Wolves Killing Lambs in Oregon

[jdarling]

Camera captures wolves killing lambs in Oregon

By JEFF BARNARD – 12 hours ago

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — A motion-detector camera has photographed two wolves killing lambs on a ranch in Eastern Oregon — the first documented wolf attack on livestock in Oregon since they started moving into the state in 1999. (For those of you who would like to see the photo ... click HERE)

 

Baker City-area sheep rancher Curt Jacobs said Wednesday his family — third generation sheep ranchers — had been moving ewes and lambs from the ranch compound, where they had been brought in for lambing, out to pasture last week.

 

When his brother and nephew went out to gather a band to load into trucks Friday morning, they found more than a dozen lambs penned near the house had been driven through the fence and killed. Only a few had been eaten.

 

Initially, they thought it was a cougar, but then saw tracks in the mud around the dead lambs included toenails. They figured it was wolves and called the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

 

Wolf coordinator Russ Morgan mounted four motion-detector cameras on fence posts in hopes of catching the wolves walking by and looking in. Some carcasses were put out to attract the wolves.

 

Monday morning, Jacobs, 52, found the wolves had come back and killed more lambs. One of the cameras captured a photo of two wolves looking right at it, with dead lambs at their feet.

 

The attack is likely to revive the contentious debate over whether ranchers should be allowed to shoot wolves on sight.

 

"It's all right to have the animal be here," Jacobs said from his ranch. "But if every time you went to work in the morning, somebody stopped you and took your lunch pail and you couldn't say nothing about it, it would get old after awhile."

 

Wolves were hunted out of existence in Oregon in the early 20th century, but have been moving back into the state from Idaho, where packs were re-established in the 1990s.

 

They are currently protected as state and federal endangered species in Oregon, and Oregon's wolf management plan does not allow ranchers to shoot wolves, even if they catch them killing livestock. That job is left up to wildlife agents.

 

The Oregon Cattlemen's Association tried to amend the wolf management plan in 2005 to allow ranchers to shoot wolves attacking their livestock, and to provide state compensation for losses. The Legislature, however, could not agree on changes.

 

Plans call for trapping the wolves and fitting them with radio collars to track their whereabouts, said Gary Miller of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Bend. If the wolves keep killing livestock, further steps can be taken.

 

Jacobs said he was told he would get a receiver so he would know when the wolves come back.

 

State wildlife agents also brought out some electric fencing with flagging to keep the wolves from the sheep until they are moved out to pasture, where six guard dogs will watch over them, Jacobs said.

 

Jacobs said photos of the wolves and their tracks will go into his claim for $7,300 in compensation from Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group supporting the return of wolves to Oregon. In all he had 23 lambs killed, and others too injured to be sold.

 

The dead lambs had suffered bites down over the rib cage.

 

"In all the years I've been around here, I saw one live cougar," he said. "A year ago, I saw (a wolf) in timberline up here. I've got a picture of his track on my screen saver.

 

"I just don't want 'em eating my paycheck."

 

Has anyone ever had a problem with wolves killing their livestock? Are LGD's completely ineffective against a pack of wolves, or are they at least somewhat of a deterrent?

[juliepoudrier]

All I gotta say is if he's getting $7,300 for 23+ lambs he's getting a darn good price for his lambs.

 

J.

[Sue R]

All I gotta say is if he's getting $7,300 for 23+ lambs he's getting a darn good price for his lambs.

 

J.

At that rate, we should be raising sheep with the intention of feeding wolves. It sure would make more money than the cattle we raise.

[SoloRiver]

If LGDs can deter leopards in Africa, I imagine they could deter wolves. Leopards are kind of the coyotes of the big cat world -- very versatile and willing to live in close proximity to people. They are not easily intimidated.

