What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

they only kill what they eat.......right............

Wolves kill 120 sheep at ranch near Dillon


By EVE BYRON of the Helena Independent Record | Posted: Friday, August 28, 2009 6:30 am |

HELENA - While the debate about how many wolves are enough to ensure a healthy population will again come to a head in a federal courtroom Monday, a Dillon-area ranch is picking up the pieces from the largest known wolf depredation in recent history.

In a highly unusual move for wolves, they killed about 120 adult male sheep in one incident on the Rebish/Konen Livestock Ranch south of Dillon last week.

That compares with a total of 111 sheep killed by wolves in Montana in 2008, according to Carolyn Sime, the statewide wolf coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

"This is one of the most significant losses that I've seen," Sime said. "That situation is really unfortunate."

Suzanne Stone with Defenders of Wildlife added that in the 20 years she's been working toward ensuring healthy wolf populations, this is the first time she's heard of such a mass killing.

"I've heard of bears or mountain lions doing that, but what usually happens is the sheep panic and jump on top of one another or fall into a ditch and suffocate," Stone said. "I've never heard of any situation where wolves killed so much livestock in such a short period of time.

"... This is the most extreme case I've ever heard about."

The ranch has suffered confirmed wolf depredations twice in three weeks. In late July, three wolves - two blacks and a gray - killed at least 26 rams. The gray wolf was lethally shot by a federal wildlife manager, and one of the blacks was injured. They thought that would scare off the rest of the pack.

Last week, wolves struck again. This time, they took out 120 purebred Rambouillet bucks that ranged in size from about 150 to 200 pounds, and were the result of more than 80 years of breeding.

"We went up to the pasture on Thursday (Aug. 20) - we go up there every two or three days - and everything was fine," rancher Jon Konen said. "The bucks were in the pasture; I had about 100 heifers with them on 600 acres."

He had some business to attend to in Billings, so Konen told his son to be sure to check on the livestock while he was gone.

"He called me, and said it was a mess up there. He said there were dead bucks all up and down the creek. We went up there the next day and tried to count them, but there were too many to count," Konen recalled.

"I had tears in my eyes, not only for myself but for what my stock had to go through," he added. "They were running, getting chewed on, bit and piled into a corner. They were bit on the neck, on the back, on the back of the hind leg.

"They'd cripple them, then rip their sides open."

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has taken the lead in wolf management from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and the state agency has a "memorandum of understanding" with the federal Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services to provide damage management services when livestock are killed by wolves.

After the dead sheep were found, Graeme McDougal with Wildlife Services flew in a small plane over the sheep pasture, looking for the one or two remaining black wolves to complete the control work requested by Montana FWP. Within a half-mile of the sheep pasture, he spotted the Centennial pack of three adult gray wolves and five pups.

McDougal shot and killed the one uncollared adult wolf, but wasn't authorized to remove any more wolves.

This was the first known depredation incident for the Centennial pack in 2009.

Konen doesn't want to wade into the debate over the reintroduction of wolves in the Rockies, but said that in his opinion, it's time to stop managing wolves and start controlling them.

"My bucks were on private ground, in a pasture where we've been pasturing them for 50 years. The wolves were intruders that were in the wrong place," he said.

Wolves were recently taken off the list of animals protected under the Endangered Species Act, and both Montana and Idaho have instituted hunting seasons for them this year. Idaho will allow 265 wolves to be taken by hunters, in a season that starts Tuesday. Montana will allow 75 wolves to be taken, with the season starting Sept. 15.

Montana is home to an estimated 500 wolves, while Idaho has at least 850. Wyoming also has wolves, but they remain under Endangered Species Act protection.

In Stone's opinion, hunting wolves could create even more problems for ranchers.

"If the adults are shot, then the young ones are dispersed too early," Stone said. "Young pups on their own might turn to livestock to survive, and that's not a good situation for anybody."

Her organization has put out a book to educate ranchers on proactive steps they can take to prevent livestock loss, like hiring range riders, hanging "fladry" - closely spaced cloth - on fences, and minimizing attractants such as dead carcasses.

Defenders of Wildlife has spent more than $895,000 since 1998 to help pay for installation of nonlethal methods to prevent conflicts.

Since 1987, they've also made 885 payments totaling $1.35 million to ranchers to compensate for livestock killed by wolves.

