A few weeks ago I wrote about the polarizing nature of wolves and tried to rationally address some of the myths about them.  I’d never advocate taking all emotion out of an issue, but when it comes to wolves, a little step back once in a while to look at real facts can help put things in perspective.

Earlier this week, I received a disturbing ad put out by the Montana Cattleman’s Association that depicted wolves as evil bloodthirsty killers and insinuates that those who advocate for them are cult-like out-of-touch doe-eyed animal lovers bent on destroying “real America”.  In response, one of our  partners in the Western Wolf Coalition sent around an unpublished article that will soon be in the journal of Ecological Economics.   It reinforced most of what we say about wolves, but had a few surprises.

Scroll past the page break to see what the study found.

I've always loved science and nature.  For a time in college, I assumed I would end up being a research scientist.  However, I changed my mind when I felt like all I was doing was studying problems and re-identifying the same causes that everyone else already had.  My only meaningful piece of original research showed that native songbirds were disappearing from Wisconsin’s exurban Fox Valley because of habitat fragmentation…who knew?!  (everyone as it turns out).

I maintain a strong belief that sound science and a science-literate population is a cornerstone of a functional society.  Scientific research is crucial to informing good decisions.  And scientific literacy ensures that we aren't duped by pseudo-scientists who sell bogus snakeoil on infomercials, deny global warming, or otherwise twist facts.

Still, I have no regrets about choosing a career in advocacy that uses science - as opposed to conducting research in the hopes that someone would use it for advocacy. 

So, with minimal advocacy – here are some of the interesting, unbiased findings of the article:

• Wolves are a "public good with a negative externality" to the ranching industry

• Wolf depredations account for less than 0.01% of the annual gross income of ranchers in WY, ID, & MT. 
• At the industry level, this number is negligible.  However, at the level of the individual rancher, it can be significant - kind of how a rare disease doesn't matter much unless your sister is the one who gets it.
  

• Declining meat prices & profits and increased land prices are a much bigger threat to ranching than wolves
• By protecting unfragmented habitat on private lands, ranching may provide benefits to wolves and other wildlife
• The demise of the ranching industry could ultimately hurt wolf recovery
• Rancher hostility towards wolves can undermine wolf recovery
• Compensation programs may have limited utility in increasing tolerance or "improving attitudes of livestock producers towards wolves"
• "Surplus killing" by wolves on wild prey has been documented, but is very rare.  "Surplus killing" of domestic livestock is more frequent, but not common and has not been documented on cattle

• The higher rate for domestic livestock is likely a result of an opportunistic predator taking advantage of the reduced fitness of domestic livestock and husbandry (penning, etc.) that makes them more vulnerable
• The authors acknowledged that calling something "surplus killing" is inherently problematic.  Simply by observing and disturbing a kill, predator behavior may be modified - some individuals may choose to not eat, and others may leave prematurely.  If the carcass were not under observation, more wary individuals might come along, and others may return to the carcass more often before moving on. 
• The article acknowledged, but did not assess, the benefit of "surplus kills" to other parts of ecosystem (scavengers, etc.)
• It's not in this article, but worth noting that anecdotal evidence from Manitoba suggests that through several generations of cows interacting with wolves, the cows modified their behavior and depredations decreased.  The wolves in turn modified their behavior and targeted yearling bulls instead of calves.  The net result was a significant decline in overall depredations.  Now, smart ranchers are responding by only putting experienced calf/cow pairs in potential conflict areas.

• The article includes some interesting data on cattle losses in Western states.  Bottom line, predator losses are a small fraction of overall losses, and wolf losses an even smaller percentage of that.  (However, thanks to the “shark effect”, though rare, a wolf depredation draws disproportionate amount of attention).  Here's an example:

Cattle losses in Idaho in 2005:

• All predators (including domestic dogs) – 1.0%
• Respiratory problems – 16.5%
• Digestive problems – 7.6%
• Other diseases – 12.9%
• Calving problems (doesn't include calf losses) – 7.9%
• Injury – 6.2%
• Poisoning  - 1.2%
• Weather – 0.5% (this is 10 to 20 times higher in other Western states)
• Theft  - 0.2%
• Other & unknown non-predator – 46.0%