[Bill Fosher]

Depending on the management system, fencing availability, the type of guard dogs, and the aggressiveness of the wolf pack, six guard dogs might not be enough. Janet McNally, who writes occasionally for Graze magazine and is a member of my sheep production forum, has been battling introduced (not re-introduced, since they were not native to her area) wolves for some years now, and has had to increase the number, size, and aggressiveness of her guard dogs. She has lost at least one Maremma to wolves.

[Tea]

Hi folks, because of our work we got this notice from all the wildlife orgs a few days ago.

 

Livestock Guardians, I am familiar with Janet and her program, what a great gal! She breeds Tatras and Spanish Mastiff crosses. She has experienced great sucess with them.

 

The trick as Bill has said is fencing, bringing in at risk stock and having the right number and type of dogs.

 

Basic rule of thumb is have a dog for every wolf. And have dogs that will not leave the flock!

 

We are trying to put together a fund to help farmers ranchers get LGD and even, Janet's idea, a LGD Swat Team for farmers to borrow if they are in trouble.

 

I did not hear that he was getting $7K? I will speak to Susan at Defenders and find out, that is good if he gets that.

 

In MT in the beggining of the wolf situation people that had Pyrs lost them to wolves. Maybe they were not real LGD I don't know, and maybe only one dog.

 

The other trick if you live in an arera where wolves are moving into. Teach the wolves to stay away asap. The quicker they learn this the better.

 

Wolves are Smart, but very shy. If there little to eat, or your stock are an easy mark, your risk is greater.

 

I always advise to do as much as possible.

 

Fire crackers, Radio Blaring, Weird Scare crows, Glitter tape, Alot of strong electric fences and good LGDs And change things around

 

It is going to be interesting to see how the PNW deals with this.

 

I have tried to Call the rancher, no luck at this time.

 

I think he had 1 dog, lambs in a small pen.

 

Sounded like a young wolf by the actions. However we have not got all the details yet.

 

Now Grizzily, thats another story.

[SoloRiver]

Don't the African projects use Anatolians, which are considerably more aggressive than the big white guys? A friend of mine does anthropological fieldwork in Anatolia, and he says the LGDs there are truly frightening (and they wear collars with six inch spikes on them that make them even scarier). In the absence of large predators a lot of shepherds seem to be able to get away with large dogs that act as a deterrent by their mere presence but may not actively defend the flock. I've been told that Anatolians are not desirable for small farms in more populated areas because they roam too widely and are too aggressive, but they sound perfect for this type of problem. If there are wolves around then it is not a populated area (they are too shy), and anyway, no one would call eastern Oregon densely populated.

 

It would be nice if humans and wolves could share North America. We have so much in common. As large-bodied, relatively long-lived, social animals that live in family groups and work cooperatively, wolves are about the closest thing we have to kin here.

[Tea]

Yeah, thats the problem with Antolians exceopt for range work. They will go after people. And ranchers have to be careful of liability.

[Tommy Coyote]

Probably the real problem with wolves is the way they attack. I know that if they move in to take out another pack leader they go in bunch and go really fast. They completely over power the other animal and kill it. And it all happens in about 2 minutes.

 

A guard dog would never even have a chance to defend himself. Even if you have several dogs out there you would have to figure out some way that they could defend with all of them together at the same time. Otherwise the wolves would just move in a pick them off one at a time. You couldn't have them spread out over a very big area.

[Laura L]

All I gotta say is if he's getting $7,300 for 23+ lambs he's getting a darn good price for his lambs.

 

J.

 

Is he getting paid for just the dead lambs or also the ones that were too injured to sell? It just listed the dead lamb total, does anyone know how many others were injured?

 

I had missed the part about 6 LGDs when I first read it, were they actually with the flock when the attacks happened? How big of an area were the sheep in? What kind of fencing? All of that can make a difference.

 

eta: I should have read all the way through the topic. I see that Bill & Tea brought these things up. Hope someone can answer those questions though because I'm curious.

