Attacks on sheep anger ranchers

[frleo]

When on endangered speices (small family farmer/rancher) meets up with another endangered speices (wolf) who should we be worried about, man or beast?

Back in mid-January, out in sparsely populated McCone County, Jim Whiteside climbed into his pickup and pointed toward his herd of 700 sheep.

But something had gotten there before him. Everywhere he looked, it seemed, there was a sheep that had been attacked and bloodied.

Instead of waiting for the government to figure out who is authorized to kill the animal and giving 45-day, shoot-on-sight permits to some, Murnion said, anyone should be allowed to kill it so it can be analyzed.

billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/03/17/news/state/20-sheep.txt

It would seem our government is often times more worried about the beast

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hi Fr Leo. Welcome to the News Forum.

As long as we are still talking about beasts, then I think I can safely say that we – as stewards – should be worried about the beast. As to how we resolve the conflict, the principle of double effect can be applied to whatever solution is proposed.

However, if we are talking about beasts as metaphor for “my enemy” then not only does double effect come into play but also Legitimate Self-Defence and Just War Doctrine, to name a few. We still need to worry about our enemy, but the question is: what form does that worry take?

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I wanted to run my sheep on government land, I would have to pay the government a fee. What fee does the government pay the private landowner when they run their wolves on his land?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The kind of mass slaughter of the sheep in this story is counter-survival behaviour for wolves. Wolves are used to long periods of deprivation. They normally survive on small ground mammals.

To go in and kill more than they could eat in the next wee while is abnormal, counter-survival.

Now it could be territorial. It could be a grudge killing. Beasts are not beyond grudge killings. And certainly not beyond territorial killings.

And if the wolves are hybrids with dogs, there is no telling what kind of crazy thing they could get into their heads.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

If I wanted to run my sheep on government land, I would have to pay the government a fee. What fee does the government pay the private landowner when they run their wolves on his land?

I see your point. But does paying the landowner a fee stop the predators from attacking the sheep? No.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

I see your point. But does paying the landowner a fee stop the predators from attacking the sheep? No.

The point is that because the landowner has not been compensated, allowing Government wolves to run on his land constitutes a “taking” – which is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Adonis33]

vern humphrey:

The point is that because the landowner has not been compensated, allowing Government wolves to run on his land constitutes a “taking” – which is a violation of the Constitution.

Maybe the rancher should sue the wolf for violating his civil rights, unless of course the wolf, as a representative of the gov. is claiming “Eminant Domain”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Adonis33:

Maybe the rancher should sue the wolf for violating his civil rights, unless of course the wolf, as a representative of the gov. is claiming “Eminant Domain”.

Or sue the government.

The problem is, the government delays compensation for depredation losses so long that many ranchers are driven out of buiness. Justice delayed is justice denied

 

[Della]

The whole thing is easily solved by the ranchers getting sheep guard dogs. There’s a special breed–a large white dog (whose name escapes me at the moment)–that is bred just for the purpose of fending off attacks by wolves and other predators.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

The point is that because the landowner has not been compensated, allowing Government wolves to run on his land constitutes a “taking” – which is a violation of the Constitution.

I understand your point, as I have already said. I believe the ranchers should be compensated by the government.

But that still leaves the problem of the predation. How can that be stopped?

 

[Della]

Ani Ibi:

But that still leaves the problem of the predation. How can that be stopped?

See post #9.

 

[frleo]

Della:

The whole thing is easily solved by the ranchers getting sheep guard dogs. There’s a special breed–a large white dog (whose name escapes me at the moment)–that is bred just for the purpose of fending off attacks by wolves and other predators.

I think I know just the dog you are talking about - see my profile. They are Great Pyreneese.

The problem is those dogs were bred to protect a small flock without a lot of other sheep around. Jack Murnion used to have some with his sheep. His cousin Jerry had some as well. One of the problems they ran into was the dogs would discover other sheep that belonged to the neighbor. So they would try to protect them as well and they found that the dogs would cover so much area trying to protect all of the sheep that they could not be effective. Many of these ranchers would have their sheep on several sections (section = 1 square mile) of land. If their flock was on one side of the property and the guard dogs found sheep on the neighbor’s property at the other side of the large pasture he could be at the wrong spot when he was needed.

In case you are wondering, many of the ranchers who’ve had their flocks attacked are memebers of my parish. Jim Whiteside’s wife is a Murnion. It not only affects their lively hood, it also can have an impact on contributions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Della:

The whole thing is easily solved by the ranchers getting sheep guard dogs. There’s a special breed–a large white dog (whose name escapes me at the moment)–that is bred just for the purpose of fending off attacks by wolves and other predators.

Great Pyranees are popular here in Arkansas (as are donkeys). But we don’t have wolves, only coyotes and feral dogs. The wolves, operating as a pack, can easily kill Great Pyranees.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

Great Pyranees are popular here in Arkansas (as are donkeys). But we don’t have wolves, only coyotes and feral dogs. The wolves, operating as a pack, can easily kill Great Pyranees.

