageel Stephen
Soldz Website
of the Day
December 3, 2007 Tariq
Ali Bill
Quigley Eric
Walberg Uri
Avnery Marjorie
Cohn Dave
Lindorff Stephen
Fleischman Martha
Rosenberg Website
of the Day
December 1 / 2, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Jeffrey
St. Clair Mike
Whitney Shemon
Salam Roger
Burbach Benjamin
Dangl Brian
M. Downing Greg
Moses Sonja
Karkar Saul
Landau Margaret
Kimberley John
Ross Reza
Fiyouzat Judith
Scherr Lance
Olsen Christopher
Brauchli Robert
Fantina Dan
Bacher Michael
Donnelly Website
of the Weekend
November 30, 2007 Peter
Stone Brown Wajahat
Ali Allan
Nairn Alan
Farago John
Ross Corporate
Crime Reporter Lucia
Alvarez James
Rothenberg Website
of the Day
November 29, 2007 R.
F. Blader Ismael
Hossein-Zadeh Stephen
Soldz Sheldon
Richman George
Wuerthner Felice
Pace Col.
Dan Smith Harvey
Wasserman Nikolas
Kozloff Paul
Krassner Dave
Lindorff CP
News Service Website
of the Day November 28, 2007 James
Petras Jeff
Halper Pam
Martens Peter
Morici Mohammed
Khatib Helen
Redmond William
S. Lind Ben
Tripp Liaquat
Ali Khan Jeff
Berg Website
of the Day
November 27, 2007 Joe
DeRaymond Paul
Craig Roberts Marjorie
Cohn Mike
Whitney Ron
Jacobs Col.
Dan Smith Ralph
Nader Karim
Makdisi Christopher
Ketcham Ronan
Bennett Website
of the Day
November 26, 2007 Kathleen
and Bill Christison Paul
Craig Roberts David
Macaray Sameer
Dossani Roger
Burbach Mark
Scaramella Brian
McKinlay Rick
Kuhn Binoy
Kampmark Monica
Benderman Brenda
Norrell Website
of the Day
November 24 / 25, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Robert
Fisk Saul
Landau Jeffrey
St. Clair Rannie
Amiri Christopher
Brauchli Daniel
Gross Mike
Whitney Marjorie
Cohn David
Rosen David
Michael Green Kenneth
Rexroth Muhammad
Iqbal Website
of the Day
Gary
Leupp Laura
Carlsen David
Macaray Andy
Worthington Clifton
Ross Seth
Sandronsky Dan
Bacher William
A. Cook Website
of the Day
November 22, 2007 Alan
Farago Greg
Moses Dave
Lindorff Mike
Ely Omar
Azfar
November 21, 2007 Vijay
Prashad Martha
Rosenberg Manuel
Garcia, Jr. John
Ross Brian
McKenna Stephen
Soldz Monica
Benderman Ben
Terrall Website
of the Day
November 20, 2007 Oren
Ben-Dor Wajahat
Ali Alan
Farago Marjorie
Cohn Ralph
Nader Andy
Worthington Sara
Olson Dave
Lindorff Paul
Krassner Website
of the Day November 19, 2007 Winslow
T. Wheeler China
Hand Allan
Nairn Uri
Avnery David
Macaray Dave
Lindorff Bill
Quigley Ron
Jacobs Sunsara
Taylor Binoy
Kampmark Heather
Gray Website
of the Day
November 17 / 18, 2007 P.
Sainath David
Rosen Mike
Whitney George
Wuerthner Brenda
Norrell George
Ciccariello-Maher Karim
Makdisi Marie
Trigona Valerio
Volpi Fred
Gardner Robert
Fantina Mike
Ferner Missy
Comley Beattie Kenneth
Couesbouc Patrick
O'Hayer Poets'
Basement
November 16, 2007 Cockburn
/ St. Clair Dave
Zirin Gary
D. Barnett Alan
Farago Dave
Lindorff Russell
Mokhiber Robert
Ovetz Brenda
Norrell David
Swanson Peter
Letheby Website
of the Day
November 15, 2007 Cockburn
/ St. Clair Adolfo
Gilly Peter
Bohmer Andy
Worthington Gray
/ Derks Liaquat
Ali Khan Dave
Lindorff Christopher
Brauchli Anthony
Papa Martha
Rosenberg Ben
Terrall Website
of the Day
Cockburn
/ St. Clair James
Petras Al
Giordano Paul
Craig Roberts Andy
Worthington Stephen
Lendman Fatima
Bhutto Martin
Smith Jeff
Leys Website
of the Day November 13, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Jeffrey
St. Clair Robert
Bryce David
Macaray Mike
Whitney Ralph
Nader Nikolas
Kozloff Jordan
Flaherty B.