Laura

[juliepoudrier]

Hey Laura,

It never said the number of lambs injured. When I did the math out of curiosity, I added 10 to the 23, just as a wild guess and to give me a total that was something less than it would be for just the 23 dead.

 

J.

[Laura L]

Yeah, it's still a lot of money. I'm sure that the Defenders of Wildlife fund pays more than market value.

 

Laura

[Tea]

Actually I heard From Defenders it was 21 lambs. I still haven't gotten a hold of Susan, but I will.

 

Our field experience with wolves is this, a large group of LGD that stay WITH the flock, keeps wolves off in almost the same way another pack of wolves is kept off another packs territory. Wolves are extremely territorial. That is why it is critical to establish your LGD program long before you know that you have wolves in your area.

 

But if you have a LGD that chases predators then you could be in trouble, but real LGD that stick together and stay with the flock have a good chance of keeping wolves off. Of course you still have to practice all other safety measures.

 

That's why I like the Spanish mastiff crosses, the stay close, and so do the Tatra's

[Bill Fosher]

There was a case (involving disease, not depredation) where a sheep farmer demanded compensation that was based not on the value of the animals that were seized, but on the value of the offspring and products that they would have produced during their lifetimes. They valued the flock at about $10,000 per head. They were offered something less than that, refused it, and litigated the matter. A settlement was made, but neither side will say what it actually came to.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for compensation above market value for livestock lost to introduced predators. Native predators? Seems like it would make more sense to take precautions up front. In this situation, it sounds like the wolves are native predators returning to territory where they were once extirpated, so there's going to be a period of adjustment.

 

Maybe it would make more sense for Defenders of Wildlife to pay for fence construction than for dead lambs?

[Tea]

Bill, This is just the kind of thing our project has been asking the 'big' wildlife orgs to do.

 

It is frustrating as they do not listen to us.

 

I have suggested the best thing to do is prevent predation. I am glad when they pay a farmer exactlly what his stock are worth to him.

 

I have always thought if I had that kind of loss, and it was of a paticular line of my sheep, I couldn't replace it easily.

 

Sometimes I wonder about thev real agenda.

 

(They also do not listen to Janet, who in my opinion is an expert at the LGD breeding programs.)

[Ooky]

There was a case (involving disease, not depredation) where a sheep farmer demanded compensation that was based not on the value of the animals that were seized, but on the value of the offspring and products that they would have produced during their lifetimes. They valued the flock at about $10,000 per head. They were offered something less than that, refused it, and litigated the matter. A settlement was made, but neither side will say what it actually came to.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for compensation above market value for livestock lost to introduced predators. Native predators? Seems like it would make more sense to take precautions up front. In this situation, it sounds like the wolves are native predators returning to territory where they were once extirpated, so there's going to be a period of adjustment.

 

Maybe it would make more sense for Defenders of Wildlife to pay for fence construction than for dead lambs?

 

I generally agree with Bill's native vs. introduced breakdown. But the argument made by the sheep farmer cited here totally confuses me. One, how can you argue loss based on the future value of something that may never have "matured"? I mean, how can anyone be sure those sheep would have not died of something else before providing $10,000 per head worth of products and offspring. Also, if you are paid more than enough money to replace your sheep, and you do so, then don't you still have similar access to this future $10,000 per head worth of future production (specialized lines aside)?

 

The other part of this I found really interesting was the disease vs. predator issue. I would imagine most sheep would be more in danger from introduced disease and parasites than predators (but don't know?) Who pays in that situation? There is no Defenders of Parasitic Organisms to come to the rescue there. Wolves are protected by federal law, so I can see it would be frustrating to a rancher to not be able to "fight back". But it is impossible to "fight back" against some diseases as well, just on the basis of biology.

 

But as far as the not paying for fences, this NPO has limited funds and deals with all sorts of wildlife issues beyond those involving wolves. If the "wolf-rancher" initiative they have draws too much budget, protection efforts towards other species will likely suffer. Perhaps they worry they would then be paying for everyone's fences, then AGAIN if/when more lambs got attacked (as it sounds like fences themselves may not be enough without LGDs?) Should they pay for every rancher's fence in the Western U.S. where wolves are being re-introduced or are colonizing? I could see the administration of an NPO finding it a daunting expense to provide fencing for however many linear miles up front. In any case, they have a list of non-lethal deterrents and fencing is among them, so they seem aware for the need. Again, I am just confused as to why anyone would feel Def. of Wildlife, who is doing this of their own choice, should have to pay more than they do. Is there an argument to be made that the U.S. Govt should really be responsible for these loss-based subsidies as it is USFWS policies that have re-introduced the wolves and the endangered species act that protects them against ranchers retaliating? (Not arguing this, but wondering what others think.)

 

Tea, I am sure Def of Wildlife's "real agenda" is to promote recovery and population stability of the wolves, a goal best accomplished without frequent livestock losses and the resulting public outcry against the wolves' presence. What agenda do you suspect they or other wildlife protection groups have?

[Bill Fosher]

Ooky,

 

The sheep involved in the case I was citing were, at least according to the owners' opinion, highly specialized and had been imported at great expense and they expected a great deal of revenue from the sale of specialized breeding stock.

 

I don't know about other farmers and ranchers, but a ewe lamb that was born and raised in my flock by a ewe that I have selected in my flock, which I have adapted to my management and environment, has a value that in my flock that is two to three times higher than a random ewe lamb bought from outside. Remember that "market value," as defined by the USDA, is based on the commodity market price of animals of a similar class at the time of the loss. It doesn't matter that it might cost me $200 to replace a ewe lamb that was killed by a protected predator. What matters is what a lamb of comparable weight sold for at the local auction houses that week.

 

Obviously we need to figure out a means of compensation for livestock losses that recognizes their value within a flock can be higher than their value in the sale barn, but I don't think we need to go as high as $10,000 per head for sheep, either (with a few very rare exceptions for very important rams, perhaps). The fact that a lamb might have died carries no water with me. It might have lived, and it might have been the top of the crop. If you remove depredation and neonatal mortality, about 97 percent of lambs survive to one year of age (adulthood). Since most lambs that are killed by predators are beyond the neonatal window (24 to 48 hours postpartum), I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming odds are in favor of the lamb surviving, but for the fact that it was killed by a predator.

 

I realize that defenders of wildlife doesn't _have_ to do anything. My comment was that they might get out of this situation less expensively by helping a rancher deal with the problem of depredation by helping him adopt non-lethal deterrents to predators, rather than continuing to pay for his losses until the wolves either move along (not likely if they've got a meal ticket) or die off mysteriously. At the other extreme, they could just offer the rancher an annuity and buy out his flock altogether.

[Ooky]

I realize that defenders of wildlife doesn't _have_ to do anything. My comment was that they might get out of this situation less expensively by helping a rancher deal with the problem of depredation by helping him adopt non-lethal deterrents to predators, rather than continuing to pay for his losses until the wolves either move along (not likely if they've got a meal ticket) or die off mysteriously. At the other extreme, they could just offer the rancher an annuity and buy out his flock altogether.

 

I absolutely do get all your points, and thanks for answering back to me. I don't know much about the production side of things and am trying to learn. As for the promise of future value I guess I am just used to environmental law always being based on existing conditions, not future conditions.

 

As for it being cheaper to focus on prevention, this was (to my knowledge) the first wolf depredation on livestock in OR since the wolves had been re-introduced:

 

"An investigation into the depredations is underway and if wolves are deemed responsible, it will be the first documented incident of a livestock depredation since their return to Oregon in 1999."

