WILDUFE CONSERVATION IN WYOMING 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOlVIl\1ITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

\VILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMl\1ITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

PREDATOR PROBLEMS IN THE STATE OF WYOMING 

AND HOW THEY ARE AFFECTING THE WILDLIFE 

AND RANCHING ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS 

24--721cc = 

APRIL 10, 1996--GILLETTE, WY 

Serial No. 104-64 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Govemmelll Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documenh, Congressional Sales Ofllce. Washington. DC 2 0402 

ISBN 0-i 6·052720-i 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY, Califuruia 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, Califoruia 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Califoruia 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Califoruia 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

,JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, Califoruia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virgiuia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califorui~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/ Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

WAYNE T. GILCHEST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SAM FARR, Califoruia 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director 

JoHN RAYFIELD, Professional Staff 

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held April 10, 1996 .... oo.·oo······· · ·············••oo••oooo oo oo······································ 

Statement of Members: 

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representative from Wyoming 00000000000000000000000 

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 0000000000 0000 000000 000000000 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Acl{~: g~~~!~~f A~~~~~~a.~~.~: .. ?.~~~ ... ~:..~~~~oo~~~~~~ •• ?~~~.~~~: Prepared statement ooooooooo •• oo •• oo oo•• ••• oo •• oo •••••••••••••••••••••• 0000000000000000000 oo••••oo···· 

Bourret, Larry, Executive Vice President, Wyoming Farm Bureau 0000000000000 

Prepared statement ....... oo •• oo •• oo ••••••• oo •• oo •• oo ••••• oo •• oo ••••••••••• oo•·oo·· 000 •••••••••• oo •••• 

Bower, Dru, Wyoming Field Director, People for the West (prepared 

statement) oo••oo•• •••• oo• •••••••• oo •• 000000000 ····oo·····oo •• oo ··oo······· ••••••••••• oo••oo•• ••••••••• oo •• oo •••• 

Christensen, Robert F., rancher, Gillette, WY (prepared statement) 0000000000 

Chu, Dan, Executive Director, Wyoming Wildlife Federation 0000000000000000000000 

Garr~ts<.m-Weibel, Cindy, Executive Director, Wyoming Stockgrowers AssoctatiOn ·····································oo···············oo·············oo••oo················oo············ 

Prepared statement ............... oo ••••••••••••••• oo ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Harriet, Ken, rancher, Casper, WY (prepared statement) 0000 0000000000000000 0000 0000 

Horn, Steven W., Dean, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming 00000 

Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Julian, Truman, President, Wyoming Wool Growers Association 0000000000000000 

Prepared statement 00 0000 0000000 00 0000 000 0000 0000 00 000.000 00 00 00.000 00 oo· 0000 0000 0000 000 0000 00 •• 00.00. 

Micheli, Ron, Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture oooooooo oo oooooooo oo oo 

Palm, Brad, rancher, Elk Mountain, WY (prepared statement) 000000 00 00 00 00 0000. 

Parham, V.B., rancher, Sheridan, WY (prepared statement) 000000000000000000 00 000 

Segerstrom, Tom, Jackson, WY (prepared statement) oooooooooooooooooooo oo oo oooo oo oo oo 

Schramm, Terry, rancher, Jackson, WY 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

Prepared statement oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo •• 

Shorma, Gary, Regional Wildlife Supervisor, Wyoming Game and Fish 

St~~E!iJ~Lclia;·:Bi~di~;;~~it);A~~~~i~t~~·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Prepared statement ·················oo·····································oo·····················oo·· 

Walton, Paul T., Walton Ranch Company (prepared statement) 000000 00 000000000 

Wenande, Robert, Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition 000000000000000000 

Prepared statement ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•· 

Zimmerman, Scott, field representative, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union . 

Additional material supplied: 

Allestad, Elaine, statement before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation representing the Montana 

Wool Growers Association and American Sheep Industry Association 0000 

Chu, Dan: Responses to questions of Hon. Barbara Cub in 000000 0000 0000 0000 00 0000000 

Record, Raymond (Gillette, WY): 1080 was developed during WWII ... 0000 

Saxton, Hon. Jim: Questions toChu, Dan OOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo. oo ooooooooooooo oo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o oo. 

Shorma, Gary . 0000 000 00000.00 00 000 0000 0000 0000 000 0000 0000 0000 000 0000 0000 0000 00.0000 0000 0000 000000000 0000 00 

Stanfield, Leila ........................................................................ 00 •••••••••••••••• 

Sheep Losses on Selected Ranches in Southern Wyoming, by James R. 

Tigner and Gary E. Larson 0000000000000000 0000 0000 0000 000000 000000000000 0000 0000 000000 00000000000000 

Sodium Monofluoroacetate (1080): Relation of Its Use to Predation on Livestock in Western National Forests, 1960--78, by Gregory W. Lynch 

and Roger D. Nass ooooo•··oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 

(III) 

Page 

1 

1 

3 

8 

54 

24 

75 

140 

123 

38 

23 

68 

114 

36 

100 

20 

59 

5 

132 

112 

133 

26 

87 

10 

41 

102 

89 

28 

93 

30 

175 

222 

158 

220 

219 

217 

145 

142 
IV 

Additional material supplied-Continued 

Taliaferro, Wm. R. , statement before the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on October 23, 1995 .............. ......................................................... . What Everbody Who Enjoys Wildlife Should Know, by Abundant Wildlife 

Society of North America ...................... ............................................. ......... . Placed in Subcommittee files due to volume: Cattle and Calves Death Loss, 1991, by Department of Agriculture 

Domestic Sheep Mortality During and After Tests of Several Predator 

Control Methods, by Kimber C. Brawley, University of Montana 

Predator Control-1971, to CEQ by Department of the Interior 

Predator Damage in the West: A Study of Coyote Management Alternatives, by FWS, Department of the Interior 

Communications submitted: Cubin, Hon. Barbara: Letter of April10, 1996, to Carol Browner (EPA) .... Gilbert Robert N. (MT Wool Growers Assn.): Letter with attachment 

of April 8, 1996, to Congresswoman Barbara Cub in ......................... ........ . Hanson, Arlene (No-Wolf Option Committee): Letter with attachment 

of April 22, 1996, to Hon. Don Young, et al . ...... ... .................................... .. Lawson, Jay: Letter of February 16, 1996, to William R. Taliaferro .......... . Mader, Troy R. (Abundant Wildlife Society): Letter of April 18, 1996, to Hon. Jim Saxton ................. .... ........................ ................. ....... ................. . Saxton, Hon. Jim: Letter of May 9, 1996, to Leila Stanfield (and other 

witnesses) ............ ............................... ........................................ ..... ............. . Stanfield, Leila: 

Letter of April 18, 1996, to Representative Jim Saxton ........... ............ . . Letter of May 20, 1996, to Hon. Jim Saxton .......................................... . Taliaferro, Wm. R.: 

Letter of April 15, 1996, to Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and 

Oceans ........................................................ ........................................... . Letters to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission datedApril 11, 1995 ........ ... ..................... ..... .. .... .. ......... ............................ .. . July 7, 1995 ............................................ ....... .................................... . July 19, 1995 ............................................................................ ........ .. 

~~fili~r 1/s, 

1

{Jl:5·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

November 9, 1995 ............................................................. ................. . January 30, 1996 ............................................................................... . 

Page 

172 

197 

110 

159 

130 

203 

190 

!l16 

164 

!l13 

201 

204 

207 

209 

!10 

211 

212 

202 
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN WYOMING 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Gillette, WY. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in the Wyoming Room, Campbell County Public Library, Gillette, Wyoming, 

Hon. Jim Saxton (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM WYOMING 

Ms. CUBIN. I think we are ready to start. First of all, I would like 

to thank everyone for being here today. 

As you know, predators in Wyoming are a problem. And we 

want-we really are open about this whole process. We are here to 

gather information. We hope that we will be able to establish some 

things that we can all agree on. Are predators a problem for wildlife? Are predators really causing a big loss in wildlife; and if they 

are, what do we doVOICE. We cannot hear you. 

Ms. CUBIN. Is this not on maybe? 

[Pause.] 

Ms. CUBIN. Should I shout? Does that help? 

VOICE. That is better. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK. Thank you all for being here. Please raise your 

hands if you find that you cannot hear us. 

I would first like to thank Congressman Jim Saxton from New 

Jersey for allowing us to have this hearing. He is the Chairman of 

the Subcommittee that is in charge of this issue and he certainly 

has traveled a long way and he is going straight back. So, he has 

put in a lot of work for us and we should let him know how we 

appreciate that. Gillette, Wyoming, is by no means a hop, skip and 

a jump from New Jersey, Jim, and we know it and we appreciate 

it. 

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the predation of wildlife 

and livestock specifically by coyotes, golden eagles and wolves and 

to examine the effectiveness of non-lethal means of predator control. In lieu of simply reacting to predation problems, I think it is 

important that we focus on methods of prevention which can serve 

wildlife while protecting the rights of private property owners. I 

think that has to be one of the central issues. We have to always 

keep in mind the rights of private property owners because that is 

what our whole economy, our whole country is based upon. I trust 

(1) 
2 

that today's witnesses will help provide some guidance as to how 

best to achieve these goals. And as I said, maybe we can all come 

to some sort of meeting of the minds. 

According to the National Agricultural Statistic Service, predators accounted for 41.8 percent of all losses for both sheep and 

lambs. The leading cause was coyotes at 61.9 percent of the total, 

followed by wild dogs, which is an emerging problem in Wyoming, 

with 9.1 percent and mountain lions, cougars and pumas at G.8 

percent. I always say pumas but I am told that is not right. In 

1990, sheep and goat producers lost an estimated $27.4 million due 

to predation. In 1991, cattle producers losses to predators were 

more than $41.5 million. Coyotes alone caused $13.5 million in 

sheep losses and 5.6 million in goat losses. I believe the cattle 

losses were $24.3 million nationwide. Well, certainly that is not the 

kind of money we can afford in this economy today and in our 

state, to just allow to be, you know, wasted, if, in fact, waste is the 

right word to use. The problem is, of course, the livestock, the 

sheep, the goats, the cattle are owned by people. They are their private property and yet because of regulations by the Federal Government and by other agencies, people are not allowed to protect 

their private property many times. 

In the western United States, coyotes have proven consistently 

to be the most deadly to sheep and lambs and their populations 

have steadily been increasing-that of coyotes, I mean. Coyotes 

have also proven to be very adaptable, and while some non-lethal 

methods of predator control such as strobe lights and sirens work 

well in the short-term, coyotes quickly learn these methods will not 

harm them. Truman Julian will probably be able to tell you more 

about that. But predation problems are not unique to the coyote, 

particularly in Wyoming. 

Wyoming must also shoulder the burden of recovery efforts associated with the grizzly bear. I am told up in the North Fork, up 

around Cody, that people do not even allow their kids to walk to 

school because there are so many grizzly bears in the area that 

people who live out of the city have grizzly bears coming into their 

yards and going through their garbage. There are many, many 

grizzly bears in that area and yet they remain on the endangered 

species list; therefore peoples' hands are tied on how they can deal 

with the losses that they have due to grizzly bears. Fortunately, to 

this point, I do not believe there are any human losses. But certainly children who live in the country and are used to running and 

playing and doing the things that children do could be a possible 

fatality for the grizzly bear. 

Of course, the bald eagle and the gray wolf are also predators 

that are of concern to us. With the reintroduction of the gray wolf 

into Yellowstone Park, livestock losses have been attributed to this 

predator in Idaho, Montana and I have little doubt that losses are 

soon to occur in Wyoming. If these recovery efforts are national 

goals, then the Federal Government, not livestock producers or the 

state, should bear some responsibility for their actions. If the country as a whole-in other words, if the Congress determines thator in this case, the Department of Interior determines that the gray 

wolf is in Yellowstone for the public good, then it seems only right 

to me that the public should pay for that good. That that good 
3 

should not be-{)r that presumed good should not be dumped on the 

shoulders of the people who live in the area by sacrificing their private property for the good of society. We should all pay our share 

if that is the case. 

I think it is interesting that the gray wolf was introduced into 

Yellowstone and one of the reasons that they gave for the introduction was that it would increase visitation in Yellowstone and now 

they are trying to cut access-trying to lower visitation because 

there are too many tourists, there are too many people in Yellow- stone Park. So, I think sometimes we are not consistent with what 

we do at the government level and we are certainly not helpful, although we want to be and we try to be. I do not think anybody sets 

out to just hurt somebody else or do something that is damaging 

to them but that does in fact happen. 

I have talked way too long. I do thank you all for being here and 

I especially thank Mr. Saxton and his staff-or Lisa, who has done 

so much work. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, Barbara, thank you very much for making it 

possible for the Committee to convene here today to discuss this 

really important issue. 

Some of you probably know that this year in Congress we were 

fortunate to be joined by a number of new Members. When the 

Congress convened in January of 1995, one of the first new Members that I met was Barbara Cubin and we got to be good associates. We both are members, as you can see, of the Resource Committee. I think all of you should know that Barbara is one of our 

most productive members. And by productivity, we mean bringing 

problems from back home to Washington, so that those of us who 

do not experience those issues on a day-by-day basis can become 

informed about those issues. And Barbara has just been great at 

that on the Committee both in a formal sense and in an informal 

sense in helping us to understand some of the problems from Wyoming and other western states. So, I want to begin by thanking 

Barbara for making my job a whole lot easier than it would otherwise be. 

You are really benefited by a great delegation to Washington, 

Senators Thomas and Simpson are great folks and we appreciate 

their input a lot, as well. I am, for one, going to miss Alan Simpson. He is retiring this year and he is a breath of fresh air in 

Washington and we want you to know that, as well. 

Let me tell you how I came to be here. I did not wake up one 

morning and say I want to go to Wyoming and learn about predator issues. It happens that a friend of mine and I decided that it 

would be a neat thing to do about a year ago to go antelope hunting. And since Barbara was my friend, I called Barbara on the 

phone and I said you have antelope in Wyoming, do you not? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. And she said, well, we sure do and I said, well, Bill 

Menges, my friend, and I would like to go antelope hunting. Do you 

think you could help us out? Well, it was a great trip. We came out 
4 

here last November and stayed in Casper. We got up at 0-dark30, rode what is a short distance for all of you, about two hours 

to a location just north of Hole-In-The-Wall and by 11:00 or 12:00, 

the three of us had killed three antelope. And we enjoyed that. The next day, since we had done so well on our hunt and since 

we had decided that we were going to stay here for several days, 

Barbara's aide, Jackie King, who is in the back of the room, arranged for my friend and I to go on a cattle drive. Well, if you can 

imagine two New Jerseyans riding 22 miles on horseback-but we 

had a great time. And when we got to the-this story has a conclu- sion to it. When we finished the cattle drive we were hosted on a 

ranch for lunch which was the destination of the cattle drive. I 

stood by a pickup truck and the fellow who owned the pickup truek 

was visiting on the ranch and the rancher who lived there said my 

goodness, that is a nice truck. And I said it looks like a good truck. 

And they went on to say that the fellow who owned the truck had 

gone to Denver and had shopped and had gotten a really good buy 

and the rancher said gee, I would like to have a truck like that. 

And I said well, why do you not buy one? He said I do not make 

that much money in a year. 

Now, this was my first little eye opener. You know, when easterners think about ranches that are 30 or 40 or 50,000 acres, we 

think about money because land where I come from is worth more 

than 10 or $20,000 an acre, depending on where it is. And so, when 

easterners think about those kinds of land masses, we think about 

big money. And I found out that ranchers here do not make big 

money. And those cattle that we drove out of the mountains into 

the winter pasture that day-well, I kind of followed along, I did 

not do much driving. You know, we found out that, if the price of 

beef goes down, that rancher has a tough time making ends meE!t. 

We found out that if something happens to some of that livestock, 

they have atough time making ends meet. 

And so, we then had this wonderful lunch and while we were 

eating lunch, I said to the rancher, what is it that you would like 

to see the Federal Government do in order to make your life better 

in Wyoming? He said, well, number one, the Federal Government 

might like to stay out of our hair a little bit more or try to become 

involved in our lives a little bit less. That would be helpful. 

And number two, he said, we have got this tremendous problem 

with predators. He said we have got coyote problems. In some parts 

of the state, we have golden eagle problems and in some parts of 

the state we have grizzly bear problems and in some parts of the 

state, now we understand, he said back then, they are going to introduce wolves back into Yellowstone and we do not know what 

that means. 

So later, I said to Barbara, why do we not look into this issue 

so that I can become more informed about it and so that we can 

deal with it if we need to on the Subcommittee. So that is how we 

happen to be here today. 

What we hope to accomplish is this; there are a number of agencies that deal with this problem, some effectively, some perhaps not 

so effectively. And those agency efforts on the state and Federal 

level ought to be coordinated so that we can see what it is that 

needs to be done and so that it can be done in a coordinated, effi-
5 

cient fashion. We also need to recognize that there are research opportunities through which we may find solutions to some of the 

predator problems and we need to look at that. And we also need 

to look at whether or not it would be a good idea to look at some 

kind of legislation through our Committee and in the Congress as 

to some possible solutions to the predator problems that you all 

know a whole lot more about than I do. 

So for those reasons, I am happy to be here and I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses this morning. So with that, let me 

just announce we are going to have three panels. So at this point, 

I would like to call the first panel forward. We are going to hear first from Ron Micheli, who is the Director 

of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. We are also going to 

here from Bobby Acord, who is the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Animal Damage Control for the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and we are going to hear from Gary Shorma, who is the 

Regional Wildlife Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. If you folks would come forward at this point? We have 

a nameplate here for each of you and we are anxious to hear your 

testimony. 

Ms. CUBIN. Please forgive me for not introducing my staff. 

Mantha Phillips is my new state director. She is based in Casper, but she does travel the state. So feel free to call her in Casper. And 

Jackie King is a Casper representative, also. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. And this is Sharon McKenna, who is my right-hand 

person on the Committee. 

Let me just say before we start that there is one bit of housekeeping. There are some members of the Subcommittee who are 

not here today who are interested in this, so we do this little thing 

about asking unanimous consent that their written statements be 

included in the record. And the other bit of housekeeping is, you 

will notice that in front of you there are three lights. We will certainly put your entire testimony in the record, but for purposes of 

the limited time that we have today, we have those lights which 

indicate--when the red light comes on, you have used five minutes 

and we would appreciate you summarizing as soon thereafter as 

possible. We also want to ask unanimous consent that the record 

will remain open for 30 days for comment from the public. 

You cannot hear? 

VOICE. No. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Sorry about that. 

OK, Mr. Ron Micheli, would you like to begin, please. 

STATEMENT OF RON MICHELI, DIRECTOR, WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. MICHELI. Thank you, Congressman. 

First of all, let me enter that I am representing the Governor of 

the state of Wyoming, Jim Geringer, in this testimony today. He 

sends his regrets at not being able to attend today. He has a previous commitment with the Tribal Council on the Wind River Indian Reservation today, and would have liked to have been here. 

We extend our thanks to you for the opportunity of testifying before this Subcommittee. On behalf of the citizens of Wyoming, we 
6 

welcome you to the great state of Wyoming and we welcome the opportunity that we have to share with you the concerns that we 

have with predators and the devastating and demoralizing effect 

that they are having not only on our livestock industry but on our 

wildlife population as well. 

While I appreciate the courtesy extended to me to be the fi.rst 

witness at this hearing, it does present some challenges. You will 

hear a great deal of testimony today dealing with statistics and 

numbers. In order to understand the magnitude of the predator 

problem in Wyoming, statistics and numbers are a necessary component. But as Representative Cubin said, we must get beyond the 

statistics and the numbers and offer, I think, some solutions to the 

problems. I would hope that at least part of my presentation would 

offer some workable solutions that can help not only the state~ of 

Wyoming, but you in the Congress as well. That all being the case, 

my challenge then, as the first witness, is to lay out the seriousness of the problem, but also to follow up with helpful suggestions 

that will solve the problem. 

A few statistics would outline the seriousness of the situation. 

Representative Cubin has already done some of that. Wyoming 

ranks third in the Nation in the production of lamb and she,ep, 

whose monetary value of receipts contribute to Wyoming's third 

largest industry, that being agriculture and more specifically, the 

livestock industry. At its peak, Wyoming saw almost four million 

head of sheep in this state. Currently, our inventory is about 

790,000 head. Wyoming sheep producers lost 66,000 head of sh1:!ep 

last year to predators. Equating this to a dollar amount, the loss 

in 1995 was nearly $4 million. Since 1993, we have lost 500 sh1eep 

producers in this state and 200,000 head of sheep in two-in three 

years. The sheep industry in this state is literally on the brink of 

being non-existent. It is my opinion that the main factor for this 

devastating and demoralizing effect is that of predators and predation. 

Perhaps an analogy would be appropriate. We lose millions of 

dollars each year in this nation to shoplifting. We are justifiably 

concerned for retail merchants who lose inventory to those who 

take without paying. We have passed strict laws in Wyoming and 

throughout this nation that deal with two-legged shoplifters because we know in the end that we all pay for that crime. And yet, 

as serious as the crime of shoplifting is, the percentage loss nationwide is less than five percent of the total inventory of retail merchants. We are dealing today with a four-legged predator-a fourlegged shoplifter, if you will, who is taking in excess of 10 percent 

of the total inventory and in some cases in Wyoming is approaching 

25 percent. What retail merchant could withstand that type of a 

loss? If shoplifting were approaching those kinds of statistics nationwide, there would go up a hue and cry for government to take 

some kind of action to address the problem. On the one hand, we 

want to punish the two-legged shoplifter and remove them from 

our society, but the four-legged shoplifter is allowed more and more 

freedom to do his thing, and in fact, any attempt to control his behavior is met with some resistance at the national level. 

This brings me then to one of the most frustrating problems dealing with predators. More and more, we, not the shoplifter are being 
7 

handcuffed by the Federal Government to do predator control. 

Tools that have been available to us for years are now being taken 

away. Target-specific and effective controls have increasingly been 

banned for use on federally managed lands. Two examples will suffice. M-44s are effectively being removed from the-by the Federal 

Government on public land and aerial hunting is becoming more 

and more difficult to do. 

Briefly, that is our problem. As I said, I would like to offer a constructive solution to the problem. We believe that if we are given 

the controls and the tools to control predators, that we in Wyoming 

could do the job. Currently, the Federal Government spends about 

$900,000 a year on predator control in this state. We would suggest 

that Congress consider utilizing the block grant program and turning the control of predators over to the states. We would not, however, be interested in administering this program if there would 

not be an attending relaxation of the rules and regulations that accompany the Federal program. We are convinced that we can do a 

better job of utilizing the money for predator control if we were 

given the flexibility to do the job. Predator problems differ from 

state to state. Public attitudes differ from state to state and solutions vary from state to state. Just give us the authority to administer our own program and give us the flexibility to cut through the 

burdensome Federal bureaucracy that ties our hands to do predator 

control and you will see an effective predator control for Wyoming 

citizens. 

We believe that this suggestion is in keeping with the current 

Congressional philosophy of decentralizing government and in giving relief from Federal intervention. We would further suggest that 

states be given the option of the block grant. There may be some 

who would prefer to stay in the Federal program and if they do, 

we would say fine, but we would like the option to opt out. 

One last analogy. Currently, the buzz word in Federal Government on Federal lands is noxious weeds. The Forest Service and 

the BLM are spending millions and millions of dollars to fight the 

spread of noxious weeds, and rightfully so. We all fear that noxious 

weeds have the potential to invade and take over healthy plant systems and ruin entire ecosystems. The Forest Service has regulations so severe that ranchers and outfitters and other users of the 

forest cannot take hay onto the forest ground that is not certified 

free of noxious weeds. The Federal land managers are justifiably 

concerned that one species of plant not be allowed to invade our 

land and take over the healthy balance of nature. It seems that 

what is good for plants is different for animals. The predator has 

much the same potential to take over entire ecosystems as the noxious weeds. The Environmental Impact Statement dealing with the 

reintroduction of the wolf into Yellowstone Park says that the reintroduction of the wolf will mean a 20 percent loss of available elk 

in that area, and that is only occurring with a minimum number 

of wolves. The predator is at the top of the food chain. There is 

nothing to predate on him. But unlike the noxious weed, we falsely 

assume that nature will protect the health of the animals. On the 

one hand, then, we protect the plants from being predated upon by 

noxious weeds and spend millions of dollars to control their spread, 

and on the other hand, we continue to restrict the control of animal 
8 

predators who have the same capability to overrun our livestock 

and our game populations. 

I hope that we have covered the essentials in a brief period of 

time. Please know that we stand ready and willing to help find a 

solution to this real problem with predators. I will be available to 

work at any time with the Congress or the executive branch to address this issue. Again, we thank you for coming to our state. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Acord. 

STATEMENT OF BOBBY ACORD, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. ACORD. Thank you. I am pleased to be here today to have 

the opportunity certainly to enjoy this nice Wyoming weather. It is 

a little different than what we have had back where I come from. 

I have with me today the Director of our Western Region 

whoMs. CUBIN. They cannot hear. Can you get the microphone a little closer? 

Mr. AcoRD. We will move it. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. ACORD. Let us see if that helps. 

Ms. CUBIN. Can you hear now? 

VOICE. No. 

Ms. CUBIN. I wonder if that is working. 

Mr. ACORD. I do not think this one is working. It does not seem 

to be. 

Ms. CUBIN. It does not seem to be. 

Mr. MICHELI. Here, use mine. 

Mr. ACORD. How is that? 

VOICE. That is better. 

Mr. ACORD. I have with me today, Mike Worthen, who is the Director of the Western Region that covers the 17 western states, 

Alaska and Hawaii. I have Rick Phillips, who is the State Director 

for Wyoming for the Federal Animal Damage Control Program and 

Guy Connolly who is with the Predator Research Section of the 

Denver Wildlife Research Center. 

First of all, I want to applaud you for having this hearing here 

in Wyoming. I think the closer you get to the people, the closer you 

get to the issues and the more your problems will be defined. I 

think the solutions also will be more practical and more usable perhaps. 

Let me begin with some background on the Animal Damage Control Program. Our mission is to provide Federal leadership in resolving wildlife damage problems. You know, wildlife, which includes predatory species such as wolves, coyotes, grizzly bears, eagles, are all managed for the benefit of the public. They are publicly owned and with that public ownership comes some responsibility. They are managed for abundance and diversity, but quite often 

one of the bigger problems that we have is wildlife damage and 

that is often forgotten in that management equation. Private landowners, farmers and ranchers provide most of the habitat for wildlife in this country and they do it for free. The only thing that they 
9 

ask in return is some help with solving the wildlife damage problem. 

We had Utah State University do a public attitude survey for us 

some time back-last year, as a matter of fact-asking about the 

public's attitude toward wildlife damage management and we were 

surprised to learn that there is a great deal of public support for 

the state and Federal Government to provide programs of managing wildlife damage. We think the public has both an ownership 

role as well as a responsibility role here. 

I am sure you are going to hear a lot of testimony today dealing 

with trying to quantify the losses and Ron has alluded to that. But 

just one large statistic that you probably will not hear is that last 

year we did a nationwide survey of agricultural producers with the 

National Ag Statistics Service and that survey indicated that about 

60 percent of the agricultural producers in this country have experienced wildlife damage losses and that the dollar loss is up to 

about $611 million. That is an increase of five percent in the number experiencing damage, as well as about a $150 million increase 

over three years ago when we did an earlier survey. 

Just a little bit about our program. We are a cooperative program. We have two regions, one in the eastern United States and 

one in the west. We fund programs through cooperative cost share 

arrangements with both Federal dollars and with the states. We 

have almost $16 million that comes into the Western Region for 

animal damage control. Almost a million dollars of that, $970,000 

to be exact, comes to Wyoming. That is matched by another 

$427,000 of funds that come mostly from the producers through a 

head tax. Producers are paying for that part of the program. We 

have cooperative programs in Wyoming with 17 out of the 23 counties. We have a good track record with the cooperation that we 

have in the counties and that is how we operate our program here 

in Wyoming, on a county-by-county basis. 

One of the things that I think is important to recognize is the 

appreciation that people have for the service that we provide. We 

are big into trying to find out what people think about the service 

that we do provide and we have done some surveys of people that 

we have provided service to. And these numbers are rather impressive. You would think they would come from somewhere other than 

a Federal agency. Ninety-five percent of those people that we surveyed indicated that our people knew what to do to solve their 

wildlife damage problems. Ninety-seven percent said that our service was useful. Ninety-four percent believe that their losses would 

have increased had it not been for our service and 98 percent 

thought that the Animal Damage Control Program employees were 

pleasant to work with. In this day of government cynicism and 

those kind of problems, any Fortune 500 company would be glad 

to have numbers like that. And to think that they come from the 

Federal Government tells you that people appreciate what we do. 

Just let me conclude my oral testimony with some comments 

about our research center. We have the world's only wildlife damage research center. It is located in Denver, Colorado, currently. 

We are building a new facility on the campus of Colorado State 

University in Fort Collins-and we expect to be moving there within the next year or so. But our center is devoted entirely to devel-
10 

oping scientific information about predators and about wildlife 

damage. It is developing new methods of control and trying to improve the existing methods that we have. Frankly, the future of the 

livestock industry is dependent to a great extent on the efforts of 

our research center and others who are involved in this kind of research in developing methods of control. We hope that we are up 

to that challenge and we hope that we will have the support of 

both the industry and the Congress and others as we begin the development of many new methods that will see the livestock industry through the future. 

With that, I conclude my oral comments and I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you have this morning, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Acord may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Very good. We are going to hear from Gary Shorma 

first and then we will be back with some questions. 

Gary is from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. So, Mr. 

Shorma, if you would like to share your thoughts with us at this 

point. 

STATEMENT OF GARY SHORMA, REGIONAL WILDLIFE 

SUPERVISOR, WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

Mr. SHORMA. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Cubin, ladies and 

gentlemen. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has had a lot of experience and spent a lot of time and money controlling depredation 

of bears and mountain lions. We have discovered that even those 

people who dislike killing animals support control of animals causing depredation problems. We have found that merely moving problem animals will not solve depredation problems and inevitably offending animals must be killed, especially if they become 

habituated to killing livestock or eating human foods. Their removal generally enhances the acceptance of non-depredating bears 

and lions. 

We are currently experiencing low numbers of antelope and deer, 

and at such times public concern over predators reaches a high 

point. We recently participated on a predator management task 

force to try to deal with this issue. The task force was disbanded 

in frustration, so we wish your committee well on dealing with this 

controversial topic. 

Our observations on predator control include the following: Even 

some of the most hardcore proponents of predator control recognize: 

(a) that control is impossible; (b) the public hates the word control; 

(c) management is a better term but management may be difficul.t, 

expensive or both. 

Predators are taking livestock, particularly sheep, and in some 

places, they are taking significant numbers of sheep. We have had 

complaints from many parts of Wyoming about impacts of fish-eating birds on fish populations. Predators also take significant numbers of wildlife. It is what they do for a living. 

Massive generalized predator control is expensive, ineffective and 

offensive to the general public, since they often view such control 

as extermination. Control of specific animals causing the problem 
11 

is accepted by the general public. This type of control targets problem animals or pairs of animals. 

To control or manage predators, you need an estimate of the 

number of predators; an effective methods of killing predators; a 

way to measure loss of livestock; a way to show predators have declined as a result of predator control and a way to show losses of 

livestock have declined as a result of predator control. Unfortunately, there is not a good way to estimate numbers of predators. 

As a result, we count dead predators, but we have no way of knowing how that has affected the population of predators. When we kill 

predators year after year and there is no decline in livestock losses, 

many people argue control is having no effect and money is being 

wasted. 

Coyotes, the animals currently at the top of the list of offending 

predators have what is called compensatory reproduction. This 

means elimination of some coyotes competing for food results in 

greater survival of pups and you end up with the same number of 

coyotes. There is no question that 100 years of predator control has 

produced a smarter, better adapted coyote. This has made control 

of livestock depredation much more difficult. 

Many of the tools for killing predators have been taken away. 

Fur prices, due to pressure from animal rights groups, are very 

low. So the people who used to shoot predators to get furs to sell 

have given up. The American public does not like widespread use 

of poisons, so compound 1080 has been banned. M-44s, or cyanide 

guns are seeing more use. Toxic collars, which take the animal actually attacking a sheep, are reasonably effective, but for fear that 

one might fall off, EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

restricted their use. And finally, aerial hunting is reasonably effective but expensive and is generally not cost effective given current 

budgets. 

An effective predator control program should target offending 

animals and reduce their predation on livestock. There should be 

some cause and effect; that is, increasing removal of predators 

should decrease losses of livestock. If this does not happen, the program is ineffective. 

Cost should be considered. We have quite often expressed concern about cost effectiveness of predator control. Using a wildlife 

example, one state in the West controls coyotes to increase survival 

of antelope fawns. It costs $25,000 to control enough coyotes to 

raise the doe-fawn ratio from five fawns per 100 does to 12 fawns 

per 100 does in a herd of approximately 1000 antelope. This produced about 40 more fawns in that herd of 1000, half of which 

might be bucks. Of those 20 bucks, hunters might take one per 

year since the herd is only hunted lightly. $25,000 is a lot of money 

to spend to produce one antelope per harvest. We need similar figures on any predator control program to decide whether it is cost 

effective. While this example may seem extreme, it does illustrate 

the problem with costs and benefits using current techniques. 

Where predator control is done to benefit wildlife, we need to 

evaluate that control to be certain that wildlife benefits are produced. If control is done to increase production of fawns, but there 

is no such increase, control should be stopped. Where we cannot 
12 

hunt or control big game populations by hunting, predator control 

is unnecessary. 

Timing of control is important. Predators should be removed 

when their predator numbers are low to prevent large increases in 

numbers and both increased cost and decreased ability to control 

populations. 

Wildlife belongs to all of the public, not just the hunters and the 

anglers. If wildlife is causing a problem and the public feels that 

the numbers of these animals should be controlled, all of the public 

should pay for that, not just hunters and anglers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you. We 

hope you are successful in identifying common ground and cost-effective solutions. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Shorma. We are going 

to explore some of the things that you have mentioned in your testimony through some dialog here. 

Barbara, why do you not begin by asking whatever questions 

that you may think are appropriate at this time. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Since Gary just finished speaking, I will ask him first. You are 

the Regional Wildlife Supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, right, or one of them? 

Mr. SHORMA. Yes. 

Ms. CUBIN. From your testimony, it was never clear to me 

whether or not you think predation on wildlife is a problem. In 

fact, your statement was if wildlife is causing a problem, then the 

entire public should pay for it, not just a few. Do you think it is 

causing a problem to wildlife? 

Mr. SHORMA. In some areas it definitely is and it, again, will depend on the population figures that you are dealing with. 

Ms. CUBIN. And yet you said that you did not have population 

numbers? 

Mr. SHORMA. I am talking about the prey species. The game animals that we are talking about. 

Ms. CUBIN. Oh, OK. We talked-or one of my staff talked to a 

fellow at the Game and Fish and he said that the Game and Fish 

does not keep statistics on losses of wildlife due to predation because they cannot confirm the losses due to a particular predator. 

But it is my understanding that when the ADC goes out to check 

a possible kill, that the wildlife biologist must confirm that there 

was a kill and they also identify what predator it was. So, I am 

wondering why is it that the Game and Fish thinks that they cannot identify the offending predator but the wildlife biologist for 

ADC can? 

Mr. SHORMA. Generally, the species that we are dealing with on 

identification or verification are those animals that are the result 

of depredation by trophy game animals, that being black bear, grizzly bear or mountain lions. One of the things that contributes to 

being able to identify is the timeliness on reporting. If you can find 

something that is relatively fresh, your chances are greatly enhanced to being able to determine the cause of death. Many times 

when we find animals, it has been some time since they have been 

killed and as time increases, your chances of making that determination decreases. 
13 

Ms. CUBIN. Well, I can understand that, but you know, you have 

people all over the state. It just does not seem like that is an insurmountable problem. So, I am wondering if the will is there actually 

to try to identify whether or not predation is a problem that is 

widespread or whether the will may not be there to try to determine that, due to possibly political reasons. 

Mr. SHORMA. No, I do not think that is the case at all. If we are 

given the opportunity to make that determination, we certainly do. 

Mr. SAXTON. On page 2 of your written statement, you refer to 

an antelope study that was done in another state. 

Mr. SHORMA. Right. 

Ms. CUBIN. What state was that? 

Mr. SHORMA. Arizona. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK. And would you provide us a copy of that? 

Mr. SHORMA. I can, yes. 

Ms. CUBIN. Would you please? That would be great. Are you 

aware that there are other studies that indicate more dramatic increases in fawn survival than the study that you referred to? There 

are quite a few, I think. 

Mr. SHORMA. There may be some. I am not familiar with the 

exact numbers on those. 

Ms. CUBIN. We can probably provide those to you, too, because 

I think the exchange of information is something that can help everyone when we are trying to solve this problem, or at least what 

I perceive to be a problem. I do not want to take a lot of time because I have questions for the other two, also. 

Recently the hunting licenses were up-the fee for the hunting 

licenses were up-and we were also told when we called the Game 

and Fish that they were not increased due to losses by predators 

and that that had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in 

fees. Well, it is my understanding that the money that is generated 

mostly to the Game and Fish comes from licenses, and if the harvest were about the same as they have been in the past, why was 

there a need to increase the fees because from what I hear from 

hunters-and I hear a lot from hunters because my family is a 

hunting family and we know lots of people and they say the herds 

are down, especially deer in the western part of the state. I mean, 

is that a true statement? It is hard for me to believe that the lower 

numbers of herds had nothing to do with the increase in fees. 