In Montana, the Legislature has earmarked $150,000 to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to wolves, and U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., co-sponsored a bill that includes $5 million in federal funding over five years for depredation losses.

George Edwards, state livestock loss mitigation coordinator, said the Rebish/Konen Ranch probably will receive $350 per dead sheep.

But he added that the loss is more than just monetary to ranchers.

"The compensation still doesn't make up for the loss by any means," Edwards said. "The rancher still needs to make up his breeding stock, and people in town may not realize the attachment livestock folk get to their animals. The emotional toll it takes is just indescribable."
 
Things happen. Most people don't become serial killers and most wolves don't either. Working border collies are known to occasionally lose it and start killing sheep too.

By the way, I can't believe how much he'll be paid for those sheep. The prices for sheep in this week's CT ag report top out at around $160 and I can't believe they're that much more valuable in MT. Back in the day shepherds and dogs kept sheep (mostly) safe, but that guy makes a lot of money when wolves attack.
 
what were killed werent market sheep......they were the breeding studs of the operation.......havent been around sheep as im in cattle country but a breeding bull is worth a hell of alot more than a market steer......my uncle had to turn one of his bulls into hamburger a couple weeks ago due to a broken leg.....he aint happy.....had it been one of the steers it wouldnt have been a big deal hell had it been a steer i woulda paid market price for it to fill my freezer........
 
That seems like a lot of studs for one ranch, which is why I figured the sheep would have (mostly) gone to the auctions, after any keepers were pulled out. The rancher is basically being bribed to accept losses from wolves. Are guardian dogs used much in MT? After a lot of training and the extra cost of caring for them, dogs can encourage predators to look elsewhere for supper. But a generous guvmint payment doesn't help motivate a welfare recipient to make an extra effort, whether the welfare recipient lives in the inner city or owns a Montana sheep ranch.
 
guard dogs are used some but with the real large flocks they only help so much.....plus you need more dogs than are in the pack of wolves.....most sheep dogs, even the large protective breeds tend to only win on 1 on 1 fights......one dog against 2 or 3 wolves winds up dead nearly every time......most the real large breeds were bred for protection against bears as even in europe there has been more pressure on helping bears than wolves, and thats a 1 on 1 fight.....and the goal isnt to kill the bear its to run it off.....going to take time to come up with ideal guardian dogs against the wolves.....for years ranchers have been using llamas and burros because the main threats have been coyotes and mountain lions.......llamas are darn effective against 'yotes and burros are effective against the cats.....some losses still happen but they are limited......a pack of 100 pound plus wolves is a whole different threat, one thats not been a real threat in most places where sheep and cattle are raised in 100 years......

this individual has been working for decades on a full blown breeding project.....he wasnt doing what most due and just running one breed, he was working to tailor a breed specifically to the area for the best results on the land he has......some ranchers here do the same thing with cattle, alot of ranchers dont run pure breeds, they run crosses that are better adapted to our low rainfall(which means sub par grazing) and bitterly cold winters.....here a few guys run pure Charolais or black or brown Angus but they are in the minority.........which means for the most part your running your own breeding program.......

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 PM ----------

and for the record the above isnt really atypical of wolf behavior.......the wolves they introduced evolved chasing caribou......they run an animal down, eat the choice bits and run down the next.....why eat the tough parts when the cuts yah real like are on the hoof near by? in lean times they will devour the entire animal......in good times they eat the best parts and leave the rest for the crows.......a pasture full of sheep? easy targets? contrary to what Disney says, animals will kill to just to kill and not just to eat aswell.......
 
That's $100 more than the social security death benefit. You can't even legally cremate someone for $250! lol!
 
Making a kill has costs to a predator, both because of the energy expended and because of the risk of injury. The costs are multiplied by the presence of guardian dogs, llamas, or whatever and that's enough to reduce predation from a wholesale slaughter of 120 to the occasional loss of one. Which would have reduced the guvmint check from $42,000 to $350.

