Wolves Arise In Manitoba

“”It started out just with more sightings of wolves in the area,” Green said. “Then gradually we started to realize we were losing calves.”
 
It’s a problem that adds up in the pocketbook very quickly. Green said a steer can net $1,500 at the market.
 
Green believes a decline in moose and elk populations in the Interlake is forcing wolves to take bolder, riskier actions to get food. A wolf once had to be shot right in her yard. Another made its way into a calving pen, killing one calf.”
 
See Increasing number of wolf attacks spark concern among Manitoba cattle farmers
Yes, the wolves are coming closer. When I was a boy in the Interlake district of Manitoba, I never saw a wolf. When I was a man with a young family I saw a pair of wolves hunting the same edges I was for mice/geese. At the same time I saw fewer families living by farming. Farms got bigger and people commuted to the cities for gainful employment. Much of the land is marginal farmland. It’s good for cattle and not much else. Too rocky. However, wolves love all the edges farming creates. That’s where grouse, mice, and hares and deer abound but when there isn’t enough food gotten the hard way, wolves will pick off isolated/weak/young cattle.

We can’t turn back the clock to the time when families could live off a quarter section of land. We can’t increase the population trimming back the wolves. That leaves hunters/trappers. Fur is out of fashion. That leaves hunters. Manitoba should issue proper wolf-hunting licences for hunters and provide statistics/maps where the numbers are high. Then coordinate with farmers with some kind of permission to hunt protocol based on mutual respect and rules for hunting in proximity to farms/dwellings/livestock. It may even require permission to hunt at night. Wolves work 24×7… At the moment Manitoba permits big game hunters to shoot one wolf. That’s apparently not enough. This is the 21st century. Use technology to point farmers and hunters in the right direction. While they’re at it, they should publish those other game stats that they hide away each year…

The present regime requires hunters to gain permission from individual farmers/landowners. Remove that barrier in a robust manner. The wolves don’t stay between the lines. Restricting hunters severely doesn’t work.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms, hunting, politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Wolves Arise In Manitoba

  1. DrLoser says:

    And I purely hate to supply Fifi with a link which he/she should obviously have known in the first place, but this one is so hysterically funny that I can’t stop myself.

    Is Dog Pee Killing Trees?

    The funniest bit about this is that the answer is given in the first paragraph: “er, no, there is actually no evidence to prove this.”

    Fifi, you cute little vacuous moron — you have outdone yourself on this one.

  2. DrLoser says:

    I tell you what, you get yourself an English to what-the-hell-ever-you-are-typing translator (I’m guessing batshit crazy…) to explain the joke you missed and I might respond to you.

    Holy cow, the dingbat is talking about dingoes now. How very, er, poetic.

    Now, I am not sure which side of the “dingo fence” Fifi lives on. But I have actually travelled out to the “dingo fence” (it’s way back of Bourke, if you start from the East Coast), and I have actually seen it.

    Perhaps Mademoiselle Dolding can explain what it is there for. No jokes, Fifi, just a link or two.

  3. oiaohm wrote, “You kill the dingos in Australia to protect the cattle/sheep/humans then the grass land disappear as it over grown by trees so then you don’t have your grass land for cattle and sheep at all so your few losses compared to the manual labour cost to kill trees because you got rid of the dingos is more than what the lost beasts was worth fully grown most of the time.”

    Cattle alone are quite capable of trimming back the edges of forests. They browse on the tender shoots. Further, if predators are controlled by humans they don’t take a huge share of cattle and it all works. Left on their own, predators increase in numbers until the prey decreases and the predators starve. That’s why they must be controlled to limit damage to cattle. Farming is just not practical if cattle numbers swings rapidly in a predator-prey relationship.

  4. Ivan says:

    I tell you what, you get yourself an English to what-the-hell-ever-you-are-typing translator (I’m guessing batshit crazy…) to explain the joke you missed and I might respond to you.