Mr. SHORMA. I hear the same thing. I am from this part of the 

state, so I cannot speak for the exact conditions that exist elsewhere. But winter conditions, low fawn survival and a multitude 

of things have contributed to a decreased and actually depressed 

population numbers. And our permits are obviously set based on 

population objectives and where we are at with those populations. 

The fees themselves were set in order to meet current maintenance 

and operation expenditures within the budget. As we all know, one 

of the things that cut into that is inflation and roughly $1 million 

a year is what we feel inflation is costing our particular budget. 

The prices of licenses, again, were geared more toward the cost 

of doing business rather than the increase or decrease of the population. Obviously--

Ms. CUBIN. But you admit there is a decrease in the game population? 
14 

Mr. SHORMA. In certain parts of the state. Ms. CUBIN. But you say that it does not have anything to do with 

the fee increase? 

Mr. SHORMA. One of the things that did have to do with the fee 

increase was that a result of decreased revenues, obviously the reserves were depleted at a higher rate than would be normal. 

Ms. CUBIN. So the answer would be yes, then? 

Mr. SHORMA. In a sense, yes. Ms. CUBIN. OK. Thank you. Can you tell the Committee something about-no, no, I am sorry. I am finished. Thank you. 

I want to talk to Bobby Acord for a minute. Can you tell the 

Committee something about the research that is done in Denver. 

What have you come up with so far and how long have you been 

in operation? I think maybe you said that but I do not recall. 

Mr. ACORD. Well, the Animal Damage Control Program has been 

around for many years and we have had the Research Center in 

Denver operational since back, I think the early 1950's. We have 

spent a great deal of time and effort on predator control research. We have invested some effort in research on guarding animals 

and--

Ms. CUBIN. What have you come up with? 

Mr. ACORD. Well, at this point, I think we have proven the effectiveness of guarding dogs under limited circumstances. We hav•e 

come up with an electronic guard which is a siren-strobe device 

that has limited effectiveness in some circumstances. One of th•e 

current efforts we are undertaking is to look at the sterilization of 

coyotes to determine if we can minimize their predatory behavior 

through, essentially, birth control. And one of the things that we 

are currently looking at is the behavior of some surgically sterilized 

animals at our research facility in Logan, Utah. You know, what 

impact does sterilization have on their behavior? There is no need 

for us to spend a lot of time and effort trying to perfect a reproductive inhibitor that we can administer through some bait or something only to find out that it does not have the desired impact. So, 

we are trying to learn right up front what kind of impact that that 

would have. 

Ms. CUBIN. Well, I appreciate that. I want you to know at the 

onset that I favor the ADC program, although, I am not sure that 

it should not be delegated to the states if they wish to take it over. 

I am a scientist. I am a chemist and if I had been working for 413 

years, from 1950 to 1996, and I could not come up with any more 

than the sound and the light and the-! cannot remember--

Mr. SAXTON. The guard dogs. 

Ms. CUBIN. Oh, and the guard dogs, I would not be continuing 

to get money for research. 

Mr. ACORD. Well, neither would we, Ms. Cubin, if that is all we 

had developed. I am talking about things that we have done recently in my response. We have developed the livestock protection 

collar. We have developed the M-44 sodium cyanide capsule. We 

have--

Ms. CUBIN. But none of those can be used. 

Mr. ACORD. They are being used at this point. Now, there are 

some inhibitions through public policy. For instance, they cannot be 

used on Forest Service or BLM lands, but they are being used on 
15 

private lands and a1·e being used quite extensively in the West. Although, the livestock protection collar less so than others. 

Ms. CUBIN. I still-! have looked at the accomplishments of the 

Research Center and to think that we are building a new research 

center while we have universities all over the country-! am speaking as someone who is trying to balance the budget. We have land 

grant research-land grant universities all over the country studying the same kind of thing. I just, honestly, cannot think that we 

have gotten the bang for the buck out of the ADC research that we 

should have. But then, of course, that is my opinion only. 

I am just curious, how much is appropriated-you know, we have 

two different sections, the East and the West. How much is appropriated to the East? 

Mr. ACORD. The total appropriation is about $26.5 million for the 

operational program. We have about five million of that going to 

the eastern United States and the other comes to the west. Wyoming gets about a million of that. There are a number of other 

things that are supported out of that budget. There are a number 

of Congressional directives that tell us to do specific things for the 

Berryman Institute at Utah State University-the Wildlife Damage 

Management Center there. There are other activities that are supported out of those funds as well. " 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. Now, one last thing. This is kirtd of a 

local issue, although it certainly does not have to stay local. There 

is a rabid skunk problem that is pretty big right here in Campbell 

County and I have had a lot of constituents call and infornt me of 

this problem. I understand that 30 people had to be treated after 

being bitten either by a skunk or another animal that was infected 

by a skunk, such as a horse or a calf. I also understand that six 

horses had to be put down after being bitten by rabid skunks and 

this year there have already been three people bitten and two 

horses have been put down and really the season has not even 

begun. 

One veterinarian has predicted that this year will probably be 

the worst ever because we had such a mild winter. And the same. 

veterinarian said that the rabid skunks bite other skunks while 

they are still in the den during hibernation and then when they 

come out, they are all rabid. I would like to encourage you or ask 

you respectfully to try to coordinate some research with local people, with other agencies to get something done here. That, I realize 

is about a two-year down-the-road problem or solution. In the 

meantime, I have written to Carol Browner with the EPA and 

asked-l guess, I said that she give us a special use permit to use 

strychnine because this could very well be a very serious problem. 

A limited permit for this area. And, of course, we will be working 

with Ron Micheli trying to get something done on that. But we 

would appreciate any input and any help, particularly focused at 

research, that you could help us with. 

Mr. ACORD. I understand there are two counties here with a rabies problem at this point. We will try to work with the Predatory 

Animal Board in both of those counties to try to develop a solution. 

I think the methods are there probably to deal with the problem. 

At this point, I am not sure that we know the magnitude of the 

rabies infection. 
16 

Ms. CUBIN. Yeah. I do not think we will until the problem is 

upon us, because calving season goes on and the skunks come out 

of hibernation and they are rabid. I can foresee the possibility of 

people not even knowing they have been infected while they are 

tending to their calves and their mothers. We will not know until 

the problem is upon us. That is why I think that we have to have 

something in place to deal with it immediately. I mean, the first 

casualty from this will really be unnecessary and should really 

cause an outcry. So, I hope we can work on that. Mr. ACORD. You will have our cooperation. Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. Mr. Micheli, I just have a brief question for you. I agree that the 

states can better handle the problems that exist and the situations 

that exist in their states than the Federal Government can. The 

thing that I see that worries me somewhat is that there is always 

strings attached of some kind. Now, what sort of oversight do you 

think would be acceptable from the Federal Government, if any, 

and what agency ought that to be in, or do you even know at this 

point? 

Mr. MICHELI. Well, obviously, those are things that we would 

have to work out. But, I would suggest that there are parallels and 

it is not certainly unprecedented that we have those sort of arrangements. For example, with our highway funds that are administered by Congress, they are given essentially in a block grant. 

Our Wyoming Highway Department administers those funds. They 

build highways. They take that block grant and they administer 

the program. We are very proud of the Wyoming Highway Department and the things that they do. 

Ms. CUBIN. We have the best highways in the country. 

Mr. MICHELI. That is right. We do not have to do NEPA compliance when we build a highway across Wyoming except when it 

does go across Federal ground. We are able to administer those 

programs essentially in the best judgment of the local governing 

body. Again, we do some of that to some extent with some of the 

education funds and some of the block grant programs hat you 

people are involved in very heavily in Congress. So, I do not think-! do not know that I can outline-! can tell 

you how I would like it to be but obviously there is going to be 

some negotiations. Lest there be concern though that it is just a 

blanket permission to do whatever you want with these funds, remember than 50 percent of Wyoming still is owned by the Federal 

Government and that we have to work with those Federal agencies 

to administer any kind of predator control on those grounds. Again, 

I would reiterate that we are not interested in administering th·~ 

Federal program if we do not have the latitudes and flexibility in 

administering those funds. Frankly, some of that flexibility has to 

be extended also to the BLM and Forest Service because much of 

the flexibility that we are asking for has to be available on Federal 

property. Mr. Acord mentioned the predator control-! am sorry, the pred- ator collar, the livestock collar. It is a 1080 collar that is-Mr. 

Shorma mentioned about this-the specific target animal, the killer 

animal. Well there is nothing more specific than the 1080 collar 

strapped to the neck of a sheep and kills a coyote when the coyote 
17 

is killing the sheep. Currently, we cannot use the predator control-the predator collar on Federal ground. We just need that latitude. Frankly, we did not lease a collar last year because virtually 

every sheep producer in the state of Wyoming goes on some kind 

of Federal property during the course of a year. Plus, we have further restrictions that they can only be put on a certain number of 

sheep. We cannot put it on each ewe. So, we have just got to have 

more flexibility. We think we can do that but we have got to have 

some relaxation of the rules and have some confidence that the 

states will administer the program as it would best meet the individual needs of the states. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I have gone over my time. One last quick 

question for Mr. Micheli. 

What about research? Where do you think that research should 

occur? Should there be more coordination? Should we set goals? Do 

you have any opinion? And if you do not, that is fine. I mean, I 

know this is coming out of the-off the wall. 

Mr. MICHELI. Well, again, as you mentioned, we have a land 

grant university in this state. We would appreciate any effort that 

the Congress could make to direct the research in that direction. 

Again, it is a philosophical thing. Those people who are in those 

programs would understand the individual needs of the states, 

whP-ther it be coyote, whether it be mountain lion or whatever. I 

am not here to quarrel with the ADC. They are doing the best job 

they can under the circumstances. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. In Congress, I wear a couple 

of hats. One is to be Chairman of this Subcommittee. The other interesting thing that I do is that I am Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Economic Committee. So, Mr. Micheli, if I can just ask you to take. 

off your hat from the Department of Agriculture and put back on 

your hat as the representative of the Governor. Let me ask you 

about your economy here. In terms of industries, what is the biggest segment of the economy and where do you go after the biggest? You know, what is important? 

Mr. MICHELI. Sure. Our leading industry in the state of Wyoming 

is our mineral industry. The minerals industry at one time generated approximately 80 percent of the total revenues, tax revenues 

to the state of Wyoming. It is now approaching closer to 50 percent 

because of the downturn of the minerals economy in the state. 

Our second leading industry in the state of Wyoming is tourism 

and our third leading industry is agriculture. Obviously, we are 

dealing here with two of those industries with this hearing. So it 

has a tremendous impact on our state. 

Mr. SAXTON. Now is it true that after you get past the very important mineral industry that tourism and agriculture are both tied 

very closely to the issue that we are talking about here today, 

namely predator control? 

Mr. MICHELI. Absolutely. 

Mr. SAXTON. And what percentage of the economy do segments 

two and three of the economy provide for the state? Do you know 

offhand? 
18 

Mr. MICHELI. I could not give you that information off the top of 

my head. I can tell you that the agriculture industry generates 

about a billion dollars a year in gross product. I'm not sure if I 

could quantify the tourist industry. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Shorma, when I was here last fall antelope 

hunting, I ran across person after person, both before, during and 

after the hunting experience that we had which was wonderful, by 

the way, who told me that the antelope population used to be 

multi-times as large as it is now. Does that sound right to you? 

Mr. SHORMA. In some areas that could be possible. We have a 

system whereby we manage by objective and those objectives are 

determined based on public input; input from landowners obviously 

and input from the Federal land agencies that are in charge of 

managing those public lands. In our area, most of our populations 

are very close to those objective targets that we have set. That will 

vary based on recruitment and recruitment being a function of 

weather, predators or whatever. A multitude of things. 

Mr. SAXTON. Would you say that in those parts of the state 

where the antelope population is down-I obviously would relate 

this to other species as well. Is predation a major issue in terms 

of what has caused the decrease in population in those areas? 

Mr. SHORMA. Not having areas within my region that are down 

at those levels that would seem significant in terms of the public, 

I cannot really comment on that. I know that predation plays a role 

in our game herds in this area. But when game herds are high, the 

effects are smaller than obviously when they are depressed and 

they become a higher percentage of those smaller numbers. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Micheli, back to your agricultural hat. You 

mentioned the effect on the sheep ranching business of predation. 

You mentioned that your numbers indicate that as much as 25 percent of the young sheep are taken each year by predators? 

Mr. MICHELI. That is correct. 

Mr. "SAXTON. Does that relate to the cattle industry, also? Do you 

have a percentage of take for young cattle? 

Mr. MICHELI. I do not have the statistics with me. We are not 

doing as good a job, frankly, in collecting the numbers off of cattle 

that we do with sheep. But let me just tell you that we are seeing 

increasingly as the sheep numbers decrease in Wyoming, that we 

are, in fact, having predation on young born calves from coyotes 

and particularly from grizzly bears. I am not aware of statistics 

that are available for livestock producers, but if they are, I will be 

glad to furnish those to you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Do you believe that there is a significant effect because of predation on the ability to raise cattle? 

Mr. MICHELL There is a definite effect in some areas of the state. 

Depending on your definition of significant, I think it is becoming 

an increasingly serious problem in the cattle industry. 

Mr. SAXTON. So, if I go back to my first question and say that 

the second and third largest industries in the state are based on 

wildlife and agricultural pursuits, it would seem to me that something ought to be done to get a better handle on predation. And 

your suggestion apparently is that the state could do a better job 

than the current situation, which is essentially a partnership between the state and Federal Government? 
19 

Mr. MICHELI. That is correct. One of the things that time would 

not allow me to recognize, and you should recognize, is that we do 

have in place predator boards in each county who have the opportunity to place a millage on their livestock. And we raise almost 

exactly-very close to the same amount of money locally from our 

predator boards-from the predator fee that is paid by the livestock 

producers for predator control at the local level. So, while I represented to you that we have just a little less than a million dollars 

coming from the Animal Damage Control, you should also recognize that we have with that a million dollars that is being raised 

locally by the livestock producers for predator control, and it is a 

partnership. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Acord, can you help me out with the policies 

that differ with regard to predator control on Federal lands as compared to privately owned lands? · Mr. ACORD. Yes, sir. 

For the most part, the land managing agencies, the Forest Serv-_ ice and the Bureau of Land Management, have the responsibility 

for setting their own polices. Generally, we have had good cooperation in working with those two agencies in the last couple of years. 

Earlier, we had problems with respect to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. They were supposed to be doing 

environmental assessments for predator control on lands that they 

manage. They had not been able to accomplish that in every case 

and in some cases, we were shut down. They have specific policies 

with respect to the use of pesticides on public lands. We are now 

in a negotiation with the Bureau of Land Management where they 

will not require us to have a pesticide use permit to use pesticides 

on Bureau of Land Management land. That would at least free us 

to use M-44s on their lands. I hope that we can use the livestock 

protection collar on their lands as well. 

Since that time, they have also through a memorandum of understanding delegated to us the responsibility for doing environmental assessments on their land. I believe that we have been able 

to do that and we are successfully working everywhere that we 

need to work. 

But many of the restrictions that we have heard about here 

today are the result of label restrictions from the Environmental 

Protection Agency. Like the M-44s have 25 use restrictions that 

are placed on them by the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

that is not likely to change, regardless of who uses those products. 

The same way with the livestock protection collar. There are some 

very specific constraints put on by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. And then when the Federal agencies or the land managing 

agencies, in addition to that, place additional restrictions, it makes 

it very difficult to use them. But, I think we are perhaps out of the 

woods, so to speak, with the Bureau of Land Management and 

hopefully, we will make some similar progress with the Forest 

Service. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Shorma, with regard to Federal lands, does 

your department administer wild animal programs on Federal 

lands as well as on private lands? 

Mr. SHORMA. As far as depredation losses? 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir. 
20 

Mr. SHORMA. Yes. Damage done by trophy game animals, those 

which include black bear, grizzly bear and mountain lions are investigated and action taken on private and on public lands. 

Mr. SAXTON. So you-both on private and public lands, you see 

it as the responsibility of the state of Wyoming-specifically your 

department-to involve yourselves as a department in this predation problem? 

Mr. SHORMA. Well, we as a department are mandated by a state 

statute to compensate for losses sustained by trophy game animals. 

So animals that are determined to have been killed by black bear, 

grizzly bear and mountain lions are compensated by the state of 

Wyoming. 

Mr. SAXTON. Do you believe it is your responsibility or your dflpartment's responsibility to help in the predator control aspect of 

this issue? 

Mr. SHORMA. State statute dictates that we do. 

Mr. SAXTON. And do you? 

Mr. SHORMA. We do. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thought you probably were going to say that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

I have no further questions at this time. 

Ms. CUBIN. I have nothing further. 

Mr. SAXTON. We want to thank you very much for being with us 

this morning and thank you for your articulate testimony. 

We are going to move along then to panel two. Thank you for 

being so patient. You have been with us for an hour and 10 minutes. It has been pointed out that there may be some additional 

questions which we may want to submit to you in writing. So, we 

will hold the record open for those answers. 

We are going to move to the second panel now which consists of 

Mr. Truman Julian, who is the President of the Wyoming Wool 

Growers Association; Ms. Cindy Garretson-Weibel, Executive Director of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association; Larry Bourret, Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Farm Bureau; Terry 

Schramm, a rancher from Jackson, Wyoming; Mr. Bob Wenande 

from the Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; and M1~. 

Scott Zimmerman, who is the Field Representative from the Rocky 

Mountain Farmers Association. So welcome. You all got up here in 

a hurry. Thank you very much. 

We are going to have those little lights flashing there. And since 

this is a rather large panel, we would ask you to stay as close to 

your five minutes as you possibly can. 

Mr. Julian, if you would like to begin at this time. 

STATEMENTS OF TRUMAN JULIAN, PRESIDENT, WYOMING 

WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JULIAN. Chairman Saxton and Congresswoman Cubin, I am 

Truman Julian, President of the Wyoming Woolgrowers Association. 

Ms. CUBIN. They cannot hear you, Truman. 

Mr. JULIAN. Maybe you should stick this in your nose. 

Ms. CUBIN. Right. 

[Laughter.] 
Ms. CUBIN. Pin it on your lip. 

[Laughter.] 

21 

Mr. JULIAN. I will pin it to my mustache. This is not on my time? 

Since January of-am I coming through now? 

VOICE. We can hear you now. 

Mr. JULIAN. Since January of 1993, the sheep industry in Wyoming has lost over 500 active lamb and wool producers with a corresponding reduction of over 255,000 head of producing ewes. Nationally, we lost approximately 2.5 million head of sheep, or 22 percent from 1990 to 1995. What the loss of 255,000 head of producing 

animals in the state of Wyoming means to this state and to the 

American economy is a loss of $153 million in economic activity or 

over 7900 jobs. You may notice that the decline in both the Wyoming sheep and producer numbers coincides with the passage of 

the act by Congress to eliminate the wool incentive program. This 

is not a coincidence. I am here to tell you that the action Congress 

took in 1993 to eliminate the 50-year old Wool Program is not the 

only reason we have seen 33 percent of our sheep and 32 percent 

of our production base leave the state. 

Since the fall of 1993, the Wyoming Executive Board of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association has conducted a series of town 

meetings throughout the state. Guess what the sheep producers in 

Wyoming have indicated is the number one problem that they have 

faced over the past three years? Predators. According to the Wyoming Agriculture Statistics Service, predators have cost sheep producers in Wyoming almost $4 million annually over the past five 

years. This cost, plus the loss of the Wool Act, which accounts for 

approximately 24 percent of the sheep producers income, have 

brought about the decline of the sheep industry in Wyoming and 

the West. 

On our ranch, predators cost us directly over $30,000 a year. 

Losses have ranged from a high of 22 percent to a low of 10 percent, averaging about 15 percent yearly. The wool incentive 

amounted to 26 percent of our annual income. The combined values 

of these two losses amount to about $180,000 per year, again depending on the prices of lamb and wool. 

On our operation, coyotes are the number one predator, followed 

by fox, black bear, ravens, golden eagles, mountain lions and an occasional loss from badger and bobcats. Soon, perhaps as early as 

this summer, I will be facing the wolf. 

Let me assure you, Chairman Saxton, that d~spite what some environmental and animal rights activist groups would have you believe, we are not setting on our backsides complaining about predators and doing nothing about the problem ourselves. Myself, as well 

as almost all other sheep producers in Wyoming have tried everything available to reduce predatory losses. We have at one time or 

another used fire, fire crackers, repellents, predator ear tags, scare 

devices, sterilization, herding sheep, sleeping with sheep, trapping, 

flying, M-44s and guard dogs. Some of these tools were worthless 

and expensive while others were useful. 

Last year, we spent over $5000 in predatory taxes, $4500 in aerial gunning, over $2000 for a private trapper and over $4500 for 

dog food and vet supplies. We furnished a horse for a trapper and 

provide horse feed and pasture. This adds up to approximately an-
22 

other $20,000 per year, which takes my overall predatory cost to 

about $50,000 per year. It is added expenses such as these that are 

causing us to lose a wonderful industry in Wyoming and much of 

the West. 

Let us go back to the wolf. As you are aware, wolves were introduced in Idaho and Wyoming in Yellowstone Park last winter. And 

as you have probably heard, they are not staying in the park. I 

would like to present to you some facts presented by Elaine 

Allestad in testimony given before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee 

on Park, Historic Preservation and Recreation in May of 1995. 

The Eastern timber wolf recovery program has taken an enormous toll on the livestock industry and agriculture in general in 

northern Minnesota. According to USDA figures, there were 12,230 

farms and 91,000 sheep in the Minnesota wolf range in 1979. By 

1982, the number of farms in the Minnesota wolf range declined 41 

percent to 7200 farms. By 1986, the sheep numbers in the northern 

Minnesota wolf range declined 82 percent to only 16,000 sheep. 

This decline in sheep numbers in the wolf range occurred while 

sheep numbers in the rest of the state increased. 

In 1992, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued a report entitled "Trends and Management of Wolf/Livestock Conflict 

in Minnesota". Most disturbing is the report's conclusion that because factors in Minnesota are different than in the West, the West 

can expect even heavier livestock losses than those expected in 

Minnesota. 

In a recent conversation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concerning wolves, I asked whether our existing predatory management 

program in livestock areas outside the Park would be affected if 

wolves decided to look for greener pastures. I was told by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife that if a wolf showed up outside the Park, for example, in my area, which is about 100 miles south of Yellowstone 

Park, that M-44's and snares would be definitely affected and 

probably leg-hold traps and possibly aerial hunting. Tell me, Committee members, what methods of management do we have left? 

What am I and other livestock operators to do but go out of bus[-

ness? Can we not learn something from Minnesota? 

My grandfather immigrated from England and started our ranch 

in the 1880's. My children are the fourth generation of Julians engaged in the sheep ranching business in southwestern Wyoming. 

My father is still alive, so counting my two new grandchildren, we 

have got four generations on this old original ranch, living on there 

and making a living from it. It is my will and desire to have the 

Julian sheep ranch for another 116 years. The big question is, will 

the United States government allow us to survive? 

Look at the grizzly bear in Wyoming. They have reached their 

population objective to be delisted. Have they? No. 

I thank you. I see my time is up. I present my case to you. I 

would hope that you look at my entire written testimony and information that is presented there. 

I feel bad that I think that we need things like this written in 

Endangered Species. I think the original intent and why they were 

founded was great. I feel now that there are government agencies 

that basically-and this administration as a whole-are beating up 
23 

citizens and people that are making a living, especially in these 

western states. 

I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming to Wyoming. 

[The statement of Mr. Julian may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you for very compelling information and a 

very compelling statement. Ms. Weibel. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY GARRETSON-WEIBEL, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, WYOMING STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. GARRETSON-WEIBEL. Mr. Saxton and Ms. Cubin, I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you today regarding predator control or the lack thereof. My name is Cindy Garretson-Weibel and 

I am the Executive Director for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. We represent over 1600 ranching families in Wyoming. As we begin our discussion today, I would like to explain that 

predatory animals, according to Wyoming statute, include the coyote, red fox, wolf, among others. My primary focus today will be on 

the coyote. However, bobcats, mountain lions, grizzly bear, black 

bears and even raptors cause depredation on livestock and other 

wildlife species. Some of these species are protected as threatened 

or endangered; thus, adding to the difficulty of providing an effective predator control program. 

Though much of the predation by coyotes is on the domestic 

sheep population, predation on cattle is also common. If you have 

ever seen a fresh kill by predators on sheep, cattle or wildlife, you 

understand the emotional debate involved with predators. If you 

have not had the misfortune of witnessing such a gruesome act, I 

have attached to my comments an article entitled "How Coyotes 

Kill Sheep." 

Today, I want to focus more on the common sense need for predator control rather than on emotion. The fact is that Wyoming sheep 

producers lost 56,000 sheep and lambs to predators in 1995 and 

coyotes were the main predator. And in 1991, over 1000 head of 

cattle-cows and calves were documented as killed by coyotes alone. It is noteworthy to point out that the livestock producers receive 

no compensation for depredation of livestock caused by coyotes. In 

addition, as it has been mentioned earlier, ranchers in Wyoming 

pay for predator control. From July 1, 1994, through December 

31st of 1995, livestock producers contributed approximately $900,000 to predator control through payment of mandatory predator fees collected. This predator control benefits the wildlife population as well as the livestock. 

In addition to the loss of livestock to predators, our association 

is deeply concerned about the loss of wildlife to predators. Now 

with the introduction of the wolf into Yellowstone National Park, 

an even greater impact will be seen on the wildlife populations. 

Wyoming is well known for its pristine beauty and abundant wildlife and we want to see these healthy wildlife populations remain. 

If the wildlife populations continue to decline, the state's wildlife 

agency could face a loss in revenue due to reduction in license allocation. In addition, in 1993, non-consumptive users-that is the 
24 

backpackers, photographers and such-they spent over $2 million 

throughout the state. If the wildlife populations continue to decline, 

the economy of the entire state will be affected. 

What are the solutions? Before the predator problem can be adequately addressed, I believe the wildlife agencies must admit that 

a predator problem does exist. I believe that state wildlife agencies 

have soft-peddled the predator problem. In addition, more involvement and participation on the part of the Federal Government with 

the state is imperative to effectively control the predators. Research efforts need to be continued in order to develop management 

and control practices that are socially acceptable. 

Predator control methods on Federal land are more restrictive 

than those on state and private land as has been previously mentioned. This makes it very difficult to tackle the predator problem 

as a whole. It is vitally important that further restrictions are not 

placed on our present control methods that we do have available. What we do not need are more burdensome rules and regulations. 

What we need is more common sense. However, I have not figured 

out how you really legislate that yet. 

Mr. SAXTON. Neither have we. [Laughter.] 

Ms. GARRETSON-WEIBEL. What do ranchers want? We want protection from devastating predator losses and we want to maintain 

a healthy wildlife population. That is all we want and I am relatively certain that that is what others want as well. All we desire 

is to maintain our way of life and have a "home where the buffalo 

used to roam and the deer and the antelope play, where seldom is 

heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." 

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for the opportunity to comment. [The statement of Ms. Garretson-Weibel may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bourret. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY BOURRET, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, WYOMING FARM BUREAU 

Mr. BoURRET. I am Larry Bourret, Executive Vice President of 

the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation in Laramie, Wyoming. We 

thank you for the opportunity to explain the problems with animal 

damage control. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Bourret, we need you to get the microphone a 

little bit closer, if you could. 

Mr. BOURRET. OK. 

Ms. CUBIN. Maybe that is one that does not work. 

Mr. BOURRET. We welcome you here and we welcome the opportunity to explain the problems with animal damage control and 

propose solutions to this situation. 

Predator management is not a new issue, nor is it merely a western issue. Predators were encountered by the early immigrants to 

the East Coast. The colony in Massachusetts enacted the first wolf 

bounty in what is now the United States 365 and one-half years 

ago yesterday, November 9, 1630. Two Fish and Wildlife Service biologists, Stanley Young and Edward Goldman, in a book The 

Wolves of North America, wrote, quote, "During the period from 
25 

early colonization of New England and the middle Atlantic states, 

scarcely more than a decade passed before the early settlers adopted the bounty system as their main recourse toward the stoppage 

of wolf depredations. Practically every settlement had some such 

scheme in effect, but wolf depredation seemed to have kept pace 

with the ever expanding livestock husbandry. With the closing of 

the 18th century, the wolf bounty plan was in effect in practically 

all of the colonial settlements. Up to the middle of the 19th century, Vermont still continued with a state bounty of $20 for the 

killing of each adult wolf and $10 for each suckling whelp." By this 

time, according to Thompson, wolves had been so reduced that, 

quote, "the amount paid annually for wolf certificates is usually 

from 1 to $200." 

I would like to insert into the record some documents. One of 

them being a study that was done by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Predator Damage in the West. That indicates on page 34 some information, Chairman Saxton, about calf losses. And there is also information in there about a study that was done in Montana in 

1975, 1976 and 1977, paid for by the Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

which they allowed losses to occur, reimbursed the rancher for the 

losses. The lamb losses got up as high as 28.8 percent. I think that 

would refute the allegation by some that there is no economic benefit to predator control. If you get those losses up that high, you are 

out of business in a big hurry. 

In addition, I have got a copy of that study from the Cook Ranch 

in Montana. 

I have another document relative to some things that occurred 

in 1971 and 1972. Wyoming was involved in this situation for 

years. Wyoming's first wolf bounty law was a territorial law in 

1875. And over the years, trapping, shooting, denning, chemical 

toxicants and other methods have been used. In the early 1970's, 

environmental groups filed suit to halt the Federal Animal Damage 

Control Program. The government canceled the pesticide registrations in March of 1972 and told Wyoming citizens proposed amendments to FIFRA would provide a means to re-register 1080, strychnine and cyanide. Efforts to accomplish that have failed because 

the government failed to keep its word. The methods of control in 

1972 are much the same as today. But additional restrictions have 

been imposed. In 1972, we were assured the government would 

provide new solutions through research. There has not been one 

new method developed through research that was not available in 

1972. 

The Federal Government relied on a report written in 1971, the 

Cain Report to cancel their registration for predator toxicants. That 

report recommended a concomitant compensatory Federal effort 

through increased aircraft hunting, an insurance program and an 

expansion of research on more effective and economical control 

methods. The Federal Government has failed to provide relief for 

these 24 years and the situation is worsening. Now, we are faced 

with a new set of problems in the form of wolf reintroduction and 

a new set of government restrictions on the Predator Control Program. 

You heard Truman Julian and what he said the Fish and Wildlife Services told him. The EIS and the rules on the wolf introduc-
26 

tion indicate that private property will not be affected by land use 

restrictions because of wolf recovery. Now, we would like the Committee to look into that matter and determine if the restrictions 

that are going to be placed on livestock producers in Wyoming as 

a result of the wolf introduction, through the use of restrictions to 

further hinder predator control, are a reality. And if they are a reality, why then did the government lie to us on these documents 

that I am looking at right here? The rules and the EIS. 

We would also request that the Committee look into the DingellJohnson funds to reimburse livestock producers for their losses. 

Those Dingell-Johnson funds are supposed to be used for habitat 

and if livestock producers are providing habitat in the form of 

lambs and calves, then they should be reimbursed for those losses. 

We thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

[The statement of Mr. Bourret may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Bourret. 

We are going to leave that microphone down there. I think this 

will work much better. Mr. Schramm, would you like to proceed? 

STATEMENT OF TERRY SCHRAMM, RANCHER, JACKSON, 

WYOMING 

Mr. SCHRAMM. Sure. Thank you. 

I am Terry Schramm and I have been a cowboy on the Blackrock 

Spread Creek allotment for 16 years. I work for Paul Walton and 

Gladys Moulton. They have been a responsible, legitimate user of 

this Forest Service allotment for over 75 years. In Teton County, 

97 percent of the land over there is federally owned. So without 

that grazing allotment, we would not have a viable ranching operation, as private land is unavailable. 

For the past three summers, our ranching operation has suffered 

substantial losses due to grizzly bear predation. We have had 52 

confirmed bear kills. We came up 66 calves unaccounted for. We 

lost a total of 192 head of calves in the past three summers, which 

is about nine percent of our calf crop. Now historical losses used 

to run about two and three percent. 

It is true we have been paid compensation by the Game and 

Fish, but we have had to fight for every penny that we have got 

out of those guys. They do not seem to be too interested in getting 

into a long, protracted compensation program over animals that 

they have very little management decisions. And compensation is 

easy, somebody could pay for dead livestock. But compensation is 

not the whole answer. 

I am not sure that I have the verbal skills to explain the management problems that I have to suffer up there. When these bears 

are in there killing cattle every night, management is totally out 

of the question. My job up there is to nurture livestock, fix fences, 

shoe horses, pack salt and work with the land and wildlife agencies 

to ensure habitat protection, riparian improvement and resource 

management. Now my job has been reduced solely to chasing dead 

stock. I spend all of my time looking for dead critters, rather than 

taking care of the live ones, if I want to get paid any compensation 

whatsoever. And on an allotment of 88,000 acres of mountainous 

terrain, I will guarantee you that you cannot find-you could not 

put enough people out there to find every dead critter that these 
27 

predators have killed. So therefore, compensation just is out of the 

question. Nobody even calculates in the manhours. I put in thousands of manhours to try to find these. Granted, just being a cowboy, my time ain't worth a hell of a lot, but it has got to be worth 

something. 

Since most of these predations occur at night, and considering 

the large expanse of terrain I have to cover, I can appreciate your 

22-mile ride. I do that every day. 

I cannot see. 

Ms. CUBIN. Me either, Larry. 

Mr. SCHRAMM. Nobody has taken into account that livestock have 

an aversion of being eaten alive by large predators. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHRAMM. And it is absolutely impossible for me to even 

keep these cattle on the allotment. Bears get in with them at night, 

these cattle are screaming, running back and forth. Nobody takes 

into account the weight loss, the stress related illnesses. These cattle are trying to pour out of there. They want to go home because 

they are not used to be treated like that. I spend the rest of the 

day pushing them back up over the hill and then I just go around 

and look and see where I can find a dead calf. It seems rather ridiculous to me. 

Both of these ranches have been put into a conservation easement to ensure that they will be ranches forever. 

There was one thing I noted you said, we have a little conflict 

between agriculture and tourism. But the two are actually closely 

connected in the state of Wyoming because people come here to see 

a different culture. I am here to fight for that culture. They spend 

more time taking pictures of me than they do of the grizzly bears 

that are killing my cattle, I can assure you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHRAMM. A study was implemented when I started whining 

about excessive predation and a total of 15 grizzly bears, 25 black 

bears and two mountain lions have been caught on my allotment. 

So that is my commitment to preserving the species. I am not out 

here to eliminate them, but I want to see that we can survive, too. 

Now, I think the government is working more for the predator than 

it is for the people. 

Just to summarize this thing, I would like to tell you a little 

story. It is about-back in the 1980's, an old sheep herder over in 

Island Park, he is out there tending his flock. Doing a job that is 

as old as civilized man. One night, a collared grizzly bear got into 

his flock and killed 30 of his sheep and scattered his flock all over 

the place and he went out and he shot the grizzly bear. He killed 

the bear. The next day, the feds show up and they say you are 

under arrest and he says, for what? I have always been an honest 

man. And they said, you killed a grizzly bear, and he looks at them 

in bewilderment and he says, but he killed my sheep. It is just as 

simple as that, we do not want to be a bunch of outlaws. So do not 

pass laws that we cannot live by. We just want to get along. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The statement of Mr. Schramm may be found at end of hearing.] 
28 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We appreciate that very 

much and I would like to spend one of those days with you. That 

would be a wonderful experience for me. I will do that someday if 

I get a chance. 

Mr. SCHRAMM. Well, it is a thrilling experience to wade down 

into the willows and find a carcass that a grizzly bear is laying on 

so you can get paid 326 bucks for it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Wenande. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WENANDE, BLACK HILLS REGIONAL 

MULTIPLE USE COALITION 

Mr. WENANDE. Thank you. I am Robert Wenande, a rancher from 

about 60 miles north of Gillette here, a little town they call Oshoto. 

I had a lot of stuff written down here that I am involved in and 

it looks kind of like my obituary, so I will skip that part. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WENANDE. I have been in the ranching business for over 50 

years and during that time, I have witnessed many declines in the 

wildlife population due to predators. I have also seen many unfavorable changes in the livestock industry due to the increase in 

predator population. 

In the 1930's and early 1940's, there were very few deer and antelope in Crook County and my part of Campbell County, basically, 

due to the fact that the coyote population was very high. As a msult of that imbalance, the government trappers started using a 

compound called 1080-it was a very selective poison-to control 

predator population. In a matter of a few years deer population 

flourished, so did the antelope. In fact, the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission started issuing multiple licenses to control wildlife numbers. 

In the 1950's, I think it was, 1080 was banned and the coyote 

population exploded again. As a result of this population explosion, 

the game animals numbers began to decline. Trappers and aerial 

hunters and spring denning were used to control predators. These 

methods were not nearly as effective as, or efficient as, the 1080 

and our game numbers continued to decline. Out on our ranch, we allow deer and antelope hunting. We limlt 

the number of hunters and the number of animals taken in order 

to kind of maintain a balance of population of game animals there 

on the ranch. Despite our efforts, predator numbers continue to increase which in turn puts a lot of pressure on the wildlife causing 

the deer and the antelope numbers on the ranch to be decrease 

each year. Very few fawns, antelope and mostly in the deer population make it through the first winter. That is a bad time for the 

coyotes-it is an easy time for the coyotes but it is real bad for the 

fawns. 

