The move gives states in the continuous United States the authority to manage their local wolf populations, including by allowing them to be hunted. It will mainly affect wolf populations in the upper Midwest, Colorado and Pacific Northwest because wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains were previously delisted. Wolves have never been federally protected in Alaska.

Department of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who traveled to Minnesota to announce the delisting at a wildlife refuge, said the gray wolf had exceeded all conservation goals and no longer met the legal definitions of a threatened or endangered species.

There are about 6,000 gray wolves in the lower 48 states, up from about 1,000 when they were added to the endangered species list in the 1970s after being hunted, trapped and poisoned to near extinction.

The International Wolf Center in Minneapolis estimates Canada’s population of gray wolves at about 60,000, second only to Russia’s. Worldwide, the gray wolf is considered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to be a “species of least concern.”

The Canadian wolf population is considered stable-to-increasing and it remains a game species in most of Canada, according to the IWC.

Delisting the gray wolf in the U.S. is a win for sportsmen and ranchers in that country who argue larger numbers of wolves have diminished herds of big-game animals such as elk, and also prey on livestock.

“Impacted communities will be able to determine how best to preserve gray wolf populations while protecting other native species and livestock,” Utah Senator Mike Lee said in a statement.

Conservation groups said the species has yet to recover in much of their former range, including northern California and the Northeast, and said the timing of the move appeared to be an effort to win votes for President Donald Trump in Midwestern states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota days before the Nov. 3 election.

“Wolves will be shot and killed because Donald Trump is desperate to gin up his voters in the Midwest,” Brett Hartl, chief political strategist at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said in a statement.

— Nichola Groom is a Reuters correspondent covering U.S. environmental and energy policy from Los Angeles. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post U.S. lifts federal protections for gray wolf appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Prokopenko, who is a Vanier Scholar completing her doctoral thesis out of Memorial University in Newfoundland, undertook the research to better understand the ecology of RMNP’s estimated 70 to 75 wolves and their prey. Her method was to study wolves with GPS-equipped collars, to determine areas of intense use, indicated by clusters of points in a specific area over time.

Thirteen animals from three packs were collared in 2016 and 14 animals from five packs were studied in 2017.

The GPS data allowed Prokopenko to determine specific wolf behaviour and to collect samples, including hair and scat, tested to determine animal relatedness and diet information. If prey was also found at a site, hair, bone marrow and a tooth were collected and tested to reveal genetics, condition and the age of the animal.

Prokopenko also found variation between wolf packs in their hunting behaviour, and not surprisingly, seasonal variation in diet, which is more diverse during the summer when smaller prey, like beavers or young ungulates are available. “In winter,” said Prokopenko, “we are seeing that RMNP wolves are changing their diet composition from elk to moose.” As in past research, testing of scat has once again revealed no evidence of domestic animals — so no livestock.

“We are also finding that boundaries between packs are not as distinct as wolf territories found in other areas,” she said (such as in Yellowstone National Park).

“In RMNP the core area of each pack is discreet, but the edges overlap. Wolves here seem more tolerant of other wolves entering their pack territory.” In spite of this, of the animals studied, two deaths were attributed to pack-to-pack aggression.

Of the 27 wolves collared, 14 died during the study; the two in the pack aggression, eight attributed to complications from disease, and four as a result of wolf/human interaction (two animals were shot, one trapped and one poisoned when venturing outside the park). Even though these few went outside the park, the GPS-collared sample population were observed to spend the majority of their time within RMNP boundaries.

“Given the interesting dynamics observed during this research project, Parks Canada will continue to monitor the wolf population in the future,” said Prokopenko. “This effort will inform the management and conservation of wolves in RMNP. In addition to learning about wolves in this area, the data is an important comparison for other wolf systems across North America.”

Grey wolves are an interesting species — the largest member of the dog family, and living in highly socialized packs with a strict hierarchy. They have a complex communication system and the care of pups is not restricted to the biological parents, as there are “babysitter wolves” within a pack to allow the parents to hunt.

The Anishinabe word for wolf (ma’iingan) means “our brother,” to say, “what happens to one happens to the other.” In Ojibway culture, wolves were said to have been put on Earth, “to show us the way.”

The 1995 reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park has taught us that they are crucial in conserving the health of ecosystems and the well-being of our environment. There, their presence helps keep the deer and elk population in check, and smaller numbers mean less overgrazing of riparian areas, improving the habitat for insects, birds and beavers. This allows beavers to resume their work of creating dams, thus, keeping rivers clean to the benefit of aquatic life.

Scientists agree that Yellowstone National Park is healthier now than it has been for years. Hopefully, we’ll be able to say that of RMNP, too.

Candy Irwin writes from Lake Audy, Manitoba.

The post Studying the wolves of Riding Mountain National Park appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

They repeatedly hear about losses and producers now make impassioned pleas to have something done about the pressure on herds, particularly from wolf attacks, general manager Brian Lemon told district meetings which began last week.

“It’s a very serious threat to livestock producers’ livelihoods. I don’t think there’s a bigger file on our board or issue that’s more important or that trumps predation,” he said at the District 9 meeting at Stonewall last week.

The problem is defining the scope of it.

Directors raise the issue at all board meetings, and MBP talks about it at every meeting they get with the provincial ministers of agriculture and sustainable development, Lemon said.

But then they’re asked the question they can’t answer.

“They’re asking us, ‘how big is the problem?” he said. “Our answer right now is, ‘we don’t really know.’”

Directors have gathered plenty of information through phone calls and conversations. “But it still ends up being fairly anecdotal and not statistically valid. That’s the problem we have.”

They’ve tried to work with Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) but their data isn’t capturing the full picture either. MASC’s Wildlife Damage Compensation Program only compensates producers who can provide sufficient evidence of a predator kill.

What’s so frustrating for producers is being unable to make claims because wolf kills seldom leave carcasses. There’s no evidence to make the claim.

“It’s not until you go to collect your cows in the fall that you find out you’re missing a bunch,” he said.

The survey MBP is circulating at all district meetings this fall asks producers to provide information on herd size, numbers of cattle lost to wolves, coyotes and other predators, to report maulings and injuries, and document numbers also lost to theft or hunters. There’s also a box to tick off if there are no cattle losses to report.

The aim is to gather the grassroots data together so MBP can make a better case that the provincial beef here is under pressure from predators, Lemon said.

There’s a lot of debate going on as to why predation from wolves is on the rise, but the general feeling is they’re going after cattle as moose and whitetail deer populations decline.

Dealing with the issue is going to be a sensitive subject, however.

Beef producers don’t want to impair their reputation as managers of both Crown and private lands in ways that are beneficial for wildlife. Beef producers are widely recognized by conservation groups and the public as the agricultural sector doing the most to support biodiversity. The dilemma will be finding a way to make it understood that the wildlife their farm systems otherwise support is, at this point in time, creating a threat to people’s livelihoods and it’s a problem that needs a solution,

“It’s going to be a delicate thing to talk about,” Lemon said.

That’s part of the task ahead for the Livestock Predation Working Group which will be looking at what other provinces are doing to deal with problem predators.

Beef producers currently call on professional trappers with the Manitoba Trappers Association (MTA) to remove problem predators, but in actuality few are available to go out anymore because pelt prices are so low.

“We need to inject some incentive into this whole program,” Lemon said.

For now, the main thing producers themselves can do is fill out the survey and give MBP the data it needs to quantify the problem and reinforce the seriousness of the situation.

“The more you can do to help us with that data the better off we’re going to be.”

The post MBP seeks producer data on predation losses appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A review of 25 years of data from lethal control programs from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services found that shooting and trapping the carnivores leads to more dead sheep and cattle in subsequent years, rather than less.

Writing in the journal PLOS ONE, WSU wildlife biologist Rob Wielgus and data analyst Kaylie Peebles say that, for each wolf killed, the odds of more livestock depredations increase significantly.

The trend continues until 25 per cent of the wolves in an area are killed, a rate of removal that is unsustainable for maintaining the species.

Researchers found that killing one wolf increases the odds of depredations four per cent for sheep and five to six per cent for cattle the following year. If 20 wolves are killed, livestock deaths double.

Work reported in PLOS ONE last year by Peebles, Wielgus and other WSU colleagues found that lethal controls of cougars also backfire, disrupting their populations so much that younger, less disciplined cougars attack more livestock.

Wielgus did not expect to see the same result with wolves.

“I had no idea what the results were going to be, positive or negative,” he said. “I said, ‘Let’s take a look at it and see what happened.’ I was surprised that there was a big effect.”

Wielgus said the wolf killings likely disrupt the social cohesion of the pack. While an intact breeding pair will keep young offspring from mating, disruption can set sexually mature wolves free to breed, leading to an increase in breeding pairs. As they have pups, they become bound to one place and can’t hunt deer and elk as freely. Occasionally, they turn to livestock.

Wielgus said wolves generally account for between .1 per cent and .6 per cent of all livestock deaths — a minor threat compared to other predators, disease, accidents and the dangers of calving.

He encourages more non-lethal interventions like guard dogs, “range riders” on horseback, flags, spotlights and “risk maps” that discourage grazing animals in hard-to-protect, wolf-rich areas.

“The only way you’re going to completely eliminate livestock depredations is to get rid of all the wolves,” Wielgus said, “and society has told us that that’s not going to happen.”

The post Shooting wolves backfires on livestock appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The planned delisting of Wyoming’s estimated 350 wolves caps a steady progression of diminishing federal safeguards for a predator once hunted, trapped and poisoned to the brink of extinction throughout most of the continental United States.

Wyoming will officially regain control over the management of its wolf population on Sept. 30, joining Montana and Idaho, where more than 1,500 wolves were removed from the federal endangered list in May of 2011.

About 4,000 wolves in the northern Great Lakes region — primarily Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota — lost their status as endangered or threatened last January.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe hailed delisting of the last wolf population in the northern Rockies as a victory assured by the Endangered Species Act and co-operation among state and federal partners.

“The return of the wolf to the Northern Rocky Mountains is a major success story,” he said in a statement.

Conservationists decried the move, questioning how an animal could be protected until Sept. 30 only to be subject to “open fire” on Oct. 1, the first day of Wyoming’s regulated hunting season. Environmental groups say they fear ending federal safeguards could push wolves back to the brink.

Like Idaho and Montana, Wyoming is required to maintain a statewide population of at least 150 wolves, including 15 breeding pairs, to prevent a relisting.

Wyoming wolves will remain off limits to hunters inside national wildlife refuges and national parks, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, as well as on the Wind River Indian Reservation.

But restricted hunting will be permitted from October through December within zones just outside those parks and refuges in the greater Yellowstone region of northwestern Wyoming, where most of the state’s wolves reside.

For the rest of the state, wolves would be classified as predatory animals, subjecting them to unlicensed, unregulated killing year round through methods such as shooting, trapping and pursuit on mechanized vehicles.

Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rockies in the mid-1990s, but their return triggered an emotional debate that pitted livestock producers and hunters against conservationists.

Under Endangered Species Act protections, wolf numbers rebounded in the northern Rockies, far exceeding the original recovery goals set by the federal government.

Efforts in recent years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove wolves in Idaho and Montana from the endangered species list were reversed by court rulings.

But Idaho and Montana wolves ultimately were delisted last year through an unprecedented act of Congress, and those states have since sought to reduce wolf numbers — mostly through hunting and trapping — to as few as 300 from as many as 1,500.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s latest estimate puts current numbers in all three states at more than 1,774 adult wolves.

The grey wolf originally was classified as an endangered species across the lower 48 states and Mexico, except in Minnesota, where the animal was listed as threatened.

An estimated 7,000 to 11,000 wolves roam much of Alaska, but are so abundant they have never been federally protected.

The post Wyoming wolves to lose Endangered Species Act protection appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The answer is no, but Watkins says it’s probably only a matter of time before these solitary, animals re-establish themselves in the province.

“I suspect it’s a simple case of more reports of sightings in an area and people wonder how these animals came to be there and they start conspiracy theories rather than the simple fact that the population in North Dakota is expanding and we’re probably getting some dispersing juveniles crossing the border into Manitoba,” he said in an interview.

“Given how widely they travel how would we ever keep them in one place?”

The only animals reintroduced by the province have been birds, including the burrowing owl, Watkins said.

However, cougars, the second-heaviest cats in the Western Hemisphere, according to Wikipedia, were native to Manitoba before European settlement. With confirmed sightings so rare — only three dead cougars have been turned into Conservation since 2004 — Watkins believes those spotted are just passing through.

South Dakota has an estimated 200 cougars and there’s a breeding population in North Dakota too. It’s likely the odd North Dakota-born cougar crosses into Manitoba following river valleys such as the Souris and Pembina, Watkins said.

“I think we are on the edge of establishing a population (here),” he added. “It’s just a question of time when a young male meets a young female and nature takes its course.”

Cougars, which are protected in Manitoba, have the greatest range of any large wild land mammal in the Western Hemisphere, according to Wikipedia, extending from the Yukon to the southern Andes of South America.

Even if cougars become a permanent part of the Manitoba environment, there will be very few spread over many acres, Watkins said.

Mistaken identity

“Although large, the cougar is most closely related to smaller felines and is closer genetically to the domestic cat than to true lions,” according to Wikipedia.

Perhaps that explains why sometimes cougar sightings turn out to be, Felis catus — the common house cat. That was the case last year in Altona where a school was locked down when a cat was mistaken for a cougar.

The sightings triggered “cougar panic.” The local police department received so many calls it asked Watkins to speak publicly about cougars. More than 100 people showed up.

“People need to become reacquainted with nature so they don’t mistake a house cat for a cougar or a raccoon,” he said.

Watkins hears about 30 to 60 cougar sightings a year. About 90 per cent aren’t cougars. Sometimes they’re cats, dogs, raccoons, or in one case, a whitetail deer. But Watkins still wants people to call Conservation if they think they’ve seen a cougar. It’s the only way to get data on the stealthy cat.

Four years ago there were confirmed sightings at Plum Coulee and Lee River. If you do see a cougar, count yourself lucky. “I’d be envious because I’ve never seen one in Manitoba,” Watkins said. Most sightings are over in seconds but if your paths cross for longer don’t panic.

“Move away from the animal slowly but don’t take your eyes off it,” Watkins said. “They are ambush hunters and if they know you are watching them they tend not to attack. Don’t run. That’s what prey does. If you run it might elicit a chase response.”

Stand tall, look big and throw a branch or rock at the animal. If it does attack fight as hard as you can.

“Cougars, again being ambush hunters, tend to break off an attack if there’s rigourous resistance,” Watkins said. “And the reason for that is if they’re injured they starve to death. They want a quick and easy kill, they don’t want a fight.”

A 78-year-old woman in California, armed with just a ballpoint pen from her purse, drove off a cougar attacking her 82-year-old husband. There are about two cougar attacks in North America every three years. You’re more likely to be killed by man’s best friend.

“In the United States there were 34 people killed by pet dogs in 2010 and there were 4.7 million people who were bitten by dogs,” he said. Livestock killings are rare too. Wolves, coyotes and black bears take more farm animals than cougars.

“We’ve never had an attack on a human by a cougar in Manitoba,” Watkins said. “All the places where attacks have occurred have very high cougar populations and where people are pressing into the back country. The likelihood of encountering a cougar in Manitoba is extremely rare. We know with only four dead cougars turned in, in 39 years, that doesn’t suggest a very large population.”

The post Permanent cougar population expected someday in Manitoba appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Moose populations have declined by almost 50 per cent in this part of the province since 2006. This temporary closure is being put in place to ensure sustainable populations into the future.

The temporary closure to all moose hunting is effective immediately in specific parts of GHA 26, which stretches from Lake Winnipeg to the Manitoba-Ontario border between the Winnipeg and Wanipigow rivers including Nopiming Provincial Park.

The closure also applies to treaty and Aboriginal rights-based hunters. The department has consulted local First Nations and Métis people to find solutions and will continue to work with Aboriginal communities and stakeholders to develop long-term plans to address low moose populations across the province.

Other measures taken to protect moose in this area include hunting regulation revisions that increase white-tailed deer bag limits, which will help reduce the transfer of fatal brainworm from deer to moose, as well as monitoring programs to help understand how wolves and bears are influencing the moose population.

In March 2011, the province announced $800,000 for a moose population recovery plan to help end the decline and restore the population to sustainable levels in both areas of the province. This included funding for:

•  Wildlife surveys related to moose management such as moose and wolf population surveys;
•  Incentives to local trappers to increase the harvest of wolves;
•  Decommissioning roads into areas of high moose density to help limit vehicle access;
•  Additional staffing resources to implement the moose recovery program and consult with First Nations and Métis people; and
•  Resources for increased enforcement including three new natural resource officers.

The licensed moose hunting seasons were cancelled in the Duck Mountain and GHA 26 in 2010. Conservation closures to hunting moose by all people were implemented in the Duck Mountain and Porcupine Mountain areas of western Manitoba in July 2011.

The post Eastern moose hunt suspended appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Freeloading deer and elk can cart off large amounts of feed in their bellies, and leave behind bovine tuberculosis-infected snot, saliva and feces on the fodder. Tall fences keep them out of bale yards, but are expensive and won’t help with bale-grazing sites – which is why some ranchers are borrowing a solution from their shepherding cousins: A big white dog or two that bonds with the herd and keeps wild critters away.

John and Kelsey Beasley, a ranching couple who recently moved to Alberta from Manitoba’s Duck Mountain area, swear by the value of well-trained border collies for reducing the legwork in cattle handling and herding.

To keep herds of elk away from their bale-grazing sites, they added Maremma and Great Pyrenees dogs to the mix.

“We used livestock-guarding dogs in Manitoba to mitigate feedstock depredation by elk,” Kelsey said in a presentation on a range of ranching tips at Ag Days.

Situated between a federal and a provincial park, they found the dogs invaluable for keeping elk as well as wolves and coyotes away from their herd.

Their experience with a pair of guardian dogs showed that, once properly bonded with the herd, the extremely territorial canines are heroically brave in the face of predators in one case fighting to the death to fend off wolves.

“We had a pack of wolves come in and kill the female and really brutally wounded the male,” said Kelsey. “But he lived.”

In 2009, the Beasleys participated in a MAFRI-funded study that placed GPS collars on their two dogs for 10 weeks to track their movements around a 2,500-bale, quarter section wintering site, a portion of which was set aside for bale grazing.

Data points were logged every 20 minutes indicating the location of each dog, and to help understand their range of movements, all of them were superimposed onto an aerial photo of the site.

Prior to the study, use of the dogs was controversial, with some Manitoba Conservation officials opposed to their widespread adoption for fear that they would chase and harass wildlife, said John.

The study put those fears to rest.

“We had no elk depredation of any of those bales and there was a large herd of about 60 elk within two to three miles,” said Kelsey.

The dots showed the dogs’ movements into their yard for food, as well as a few trips they made along with the cattle to the watering site, but no data points were found indicating that the animals had wandered away from the herd during the course of the study.

daniel. winters@fbcpublishing.com

———

“Wehadnoelkdepredationofanyofthosebalesandtherewasa largeherdofabout60elkwithintwotothreemilesaway.”

– Kelsey Beasley

The post Big White Dogs Keep Elk Away From Hay Bales appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A round of “Think Like a Wolf” seminars in three northern towns was held earlier this month to help ranchers learn how to protect their herds from predators, said Barry Verbiwski, head of Manitoba Conservation’s fur-bearer and problem wildlife management unit.

“We were trying to provide the capacity at a local level so that people can help themselves,” said Verbiwksi.

The heavily attended two-day workshops were aimed primarily at livestock producers and licensed trappers. They were long on practical tips on animal husbandry techniques for preventing livestock losses due to predators as well as predator calling, trapping, hunting and fur preparation. Simple preventive measures were included, such as cleaning up afterbirth and proper disposal of dead-stock to prevent predators from seeing livestock as a food source.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Verbiwski, who owns property on the east side of the Duck Mountains, said livestock producers and predators generally get along.

Just because predators are spotted in the area, there’s no need to rush out and try to kill them, he said. Most common are the good kind – the ones that mind their own business without attacking livestock – and their very existence means that other potentially bad actors can’t move in.

That’s because wolves and coyotes are territorial by nature, and if their numbers are cleaned out in one area, sooner or later more will wander in and take up residence.

“We tell producers that if you have wolves or coyotes around, just leave them be,” said Verbiwski. “Unoccupied ranges will be filled up, and if those animals are experienced at killing livestock, you may end up having a problem where you didn’t have a problem.”

Landowners may shoot wolves or coyotes to protect their herds and flocks, but they are obligated to report the incident within 10 days to their local conservation officer. However, now that the season for wolves and coyotes has been opened up year round, they no longer need to report each kill if they purchase a $5 trapping licence.

LICENCE REQUIRED

However, to get a trapping licence, they must show proof that they either have held a licence before or have attended a mandatory trapper education course.

Funding for the seminars came in part from the Problem Predator Removal Program offered in conjunction with the Manitoba Trapper’s Association, which Verbiwski said has been “grossly undersubscribed” for some reason this year.

Last year, 300 incidents were dealt with, but this year, only 30 requests for help have been received.

“We don’t know why,” he added.

Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation adjusters, who handle livestock loss claims, have been advised to tell ranchers with a verified predation claim to call the MTA and have a trapper or hunter assigned to remove the predator.

The two-day workshops, held in Swan River, Ashern, and Lac du Bonnet, were sponsored by Manitoba Conservation, the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, Manitoba Model Forest and the Manitoba Trapper’s Association, with registration offered on a priority basis for livestock producers and licensed trappers. A one-day session was also held for Manitoba Conservation staff. “Trapper Gord” Klassen, an instructor at Dave Unger Trapper College in Debolt, Alta., was a featured speaker at the workshop.

daniel.winters@fbcpublishing.com

The post To Catch A Wolf, Think Like One appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“In many instances, wolves and coyotes were coming off of Crown land and coming on to private land to maraud and kill livestock,” said Verbiwski.

If the varmint was on private land, the farmer had the right to shoot it in defence of his herd or flock. But if the animal wandered off into Crown land, legally they could not destroy it.

“This will allow property owners under the authority of a trapping licence to go beyond their own private property to deal with problem wolves and coyotes,” he added.

Also, extending the season from the traditional Oct. 15 start to late winter and end of March for wolves, is just the latest step in the effort to rein in predator populations, said Verbiwski, noting that a few years ago, a two-animal limit for wolves in some northern areas and a one-animal limit for coyotes was added to regular big game licences.

COMPENSATION

Each year, some 300 wolves and roughly 8,000 coyotes are harvested by trappers and hunters. Manitoba Ag Services Corporation (MASC) last year paid out more than $400,000 in compensation on 1,600 claims of lost livestock.

He said Saskatchewan recently delisted wolves, coyotes and beaver from the wildlife act altogether – effectively declaring them varmints that may be taken anytime without a licence.

Don Winnicky, a Manitoba Cattle Producers Association director from Piney, applauded the move saying the population of wolves and coyotes has “exploded” in recent years.

“It’s just ridiculous,” said Winnicky. “When the people within the perimeter of Winnipeg are seeing coyotes wandering around looking to take their dogs and cats – and heaven forbid if they ever grab a little kid – we can’t let it get that bad.”

After years without any trouble from predators, last spring he lost an 800-pound steer and a couple of calves to timber wolves.

RIFLES STORED

Ever since Bill C-68 was passed in the mid-1990s, the risk of being charged with unsafe firearm storage – and having all one’s firearms confiscated – means ranchers are less likely to carry rifles in their vehicles.

But Stu Jansson, a volunteer director of the Manitoba Trapper’s Association, is annoyed at what he calls the provincial government’s “lazy” response to the problem of livestock predation.

He noted that funding for the Problem Predator Removal Program, which pays trappers “a big, fat $10/hour” plus mileage to catch the bad actors, has been cut from $50,000 per year down to $40,000.

“That’s to look after 6,000 livestock producers in the province? At the same time, the province is paying out half a million in livestock compensation,” said Jansson.

“If they put $200,000 into this program, they would probably see those livestock losses drop significantly because we are going after the target predator, the one that’s habituated to killing livestock.”

LOW PAY

The hourly rate is lower than that paid to a highway flag-person, he added, and ignores the fact that to catch problem predators, a trapper must be highly skilled and provide all their own equipment.

Implementation and promotion of the program has been spotty too, he said.

Of the 1,300 livestock loss claims that have been filed this year, less than 40 have been forwarded to the MTA as requests for trapper services.

“To now throw it wide open, and now anybody can buy a trapping licence and go and whack coyotes and wolves any time of the year for no reason at all, puts the weekend warrior out on the back roads,” said Jansson.

The coyotes, he said, will simply respond to the increased pressure by having larger litters. The increased hunting pressure will also mean that the less wily ones will be removed from the gene pool, leaving only the craftiest animals to breed and proliferate.

“It could backfire. For the trapper who’s trying to make a dollar, the gravy is gone. Now he has to go out there and try to catch the one that’s been smartened up a whole damn bunch.”

WORKSHOPS

Verbiwski said it is up to the farmer to contact the trappers if they desire help, not the government. While the predator removal program funding hasn’t been cut, some funds have been used for seminars on how to protect stock from attacks.

Rob Lamont, an avid coyote hunter, agreed that trapping is probably a “way more effective way” to thin out coyote populations.

In the winter months, when the fur is at its best and he isn’t working behind the counter at Jo-Brook firearms in Brandon, Lamont likes to head out into the backcountry with a simple, hand-held predator call and bag a few pelts. One of the best coyote hunters around, he goes hunting about 25 days each winter. Last year he got 52.

“Fifteen years ago, when there were very few people doing it, it was very easy,” he said. “But I think, evolution has made them pretty smart and as a consequence, it’s a lot more difficult than it used to be.”

He’s not concerned so-called weekend warriors will head out in droves to blast away at coyotes on Crown land in the summer.

“Nobody is going to hunt them seriously in the summer,” said Lamont.

“People complain about gophers, and you can shoot gophers all summer. If people aren’t ambitious enough to go hunt gophers, coyotes are 150 times harder to hunt.” daniel.winters@fbcpublishing.com

———

“Thiswillallow propertyowners undertheauthority ofatrappinglicence togobeyondtheir ownprivateproperty todealwithproblem wolvesandcoyotes.”

– BARRY VERBIWSKI

The post Predator Control A Year-Round Affair appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.