  5. oiaohm says:

    Ivan yes this is a true facepalm. You kill the dingos in Australia to protect the cattle/sheep/humans then the grass land disappear as it over grown by trees so then you don’t have your grass land for cattle and sheep at all so your few losses compared to the manual labour cost to kill trees because you got rid of the dingos is more than what the lost beasts was worth fully grown most of the time. So dingos are quite cheap tree control who takes pay checks in the form of herd losses.

    The dingo habit if peeing on young trees and killing them is kinda important feature.

    Wild dogs(domestic dogs got lose) that will kill for the fun it are more expensive than tree control. Pure dingos only kill for food so cost effective tree control.

    If wolves in Canada work the same way killing them off could be a really bad thing. Spending money to protect you cattle from the wolves with fencing and the like long term can be cheaper.

    So when planning to cull something learn from Australia understand everything the creature is doing first or you will have our dingo fence mistake. Paying people to clear trees is not cheap.

    Ivan so why pay for insurance if in fact the loses are in fact saving you money long term. The fact a dingo is saving you money long term is why the Australian government will not pay you for anything they take. So herd losses is a price of doing business. Excessive herd losses due to more modern imported dogs you are allowed to-do something about.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Good! Dingos shouldn’t be given guns or allowed to hunt with them. They might eat more babies!
    Ivan the nightmare is even if they do killing Dingos is not a straight forwards answer.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/the-culling-of-australia-s-dingoes-is-having-a-strange-effect-on-plant-life

    Nice right alter predator mix alter land form shape.

  7. Ivan says:

    Australia dingos not legally allowed to shot them or hunt them.

    Good! Dingos shouldn’t be given guns or allowed to hunt with them. They might eat more babies!

    That could be $1K difference. So, the best solutions are to raise more calves or permit more hunting.

    https://www.thehartford.com/business-insurance/livestock-insurance

  8. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson the Australian pure dingo is a true digger as they make their homes under ground.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo_Fence

    Lot of investment has been done in Australia to control the dingo. The largest problem now is the wild dogs that are not dingo but pet/working dogs that have been let go into the wild.

    Wolves are programmed to kill elk/moose so cattle aren’t much of a problem.
    Same is kind of true for wild dogs and dingos. Bringing down a large kangaroo is not easy dropping a 1T cow is simpler if they run away. There are some cattle breeds that don’t run away but will stand and fight. They will quite simply stomp dogs/wolves to death. Yes they make no difference between a working dog and a wild dog or dingo. Now I don’t know if those breeds are bear compatible or Canada weather condition compatible.

    Please note the breeds that will stomp dogs and wolves to death can stomp you to death as well. This is why I suspect they are not bear compatible as I could see them attempting to go head to head with bear and losing. So Canada has the extra wrinkle of bears.

  9. oiaohm wrote, “the dog proof fencing has proven to protect more calves than shooting in Australia”.

    A lot of Canadian farms have to be grazed because the rocky soil is difficult for growing fodder, so the calves can be penned but when the numbers go up, it just gets too expensive. If the herd is 100 and you get 30 calves each year, pens are affordable, but if the herd is 1000+ and you get 300+ calves the cost is huge. The whole idea of letting cattle graze is to let them do the work so the farmer does not have to invest in enclosures except a cattle-retaining fence. It’s a cost/benefit thing. If you can afford a huge pen, you should just invest your money in stocks instead of gambling/raising cattle. It’s not just about wolves eating cattle either. For every kill the wolves make they’ve harassed the herd a few times wasting the fodder they’ve consumed in running instead of growing beef. Wolves are programmed to kill elk/moose so cattle aren’t much of a problem.

  10. oiaohm wrote, “Dog proof fencing a large area is not cheap”.

    It certainly is not. Wolves/coyotes/badgers/bears can all dig, so the fence has to be two or three feet into the ground and ~8feet above. Calving pens are usually boarded up and a dog guards them but then eventually they have to go out to graze and bad things happen. One rifleman could do a decent job guarding a 1/4 section but that’s just a small herd. The bigger the operation the greater the losses and it scales a bit but not when the wolves have a dramatic increase in numbers.