R. Gowani Website
of the Day
November 12, 2007 Vicente
Navarro Ben
Brown Omar
K. Sadia
Abbas Farzana
Versey Richard
W. Behan Paul
Krassner Cindy
Sheehan Peter
Stone Brown Dave
Lindorff Website
of the Day
November 10 / 11, 2007 Alain
Gresh Mike
Whitney Ron
Jacobs Jeffrey
St. Clair Alan
Farago Binoy
Kampmark Robert
Fantina Fred
Gardner Ayesha
Ijaz Khan Nicola
Nasser Philip
Rizk Michael
Dickinson Joel
S. Hirschhorn Paul
Krassner Wadner
Pierre /
![]()
![]()
Subscribe Online
|
December 18, 2007 Giving the Livestock Industry a License to KillGunning for Wolves in IdahoBy GEORGE WUERTHNER The Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) recently released its draft wolf management plan. Unfortunately, like all wolf plans so far produced in the Rockies, the proposal panders to the interests of livestock operators and hunters, ignoring the interests of the greater public as well as the long term benefits of restoring wolves throughout the state. There are 1.4 million people who reside in the state. There are 1700 ranchers who graze on Idaho's public lands with 10% (170) controlling 80% of public land allotments. Only 11% of Idahoans even buy a hunting license! (And I'm a non-resident who also buys one as well.) Nevertheless, why should a handful of ranchers and the minority of Idahoans who hunt, dictate whether wolves live or die? IDFG is supposed to represent all Idaho citizens and a majority support viable wolf populations in the state-not token numbers of wolves as the IDFG has put forward.
There are three major defects in the draft plan. First, IDFG proposes to treat wolves like deer and elk when carnivores, particularly a social carnivore like wolves, require a different approach. Secondly, the plan fails to recognize the important ecological benefits that wolves confer upon wildlife populations and vegetative communities. There is far more room for additional wolves in Idaho than the IDFG admits. Keep in mind that Minnesota, a considerably smaller state, with a much higher human population and development, supports more than 3,000 wolves. Third, the plan fails to include and consider much of the recent scientific literature available on wolves, with many important references not even mentioned, and/or interprets the literature it does cite to support IDFG policies while ignoring other relevant implications.
First you cannot treat wolves like elk or deer. Social carnivores (including bears, mountain lion, etc.) interact differently than elk and deer among other members of their species, as well as with other wildlife. Because wolves maintain territories and have a social structure that depends on cooperative hunting, you can't just say they have a reproductive replacement of X a year and so we can kill X number without the population suffering, as the IDFG suggests. That's the crudest kind of management--and totally ignores animal social behavior research released in the past few decades. The IDFG is proposing to manage wolves as if nothing has been learned about predators in fifty years. Here's the problem. If you permit indiscriminate hunting of wolves as the current plan proposes, you potentially disrupt the social networks of the wolves. For instance, if a pack that currently is not causing any conflicts with humans (i.e. killing livestock) have the dominant pack members removed, less experienced members of the pack may resort to killing livestock to feed pack members. Unable to defend their territory with a reduced number of pack members, another outcome might be their replacement with another pack that might be more inclined to attack livestock. Thus the indiscriminate killing of wolves causes instability between packs, leading to greater stress and potentially greater conflicts with humans. Indiscriminate hunting also skews the population towards younger animals. With a reduced population of the predators, wolves respond by producing more pups, with more pups likely to survive into adulthood. Since the younger animals are less skillful hunters, they also tend to prey on livestock more readily. More pups is more mouths to feed--again putting stress on the adult hunters and forcing them to chase the easiest prey--namely livestock and perhaps even a greater number of ungulates in order to feed the many growing pups. All of this then creates a feedback mechanism whereby wolf control results in more wolf predation, which in turn feeds irrational calls for more wolf control. Yet it is a self-created situation that I suspect the IDFG hopes to reinforce by implementing its management plan, since it tends to create public support for limiting wolf populations.
