Non-lethal control more effective, not perfect

  • By Matt Spaw WNPA Olympia News Bureau
  • Mar 10, 2017

In a surprising turn, a state panel in Olympia discussing studies of lethal means to control wolves preying on farm animals and invading humans’ territory, found that non-lethal control is a more effective option.

Wildlife experts and members of the public came together at a Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting Feb. 10 to discuss wolf removal.

According to the panel, most of the state’s wolf packs are in northeastern Washington, with some in the North Cascades region. The panel was made up of Department of Wildlife experts specializing in wolves, wildlife conflict and carnivores.

Wolves present a challenge for livestock owners. Wolves are reestablishing themselves after being nearly eradicated in the early 1900s, but ranchers and others face the problem of protecting their livestock from wolf predation.

“We need to hone in on our objective. Is it tolerance? Is it to stop depredations forever?” said Donny Martorello, wolf policy lead for the state agency.

The panel went over studies about the culling of wolf populations.

Four of the five non-lethal tests reviewed had preventive effects, while only two of the seven lethal tests had preventive effects. Two of the lethal tests increased predation.

Non-lethal methods include fladry, which involves hanging flags that flap in the breeze and scare wolves, as well as using guard dogs for livestock.

In some areas the desired effect of culling wolf populations occurred.

“Less livestock were killed. In some areas it did not work,” Martorello said. “It drives home the message that there is no perfect solution.”

The department suspended the controversial killing of Profanity Peak wolves in October. That program, aimed at killing a pack of 11 wolves, resulted in the deaths of seven and cost $135,000 before being suspended. The wolves had attacked or killed about 15 cattle.

“Wolves are one of the most studied animals on the planet,” said Scott Becker, state wolf specialist.

The panelists also examined public opinion of wolves and what studies say about perception.

“If one has a positive valuation of wolves, they generally like to focus on the benefits,” Becker said. “If one has a negative value of wolves, they generally focus on those costs.”

Only 61 of 358 Northern Rocky Mountain region wolf packs in the United States — or about 17 percent — were involved in at least one confirmed livestock killing, according to Becker. People are willing to accept some level of conflict with wolves, but 50 to 70 percent of that conflict occurs on private property, which could affect public perceptions.

The department’s Wolf Advisory Group will use the meeting’s findings to inform future recommendations. Advisory group members are landowners, conservationists, hunters and other interests who work together to recommend strategies for reducing conflict with wolves.

This story is part of a series of news reports from the Washington State Legislature provided through a reporting internship sponsored by the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association Foundation.


4 thoughts on “Non-lethal control more effective, not perfect

  1. The non-lethal approach is just another name for “wolf control.” Until these “managers” stop appeasing the Livestock Industry, nothing will ever change. The “best control” is refusing to permit ranchers on most, if not all, public lands-period.
    Unfortunately, now with this anti-wildlife, anti-environmental Trump/Bannon Regime, the wild animals will increasingly targeted, because ranchers are now even more emboldened. This is the sad state of affairs—and it is just the beginning, as this Regime begins its assault not only on the Supreme Court, but the lower courts as well—upon which many wildlife groups have depended for their law suits.

  2. Refusing to permit ranchers on public lands is not a realistic goal, at least for the near future. Who knows what will happen in time. I don’t know what is going to happen in the courts, and I honestly don’t know if I give a shit anymore.

    But for now, this is real progress, and the science backs it up. All I care about, my only immediate concern, is that these animals are not be killed needlessly. Unfortunately, human beings want to be able to control everything around them, not just wolves, and that is part of our nature and isn’t going to change either. If they mean what they say, I’m going to consider this a victory.

    I’ll take non-lethal control over lethal any day.

    • oops, that should read ‘these animals are not being killed needlessly’. Everything else can go to hell in a handcart IMO. All of these other issues have countless groups to support them, and they still can’t get anything right. But animals have virtually noone to speak for them, and that’s my job, I feel. You’ll notice ‘not perfect’ was in the headline. Yeah, we know – and killing is even less so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s