But a wolf pack will not overextend its resources by taking an intelligent dog pack. Nor will they overextend their resources by running amok among sheep. They will take the easiest kill. That is why they generally prey on the weakest and sickest of prey animals and small ground mammals. Wolves are scavengers.

Question is how intelligent is the Great Pyranees pack? More and more ranchers are getting llamas who are very perceptive, very territorial and possessive of their charges, and ferocious. They work well with dogs as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

But a wolf pack will not overextend its resources by taking an intelligent dog pack. Nor will they overextend their resources by running amok among sheep.

They’ll actually do both – they will kill domestic dogs (whom they apparently see as competitors) – and the Great Pyranees are not pack-hunting dogs.

Next, sheep are not natural prey. Their unnatural behavior triggers the chase instinct in wolves, who will run through a flock killing in consideragle numbers.
Ani Ibi:

Not always – documented studies have shown the wolves will often target the largest and strongest animals – for example, taking on a bull moose.

Next, sheep are much the easier kill compared to deer or elk. They are so easy to kill that they trigger a killing frenzy among wolves.

They don’t form packs. They are bred to live with the sheep, not to hunt. In fact, one problem with guard dogs like this is the tendency to form “packs” with humans. They’d rather hang around the ranch house than stay with the sheep. Such individuals are not selected for breeding, so as to prevent such behavior in the next generation.

As I said, we also use donkeys here – but we don’t have wolves to contend with.

I suggest the solution on the government side is to compensate the ranchers based on the market value of the sheep – and without unnecessary delay.

We should also have an education program and assist ranchers in paying for guard animals.

 

[Timidity]

frleo:
When on endangered speices (small family farmer/rancher) meets up with another endangered speices (wolf) who should we be worried about, man or beast?Factually speaking, of course, the small farmer is not an endangered species. So why don’t we reword the question as:

“When one person’s lifestyle choice threatens to destroy the eco-system of the entire planet, who should we be worried about? The one person who can choose a new line of work, or the rest of the planet?”

It’s not any more intellectually honest than the original question, but it’s no more dishonest, either. If one wants to engage in intellectual debate over an issue, the question should be worded in an emotionally neutral and factually correct manner.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Timidity:

Factually speaking, of course, the small farmer is not an endangered species. So why don’t we reword the question as:

“When one person’s lifestyle choice threatens to destroy the eco-system of the entire planet, who should we be worried about? The one person who can choose a new line of work, or the rest of the planet?”

Aside from the hyperbole (no one person’s lifestyle “threatens to destroy the eco-system of the entire planet”), sheep ranchers do a lot less damage than people who bulldoze woodlands and build subdivisions.

It is the city dweller with his lavish and anti-nature lifestyle who does the most damage.

 

[Timidity]

vern humphrey:

Aside from the hyperbole (no one person’s lifestyle “threatens to destroy the eco-system of the entire planet”), sheep ranchers do a lot less damage than people who bulldoze woodlands and build subdivisions

It’s the hyperbole of the original post that I was responding to. Personally I’m a big believer in property-owner rights, so I probably agree with him on the issue. I just disliked the demagoguery.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Timidity:

It’s the hyperbole of the original post that I was responding to. Personally I’m a big believer in property-owner rights, so I probably agree with him on the issue. I just disliked the demagoguery.

My mistake, then. May I tender my apology?

For myself, I say if it’s your property, your sheep and your .30-30, who am I to tell you what to do?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

They’ll actually do both – they will kill domestic dogs (whom they apparently see as competitors) – and the Great Pyranees are not pack-hunting dogs.

Thank you. I am used to bear dogs. The bear dogs we had formed packs. Several of them actually.
vern humphrey:

Next, sheep are not natural prey. Their unnatural behavior triggers the chase instinct in wolves, who will run through a flock killing in consideragle numbers.

Do you think the wolves consider them to be competitors?
vern humphrey:

Not always – documented studies have shown the wolves will often target the largest and strongest animals – for example, taking on a bull moose.

It depends on the conditions. Up north, the wolves need to conserve energy. That is one reason they exercise NFP. The rule is that the weakest animal is taken down. No doubt there are exceptions to the rule.
vern humphrey:

Next, sheep are much the easier kill compared to deer or elk. They are so easy to kill that they trigger a killing frenzy among wolves.

Because the sheep do not act like wild prey. Interesting.
vern humphrey:

They don’t form packs. They are bred to live with the sheep, not to hunt. In fact, one problem with guard dogs like this is the tendency to form “packs” with humans. They’d rather hang around the ranch house than stay with the sheep. Such individuals are not selected for breeding, so as to prevent such behavior in the next generation.

Thank you.
vern humphrey:

As I said, we also use donkeys here – but we don’t have wolves to contend with.

Donkeys? Are you saying that you use donkeys to guard your livestock. I know donkeys are pretty smart and pretty rough.
vern humphrey:

I suggest the solution on the government side is to compensate the ranchers based on the market value of the sheep – and without unnecessary delay.

Makes sense to me.
vern humphrey:

We should also have an education program and assist ranchers in paying for guard animals.

That makes sense. What kind of guard animals do you suggest?

I seem to remember that Canada removed wolves from this part of the world, rebred them, and re-introduced them to allyall down there.