I apologize for my lack of sympathy - I've been trying real hard to see this differently because I admire people breeding for their little piece of the world, whether its sheep in MT or corn in VT. But the rancher had a reasonable option for reducing predation, apparently didn't spend the time or money to do it and is rewarded with a check for more than the market value of his loss. That's a classic example of moral hazard and is no different than subsidizing insurance for oceanfront houses in hurrican country or increasing welfare checks for having more babies. People tend to think of only as the latter as being welfare queens but they all are.
 
what other option could he have? there really arent any dogs around to protect against wolves anymore especially large ones........they havent been needed in over 100 years anywhere on the globe........most the wolves in other agricultural areas run about the size of a large coyote here.....maybe 60 pounds 70 on the heavy side.......the 100 to 150 pound.....up to 170 pound.....wolves they reintroduced have not been in any major agricultural area in the world for over a century.......for a century individuals have only had to guard against lone or pairs of 30-60 pound coyotes or solitary mountain lions or solitary bears......a pack of 3 and up of animals that are twice the size of a big yote that are used to working as a team.......tell me what a guy is supposed to do, they will eat the burro's that are effective against mountain lions, they will eat the llamas used against yotes half the size or less of the wolves.........there are no guard dogs that are effective against a pack of wolves......what could he have done?
 
My argument is that receiving a big check removes a big incentive to do anything differently.

There's a big movement towards guardian dogs. I only know a little about them but am interested in them because I love dogs that work for a living. We started training our late German Shepherd to herd sheep in the early 90s (just for fun) and, although I didn't know it before we started, they aren't a guardian breed. A lot of the big white breeds started as guardians in Europe and they usually don't need to fight off wolves or other predators. Just being there makes a herd/flock a more difficult target and predators generally decide to eat elsewhere.

But using guardian dogs requires an investment of time and money into training and keeping the dogs, plus changes in flock management. To get all cynical again, why bother with it when the government picks up all the financial risk and then some? I hate to get all conservative and make you come across like the bleeding heart, but government money can make a problem worse.
 
  • #10
a big check isnt much of a supplement to the destruction of 50 years of your blood sweat and tears in a breeding program......this aint some young transplant doing this for kicks.....this was someone serious bout what he was doing....

as i said dont care what dog yah have its only good one on one with a wolf.....2 on one means a dead dog and alot of these protection breeds DO NOT work well in teams....the pup is raised with the sheep completely, the dog thinks its a sheep but with its protection drive and such it will go up against predators.....still aint much of a protection against 3 or more wolves working as a team......

dont see why ppls livelihoods should be destroyed so ppl back east can come out hear and see a pile of wolf crap........there is a reason why these animals have been wiped out from major agricultural areas around the globe and why they are left alone in the non-agricultural areas like portions of Canada and Alaska.......wolves and livestock dont mix.......never have, never will.....grizzly and mountain lions do for the most part....they are fairly easy to get along with in fragmented habitats with minimal issues.....wolves do not mix well with people in highly fragmented habitats like in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming......
 
  • #11
People dealt with wolves for many centuries while tending sheep in Europe & Asia and their guardian dogs played a big role. People certainly feared wolves and killed them when they could but, until urbanization and modern technology gave people the ability to eradicate wolves, guardian dogs kept sheep alive. Why not now?

Now there are plenty of people who want wolves alive and roaming, just like there are people who want sharks, rattlesnakes and other dangerous critters to thrive. We have to adapt to them and people are great at adapting when they have to. Adaptating takes wisdom, experience, and trial & error. It's hard work. Government policies shouldn't discourage it.
 
  • #12
contrary to what Disney says, animals will kill to just to kill and not just to eat aswell.......


Um, now I don't know how you think but if they are only eating choice bits, they are doing for their health. Now they may not be eating much of the animal, but they are still killing to eat.
 
  • #13
Bruce, the wolves were doing just fine in Canada and Alaska, infact they do so well that there is no season, no management needed......they are classified the same way the state of Montana does coyotes.....they are varmints.....yet the populations are perfectly stable.....there was absolutely no reason to "reintroduce" a alpha predator that is twice the size of the ones that were already hear.....and yes there were wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming prior to the reintroductions in the 1990's contrary to what those back east say.....anyone thats spent alot of time hunting the wilderness areas ran across them from time to time....they were in numbers the ecosystem can handle and had a good enough fear of ppl they didnt cause issues.....what has been done is about the same as turning griz loose in Central Park.....it was junk science and pushed by individuals who have no clue what it is actually like to live with alpha predators day after day......notice none of us out here were pushing to wipe out the grizzly though their range is expanding greatly every year...... other than thinking the populations were getting high enough to possibly allow extreamly limited sport hunting, prolly a handful of tags a year between the 3 states.....and none of us out here are yelling up and down that the mountain lions need to go even though their range is expanding quite well too....

however the wolves are a problem and countray to what yah think they havent been a problem in Europe for a century either.......most the major protection breeds over there that have been kept around in truly working bloodlines are those to protect flocks against the eurasian brown bear......not wolves......

and Ant, the majority of the above sheep had their throats tore out and were left while they went on to kill the next animal......have personally seen the results of weasels and foxes do the same thing with chickens.....lots of easy prey relatively combined with the prey unable to get away and they tend to kill them all and haul one or two off to eat with no intention of coming back for the rest.....called blood lust....killing just for the sake of killing......not for eating......
 
  • #14
How about a FENCE?
 
  • #15
So rather than the dead sheep that were "wasted" you'd rather a pile full of dead wolves ?

I'd consider it to be part of the risk involved with that trade, as far as having to deal with those animals... as you said people have had to deal with them for a very long time and nothing has changed.

if they dont wanna deal with it maybe they should all quit ranching and go get a desk job far away from the wolves...
 
  • #16
a fence how high? ive got a 40 pound dog that can clear a 6 foot fence.......stretched out for how many miles? some of the pastures are many sections in size...(640 acres to a section)......

cm.....these wolves should have never been "reintroduced", the natural existing wolves that were here went about 70-80 pounds.....the subspecies they reintroduced hits 150 pounds easy......how would you like it if someone decided that instead of reintroducing black bears to an area they said screw it, grizzly are cooler lets put them there......this guy started ranching 35 years before someone got the bright idea to dump a bunch of wolves in his lap.....he should leave his own private land and give up his livelihood because idiots practicing junk science?

maybe we should kick you out of Kansas so 1,000,000 buffalo, wolves and grizzly can roam Kansas once again.....
 
  • #17
Sounds like an opportunity for him to bring back/create a breed of dog to combat the wolves. Sure a dog may lose anything other than 1 on 1 fights with wolves, but the article said there were only 5 in the pack that attacked. Maybe I mis-read something there, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It also stated there were 100 females in with the 120 males. So with a group of 220+ sheep, it doesn't seem unreasonable in thinking there could be at least five dogs in that flock. How about a working dog role for the dog everyone loves to hate, the good ole' American Pit Bull? What better dog to fight dogs? It would take years, but it isn't impossible.

Just random thoughts of someone that has no experience with large scale breeding projects or ranching....
 
  • #18
I agree that a lot of care and good sense is critical in any "re-introduction" program. But I disagree that some combination of dogs and changes in rancher behavior aren't up to the task. They protected sheep from wolves for a long time.
 
  • #19
if there was some dog that would work they would be using it...........but as i said there hasnt been anyplace that has had to deal with a large number of large wolves in over a century........most dogs used against in the past wolves were used to hunt them, not guard flocks.....large wolves have been exterminated where ever agriculture has gained a real foot hold.....the only wolves that have stuck around anywhere there is agriculture are ones the tend to be loaners/pair hunters or tend to be the size of a large coyote....anywhere wolves run in packs where animals like cattle and sheep are raised they have wiped them out.....

dogs that were bred to deal with wolves have died out cause the wolves were exterminated in agricultural areas and allowed to live in the wild areas......which is why they were persecuted so bad in the lower 48, there aint enough wild country left for wild wolves.....the other alpha predators, bears and cougars, do much better in the fragmented habitats and are easier to protect live stock against and kill far fewer numbers of livestock......wolves do not belong in the lower 48......

THERE IS NO LONGER ENOUGH HABITAT TO SUPPORT THE LARGE NUMBERS THAT THE IDIOTS RUNNING THE PROGRAMS SEEM TO WANT!

there are large chunks of country in the northwest corner of Montana that hunters the last few years havent seen a single mule deer or elk even hunting hard for the 6 week season.....even if we could wave a wand and make all the wolves disappear its going to take decades for the deer numbers to hit normal and i dont mean the surplus of whitetail that is common throughout their range.....i mean the mule deer and elk that require more country.....the reintroduction program was founded on junk science......there are way to many wolves for the ecosystem.......this ecosystem didnt have this many wolves even before the settlers hit the area.....and the ones that were here were half the size..
 
Back
Top