Wolf predation is an important top-down ecological process which IDFG appears to ignore. The IDFG proposes to manage for "a self-sustaining, well-distributed, viable wolf population so that wolves fulfill their ecological role without affecting the viability and sustainable harvest of other big game populations." However, putting that kind of qualifier on wolf populations effectively means they will not fulfill their ecological role. To fulfill their ecological role, wolves will have to reduce big game numbers in some places and times. That's their ecological role. The plan does not acknowledge or recognize this ecological function. Wolves prey on different ages and classes of ungulates than hunters. (See Wright et al. 2006, Selection of Northern Yellowstone Elk by Gray Wolves and Hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 1070-1078). Wolves tend to select more calves and bulls proportionally to cows (Smith et. al. 2004 Winter prey selection and estimation of wolf kill rates in Yellowstone NP 1995-2000 J. Wildl. Manage. 68.), while human hunters tend to take more prime-of-life reproductively-important animals. Where the plan even acknowledges these differences between human hunters and wolves, it treats them as a negative. For instance, it cites a study that found that elk respond to the presence of wolves by using steeper terrain and remaining in hiding cover longer ( see Creel, S., and J. A. Winnie. 2005. Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves. Animal Behavior 69:1181-1189.) The IDFG draft document suggests that this "reduces hunting success for some hunters" and suggests this might be a legitimate reason to kill wolves. In essence the IDFG is saying that the desires of lazy "shooters" (real hunters do not mind wolf presence) who can't hunt as more important than the ecological benefits of elk behavior changes as a consequence of wolf presence. Wolves may also influence predation influences of other predators. One study in Montana found that compared to mountain lions, wolves preyed more on male elk than cow elk.(See Atwood et al. 2006 Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana's Madison Range, Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4)) Thus different ungulate selection by wolves could affect population dynamics--i.e. removal of bull elk by wolves may increase survival of cow elk due to reduced competition for resources. In addition, the presence of wolves may affect the dynamics and populations of other carnivores--for instance, more wolves could lead to fewer mountain lion and coyotes-which in turn has other ecological consequences. In Yellowstone it was found that wolves reduced coyote numbers (See Crabtree RL, Sheldon JW, 1999. Coyotes and canid coexistence in Yellowstone. In: Clark TW, Curlee AP, Minta SC, Kareiva PM, editors. Carnivores in ecosystems: The Yellowstone experience. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 429.) And since coyotes were more effective predators on pronghorn antelope fawns, the presence of wolves has lead to greater pronghorn fawn survival. Also, more red foxes are being seen in Yellowstone than in the past, and are presumed to be a consequence of less coyote predation on fox as a result of wolf effects on coyote numbers. I also suspect we would find that wolves might positively influence sage grouse populations as well, since coyotes are a major predator on these birds. These subtle ecological relationships between wolves and other carnivores are not even recognized, much less discussed, in the IDFG draft wolf plan. Because wolves hunt throughout the year, they have two major effects on other wildlife. They create carrion year round. (Again see, Wilmers and Getz 2005. Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone ). The extra carrion is like winning the lottery for some scavengers. Finding a wolf-killed elk in the early spring when other foods are scarce is a gift for female bear with cubs just out of hibernation. It can make the difference between whether the cubs survive or die, and thus the presence of wolves could enhance grizzly bear recovery and act as a buffer against losses of other foods like whitebark pine. Carrion is also very important to many other animals including wolverine, ravens, eagles, and so on. Wolf-produced carrion might play a positive role in maintaining other species in the face of climate changes towards warmer winters and less winter kill,. (See Wilmers and Getz, 2005. Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone PLoS Biology) Wolves also disperse ungulates. ( For more on how wolves affect ungulate behavior, etc. see Mao, J. S., M. S. Boyce, D. W. Smith, F. J. Singer, D. J. Vales, J. M. Vore, and E. H. Merrill. 2005. Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1691-1707.) This has several biological consequences. Some of the ungulates will die of starvation or be killed by a predator (could be a mountain lion or bear). These animals will die more randomly scattered over the landscape providing scattered sources of carrion for scavengers. Dominant male bears tend to defend carrion. The presence of wolves might create more scattered sources of carrion for female grizzly bears in multiple places, reducing conflicts between individual bears. The plan fails to consider the benefits that wolf predation have in regulating big game populations. While it's true that wolves can temporarily cause a reduction in ungulate populations, the plan views this as a negative, instead of recognizing that reduction in ungulate herbivory pressure on plant communities can have a long term benefit for both plants and ultimately, ungulates. (See Ripple, W. J., and P. L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves, elk, willows and trophic cascade in the upper Gallatin Range of southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 200:161-181.) Native ungulate populations naturally experience ups and downs in population, yet the IDFG tries to manage them as if they are some kind of steady supply stream of products. This totally fails to recognize or mimic natural ecological processes. Temporary reductions in ungulate populations are usually followed by a reduction in predator populations and ultimately will allow ungulates to increase once more. IDFG fails to consider such issues. However, it's important to note that sometimes wolf presence can provide this benefit without reducing ungulates numbers, simply by changing habitat use by moving animals around the landscape more. It must be noted even with the presence of wolves, all of IDFG units are currently meeting or exceeding objectives, except for two units where habitat quality, not wolf predation, is the cause. LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS EXTERNALIZE COSTS You can't manage wolves like other big game. Any indiscriminate killing of wolves (as opposed to surgical removal of a few individuals) is going to create problems. IDFG should only advocate for "surgical" removal of individual wolves known to kill livestock only if the rancher has already tried to minimize conflicts. Currently the livestock industry externalizes many of its costs of operations on to the citizens as a whole, and one cost is the need for reducing predator opportunity. Research has shown that there are successful husbandry practices that can substantially reduce wolf depredation on livestock such as the use of calving and lambing sheds, herders, and rapid removal of carcasses etc. (See Chavez and Gese 2006 Landscape Use and Movements of Wolves in Relation to Livestock in a WildlandAgriculture Matrix, Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):10791086). In France, it was found that corralling sheep at night reduced losses to wolf predation by 95% (See Espuno et al. 2004 Heterogeneous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1195-1208). One of the reasons that ranching is inappropriate in the arid West is that livestock producers tend to let their animals roam over huge areas. This is only possible if there are few predators, and so for decades ranchers have externalized one of their costs-reduction in predator opportunity through proper animal husbandry-on to the rest of us by killing predators so they can avoid these costs. It was found that wolves tended to prey upon livestock most during the period when they are raising pups and were most likely to take livestock closest to denning sites. (See Bradley and Pletcher 2005. Assessing factors related to wolf depredation of cattle in fenced pastures in Montana and Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(4):12561265). Encouraging or even mandating that livestock not be placed on pastures where there are active wolf dens could reduce conflicts significantly. This could be a viable strategy at least on public lands where federals agencies are supposed to be managing these lands for everyone-not just ranchers. The presence of wolves also causes other changes in native predators. In Yellowstone it has been shown that the presence of wolves reduced coyote numbers by 50%. Since coyotes are still the number one predator of livestock, the presence of wolves could actually reduce livestock losses, and pressure to do predator control on all species. This is not even acknowledged in the draft plan. Yes, such husbandry practices
will increase costs for individual ranchers, but this is actually
a real cost of operation that should be reflected in the livestock
industry's balance sheets, not externalized on to the public.
Such husbandry practices could reduce conflicts significantly--and
should be a prerequisite before any wolves are killed. These
practices are mandatory in other countries. Such measures dramatically
reduce conflicts and costs to taxpayers. George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer and photographer with 34 published books, including Wild Fire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy and Montana, Magnificent Wilderness. Among other things, Wuerthner studied wildlife biology and botany at the U of Montana, worked on wolf recovery in Montana, is a former biologist with the BLM in Idaho, and a former hunting guide in Montana. This essay originally appeared
in New West. ![]()
|
How the Press Led the US into War ![]() Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! ![]() Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz ![]() Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal ![]() Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn ![]() ![]() ![]() Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Bruce Springsteen On Tour By Dave Marsh ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |