Wolves filling up on cattle in SW Alta.

[Kim473]

Wow ! Didn't think there would be 6,000 - 7,000 wolfs in the province. Always thought maybe a couple thousand but 7k ?? Gonna have to be a little more carefull out there and be a little more attentive to my suroundings. Just maybe those wern't coyotes I heard while ice fishing in the early mornings.

[Big Grey Wolf]

Guys the origional license contribution to ACA was for wildlife studies. Klieniken was going to put into PC government general revenue. Then someone
got the bright idea to use wildlife money to compensate farmers. Now with the 7000-8000 wolf population and increased grizz not near enough $$ to compensate all the claims. Farmers are expected to control coyotes by
themselves.

[creeky]

Originally Posted by elkhunter220

X2. So many hunters think they can go out and just wipe em all out in a week or so. Well good luck to ya but hell, we get quite a few livestock taken every year by wolves and ya think we ever see them? Lucky to see two or three a year through your cross-hairs.

unless your Cowmanbob or Popcan

[Hydro1]

Originally Posted by Kim473

Wow ! Didn't think there would be 6,000 - 7,000 wolfs in the province. Always thought maybe a couple thousand but 7k ?? Gonna have to be a little more carefull out there and be a little more attentive to my suroundings. Just maybe those wern't coyotes I heard while ice fishing in the early mornings.

You should worry about wolves about as much as you worry about a negative sasquatch encounter.
Sure the sight of them can at times make your hair stand on end. But they post no risk to you.

[TheBrit]

Can a rancher legally hire someone to cull the wolf population in his area? I know a guy in BC that could do this.

[LUNKDAWGEH]

Learning about subjects you feel strongly about is advantageous in discussion.

Here is the link.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/downloads/s4655j066

[avb3]

Originally Posted by LUNKDAWGEH

Learning about subjects you feel strongly about is advantageous in discussion.

Here is the link.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/downloads/s4655j066

That's a great paper. I remember some discussion a few years back about changing the location of boneyards to minimize the wolf/cattle interaction. I forgot it was this paper that triggered that discussion.

Everyone taking part in this thread should read your link.

[Headdamage]

Several years ago I found one of the Copperthorn cows drowned in a creek in 406, they where not happy when I reported this to them. I suspect they where trying to claim it as lost to predators.

[Dr Death]

To receive compensation for lost livestock due to predation, it must be proven the animal was killed by a predator. Even 'suspected' kills are not paid out as losses. In general it must be a fresh kill to make that determination.

[nube]

Well my 2 cents worth. I noticed a change this spring after spending some time on my trapline for a couple days. I saw twice as many moose in the small area I was exploring and around than I normally do. This could be because I got lucky but I think I actually did some good this year. I killed 11 wolves in a small area. One pack was broken up for sure and considering a pack will kill a moose a week to eat I bet I saved a pile of moose in a short time. Hopefully it was not a fluke thing and I could totally be wrong but I think if we could get a better bounty system in place for trappers and hunters then it may be worth it for people to hunt them a little more.

We see how very few wolves are taken every year by our membership on this forum. Wolves are living unchecked for the most part. For a ton of work I caught 4 wolves with any decent fur on them and I will be lucky to break even for the costs of fuel and equipment. I know if there was a bounty I would be hammering down on them pretty hard

[artie]

Back in the sixties there were few wolves around or if there were more they were not seen so I was wondering when the wolve population took a dramatic increase.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Guys the origional license contribution to ACA was for wildlife studies. Klieniken was going to put into PC government general revenue. Then someone
got the bright idea to use wildlife money to compensate farmers. Now with the 7000-8000 wolf population and increased grizz not near enough $$ to compensate all the claims. Farmers are expected to control coyotes by
themselves.

That is not completely the truth. The compensation fund existed long before the ACA was thought of. You are correct about the issue of putting the so called Wildlife Trust money, which we found out was not a trust at all, but "designated funds", being put into general revenue. The brain behind that was Jim Dinning, and it took many meetings, including two with Klein, to overturn that and establish the ACA.

[Brian Bildson]

I've got no issue with compensation but should be paid out Agriculture not Licence levies ACA receives. There's no cap on maximum paid out so ACA absorbs the cost of every proven predator kill. It's 100,000s of thousands

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

And I am someone with no ranching or real farming experience ... admitted, so don't go off on me as some "urban" idiot (?).

The wolves were here long before the cattle. Ranching is a business (or is it now a publicly subsidized non business?). One of the risks of the business, conducted in wolf territory, is predation from wolves, et al. (cougars, grizzlies, etc.). There are available means of mitigation (such as various beasts that deter wolves, like Sicilian Donkeys, or just plain human shepherds?). So, your solution is to kill all the native beasts, at public expense, or to compensate businessmen, who take the well-known business risk (?) of just such predation, voluntarily (?). Sorry, it makes very little sense to me - and I am a business-person with the very different risks inherent in my own business.

So, give me your rational arguments as to why I should support public efforts, at public expense, to kill off the natural and original inhabitants of the land, just because it is inconvenient to your particular industry. Tell me why it is more important to serve your direct interests than to preserve just a little corner of "nature" for my kids. Tell me where I have erred in my viewpoint. I will be very objective in assessment of rational, unselfish, arguments.

So you can head to your nearest Safeway and buy your burger et al. as cheap as possible and feed the family

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Brian Bildson

I've got no issue with compensation but should be paid out Agriculture not Licence levies ACA receives. There's no cap on maximum paid out so ACA absorbs the cost of every proven predator kill. It's 100,000s of thousands

Brian, is that not at a flow through funding from the Feds under the Wildlife Predator Compensation Program?