 

So, they are paying $7500 or whatever once in a decade in OR, in addition to funding an apparently long list of collaborative "projects" and information dissemination programs to ranchers in the PNW and the northern Rockies. How much appropriate fencing could go up with this $7500? I certainly don't know, but don't think it would go that far. It sounds to me like their position is that you can successfully graze in intact wolf habitat with no losses, and are willing to educate and collaborate to help this occur by providing counseling on improvements and changes in grazing practices. That Bailey fund I linked to is specifically for proactive, non-lethal solutions - I would link to the project list/map but it is a pdf.

 

If there are more and more attacks, it would provide evidence for your position that they will be a continuing, significant depredation problem in this area, but the statement that they've been there for 10 years and this was the first attack makes it seem like paying for fencing for everyone or buying out whole flocks would be a bit premature (and more expensive than what they've done up to now).

[Tea]

the interesting thing about earth is you can figure stuff out then back up and see a whole lot more.

 

The Wolves have everything to do with parasites and disease.

 

Example-

 

A Island surrounded by water, closed eco-system.

 

You have big predators present for large hoofed mammals, small predators present for smaller ones.

 

Salmon run here bringing nutrients to the land by the spread of their carcasses, which grows the big trees, and more nutritious foliage.

 

Parasites and disease in the large hoofed mammals are kept in check by big predators who hunt them. Also By having good food to eat.

 

People come. They come to survive and live their lives as best they can, as best as they know how. They cut down the trees to build houses and barns. The rivers where salmon spawn don't have as big of runs. The land is deprived of the nutrients the salmon bring.

The deer weaken through this. The peoples livestock over years are bred to be easier to handle, this makes them easier for predators to catch.

The people want to survive they kill all predators that eat their livestock. First they kill the big predators, then the smaller ones. (Wolves, BTW control the coyote populations.)

 

Sometimes the people hunt, because they like the taste of deer. They do not take the easiest to kill, they take the best, the biggest, they don't kill with a knife, but at a distance with a rifle of shotgun, this makes it easier to kill the strong deer.

Years pass

Soon the island has no predators and a sick deer population.

People can't allow forest fires. They prevent them. This is the only other thing besides a good long freeze that controls parasites and some disease.

 

Time goes by.

 

Farmers decide to do organic farming, they find that stock die of parasite load and disease.

They learn to rotate fields, they learn what the old people knew on both sides of the ocean.

The farmers struggle.

 

Small predators return, they help by taking sick fawns.

 

Bigger predators return, they cull the deer herds.

They also take easier livestock.

 

The farmer learns to watch their stock.

 

Hunters begin to cull deer herds as the wolves do.

 

Populations wax and wane according to the food supply.

 

Time goes by

 

The land heals bit by bit.

 

People decide to live with the land rather by their own rules.

 

I was taught and shown this as a child, I have experienced it where I live.

 

An Apex predator if allowed will protect the entire eco-system. The trick is how will we choose to live beside them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What is Defenders Agenda?

I think they do some great work- they do very good legal work.

 

But-Some of the folks I deal with, seem to have closed minds, or maybe are afraid they will loose their jobs if they rock the boat.

Some think that the farmer/rancher is not a good steward of the land, and so they will not listen to any of them.

 

Defenders was the group I put the idea to of making their stuffed animals out of predator friendly wool, made right here in the US. Not out of petroleum products made in China.

 

Conservation Northwest is going to help with this, instead.

 

(I fear development more than anything.) (I fear everyone wearing sweaters made out of petroleum products, and fertilizer made out of petroleum products, when wool can be used, when sheep manure can be used. And it can be done sustainibly with compassion.)

 

There is a book, The Revolution will not be funded.

 

Although this book is a bit over the top it is based on some very sound things.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am tired. I am an unpaid volunteer. The founder of an organization that rescues wildlife and teaches sustainible agriculture. And franky the more I know the weider this all becomes. I have no answers for anything.

 

Only what I have seen and experienced myself. The best teacher is the land.

 

But I do know, we are all in this together.

 

I am ready for one of my young interns to take on this task.