Predators & Cattle, Sheep and Other Lifestock

Coffeehouse · 09-05-2008, 02:55 PM

In Norway we have a problem which is a bit of an irony.

The sheep-farmers in this nation lose on an annual base around 50,000 sheep, out of a total of approx. 2,2 million sheep, to predators such as the Lynx Lynx (Latin name in lack of an English name, 'Gaupe' in Norwegian), Wolf and Bear.
In our neighbouring country Sweden, there are about 500,000 sheep, and most are in, what we call 'innmarksbeite' in Norway, grazing in low-lying areas, close to the farms, with little forests and habitat suited for the Gaupe (read Lynx Lynx), Wolf and Bear.
The contrast is stark to the 2,2 million sheep in Norway who mostly graze in 'utmarksbeite', in mountaineous areas with much forests and apt conditions for predators.
Still, the Swedes lose only 500 sheep on an annual basis.

So what's the irony? Well, the Swedish gov't seems to be providing their sheep-farmers with funds to build anti-predator fencing around the areas where the sheep graze. And if the farmers don't use the funds appropriately, they lose the funds, they must pay for the fencing themselves. Likewise, there is little flow of money to the farmers from the Swedish gov't whenever a sheep is hunted down and killed since the annual deathtoll only stands at 500.
However, in Norway, sheep farmers receive about 1,700 Norwegian Kroner for every sheep taken by a predator. That's 1,000 NOK more than the farmer gets when he sends the sheep to the slaughter-house. Thus, the Norwegian gov't is in effect, with the new legislation passed a few years ago, paying the farmer to let his sheep run loose and get killed, (often the sheep aren't kiled but badly injured and can go on about for days before dying). And usually its the farmer him/herself who has to go out and shoot the injured sheep, which naturally isn't a nice job to have. At the same time, the farmer is stuck inbetween a rock and a very hard place; he can't not let his sheep go out and graze, but when he does he loses many sheep, but he gains economically, in a massive leap of irony, from it.

Which leave me thinking if my Gov't is stupid, because the obvious solution to this would be not providing financial support for every sheep killed, but financial incentives for every sheep saved! The Gov't paying the farmer a certain amount for making sure the percentage of lost sheep out of the total flock is at a minimal level.
But, it gets even more twisted. Because it seems that the farmer is chipping in on the grave-digging himself when the majority of Norwegian sheep farmers are insisting that there be no fencing in the 'utmarksbeite' (read definition above). And why in the name of Sheep, would the farmer do this? Because the farmer gains even though he loses sheep. It's simply not in the farmers interest to build lots of fences because the sheep farmers who earn the most money during a year are the sheep farmers who lose a reasonable amount of sheep (without endangering the next year's reproduction potential).
Norway stands for around 40% of payments to farmers for killed sheep in Europe. We have about 5% of the total amount of predators roaming the continent. Anyone see something wrong with that?

Traditionally in Norway there is a view that fences are a bad thing, and that things should be kept as nature intended it. Thus you will search long and hard for any farmers who want their forests and hills to be fenced in. They'd rather shoot all the Wolfs and the Bears before they let that happen, which makes it extremely difficult to solve the matter, in the greatest irony that they lose the sheep they care for, but are paid substantial sums for it.
And the Gov't has with the Parliament made it Law that predators like all other wildlife, have the right to reach a substantial population, both in the name of conservation and because the Norwegian forests and mountains would be at loss without them.

So I'm curious to how other nations deal with predators, like the United States, Canada, Finland, (New Zealand?) and other places where predators have a reasonable foothold.

**Nurvingiel** · 09-05-2008, 03:19 PM

Lynx link is called, in English, the lynx. Sometimes we do have sensible names for things.

Anyway, isn't one of the reasons the Swedish government gives money to farmers for that purpose is so that farmers don't shoot wolves? The poor old wolves were extirpated from Sweden, but some Finnish wolves were introduced to reintroduce the animals.

In Canada if an animal is at risk, you're not allowed to shoot it. Here are our species at risk (in English or French).

I don't know if farmers get compensation for the lost animal though. If not, why wouldn't they start shooting predators? Even though you aren't allowed to do it, it would be very difficult to enforce the rule all the time. Better provide an incentive not to, in the sense that it's not worth the trouble to try to kill all the predators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Traditionally in Norway there is a view that fences are a bad thing, and that things should be kept as nature intended it. Thus you will search long and hard for any farmers who want their forests and hills to be fenced in. They'd rather shoot all the Wolfs and the Bears before they let that happen, which makes it extremely difficult to solve the matter, in the greatest irony that they lose the sheep they care for, but are paid substantial sums for it.

So... the group of people that extirpated wolves from Norway want the forests to stay natural? Wha? Sounds like someone has been eating too much lutfisk.

I'm all for ranching, but even ranch land has fences. (They aren't to stop predators, just to divide the land into management areas, but still.)

The mind boggles.

Coffeehouse · 09-05-2008, 05:44 PM

Thanx for the reply. Yes, one of the reasons Norwegian sheep-farmers receive money for every sheep killed is because the Gov't does not want every farmer running out to hunt down every Wolf in Norway. However sometimes the farmers go ahead and kill them anyways.

One of the absurdities of the conservation-policy is where endangered predators (such as Wolves) may go and may not go. One of the most Wolf-friendly habitats in Norway is in a county where the farmers pursue a fairly aggressive policy and one where the number of sheep killed by predators is high. So the Gov't, a three-party coalition (centre-left) now consisting of the largest party in Norway, the Labour Party, the much smaller Socialist Party and the medium-sized Centre Party (very pro-agriculture, pro-farmer, etc.) have introduced a Law that makes Wolf-territory all territory in south-east Norway where the wolf has very little suitable area to roam. While the area where they should be able to roam is off-limits to them because 29 sheep-farmers are resisting. So you can imagine the power of the agricultural lobby in this area... Politics!

That said, the Wolf population in Norway has grown substantially and is now fairly 'well-off', and that coincides with a growth in the number of sheep grazing in the 'utmarksbeite': So you get more sheep in the forests and on the mountains un-guarded, no fencing (ranches with fences are almost unheard of in Norway. We have approx. zero fencing along our long border with Sweden, Finland and Russia) and more wolves. Equals disaster.

And yes, it's an irony that farmers who want the Norwegian country-side to remain beautiful are so much against some of the animals that make it so spectacular. It's conserving in the forests and on the hills what is only useful for the farm, and I can see their point. But a bit of intelligent fencing doesn't need to ruin the landscape. And they know they'll receive funding from the Gov't anyways.

**Nurvingiel** · 09-06-2008, 04:21 PM

Twenty-nine people put a stop to utilizing the best wolf habitat in the country? Wow.

Is there an environmental non-government organization that might stand up for the wolves?

***Varnafindë*** · 09-06-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That said, the Wolf population in Norway has grown substantially and is now fairly 'well-off', and that coincides with a growth in the number of sheep grazing in the 'utmarksbeite': So you get more sheep in the forests and on the mountains un-guarded, no fencing (ranches with fences are almost unheard of in Norway. We have approx. zero fencing along our long border with Sweden, Finland and Russia) and more wolves. Equals disaster.

Could you say our government is paying the sheep-farmers to feed the wolves?

Sian · 09-07-2008, 12:56 AM

Both sheep and wolves have been controversial figures in the US in the past. After the millions of bison were slaughtered, the western US was open range (and still is in some places) for cattle grazing. Sheep were believed to spoil the grazing for cattle and there were problems between sheep owners and cattle owners that often led to bloodshed. Cattle ranchers pretty much ruled things in the western US and wolves were killed nearly to extinction to protect the cattle (dosen't really make a lot of sense: bison are an excellent source of meat and can withstand the wolves rather well and they were here already in vast numbers). Now wolves have been re-introduced in some areas, notably Yellowstone National Park. I may be wrong, but I think if the wolves leave the park (which they have no reason to do as there are deer, elk, bison etc there for them) they can be killed by ranchers if they pose a threat to cattle or sheep. The wolves have radio collars and they are monitored and their health is checked periodically.

Greetings to all here! I haven't been on Entmoot much lately!

Coffeehouse · 09-07-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

Could you say our government is paying the sheep-farmers to feed the wolves?

Yeah I think that's fair to say.. Crazy isn't it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sian

The wolves have radio collars and they are monitored and their health is checked periodically.

Radio collars are used frequently in Norway as well, though they aren't very effective in preventing sheep from being slaughtered. The animal conservation groups are nuts about them though, understandably.

**Nurvingiel** · 09-07-2008, 01:49 PM

Even if it doesn't keep people from shooting the wolves, radio collars can provide useful data as to where the wolves go, which is necessary to manage the people. People need a lot of management, especially when it comes to other animals! Managing for bears, for example, is really all about managing people.

09-05-2008, 02:55 PM	#1
Coffeehouse Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 2,145	Predators & Cattle, Sheep and Other Lifestock In Norway we have a problem which is a bit of an irony. The sheep-farmers in this nation lose on an annual base around 50,000 sheep, out of a total of approx. 2,2 million sheep, to predators such as the Lynx Lynx (Latin name in lack of an English name, 'Gaupe' in Norwegian), Wolf and Bear. In our neighbouring country Sweden, there are about 500,000 sheep, and most are in, what we call 'innmarksbeite' in Norway, grazing in low-lying areas, close to the farms, with little forests and habitat suited for the Gaupe (read Lynx Lynx), Wolf and Bear. The contrast is stark to the 2,2 million sheep in Norway who mostly graze in 'utmarksbeite', in mountaineous areas with much forests and apt conditions for predators. Still, the Swedes lose only 500 sheep on an annual basis. So what's the irony? Well, the Swedish gov't seems to be providing their sheep-farmers with funds to build anti-predator fencing around the areas where the sheep graze. And if the farmers don't use the funds appropriately, they lose the funds, they must pay for the fencing themselves. Likewise, there is little flow of money to the farmers from the Swedish gov't whenever a sheep is hunted down and killed since the annual deathtoll only stands at 500. However, in Norway, sheep farmers receive about 1,700 Norwegian Kroner for every sheep taken by a predator. That's 1,000 NOK more than the farmer gets when he sends the sheep to the slaughter-house. Thus, the Norwegian gov't is in effect, with the new legislation passed a few years ago, paying the farmer to let his sheep run loose and get killed, (often the sheep aren't kiled but badly injured and can go on about for days before dying). And usually its the farmer him/herself who has to go out and shoot the injured sheep, which naturally isn't a nice job to have. At the same time, the farmer is stuck inbetween a rock and a very hard place; he can't not let his sheep go out and graze, but when he does he loses many sheep, but he gains economically, in a massive leap of irony, from it. Which leave me thinking if my Gov't is stupid, because the obvious solution to this would be not providing financial support for every sheep killed, but financial incentives for every sheep saved! The Gov't paying the farmer a certain amount for making sure the percentage of lost sheep out of the total flock is at a minimal level. But, it gets even more twisted. Because it seems that the farmer is chipping in on the grave-digging himself when the majority of Norwegian sheep farmers are insisting that there be no fencing in the 'utmarksbeite' (read definition above). And why in the name of Sheep, would the farmer do this? Because the farmer gains even though he loses sheep. It's simply not in the farmers interest to build lots of fences because the sheep farmers who earn the most money during a year are the sheep farmers who lose a reasonable amount of sheep (without endangering the next year's reproduction potential). Norway stands for around 40% of payments to farmers for killed sheep in Europe. We have about 5% of the total amount of predators roaming the continent. Anyone see something wrong with that? Traditionally in Norway there is a view that fences are a bad thing, and that things should be kept as nature intended it. Thus you will search long and hard for any farmers who want their forests and hills to be fenced in. They'd rather shoot all the Wolfs and the Bears before they let that happen, which makes it extremely difficult to solve the matter, in the greatest irony that they lose the sheep they care for, but are paid substantial sums for it. And the Gov't has with the Parliament made it Law that predators like all other wildlife, have the right to reach a substantial population, both in the name of conservation and because the Norwegian forests and mountains would be at loss without them. So I'm curious to how other nations deal with predators, like the United States, Canada, Finland, (New Zealand?) and other places where predators have a reasonable foothold. __________________ "Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare."

09-05-2008, 05:44 PM	#3
Coffeehouse Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 2,145	Thanx for the reply. Yes, one of the reasons Norwegian sheep-farmers receive money for every sheep killed is because the Gov't does not want every farmer running out to hunt down every Wolf in Norway. However sometimes the farmers go ahead and kill them anyways. One of the absurdities of the conservation-policy is where endangered predators (such as Wolves) may go and may not go. One of the most Wolf-friendly habitats in Norway is in a county where the farmers pursue a fairly aggressive policy and one where the number of sheep killed by predators is high. So the Gov't, a three-party coalition (centre-left) now consisting of the largest party in Norway, the Labour Party, the much smaller Socialist Party and the medium-sized Centre Party (very pro-agriculture, pro-farmer, etc.) have introduced a Law that makes Wolf-territory all territory in south-east Norway where the wolf has very little suitable area to roam. While the area where they should be able to roam is off-limits to them because 29 sheep-farmers are resisting. So you can imagine the power of the agricultural lobby in this area... Politics! That said, the Wolf population in Norway has grown substantially and is now fairly 'well-off', and that coincides with a growth in the number of sheep grazing in the 'utmarksbeite': So you get more sheep in the forests and on the mountains un-guarded, no fencing (ranches with fences are almost unheard of in Norway. We have approx. zero fencing along our long border with Sweden, Finland and Russia) and more wolves. Equals disaster. And yes, it's an irony that farmers who want the Norwegian country-side to remain beautiful are so much against some of the animals that make it so spectacular. It's conserving in the forests and on the hills what is only useful for the farm, and I can see their point. But a bit of intelligent fencing doesn't need to ruin the landscape. And they know they'll receive funding from the Gov't anyways. __________________ "Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 09-05-2008 at 05:47 PM.

09-07-2008, 12:56 AM	#6
Sian Sapling Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: High Plains of Colorado, USA Posts: 10	Both sheep and wolves have been controversial figures in the US in the past. After the millions of bison were slaughtered, the western US was open range (and still is in some places) for cattle grazing. Sheep were believed to spoil the grazing for cattle and there were problems between sheep owners and cattle owners that often led to bloodshed. Cattle ranchers pretty much ruled things in the western US and wolves were killed nearly to extinction to protect the cattle (dosen't really make a lot of sense: bison are an excellent source of meat and can withstand the wolves rather well and they were here already in vast numbers). Now wolves have been re-introduced in some areas, notably Yellowstone National Park. I may be wrong, but I think if the wolves leave the park (which they have no reason to do as there are deer, elk, bison etc there for them) they can be killed by ranchers if they pose a threat to cattle or sheep. The wolves have radio collars and they are monitored and their health is checked periodically. Greetings to all here! I haven't been on Entmoot much lately!