 | |||
| "I am a farmer, You killed my livestock, prepare to die" ... or not |
Here's news animal lovers probably like. The "no-kill" wolf ban in Oregon, implemented only a while ago, seems to be effective. This ban came to be when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife revealed plans to shoot two wolves. However, they were sued on the groups of the Endangered Species Act. A compromise was eventually worked out to protect the lives of the wolves and the livestock they were known to prey on. Researchers note that while wolf populations are increasing, cattle deaths have not been significantly on the rise, seeming to show that the ban is working. Hopefully this is proof that nature and humanity can coexist peacefully with one another.
Nonlethal methods to keep wolves away include utilizing bright lights and loud noises, known as fladry, to disuade them from attacking nearby livestock. However, local ranchers fear that these nonlethal methods may lose effectively as the wolf populations become accustomed to them; some recommend returning to a shoot-to-kill policy like was used in the past.
Hopefully these methods will spread to other states. In Washington state, 74.5 percent of those polled thought that it would alright for wolves to recolonize their state. Idaho is another location where this ban can be tested. Notably, while wolf populations went down, livestock killings actually went up, creating uncertainty among researchers. Though, some disagree. Interviewee Patton felt that "It's frustrating, more than anything, because we have our hands tied... You can kill a man [who] comes into your house to rob you. Wolves are more protected than people." Of course, humans aren't exactly endangered like many wolf populations are (or used to be).
Do you believe this no-kill wolf ban is a good idea? Would you like this implemented in other states? Are there any trade-offs or opportunity costs related to this ban? Feel free to answer.
5 comments:
Being the animal lover, I do like this idea. But what interested me is that the ban does not apply to wolves that are in the process of killing livestock (as per the second link). This basically eliminates the validity of the quote, since when a wolf is killing livestock the farmer will be able to kill it, also eliminating the supposed tradeoff between the rights of the farmer to protect his livestock and the rights of the wolves. Additionally, the fact that the livestock killings went down with greater protection for the wolves demonstrates that this is a good step for the endangered animal. In regards to implementing this ban for other states for other animals, I think it would be a good idea to an extent. As time continues with the "no-kill" ban, more research will need to be done to evaluate the continued effectiveness of this program.
I agree with Kathryn that more research is necessary to support this ban in other states. I was unable to find more research regarding possible causes for the correlation between the livestock deaths and wolf deaths. I would not be surprised if researchers decide to pursue such investigations in the future in order to determine the validity of such a ban.
I'm not necessarily an avid animals' rights activist or anything like that, but I definitely support this ban on killing wolves. In my eyes, the trade-off is giving up opportunities to have "stunning" pieces of taxidermy in the center of one's home in order to preserve nature and potential resources that could be used for later purposes. It's understandable that farmers would be worried and upset about safety and protecting their livestock, but I don't necessarily think wolves are the sole ones to blame. Moreover, as opposed to thinking of ways to get rid of wolves, I think creating ways of protecting people is probably more worth the opportunity cost in the end.
I agree with both Kathryn and Abby in supporting the ban on killing wolves. Since fladry has been successful so far in keeping wolves away from livestock, it should continue to be used as there are no livestock killed or wolves killed. If wolves ever do get so accustomed to those loud noises and bright lights, then the use of the shoot-to-kill policy can come back into question, but since fladry has been successful, we should continue to use those actions. It'd be a good idea to use this policy in other states, especially since it seems like the general population agrees with the idea. The only opportunity cost that I see is that people would lose the legal ability to kill wolves and, like Abby said, have them for taxidermy. Otherwise, by using a nonlethal way, both livestock and an endangered species would be saved.
Though I don't exactly think of myself as an animal lover, even I can understand that killing a wolf for hunting—an action intrinsic to wolves as a means of survival—is absurd. Rather than resort to killing, why not invest that energy into building safer shelters for livestock? This would be a much more practical and long-lasting solution compared to killing each wolf that hits the livestock jackpot. Perhaps, to encourage such building projects and thereby protect wolves, the government should provide subsidies or other forms of monetary aid to farmers. Keep in mind that these types of projects could benefit construction workers/companies, contractors, wood suppliers, tool suppliers, etc. versus benefiting only gun suppliers for the guns bought to kill the wolves.
Post a Comment