  11. oiaohm says:

    Australia dingos not legally allowed to shot them or hunt them. Same problem kind of problem has to be dealt with by using dog proof fencing or a few beasts in the herd with anti-dog nature.

    Also, the government compensates for the present value of the calf, not the future value of the steer.
    Australia dingo takes calf government pays nothing. If you did not provide fenced areas strong enough to keep dingos out in Australia and you lose beast that is your problem. Really Canada farmers don’t know how good they have got it. Dog proof fencing a large area is not cheap. I guess putting on fences to stop wolfs would be as expensive. But long term the dog proof fencing has proven to protect more calves than shooting in Australia.

  12. Ivan wrote, “Are you saying that your enlightened Canada doesn’t provide special permits to take care of nuisance critters?”

    The problems are twofold:

    1. Farmers have to sleep, and
    2. farmers have to farm.

    That doesn’t leave much time for pushing bush or guarding the flock. Farmers are allowed to shoot ’em if they catch ’em, and they can claim compensation from the government (wolves technically are the queen’s livestock…). The problem arises when the wolves attack at 0300 and do away with a calf with no witnesses/evidence. Also, the government compensates for the present value of the calf, not the future value of the steer. That could be $1K difference. So, the best solutions are to raise more calves or permit more hunting.

  13. Ivan says:

    It’s after they’ve been weaned that the wolves get them, sometimes even in the pens.

    Are you saying that your enlightened Canada doesn’t provide special permits to take care of nuisance critters?

  14. Ivan wrote, ” If ranchers aren’t willing to accept the loss than they should leave the business of free-range cattle.”

    No one I know lets cattle calve out on the range. They round them up and protect them. It’s after they’ve been weaned that the wolves get them, sometimes even in the pens. When I was a boy on the farm, calving was done in the barn and calves didn’t leave the barnyard for months and came back to the barnyard at night.

  15. Ivan says:

    They are eating calves.

    It’s the cycle of life, Bob. If ranchers aren’t willing to accept the loss than they should leave the business of free-range cattle.

    Who knows, maybe you can hunt the ranchers down and force them to use linux…

  16. DrLoser says:

    (Easterville.)

  17. DrLoser says:

    Yes, hunting endangered species sounds like a wonderful idea, Bob. While you’re at it, why not kidnap homeless people, release them into the wilderness, and hunt them?

    I suspect that Robert has satiated his desire to corral helpless people in the wilderness and condemn them to a life outside the IT mainstream, with no hope of a job, Ivan.
    Think blockquote.
    Endangered species have it easy, in comparison.

  18. Ivan wrote, “hunting endangered species sounds like a wonderful idea, Bob”.

    Wolves are thriving here. Read the post. They are eating calves. I was teaching in the North for over a decade and there were wolves in number everywhere, eating domestic dogs as well as caribou and mouse and mice and hares. The North is very sparsely populated by humans. Now the wolves are expanding into populated regions. That is the problem, not the balance of Nature. Wolves may be endangered in some parts of USA but not here in Manitoba, CANADA.

    See Grey Wolf, in Wikipedia.

    “Canada is home to about 52,000–60,000 wolves, whose legal status varies according to province and territory. First Nations residents may hunt wolves without restriction, and some provinces require licenses for residents to hunt wolves while others do not. In Alberta, wolves on private land may be baited and hunted by the landowner without requiring a license, and in some areas, wolf hunting bounty programs exist. Large-scale wolf population control through poisoning, trapping and aerial hunting is also presently conducted by government-mandated programs in order to support populations of endangered prey species such as woodland caribou.”

  19. Ivan says:

    Yes, hunting endangered species sounds like a wonderful idea, Bob. While you’re at it, why not kidnap homeless people, release them into the wilderness, and hunt them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *