Gray wolf.
Wolves are one of the smaller threats in the ranching
business, but they’re also one we can do something about, according to
new research from the University of Montana. “Our study shows
wolves can be on the landscape and not cause huge impacts, but they do
have impacts and those costs are not inconsequential,” UM Department of
Economics Chairman Derek Kallenberg said Monday. “Environment and
climate explain the vast majority of weight change in a calf herd. But
once you have depredation, you see a 3.5 percent decrease in average
(calf) weight.”
And that translates to a loss of $6,679 when a rancher sells an average herd of 264 calves a year. A drought that stunts grazing pastures or a blizzard that results in winter die-offs will trigger bigger economic losses. But wolves were once almost eliminated from Montana and then deliberately reintroduced. And until now, nobody had conclusively quantified what the cost of that policy decision was to ranchers.
Kallenberg co-authored the study with UM biologist Mark Hebblewhite and graduate students Joseph Ramler and Carolyn Sime. Their findings, “Crying Wolf? A Spatial Analysis of Wolf Location and Depredations on Calf Weight,” was published this month in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
The study looked at sales records from 18 western Montana ranches combined with wolf-tracking and climate data between 1995 and 2010. It found that when a cattle herd suffered a wolf kill, the average calf weight in that herd fell about 22 pounds. That translated to a $6,679 overall loss to the rancher when the calves were sold.
But it also found that annual rainfall, temperature and snowfall “explain a much larger proportion of variance in calf weight over the year than do wolf effects,” Kallenberg said. “In fact, these other factors explain the vast majority of accounted-for variation in annual calf weights.”
Ranchers who lose a cow in a confirmed wolf-kill may be reimbursed about $900 from state or private programs. The surviving herd goes on to lose about 7 1/2 times that value in reduced weight, because of stress or inefficient grazing. But the study found wolves had no effect on calf weight in places where their pack territory overlapped ranches but the wolves didn’t prey on cattle.
Kallenberg said that might inspire different ways of addressing the wolves’ financial impact. For example, it could set a new reimbursement budget for what ranchers are losing to wolves. Or it could lend support to programs like the Blackfoot Challenge’s wolf range rider program, which sends trained monitors around ranches to discourage wolves from stalking livestock. “The Blackfoot Challenge has been instrumental in looking at different ways of mitigation strategy,” Kallenberg said. “If we think about the compromise between landowners and people who want wolves, it’s not that expensive. If a ranch did experience a wolf kill in a year, some supplemental feeding might be a good policy.”
The study also has implications for future Endangered Species Act decisions. One big part of the federal government’s review of species listing is determining the cost of protection. “If you underestimate the costs, that affects whether a species is successful after being reintroduced,” Kallenberg said. “These are things a lot of ranchers have suggested for some time with wolves, but nobody had ever studied it before. And those are the very people you need support from for a successful reintroduction.”
source
And that translates to a loss of $6,679 when a rancher sells an average herd of 264 calves a year. A drought that stunts grazing pastures or a blizzard that results in winter die-offs will trigger bigger economic losses. But wolves were once almost eliminated from Montana and then deliberately reintroduced. And until now, nobody had conclusively quantified what the cost of that policy decision was to ranchers.
Kallenberg co-authored the study with UM biologist Mark Hebblewhite and graduate students Joseph Ramler and Carolyn Sime. Their findings, “Crying Wolf? A Spatial Analysis of Wolf Location and Depredations on Calf Weight,” was published this month in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
The study looked at sales records from 18 western Montana ranches combined with wolf-tracking and climate data between 1995 and 2010. It found that when a cattle herd suffered a wolf kill, the average calf weight in that herd fell about 22 pounds. That translated to a $6,679 overall loss to the rancher when the calves were sold.
But it also found that annual rainfall, temperature and snowfall “explain a much larger proportion of variance in calf weight over the year than do wolf effects,” Kallenberg said. “In fact, these other factors explain the vast majority of accounted-for variation in annual calf weights.”
Ranchers who lose a cow in a confirmed wolf-kill may be reimbursed about $900 from state or private programs. The surviving herd goes on to lose about 7 1/2 times that value in reduced weight, because of stress or inefficient grazing. But the study found wolves had no effect on calf weight in places where their pack territory overlapped ranches but the wolves didn’t prey on cattle.
Kallenberg said that might inspire different ways of addressing the wolves’ financial impact. For example, it could set a new reimbursement budget for what ranchers are losing to wolves. Or it could lend support to programs like the Blackfoot Challenge’s wolf range rider program, which sends trained monitors around ranches to discourage wolves from stalking livestock. “The Blackfoot Challenge has been instrumental in looking at different ways of mitigation strategy,” Kallenberg said. “If we think about the compromise between landowners and people who want wolves, it’s not that expensive. If a ranch did experience a wolf kill in a year, some supplemental feeding might be a good policy.”
The study also has implications for future Endangered Species Act decisions. One big part of the federal government’s review of species listing is determining the cost of protection. “If you underestimate the costs, that affects whether a species is successful after being reintroduced,” Kallenberg said. “These are things a lot of ranchers have suggested for some time with wolves, but nobody had ever studied it before. And those are the very people you need support from for a successful reintroduction.”
source