Predators not only affect the deer and antelope, but also the bird 

population. When I was growing up, there were prairie chickens 

and sage grouse in unlimited numbers. During the 1950's, the red 

fox moved into our country. The little red fox is a very efficient 

hunter and the prairie chickens and the grouse nest on the ground 

making them an easy prey for the predators. Today, you hardly 

ever see a prairie chicken and very few grouse. 
29 

We had a lot of turkeys. The Black Hills up there were probably 

noted for some of the best turkey hunting in the state of Wyoming. 

Due to, I would say, the fox-and I did not bring into my testimony 

here the eagle. I thought it was a too sensitive subject to bring up. 

But, I would like to comment a little bit on the side about the eagles and what they do to the wildlife and also the livestock out 

there. The wild turkey population in that Black Hills area is practically gone and this is due mostly to the eagle population. I have 

seen a bald eagl~r the golden eagle, I mean, keep a bunch of 

turkeys in a willow patch all day long. They could not go out and 

graze because they were going to get slaughtered. Of course, a turkey does not graze at night. Eventually the turkey is forced out by 

starvation and the eagles are waiting for him to come out. We just 

do not have hardly any turkeys left. 

I am going to get away from the wildlife for a little bit and talk 

to you about-we run sheep and cattle on the ranch out there and 

each typical year, we expect to lose 125 to 200 lambs to coyotes and 

fox. In a way, you cannot blame the coyotes and the fox that much. 

They are over-populated. There is not a rabbit left in that country 

and they have got to eat something because they are just so many 

of them. They have eaten up their own supply of food, so naturally 

they have turned to the easy prey, which is lambs and out in our 

country, some calves. 

We have experienced-you know, the ranching experience has 

been pretty depressed the last several years. And a lot of the reason is due, out there anyway, to the predators we have to put up 

with. It is kind of unfortunate. Many people have the impression 

that the livestock ranchers want to completely exterminate the coyote and the fox and that is not the truth. The ranchers are probably one of the strongest advocates of all your wildlife species. Our 

main desire, however, is to keep the wildlife population in balance. 

There is a fallacy also that ranchers do not do anything to protect themselves from predators. The Predator Control Board in 

Crook County assesses the monetary limit on their own livestock 

that they use in their predatory fund. Like Mr.-I am having trouble with this thing. 

Mr. SAXTON. I think if you hold it more straight like this, you 

might experience a little better--

Mr. WENANDE. Spit right into it. 

Mr. SAXTON. Spit right into it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WENANDE. OK, sir. 

It started as a fallacy that the ranchers do not do anything but 

whine. They do not do anything to protect themselves. But like Mr. 

Julian said, on our ranch, we independently hire a professional 

trapper every fall for six weeks. In the fall of 1995 that trapper 

took 153 foxes and 47 coyotes in that area. We also use guard dogs 

and do a lot of riding like our cowboy said. But generally, just 

about two hours behind them. 

Thank you for listening to my testimony. I hope you get some 

benefit out this. 

[The statement of Mr. Wenande may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, very much. I am pleased that you said 

that ranchers-and I am sure that each of you would have said the 

24·721 96-2 
30 

same thing-care a lot about all kinds of wildlife. I think that i.s 

a very important point. 

Mr. Zimmerman. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT ZIMMERMAN, FIELD 

REPRESENTATIVE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION 

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Cubin, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am 

Scott Zimmerman, a lobbyist and field person for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, a state affiliate of the National Farmers 

Union. RMFU is a three-state organization with membership in 

Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. 

The timing of this hearing could not be better in respect to the 

season when predator losses are the greatest. As a third generation 

Wyoming farmer-rancher and a representative of a general farm 

organization, I have had the opportunity to witness the result of 

predator depravation firsthand and believe me, it is not a pretty 

sight. The sight of a newborn calf or lamb viciously killed on its 

first day of life evokes emotion that cannot be stated with pen and 

paper. The first reaction to such useless killing is retaliation, but 

when emotions die down and rational thinking returns, one realizes all species must share this planet for a balanced ecosystem to 

flourish. When the number of one species are in too great a proportion to other species or when private property damage is occurring, 

action must be taken by land management agencies to attempt to 

correct this imbalance. In our opinion, that action needs to include 

some sort of a Federal predator-we will get organized here-Federal predator control program that is locally administered. 

Any attempt to control a particular species for the protection of 

another must be carefully planned and implemented to avoid upsetting the delicate balance of our ecosystem. We support a Federal 

predator program that assists in reducing animal losses caused by predators. That assistance should be directed by local predator control boards when requested by private livestock producers, citizens 

or state game managers. 

As long as the Federal Government continues to be a major landowner in the western states and predator populations exceed available food sources, there needs to be a program to assist neighboring 

landowners in keeping losses due to predators to a minimum. We 

as private landowners have little input into agencies who manage 

wildlife numbers on publicly owned land. Additionally, factors beyond man's control; i.e, weather, available food, et cetera, greatly 

influence these populations. Therefore, the Federal Government, as 

a responsible steward of their resource and a good neighbor, needs 

to be an active partner in predator control programs. State predator control personnel are the closest to the problem and should be 

able to administer a more efficient program than their Federal 

counterparts. We would encourage any Federal predator control 

program to be developed in consultation with state and local predator control boards. It makes no sense to duplicate services and personnel in these times of short budgets, especially when there is no 

perceived improvement in program results. 

Our organization has observed an alarming trend of increasing 

predatory animal populations and a corresponding number of live-
31 

stock losses reported. These previous witnesses have documented 

with the statistics where these numbers are coming from. I will not 

repeat that. 

Two other trends that I would just like to mention briefly. We 

see trends emerging in private land areas that may in time influence predatory animal habitat in areas where Federal landownership is predominant. One of these trends is the ever expanding 

urban encroachment on agricultural lands. As shopping malls, 

parking lots, housing developments and hobby farms reduce traditional habitat of many wildlife species, the coyote seems to adapt 

to these changes quite well. By being at ease around humans, the 

coyote is more brazen in its hunting practices. Naturally, it sees domestic livestock, particularly young ones, as an easy food source. 

Our members are noticing this phenomenon with alarming frequency in the front range of Colorado, where two of the nation's 

fastest growing counties are, Jefferson and Douglas. 

Another trend worth noting are the changes in predator animal 

numl:>ers brought about by the Conservation Reserve Program, 

CRP. In the first years of the CRP Program, rodent numbers increased greatly due to the abundance of protective cover. Within a 

year or two, the predatory animal numbers started increasing in 

relation to the increased food availability. Soon rodents were once 

again scarce and the predatory animals were at near record numbers. Coyote sightings have increased dramatically in my local area 

of southeast Wyoming over the past three years. 

While we are primarily concerned with the affect predators have 

on domestic animals, we cannot overlook the affect these same 

predators have on wildlife populations. Many of our menbers are 

also involved in guiding hunters or outfitting to a limited degree. 

Most big game hunting areas in Wyoming have experienced a drop 

in success rates over the past years, which indicates to us that 

game numbers have declined. This decline can in part be blamed 

on increased predator losses. In our opinion, our state wildlife 

agency downplays the loss of big game animals due to predators. 

In their shoes I would do the same. After all, their money comes 

from license fees and the public wouldn't be as likely to purchase 

a license if they thought the chance of success was lessened by low 

big game numbers caused by predators. In 1995 Wyoming experienced one of the best growing seasons for forage production both 

on private and public land in its history. The 1996 hunting season 

should provide a clear view as to the true predator problem among big game species. If success rates are up significantly, we will know 

that many young survived from the 1995 season. If not, we can assume that predators are indeed a major problem for our big game 

populations. 

Educating the public, both in the West and throughout the rest 

of the country, as to the damage caused by predators is paramount 

to a successful predator control program. The current public relations campaign to portray the wolf as a beautiful creature is a good 

example of misleading the American public. I have yet to see· a picture of a child crying over his or her dead puppy killed by a hungry 

coyote right on the front porch of the parent's home. As long as the 

acceptance of a predatory animal·-acceptance of a predatory problem-as long as the public accepts the efficient killing-let me try 
32 

again. As long as these efficient killing machines are portrayed as 

cute and lovable, we will not have public acceptance of a predatory 

problem, much less a predator control program. Society will not 

stand for the killing of large numbers of predatory animals. We 

must find new ways of dealing with this problem. 

Guard dogs have proved quite successful in protecting sheep in 

some situations. We have watched with interest, research being 

conducted at universities dealing with ways to sterilize coyotes to 

aid in controlling population numbers. New types of fences have 

proved successful as a deterrent in some cases, but wouldn't be 

practicle in the great open expanses of the American West. We see 

the future of predator control embracing these technological advances. We must continue to fund research into new and better 

ways of dealing with this age old problem. 

The coyote has not stood still. It has adapted to changes in its 

habitat and food source. In the cartoons, Wiley E. Coyote was easily outwitted by the Roadrunner; however, in real life, the coyote 

is a match for almost anyone. A number of former sheep ranchers 

can attest to that. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

and I would be glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. SAXTON. Barbara, you are up. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start by asking Mr. Bourret, was 1080 banned by 

the EPA or by an executive order? How was 1080 banned? 

Mr. BOURRET. This does not work, I guess. We will try this one. 

It was-there was an executive order first, on February 8, 1972, 

that was issued and it prohibited the use of the predator toxicants 

on Federal lands or in the Federal program. On March 9th, a 

month and a day later, the Environmental Protection Agency canceled the registrations of those toxicants. I have submitted for the 

record some information that indicates that in November of that 

same year, EPA recommended the re-registration of those toxicants 

but that has never happened. 

Ms. CUBIN. You indicated that the Federal Government's research program-this was in your testimony-has not produced 

many useful tools. Could you elaborate on that for me a little bit? 

Mr. BOURRET. Well, the toxic collar was being developed prior to 

the time of the ban on the toxicants and finally came back here a 

few years ago. The M-44 was developed prior to that time. So, in 

the 24 years since the executive order and the cancellation of the 

registration of the toxicants there is not any new method that has 

been developed in those 24 years to help these people with these 

problems. 

Ms. CUBIN. I see that just as a huge concern. The testimony oflet me see, Game and Fish. Excuse me just a second. Yeah, Mr. 

Shorma. It seemed frustrating to me to hear that the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Governor believed that there is a 

predator problem and they have a suggested solution on how to 

handle that. But the Game and Fish do not really know if there 

is a predator problem or not and they have been in charge of the 

wildlife. The state of Wyoming owns the wildlife. Coyotes are wildlife. The Game and Fish's respcnsibility is to manage the wildlife. 

Does that not mean that maybe they should have the duty to con-
33 

trol the numbers and manage the wildlife like they do deer, antelope and elk? I mean, am I missing something here, Larry? 

Mr. BoURRET. Representative Cubin, in one of the documents 

that I asked to be inserted into the record, "Predator Damage in 

the West, a Study of Coyote Management Alternatives," prepared 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service in December of 1978, it lists a 

number of studies that were done in a number of states. This is 

"Reports of Predation as a Limiting or Regulating Influence on 

Ungulate Populations in North America." And table one in this 

particular document lists a number of these where the results were 

positive, and many of them were much more positive than what 

you heard from the Game and Fish Department representative. 

When the toxicants were banned in 1972, the Wyoming 

Woolgrowers Association asked the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and the Game and Fish Department if they would take 

over the predator control program in Wyoming. Game and Fish declined and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture was inclined to 

go ahead and work with the people and the Wyoming Department 

of Agriculture attempted, through filing a registration request, 

emergency exemptions under FIFRA, all kinds of requests, to obtain the use of the toxicants again. The Game and Fish Department has the responsibility for the management, control, et cetera 

of wildlife in Wyoming. 

What I see is a lack of-a lot of people want authority but they 

do not want the responsibility to go with it. If you can get responsibility and authority in the same body, you can usually come up 

with a solution. 

I said that we would ask the Subcommittee or the Committee to 

determine if Dingell-Johnson funds could be used to pay for these 

losses. I suspect that if the people who now are receiving the Dingell-Johnson funds had to pay those out to the people who are suffering the losses, we would see a great deal more response from 

those very same people, because you have to make up the costs. 

The people that are paying those costs now are the people in this 

room behind me and other people around Wyoming and around the 

rest of the United States. Until the society that says they want to 

protect predators have to bear the burden, you are going to continue to have this problem, in my opinion. 

Ms. CUBIN. So, I am still not sure-are predators wildlife? Is the 

state responsible to manage them? Who is responsible? 

Mr. BOURRET. Under the Wyoming law, yes, predators are under 

the control of the Game and Fish Department, they are wildlife. 

Therefore, they have a responsibility, yes. 

Ms. CUBIN. And so it seems unlikely to me that they should not 

know how many are out there or at least try to find out. 

Mr. BOURRET. Well, Representative Cubin, I think that is where 

you get into-you have the Animal Damage Control Branch of the 

USDA involved, you have the Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

involved, you have county predatory animal districts involved and 

then you have Game and Fish. Of those four parties, the ones with 

the greatest responsibility under the present system are the three 

that I mentioned first. The one with the least amount of responsibility is the one that is mentioned last, and maybe they should 

have a great deal more responsibility because they are the ones 
34 

who, according to Wyoming law, control and manage the state's 

wildlife, and coyotes are wildlife. Ms. CUBIN. But that would be a state issue rather than a Federal. 

Mr. BOURRET. Yes, it would. But I would say this too, Representative Cubin, if the states had more authority and could overcome 

all of these restrictions-! wrote down the various laws that you 

have to overcome-you have the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act, if you are going to talk anything about toxicants 

or any device that will repel, kill or anything else, injure a predator. You have the National Environmental Policy Act, environmental impact statements and all of that. The Endangered Species 

Act and the Clean Water Act, if not more laws than just that, to 

overcome. These people that are assigned to do these things need 

to be able to do these things without having to stack up 14 yards 

of paper before they can get started. Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wenande, how many losses due to predators do you think 

are actually consumed? I think people commonly believe across the 

country that predators only kill what they need to eat to survive. 

And I think that is not true. Could you fill me in on that? 

Mr. WENANDE. I sure could and I would like to take both you and 

Representative Saxton sometime and show you some of the depredation where they say they only kill the old and the weak and the 

sick. During early lambing time, they will consume most of the 

newborn lambs that they are killing because they are taking food 

back to the den. Both the male and the female pack it back to the 

pup. Then later in the summer as the pups grow up, we go into 

this training session when they are training the pups how to kill. 

And this is when you really see the slaughter. And they do not kill 

them all, maybe they will rip the side out of one and his stomach 

is dragging on the ground and then they take another lamb and 

another lamb. And they may eat only one out of 15 or 20 they kill 

one night. And I think it is training the pups to kill and also it is 

kind of a joy trip, they have a lot of fun. But the coyote does not 

eat near what he destroys. The only time I think they do is when 

they are feeding the young in the den. The rest of the time, it is 

a fun deal. It is really sickening to ride out and see all the lambs 

torn up, some with their throats ripped open still walking around. It is not pretty. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. I do not have anything further, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. I have an interesting job as Chairman of this Subcommittee. We are supposed to find ways to make things work better. And we are currently in the process-the young lady to my left 

in particular-of trying to find a way to make sense out of the Endangered Species Act because it expired last year, and we have' to 

reauthorize it. And we are going to do that, I hope, in one way or 

another. From my vantage point, we have seen excesses that are 

correctly attributed to the Endangered Species Act, where people 

cannot use their land for almost anything, and in this case where 

grizzly bears-targets were set time after time after time and the 

population grew, we reached those targets and still there is no seri-
35 

ous effort to delist the species. And by the same token, as Mr. 

Wenande said, we all want to protect species. And so my job is to 

try to find a way to do away with those horror stories that we refer 

to as excesses resulting from ESA, and at the same time try to find 

a way to make it work. 

Several of you have mentioned the word "partnership" or "cooperation" and I have a sneaky suspicion that if we can find a way 

to get more partnering into the process of wildlife management, 

whether it be ESA or predator control or whatever it is between 

Federal and state agencies, that we could move a long way toward 

solving many of these problems. There is nobody that knows the 

situation better in Wyoming than people who live in Wyoming and 

deal with these issues. At the same time, there is a Federal rule, 

it seems to me, in terms of coordinating these kinds of activities 

nationwide. 

Would anyone like to comment on this kind of a general idea of 

how to get better partnering and make these laws that we are supposed to administer work better? 

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will take a shot at it. I do not 

know how effective I will be, but working for an organization that 

spans three states, almost from the Mexican border to within 500 

miles of Montana, you have to have a situation where all agencies 

are willing to go a little beyond what their mission is. You have 

got to be able to have flexibility. And as Mr. Bourret has very efficiently-proficiently mentioned today, with the Endangered Species 

Act, with the Federal Rodenticide, Insecticide Act and all the other 

roadblocks that get in the way of state agencies doing their job, 

much less the private sector trying to protect our own rights and 

our own property, the Federal Government, in my opinion, needs 

to back off the regulations enough so common sense can prevail. I 

think if you put most of these groups that are in charge of predator 

control, whether it be state wildlife agencies, whether. it is the Federal agencies, if you put them in a room and take the roadblocks 

out, I think some partnerships and some coalitions can be built 

that can effectively work on the problem we have now, which is 

trying to cut back on the predator numbers out there. Mr. SAXTON. Anybody else want to comment? 

Mr. Bourret. 

Mr. BOURRET. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to overcome these 

things, you are going to have to do something like you are saying. 

Because when you have this many laws and this much case law in 

some cases that lays out-for example, under the Endangered Species Act, we have got so much case law back there that you can 

practically do nothing any more. And we have to clear that out. 

And therefore, we have to, I think, more clearly define what the objectives of this nation are. If this country is going to survive I think 

economically and pay off its national debt, which I hope some day 

we can, we need to start looking at where is this nation going. And 

we cannot continue to put roadblocks in the way of people who are 

going to produce economic wealth. And I think we need to get an 

objective out there and then dovetail all of these statutes and laws 

and all of that into producing something out of this country. 

It is just almost to the point where the paperwork makes it impossible to do anything any more. You know, some simple amend-
36 

ments to the Endangered Species Act would clear a lot of that up. 

But you have to first have the inclination to allow it to happen. If 

we do not change our attitude in this country, I think we are looking for more and more trouble. We talk about reducing the deficit, 

but I want to reduce the debt. The young people in this country are 

really going to face a tremendous burden, and I do not want to see 

them do that. I am not going to have to worry about it, but they 

are going to have to, and I think we need to be awfully concemed 

about that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much. 

We could really spend a lot of time exploring a lot of issues. Mr. 

Julian mentioned that he spends $50,000 a year trying to protect 

his crop of sheep. That is an issue that we could explore for a long 

time. We could talk about toxicants and compensation and all of 

the issues that are involved here, if we had time. 

We want to say that we appreciate very much all of you traveling 

here today to share your experiences with us and sharing the information that you have developed on a first-hand basis with us. 

So thank you very much, and we hope to see you all again. 

Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put into 

the record some photographs from Mr. Schramm that are pertinent 

to his testimony. Also, the letter that I referred to earlier about 

having written to Carol Browner at the Environmental Protection 

Agency about the problem with the skunks. 

Mr. SAXTON. Obviously, without objection we will do that. 

[The letter may be found at end of hearing. The photographs 

were placed in Subcommittee files.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We are going to move to the third panel, and so if 

the members of it will come forward. And while you are coming forward, I will introduce you. The first panelist will be Dr. Steve 

Horn, who is Dean and Director of the College of Agriculture at the 

University of Wyoming; Mr. Dan Chu, who is the Executive Director of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation; and Ms. Leila Stanfield 

from the Biodiversity Associates. 

Welcome aboard. We are anxious to hear from you as well. Dr. 

Horn, if you would like to begin at this time. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN W. HORN, DEAN, COLLEGE OF 

AGRICULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING 

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Cubin. 

Thank you for coming to Wyoming and for the opportunity for me 

to address this Subcommittee. 

I am Steve Horn, Dean of the College of Agriculture and I represent the land grant university, the University of Wyoming, for 

this state. And as the land grant university, we are extremely interested in applied research and how we might tailor our academic 

programs and research in service and in teaching to the specific 

needs of the people of the state of Wyoming and to the region. 

This issue, as you have learned this morning, has tremendous 

applied value from a research standpoint. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Horn, could you speak just a little louder 

please? 

Mr. HORN. Yes. Can you hear me now? 
37 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes. 

Mr. HoRN. The coyote is an interesting animal, it is extremely 

adaptable. We have trapped this animal, we have shot it, we have 

poisoned it, we have dug it from its den, we have gunned it from 

the air for approximately 100 years now and the response of that 

anhnal has been to increase in numbers and expand its range. 

Coyote predation on domestic livestock is in fact a real problem 

that we experience, especially in the western United States. It is 

a controversial issue, socially, economically, politically controversial. There are numerous studies that have been conducted that 

show that domestic sheep and lambs throughout the western United States are a major target of predators, especially coyotes. It is 

generally assumed that coyotes take approximately 2.5 percent of 

the adult sheep produced in the west and about 9 percent on average of lambs. Some years we have seen that increase substantially. 

In 1994, USDA-these are the last figures that I had for the 

western United States-USDA estimated that coyotes killed 500, 

excuse me, predators killed over half a million sheep and lambs 

and coyotes were responsible for 62 percent of those losses, worth 

an estimated $17 million. That is a tremendous economic impact on 

the western United States. That is $17 million that comes out of 

the rural communities, that is $17 million that are not multiplied 

by whatever the standard multiplier might be, anywhere from 

three to eight times that dollar amount would turn over in that 

community. In that same year, here in Wyoming, we lost 96,000 

sheep and lambs to predators, 72 percent documented coyotes, estimated at $4.27 million. The point of this is that coyotes do in fact 

take sheep and lambs and there is an economic and social burden 

associated with that. 

Management of our predators have been oriented toward the removal of either individual animals or entire populations. As this 

committee is aware, as everyone in the audience is aware, societal 

views regarding predator control have changed very substantially 

in recent years. People want an effective means of controlling depredations on livestock and wildlife and they want those means to 

be safe, environmentally safe and they want them to be humane. Research dealing with the manipulation of reproductive rates in 

wildlife has progressed substantially in recent years. There still re- mains, of course, many questions--ethical, economic, social, biological questions associated with broad scale use of reproductive controls in wildlife. But I am here to testify today to tell you that that 

is in fact a viable alternative to lethal control methods. 

We have shown, research has shown that sheep losses to coyotes 

has declined as much as 92 percent when the coyote pups were removed from the adults. It has been theorized that sterilizing or 

aborting territorial coyotes can be more effective actually in reducing predation than removing pups or adults from the total population. The assumption there is that non-fertile or sterilized coyotes 

left in their territory will defend that territory against non-sterilized coyotes. It has been mentioned today already that coyotes do in fact have 

some interesting mechanisms for adjusting their numbers when 

they are threatened. Coyotes have, we think, the ability to actually 
38 

adjust their fecundity. We certainly know that coyotes rear their 

pups more successfully when there are fewer pups. Anyway, most of the compounds that we have tested to date are 

cumbersome, they require multiple treatments, they are not oral, they are not stable compounds. What we are looking at specifically 

at the University of Wyoming are anti-progestogens which are sta·· ble, they can be administered orally, they have been around, first 

reported, first patented in 1984, reported in the literature by 

French researchers in 1987. They have a tendency to be extremely 

effective, especially when combined with other drugs. Some of thE! 

newer anti-progestogens are even more effective and more selective 

than they used to be, they are effective at lower dosages and have 

the possibility of serving as blocking ovulation, not only as abortive 

agents. Let me conclude by saying that there are many problems still associated with this research. Researchers at the University of Wyoming are proposing to look at anti-progestogens and other reproductive control measures for use on predators. The problem is of 

course societal views regarding this particular technique and the 

availability of the drugs. They have simply not been commercially 

available at this time, but we do believe that it is an effective management technique and we will continue to pursue this line of research. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Dr. Hom may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Hom. Mr. Chu. 

STATEMENT ·oF DAN CHU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING 

WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. CHU. Thank you. My name is Dan Chu, I am Executive Director for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. 

I would like to thank Congressman Saxton and Congresswoman 

Cubin for this opportunity to speak to you today and provide our 

perspective on the issue of predator control and management here 

in Wyoming. 

The Wyoming Wildlife Federation is the largest statewide wildlife advocacy group in Wyoming. We represent thousands of wildlife 

enthusiasts who are united by a deep commitment to the protection 

of wildlife habitat, the perpetuation of quality hunting and fishing 

and the protection of the public's right to access public lands. Today, I would like to address the issue of predator control and 

its impact on the hunters and game species of our state. Predation 

is essential to the natural balance healthy ecosystems need to 

maintain viable wildlife populations. Predation has shaped how our 

wildlife looks and behaves today. Characteristics such as the antelope's speed and large eyes and a mule deer's quick bound for 

cover, largely arose as adaptations to the pressures of eluding predators. These attributes of our wildlife make a fair chase hunt one 

of the most exciting and fulfilling challenges a hunter ever experiences. Predators also maintain fitness of game populations by weeding 

out the weak and sick individuals. 
39 

Finally, predation helps keep prey populations in balance with 

habitat. For instance, studies show that an increase in fawn survival due to predator control does not necessarily result in an overall increase in herd numbers. Mortality just simply increases at a 

later time due to the carrying capacity of the land and habitat. 

What that means is that simply a higher percentage of those animals will starve because they exceed the carrying capacity of the 

forage on that habitat. 

If not for predators, most prey populations would fluctuate wildly, experiencing periodic crashes in numbers. 

The Federation believes that when predator management is considered as an option in the management of game populations, the 

following points should be considered: 

1. What condition is the habitat in? 

2. Is the predator control program economically feasible? 

3. Is there good evidence that predators are actually suppressing 

game numbers? 

4. Is the predator control program specifically targeted at offending animals? 

5. Is the method of control lethal or non-lethal? 

We firmly believe that predator management must be driven by 

good data and science and not simply emotion and anecdotes. 

What condition is the habitat in? 

Many wildlife population studies have shown that impacts to 

game populations from predators is minor when compared to other 

impacts such as weather, hunting and habitat condition. Abnormal 

losses of game to predators is usually a symptom of the larger 

problem of poor habitat. Poor range condition results in reduced 

cover and forage, increasing the vulnerability of game to predation. 

Reduced water sources have been shown in some studies to result 

in weaker populations of desert sheep with a resultant secondary 

increase in the rate of predation on those sheep. Poor habitat conditions are the most significant negative impact on the health and 

numbers of our wildlife. In the end, predator control will not reverse the situation of animal populations declining due to habitat 

deterioration and over-use. 

Is the predator control program economically feasible? 

Studies on the effect of predation on game animals show that 

general predator control programs that are conducted with the intent to benefit game populations are not cost-effective. In fact, the 

Wildlife Management Institute, in a recent audit of the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department stated that effective broad scale predator reduction programs cannot be sustained economically. When big 

game herds and habitat are in balance, predation is but one of a 

set of factors influencing that balance. If predator control is undertaken, it should focus only on situations where short-term selective 

reduction of predator numbers can enhance other targeted wildlife 

populations. 

This is a real pragmatic approach to defining if predators have 

an impact on targeted game animals. An example of this is a study 

conducted in Colorado regarding the interaction between coyote 

and mule deer. The study showed that the increase in the number 

of deer realized from an intensive coyote control program is greatly 

outweighed by the cost of that program. This study suggests that 
40 

for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to initiate a similar 

program, the cost per head for producing deer would dramatically 

increase. 

In the face of limited economic resources available for wildlife 

management agencies, we strongly believe it is much more cost-effective and beneficial to wildlife to focus on activities that protec:t 

and enhance wildlife habitat. Presently the Game and Fish Department contributes $100,000 to predator management. Recent state 

legislation states that the Game and Fish Commission may now 

spend up to four percent of hunting and fishing license fees on 

predator management, estimated at $800,000 a year. The sportsmen in the state want to be assured that their license fee dollars 

will be spent for the benefit of wildlife and not to fund predator 

control that subsidize agricultural commodities. 

Let me try and summarize here. 

Mr. SAXTON. Why do you not go ahead and finish, take your 

time. We are in good shape time wise. 

Mr. CHU. Thank you. 

Is there good evidence that predators are suppressing game numbers? 

Presently, there is little hard data supporting the contention tha.t 

predators are having a significant impact on the game populations 

in Wyoming. In fact, a substantial amount of money has been 

poured into coyote lethal control in southwest Wyoming, yet there 

is no evidence that herd numbers for deer and antelope have increased due to those control programs. 

If a significant predator control program is to be continued in 

Wyoming, we believe that a greater percenta~e of funding for predator management must be dedicated to conaucting solid scientifi.c 

studies on the true impact of predation on our game populations. Essentially, what is the real contribution of predation as compared 

with other factors such as habitat condition, weather and hunter 

harvest? 

Is the predator control specifically targeted at offending animals? 

Highly targeted predator control programs identify individual 

problem predators and are most successful when used in livestock 

management and in rare cases of initial reintroduction of certain 

wildlife species. For instance, field autopsies of coyotes killed by indiscriminate lethal control programs has shown that a high percentage of these animals survive by preying on rodents and insects 

and actually benefited agriculture by contributing to integrated 

pest management. 

A successful targeted lethal control program for coyotes would 

focus on eliminating those coyotes that have learned to prey upon 

livestock while acknowledging the benefits for pest control from 

coyotes that have not learned to prey upon livestock. Indiscriminate attempts at predator control are very costly, ineffective and 

often kill many non-targeted animals. 

Is the predator control lethal or non-lethal? 

The Federation supports pursuing non-lethal preventative means 

of controlling the impact of predation on livestock. An example of 

the benefits of non-lethal predator management can be seen gaining acceptance by many woolgrowers. More and more sheep operators are switching to preventative measures to reduce predator 
41 

losses in their flocks. The use of sheep dogs, llamas, mules, 

lambing sheds and an increase in the number of sheepherders have 

paid off by dramatically lowering sheep losses in some states. 

The Federation does support a sensible, cost-effective predator 

management program when they are based upon sound science. 

However, when the beneficiary of a predator control program is 

solely the agricultural community, we believe it is only fair that the 

agricultural community should bear the financial responsibility for 

that program. 

Predator control should only be used in those instances where 

the need can be scientifically documented and where the cost of 

any predator control program is feasible. The Wyoming Wildlife 

Federation believes that good wildlife management must focus on 

habitat protection and improvement to ultimately be successful at 

maintaining and enhancing healthy populations of game species in 

Wyoming. 

I appreciate your patience in allowing me to speak beyond my 

limit. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chu. Ms. Stanfield. 

STATEMENT OF LEILA STANFIELD, BIODIVERSITY 

ASSOCIATES 

Ms. STANFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. What is the function of Biodiversity Associates? Are 

you a public organization? 

Ms. STANFIELD. We are a non-profit environmental group based 

in Laramie, Wyoming, down in the southeast corner and we research and write on ecological issues in the Rocky Mountains. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Can you move your microphone a little 

closer? There you go. 

Ms. STANFIELD. Better? 

Ms. CUBIN. Yes. 

Ms. STANFIELD. OK, thanks. 

Thanks very much to the Subcommittee for convening this hearing and as the last speaker said, thank you for your patience in 

waiting to hear from me. 

My name is Leila Stanfield and I have lived and worked in Wyoming since 1969. Our group Biodiversity Associates-we have also 

had a group in the past called Friends of Bow that worked primarily on the Medicine Bow National Forest-is based in Laramie 

and works on protecting and restoring native species, mostly in the 

Rocky Mountains. We do research and writing on biological diversity issues and we have come to understand that predatory animals 

are not varmints to be exterminated, but are indeed wildlife and 

that, as such, they are essential elements of a healthy ecosystem. 

The stated purpose of this hearing is to discuss the "need for 

predator control" and its acceptable implementation. The written 

testimony we submitted, which includes a bibliography of scientific 

research that we have come across that we thought might be helpful, discusses these topics to a greater detail than I can today. But 

just to mention three points before we have questions: 

On the need for predator control, we have heard a lot of statistics 

today and I will not go into that. We point out that the need has 
42 

not been verified and that there is a need to do this. Obviously, 

people are having these experiences, but the losses themselves 

need to be verified. There is research that disputes the need. A 

1977 study done in Wyoming on five ranches over a three year period shows predators killed on average 0.2 percent of ewes and only 

1.5 percent to 3.2 percent of lambs. These levels of loss cannot be 

considered significant. 

The Wyoming study also found other causes killed four to five 

times as many sheep as predators do, and that has not been mentioned here today. Those causes include disease, exposure, starva- tion, accidents, poisonous plants, stillbirths and others. And in the 

others category, sheep owners attributed these losses to predators 

but the researchers themselves found that they were "mainly due 

to miscounting and loose management." 

The Wyoming study was a statistically valid sampling, the results are consistent with findings reported by other researchers in 

other parts of the country. Congress should rely on stati.stically 

valid research and not base the need for a predator control pro- gram on the exaggerated losses that are often reported. 

Research demonstrates that predatory wildlife is only a small 

part of the problem of livestock losses, and thus there is a lack of 

justification for continuing the massive Federal predator control 

program at taxpayer expense. 

Number two, on the effectiveness of predator control, extensive 

lethal predator control obviously has not provided the long-term so- lutions to livestock losses. Everyone who spoke today of the last E30 

to 100 years of predator killing and killing of coyotes indicated that 

livestock owners are seeing that predation--

Mr. SAXTON. We are having a real microphone problem again. 

Lisa, would you see if you have got one that works there? 

[Brief pause.] 

Ms. STANFIELD. Is that better? 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, thank you. 

Ms. STANFIELD. Thanks. It tells me you are listening. 

The past 60 years of trying to kill coyotes, as the current reports 

from livestock owners indicates, shows that predator losses are increasing even though we have this massive program. It is well documented that when coyote populations are subjected to indiscriminate killing, the animals respond by increasing their rate of reproduction, which was mentioned earlier. Compensatory reproduction 

results in younger, more aggressive animals, leading to an increase, not a decrease, in depredation. Regarding predator control to improve wildlife numbers, Wyo- ming Game and Fish Department concluded in a study that we 

have seen from 1989, that it is not a cost-effective method. The 

analysis found that "Where high levels of predation are occurring 

on game populations" and they mention deer and ground nesting 

birds like pheasants, "there is invariably a habitat problem." The 

analysis said "Killing more coyotes would not increase fawn mortality, but only change the cause of mortality to things like accidents, 

disease and starvation." 

Also, experimental drugs such as the coyote abortion pill which 

we have been discussing today, we feel should not be used until we 

understand more clearly the impacts of these kinds of 
43 

biotechnologies on native biological diversity and ecosystem functioning. 

Lethal predator control is not an effective means of reducing livestock depredation. We all seem to agree on that. We think it would 

be better, and there are many researchers who mentioned this, to 

stop killing coyotes and allow these populations to mature and stabilize. 

And then the last point, three, on what would be acceptable effective methods of controlling depredation. We would like to ask 

the Committee to really consider the difference between "predator 

control" and "depredation control." Predator control is not acceptable to many in the public. Depredation control is acceptable. An 

acceptable depredation program is based on guard animals, shed 

lambing, increasing herders and paying them more, and removing 

and reducing livestock in areas of historically high levels of predation like the one mentioned earlier with the grizzly bear. If there 

is to be any predator control, then on private lands, this control 

should be a private landowner responsibility and not one to be 

borne by the government and the taxpayers. On public land, we 

feel public wildlife should not be killed at all to benefit private, 

commercial interests. Predator control is not a ranching-versus-theenvironment issue. Some losses due to predators obviously are 

going to take place and these should be viewed as part of the cost 

of doing business. Using non-lethal means, society can preserve 

wildlife, decrease the loss of livestock, save taxpayer money and 

live more in harmony with the natural world. The alternative is 

permanently damaging the environment, and this is not acceptable. 

Finally, we think Congress should put an end to government subsidies for killing predator wildlife. An emphasis should be technical 

support to livestock operators to help them reduce depredation 

using good husbandry practices. And if there is a question about 

shifting that to state control, we also have something to say about 

that. 

Finally, we acknowledge that there are no easy answers to the 

questions of how to deal with those processes in nature over which 

we have no control. We think Congress should be the leader in articulating our nation's environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, which gives us the following direction: "It is 

the continued policy of the Federal Government to use all practicable means and measures to create and maintain conditions 

under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony." 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Stanfield may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, thank all three of you. I am going to start with Leila, since she is the latest one. You 

mentioned a study that had been done--let me get my questions 

for you out here--you mentioned a study that had been done in 

Wyoming. I wonder who did that study? 

Ms. STANFIELD. The study was done by Tigner and Larson and 

the name of the study was "Sheep Losses on Selected Ranches in 

Southern Wyoming." That was reprinted in the Journal of Range 

Management, and I can give you a cite on it. 
44 

Ms. CUBIN. Tell me a little bit about the people that did the 

study, and do you know what particular-whose ranches they were 

on? 

Ms. STANFIELD. Actually, I do not know that off the top of my 

head, but the article described who the people were that they were 

meeting with. It was around the Rawlins area. 

Ms. CUBIN. Palm Livestock maybe? 

Ms. STANFIELD. No, I do not believe it was Palm, Palm is more 

up toward where we are in Albany County I think and this was 

over in Carbon County, I am pretty sure. 

Ms. CUBIN. Well, Palm is in Carbon County. 

Ms. STANFIELD. Are they in Carbon also? 

Ms. CUBIN. Uh-huh. Well, OK, I would appreciate all the cites 

and the study, if you could get that to us. 

Ms. STANFIELD. I would be happy to. 

Ms. CUBIN. You mentioned early on in your testimony that exterminating coyotes was just wrong. I have not heard anyone here 

today say that-or anyone anywhere any time say that coyotes 

should be exterminated. All I have ever heard is people have asked 

for control. You do not think extermination and control are the 

same thing? 

Ms. STANFIELD. No, I do not think they are the same thing. I 

have concern when I hear the comments about reducing Federal restrictions where we are talking about the use of poisons, gunning, 

gassing. 

Ms. CUBIN. I just want to make sure that everyone understands 

that no one is talking about extermination. 

You have said and others have said that you cannot-that no one 

can verify a need for predator control. I think that you also stated 

that the losses, the reported losses are very exaggerated, that predators only amount to a small portion of these losses. I believe that 

is all in your testimony. 

I have a hard time looking at the people that testified here and 

looking at the other people here in the audience that I know that 

are involved in agriculture thinking that they are exaggerating 

what they are saying. They know-! mean they know how many 

animals they have that are living, they know how many babies are 

born, they know where they are. And they count. And when they 

go find one, they know what has happened to it, they know if it 

fell off a ravine, they know if a predator killed it. 

So, I would like you to justify that remark that they are exaggE!rated. 

Ms. STANFIELD. Well, I appreciate your question, because I think 

that when people have experiences in their personal lives, as we 

are hearing about today-and I am not trying to demean their personal experiences-those are very real to them. What I am trying 

to suggest to you is that you look at, for example, the statistics that 

come out of the Department of Agriculture or from the National 

Animal Statistical Service, NASS. There is a report that shows that 

in 1991, NASS reported 50 calves lost to predation in Wyoming and 

ADC reported zero. 

Ms. CUBIN. And are you saying then that that is the entire loss 

in Wyoming, the number that they represent? I do not think it 

could be. 
45 

Ms. STANFIELD. Well, what I am trying to say is there is always 

a dispute about what the amount is. And for example, in the 

Tigner and Larson study, they found that other causes of sheep 

mortality observed were 31 percent from disease, 32 percent from 

exposure, 18 percent from starvation, 10 percent from accidents. 

Stillbirths accounted for 11 percent, one percent physical abnormality and then other non-predatory causes up to 16 percent. So all 

I am saying is that you have these other causes that are taking 

place. 

The other factor here is that coyotes also scavenge on dead animals who die for another reason. So while the ranchers may see 

the animals, domestic animals that they have lost, they may not 

be in the best position to verify the death. And all I am saying is 

that with the researchers, they have no motive to give you a different reason. 

Ms. CUBIN. So you are saying the rancher has a motive to exaggerate the numbers? 

Ms. STANFIELD. I am saying that in our personal lives when we 

lose things, that those loom very big for us. And I am also saying--

Ms. CUBIN. So you are saying they are not exaggerating or they 

are exaggerating? 

Ms. STANFIELD. I am saying that the losses are exaggerated as 

they are reported and that they are not reliable. 

Ms. CUBIN. And I would venture to say that many of the people 

in this room might say the same thing about the study that you 

are quoting, that predators are of small impact. I am one, I have 

been studying this ever since I have been in government and I do 

not for one minute believe that predators are a small problem. Yes, 

we all know that deaths occur due to other things, but you know, 

maybe we all exaggerate things in our mind for how we want them 

to be rather than how they are. I do not know. 

You talked about how we have a massive program, you said, and 

still the kills continue to go on and that the predators are still 

there and so on. But you talked about this massive program that 

we have for predator control. Tell me what that program is and tell 

me what these folks out here can really actually do-not what-you 

know, like they cannot use 1080, so do not tell me that is part of 

the program. Tell me what is this massive program to help them 

that is funded by the Federal Government. 

Ms. STANFIELD. Well, I am talking about the $31 million that 

ADC gets in Federal dollars. 

Ms. CUBIN. But that does not help the problem of the predators 

killing livestock. 

Ms. STANFIELD. And I am talking about the million dollars that 

comes to Wyoming for the killing of the wildlife, for this program. And what I am talking about is that you have this massive structure where you have all this money going into pilots and gunners 

and trappers and killers and it is not changing, just as you pointed 

out, it is not changing the depredation problem. 

Ms. CUBIN. I suggest that the reason it is not changing is because the tools to make it change are being denied the people who 

could make it work. 
46 

Now, agriculture, you will admit, is a large-the second to tht~ 

largest industry in the state. Now these people tell us-and you 

think they exaggerate-but they tell us that we are going to go out 

of business if we cannot do something about this. Assuming what 

they are saying is true, how do you propose to economically take 

care of that problem? Or should we not? Should we just allow the 

industry and all these people to lose everything. 

Ms. STANFIELD. I do not think we should abandon them by any 

means. I do not think they are going to go out of business because--

Ms. CUBIN. But you do not have anything to base that on. 

Ms. STANFIELD. You asked me if I assumed that to be true, and 

I do not assume that to be true. 

What I know a little bit about in terms of the tools that you are 

talking about is that there are studies that show, and that we listed in the bibliography, that the difference in losses between the 

pre-1080 period and the period of 1080 use are not there. Those 

differences that people claim are absolutely not there. 

Ms. CUBIN. According to that study. 

All right. Mr. Chu, could you correlate with me or for me the difference in the treatment of the noxious weeds that Commissioner 

Micheli spoke of and predators? Do we not value-I mean the Endangered Species Act certainly has plants in it and we are spending hundreds of thousands or maybe millions, I do not know, on 

trying to do away with noxious weeds because they are going to 

change the biodiversity of areas. Now what is the different between 

coyotes changing the area and weeds? They are all living things. 

Could you just correlate that for me? 

Mr. CHU. I am not really clear on what the question was, but--

Ms. CUBIN. Well, you heard Mr. Micheli's testimony about the 

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that are being 

spent to alleviate noxious weeds that are going to take over all of 

the grasses that feed the wildlife, feed the livestock and so on. You 

heard that testimony? 

Mr. CHU. Yeah. And--

Ms. CUBIN. OK, so what is the difference between a plant making those kind of changes and a coyote, for example? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think both of them are federally funded programs. I mean-I am still not quite sure how to answer this question, but certainly noxious weeds are also contributing, to some extent, to livestock losses say from larkspur poisoning, for instance. 

Now is the question-are you saying why--

Ms. CUBIN. I am saying why, on the one hand, do we not allow 

the biodiversity or the ecological system to be changed and then on 

the other hand, we do. What is the difference between the two situations? 

Mr. CHU. I think we do allow changes from predator control right 

now, through the ADC program. 

Ms. CUBIN. No, no. Well, explain to me how do we allow changes. 

Mr. CHU. I mean, there is predator control ongoing right now in 

Wyoming. So there are--

Ms. CUBIN. What is that predator control? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I mean it has been talked about before, but I 

think also when you look at--
47 

Ms. CUBIN. No, what is the predator control? I know money is 

paid to people when they lose livestock. That is not predator control, that is reimbursement for lost property. What predator control 

is occurring in Wyoming? 

Mr. CHU. I am not sure about all of them, but I do know that 

on private lands, it is different than on Federal lands, as previous 

people have mentioned. You know, I imagine that includes trapping 

and since coyotes do not have any season on them, you can go out 

and shoot them any time of the year. In fact, I know a number of 

hunters who, when they go out onto a rancher's land and the 

rancher will ask them, well, if you see a coyote out there, go ahead 

and shoot him for me, the hunter will go ahead and do that. 

Ms. CUBIN. But that is not a Federal predator control program. 

This is the point I am trying to make. There is nobody who is collecting the infonnation as to how many predators are out there, 

how many kills they are making, and so people who do not want 

any sort of predator control say well, you cannot verify it. Well it 

seems-and I might be mistaken here-but it seems to me that the 

very people who should be verifying it and that does not include 

you, by the way, but the people who should be verifying what is 

happening out there with predators do not want to have predator 

control, so they are not trying to gather the infonnation. That is 

what I have derived from this hearing so far. 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think if you are talking about the Game and 

Fish Department-as I mentioned earlier, presently $100~000 a 

year goes toward predator management and research that ;.comes 

out of the Game and Fish fund, and I know that in particular, in 

relation to Terry Schramm's concern, he cooperated with the Game 

and Fish on a study to look at grizzly bear depredation on cattle. 

So I think that there is an instance where the Game and Fish Department did try to detennine what the depredation was, what the 

rate of actual cattle killed by the grizzly bears as opposed to the 

cattle that had died from disease and then were scavenged. 

Ms. CUBIN. But do you think that one study is adequate to determine the whole answer to the whole problem? 

Mr. CHU. No, I do not, but I believe that it is a start and there 

are other studies as well being done by the Game and Fish Department and by the Department of Agriculture, and certainly by research people as well as evidenced by some of these papers that 

came up. 

But to get back to the question, I guess I would also say that I 

know that noxious weed control on Federal land is subject to the 

same amount of public comment and NEPA-the NEPA processas say a predator controljrogram is on public land. 

Ms. CUBIN. Who shoul verify whether or not there is a need for 

predator control? Not the money that is paid for losses, but for actual predator control, who should verify that need? 

Mr. CHU. Verify theMs. CUBIN. The need for it or the lack of need for it. Who should 

do that? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think it depends on what the end result is going 

to come out of that proposed predator control. 

Ms. CUBIN. Well, you do not know what the end result is going 

to be until you find out if there is a need. 
48 

Mr. CHU. No, what I am saying is if the purpose of the predator 

control is to increase livestock production, then I think the responsibility lies on agricultural people and the Department of Agri- culture. If the purpose of that predator control is to increase wildlife numbers, then I think the burden of determining if predators 

are impacting should rest on the wildlife management agencies. 

Ms. CumN. And what if it is both? 

Mr. CHU. If it is both, let us hope they can work together on it. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK. I only have a couple more questions. 

Would you agree with me-well, who would you say-what person or group of people in this state provides the most habitat for 

wildlife? 

Mr. CHU. It depends on how you look at it. I think private landowners provide a large amount of habitat, I think the Federal Government provides a large amount of habitat as well, and frankly, 

I think hunters and anglers provide a large amount of habitat by 

providing funding for wildlife agencies to do habitat protection, enhancement, acquisition and wildlife management. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK, so you admit that private landowners contribute-they subsidize wildlife because they provide habitat and they 

provide food to wildlife. 

Mr. CHU. Well, gee, I hate to use the word subsidize---

Ms. CUBIN. Well, sure you do, but you know-- --- Mr. CHU. -yeah, and I have never-I do not think our organization has ever come out and not acknowledged the contribution tha.t 

private landowners give for wildlife habitat. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK. So then maybe do we not have a responsibility 

to compensate them for how they subsidize wildlife? 

Mr. CHU. Oh, I agree, and that is why the Game and Fish Department does pay out damage claims. For instance, they pay ou.t 

damage claims for forage that elk eat on private lands. They pay 

out damage claims for trophy game animal depredations and also 

I think that, you know, landowner coupons also contribute to private landowners, in frankly acknowledgement for the habitat they 

provide for wildlife. Ms. CUBIN. I agree with that. 

I would like Ms. Stanfield to answer that question. Would you 

agree that folks in agriculture contribute to providing habitat and 

food? I use the word, therefore, subsidizing wildlife. Would you 

agree that landowners do in fact provide habitat and food? 

Ms. STANFIELD. I think that we are all living on the earth here 

and we are all contributing. 

Ms. CUBIN. So maybe you think that there should be no private 

landowners? 

Ms. STANFIELD. I think that, you know-I do not know exactly 

where your question is going, but I think that the point we are trying to make is that we need to live in harmony with the systems 

that are here. 

Ms. CUBIN. We all agree with that. 

Ms. STANFIELD. And we ought not put a lot of our energy and 

more and more government subsidies into eliminating or reducing 

the populations of certain wildlife when we do not understand what 

part they play. And so I think what we are asking for is that more 

of our energy and attention, whether it be research or anything 
49 

else, and money, go into figuring how to live with it rather than 

to dominate it. 

Ms. CUBIN. I think we all agree-I think we all agree that we 

ought to live in harmony on this earth, that we are all interconnected, that we are all part of what life is, and that includes 

plants and that includes animals. No one here especially would 

argue that point, but if we all are a part of it, then we all have 

a responsibility for it, then why should we not all pay those people 

that are bearing the cost for it? Why should we not share the burden, why should we not? 

Ms. STANFIELD. Well, I think that we are, except I think that 

what I am not sure is where you are going--

Ms. CUBIN. But you said you disagreed with that earlier, you 

said we should not be paying them. So I am just asking you, if we 

are all a part, why not? Why should we expect them to take all responsibility? 

Ms. STANFIELD. Well, we all take responsibility for our part, I 

think that is how it works. 

Ms. CUBIN. But some people have a bigger part than others, is 

that it? 

Ms. STANFIELD. Well, if I have-you know, if I have a problem 

with weeds around my house, I take care of it. I may not put poisons on it, but I will take care of it to the degree that I can. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

One quick question for Dr. Horn. You talked about 

abortiophasics-is that--

Mr. HORN. Abortifacients. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK. They cause abortions. And I believe one drug 

that you referred to was RU-486, and that originally was developed in France, is this right? 

Mr. HoRN. That is right. 

Ms. CUBIN. And the United States forbade import of that drug 

into its borders. So you are having trouble getting this drug? Explain your difficulties to me, that you are having going on with 

your research. 

Mr. HORN. I would be happy to. 

That particular drug, RU-486, the actual name of it is something 

called mifepristone, developed by French researchers in the mid1980's, is on the U.S. import ban list, as are all anti-progestogensthere are none that I am aware of that are commercially available 

to the citizenry of this country at this time. Even if they were not 

on the U.S. import ban list, there are several questions that need 

to be answered to satisfy both FDA and from a field application 

standpoint, EPA I am not sure if I can answer why those drugs 

are not available. I would venture to guess that the reasons are 

primarily political. It is possible, however, to synthesize some of 

these drugs. A researcher at Columbia University recently has synthesized mifepristone, RU-486. The literature does contain enough 

information that a competent chemist probably could reproduce 

these compounds and we do not know what the cost is, we are investigating that possibility right now. But it is impossible to receive those drugs. These are the anti-progestogens which I would 

again state are stable compounds and can be applied orally, and 

that is the problem with broad scale contraception in wildlife, is 
50 

that virtually everything that has been used to date has either 

been, you know, a mechanical or has been injected. And that is of 

little value from a field application standpoint. 

And I would stress too, that we are only at the point of looking 

at the efficacy of this type of research and how it might be applied. 

Lots of questions would still need to be answered as to how do we 

provide that particular compound in a field situation, how do we 

make it specie-specific, how do we ensure that there is no environmental danger. And our research proposal that we are currently 

working on addresses all of those questions. 

Ms. CUBIN. Are there any legal complications with synthesizing 

that drug here in the United States? 

Mr. HoRN. It is my understanding from the U.S. Patent Offi.ce 

that you can synthesize small quantities of those drugs and use 

them for research purposes only. But they cannot be sold. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK If everything went well, let us say you had the 

money to synthesize the drug, is that-I mean, is a year a reasonable amount of time? 

Mr. HoRN. Probably three years is more like a reasonable time 

to do a good pilot study. 

Ms. CUBIN. No, I am just talking about on synthesizing the--

Mr. HORN. Oh, yes. Yeah, I think that is a very reasonable time. 

I think we could synthesize the drug in a matter of months. 

Ms. CUBIN. OK So, we will give you a little extra time because 

you might have a problem. So, say a year. OK, you have the dntg, 

then how long before you would be able to make some r•~commendations that actually might be able-or how long before you 

could come up with something that would be of use in the field, assuming it turned out that way? 

Mr. HoRN. Oh, it's probably years away. I wish I had a definitive 

answer for you, Representative Cubin. There are many steps involved before something could enter the commercial arena and be 

availa,le to producers for use. It would, of course, have to go 

throu@ a very lengthy and a very expensive registration process. 

I think a rule of thumb there-and if someone has a better figure 

than I, please offer it. But, I think the rule of thumb there is at 

least five years. 

Ms. CUBIN. So, that is not very-1 mean, while it is optimistic 

that research is going on and looking promising, it is not very helpful for now and the problems that we are facing now. 

Mr. HORN. Unfortunately. 

Ms. CUBIN. So, we do need to look more and try to work things 

out more. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Chu, how do you feel about the use of these drugs? 

Mr. CHU. Well, I think certainly if we can target those drugs at- and I am sure that Dr. Horn has looked at some research on how 

to do this. But target those drugs once again at the offending individual, say for instance, coyotes. I think that is going to be most 

effective. I think if you go ahead and just use those drugs once 

again in a generalized way and just bring down the total population of coyotes, you may be seeing some secondary problems from 

an increase in rodent population or, you know, other secondary effects. So, I think once again, if that can be targeted either throu1~h, 
51 

you know, giving it an oral means, maybe--! do not know, maybe 

having them on some sort of oral-giving them orally close to 

where lambing and sheep are and hit some of the coyotes that 

are--that seem to be the problem coyotes, then certainly that is 

probably going to be the best way to go about it. 

Mr. SAXTON. Can you tell me how you identify which coyotes are 

problems? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. I do not mean that to be funny. I watched a documentary story recently on television. It was about the elephant 

population in Kenya. Maybe you saw it. It was a story about a 

young woman, who at the age of 19 decided it was her mission in 

life, back in the late 1970's or early 1980's, to save the elephant 

population from predation, from hunters who were killing them for 

ivory. And incidently, one of the first bills that I voted on in· Congress was a bill to ban the importation of ivory in this country for 

the same reason. And this young woman worked very hard for 

many years to save the elephant herd and finally she was successful. The population began to expand. In the meantime, the population of Kenya increased and agricultural pursuits increased and 

the elephants became less than totally controllable and began to 

damage, to a significant degree, the crops of the farmers in Kenya. 

The story came to a conclusion with this lady identifying those elephants that were the leaders of the packs or the herds, I guess--

Mr. CHU. Packs~lephants? 

Mr. SAXTON. Pachyderms. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Whatever their families are called. 

Ms. CUBIN. Bunches. 

Mr. SAXTON. Bunches, right. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. And the same young woman finally decided that the 

only way that she could preserve the elephant population at a sustainable level was to herself order or encourage the killing of some 

of the elephants because the herd -was by Kenyan standards out of 

control. They were able to identify the leaders of the herds, I suppose, because it is a little different than trying to find a leader of 

a coyote pack. So, I am just curious about how that-I guess you 

would look in an area and say, OK, coyotes are a problem in this 

area; therefore, all coyotes in the proximity to these ranches are 

the problems. I do not quite understand. 

Mr. CHU. Yeah, I mean, it is not an easy question. I will try and 

answer it. But, I think maybe one way is relying to a large extent 

on the expertise of the sheepherders that are out there and if they 

identify coyotes-! do not know if there is a possibility they can 

mark them or use some sort of way to bring them into an area to, 

you know, say allow for oral administration of a abortion drug. I 

guess you could call it that. I mean, one of the concerns which you 

have heard earlier is that when you take out any number of animals, say coyotes in a given population, what will happen is that 

litter sizes in other coyote--from other coyotes will increase and 

they will compensate for it. In general, I think predator populations are very much in sync with the amount of resource that is 

out there to support a population. So, you know, you will see the 
52 

litter size increase and if that happens to be a litter where the 

adults have learned to kill sheep, then that certainly is going to exacerbate the problem. 

Ms. STANFIELD. May I just say something? 

Mr. SAXTON. Sure. 

Ms. STANFIELD. I think it is a really good question and I certainly do not have the answer to it. But, you know, that swift fox 

are, at least in 1994, Fish and Wildlife said, you know, this is a 

species that is in trouble. Well, we are talking about the same 

habitat. We are talking about canines. How are you going to be 

specific about not targeting these species? We are talking abouton the prairie lands, we are talking about ferret habitat, a massive 

reintroduction program in this state. You know, we do not know 

how to use these biochemical technologies. I guess the thing that 

I read in the paper in the last two weeks that was most interesting 

to me came from a researcher up in the Yellowstone area who has 

been watching the effect on coyote populations now that wolves are 

being reintroduced. Perhaps you saw that article. You know, basically, there is a new hierarchy being reestablished in the natural 

predation chain. So, we have to be careful about-we have to be 

limiting ourselves. I think that is what it keeps coming back to a 

lot. Your story about the elephants is really powerful because it is 

very much a story about how human beings are taking over the 

habitat of other animals and so much of the question is how will 

we live in harmony with what exists here. I appreciate when I hear 

from the ranching community how close they are to these other 

communities of animals, birds and plants. So, they have a connection to it. Somewhere along the line, we got the idea that if we 

brought in the Federal money and we beefed up the technologies, 

that we could change the world somehow. And it is so obvious that 

we are not doing it. So, I really-it is going to take someone much 

wiser than I am to know what the answer is. But, I do not believe 

that it is not in the form of a new chemical. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much. I have no other questions. 

Barbara, do you have any questions? 

Ms. CUBIN. I just want to make a statement. Go ahead. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Well, listen, thank you very much for being 

with us today. We appreciate your testimony and the thoughts that 

you have had to share with us. 

We are going to close the hearing but before we do that, Ms. 

Cubin has a statement that she would like to make. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. 

I would especially like to thank Chairman Saxton for being here. 

Although, he has a New Jersey address, he does have a Wyoming 

heart. So, we do appreciate your long travel. 

Also, Bobby Acord, who came all the way from Washington, although he came to a much better place. Thank you. 

And Mr. Chu and Ms. Stanfield and Mr. Shorma, you know, I a.m 

a. very passionate person and sometimes I become more intense 

than I really mean and I think it is only fair that some day you 

all should have me on a panel and you should have the microphone 

because I very, very much appreciate your input. I think we cannot 

make decisions as important as this if we do not have everyone's 
53 

views and all the information. We obviously cannot please everyone, but I think this hearing has been very good for me because 

I do believe that I have learned a lot. I know that we will be able 

to work together to find some solutions. I think maybe some potential suggestions have come out today or will evolve from this hearing. 

I want to thank Ron Micheli for being here representing the Governor. He was a very-still is a wonderful friend. I went into the 

legislature and he was in the leadership at the time and he is still 

the great man that he was. He is a trusted friend of the Governor's 

and I really appreciate your being here, Ron. 

And then, Truman and Cindy, thank you for coming. You have 

been helpful here and I know that wherever you are out there, you 

will be helping us with the grazing bill that we will be working on 

pretty soon. 

Bryce Reese with the Woolgrowers helped us put this together. 

He did a lot of work. Thank you. 

And Terry Schramm, your colorful testimony is going to bring 

Jim back to Wyoming. So, we all owe you a debt of gratitude for 

that. 

The staff, Sharon McKenna and Lisa Rulli, as well as my staff, 

Jackie King, Jodi Brayton and Mantha Phillips. 

Thank you all very much. Be in touch with us. We are here to 

serve you. This is your congressional seat and I am only in it as 

a privilege that you have granted me and I want to do all I can 

to serve your needs. So, be in touch. Thanks. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. I would just like to remind 

everyone that the record will remain open for 30 days in order that 

the members of the public can submit additional testimony. The 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:08p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
54 

REMARKS OF BOBBY ACORD 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE 

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS 

GILLETTE, WYOMING 

APRIL 10, 1996 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for having me here today to talk about the Animal 

Damage Control (ADC) program's efforts to deal with predation problems here in the West. 

I don't need to tell any of you that these are challenging times for the farming and ranching 

community; this hearing is an excellent opportunity to discuss what ADC has been doing to 

lessen predation problems and explore ways to improve upon the services we provide. With 

me today are Mr. Mike Worthen, our Western Region Director, Mr. Rick Phillips, our State 

Director for Wyoming, and Mr. Guy Connolly of our Denver Wildlife Research Center's 

Predator Division. After presentation of my statement, we would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

History and Orientation of the ADC Program: 

I would like to begin by providing some basic background on the ADC program and the 

reasons for its existence . The ADC program was established more than 65 years ago in 

response to requests for assistance in preventing livestock depredation by wild animals. Over 

time, the program has grown to address the damage that wildlife can cause to crops, natural 

resources, facilities and structures, and human health and safety. Each year, we respond to 

about 100,000 requests for assistance in stemming hundreds of millions ohlollars in losses. 

Underlying the ADC program is a fundamental principle: that our Nation's wildlife is held in 

trust for all Americans. It is a publicly owned resource. Nevertheless, the government has a 

responsibility to help limit in the most responsible way possible the serious damage that can be 

caused by wildlife. 

We recognize that wildlife has economic, recreational, and aesthetic values for all Americans. 

Our mission is to provide Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. We 

use an integrated management approach to prevent or minimize wildlife conflicts with humans 

and agriculture. This approach involves integrating and applying practical, safe, effective . and 

biologically and environmentally sound methods of prevention and control. Nonlethal 

methods--like guard dogs, exclusion devices, and improved husbandry practices--are an 

important component of these efforts, but, unfortunately . they are not feasible in all situations. 

This is particularly true out here in the West, where lethal methods are often the only practical 

way to resolve the problems. 
55 

Predation in the West 

Quantifying and putting a dollar value on total losses to predation can be difficult. Therefore, 

to obtain estimates of the range and extent of wildlife damage across the country , we began 

contracting with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) in 1989. That year, 

NASS took a survey to assess total levels of wildlife damage experienced by fanners and 

ranchers across the country. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed reported experiencing 

wildlife damage. We contracted with NASS to conduct a similar survey again last year. The 

percentage of fanners and ranchers that reported experiencing wildlife damage was up to about 

60 percent, and the dollar value of those damages was placed at $611 million--up $150 million 

from the previous survey. 

In 1990 and 1994, we asked NASS to survey sheep and goat producers across the United 

States to determine the extent of wildlife predation on sheep. The results indicated that, 

nationwide, predators caused about $27.4 million in losses for the sheep and goat industries in 

1990 and about $23.2 million in losses in 1994. Of all predators, coyotes were the main cause 

of losses. 

In the 1994 survey, NASS asked each producer how much they spenl on predator controL On 

average nationwide, producers spent $1.77 per breeding animal on nonlethal methods and 

$0.50 per breeding animal on lethal methods. By comparison, here in Wyoming, producers 

spent $2.92 per breeding animal on nonlethal protection and $1.57 per breeding animal on 

lethal protection. 

Similar survey methods were used by NASS in 1992 to estimate the impact of wildlife 

predation to the cattle industry. Survey results indicated that predators cause al. "lilt a $41.5 

million arutualloss to that industry, with coyotes responsible for about 59 percent or $24.3 

million of the total loss. 

Program Structure: 

I'd like to talk briefly now about how the ADC program is structured to deal with these 

problems. First, I want to point out that Federal dollars are just one source of funding for 

ADC efforts. We enter into cooperative, cost-share agreements with States, counties, 

organizations, and even individual producers in areas where damage is occurring. Total 

Federal funding for operational or direct control is currently a little over $21 million, with an 

additional 9. 7 million for ADC methods development; our cooperators nationwide contribute 

another $23 million in direct control activities. And I want to point out that cooperators have 

taken on an increasing share of the responsibility; just by means of comparison, in 1991, 

cooperator contributions for direct control totaled about $16.4 million. 

Our program is divided into an eastern and a western region, and, as you can imagine, the 

problems and the solutions are very different in each. In the East, where a lot of the wildlife 

damage has been to field crops, aquaculture, and urban resources. the program has historically 

2 
56 

focused on technical assistance . What this means is that our State offices provide advice and 

guidance on methods that producers and others can actually implement themselves. In many c.f 

these States, our cooperators--usually State or county governments--often pay I 00-percent of 

the operational costs for ADC assistance. 

But I would note that we are beginning to increase direct control activities in the East, as 

coyotes are increasingly causing the same kinds of damage as here in the Western States. 

We have new predator control projects in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. In fact, West 

Virginia just became the first State east of the Mississippi to hold a registration for the 

Livestock Protection Collar. 

Here in the West, our activities have traditionally been more hands-on, and our western region 

has received $15.8 million of the available $21 million in Federal funds for FY 1996. About 

$1 million goes to Wyoming, and .:ooperators--which include 17 of the 22 counties and the 

Wyoming Department of Fish and Game-contribute another $427,000. Needless to say, a 

coordinated approach to damage control and management by all affected interests and agencies 

is vitally important, and we have excellent relationships with the land management agencies in 

this part of the country. 

Predation in Wyoming: 

Although our ADC State office in Casper reports damage to crops, pasture, buildings, and 

even electrical utilities, most wildlife damage in this State relates to livestock. While many 

problems are caused by black bears, bobcats, red foxes, golden eagles, ravens, and turkey 

vultures, the overwhelming majority of predation is by coyotes. In 1994, we killed 5,302 

coyotes to help stem that damage. I might add that private individuals killed another 5,088 

coyotes. 

When dealing with the level of damage experienced by producers here in Wyoming, nonlethal 

methods like guard dogs can help prevent some problems, but only in conjunction with 

actually reducing the number of damage-causing animals. The methods we use to remove 

damage-eausing animals here in Wyoming and other parts of the West include trapping, 

shooting--including aerial hunting--denning, and the M-44 device. APHIS' goal is to solve 

animal damage problems by emphasizing a program mix that is both cost-effective and 

environmentally sensitive. 

In 1994, the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service surveyed sheep producers to get a 

complete picture of predation problems. The results indicate that, in 1994, a total of 96,000 

sheep and lambs (before docking) were lost to predation out of an estimated total population c•f 

790,000. That's $4.3 million or 12 percent in losses to this State's sheep industry. And the 

survey indicated that 72 percent of those losses are anributable to coyotes. 

3 
57 

Customer-Service 

ADC began many years ago as a customer-service program, and we maintain that orientation 

today. To quantifiably assess the overall effectiveness of the service we provide, last year we 

conducted a nationwide customer service survey of those requesting assistance. We are very 

proud of the results, which include the following: 

95.6 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that, "ADC personnel 

made me feel that my wildlife problem was important." 

94.9 percent agreed that, "ADC personnel knew what to do to solve or control my 

wildlife problem. " 

96.7 percent agreed that, "The service that ADC provides is useful." 

94.1 percent believe that, "Without ADC"s help, the level of loss, damage, hazard, 

or nuisance would have increased." 

Environmental Compliance 

As I stated earlier, ADC is committed to stopping wildlife damage in a manner that is not only 

effective but also environmentally responsible. All of our activities are conducted in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other 

Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. 

Just about 2 years ago now, we completed a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for our program as a whole. The EIS examined 13 alternatives and provided detailed 

analysis of 5 of them. It focused on the types of wildlife species affected, losses associated 

with wildlife damage, societal views or attitudes, and impacts on biological, economic, and 

physical aspects of the human envirorunent. Because aspects of all 13 alternatives have been 

or could be used in ADC activities, depending upon the particular area or the specific nature 

of the damage problem, our final decision was to direct our local managers to consider any 

and all of the 13 alternatives as a possible approach. 

Our goal is flexibility . We don't want to dictate which alternatives are the most appropriate 

for a given area; we leave that decisionmaking largely up to our managers in the field. These 

are the people who are in contact every day with our customers and are in the best position to 

identify appropriate and workable solutions. 

Research 

At this point I'd like to mention a very important component of the A.DC program, and that is 

our laboratory, the Denver Wildlife Research Center. This laboratory has been in existence 

since the 1920's and is the only laboratory in the world devoted exclusively to the study of 

4 
58 

wildlife damage control. We not only conduct our own research there, but we also contract 

with universities, non-profit research facilities, and other public and private entities. The goal 

is to make good use of state-of-the-art technology and the most modern advances to: 

-- assess damage and other problems caused by wildlife; 

-- investigate the biology and behavior of problem animals; 

-- evaluate the impact of wildlife management practices on target species, nontarget 

species, and the environment; 

-- develop and improve technology to reduce wildlife problems; 

-- support registration of management chemicals and drugs; and 

-- transfer scientific and technical information. 

Much of DWRC's work focuses on identifying new control techniques and refining existing 

ones to make control efforts not only more effective but also more acceptable to the general 

public. Some of the folks here today from the ranching community may be familiar with one 

of the tools our researchers have developed, and that is the Electronic Guard. This is a sirenand-strobe frightening device that is being used as a component of an integrated approach to 

wildlife damage. We have done extensive studies in the past on the effectiveness of guard 

dogs and are now branching out to study the use of llamas and burros in protecting sheep from 

predators. 

DWRC researchers are also continuing work--funded in part by the Texas Sheep and Goat 

Raisers Association--on the possible use of immunocontraceptives in coyotes. We are working 

on refinements on traps-including not only padded jaws but also remote monitoring 

technology that lets our specialists know when a trap has been sprung and tranquilizer tabs for 

animals that are trapped. 

Conclusion: 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for bringing us together today to discuss ADC, and 1 

hope my testimony has been helpful in giving you a sense of our commitment to providing 

good service. We would be happy to work with you to provide more detailed infonnation if 

that will be helpful. And, of course, we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have 

now. 

5 
59 

PRESIDENT 

tAUMAHJULIAH 

l(.f~ WTa.HG 

PRESIDENT-ELECT 

FRANK PHILP 

SliOSHON!, WYOM!NQ 

REGIONAl VICE PRESIDENTS 

I GlOAVo Pt+;u>, tYSillii II PElER.IOHNCN.aN0.8UFFAl0 

• • 1'()1,1 f...uNERRO. FARSON 

IV BAAO !tONER. GLENROCK 

VICE PRESIDENT AT LARGE 80£11NNES.GillETTE 

AUXILIARY PRESIDENT OEAH VON KROSIGio< , RivERTON Ci'tAAI.EEN VON KAOSIGK. RIVEATOH JEFIRV DilTS. GillETTE 

STATEMENT OF 

TRUMAN JULIAN 

KEMMERER, WYOMING 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

!IRYCE R.AEECE,CASI"ER 

PRESIDENT, WYOMING WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

APRIL 10, 1996 

GILLETTE. WYOMING 
lestimonv- Truman Julian 

Page 2 Aprll10, 1996 

60 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 1 am Truman Julian. 

President of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association and the National 

Public Lands Council. I represent approximately one thousand active 

sheep producers in Wyoming and about 27,000 public land permittees 

nationally. 

Since January of 1993, the sheep industry in Wyoming has lost over 

500 active lamb and wool producers with a corresponding reduction of 

over 255,000 head of our producing ewe base. Nationally we lost 

approximately 2.5 million head of sheep or 22% from 1990- 1995. 

Most have been sold for slaughter. most likely in Mexico. 

To put this into economic terms. our national organization, the 

American Sheep Industry Association. estimates that every producing ewe 

in this country generates conservatively $600,00 in annual economic 

activity with the products she produces <lamb and wooll and she creates 

or maintains .031 jobs. What the loss of 255,000 head of producing 

animals in the State of Wyoming means to this state and to the American 

economy is a LOSS of $153 million in economic activity and over 7900 

jobs. That economic activity and those jobs are now being picked up by 

our foreign competitors. You may notice, coincidentally, that the decline 

in both Wyoming sheep and producer numbers coincides with the 

passage of the act by Congress to eliminate the Wool Incentive program. 

This is not a coincidence, but 1 am here to tell you that the action 

Congress took in 1993 to eliminate the 50 year old wool Program IS NOT 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 3 Aprll10, 1996 

61 

the only reason we have seen 3~% of our producers and 32% of our 

production base leave the business. or the state. 

Since the fall of 1993, the Executive Board of the Wyoming Wool 

Growers Association has conducted a series of town meetings throughout 

the state. These meetings have several functions, first of all to Inform 

producers of the latest issues that are important to the sheep Industry 

both at the state and national levels. These subjects have Included such 

topics as the loss or elimination of the Wool Incentive Program and the 

more recent Industry referendum to establish a lamb check-off system. 

In addition, these meetings are designed to gather Input on the main 

concerns of Wyoming sheep producers and to attempt to address these 

concerns. In Wyoming, we not only attempt to keep our producers well 

informed of sheep Industry Issues. but try to work towards solving 

problems that plague our sheep producers. 

Congresswomen Cubin and Committee members. guess what the 

sheep producers In Wyoming have Indicated Is their number one problem 

over the past three years? Yes, predators! 1 am not going to bore you 

with facts, figures and statistics, but instead have Included them for the 

record and for your review In my written testimony. 1 might add though, 

that according to the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. predators 

have cost sheep producers in Wyoming almost four million dollars 

annually over the past three years. This cost. plus the loss of the Wool 

24-721 1111-S 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 4 Aprtl10, 1996 

62 

Act. which accounted for approximately 24 percent of the sheep 

producers Income. have brought about the decline of the sheep Industry 

In Wyoming and the West. 

On our ranch ewe are a family corporation>. predators cost us 

directly over $30,000 per year, on the average. Losses have ranged from 

a high of 22% to a low of 10%, averaging about 15% yearly. This amounts 

to about $30,000 a year loss, depending on prices. The wool Incentive 

amounted to 26% of our annual income. The combined value of these 

·two losses amounts to about $180,000 per year, again depending on 

prices of lamb and wool. 

On our operation, coyotes are the number one predator followed 

by fox, black bear. ravens. eagles, mountain lions and an occasional loss 

from badger and bobcats. Soon. perhaps as early as this summer. I will 

be facing the wolf. The wolf found dead near Daniel, Wyoming several 

months ago was only 50 miles north of our summer grazing allotments. It 

seems the wolves that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service transplanted Into 

Yellowstone National Park are getting tired of elk and buffalo steak and 

are seeking greener pastures. 1 will address the wolf problem later In my 

testimony. 

Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, that 

despite what some environmental and animal rights activists groups 

would have you believe, we are not sitting on our backsides complaining 

about predators and doing nothing about the problem ourselves. Myself, 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 5 Aprll10. 1996 

63 

as well as almost all other sheep producers in Wyoming, have tried 

everything available to reduce predator losses. The following Is what we 

have tried and are doing on our ranch . We have at one time or another 

used fire. fire crackers. repellents, predator ear tags, scare devices, 

sterilization, herding, sleeping with the herd, trapping, flying, M-44's and 

guard dogs. Some of these tools were worthless and expensive, while 

others were useful. 

Last year, we spent over $5,000 in predator taxes, $4,500 for aerial 

gunning, over $2,000 for a private trapper, and over $4,500 for dog food 

and supplies, We furnished a horse for a trapper and provided horse 

feed and pasture. This adds up to approximately another $20,000 per 

year. which takes my overall predator cost to about $50,000 per year. It 

Is because of added expenses such as these that Is causing us to lose a 

wonderful Industry In Wyoming and much of the West. 

Committee members, lets go back to the wolf. As you are aware. 

wolves were introduced into Idaho and Yellowstone Pari< last winter. As 

you have probably heard they are not staying In the Park. I would like to 

present to you some facts presented by Elaine Ailestad in testimony given 

before the United States Senate, Subcommittee on Park, Historic 

Preservation and Recreation on May 23, 1995. 

1 quote, "If it can be said the bald eagle represents the successes of 

the Endangered Species Act, then it can also be said that the wolf best 

represents the Endangered Species Act's failures and abuses. Foremost 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 6 Aprll10, 1996 

64 

among these abuses Is the fact that the gray wolf Is not In danger of 

extinction. Canadian biologists estimate there are between 45,000 and 

60,000 wolves In Canada. Over two thousand gray wolves are found 

within the continental United States and another 7,000-10,000 gray 

wolves are found In Alaska. The wolf Issue Is not about recovery of a 

threatened species. Nor Is this Issue about biology. The wolf Issue 

centers around regulatory control of natural resources. The Issue also 

centers around the misguided policies of natural regulation. 

The Eastern timber wolf recovery program has taken an enormous 

toll on the livestock Industry, and agriculture In general, In northern 

Minnesota. According to USDA figures. there were 12,230 farms and 

91 ,000 sheep In the Minnesota wolf range In 1979. By 1982, the number 

of farms In Minnesota wolf range declined 42 percent to 7,200 farms. 

By 1985 sheep numbers In Minnesota wolf range declined 82 percent to 

only 16,000 sheep. This decline In sheep numbers In wolf range occurred 

when sheep numbers In the rest of the state Increased. 

Between 1977 and 1986, an average of 234 domestic animals were 

verified as lost to wolves In Minnesota. From 1987 to 1990 this annual 

average Increased to 1150 domestic animals, five times the number lost 

during the previous period. The year 1989 was extremely bad for 

predation with 1,734 confirmed livestock losses. The state of Minnesota 

compensated livestock producers $43,644 for their losses to wolves. but 

by February 1990 the compensation program was broke. The federal 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 7 Aprll10, 1996 

65 

government and organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation 

did not provide additional funds to the compensation program and many 

producers had to walt until the next fiscal year to receive payment. Since 

1989, wolf predation levels have remlaned high. 

In 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issued a report entitled 

"Trends and Management of Wolf'/ Livestock Conflict In Mlnnlsota. • In 

earlier reports. USFWS analysts found that livestock predation was 

statistically insignificant. However, heavy wolf predation losses In 1987, 

1989 and 1990 forced the USFWS to modify earlier conclusions. USFWS's 

updated data concluded that livestock losses increased with time and 

distribution. The USFWS report suggested that preventative wolf control 

measures be taken In Minnesota. The report also states that up to 30 

percent of the Minnesota wolf population will have to be taken annually 

to prevent increased conflict. The USFWS has not taken action on this 

report and Is unlikely to do so considering the environmental 

communities uproar created during Alaska's wolf control efforts. Most 

disturbing Is the report's conclusion that because factors in Minnesota 

are different than in the West, the West can expect even heavier livestock 

losses than those experienced in Minnesota.· 

In a recent conversation with the USFWS concerning wolves, 1 asked 

whether our existing predator management program In livestock areas 

outside the Park would be affected If wolves decided to look for greener 

pastures. I was told, "Yes·. Currently, county predatory animal trappers, 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 8 April10, 1996 

66 

private animal damage control and ADC use the following tools to manage 

predators. Devices such as snares, traps, calls and aerial gunning are 

used as well as dennlng and M-44's. Not any one of these tools Is 

effective on their own, a combination is needed to assure effective 

control of predators. 1 was told by USFWS that If a wolf showed up 

outside the Park, for example In my area which Is about 100 miles south 

of Yellowstone, that M-44's and snares would definitely be affected and 

probably leg-hold traps and possibly aerial hunting. Tell me, Committee 

members, what methods of management do we have left? What am 1 

and other livestock operators to do but go out of business. Can we not 

learn something from Minnesota? 

My Grandfather Immigrated from England and started our ranch In 

the 1880's. My children are the fourth generation of Julians engaged In 

the sheep ranching business In Southwestern Wyoming. My father Is still 

alive. so counting my two new grandchildren. this original old sheep 

ranch Is being worked and Is supporting four generations of Jullans. It Is 

my will and desire to have a Julian sheep ranch for another 116 years. 

The big question. Is will the U.S. Government allow us to survive? 

Look at the Grizzly bear in Wyoming. They have reached their 

population objective to be dellsted. Have they been? The answer Is f1Q! 

The grizzly is costing the State of Wyoming thousands of dollars a year for 

depredation losses. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department wants to 

dellst them and be allowed to hunt bears that are harmful to humans and 
Testimony- Truman Julian 

Page 9 April10, 1996 

67 

depredate on domestic livestock. This makes good sense to me but does 

it to the USFWS? Why of course not, it Is too practical. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members. I rest my case. Please give 

the testimony I have given here today serious consideration and analyze 

the data 1 have presented in writing If the sheep industry is to survive in 

Wyoming and much of the West, we need your help. The laws that were 

passed such as the T&E Species Act whose intent was well founded and 

meaningful. are now being used by some Government agencies and this 

Administration to beat up and drive It's own citizens out of business. 

Thank you for your time. consideration and the opportunity to give 

testimony. 

[!'_dditional material supplied bv Truman Julian was placed in 

Subcommittee files_] 
68 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

April 10, 1996 

Gillette, Wyoming 

Testimony by 

Cindy Garretson-Weibel, Executive Director 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 
69 

Mr. Saxton, Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding predator 

control or the lack thereof. My name is Cindy Garretson-Weibel and I am 

the executive director for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. Our 

office is located in Cheyenne and the Wyoming Stock Growers 

Association is the oldest non-governmental organization in the staie. We 

are a membership organization and represent over 1,600 ranching families 

in Wyoming. 

Definition of Predators 

As we begin to discuss predators today, I would first like to point out that 

predatory animals, according to Wyoming statute, include coyote, 

jackrabbit, porcupine, raccoon, red fox, wolf, skunk or stray cat. However, 

other wildlife, including bobcats, mountain lions, grizzly bears, black bears, 

and even raptors cause depredation on other wildlife species, as well as 

livestock, though they do not fall under Wyoming's statutory definition of 

predator. Some of the predacious species are protected as threatened or 

endangered species, as well, thus adding to the difficulty in providing an 

effective predator control program. 

Basically, what this means from a practical aspect is that furbearers (such 

as bobcats) and trophy game animals (black bear, grizzly bear, mountain 

lion) that cause predation cannot be controlled by private landowners, and, 

in general, may only be taken by hunters or trappers possessing a license 

from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Predatory animals, as 

defined by statute, may be taken without a license. Though predation does 

occur by other species, my primary focus today will be on the coyote. 

Livestock Predation 

Though much of the predation by coyotes is on the domestic sheep 
70 

population, predation on cattle is also common; however, the statistics are 

not as readily available on cattle predation. Depredation losses have also 

been confirmed on horses. If you have ever seen a fresh kill by predators 

on sheep, cattle or wildlife, you understand the emotional debate involved 

with predators. For those of you who have not had the misfortune of 

witnessing such a gruesome act, I have attached to my comments an 

article that appeared in the National Wool Grower magazine in 1980 

entitled "How Coyotes Kill Sheep." 

I could describe countless stories of depredation, but today I wanlto focus 

more on the common sense need for predator control, rather than on 

emotions . .The fact is that Wyoming sheep producers lost 66,000 sheep 

and lambs to predators In 1995. Coyotes were the main predator, 

contributing to 73 percent of the total predator losses, and accounting for 

40 percent of all sheep losses for the year. This predation translated to a 

$3.5 million loss to the Industry. 

It Is noteworthy to point out that livestock producers receive no 

compensation for depredation of livestock caused by coyotes and other 

predatory animals. In addition, ranchers In Wyoming are paying for 

predator control. From July 1, 1994 - December 31 , 1995, livestock 

producers contributed approximately $900,000 to predator control through 

payment of mandatory predator fee collected when livestock are shipped 

or a change of ownership occurs. This predator control benefits the 

wildlife populations, as well. 

Wildlife Predation 

In addition to the loss of livestock to predators, our association is deeply 

concerned about the loss of wildlife to predators. Now, with the 

introduction of the wolf Into Yellowstone National Park, an even greater 

impact will be seen on the wildlife populations. Landowners, who support 

the wildlife populations on their deeded land for a good portion of the year, 

can attest to the reality that antelope and deer populations, as well as bird 

populations to name a few, have been adversely affected by predators. 

Wyoming is well-known for its pristine beauty and abundant wildlife and 

2 
71 

we want to see these healthy wildlife populations remain. 

If wildlife populations continue to decline, the state's wildlife agency could 

face a loss in revenue due to a reduction in license allocation. The timing 

would not be particularly good, especially since the department requested 

from the Legislature a license fee increase just a few months ago. In 

addition, in 1993, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department estimated that 

nonconsumptive users (backpackers, photographers, etc.) spent over 

$282,809,875 throughout the state. If the wildlife populations continue to 

decline, the economy of the entire state will obviously be affected~ 

Solutions 

I have outlined some of the problems associated with predators and 

predator control, but what are the solutions? 

Before the predator problem can be adequately addressed, wildlife 

agencies must admit that a predator problem exists. I believe that state 

wildlife agencies have soft-peddled the predator problem, by contributing 

decreases in wildlife population almost solely to severe winters, drought, 

and loss of habitat. Agencies need to quit overlooking the obvious. The 

obvious is that predators have contributed to the declining wildlife 

populations and they can no longer be ignored in the management 

equation. 

In addition, more involvement and participation on the part of the federal 

government with the state is imperative to effectively control predators. 

The federal government needs to be an active partner in predator control 

programs, but state predator control personnel are more suited to 

administer an efficient program because they are closest to the problem. 

In fact, we would not be adverse to investigating turning the predator 

control programs over to the states. 

Research efforts need to be continued in order to develop management 

and control practices that are socially acceptable. With the loss of 1080 in 

the 1970s, the ability to effectively control predators has decreased. We 

3 
72 

need some effective control method to replace what management tools 

have been lost. 

It is vitally important that further restrictions are not be placed on present 

control methods. For example, the use of M44s on federal lands, as well 

as aerial hunting must be maintained if predator control efforts are to be 

successful. As you may already be aware, the land pattern In Wyoming 

and other western states is comprised of private, state and federal 

ownership. Predator control methods on federal lands are more restrictive 

than those on state and private lands, which makes it very difficultto 

tackle the predator problem as a whole. 

What we do not need are more unwieldy rules and regulations. The 

Honorable Dick Cheney, R-Wyoming, in 1979, when serving in the House 

of Representatives wrote about President Ford: "He has spent 

considerable time reviewing the problem (and it is a problem) of livestock 

losses due to coyotes and other predators. He had decided certain 

changes were needed in the executive order to provide more latitude in 

controlling predators. The changes were ordered, only to be followed by 

pages and pages of new rules and regulations from the Environmental 

Protection Agency which had the effect of making the problem worse than 

it was before." The same holds tn.ie today, we do not need more rules 

and regulations, we need more common sense. 

Summary 

What do ranchers want? We want protection from devastating predator 

losses and we want to maintain a healthy wildlife population. That is all 

we want, and I am relatively certain others want the same. All we desire 

is to maintain our way of life and ... "a home, where the buffalo roam, 

and the deer and the antelope play. Where seldom is heard a 

discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day." 

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for allowing me an opportunity to 

comment. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

4 
73 

Photo 1. In our tests, .any sheep which r.an from coyotes usu.11lly were pursued .11nd .att.llcked. Coyotes gener.11lly 

sele.ct l.11mbJ O\'er ewes if they h.ll\'t a choice. 

Photo 2. Ou r coyotes usu.11lly .11tbcked by ru nninz .alonz- side fleeing sheep .11nd biting them behind &nd below the 

e.1r. Then they br.aced their fed to HDP the sheep front running. In this picture two 2-year-old( oyotes .ue &tt.ack: 

inz .1 90 lb. ewe. 

cover storv 

How C()votes Kill Sheep By Robert M. Timm and 

Guy E. Connolly 

"';OYOTE PREDATION is a serious obt.11ined photographs which illus-

.,roblem for many sheep ranchers_ tcate what we believe to be the 

in North Ameica, but the act of usual mode of coyote attack on 

predatio n· is seldom witnessed un- sheep. The resulting wounds are 

der range conditions. Therefore, the characteristic of coyote predation, 

sheep-killing behavior of. wild coy- even though dogs or othe r predaotes has received · study. In ex- tors may sometime inflict simila r 

periments wi_th a~i ~~~~. ~ we wounds. · 

Pho!o 3. The t~rolf ~~~<. ck ;:.c.!\Er:-, of ccrc:es IEcxes chu· u terislic le!ioni whi<h miiy or may not be !)17ttrnally ,-isible. Th is corote-ki!led e1\t ~ho ed few tJo1erna l wounds, but sub-cutaneous e,;aminiltion re1·u led u1ensh·e tiuu• d;amage and hemorrhlgin g in the larymr region. Tooth punctures can often be found in the O\"erl,·ing skin. 

14 NATIONAL \\'OOL GROWER Jc:m.:oary 1980 

The 12 coyotes ed in this study 

were e ither captured as pups or 

born in captivity. At the time of 

these trials, eight of the animals 

were 2 )'ears old .an d fou r were : 

)'earlings; none had had previous 

hunting or prey-killing experience. 

Nevertheless, five of these coyotes 

killed and fed upon lambs at the 

first opportunity. Three more coyotes, which did not attack sheep. 

Robtrt M. Tlmrn it cunently &1~truion· v.ildlife iptcialid, Uniu .rtity of Ntbrult .. 

lincoln; and Guy E. Connolly it wildlife 

ruurch biologist. U.S. Fith and Wildl ~ 

Strvice, \\'ildfift Rt1urch Station, Twin 

Fallt, Idaho. Tht rttur<h wu doni! v.·htn 

both authort wtrt ~~ tht Unh·trsity of Call· 

lornla, Oa\•it. Tht lt?Ort is .11. contribution 

of Wttltrn Rtsional Rtru rch Project W·1ll, " E,·a\u;tting -"•'-"'lltmt-nt of PrtGi -

te.:s in ~~ ~t o!'l to .:" ~t- c A.!!.lr:-.Jis''· Tht 

\\Ork w lf n1ppol1td in part by tht USDA, 

Asriculrural llttu.rch Suvic.-, \\"Hit-rn R~

sional tabora\ory. Tht au\t.oi'J lh~ni.; D- A. 

\\'adt , \V. E. Howard, \Y. M. l onghuut, 

R. Ttra"ishi, a.nd E. \turphy for ad•·ice and 

fU?;e1t; .4. . H. L: t?l- ~·, D. T. Tortll, a.r.d 

A. l~t l fo r i~U?: \ t. \'~~ n d C. 

Strry ((If <O OI~ p01p'; J. fammltrt ior U· 

titlanct; and M. Be.ucagt. fo r p~lo,r ph 

numbt.r 4. 1ttprintrd hom RA~Gl \US S 

)0UR:S.4.l, Ausust 19i7, by pt.rminion of 

Tht. Socitly o( Ranxt Manaxemtnl. 
74 

Photo 3. As toon as the coyotes arrested the flighl of the 

sheep, they thihed their bite toward the sheep's throat. 

Once a firm grip wu secured in the larynx region, the 

CO\'Ote simpfy held on and waited fpr the sheep to IUC· 

cumb. This m&nner of •tt&ck •ppeued to nuse death 

primuily by suffoc.dion, although blood lou and seven:! 

tissue damage also occurfed. The time from onset of at1ack 

to death of the sheep ar be&innins of feedinJ, which 

ever occurred lim, &veuged 13 minutes. In 24 of the 25 

fatal .&ttacks, the neck and thro~t region wu the main. 

Photo 4. As soon u the sheep stopped ;truullng, the 

corote(s) began feeding. On 9 of 11 kills where feeding 

w.u observed, the coyotes entered th.,t body ct\'ity and 

att intestines and other viscera .. They tho fed upon thi 

rump or hin d lea (1G cues), the neck (7), front leg and 

shoulder (7), hud (6), and other sites. On the .average, 

each coyote fed for 2S minulet and ate t.bout 4 r ounds. 

Co)'otes fed just before. tests killed sheep but did not feed 

on them. 

point o~ _a Hack. · 

at first,_ did So in later tests .. Of the 

11. coyotes which were tested singly 

ag·ainst individual 30 to 70-lb. lambs, 

eight killed the lambs. , 

In our tests, one to four coyotes 

Nere released into a 0.4-acre pen 

with 1 to 6 sheep, usually for 2 to 

S hours. The. coyotes killed one or 

more sheep in 22 of the 46 tests. 

For the tests in which a fatal attack 

occurred, the time from release of 

_ coyotes to onset of attack varied. 

from 1 to 154 minutes, with an 

average of 47. minutes. Of the coyotes . tested individually with sinsle 

lambS,· the dominant animals 12-

year-old males and the females 

paired with them) attacked most 

frequently. Yearling males attacked 

less frequently, and tt-le two unpa r~ females did not attack sheep. 

While we cannot be sure tt-lat wild 

coyotes will sheep in exactly the 

manner we observed with captive 

animals, the wounds resulti ng from 

our tes.ts resembled those reported 

by many workers who studied coyote predatio n unde r range conditions. Therefore, we believe that 

ti-le killing pa tte rns we ~aw are genera!!y repre~ent tiv e of coyote predG:ion Ct:l ~ht:ep. 

On ranges where mounta in li_on, 

black bear, and bobcat predation is improb2.ble, t; ~~ ue damage, tooth 

ma rks, and hemorr ";.;;:_e i:'l :he iaryr.x 

region on sheep carcesses is com- . the sheep and seldom kill as deanmonly indicative of coyote preda- ly . as do coyotes. Wounds caused 

tion. However, coyotes sometimes by dogs can usually be recognized 

attack the hi ndquarters of sheep. as such, but at times they are inDog-inflicted wounds seem to be distinguish~bl e from those made by 

more variable than those caused by coyotes. In such cases, tracks and 

coyotes. It is reported that dogs other evidence at the scene often 

tend ·to attack the hindquarters, indicate which species of predator 

ilanks, head, and /or abdomen of caused the damage. 

Phato 6. A col·ote consumed about 3 pounds from the 

rump of th is ;a lb. lamb ....-ithout killins it. \\o'e: ha\'t: sun 

rl.r !!~ r.e-e ., ''·it!\ ~i;.-. u '' our.ck Of 2S co ot e kilh '' e observed, this w~ s the anly cHe in which the att.ack wu 

not directed primuily to the neck .and throat .area of the 

,heep. b:tensh·e feedin& on th• rump o~nd hind leg, u 

!hown here, also occ~.:rre d an about hzlf of the !hee-p 

killed with the customary throat hold. 

NATIONAl WOOl CROWER n~.: uy 1980 15 
75 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

AprillO, 1996 

Gillette, Wyoming 

Testimony by: 

Larry J. Bourret, Executive Vice President 

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 
76 

I am Larry J. Bourret, Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Farm Bureau 

Federation. 406 South 21st Street, Laramie. Wyoming 82070. We thank you for the 

opportunity to explain the problems and propose solution to this situation. 

From 1971 to 1981 I was employed by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. In 

1972 when the registrations for predator toxicants were canceled by EPA I was assigned to 

work on establishing a responsible, effective predator control program in Wyoming. We 

worked with the U.S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife (the predecessor to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service) and the 23 .county predatory animal control districts in Wyoming. 

The Wyoming Legislature, in 1973, amended the laws and appropriated about 

$250,000 for the program. This was not the first time the Wyoming Legislature had dealt 

with predatory animals. In 1875 the first bounty law was enacted when Wyoming was still a 

territory. From 1910 into the 1940s the Legislature appropriated funds to be used by the U.S. 

Biological Survey (the predecessor to the U.S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife) for 

predator control. A review of Wyoming laws reveals hunters were issued strychnine for 

predator control along with their hunting license in the late 1800s. Research was conducted 

on thallium and coyote getters in Wyoming beginning in 1937. Coyote getters were used 

operationally in Wyoming beginning in 1940, with thallium being used operationally in 1943. 

In 1944 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) was used operationally in Wyoming in 1946. 

Because strychnine, coyote getters, thallium and I 080 were used before 1948, in Wyoming, 

any use of the years prior to that time. as baseline years, to determine the efficacy of I 080 

would be inappropriate. The research on I 080 indicated it reduced losses by 85-100 percent. 

In 1971 thallium-killed eagles and eagles killed from aircraft were found in Wyoming 

and Colorado. A number of environmental groups filed two lawsuits to halt the entire 

predator control program. An advisory committee (Cain Committee) was established. The 

environmental groups petitioned EPA to cancel the registrations of the toxicants, although the 

federal pesticide law did not provide for such a petition. The Interior Department prepared 

for a defense of the lawsuit and filed sworn affidavits saying there was no environmental 

damage from the predator control program. An EIS was prepared by Interior and on July 22, 

1971 the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks signed off on the EIS, 

which said there was no problem with the program. However. in October the EIS process 

was terminated. The Cain Committee. in October, 197L transmitted their report to the 

Secretary of Interior and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. A sealed, 

secret stipulation. signed by an Interior law-yer and an environmental group la"'-yer. was filed 

in district court in Washington, D.C. indicating the Cain Report was being drafted and that 

Interior would use said report to discontinue the use of toxicants in the federal predator 

control program. Interior continued to oppose the lawsuits. On February 8. 1972 President 

Nixon issued an executive Order prohibiting use of toxicants on federal lands and in federal 

programs. One month later EPA canceled the registrations of cyanide, \080 and strychnine. 
77 

Page two 

In May of 1972 the Administrator of EPA told the Wyoming Commissioner of 

Agriculture and the President of the Wyoming WoolGrowers Assn. that amendments being 

proposed to the federal pesticide law would allow for re-registration of 1080, strychnine and 

cyanide. Those amendments were adopted in October, 1972. In April of 1973 the Wyoming 

Department of Agriculture requested registration of I 080, strychnine and cyanide. In 

September the same department requested emergency use permits for the same pesticides. In 

March of 1974 the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming WoolGrowers Assn., Wyoming 

StockGrowers Assn., Wyoming Farm Bureau and others filed suit. In 1975 the Wyoming 

Department of Agriculture filed intrastate registrations with EPA. Over the years many 

registration requests and emergency requests have been filed with EPA. A few emergency 

requests for rabies control were approved. EPA registered the M-44 in 1974. and toxic 

collars in the mid-1980s, but the restrictions on their use render them almost a useless 

exercise. The Wyoming Department of Agriculture, in about 1976, obtained internal memos, 

dated in November, 1972, from within EPA. One of the documents, to Mr. David Dominick, 

refers to a request by Dominick of November 15, 1972. Edwin L. Johnson signed the memo 

and lays out "the most likely scenario for reregistering a predator control chemical". Another 

memo dated November 20, 1972 reveals the Acting Director, Division of Registrations, was 

requested, by the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator Edwin L. Johnson, to initiate a 

review, by November 27, of which chemical (predator pesticide) would most likely be able tc 

be registered. The third memo, dated November 27, 1972 to Mr. Johnson from Douglas D. 

Campi, Acting Director, refers to Johnson's November 20, 1972 memo. Campi's memo 

includes the following: 

"RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 

We consider the following four choices listed below the only viable alternatives. 

Each subsequent alternative is less desirable than the preceding one. Under each 

possibility there is set forth a brief statement as to pertinent regulations 

and necessary labeling. 

I. We recommend that (A) strychnine products be registered for predator 

control use nationwide, and (B) sodium fluoroacetate and cyanide 

products be registered for coyote. fox. and ral dog control (or use 

use west of the I OOth meridian provided regulations be specified as 

follows: 

I. The most selective product should be used to accomplish the predator 

control needed. This can best be accomplished considering the local 

situation. A "Use Permit System" requirement will assure the most effective 

control. 

2. Method of use must be clearly prescribed. (Use should be permitted only 

when there is a demonstrated need and should be restricted to the product 

which can accomplish the objective with the least adverse environmental effect). 

3. A Field Biologist should be responsible for prescribing, supervising and 
Page three 

78 

monitoring any use of predicides. 

4. Routine applications must be avoided and use should be limited to situations 

of real need. 

5. All cases of adverse effects should be investigated thoroughly and on 

a timely basis. 

6. When monitoring indicates populations of the target species are under 

control, the predator control operations should cease. 

The labeling should reflect the restrictions set forth in the regulations and state 

the penalty for misuse. 

II. Our second choice would be essentially the same as No. I except that I 080 is 

deleted. (The regulations and labeling are the same as No. I above.) 

Ill. Our third choice would call for the deletion of both I 080 and the cvanide 

coyote getter and leave strychnine as the only toxicant. rfhe regulation~ ";;;;J 

labeling are the same as NoTa"bove except there is no choice of toxicant to 

be considered)." 

III. The fourth and least desirable choice is the registration of the coyote getter 

(M-44) if possible. This choice may not be desirable since it could not be used east 

of the I 00 meridian where human population is dense. thereby being too 

hazardous to humans. (The regulations and labeling are the same as No. III above.) 

Campt indicated the EPA findings and recommendations were based on the data available and 

the expertise of "Wildlife Biologist. Toxicologist and Vertebrate Animal Biologist in both the 

Registration and Criteria and Evaluation Divisions." He went on to say. 

"There is little doubt that we can expect some adverse public reaction 

to the re-registration of any of the predator control products. We 

have. however, consistently stated that the new legislation. with the 

restricted use provisions. would allow us to permit use of certain 

products that would be disallowed without new legislation." 

That statement indicates the EPA Administrator's promise to the Wyoming Commissioner of 

Agriculture and officials of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association precipitated the 

November. 1972 memos. The EPA didn't keep its word, and the October. 1972 "restricted 

use" amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and_Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have 

been of no value to the livestock industry. The M-44 was registered with 22 restrictions on 

its use -- those restrictions being so burdensome that the M-44 is practically useless. That is 

apparently exactly as the radical environmental community wanted, and the federal 

government is doing their bidding. 

You will hear that predators are not a problem to wildlife -- but you should not take 

that statement as proof, but instead should demand proof to support such statements. We are 
79 

Page four 

providing copies of "PREDATOR DAMAGE IN THE WEST: A STUDY OF COYOTE 

MANAGEMENTAL TERN A TIVES", Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Department of the Interior, December, 1978, which contains Table I which "summarizes 

studies that have found predators have a limiting or regulating effect on ungulate populations." 

We take exception to the statement on page 143 which indicates "Table 2 summarizes studies 

coming to an opposite conclusion", because the studies in Table 2 fail to show that predators 

increased the number of ungulates. 

The Cain Committee, in 1972, recommended that, 

" ... concommitant with the prohibition of the use of toxicants 

for predator control, there should be compensatory federal 

efforts along several lines, including: (I) increased funding 

in support of selective aerial gunning of coyotes: (2) establishment in each state of a trapper-instructor extension program 

through which landowners or their employees could receive 

training in legal and humane methods of predator control; 

(3) the adoption of an insurance program which would cover heavy 

livestock losses from all causes without requiring the validation 

of predator depredations; this progran1 could be federal. federalstate, or commercially operated with participating public funds; 

and (4) an expansion of fact-finding and research on more effective 

and economical control methods." 

Twenty-four years later we find the funding of aerial hunting to still be inadequate and-that 

increased restrictions on that method have severelv restricted the effectiveness. No wes~em 

state has adopted the trapper instructor extension program probably because F. Robert ' 

Henderson. one of the major proponents, admitted in a September 27. 1978 letter to Norinda 

Burbidge the following: 

"I dislike anyone making a straight recommendation to adopt the 

Kansas program to another area without giving the matter considerable 

thought and study. What I said in 1973 may not still be true today. 

As we go through life, we learn a little each day and added to that 

situations change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who you disagree 

with has changed. They are a much more professionalized organization 

now. I'm not as sure today as I was ten years ago that they were 

wrong in many things they did. So. I' II ask you please do not 

indicate to others that what the people of Kansas have they to (sic) 

should have in your state, it may not work." 
80 

Page five 

An insurance program proposal was merely used by the Cain Committee to ignore the 

problem with predation and was never seriously considered. What has research provided. 

which has reduced losses to predators, during these 24 years? The M-44 was in use before 

I 972, as was the toxic collar so those two cannot be claimed as victories for research. Tens 

of millions of dollars have been expended on research and no progress has been made. 

Nathania! P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks testified to 

the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, on March 19, 1973 that Secretary Morton. "In 

recognition of the need to prevent a disruption of the necessary damage control services while 

waiting for a new mandate from Congress" had set up a special accelerated program in April 

1972. That program included relying "heavily on helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft; 

trapping, calling and denning" and was aimed "at controlling specific groups of animals 

causing wholesale damage." He referred to a program on the Bridger National Forest in 

Wyoming and claimed this "demonstrated beyond any doubt that effective predator control 

can be carried out without poisons." He went on to say, "While it is presently more 

expensive to do it this way, I am convinced that a strong research effort will come up in the 

long-term with methods that are better and cheaper." He said, "Mr Chairman. the operational 

lessons which we have learned this past summer are applicable on a broad scale to future 

programs. We now know that selective and environmentally safe management methods. with 

appropriate funding and manoower, can be used effectively to control animal damage." 

(emphasis added). He said it would not be possible to provide a progrant such as the Bridg·er 

National Forest program to the West as a whole. He referred to research on attractants. 

tranquilizer drugs, behavior modifying drugs, diseases and adversives. but 24 years later no 

progress has been reported. 

The facts are that the government took away effective. efficient environmentally safe 

methods 24 years ago. while making promises. and has done nothing since then except plac1' 

additional restrictions on the remaining methods. An additional set of problems has been 

handed to the livestock industry now that wolf introduction has taken place. The U.S. 

Department of Interior, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FE IS) Reintroduction 

of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho", April. 1994 said on page 

2-16 the following: 

"Some predator control activities (almost exclusively M-44 use for coyote· 

control)by ADC would be affected by wolf recolonization. The current EPA 

registration restricts use of predator toxicants in areas occupied by listed 

species. Toxicants are already precluded from most areas where wolf recovery 

would be encouraged because of existing conditions. Other predator control 

activities (aerial and ground shooting, foot-hold trapping, snaring with 

modified snares, and denning) would not be affected. Wolves taken in the 

course of these activities must be immediately reported to authorities. If 
81 

Page six 

wolves are killed through the course of these activities such incidents will 

be thoroughly investigated, and unavoidable or unintentional take of wolves 

(killing or injuring) during legal activities (trapping, vehicle collisions, 

etc.) would not be considered take. Such incidents must be reported as soon 

as possible but no later than 24 hours after the incident. Other take of 

wolves will be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and 

possible prosecution. " 

The livestock producers are now being told that aerial shooting. trapping and snares 

will be prohibited in the area where wolves may occur. Such prohibition is in direct conflict 

with the two-year old FEIS produced by the federal government. That FEIS indicated 

incidental take from trapping, and we assume aerial shooting and snaring. would not be 

considered "take" as defined in the Glossary (page 6-7) of the FEIS as follows: 

"Take -- The ESA defines 'take" as: To harass. harm, pursue. hunt. shoot, wound. 

kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. See 

above definition of Harass which includes definition of permitted harassment and 

pursuing, and see definition of Unavoidable and Unintentional Take below." 

On page 6-8 of the Glossary of the same FEIS we find the following definition: 

"Unavoidable and Unintentional Take -- Accidental. non-negligent take 

(see above definition of take) which occurs despite reasonable-care. is 

incidental to otherwise lawful activity and without the intent to do so. 

Examples would include striking a wolf with an automobile, capturing a 

wolf in a trap set obviously for another species. NOTE: Shooting a wolf 

when the individual states they believed it to be an animal other than a 

wolf. does not qualify as unavoidable or unintentional take. This is 

consistent with most state laws where killing of wild animals or domestic 

animals because of mistaken identity is illegal. Shooters have the 

responsibility to be sure of their targets." 

Page 6-3 of the Glossary of the FEIS says the following : 

"Incidental Take --( see below for full definition of 'take' for this EIS) 

The taking (killing, wounding. maiming. injuring. or physically harming) of 

wolves, under permit or conditions established by the FWS in an experimental 

population rule, that occurs accidently or despite reasonable care during 

otherwise legal activities (e.g., as the result of legal activities and in 

conjunction with ADC control activities for other species). Within an 

experimental population area all wolves taken under the conditions permitted 
82 

Page seven 

by the experimental population rule by agencies or the public will not be 

considered take under the Endangered Species Act. Any and all wolves taken 

outside the provisions of the experimental population rule would be considered 

take under the Endangered Species Act." 

The experimental rule, published November 22, 1994 in the Federal Register says the 

following: 

"Section 1784(3) No person may take this species in the wild in an 

experimental population area except as provided in paragraphs (I), 

(3 ), (7), and (8) of this section:" 

Section (I) refers to livestock producers on their private land taking a wolf in the act of 

killing, wounding, or biting livestock. Section (3) deals with livestock producers on public 

lands being required to have a pennit to take a wolf in the act of killing, wounding or biting 

livestock. Section (7) indicates the FWS or designated agencies may take 'problem wolves" 

Section (8) reads as follows: 

"Any person may take a gray wolf found in an area defined in paragraph (i)(7), 

Provided that the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activity, accidental, 

unavoidable, unintentional. not resulting from negligent conduct lacking 

reasonable due care, and due care was exercised to avoid taking a gray wolf. 

Such taking is to be reported within 24 hours to a Service or Servicedesignated authority. Take that does not confonn with such provisions may 

be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution." 

Appendix 6 of the FE IS which is titled. "WOLF REINTRODUCTION INTO 

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND CENTRAL IDAHO AND EXECUTIVE 

ORDER 12630 (GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND INTERFERENCE WITH 

CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY RIGHTS)" reads, in part, as follows: 

"Private property will not be affected by land-use restrictions 

because of wolf recovery." 

Therefore it would appear that the federal government is oYer-stepping its authority, and once 

again breaking its word, if restrictions are placed on animal damage control efforts which 

involve aerial shooting, trapping and snares in the portions of the States of Wyoming. 

Montana and Idaho which are within the designated "experimental population" areas. The 

government cannot continue to lie to the citizens. We request that the Subcommittee clarify 

this situation and advise the affected livestock producers of what they have learned from the 

Administration on whether their word is their bond, or if they are merely another set of liars. 
83 

Page eight 

Any further restrictions placed on animal damage control activities, whether because of 

wolves or for any other reason will further damage private property. We already know that 

animal damage control activity costs less than the damage it prevents. even with the many 

inappropriate restrictions placed on the program. Because the federal government can easily 

restrict animal damage control activity if it is a -federal program we suggest that the 

Subcommittee investigate other alternatives to a federal program. One of those alternatives 

would be to provi~e the states the authority, with federal funding to operate the program. 

Another possible alternative, and perhaps an adjunct to the previous alternative, would be to 

use Dingell-Johnson funds in the states to reimburse livestock producers for their losses to 

predatory animals. Those funds are appropriated for use in providing habitat, and if lambs 

and calves are the habitat for predatory animals, it appears compensation would be a legal use 

of those funds. We request the Subcommittee make such a determination and advise the 

livestock producers who are suffering the losses as to their findings. 

When one analyzes this problem, or most any type of problem. it is relatively easy to 

determine that there is a difference between "authority" and "responsibility". Those who have 

the responsibility to protect domestic livestock should also be provided the authority to 

provide that protection. Those who do not have the responsibility should not have the 

authority to restrict those who do have the responsibility. The federal government has proven 

it is not up to the task, that it will not keep a promise and that it shirks responsibility 

whenever possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 
84 

We consider the t~ll~~ir.g tour ch~ices listed bel~; the only viable 

alterr.~t1ves. Each subsequent alt~~sttve is less desirable t~An the 

preced~g or.e. Un~~r each pcssib111ty th!re 15 ~et forth r.. brief state.-

z::ent as to pertinent . rec;ulati~ns. end r.ece&s~ry le.bel1cg. · 

r. Ve reco~er.d t~;t (A) strfc~nir.e p'o~u~t$ be re~i•~ercd for 

p~~~to: cor.t~l use natio~4!~e, and (3) sod1~ !luoroe.cetete 

&J:ld. c_y2.ni~e -pr~c!u cts b~ =;1ste::-ci. for coyote, .fox,· end fe:r:sl 

dog control for use ~est ot the lOOth ~~r1die.n provided regu-

·lattons be specified es follo~s: 

1. 'l'be =st selective product should be used to acc=pl1sh tbe 

preaetor control needed. Tn!s cen best be accomplished considering 

the 1oce.l situati:>n. A "Use Pe!':l!it Syste::." requirement ldll assure 

the c:::.st effective ·C::.ntrol.. • 

2. }!et!:l-::>:1 or use ~.1st be clearly p::-ezcribed •. (Use should be 

per:dtt~ only vhen tr~re is ~ de~r.st::-~ted need sni should be 

restricted to the product ~hich.ce.n r..cc~~plish the objective Yith. 

tl:: le&St a<! verse environmental ··e.rtect). 

3· A Field Biol-::>3!st should be responsible for prescribing, 

a~-vising ani =~nitooring an7 use or p::-edacides. 

Z.. n:,utine applications !!lust be ~voided and use should be 

lil!ljted to situ~tions ot real need. 

5· All cases o~ eaverse effects shoould .be invest!geted thoroughly 

and on a ti.r.el~r basis. 

6. Yhen ~on1toring !nd1cetes ~puletions or the target species are 

uoaer control, the predator control operations should cease • 

. ~ labeling s~~uld ref~ect t~e 1~1t~t1ons set forth in the regulations 

8nd &tate the pe~alti~s tor ~isuse. 

:II: Ot!:- second choice ·.-ould be essentially the sa:r.e es No. I except 

tbat lOcO is deleted. (The regul~tions and l~beling ere the sa:e 

as No. I above). 

III. Our thi'd choice vould cell tor the deletion o~ both lOcO end the 

cr...: ide coy~te getter end le~·te str.rchoine as the only toxicant.. 

(Tte regulatio!"IS e:td. lebelins are the ~~ as !1:>. I ebo·te except 

tb.ere is no choice ot toxicant to be consic'.ered). 
85 

Uc b3ve icltict~ plnn~lo~ vith respect to restrictions «nd'opecific la~elica 

tb~t ~oulcl be roq,ulre.t. :ir. J)avid Bowen and Mr. lierbert tiarr.f.aan will be 

uorkin& to prepare the Roz1strct1on Divioioa'• input into the neceo~y 

r"~tiooo. I voulc!-·aaou:o tbat theoo shoulcl be coordinated tbrou;l1 tbo 

TAD~ Fo:ce on Re3Ulatioua. 

Dousl.U n. Ca::~pt 

~tbo Director 

Eo.closu:es 

. cc: 

Ai.s. Harrison 

~. v. H. heston 

Dr. William ~lurray 
86 

le~t.tratic~ D1Y1a1on 

J.f-A?·?f. 

l'c.s:d.ble ~~a;istrat:l.ou of Predator Control Product• 

· · !:ci'.l:!.n !.. .Jo~~soc 

· J,ci:!.:::=: ~puty Asaistr.:nt A.!:::I.J~iatrator 

£:.r P•ad.c:idea ProJr&l'i1$ · 

_- ~· raq, .. -esteci :I.D ,.our De.."'In.nd~:~. o~ Novc=~ber 20. 1971. ve have revie\led the 

G&vcral. a?allable Al.tenuat:l.vaa CAd r;ubQit .hucvil:h o;.n: findings a~c! rcC02-

-:u!atioD.s. 

·-· S:I.Dc:e tbis D:ltter required en llp!)rai8al of rbks/bcni!!U:ti and critet:in "for 

T&gistra:ion. ve have invo!vccl personnel frco tile Critcric. .and. tvalu~t:lon 

Division Ui thi::o reovior~. After =ny hours oi ~isciJ::sieon !1...'\d aual.ysi:; of 

available data 0:1 pr3dator c:o:::trol proauc:tz. ,..e r.;~:St :ulait th:lt th~re 13 

currently DOt enouzh "harrl" data t.O $Olidly aupport ::ny pos!t:l.oo Ve ~gbt 

ta~e. :h~ co:::plcxities :l.r.volved ar~ the e~tionalis~• oo this 1esu3 s•rve 

to ez:.ac:ubate the problcc. Our f1n.!1ni:S Ol.'ltl: rcco;;."!lc.-,d<~t!o,,s e'Cc bnscd on 

t.l:o .Sac:a ~vailable ~nd the e::,ertise of \ill<llife llio!.or,ist. To:d.cologist 

."c:c1 Vertebrate J.D:i.cad 'lliologi!lt iu beth th<! !!as;istrat$.cn £nd Criterh 1•ad 

. "£valu:1ti= Division=. 

We ere acutely a~are pf the ~ifficult decisions which must be made on this 

1ssuo ~ ba.ve attc:i:pte:l to provide, 1o"ithio the sllo.,..cd ti..o!C fr=e, >l\!r 

best o~~cct:ive an.alysis 0:1 the =tttor. \le b<!ve not cont>idt:rcd pnssi;,lc 

pu~l.ic re<actio:l in our delib~r~tions, ho\:e-:re::, \o'C rcali~e tb::t th1:; f~c to: 

11=Dt l>e cc.ns_idered in tlle total pictu'Co. 

'there is l.:l.t:tlc doubt that ve can "-"-,ect soce adverse publ.:1c rc<~ctiou. t:o 

tba re-r::>gi.str:~t:lon. of :my of the r:edator co::~::rol products. lie have, 

bvJever, co~istcntly~t~tcd that tbc neY legislation, uith the restricted 

~e prov:l.aio::.s. vould allcr"' us to pe:ro:.:tt use of certain products th.,_t 

vo~d be ~a:~llo~Je.i vithout neot lec;islation. 

Isl·::n e.ttc::o;t to. Ulustrate tb~ rialr./benefit ratio 1r. rudily ur.dc:'!>t::>::~dnbl;!: cez:s, ,;e b;ve prep::red three charts that c.o!:l;>arc the fo11: prcv!ocsl:r 

rc;;j.st:ered· prcdocides a?,:>itlst ooe ootile~ frcn• the st~r.dpoi::.t of (1) ri.sk 

to h•~:>a':!.!l an.! vildli~e, (2) rio;~ to cndans"~"" spe.:ii!s ~c~ (3) useful::e,ss 

~cr var:l.ous ~\!le coaditioua. l=e:!i:ltcly folluwi!l<; the ch;,rts, \<e ha~ e 

set forth t.!le re~sonicg. upo~ .:hich '\IC bave bn.sed o~ rcco:I:l~:tdation!i: o,)~.d . 

augg:3ted alternatives. Taes~ reco~:enda~1~rs include ~ brief s:cte:cnt 

~•;arc:l.::g posoibl~ labelin~ on~ rc~ulatioPs. 

·~ fourth •n4 least desirable cb~lce is the res1strat1on 

of the coyote ;etter (M-44 it possible). This choice ~y not 

be d~sirable s1r.ce it could not b~ used east ot the lOOth 

meridian v~~re bu:sn po?~lation i~ der.se, thereby being too 

.bazer4:aus to lll:l:sns. (T'ae reaulAtiooa an4 labeling are the eeae 

as No. III above). 
To: Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife & Oceana 

Committee on Resources 

lJ S. House of Rcpresentativt!~ 

H 1-805 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

From: Terry Schramm 

Cowboy 

Walton RAnch 

Star Route 325 

Jackson, WY 83001 

Date: April 5, 1996 

87 

My name is Terry Schramm. l've been the cowboy on the Blackrock Spread Creek allotment for 

16 years. The Walton Ranch and the Moulton Ranch arc the permittee. We have been a 

responsible, legitimate user of the forest allotment for 75 years. As in much of the West, Teton 

County is 97% federally owned and without thb grazing permit we would not h11vc a viable 

ranching operation as private land is unavailable for pasturing our calllc. 

For the past three summers our ranching operation has suffered substantial losses due to griuly 

bear predation; fifty-two confirmed bear kills and 66 calves unaccounted for. One hundred 

ninety-two (192) calves or 9% of our calf crop have been lost in the last three years. Historical 

losses llVcruged 2-3%. · 

We have been paid some compensation but have had to fight for every penny, u all compensation 

comes !Tom the State of Wyoming and the State doesn't want to get into a protracted 

compensation program for an animal for which they have few management options. 

However, while we have been paid some compensation, il remains hopelessly inadequate as all 

kills arc impossible to find. Nobody is taking into account the hundreds of man-hours it takes to 

find kills and the dangers of finding and investigating kill sites for compensation (grazing 

allotment is 137 s<1uare mile5 of mountainous terrain). 

Loss of livestock is only part of the problem in dealing with large predators. Weight loss and 

stress-related illness from continuous harassment are other problems. T<K> many man-hours spent 

in livestock management and proper use of natural resources io also a major problem .. 

A study was implemented on our allotment in 1994. A total of 15 grizzlies, 25 black. bears and 2 

mountain lions have been trapped and released on our 88,000 acre allotment and I'm under no 

illusion that all predators have been successtuUy trapped. 
88 

While we have accepted our fate to c<>-exist with grizzlies, and the tltct that 15 dili'erent gri;~.zlies 

have been trapped on our allotment is a testament of our commitment to the recovery of the 

species, we cannot accept habituated predators on an unconditional basis as they return year afh,r 

year 

Government regulations have taken away our right to protect our livestock lmd personal property 

as well as jeopardizes our future and the future of our children. If problems cannot be solved with 

the omnivorous bear, what is our future with the carnivorous wolf1 

Since most depredations occur at night and considering the huge expanse of terrain IUld the fact 

that predators cat their prey, finding and verifYing kills for compensation is nex to impossible. 

Also, considering that livestock have an aversion to being eaten alive by large predators it makes 

livestock and natural resource management almost non-existent (see auachment #l video). 

My job is to nurture livestock, fix fences, pack salt, shoe horses, and to work with the hsnd and 

wildlife agencies to ensure habitat protection, riparian improvement and resource management not 

solely chasing dead livestock. 

Wyotning agriculture has had a long standing, co-operative relationship with the: land and wildlife 

agencies to bring about many of Wyoming's wildlife success stories but the balance seems to be 

lost with the restrictive nature of predator protection. The people: who have lived with the land 

for generations feel that the bureaucrats are now working more for the predator than for the 

people. We now live in fear; a fear oflosing our private property rights, our grazing permits and 

our right to be able to protect our livestock and personal property, all of which our livelihoods 

depend on. 

The government has spent millions promoting the grizzly and wolf Lo a revta ed status. There is 

little wonder that the small rural population of Wyoming receives little empathy from the larger 

urb~~n population. 

The federal govcmment must educate the urban people of the reality and problems of people 

living with large predators. This is extremely difficult as we have differing value systems, socially, 

culturally, economically and religiously. While the ranches and farmers see predators as a threat 

to their economical survival the urbanites view predators as nothing more than aesthetically 

appealing 

While saving the grizzly and the wolf seems to be an honorable endeavor, it c11n'L be done at the 

expense of the hard working American citiz.ens of the State of Wyoming who have lived here for 

generations and have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else. 

Attachments - All of which will be preiiClntcd at the hearing April 10, 1996. 

11-1 Video- Not all inclusive but representative of the problems that exist. 23 minutes 

#2 Photographs or predation sites. Again not all inclusive 

113 Correspondence with Wyoming Game & Fish in order to get C<lmpensation through appeals 

and arbitration. 
89 

STATEMENT OF PAUL T. WALT 

IN SUPPORT OF LIVESTOCK LOSS CLAIM 

CAUSED BY GRIZZLY BEAR DEPREDATION 

Tho Walton Ranch Company which has been running cattle on the Black Rock 

Spread Creek 11llotment on the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Teton County, 

Wyoming since 1959, suffered its first serious losses from grizzly bear depredation In 

the 1993 grazing season. 

Becauae of the verified presence of grizzly bears on the allotment during the 

1993 grazing season, and the documented losses of calves from grizzly bear 

depredation, the Wyoming Game & Fish Department undertook a trapping and radio 

collar identification study during the 1994 grazing season. The Wyoming Game & Fish 

Department trapped eight different grizzly bears on the allotment, at which time the 

Department stopped further trapping aclivities. Employees of the Walton Rench 

Company believe that the actual number of grizzly bears on the allotment was greater 

than eight and could have been as high as fifteen. 

During the 1994 grazing :;oason, livestock losses from grizzly bear depredation 

began almost as soon as the livestock rl'lBchod the range at the beginning of the, 

grazing season and continued throughout lhe grazing season. The actual number of 

lost animals could not ba confirmed until the livestock were removed from the range 

on October 6th, end thus it must be presumed that losses of some of the unaccounted 

for animals occurred up to the date of removal of the livestock from the range. 

The total number of calves on the range which Walton Ranch Company turned 

out onto the ranae wa11 765. During the 1994 grazing season, 67 calves were lost. 

Page 1 
90 

Twenty ono calves v ... re lost to natural causes. whicl 2.8% of the total calf 

population. This is consistent with the historic average of 2-2.5% annual calf losse'5 

from natural causes during the history of the Walton Ranch Company grazin!~ 

allotment on tha Black Rock-Spread Creek allotment on the Bridger-Teton Netion<~l 

Forest from 1959 through 1984. Of the remaining 36 calves, 11 were confirmed as 

killed by griZ?Iy bears by the Wyoming Game & Fish Department. Another 11 

probably grizzly bear kills were not confirmed by the Wyoming Game & Fish 

Department, but their carcasses or remains were located and the circumstances 

surrounding their loss make tho cause of their deaths from grizzly bear depredation 

highly probable. Fourteen calves were unaccounted for when the cattle were removed 

from the range in October ol 1g94, During the 1994 grazing season one cow wa1s 

killed by grizzly bears and this death was confirmed by Wyoming Game & Fish 

Department personnel. Wyoming Game & Fish Department personnel approve·d 

payrnent for medical expenses to treat injuries caused by grizzly bears to two animals 

totaling $97 .00 And copies of statements from the Teton Velerinary Clinic regarding 

tho medication for these injured animals are included with the Walton Ranch Company 

claim. 

The Walton Ranch Company claim has included with its claim a total list tJf 

calves lost on the Alack Rock spread Creak allotment during the 1994 grazing seascon 

and has identified the cause of death for all those animals whose carcasses or remains 

ware recovered. 

Four different categories of livestock losses were suffered by the Walton Ranc;h 

Company on the Black Rock - Spread Creak allotment during the 1994 grazing season. 

roge 2 
91 

Natural losses were t •• ..~se caused by infection, polson p ts or highway accidents 

and none of these are included in this claim. Confirmed · kills are those which 

personnel of the Wyoming Game & Fish Department have already confirmed as baing 

caused by griZ7.Iy bears. Unaccounted for animals are those animals which did not 

return from the grazing allotment at the end of the grazing season whose remains 

wore never diecovered. Probable grizzly bear losses are those animals whose remains 

were discovered, which were not confirmed as positive grizzly bear kills by the 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department. 

The probable category was ostablishod because during the 1994 grazing saason 

the animals listed as probable grizzly bear kills Included animals which were seen alive 

and healthy one day, and whoso carcasses were discovered mostly devoured the 

following day. In many of these situations, !here were not bite marks on the head or 

tho spine of the calf which could be positively confirmed as grizzly bear bite marks. 

In some Instances there were not sufficient remains left to locate these marks. 

Consultation by ranch employees with Dr. Stove French, noted grizzly bear researcher, 

confirmed that it is s common practice of grizzly bears to begin consuming young 

animals without crushing the skull or the spine, by simply ripping open the stomach 

cavity. The massive Injuries to the young animals put the animals Into shock very 

quickly and death ensues from the other injuries rather than from neck or skull bites. 

Dr. French noted that he observed !his behavior by grizzly bears with young elk calves 

on numerous occasions and ranch employees believe that the same behavior was 

involved in lhe death of thoso animals listed as probable grizzly bear kills. 

The amount of this damage claim Is ba1ad upon the payment received from the 

Page 3 
92 

Saunders Ranch Company lor the purchase of the 1994 .f crop and a copy of the 

sale receipt is included with this claim. A total of 285 calves were sold for $110,200, 

producing a per calf price of $386.67. This claim is made for 26 calves and one cow 

as follows: 

A. Eleven calves confirmed as grizzly IJear kills by the Wyoming Game & Fish 

Oopartrnent; 

B. Eight of the 10 calves whose remains were found, but whose deaths were 

not confirmed as caused by griz zly bears (probable!; 

C. Seven of the 1!; calves which were unaccounted for when the animals were 

counted alter they were removed from the allotment; 

D. One cow whose death was confirmed by the Wyoming Game & Fish 

Department as caused by a grizzly bear. 

The amount of this claim is $10,550.42. It is comprised of $10,053.42 for 26 

calvoa, $400.00 for ona cow and $97.00 lor veterinary bills. 

Page 4 
24-721 96-4 

93 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

OF 

ROBERT WENANDE 

RANCHER, CROOK COUNTY, WY 

MEMBER OF THE 

BEAR LODGE MULTIPLE USE ASSOCIATION/ 

BLACK HILLS REGIONAL MULTIPLE USE COALITION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE & OCEANS 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 1996 
94 

Testimony Prepared for 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

April 10, 1996 

Gillette, Wyoming 

by 

Mr. Robert Wenande 

3606 D Road 

Osboto, WY 

President - Wenande Land and Livestock Inc. 

Director - Trail Creek Grazing Assn. 

Director - Spring Creek Grazing Assn. 

Director - Tri-County Electric Assn. 

Member - Crook County Predator Board 

Member- Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition 

I have been in the ranching business for over fifty years. During that time I have 

witnessed many declines in wildlife populations due to predators. I have also seen many 

unfavorable changes in the livestock industry due to the increase in predator populations 

as a result of the decrease in predator control measures. 

During the 1930's and early 1940's there were very few deer and antelope in 

Crook County basically due to the fact that the coyote population was very high. 

As a result of this imbalance, govermnent trappers started using a compound called 

I 080, a very selective poison to control predator populations. In a matter of a few years 

the deer and antelope populations flourished, in fact, the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission started issuing multiple licenses to control wildlife numbers. 

In the 1950's, 1080 was banned and the coyote population again exploded. As a 

result of this population explosion the game numbers began to decline. Trappers, aerial 

hunting and spring denning were used to control predators. These methods were not as 

efficient as the use of 1080 and game numbers continued to decline. 

On our ranch, we allow deer and antelope hunting. We limit the numbers of 

hunters and the number of animals taken in order to maintain a sustainable population of 

game animals on the ranch. Despite our efforts, predator numbers continue to increase 

which then in tum pressure wildlife, causing our deer and antelope numbers on the ranch 
95 

to decrease. Each year there are few fawns that make it through the winter from 

predators. 

Predators not only affect deer and antelope, but also bird populations. When I was 

growing up, there were prairie chickens and sage grouse in unlimited numbers. During 

the late 1950's, the red fox moved into our country. Red fox are extremely efficient 

hunters. Prairie chickens and grouse nest on the ground making them very easy prey for 

predators. Today you hardly ever see a prairie chicken and we have very few grouse. 

It is not ·only the wildlife populations that suffer from coyotes and fox, domestic 

livestock losses are very significant, especially for the sheep rancher. 

On January I, 1996, there were 790,000 head of sheep in Wyoming totaling a 

value of$60,040,000. Each year predators continue to erode the value of the sheep 

industry through substantial lamb and sheep losses. In 1994 and 1995 there was a 15% 

loss of total sheep due to predators alone. In those same years, approximately 41% of the 

time a sheep was lost, it was due to a predator and 65% of the time a Iamb was lost it was 

due to predator. The loss in dollars to ranchers and Wyoming's economy due to predators 

in 1994 was $4;267,500 and $3,500,000 in 1995. Over 32% of all predator losses were 

caused by coyotes. (Statistics taken from the USDNNASS Wyoming Agricultural 

Statistics Service) 

We run sheep as well as cattle on our ranch. In a typical year we can expect to 

lose from 125 to 200 lambs to the predation of coyotes and fox. 

The ranching industry has been experiencing a depression over the past several 

years for many reasons, predators however, are one of the more significant reasons for 

loss or gain in the sheep ranching business. 

Unfortunately, many people have the impression that livestock ranchers want to 

completely exterminate coyotes and fox. That is far from the truth. Ranchers are probably 

one of the strongest advocates for all wildlife species. Our main desire however, is to 

keep wildlife populations in balance. 

There is also the fallacy that ranchers do not do anything to protect themselves 

from predators. The Predator Control Board in Crook County assesses the statutory 

monetary limit on livestock to control predators in our county. 
96 

In addition, on our ranch, we independently hire a professional trapper every fall 

for six weeks. In the fall of 1995, the trapper took 153 fox and 47 coyotes from our ranch 

alone. Guard dogs are also used to protect livestock. 

In closing I hope this hearing will shed some light on the impact predators have 

wild game losses and the ranching industry. I hope this will help to solve the problem with 

too many predators. 
97 

All Sheep & Lambs in Wyoming 

January 1 Historical Series 

lhou..,..,Nod 

year 

SHEEP AND LAMBS: NUMBER OFF ARMS WITH SHEEY 1986-94, AND NUMBER AND 

VALUE OF SHEEP ON FARMS AND RANCHES, WYOMING, JANUARY 1, 1986-95, 

U.S., JANUARY 1,1994-95 

Sheep on fiiTil$1anuary l 

Forms All Shcop Year """' Slwoop l If Vol .. B!Ud;na Sheep MatketSI=p 

Number I PerHcod I To&al 

- I,OO:Ukall c.u- 1.00Dl.lo11• l.OOOI!ad 

1986 1.400 119 63.00 ll,S97 120 99 

!917 l.SOO 715 8S.OO 6S.S7S 690 85 

!918 1.SOO 115 100.00 87.500 760 ll:S 

1989 I.SOO 837 87.00 7Z.SI9 no 117 

1990 1.500 80S 86.00 69.230 705 100 

1991 1.500 no 64.00 53.120 120 110 

1992 1.500 870 58.00 50,460 no l."iO 

1993 1.500 180 68.00 S9.S40 690 1~0 

1994 1.300 an• 68.00 SS.l84 . 620 190 

1995 21 790' 76.00 60,040 53'1 252 

lll. 

1994 87.350 9.742.28 69.90 681.384 i,.:!33.1 1.839 0 

1995 ]J 5.195.0• 74.70 664.065 6.A40.0 2.455.0 

liM)' opc:tation ha .. ·c one or more head on hand at 1nytim~ duting the :-ocar . 

.2J'Dat& nor available at lirM of publicstion. 

•trlCiudcs ncw crop lombs beainning in 1994. New c:rop lamb$ nu( 3llocacc4 rD bc'"in& ~d m.lft.ct in 1994. 
98 

v.s.. ot t...s MS.._, ...tl.aabt: wr-u-c. 1994 ... 1m 1111 

s .... lambs Sh<q>~t..mbs 

~"ausco ~ 

199< 1995 1\194 1995 199< 1995 

"""" Coyoleli 7&7,100 6)2.000 1.100,000 1,936,000 J.Oa7,SOO l.SGI.OOO 

Bo""" 13,700 1,900 16.000 9,700 29.700 17.600 

o.., 27.400 >9.$00 16,000 29,000 41,400 61,>00 

Bem 61_!00 47.400 64.000 4).600 ll2.SOO 91 ,000 

...... 61,>00 31""" <04.000 JSS..200 472,>00 319,100 

fox 6.SOO 7,900 JS6,000 266,200 )62,100 274,100 Mout1Clin Lions 34.200 21,100 60.000 31.700 94.200 62.400 

Otba Prcdtior1 20,600 2-<,000 29,000 41.,600 29,000 

!alf'~ors 1,027.~ 1'90.000 ),240,000 2,710,400 4.l67,l00 3.>00,<00 

w"""' 2.26,100 141) 00 344,000 1,060,000 $10.100 1,.202.200 o;..,.. 212.<00 110.600 S20,000 )29,100 7ll.400 439,700 

Lamb ina: 1)0,700 '"·* 111,000 2l2,300 4)1,.700 lft,lOO 

t'oiton 16-t,«<I 197,500 112.000 41,400 n6.4oo 24S,900 

Old.Ap 101,700 m.JOO 217,700 292,300 

On Bod< 61)00 16,900 a.ooo 4,000 76,SOO 91.100 

Thd 171.)00 7t ,OOO 10.000 19,400 191,.)00 01,400 

AJIOlhcrCMlSC:S 19,100 110,600 61,000 14'.200 U 7,100 255.100 

Total~All 2,397.>00 1,975,000 4,600.000 4,549.600 6,997,$)0 6,!24,600 

lllncludes all lamb tosscs both bctorc IDd after docld:ns, 

~~~eo~th~:=;a~;Y~eer;:_;J:~~=~60~~~~v!!f~':c;~ ~~~r .. ~v•o. 

LAII8 LOSSES BEFORE DOCKING 

Predator, Non-Prei:lator, aftCI All C•u.M 

.. 

1117111t-tOt112t.JMN 

~J~~~~ 

--;~ ~~1 '---·- - - ·-- . ,_,_) 

LAMB LOSSES AFTI!R DOCKING 

Pr.d.tor, Naa.PNUtar. and All cau ... 

--
99 

r.-e~~~ryCa-= w,....-,.,,.,.dltH 

c .. orl..fm 1 ... "'' - "ofTOlll """ "-ofTUMI 

c.,.... II,.SOO JU 1.000 . 12.0 

...... 200 . 100 .. 'Jop ..,. 1.1 "" 2.0 

B<n 1,000 ,, 600 2.• ...... 1.000 2.9 ... '•• 100 .J 100 " . ~lirxH: ,.. 1.4 JOO 1.2 

"""'"""- JOO . Toul- 15,000 ., 10,000 40.0 

w.- J.JOO •. 1,100 7.2 

'"""" 1.100 .. 1.400 ,. l.m> ... 2.200 u >100 . . roiSGD ~ ... .. '-"" 10.0 "" ... '·""' , .. '·"" ,.., 

"""""' 1,000 2.9 1,100 ..• ., .. l.JOO 7.1 1.000 . . .. .,. .... .. . , u u .. " 

Od>ttc..- 1,>00 ),7 '·"" H 

ToaiNoo.-c- lO,OOO ~7 1 15,000 ... TotaiLcuAllC..S JSOOO 100.0 2>.000 100.0 

t-elL.. .. ..,. c..w. w,...,_ I"' a.t lfK 

, ... 1,, 

C-*ofLoss Before. """ Toal "'' a.r~ """ y..., %of 

Dodciao "'""" - T"" """"" """"" lbl TOQJ 

c.,- 20,000 )7,500 37.!00 ¥'·0 ll.OOO 17,000 40.650 42.6 

-· 200 200 ... .) 100 100 200 .2 Oop lOO 200 ... .] lOO 400 ... . ··- ""' 1,400 1,600 ... 100 100 900 1.0 

E>cJ<s 7.200 2.900 10,100 1.1 ..... ) ,000 '·"" '·' ·~ 6,>00 ..... 1.900 7.7 ) ,600 1.900 S,.SOO l .9 !-founM\1 ~ "'' 1,100 uoo l.l 100 100 100 .9 

"""''""""' JOO )00 ... .. soo tOO ... .6 

foWPtto-n 35,000 ...... 11.000 10.• 22.000 ) 4,000 !6,000 S9.fi 

w .... , 7,100 

'·""' 1,600 7.l 21.000 900 21,900 lll 0'- l ,OOO 1,000 13,000 II.) 1,100 J,OOO G.IOO 7.2 

"""'"' 1.2<10 7,200 u ..... ..... S. l PoCton. 200 2.600 <!00 " ... 600 1.000 J.l 

""""" 200 200 .2 "" 100 .1 .,.. 500 500 . ... ... . Olha'CCI.atts "" 1,200 1.700 l.l 1,000 ~000 ),000 3.2 

ToUitJo, .. lO.OOC'J 14,(100 34.000 29.6 29,000 9.000 li,OOO 40.4 

ToWI..os:s .ss.ooo 60.000 IISOOO 1000 '1.000 4;000 ..... 100.0 

t-.ts•.., •• I.A• t. ..,. C.IIM: W,.oUa. lt91·199S 11 

1991 '"' 1993 ,,. , .. , C-.c:oft- Tool 

~~J : T_, ~.r l T_, Y.o( l T""" "'' ToW •-'of 

HW 

- f(lbl : Ileal ro;:,: ""' T""' ,... Tout c.._ 31,3IJO 67.loo d .li n.ooo 69.ral 46.0 <~&,000 .a0.3 

Oobaa 200 .2 ~ ""' .z; 700 ! ... .• )00 ) 

0.., 1,600 l.l l 1,000 .7; 900 .6 l 100 .s 1.100 . B<= 1,100 .s! 100 .6j 1,100 ,7; 2.600 1.7 I,SOO 1.) 

. ..," 4,300 3.l l ..... ).& j '·""' 6.2l 11,100 '·' 7,100 •.. l'o• 

'·"" H j 9)00 t.4 ~ u.•oo "' ~ '·""" 6.0 5.600 4.7 

Moutll:ainLions ~200 P j 2,000 1.• : 1,800 l .l l 2,000 I.J 1.100 ·' """'- 200 .2\ ""' .2 ~ 1110 . I ~ "" . 600 .l 

Tobl Predaron 67.900 "-~ i 16,)00 60.)i 91.500 6:Ul 96.000 ... o 66.1100 ,S., w-., 17,200 ll.2 ; 11,&00 &.li 11,#:00 lU i 11.900 , 21,700 19.9 

obo:- 10,6()') U i ·~ ... U i uoo 6 ... i 16.100 10.1 !,200 6.9 

L_,b'"' '""' 9.$ j 13.200 9.1 ' ..... 6.• i ..... ~· ··- .. '"""' '·""' M ! ..... H j 7.SOO •. 9i S,lOO " ) ,500 2.9 

Old "'-;;t '·"" • l ! '·"" ll i 1.100 H i '·""' 2.1 ].700 2.1 

"""""' 2.000 ·!. 1,100 1-Z l 1.900 l.li 1.100 I l.lOO 1.0 .,.. <,700 ~600 u o ""' l.7j ).000 2.0 1. 00 1.2 

O<ho'C..... '·"" B i ~.100 u ; l .lOO 2.1 l ,OOO 2.0 4,400 l.l 

To<>lP"rab:.otC~ 62.100 "'·' i ;6,700 39.7 j£,, 00 )6,7 H ,OOO l6.0 ,,000 ... ,Tot~ Loss i All C...... 130.000 100.0 ! 1·43 000 100.0 l IS•.ooo 100.0 i 150.000 100.0 119.000 100 0 

lrod~ alllant. low.n boch bffen: atwt afte-r 6oclul'>t 
100 

TESTIMONY 

Presented to U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

By 

Steven W. Hom, Dean 

College of Agriculture 

University of Wyoming 

P.O. Box 3354 

Laramie, WY 82071 

April 10, 1996 

Gillette, WY 

Coyote predation on domestic livestock, especially sheep, remains a controversial social, 

political and economic issue. Numerous studies have shown that coyotes are major predators of 

domestic sheep and lambs throughout the western United States. It is generally assumed that 

2.5% of adult sheep and 9.0% of lambs are lost annually to predators, with coyotes as the primary 

predator accounting for approximately 76% of all losses. USDA reports that in 1994, predators 

killed 520,600 sheep and lambs with coyotes responsible for 62% of those losses with a value of 

$17 million. In that same year, Wyoming alone lost 96,000 sheep and lambs to predators (72% 

to coyotes), valued at $4.27 million. Predation combined with market issues threatens to 

seriously undermine a major agricultural industry of Wyoming and the west. 

Management of predators has been oriented toward the removal of individual animals or 

of entire populations utilizing a variety of methods. Societal views regarding predator control 

have changed substantially in recent years. The public has asked for effective, environmentally 

safe and humane methods to regulate predators and other wildlife populations. Research dealing 

with the manipulation of reproductive rates in wildlife has progressed greatly in recent years. 

While there are ethical, economical, social and biological questions surrounding the use of broadscale reproductive controls of wildlife, it remains a viable alternative to lethal methods. 

Research has demonstrated that sheep losses declined by 92% when coyote pups were 

removed from the adults. It has been theorized that sterilizing or aborting territorial coyotes can 

be more effective in reducing predation than removing pups or adults from the population, in that 

non-reproductive coyotes will defend their territory against reproducing coyotes and will not 

have to provide food for a hungry litter. 
101 

Most compounds tested in experiments to control fertility in coyotes have been rejected 

due to the difficulty of finding an appropriate delivery mechanism or the necessity for multiple 

treatments. Antiprogestogens, however, are stable compounds that can be administered orally, an 

important consideration for a field delivery system. One of the earliest antiprogestins, 

mifepristone, was synthesized by French researchers in 1987. This compound has opened areas 

of interest and expanded the possibilities for its use in reproductive control. Used as an 

abortifacient, mifepristone has high levels of success, 80% in some studies, with a single oral 

dose. When used in conjunction with other compounds, such as prostaglandins, the success rate 

for complete expulsion of the conceptus approaches 100%. When used in the domestic dog, the 

results.were significant for effective termination of pregnancy without negative side effects. 

Some antiprogestagens, developed more recently, appear to have an even greater ability to block 

the effects of progesterone. These compounds appear to be more selective than mifepristone and 

are effective at lower dosages, possibly acting to block ovulation thereby preventing conception. 

The study of the effects of antiprogestagens on preventing and/or terminating pregnancy in 

coyotes has been proposed by researchers at the University of Wyoming. This research will also 

include an analysis to determine if such compounds can be traced into the environment, 

development of a field delivery system, and the artificial induction of a fertile state in the coyote. 

Many questions remain unanswered regarding the utility, practicality, efficacy and 

potential consequences of using reproductive controls to mitigate predation. Of greatest concern, 

at this time, from a research perspective is the availability of antiprogestagens and the high cost 

of synthesizing the compounds. Societal views regarding abortifacients and lack of federal 

research support threaten to impede the development of this potentially effective wildlife 

management technique. 
AprillO, 1996 

Leila Stanfield 

Biodiversity Associates 

P.O. Box 6032 Laramie, WY 82070 

tel: (307) 742-7978 fax: (307) 742-7989 

102 

U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

Testimony on the "need" for and approaches to implementing predator control: 

1. Need for predator control 

Methods exist for substantially reducing livestock losses without killing predatory wildlife. 

Studies in Wyoming show causes other than depredation kill 4 to 5 times more sheep than 

predators. 

The need for predator control has not been verified; reported livestock losses are exaggerated and 

unreliable. 

Conclusion: Congress should rely on statistically valid scientific research which 

demonstrates that predatory wildlife is only a small part of the problem of livestq.:k 

losses. There is a lack of justification for continuing the massive federal predator 

control program at taxpayer expense. 

2. Implementation of predator control. 

Extensive lethal predator control has not provided a long-term solution to livestock depredation 

Compensatory reproduction follows when coyote populations are subjected to lethal predator control 

methOds resulting in an increase, not a decrease, in depredation. 

Experimental drugs such as the "coyote abortion pill" should not be used until we understand more 

clearly the impacts of these kinds of chemical technologies on native biological diversity artd 

ecosystem functioning. 

Conclusion: Lethal predator control is not an effective means of reducing livestock 

depredation. It would be better to stop killing predators. 

3. Acceptable effectjye methods of controlling depredation. 

An effective program is based on guard animals, shed lambing, improving herd stewardship, and 

removing/reducing livestock in areas of historically high levels of predation. 

Conclusjon: Congress should put an end to government subsidies for killing 

predator wildlife. Emphasis should be on technical support to livestock operators to 

help them reduce depredation using good husbandry practices. 
103 

Written Testimony of 

Biodiversity Associates/Friends of the Bow 

P.O. Box 6032 Loramie, WY 82070 (307)742·7978 

prepared by Donald J. Duerr, Leila Stanfield, and Jeff Kessler 

Submitted for consideration by the 

United States House SubcommiHee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

during deliberations on 

The Need For and Approach To Predator Control 

Gillette, Wyoming 

April 10, 1996 

At the outset, we wish to thank the members of the Subcommittee for their interest in this 

controversial issue and for convening this hearing to examine the need for predator control and 

to look for socially acceptable methods of reducing livestock depredation. 

My name is Leila Stanfield and I will be presenting the testimony for our group, Biodiversity 

Associates, based in Laramie, Wyoming. We have been working since 1988 to protect and 

restore native species, primarily on public lands in the Rocky Mountain region. 

The staff in our office have all lived and worked in Wyoming for many years. I personally have 

lived in Laramie for 27 years. For the past 5 years, we have been researching predator control 

activities in western states, with a focus on Wyoming and Montana. We have met with federal, 

state, and county officials who administer predator control. And we have submitted extensive 

technical comments to these officials on the role of predatory animals in ecosystem functioning, 

the extent of depredation on livestock, the ineffectiveness of lethal control methods, and the 

effectiveness of non-lethal methods. We have also monitored "recreational" predator control 

activities, such as varmint derbies and "bounty" hunts. It is from these experiences that we base 

the following comments which we submit for the Subcommittee's consideration. 

L The "Need" for Predator Control 

It is true that wild predatory animals sometimes eat domesticated livestock roaming on western 

rangelands. And depredation can at times have an economic impact on livestock operators, 

though as discussed below, the significance of these economic losses is often grossly exaggerated 

by some in the livestock industry. 

In those limited cases where livestock losses to predators are truly significant- in comparison 

to other sources of loss and to overall herd size - some method of reducing depredation may be 

appropriate. It must be understood, however, that reducing livestock losses to predatory 

animals does not necessarily require killing predators or reducing predator populations.! That 

is, "predator control" and "depredation control" are not the same things. There are ways to 

1 In the remainder of our testimony we will refer to "predator control" as those activities 

which involve the kiJiiml of predatory animals or limiting the populations of predatory animals. This 

usage of the phrase "predator control" is consistent with the historic practice of predator control in 

the west and focuses on the activities which are the most controversial. Other activities such as nonlethal control methods and sound livestock stewardship will be referred to as "depredation control" 

since these methods reduce depredation without killing predators. 
104 

substantially reduce livestock losses without killing predators. For instance, lambing in sheds or 

pens rather than on the open range has been shown to significantly reduce lamb losses to 

predators, as well as lamb losses to weather and other factors.z In fact, as discussed below in 

section (B), there is evidence that killing predators actually increases depredation, which means 

lethal control is not an effective means of reducing livestock losses. 

Thus, it is depredation control, not predator control, that must be the focus of any agricultural 

support program, assuming, of course, that Congress still believes providing subsidies to private 

corporations is an appropriate role of the federal government in these times of necessary fiscal 

restraint.l 

However, this hearing was convened to address the issue of "predator control." To determin•~ 

whether there is a justifiable "need" for predator control, it is necessary to determine 

(A) whether depredatiort is actually a significant problem when viewed in the context of total 

expected livestock losses and (B) whether "predator control" has been an effective way of 

reducing livestock depredation. 

(A) Depredation is not a significant source of livestock loss. There is considerable 

evidence to show that depredation of livestock is not as significant a problem as is reported by 

livestock operators and state agricultural departments. 

First and foremost, where noticeable depredation occurs - and these areas are limitedt --

studies have shown that predators kill only a small fraction of all livestock put on the range. 

For instance, a study entitled "Sheep Losses on Selected Ranches in Southern Wyoming"s fow\d 

that predatory animals killed, on average, only 0.2% of ewes and only about 1.5-3.2% of lambs 

on five ranches. For cattle, which are better able to defend themselves from attack, losses to 

predators are typically less than 1 percent, including calves. These levels of loss cannot be 

considered significant enough to warrant federal intervention and a multi-million dollar 

"predator control" program. 

2 See, for example, the Tigner and Larson study cited below at page 252. Of all types of 

livestock, lambs are the most susceptible to depredation. Ibid. 

3 We also point out that Congress has, of late, been interested in reducing federal government 

activities that result in a "taking" or reduction of private property values. By providing low-cost 

grazing permits on federal lands to a small group (i.e., about 20,000) of livestock operators in the 

west and by providing extensive subsidized predator control support to these same livestock 

producers, the federal government is effectively keeping the price of livestock products lower than 

would otherwise occur in a free market. This has the effect of reducing the value of the livestock 

owned by other livestock producers, thereby causing a "take" of their private property values. If 

Congress is truly concerned about "takings" issues, it should stop funding programs that reduce 

private property values. 

4 See, for example, the map provided with the 1994 Statewide Environmental Assessment tor 

Predator Management in Montana which shows widely-scattered and isolated areas of historical 

depredation loss. 

5 James R. Tigner and Gary E. Larson. 1977. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 30, No. 4. 

pp. 244-252. 

2 
105 

While some people believe eliminating federal predator control activities in the west would 

cause depredation losses to rise dramatically, there is no evidence to support this belief. In 

fact, there is evidence to the contrary. For instance, when the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

temporarily halted "preventative" lethal predator control activities in 1993, reported livestock 

losses did not increase, but actually decreased substantially over previous year levels.' In 

section (B) below we present evidence that lethal predator control actually increases livestock 

depredation. 

Second, numerous studies have shown that predatory animals are not the most significant 

source of livestock mortality. Notably, the Southern Wyoming study cited previously found 

~ 

that sheep died as a result of many different problems, not just predation. In fact, of all deaths 

only 18% of ewe deaths and 24% of lamb deaths were attributable to predatory 

animals. 

This means other causes killed 4-5 times more sheep than predators. The other causes of sheep 

mortality observed were: disease (up to 31% of ewe deaths), exposure (up to 32% of lamb 

deaths), starvation (up to 18% of lamb deaths), accidents and non-predatory injuries (up to 

10% of ewe deaths), ingestion of poisonous plants (up to 5% of ewe deaths), still-birth (up to 

11% of lamb deaths), physical abnormality (roughly 1% of spring lamb deaths), and other non· 

predatory causes (up to 16% of ewe deaths). Tigner and Larson at 247. Together, these losses 

far exceed depredation losses. 

The Tigner and Larson study also found that the cause of some sheep deaths could not be 

determined, primarily because the sheep could not be located. The study found, however, that 

while these losses are "often blamed on predators" they were "mainly.due to miscounting and 

loose management." For instance, on one ranch, the researchers did an aerial survey for missing 

sheep at the end of the summer grazing season and found 100 live sheep that would have died 

(e.g., from exposure or starvation) had the researchers not been there. Tigner and Larson, p.250. 

Unfortunately, since predators will feed on the carcasses of already dead sheep, and thereby 

leave signs of depredation, livestock operators often wrongly blame predators for many of these 

non-predation losses. "Reported" losses circulated by livestock operators and agricultural 

departments are subjective, are not based on scientifically defensible assessments, are not 

verified, and are therefore not reliable. Furthermore, there is an incentive for operators to 

exaggerate losses since wit)lout reports of significant loss, there would be no support for 

predator control programs funded by the federal government. Accordingly, Congress should 

not rely upon unreliable "reported" losses in determining whether or not there is a justifiable 

"need" for predator control. 

6 In 1993. the BLM Worland District conducted only "emergency'" control aclivilias. meaning 

predator control was only authorized In limited circumstances within a 3-mile radius of verified 

livestock loss and for no more than 5 consecutive days. Livestock losses in the District In 1993 were 

278 sheep and 5 cattle. In 1992, however, a full range of lethal control methods were used on the 

same BLM lands, including "preventative• control whereby predators were killed before livestock 

were put out on rangelands. Livestock losses reported in the District for 1992 were 719 sheep and 16 

cattle. See BLM Environmental Assessment (No. WY-015-EA4-047) for the "Use of Animal Damage 

Control in the BLM Worland District. January 1994, page 5. Thus, Hverely restricting lethal 

predator control activities did not result in any increase in livestock depredation, but actually 

resuhed in a 80·70% decree .. in depredation . Livestock producers reported that predator 

populations were higher in 1993 than in previous years. 

3 
106 

Instead, Congress should rely on scientific research. The Tigner and Larson study of Southern 

Wyoming sheep ranches was a statistically valid sampling of five ranches over all seasons 

during a three-year period. It is a far more reliable indicator of actual causes of livestock losses 

than are livestock operator "reports." Furthermore the Southern Wyoming study results were 

not noticeably different from the findings reported by other researchers in other parts of the 

country over the years. Tigner and Larson at 251. 

When facts are distinguished from unsupported allegations, it becomes apparent that predators 

are IlQ1 a significant cause of livestock mortality by either absolute (i.e., total percent of herd 

lost to predators) or relative (i.e., percent of all livestock mortality attributable to predators) 

measures. Rather predators are only a small part of the problem, even if livestock loss can be 

called a "problem" (rather than merely a cost of doing business on the range). As such, 

Congress might serve the public better by funding programs to deal with the other causes of 

livestock mortality. In any case, there is a lack of economic justification for a massive federal 

predator control program at taxpayer expense. . 

As a final issue regarding purported reasons for predator control, som~ple believe that 

predators should be killed to benefit wildlife. However, this view is naive and fails to recogniz•! 

that predatory animals axe~ and as such they are essential elements of a healthy 

ecosystem. Moreover, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department' has found that "where habitat 

is unlimited and in good condition, predator control is not needed" because big game 

populations stay at optimum levels even with predation. Furthermore, the Department found 

that where high levels of predation are occurring on game populations (including ground nesting 

birds), there is invariably a "habitat problem" (e.g., overgrazing). The report concludes killing 

more coyotes "would not decrease fawn mortality, just change the cause of mortality" to 

accidents, disease, and starvation. Thus, there is no ecological/biological justification for 

conducting lethal predator control for the benefit of other wildlife. 

(B) Lethal predator control is not an effective means of reducing livestock depredation . 

Beyond the fact that there is a lack of motive for a federal predator control program - from 

either an economic or ecologic viewpoint - the predator control program which has been 

conducted over the years has been ineffective at reducing livestock depredation. This seems 

obvious from the fact that lethal predator control has been carried out for over 60 years - with 

ever more federal expenditures- and yet livestock losses have continued. In fact, according to 

livestock producers, livestock depredation has actually increased over the years. 

Some in the livestock business will continue to advocate for even greater kuling of predatory 

animals -- and even greater federal subsidies to pay for the killing - as the solution to 

continuing livestock losses. However, this approach will fail for the same reason the current 

predator control program has failed to reduce livestock depredation. 

Most livestock depredation in western states is done by coyotes. See, e.g, Tigner and Larson at 

251. A number of studies have shown that when the coyote population is subjected to 

increased mortality (i.e., from lethal predator control), the animals respond by increasing their 

rate of reproduction and the sizes of their litters. This effect-- known in scientific circles as 

"compensatory reproduction"- results in more young pups that the adult coyotes must feed," 

younger-age pack (since there are more young coyotes), and more dispersal of aggressive 

juveniles (as the new young search for and establish their own territories). 

7 Thiele, D., Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Division of Biological Services. 1989. "A 

White Paper on Wildlife Related Predator Control." 

4 
107 

Unfortunately, these very same factors cause an increase, not a decrease in depredation. For 

instance, in another study on coyote depredation on sheep in south-central Wyoming,s 

researchers found that when llll adult coyotes and coyote pups were killed in a region,9 

predation on sheep dropped by 98.8%. However, when only the coyote pups were killed, 

depredation still dropped by 91.6% even though adult coyotes were still active in the area. This 

shows that the vast majority of predation on sheep (i.e., 9 out of 10 losses) is traceable to adult 

coyotes trying to feed their young. Thus, since lethal control of coyotes increases coyote litter 

sizes, more sheep depredation will follow. 

A number of researchers have therefore concluded that it would be better to stop killing 

predators and allow the coyote population to mature; older coyotes have fewer pups and are 

less aggressive. In any case, extensive lethal predator control has not provided a long-term 

solution to livestock depredation, and evidence indicates it may actually exacerbate losses. 

£. Acceptable Methods of Controlling Depredation. 

In light of the lack of justification for a lethal predator control program- together with the fact 

that lethal control is proving socially, economically, and biologically unacceptable- Congress 

should either suspend federal support for predator control or redirect federal support towards 

more effective means of controlling depredation that do not involve killing wild animals. 

The current emphasis on drugs-- such as the coyote "abortion pill" now being developed by the 

Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture at the University of Wyoming- are not the answer either. UW 

researchers have acknowledged the biggest problems of using bait laced with drugs is ensuring 

that only the targeted animals feed on the bait. RU-486 is non-specific to coyotes and would 

affect other species such as badger, domesticated dogs and fox, including the swift fox. In July 

1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found substantial information exists to support a 

listing of endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Service attributed declining 

populations to "native prairie destruction, predator and rodent control programs, trapping, 

hunting and capture by dogs." Casper Star Tribune, 7/31/94 (emphasis supplied). It is 

misleading to claim sterilization or abortion drugs such as RU-486 are "non-lethal." The 

impacts of these kinds of chemicals on native biological diversity and ecosystem functioning are 

not known. 

The abortion pill experiment is f>Ointing up again that there are no easy answers to living in 

harmony with those aspects of nature over which we have no control and with which we must 

eventually learn to live in harmony. · 

We believe the federal government can provide invaluable support and technical advice to 

livestock operators to help them reduce depredation. An effective depredation control program 

would offer support for practices such as guard animals, shed lambing, improving herd 

stewardship, reducing livestock in areas of historically high predation or stocking highpredation areas with cattle instead of sheep. 

8 Till J. A. and F.F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of Denning in Alleviating Coyote Depredations 

Upon Domestic Sheep. In: J. Wildl. Manage. 47(4): 1018-1025. 

9 This level of control -- complete coyote eradication -- is economically infeasible on a large 

scale; it is also biologically and socially unacceptable. 

5 
108 

The 1977 Tigner and Larson study reported that lambing sheds would reduce sheep losses from 

predation and bad weather. Their research also reported that ranches with "poor herders" and 

"no herders during lambing, showed excessive predator losses." They also observed that "good 

herders can definitely reduce" predation losses. 

Some Wyoming ranchers have started using guard animals -llamas, donkeys, and dogs- with 

great success. One rancher with a historical depredation problem despite lethal control 

reported having no subsequent depredation losses after putting sheep out with a llama. 

"County's most famous llama still a good guard." Riverton Ranger, 3/4/94. The Wyoming 

Agriculture Week Magazine reported producers using llamas "are experiencing a high level of 

protection from canine predators." 3/19/ 95. Another Wyoming rancher reported comparable 

success using a guard donkey. "Jenna, range warrior." Casper Star Tribune, 3/ 7/94. Ranchers 

with public land allotments on the Bighorn and Wasatch-Cache National Forests reported no 

sheep losses using watch dogs. "How Sy keeps the coyotes away." High Country News, 

1/28/ 91. These non-lethal methods have proven 100"/o effective at controlling depredation 

where lethal control failed. 

In summary, we urge Congress to put an end to government subsidies for killing predator 

wildlife. 

6 
109 

ADDnnONALL~TURE 

Testimony by Biodivenity AHocilltes, Laramie Wyoming 

Bartmann, R.M. and G.C. White. 1992. Compe11.1atory mortality in a Colorado mule deer population. Wildlife 

Monoil'aphs 56(1). · 

Connolly, Guy E. 1978. Predator and predator <ODtrol. IN: John L Schmidt and DoucJas L. Gilbert, eels. Big 

Game of North America: Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisbura, PA. (Predaton eenerally 

target weak and sick animals. Coyote diets rely primarily on rodents and rabbits.) · 

Crabtree, R. 1989. Sociodemography of an unuploited population. PhD DUMrtation. Univenity of Idaho. 

(Coyotes with unexploited populatioD.I produce amalllitten of roughly 3 pupa each compared to 8-10 and begin 

breedin&' at age 2-4 compared to leaa than one year of age. Older coyotes may be ranehen best defence against 

predation, but indiscriminate killing eliminates thoee coyotes apurrin&' an in11UJ: of more, younger animals.) 

Ferrel, C.M., H.R. Leach, and D.F. Tillotaon. 1953. Food habita of the coyote in California. CA Fiah and Game 

Publication 36. (Voles are an important part of coyote diet.) 

Gese, E.M., O.J. Rongatad, and W.R. Mytton. 1989. Population dynamice of coyotes in southeaatem Colorado. 

Journal Wildlife Management 53(1). (Finding younger age structure in coyote populations aubject to lethal 

control: 40%-47%% <1 yr/age in exploited population• compared to 23% in unexploited.) 

Honess, R.F. and N.M. Frost. 1942. A Wyomina' bighorn sheep study. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Bulletin 

No. 1 (Predation caused few lamb losaea, although coyotes ate most of the sheep that died. Coyotes were 

reduced by 75% by trapping but lamb survival did not improve.) 

Lon&'hurst, W.M., A.S. Leopold, and R.F. Dasmann. 1952. A survey of California Deer herds, their ranges and 

management problems. California Dept. Fish and Game, Game Bulletin No. 6. (Mule deer numben declined in 

spite of intensive coyote reduction with compound 1080.) 

Milstein, M. 1991. Coyote slaughter: a federel killing machine rolls on. IN: Higb Countey News 23(1) Jan. 26, 

1991. 

Murie,A. 1940. Ecology of the coyote in the Yellowstone. Fauna National Parb, Bulletin No.4., U.S. Govt. 

Printin&' Office. Washington, D.C. (Selective coyote predation on debilitated white-tailed deer. Voles important 

to coyote diet in Yellowstone N.P.) 

Ozoga, J .J. and E.M. Harper. 1966. Winter actiVities and feeding habits of northern Michigan coyotea. Journal 

Wildlife Management 30(4). (Selective coyote predation on debilitated white-tailed deer.) 

Ogle, T.F. 1971. Predator-prey relationshipa between coyotes and white-tailed deer. Northwest Science 45(4). 

(More deer died from other natural causes than from coyote predation.) 

Robinette, W.L., N.Y. Hancock, and D.A. Jones. 1977. The Oak Creek mula deer herd in Utah. Utah Division 

Wildlife Publication No. 77-15. (Coyote control with 1080 Cailecl to revene poor fawn production due to habitat 

deterioration. Possible effects of predation were masked by the influence of declining range.) 

Smith, R.H. and A. LeCount. 1976. Factors affectin&' survival of mule deer fawns. Final Report, Federal Aid 

Project W-78-R, Work Plan 2, Job 4. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (Despite coyote predation, fawn survival 

correlated with rainfall and winter forh yield.) 

Taber, R.D. and R.F. Dasmann. 1958. The black-tailed deer of the chaparral, its life history and management in 

the North Coast Range of California. CalifOrnia Dept. Fish and Game, Game Bulletin No. 8. (Predators not an 

important deer mortality factor.) 

Wagner. R.H. 1988. Predator Control and the Sheep Industry: The Role of Science in Policy Formation. Regina 

Books. Claremont, California. 
_,.CUlliN _ ... _ RESOURCES -. Va CMAIA 

_,... PARU ~ANJLN."CS 

110 

--- """"'"" 

co-n'lff, 

SCIENCE 

·~ . fHf.ftGY N«J PIMROftMENT 

............. 

OEPIIJV ..... 

~ngrr.ss of thr \\nitro ~mtrs 

!\oust of 'RtprumtlltiDcs 

lllaahingnm. 'f)q: 281tHOOl 

ApriiiO, 1996 

The Hooorable Carol Browner 

AdntU!istrator 

EnvironmentaJ Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washingtoo, D.C. 20460 

Dear Admini.stmtor Browner: 

MCir-TBSn.r 

CAIPM,W't-1 

............ ..... - J.o.~t: III!JI~ 

2111 ~~ .... ~ 

OCW...wti:ID01 ,....,_,_ 

~t- ili!I?!Jn~ 

2S11~~ 

........ lltoc:K........ s-u.

_ 

wYI801 

IJA.C. Cla71 30-oGIJ 

I write to call your attention to a sevm problem in CampbeU County, WyomiD& with rabid 

:sbwb and ask that you take i.nunediate Ktion to alleviate it. 

Several wo.stituenu of IPi.oe have rer.artly infotllled cne of the lar&e IWIIIbets of rabid slalob, 

most specifically in the Gillette, Wyoming, 8lll8 aDd asbd that 1001etbin& be dane to llOIIIlol this 

predator. In 1995 alone, 30 people wbo bad coDI:IIct with either the abmk or other ltllilllab feared 

to be rabid Ulldcrwcotvacilmstion3 ($1,500 per sc:ric:sofsbot3, du: COlt of which is DDt 

reimbursable through bcaJth insunmce ). In that same year, six hones were pal down atlcr beins 

bitten by rabid skunks. This year alroady, lhRc people lulve been bitten by the skUDb aod two 

hones hiM: been lost 

The problem is that these skunks show up during calving season and when Tilllo:bcrs go aut to 

cbcck tbcir onimals (sometimes puttingtbcir hands in the moudi ofdu: IIDimal), they IIIII)' 

oontract rabies bacauac the 8llimal could lulve been bitten by a sk1lllk wilho1l! tbcir knowledge. 

This ycar'1 calvin& season is well underway and I am wid that bccau3c WyO!Jiins experielnld 

such a mild winter tbe rabid skunk population DillY be the highest ever. Yet, acconliDg to the 

Animal DmDage Control officials, t1uwe arc no tools as eftCclive u strydmine to comrol du: rabid 

skuok. As you lmow, however, sttyclmino hu bcen bamll'ld by your agency, notwilhstaDding the 

filet that there 111m: been no incideniallos!ICS of wildlife as a result of its use to eliJnlnate the 

rabid slo.alk. 

My fear is that unless soliiC!bina is done to lift the restrictioDS on strydmine uac, J*1ic:ularly 

during calving season, that further losses of life may occur. C..O a stunk be ao valuable that 

human live!! anllost 10 prot«! il'l I think not. 
The Honorable Clll'OI Browner 

April T0;1996 

Page2 

111 

I urge Y<JU to comider gi"Ving WY<Jming ~ special we permit for .aryclmine during tbe calving 

8CI90II fill' the rauaindcr of lhis year mel next in order to bring the rabid 11klmk popalali<m UDder 

controL Wyoming should not have to bear tbe brunt of furtha: economic and livestock. losses 

due ID this predator when 1bere are effective tools available ID address tbe problem. 

Thank you for your attCD!ioo to this importaDt mBllcr. I look furwud kJ baring from you. 

Sinccn:ly, 

Barbara 

~~ Cubin 

Member of Coogtess 
TO: Jim ·saxton Chairman Subcommittee 

FROM: V.B. Pn~oll Ln. 

112 

on Fisheries, Wi1dlife and Oceana 

Rt. 3, Sheridan WY 82801 307 . 674-4795 

I wl*h to submit the following statement for inclusion in the printed record: 

I am the thtrd generation in a livestock (sheep) family. Coyotes, are the native 

wildlife chosen by the Creator to populate Wyoming along with wolves, antelope, 

buffalo, bears, etc. Cows and sheep are forai&h exotic species ill adapted to 

our natural ecosystem. Total production of meat is "'S'athetic fraction of what 

American prairies produced without the help of man, what with 60 •illion bison and 1 

unnumbered hordes of pronghorn, deer, e!k, etc. 

The ADC exists as a blatant subsidy to the livestock industry. Taxpayers hould not 

be expected to provide a zero-risk business environment for anyone. The ADC pJ'edit.tc'r 

control program is neither cost-effective nor biologically sound. Most of their 

techniques place threatened and endange~ species in jeopardy. Ranchers need to be 

responsible for protecUI!Ig, their own livestock and doing so with NON-LETHAL 

techniqQes. Donkeys, llamas, goats, increasing number of sheep-herders and a few 

of MANY ways to protect 11 vestock that have proven hi&hly successful. Getting another 

government hand-out for a poisoning, trapping, snaring, aerial sunniruz;-is not the 

~· The public is fed up with the ranchers tax-supported war on wildlife. 

This massive welfare system includes over 45 million dollars spent by taxpayers 

in 1992 to slaughter wildlife. The ADC is. a federal aaency that lUlls millions of 

magnificent predators by poison, torchina and eassing babies in dens, neck snares, 

leg tra~aeri.al guiming;---vour-taxes .. p!.y for the ·yearly slaughter-of 11ountain 

lions, foxes, bobcats, bears, badgers, as well as the thousands of "accidental" 

non-target animals. The ADC fiasco is only part of the bill we taxpayers shell 

out to prop up a failing industry that can't make it without highly subsidized 

grazing fees and wool supports. Taxpayers doled out more than 10.8 million dollars 

in subsidies to Wyoming wool producers in 1991. This federal aiveaway benefited 

mostly a small elite &roup. 4% of Wyomin& Woolgrowers received 11\0re than half 

of' the nearly $11 million; o;; Johnson county rancher pocketed $223,376. I have 

a profound respect for the smal1 ranchere out there working day and night to eke 

out a living. Unfortunately it's the bia multi-millionare ranchers in it for the 

tax breaks that are destroying our courltry. We cannot continue this war on. 

wildlife and destruction of native eco-systems that are turning our wildlands into 

livestock ghettos. It is not profitable to the honest hard-working small ranchers 

and it is turning more and more citizens against livestock grazing on public lands. 

We need to return to native species like buffalo, implement sustainable agriculture, 

and create vast NATIVE wildlife sanctuaries in celebration of the rich prairie 

production possible when we-return to a proper balance of predator and prey . 

species as the Creator originally installed here. You cannot improve on the 

Master Plan and" the sooner we get back to a reverence for all life, including 

the foxes, coyotes, badgers, etc. the sooner we will enjoy a prOductive and 

diverse econoeic system. 

Please take those sheep loss figures with a &rain of salt. I know how it works. 

Sheep are not the brightest or hardiest of critters and when they die of disease, 

injury, pervasive di&estive disorders, there is strong financial incentive to call 

it "coyote predation". A U.S. Fish and Wildlife study called Wyomings predator 

losses "grossly overestimated". 

Our family once rai~ed an orphaned fox cub who was a very loving and gentle companion, 

extremely intelleaent and sensitive. I've also been blessed with a life experience 

with wolves and found love and affection are far more intense with wolves than any 

other animal, two-legged or . four. It breaks my heart that their little cousins 

are being indiscriminately shot, poisoned and tortured to death for no other reason 

than living their lives as God intended, beina predators in their native homeland 

and trying to provide food for their children. 
Red-meat producers persuade 

ua that grazing ia "good for the land" juat like the tobacco induatry 

oayo ciaarettea are fine for tbe bodr. I m the 3rd aeneration of a live- otcick family and I'll tell you what 

·I th.ink. Falsified ad ca!"paign• br 

ag anterests are not gomg to cut 1t 

with the public anymore. 

The recent Bureau of Land Management report aptly described the concerted efforts by 

the liveatock ioduatry and wealthy 

western congreumen to deceive 

the public throulh "campaigns of 

mi11nfonnation which concetil 

the fact that rangelands are -almost invariably" . in poor eondi· tion to the great detriment of native wildlife. "Elk and deer dying in winter is 

yet another symplom that can be 

blamed on weather. when in real- ity many die from livestock over- grazing." Eighty-five percent of all U.S. torsoil lofts is associated with live!'tock grazing, and a 1990 

Enviromnental Protection Agency report says riparian areas 

throughOut the West are in "their 

wont condition in history." The cow is an alien, exotic 

species ill-adapted to·arid Western ecosystems. Unlike native buffalo, the cow (which evolvea in humid Europe) tends to congregate and ttay on the moat fragile Areu near· 

ponda and streams. Native birds and plants are 

pushed out when the soil is com· pacted and streams choked. Thou- sands of streams are reduced to a 

mere trickle. Others are too shallow, filled with sediments, devoid 

of riparian cover, and laden with excrement. A report from the United Na~ 

tions ~ays ... Overgrazing is chang~ 

ing 85 percent of the West into a 

desen of scrub and creosote hush,·· 

threatening an cnviroruncnh•l dis~ 

aster that could affect everything from food production to scarce / water and wildlife. The U.N. report ·warns that 

damaae to sem•arid lands, due mostly to overgrazing by cattle, . 

already costs nations around the 

world $42.3 billion per year in lost crops. 

Even if one could deny all the 

documentation from growing num· 

ben of acientists, those who live 

here have undeniable evidence 

from our own eyes and noses. We 

dare not put a· sleeping bag down 

in the dark, our public wildlands 

swarm with flies, riparian areas 

are trashed, and tl1e stench of cows 

i~ overwhelming even in the most 

remote places. 

113 

Even tbouah federal Iowa reqaire that public Ianda ": mo~­ oaod for multiple uae, our ·pubhc 

Ianda" are beiDa-led for the 

benefit of the A& induatry, 7 per- cent of the population. The remaining 93 percent have -tched the land we love tum into a gi· 

a:antic cow ahetto. Cowt, unli~e native buffalo, 

cannot survive a natural ecosystem with predators, so tax~yers ·in 

1992 spent over $45 million to 

olouahter wildlife on public Iondo 

and provide a low-nok buaineaa 

_ environment for Ag interest&-.... 

"The· Animal Damage Control 

(ADC) exterminate• milliooa of 

magnificent predoton every year 

in order to tum our wildlanda into big open-air otockyorda. Our governor P':'tl agribarona on the Game 

and f1sh Commission and shame- lessly begs the fed• for $250,000 

extra to poison native wildlife this 

year. 

Federal at~enls raided 

~[.~~~~~:n~o~~~~j·:~id~.~~:r~f an illegal trade in deadly poisons 

stretchina from Teua to 

~;h'~~:i\v~i1~S.t:':i~!~idut:~ •cents seized enouah poiaons uto 

· probably kill every mao, woman, 

child, aod predatory mammal in the western UQ!ted States;" · 

·This tax-aupported war on 

wildlife muol end. Our millionaire 

politicians must be held accountable to the yublic'o demand for protection o our natural heritage. 

Public Ianda do belon~ to the public and the public won t tolerate the expense and the degradation much longer. We've watched 

the destruction of millions of acres 

of grasslands ~tnd the invasion of 

alien plants such as cheatgrass, which is 500 limes more flanmutblc than native grasses, ns 

well as the seeding to monocul- tures or introduced grasses such as crested wheatgrass, an import 

from Turkestan shunned by ev· 

~~~;::;:=;;i;~ p;:: ·· where they do not belong we!ve 

~~!~{~:ti~et;:~u:~ u::!~:'k people admit a mistake and elitnioate grozing on public lands. On- . 

ly 2 percent of the nation's beefis 

produced on public lands anyway. 

There are plenty of private lands. 

It's time to move meat production to rriore appropriate terrain. 

l ~ Personal experience: 

\ ''PredaS..,r- control.'emersency'' 

\ is a fa!>rication desia:ned '-to 

get m~ederal handouts. 

~ 

,i 
114 

TESTIMONY FOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERiES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PREDATOR CONTROL 

April 15, 1996 

The Honorable Barbara Cubin 

100 East B St., Suite 4003 

Casper, WY 82601 

Ken Harriet 

P.O. Box 435 

Buffalo, WY 82834 

Dear Representative Cubin; 

fC ;:T""''M , ',: "PR 1'1 iql!o '', i, 

'l::~~i;p. 

Having attended the recent F.W.& 0. Subcommittee field 

hearing in Gillette , I would like to thank you for your 

concern over the very r~~l pred a tor problem we face here 

in Wyoming and the rest of the west. I thought it was a 

well prepared and informative discussion and that a lot of 

opinions that needed to be he ard will be t a ken back to 

Washington, D.C. to help educate the people that vote on 

the laws that effect us here in Wyoming. 

Before I go on , I'd like to briefly tell yo u a bout my experience with predators and predator control . I f i rst purcha sed 

sheep in 1971 and shortly thereafter, in 197 2 , the federal 

government banned the use of compound 1080 . It took approximately four years before we saw any significant loss to 

coyotes. In the following three years, our losses increased 

to 20% of our lambs in certain instances. In that time, 

I incurred losses due to predators (eagles, fox, coyotes) 

anywhere from 6% of lambs born to up to 66% of all lambs 

docked (in 1992 when I sold my sheep and r e placed them with 

cows). Having seen many years when predator losses turned 

profits into losses in my s heep operation, I became involved 

by serving on our county and state woolgrowers' predator 

boards. Although I no longer own sheep, I still lose calves 

to coyotes and eagles. If we could get some real means to 

control predators, I would like someday to be able to have 

sheep in my operation again . Since turning to cows my financial losses due to predation has decreased, but I have also 

seen a reduction in my abil i ty to utilize my range as efficiently 

as before and a reduction in my cash flow due to leaving only 

one~rop for me to sell, instead of three as I had with sheep . 

I would now like to go over a fel{ points addressed at the 

Gillette meeting and give more insight into the problems 

we've faced with predators. First of all, the question arose 

as to who should be responsible for the funding of predator 

control and who should carry it out. My opinion is that the 

Federal Government outlawed our most effici ent and cost -

effective means of predator control when they stopped the use of 

toxicants. As was stated at the Oversight Hearing, when 

toxicants were outlawed we were promised a study to find means 

of control that were as effective. Instead, the Federal Government has passed laws to the contrary . 
115 

(2( 

To clarify this, I point to the removal of the ADC from Interior 

to the Department of Agriculture. This shifted funding from 

predator control primarily in the West·,,;to include controlling 

rats in New York City from the same money. The State Of 

Wyoming now received less money and that is not what was 

promised. T~ latest instance was the order to stop the use 

of M-44 guns~":rimit aerial gunning on federal lands in a 

directive sent out by the Department of Interior. This stems 

from threats of litigation by the environmental community, 

for failure to uphold the ESA and NEPA. With half of Wyoming 

owned by the federal government this further ties our hands 

in our fight to combat a very real problem. 

The Woolgrowers Association filed suit to overturn this decision, but the presiding Federal Judge refuses to hear the case 

or make a ruling on it. Not at all the help that was promised. 

If we are to continue to have a viable sheep industry in 

Wyoming we need to be able to use all the means available on 

federal as well as private lands, and that help includes 

M-44's, 1080 collars, and unrestricted aerial hunting. Our 

ranching operation contains a block of BLM land approximately 

five miles wide, surrounded by private land. Legally, we can not aerial -- hunt predators in the middle of our ranch. My opinion 

is that the Federal Government should be responsible for their 

share of funding but I would like to see less stringent means of 

control placed in the hands of the local predator boards. 

The Oversight Hearing generated a lot of discussion on the effectiveness of predator control and the taking of problem coyotes. 

Here in Johnson County, we, the stockgrowers, tax ourselves, hire 

our own two county trappers and are independent of the federal 

ADC. In spite of these measuEes. we're still losing producers. 

The elimination of the wool incentive program was a loss of income for sheep producers, and if you tack on a 20 to 30% loss of 

lambs, a lot of profits turn into losses. When I started in the 

sheep business in 1971, average annual death loss to natural 

causes was from 2 to 5%. These substantial increases in losses 

have lead several ranchers in our county to pool their resources and hire private trappers to help patrol their ranches 

along with the county trappers. Loss of sheep producers in our 

county has greatly reduced the amount of money our local predator 

board has to combat the problems. 

In 1995, between 800 and 900 coyotes were taken in Johnson County. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission hedges on whether predator 

control helps wildlife populations. I have personally watched 

healthy crops of fawn deer and antelope disappear over the winter 

until there are hardly any left by spring. I've also watched · 

coyotes and golden eagles gather on anc antelope herd and spend 

the entire winter living off of them, feeding mostly on the 

fawn population. When the Wyo. Game & Fish states that predators 

don't affect game populations, I find myself aslting how many 

fawns would survive the winter with an additional 800 to 900 

coyotes feeding on them. 
116 

( 3) 

Sixty to eighty thousand golden eagles are now estimated in the 

lower 48 states. These birds are still on the protected species 

list. I have personally watched these birds kill full-grown 

antelope and carry newborn lambs back to their nezts. Our ranch 

used to have hundreds of sage grouse and over a hundred wild 

turkeys. I've seen only two turkeys in the last three years, and 

no sage grouse in the last two years. All these numbers corre- late with our selling of our sheep. Without the sheep to feed 

on, game animals and birds become the coyote's number one food 

source. 

Coyotes will also move in great numbers to where the sheep are. 

I point to several neighboring ranches who pooled resources and 

hired their own trapper. This man killed 136 coyotes and numerous foxes in 1995 on these four ranches. This does nut count 

what the county trappers killed on them. These four ranches run 

about 11,000 sheep between them, and when it is said that predator control is not an effective means of reducing livestock 

depredation, I must ask why so many coyotes live in the middle 

of the sheep. It has also been said that when you kill coyotes 

in an area, more coyotes move in and produce larger litters due 

to larger populations of prey. I ask, how many coyotes will 

11,000 sheep support, and isn't 11,000 sheep a large enough 

prey base to generate large litters each and every year? 

The Wyo. Game & Fish Dept. always hedges on this train of 

thoughtand proclaims how they give money for predator control. 

The fact is, that for a period of three years, due to public 

outcry against predator control, the Wyo. Game & Fish withheld 

all $100,000 of their predator funds and used this money to study 

ways of counting coyotes. Two years ago, due to pressure from 

their local Game Wardens, the Wyo. Game & Fish reinstated their 

fight against predators. Now, they again give $50,000 to local 

predator boards to be used in areas where local Game Wardens 

feel coyotes are hurting game populations. The other $50,000 is 

still being used to find ways of counting coyotes and new ways of 

controlling coyote populations, i.e.birth control. Only $50,000 is 

spent on actual control. Wyoming is big and $50,000 doesn't go 

very far when divided between 23 counties. 

Wyoming livestock producers are trying to get state legislation 

passed that would allow individual ranchers to donate revenue 

from land owner coupo~s toward predator control. Lacking federal 

funding, they are taking it upon themselves to find other ways 

of financing predator control out of their own pockets. 

Dan Chu of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation states in his testimony before the Oversight Hearing that "Predation is essential 

to the natural balance healthy ecosystems need to sustain viable 

wildlife populations." This is a fallacy- disease and weather 

control both predator and prey populations. Blue tongue at times 

wipes out large numbers of deer and antelope, just as bubonic 

plague wipes out large towns of prairie dogs, rabies kills off lots 

of skunks, and cold, harsh winters will often get rid of large 

populations of rabbits. Never are predator/prey numbers perfectly 

balanced, one is always ahead of or behind the other. 
117 

(4) 

In Summary, I believe we have a very real predator problem, 

not only to livestock but also to game animals. Each party 

should be responsible for their fair share of the funding 

required to fight the problem. I very much agreed with the 

testimony of Ron Micheli, Director, Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture, that the State of Wyoming would be a more efficient 

administrator of the control program. Of the $900,000 a year 

the federal government spends on predator control, roughly one 

half is spent on administration. I firmly support a block 

grant to the State, with local predator boards allowed to 

determine how best to use this funding. 

Thank you for your consern. The Subcommittee Oversight Hearing 

was very informative and very well run. 

Ken Harriet 
118 

ATTN : Carrie Moore 

RE : Public Comment on Predator Control, Congressional Hearing 4/10/96 in 

Gillette, Wyoming. 

Honorable Subcommittee : 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer public comment on ·the subject of 

predator control. I have been a student of the economics and effectiveness c•f 

predator control in the west since the early 70's and I have reached the 

conclusion that the way it is conducted currently is neither economic or effective. Please allow me to he more specific. · 

First of all, the goal of predator control shoul d be correctly stated as ~ 

program to help agriculture continue as a viable industry not "to control 

predators or losses•. The latter is probably impossible, largely immeasurable 

and will be ineffective regardless of our efforts. Predator control could 

possibly be an objective is specific sites, but it shouldn't be the goal. 

Given that keeping the livestock industry healthy is the goal it 

is evident that predator control has failed over say the last 20 years . ThE• factual evidence for this conclusion can be found in the Wyoming Crop and 

Livestock Reports from 1968 to 1991 , and fiscal information from ADC , the 

Wyoming Agricultural Department and Wyoming county Predator Control Boards. 

Information from scientific literature on the dynamics of predator 

populations and predation may give us some of the reasons why our .actions have 

been ineffective but that is another subject. 

The facts show that millions of dollars have been spent in Wyoming alone 

(Figure 1) and the figures may approach the total value of the sheep lost 

in a given year to coyotes. In spite of this money spent, the number of sh!!ep on the range continually has declined and sheep ranchers have stopped 

producing sheep (Figure 2) . In spite of the removal of thousands of coyoteB under every conceivable regime sheep losses have remain relatively constant 

for twenty years (Figure 2). Lethal control methods changed dramatically (: .. e in 1972 1080 was banned) but coyote losses have not changed significantly 

although they have decreased somewhat (Figure 3) . All of this money and effort 

that hae been put out in the past has not kept sheep ranchers in business . It is interesting to note that if we put 1000 sheep on the range the coytoen 

will eat thirty and if we put 100 sheep out they still appear to eat thirty. but that is the other subject mentioned above . 

In fact , the only measurable results of predator control in wyoming are that we have created jobs for administrators, pilots, biologists, hunters and 

secretaries. Count them . Check out the pay scales and benefits compared t<> ranchers and professional herdsmen. In short, we created an ineffective 

bureaucracy that employs everyone except ranch families . If you ask a rancher 

if he wants to be taxed so that biologists can write EIS's, meet with other 

bureaucrats, write more reports and provide lucrative contracts to small 

aviation firms and hunters, they would say absolutely not and so do I . 

It is evident that wyoming state and county programs have not kept rancheYs in business either. The rancher's tax dollars have not even been well 

accounted for . I challenge you to audit the Wyoming county predator control 

boards and you'll see what I mean. Ranchers often operate on a very low 

profit margin . It is foolish to tax the sale of their stock and only to have 

the majority of them never receive a single benefit and go out of business. 

The fact that even those that do get some predator control effort, have 

continued to go out of the sheep business is more evidence of the folly . I~ 

Teton County close to $50,000 of the rancher's money amassed in a predator 

control account that no one could access for years because there was no predator control board. In other words, their was no demand for organized 
119 

Page 2 

So, what should we do? On the federal level the actions of ADC ehould 

simply provide the money to ranchers that want to hire ranch hands and herders 

or pioneer better predation "prevention" methods . This should probably be 

directed to the ranchers with the heaviest predation losses . No biologists, 

pilots, secretaries or gunners . Just more stockmen who are better prepared, staffed and economically v i able . There isn't a ranch hand in Wyoming that 

wouldn't work hard for the salary and benefit packages of one ADC 

bureaucrat. And while these ranch employees worked , they would probably 

shoot, trap and poison every coyote they could with the same results ADC achieves now . 

On the State level , let the rancher keep his tax dollars. It's popularity is exacerbated by the attempt to get matching ADC funds in the first place! 

Don't force the creation of ineffective bureaucracies that don't produce the 

desired results. Match the ADC funds to programs that help ranchers hire good 

help, employ their families, build better lambing sheds, what ever ~ can think of to help their ranch and their communities be self sustaining . 

Please keep agriculture viable and do not waste any more of our taxes on these •predator control• efforts that have failed so misserably for the last 

thirty years. 

Respectfully Yours, 

~~~~ Tom Seg;;-~~. -- --,. ~ 

Jackson, wyoming 
FIGURE: 1 

MONEY SPENI ON PREDRIOR 

CONTROL STATE WIDE 

2fl60. 00-, EXPE

..---.. This 

the abso

U1 15H~.00 spent be

County P

UlO Boards h

or audit 

a::z some hav

erating 

0 CCC[ l~~l60 not acco

..... 

e-1 

_j:J 

_jUJ 

5~~.60 

DI 

DO 

f-

~~~~ '-J 

55 57 59 7173 75 77 79 a 1 BJ as 87 ~9 s 1 

56 68 70 72 7~ 75 78 88 82 8~ 86 88 90 92 

YEARS 
FIGURE 2. 

COYOTE LOSSES x SHEEP U 

(L 

STATE WIOEP 1958 - 1991 w --

w 25~~.0B COY

Ul 

I 

203~.60 SHE

Sheep n

LL 150~.60 range d

coyote 

CJ constan

- of con

-

c-:1 

aanpo"We

c..n 1000.66 / · Wyoming 

A. stock r

z 

D 

53B.~H 

Ul 

c::c 

~.60 

=:J 55 57 59 71 73 75 77 79 8183 85 87 89 91 

CJ 56 58 7~ 72 7q 76 78 s~ 82 aq 86 ss 98 I 

YEARS 1--
...... 

C\1 

C\1 

FIGUR& J. 

1--

I 

0 

=:J 

Ul 

a= 

z 

0 

Ul 

D 

LL 

Ul 

:::r:: 

w 

w 

CL 

RV ~ SHEEP KILLED BEFORE 

AND AFTER 1080 BRNP 1972 

15~ l I CO

108 

5~ 

~ 

PRE co- S yrs> <6-lO,rs) cn45 yrs)(l6-l9,rs) 

(5 yrs prior 

w/larger budget 

and more personnel) 

FIVE YEAR PERIODS 

IALL 

Not as 

the num

on the 

the ave

sheep k

five ye
123 -

April 23, 1996 

This is to be submitted as testimony for the Predatory Board Control 

Meeting in Gillette, WY, on April 10, 1996. 

I am Robert F. Christensen, age 42, lifelong rancher. I live forty miles 

south-southwest of Gillette, WY, off the north end of th.: Pumpkin Buttes and 

on the east edge of the Powder River Breaks (both prime coyote refuge areas). 

We reside and are trying to ranch in the middle of the Powder Riv.:r 

Basin. This is a large ·area, which at one time--20 years ago, had a large 

number of sheep in it. In the last years, the sheep numbers have b~en 

declining at an alarming rate all over America, but espe.cially in the areas 

where there are larger herds and larger ranches. Farm flocks can still be 

somewhat protected from the murderous criminals that roam freely, and are 

now even somewhat protected, amongst us. Anyone who lives in a r~ral area 

and has livestock knows that I am talking about predator problems. For me, 

my wife, and family of five children, which we are trying to raise and give 

morals and ethics to, the primary murderous criminals are coyotes and 

secondary is the revered "Golden Eagle" . However, there are people in 

Wyoming in other areas that have a great deal of trouble with mountain lion, 

grizzly bears, and some day coming again in the future, will be the wolf. I fail 

to see what is so neat, appealing, alluring, or whatever it is that people see in 

the wolf. All he is is a 1.lll..A..I.l. calculating, flesh-eating, hungry animal that will 

do anything he has to to eat and survive. The coyote is just a little smaller 

version of the same murderous thief. Animal behavior is and always has 

been, the same through time. Don't forget humans are also animal species 

and when hungry, have demonstrated pretty drastic measures too. Our 

forefathers weren't as stupid as we now try to make them out to have been. 

It's always said that the wolf was and is misunderstood. Thats B.S., if I can be 

so blunt! The people who settled this country soon realized what they were 

up against with an adversary like the wolf. That's why there were so many 

programs such as the county and state bounties set up and values placed on 

the wolf so they could rid this some time to be "great country" of such a virus 

for the benefit of prosperity, safe living, and a more relaxed way of lif~ for 

our kids and grandkids and all future generations. 

The people today that have been so easily swayed into believing the 

wolf and coyote are good animals and necessary for the balance of nature, are 

not stupid people. I would never try to say that they are. They have been 

fed all this propaganda and made to believe you can have harmony in the 
124 

wild--a utopia . However, any high school kid learning basic ideas knows that 

such a harmony is not possible in the real world. These people are 

speculating and forming opinions without the "hands-on" knowledge and 

experience to make such accusations. Therefore, I would say they are 

"ignorant" to the fa.J:.ll. not stupid. They are too many generations removed 

from the actual events and life of the time. All you have to do is talk to some 

of the "old timers" , and they will give you an earful real quick about 

predators. 

With our forefathers' astute observations and intelligence, and a good 

work ethic directed toward personal rewards, instead of a bureaucracy of 

laws and policies that strangle and form stumbling blocks and a large taxation 

base to try to feed also, they built the best republic in the history of the 

world which · is looked up to by almost every person in the rest of the world 

today. After they pretty much took core of the wolf, they then went on to the 

coyote and other predators that caused numerous pains and losses to 

everyone in this country . Not only do the predators hurt the ranchers, but 

the losses trickle all the way through the economy and society. If there were 

more lambs and calve5 produced each year, there would be more work for 

feeders, livestock meat processing plants, wholesale meat suppliers, 

distribution centers (grocery stores, restaurants, etc.), the trucking and 

transportation industries between each and every level. Of course, another 

benefit to the consumer--the old law of supply and demand. For the higher 

the supply , the lower the price will be. 

The agriculture community . has notoriously always been · a reasonably 

strong and silent type of people taught to be self-sufficient and to figure out 

and take care of their own problems. They don't try to tell everyone else how 

to live their lives, and please everyone else, don't try to tell us how to live 

ours either. 

The American agricultural community feeds a lot of the l!LO.L.l..d. It has 

been the only thing in our GNP forever, that has compensated for our 

imbalance of trade defi~its. Then you treat us this way be strangling the 

abilities to continue doing un efficient and good job. Through today's big 

government and government's meddling and strangling the abilities of its 

people to operate efficiently and effectively through lots of policies and laws 

that have been enacted, agriculture and its profits have dwindled steadily . 

Anyone who doesn't believe this and thinks ranchers and farmers are still so 

filthy rich, can ask any accountant or banker in these communities, and they 
125 

can tell them really fast how agriculture compares today to other businesses. 

The only reason some agriculture makes a little money is because of size and 

volume, it isn't because of margin. A few years ago, the average age of people 

in agriculture was almost sixty . That's pretty alarming!! If it is so good, how 

come very few young people ar~ getting into agriculture. Go emm~nt had 

better wake up and see real quick what is happening to ag and the potential 

disaster on the horizon for the vehicle that has been feeding a lot of th.o 

world. If you don't believe how fragile the ag ecosystem is, just look at what 

the poor com crc•p for just one year has done to the system and prices on 

both sides of the aisles--the ag people and the consumers. 

It's not only agriculture but the G.P.I. of all the USA people that has 

been on an almost simultaneous decline as the size of government has 

increased. 1· guess this could be another issue all to itself, though. Let us not 

forget, and for anyone who has, just go back and study your fifth grade 

history of why and how this Great Country came to be. It was through a 

revolutionary war to claim independence from a government that oppressed 

the people with all its bogus laws and the outlandish taxation imposed on the 

productive side of th~ society. Does this sound just a little too familiar? Our 

forefathers debated and discussed for years to develop a system of 

government where this could not happen again to their future generations. 

They dewloped a Constitution and such things as "Bill of Rights", to give "the 

people" freedom and choice and the chance to ~ and ~ anything that 

they could work hard for and a~hieve. It was a good incentiv-= plan which 

hurled the nation into a massive giant in no time. Today, it's getting pretty 

ha rd to se.! what incentive there is. With all the la ws, policies, and taxation 

on anyone in society who is trying to be productive and on the other side of 

the pr,,gram we essentialy reward non-production with our welfare system 

and no limitations on how many kids they have or with how many deadbeat 

men that never look back or anything. Don't forget "pnvate enterprise" and 

the working individual are the steady horses pulling the wagon. Also, 

throJJgh programs such as the "Wetland Issues", we have taken away private 

ownership and the ability to own and protect things we have worked hard 

for, and paid taxes on and helped this nation become what it is. In order for 

us to do what was supposed to be guaranteed "the people's rights" in our 

original charters, it has made us choose between rolling over and giving up 

and taking the losses which no one can absorb very long, or becoming 

criminals in some way to protect what is ours, or whatever else we can do, 

and going against the very core and fiber of what our nation and society was 

set up to achieve which the rest of the whole world look up to. 

24-721 ee- e 
126 

Every since this nation supposedly became "civilized", and the lawyers 

and psychiatrists tried to defend and save everyone, the quality of life and 

safety of our families has steadily eroded to an alarming rate now. Every 

animal species on the face of the earth, has and always will have, a few bad 

seeds which in cases of dogs, cattle, lions, bears, and every other species that 

exist, we try to eliminate the problem ones from society. Predators are the 

same kind of murderous thief in the rancher's society of the domestic 

animals, which feed this nation and some of the world. Domestic animals are 

reasonably gentle and are almost like pets, "part of the family". It is awfully 

disheartening to go out and see them every day with their throats ripped out 

and pie.:es and parts of them eaten away, and some times when they were or 

are still alive. What an awful way to go or thing to endure! It's almost like 

they look at us and say, "What are you doing to us?" And, no one in 

agriculture can give them a good answer. We used to have a good control on 

predators until government stepped in. Until all of the misinformed 

environmentalists stepped in to save the world and create this nice utopia 

which can only exist as an idea on paper or in theory, the people and even 

government realized the severe problem that predators were. That's why the 

research center in Denver was created and funded. Over the years, they were 

asked to develop new and effective ways to hand the problems. The most 

effective and efficient way ever developed was the substance "1080". It was 

very selective to the stomachs of canines and other single-stomach animals. 

It also, if used correctly, d.id..___rull affect any fowl such as eagles, hawks, etc. 

After listening to the speakers on the boards that day of the hearing, 

even more than before realized the mistake and subsequent atrocities that 

have risen from the misinformation and undue hastiness of the Nixon 

administration in the executive order signed banning the use of 1080. The 

EPA made it "official" to not use the 1080 substance a month later, also in a 

hasty, fact-unfounded move. After they had time to study it and get away 

from the emotional "Bulldozer Effect" a few months later, the EPA came back 

and said: "I think we made a mistake; we need to reinstate the use of 1080." 

However, as has always been and llill. remains to be evident in human nature 

and especially Congress and administrations, no one likes to step up and say, 

"I'm sorry, it looks like I made a mistake and made a hasty unfounded 

decision that in time is going to cost .w..a..y_ more bad problems than it is going 

to save good things. We have an ego to uphold and too many people are 

watching. I can't loose credability in the position I am in1" You know, I was 

taught it was divine to admit a mistake, and that two wrongs don't make a 

right. 
127 

I don't think anyone in the world, even we nasty, unfc:eling ranchers, 

want to see any species eradicated from the face of the earth. Not even the 

predators like the coyote, but especially not the species like sheep, either. 

The sheep with its ability to provide wool for warm clothing and meat for 

food, played a major role in the settling of this great frontier we now call the 

United States of America. I would like to see this continue in the future, if 

possibk At the rate of predator problems I personally have now, the sheep 

and even somewhat the cattle, will become a thing of the past. I have records 

for 30-40· years and can show anyone what the normal years (and there were 

many) were like before the coyote came back so big again now after the 1080 

ban . 

1080 was efficient and effective in numerous ways. Not only to the 

rancher. but ·to the government also which, if we don't forget, is "the people"--

eyeryoQe else in this nation. It was the most effective way of controlling (not 

eradicating) predators which also included rabid skunks and things like this 

which are now on the rise again. It was the most efficient in the fact that it 

got most of the coyotes in the areas of sheep production, where it was used 

and control was needed. It was also the most efficient in the fact that the cost 

to government was a small percentage of what is now being spent with ll.J.l.l 

~ as effective a job being done. I don't see why in certain areas that 

1080 can't be used again. I thought that our zoos and especially our parks 

systems were for creating natural ecosystems where all wild animals could 

live and a place where all the animals and their existence could be protected. 

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so. I, nor anyone I know, bas ever been 

called up or visited by any tourists or anyone from the ;:ity that came and 

wanted to see the cute little coyotes which are ripping the flesh out of who~t I 

l.b.iJl.k_ are the cute little lambs and calves. I fail to see why I have to support 

all these animals in my area because of a ban on 1080 (the only effective and 

efficient means to date of l<il.l1l.l:lU to predators) and feed the predators to live 

off of me so the city folk and environmentalists can have them around. 

During the meeting in Gillette on April 10, the speaker from the National 

Cattlemen's Assn. talked about Wyoming and tourism and what a pretty place 

11 IS. I'm partial, too. fve lived here all my life and think it has a certain 

beauty also. Lately though, that beauty has been going away on our ranch. 

We very seldom see the sage chickens like we did in the. late 1960's, through 

the '70's, and some early '80's. (Keep in mind this was ·the time period when 

1080 was used and the effects for years after, until the coyotes and predawn 

have build their numbers up to such high proportions now). I can't 
128 

remember the last time I saw a grouse. Even the rabbits that used to cycle 

with their diseases are now just in a permanent down cycle on numbers. 

Also, the prairie and ranges are becoming cluttered with old carcasses and 

bones creating an eye sore in my own eyes. During this time I don't 

remember the rodents and such that the environmentalists talked about that 

day that we needed the coyotes and other predatory animals around for 

control of, to be a bit bad or even worse than they are now. 

To quote our President Bill Clinton, on his speech given on April 22 in 

the Grand Canyon when he was talking about expanding our parks and 

protecting the environment. He said, 'Let's work together to make sure our 

land is not stripped of its natural beauty ~ enhancing the prosperity of 

our people. AMEN!! I couldn't agree more. Let's see if we can't do that very 

thing! 

All day long at the hearing in Gillette, every panel member was asked 

to show or come up with slats to back up their claims. There are many 

reports out there on the number of kills by pr~dators and the losses over the 

years. I never heard the last two speakers, "the Environmentalists", friends 

of wildlife as they make themselves out to be, give many stats, though. It 

just gripes me to the soul of my constitution when these people call 

themselves "Environmentalists' , They have no more idea of the true 

environment out here than the man on the moon. Take someone who has 

lived and worked their entire life right in and amongst the environment day 

after day, and they can tell you what is actually happening out there. It's no 

different than every arm-chair congressman who picks up a few small bits 

and pieces of certain bills and proposals and instantly knows "everything 

about nothing', but wants to tell you people in and around it every day which 

have studied it thoroughly with staff members, etc., how wrong your 

decisions are. Everything I heard from those t-wo that day was, "I bel ieve .. ", 

except for the 1977 study on the losses of predators from five Wyoming 

ranche s. First, let me say 1977 was 19 years ago compared to the current stats 

that the other panel members gave. Secondly, let me state that 1977 was only 

a few years after the 1080 ban when the predators hadn't had time yet to 

build their numbers back to the enormous proportions that they are today. 

Third, I and every single person I know in the Powdu River Basin area can 

give you stats showing no appreciable losses back in 1977, also. But the last 

five years or so are a totally different story!! 
129 

On our herd of sheep alone, my total herd size has dropped a little over 

10% in the last three years, and it has not been by choice. I have not sold 

more than 3-4% of my ewe lambs which used to be more like 2S-3S%. 

Virtually everything has been kept for replacements. Also, we have kept 

some older ewes longer trying to slow the decline. Still with my atrocious 

losses, the total herd size is shrinking not to mention the big lamb losses and 

revenue there too that no one can ill afford to give up. Witllout some efficient 

and effective means of predator control soon, I will have to sell what sheep I 

have left before they are all gone and I am out of business. All of the other 

control measures talked about at the hearing that day such as guard dogs, M44 collars, llamas, burros, donkeys, sterilization, etc . are both not effective 

enough in control and most definitely not very cost effective or effie ient 

enough to be viable alternatives. 

Without some help in predator control (not eradication), the whole 

livestock agriculture community in America and especially the sheep 

producers, and now as we are even starting to see in lots of other areas of the 

U.S. , our own lives, especially smaller children, dogs, cats, and household pets 

(almost members of the family) are at risk of big losses and maybe even 

being gone. And for what?? The sake of vicious meat-eating, unfeeling and 

uncaring, murderous thieves that are allowed in our society. Please let's get 

our priorities straight and have some effective predator control!! 

Thank you. 

Bob Christensen 
130 

NO-WOLF OPTION 

COMMITTEE 

PO BOX 104, WAPITI, WY. 82450 

TEL. 587·5796 

April 22' 1996 

To: Governor Jim Geringer 

The Honorable Alan Simpson 

The Honorable Craig Thanas 

t.-'l'lle Honorable Don Young, Chm., Resources Ccmnittee 

The Honorable Richard Panbo, Resources Ccmnittee 

The Honoxable Helen Chenoweth, Resources Ccmnittee 

Please find enclosed a 23 minute video and 19 pages of copies of color photographs· 

taken of grizzly bear depredation to livestock owned by the Walton Ranch, Jackson, 

Wyoming. Their cattle allotment is on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

The video and photos were reproduced fran originals taken by Terry Schra!tm, a foreman on the Walton Ranch. His testimony, along with that of Paul Walton's, the 

ranch proprietor, is also enclosed. This testimony was recently sul:mitted by 

Mr. Schramn at the Predator COntrol Hearing held by Representative Barbara CUbin 

in Gillette, Wyoming on April 5, 1996. 

The shocking video and ghastly pictures reveal the true nature of grizzly bear 

damage to livestock here in Wyaning. Though the Walton Ranch has suffered the 

rost substantial damage and stress to their animals, other ranchers, elsewhere in 

the state, have suffered grizzly depredations as well. 

It is our fervent plea that the enclosed video, photos and testiJrony be entered into 

the Official Record to help reconstruct the Endangered Species Act into a law which 

will benefit and reward the private property owner and lessees of public lands, 

who must deal with unfunded federal mandates in the name of endangered and threatened species. 

Flexibility in the law to protect one's property and full and swift canpensation 

for livestock lost to predators is vital if we are to sustain custan and culture 

and the economic viability of carmunities in the west. 

We thank each of you·. for your courtesy in reviewing the enclosed material and trust 

it will be given your highest consideration. 

S//ly, ~ 

~ 

ex:: The Honorable Barbara CUbin, Terry Schramn 

Enclosures: One (1) 23 Minute Video of Grizzly Damage to Livestock (included in Com19 COlor Photos of Grizzly Damage to Livestock mitt.ee Files) 

Written Testimony Presented at the April 5, 1996 Predator Control Hearing in Gillette, Wy. by Terry Schramn 
131 

. PreCiatol" control laws rapped-at hearing . .... .-: .,_Mll/fllllll-,.,m Ill~ Nomdf tabs 11110 --t die en! daauclloll of~ but Olk 

' · "' ··' '' :· · · · · ·· · wellblloallld areu. • · '"-llid~....,. .. ,eDOt 

GILLI!TI'E - A Teton County ., Tbc bearing walpOIISOftd by Reps. effective encup. lllllc:ller's complaillts obout the way the Barbara CubiD. R-W)'o., IDd Jim SIXIOI, s~e.en Hom, daD or the Uni-.ity , 

federal aovcmment handles predator .. R-NJ IIICIIIbcn or the House Subcom- otWycmiD& Olllep or Ap;tullllle, Slid I 

COIIliOI drew II!'Piuc 1bunday <biD& a mialle-;., FISheries, Wildlife and OceaDs. mean:hen arc ltUdyllls substances 10 1 

coa(lleSSionalllcld besrins. Sc:brainm pleaded wilh the repmcn· · sleriliu coyores or c:ausc them 10 abort 

Many ill lhe audience appeared to lllivca aot 10 pass "laws we Clll't live lhcir pups. .. _. 

chuckle wllen panelists oppos~ to .. willa• by lightcnina preclator..:onuol · · BUl some pecple lllbe besrin& said 

tilliDa predalan spo& · .. • . '·' resaicliaas. wileD part or the C0J01C populllioa is 

· Raacher'lbly Sdlnmm said because ·· ·. 1n rece~~~ years. lbe BUlelD or Land deslmyed, odler coyo1a RpOdul:c aue 

lie mus1 clocumalt tilliDp ot livcmct Msnaacment has banned tile usc or to replace the loot IIUlllbcn. .·: " · ' 

by p:edaiOII to recei've compcusatita, be · C7lllide suns IDd poisca bait on ill laDdl. ; . :_·. Conpa is DOt considering predalDrspcnds IIIOil orbis limo looting for dead .. ·. Holmu, pedators like coyolel ClD be CODirollegilllliOD, but Cubill said sbe 

IDimlll ralber lhlD leDdiDJ bis bcn1. '~!: lbciiDd lllpped.IDd pup1 c:aD be tilled would libl to see hderal predator-<DDc. ~twDc:alculalalntheman- •.'1Dibeirdcusonpubliclandl. · , . • · trol regalatloas reined. Cubia 

llllln I pulia 1oo1dD& for these guys,• be .c.' Representali ves or conservation c:rilicillld the Wyoming Game md F'tsll 

aaid. "NobndJ'stala:D IDro~lba& Po.-albebearin&quedapillstp • . ·;·; S.OPIIEDATOIISPopll 

~r_:-;:~~cc"'~"*'~·· .~' ·' f:!'~ !frtt~ - ----

Piiidator. trom page 1 :--

~Corwllarlleallal 

a JXllillc:all1lllllli...s 1ll:t ot lldiD&IftdarkillsmdiXII-

. 1rOillD& predllcn. 

OlbiD said predaliiJI w... a C1D1D011 ecauDic ltlll ill 

'\lt'yaDiD& IDdebewbae in tbe 

Wal. Now widt the '""""""7 

... ..,.;aod-tbe grizlllya, bsldfal!le,IDddlei/CY 

wc1C, U.COIII will~ 

edly COIIIiDue 10 rise. c 

OllillsaidrlleisiXlllllCiiD8 

CllolollloMia;lbelor rltbe EPA,., pit a special 

.. pllllli b Sll)'dmiDe <bing 

cslviDa_., b die ranoillllr 

<IIIIis,... md.-. lbo pllllli 

will bolp briD& lbe rabid sbllk • 

populalial UDder ccotrol and 

pcWiCl tbe 1i'ves otlaJmlmmd • 

1i-.ck. 0 .. ..; -'~ 
132 

PALM UUESTOCK CO. 

107£VMSAVL 

P.O. lOX IJ 

Ul MOUNTAIII. WY 12124 

Pllone rJorJ J41-n 1s 

fu/ UOCce rJ07J 141-UJ I 

April 10, 1996 

RE: Testimony on the cost of predators to Palm Livestock Co. 

My name is Brad Palm, I am a third generation rancher 

from Elk Mountain, Wy where my family and I currently 

run a 4,000 to 5,000 head range sheep operation. We 

have both Bureau of Land Management Section 3 lands in 

the checkerboard along the Union Pacific railroad as 

well as United States Forest Service permits on the 

Snowy Range of the Medicine Bow National Forest in 

Southern Wyoming. 

Ironically, I started helping manage the sheep on our 

ranch in 1972, just about the same time as former 

President Nixon signed an executive order banning the 

use of compound 1080. With the loss of this and most 

other predacides I have seen the number of lambs lost 

on our ranch to predators rise from about 5% in the 

early seventies to over 21% last year. When I talk 

about predator losses I'm talking about eagles as well 

as coyotes and other four legged predators. At least 

with coyotes we still have some control methods 

available to try and reduce our losses. With eagles 

there is no recourse and we are forced to suffer those 

losses. 

We run a range sheep operation. By this I mean we have 

herders with our sheep and run on open range with very 

few fences. We time our lambing season to coincide 

with green grass and warm weather. Because our ranch 

is in a natural wintering area for eagles we suffer 

tremendous losses to them during lambing in the early 

spring. Because a ewe only breeds for six months of 
133 

the year and we already breed at the very end of her 

cycle it is either economically unfeasible or naturally 

impossible to change when we lamb to avoid eagle 

depredation. In the mid-seventies the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service did some depredation studies 

on our ranch to study coyotes. They had a graduate 

student there for three lambing seasons doing nothing 

but counting dead lambs and determining what was the 

cause of death. Although it was never published, in 

conversations with him he said that eagles were killing 

as many lambs as coyotes at that time. Since then the 

situation has only worsened. It has gotten to the 

point that last winter I lost several full grown ewes 

to eagles and two years ago even a two month old great 

pyrenees guard dog pup. 

We have our own airplane and my son and I do much of 

our own predator control with it. In the fifteen years 

that we have been using the plane for predator control 

I have logged 688 hours and taken 1449 coyotes. This 

doesn't include the coyotes the federal trapper has 

taken off the ranch as well. As you can see from the 

enclosed, table one, even removing that many coyotes I 

still lose from 11% to 26% of my lamb crop annually. 

This gives you some idea of the predator population 

densities we have in Wyoming and why they are such an 

economic burden. 

Most of the discussion so far has centered around our 

base property since this is where the sheep spend most 

of the year. I have included two pages, table two, 

showing actual counts and losses on our forest 

allotments since 1986. I would call your attention to 

the last four columns of this table. These are the ewe 

and lamb losses and the percent that they represent of 

the total number. The percentage of ewes lost has 

remained fairly constant, between one and two percent. 

One percent is a normal loss to natural causes for both 

ewes and lambs. Those years where we have lost more 

than one percent of the ewes are when we have had bear 

problems. The percent of lamb losses on the other hand 

2 
134 

have shown a steady increase since 1986 with the 

exceptions of 1990 and 1991. These are the first two 

years we had guard dogs with our bands. We are still 

using guard dogs but, as you can see from the loss 

figures, the coyotes have learned how to outsmart the 

dogs and have continued to kill. This illustrates the 

problem with non-lethal control methods. Unless there 

is some viable form of population control to reduce 

predator populations to a manageable level, non-lethal 

methods will not work. 

Our forest allotments range in elevation from 9,500 

feet to above 11,000 feet. The terrain is rugged and 

in many places heavily forested. Added to that is a 

"Scenic Byway" running through the middle of them. 

Because of the ruggedness of terrain and the high 

recreation use, most available predator control methods 

are either impractical or are not allowed by the Forest 

Service. Because of the high predator losses suffered 

on the forest over the last three years I, for the 

first time in my life, chose not to go to the forest 

last summer. Thanks to good spring moisture on the 

ranch I had enough forage to remain there all summer. 

By remaining on the ranch I was able to reduce the 

overall predator loss 4% and the after docking loss was 

cut from 18.5% to 9.5%. 

Over the years I have tried almost every type of nonlethal predator control method that has been developed. 

I have tried taste and smell aversion methods, as well 

as scare devices and guard animals. Most methods have 

proven unsuccessful. Guard dogs are relatively 

successful but only when predator populations are at 

manageable levels. However, none of the non-lethal 

method has had any effect on eagle predation. 

In 1988 Palm Livestock Co., in cooperation with the 

University of Wyoming and Colorado State University, 

did a pregnancy study on sheep using an ultrasound. 

This machine is much the same as doctors use to 

determine pregnancies and sex of infants in women. The 

3 
135 

purpose of the study was to determine the actual number 

of lambs my ewes were carrying prior to birth. Using 

the ultrasound we were able to count the actual number 

of fetuses the ewes were carrying . What we determined 

was that of the 6,849 ewes tested they were carrying 

8,164 lambs. This equates to a 125% lamb crop to be 

born. The results of this test confirmed what my 

father had determined years prior by shed lambing some 

of our ewes. 

The enclosed table one is a summary of the past 11 

years. It makes the assumption that each year we had a 

125% lamb crop carried in the ewes. For ease of 

illustration I have averaged the death loss and lamb 

values over the entire period. Column #2 is the ewe 

count prior to lambing. Column #3 is the potential 

number of lambs that would be born. Column #4 is the 

number of lambs that I expected to lose to natural 

causes; weather, birthing problems, etc. I have used 

an average of 25% over the entire period. Some years 

this would be high, other years it would be low. 

However, I believe it is a very conservative figure. 

Column #5 is the number of lambs docked. This is the 

first actual count we have on the number of live lambs. 

Docking normally occurs about one month after lambing 

begins. This first month of birth is the most critical 

and dangerous for lambs. A severe storm during lambing 

can cause tremendous l osses to new born lambs. It is 

also the period when we suffer the highest losses to 

eagles. The lambs are small and extremely vulnerable. 

Because we are forced to lamb in early spring, we still 

have a number of transient eagles in the area that 

migrate later. As I stated earlier in my testimony, 

because of natural and economic factors we are unable 

to avoid lambing during this time of year. 

Column #6 is the actual number of lambs weaned in the 

fall during shipping. Most years we keep around 20% of 

the ewe lambs to replenish our herd and the rest are 

either sold directly or are sent to a feedlot where 

4 
136 

they are fattened and sold later. 

Column #7 is the number of lambs that I believe 

predators have killed. I arrived at this figure by 

subtracting columns #4 and #6 from column #3. Column 

#8 is the amount of loss to predators expressed as a 

percentage. I arrived at th.is number by dividing 

column #8 by column #3. 

Column #9 is the dollar va l ue of lambs lost to 

predators. I have used $60.00 per head as an average 

gross value of those lambs over the 11 years. This is 

just an average but the t otal do llar loss over the 11 

years would be approxima t ely the same if I used the 

actual dollar amount received each year. 

When I start adding up what predators have cost my 

ranch the sum is staggering, not only with the value of 

sheep and lambs lost, but also the cost of the various 

control methods. This includes the cost of guard dogs 

and the dogfood to feed them, the hourl y cost of the 

airplane, and the cost of suppo rting a count y predator 

control program. By its act i ons the Federal Government 

has cost my ranch well over a mi llion dollars since 

1985. By its actions I mean the ban on compound 1080 

and most other predacides, protect ion of the golden 

eagle under the Bald Eagle Protection Ac t, and the 

governments failure to carry out the ma ndates of the 

Animal Damage Control Act . Over the past twenty years 

I have seen these actions force most of my neighbors 

out of the sheep business. Unless the Federal 

Government is willing to either compensate me for 

losses or actually follow its own mandates, I may soon 

be forced out of business as well. 

Respectfully Submitted 

l 

,tL-JiCzBrad Palm, President 

Paqlm Livestock Co. 

5 
137 

!STtiiiATm PREDATOR LOSSES BASm ON ltu ULTRASOUND TESTS OF PAUII UV!SToc:K CO. !W!S 

11 112 i03 14 to5 1111 17 118 19 

YEAR ~WOCOU l 1125~~~8 "~;~>~ ~~'::"~r~R ~~~g~o I~:~EO jPR~g~~OR ~~~~~~~o: -LOSS 1985 9817 12.021 3,005 7>4215 ! 2.058 ,~ 1123,478.25 

1988 8,878 10,845 5.- 2.847 ~ 170.805.00 

1987 8,2811 r,858 1,984 4,941 ' j41 1.252 ~ $75,127.50 

1988 ,1«1 ,725 884 1101,038.25 

$98,148.25 

1,153 1118,142.50 

1991 ,818 2.454 '.m 1,050 ,~ 18301125 

1992 4.813 ,018 1,504 ,079 ,928 1,584 2R 195,051 .25 

1993 2,310 ,888 722 ,802 ,803 583 ;.757.50 

1994 4,274 ,343 1,336 ,975 ,828 1,381 • 1995 3,843 4,804 1,201 2,814 2,534 1,0119 ~ 

1.535.00 

TAIL! NUMI!Il I 
138 

SIIEI!P 6 Lflllll UIIIB 011 PM.M LlU!ITOCil C:O. fOIII!IT IIILOIIEin'S 

1986 

MOUNTAIN BANDS-ON MOUNTAIN BANDS-OFF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

---------------- ------------------- 977 915 0.9-4 Neloon Park 1,030 890 53 -25 5% -3% 

1,149 1,051 0.91 Ubby Flat 933 851 -216 -200 -19% -19% 

1,062 1,053 0.99 Libby Flat 1,126 981 64 -72 6% -7% 

913 858 0.9-4 Sheep Lake 1,110 1,074 197 216 22%. 25% 

926 916 0.99 Headquarters Park 911 874 -15 -42 -2% -5% 

9-43 913 0.97 Reservoir Lake 808 751 -135 -162 -14% -18% 

---------------- ------ ------ ------- 5970 5 706 0.96 5918 5421 -52 -285 -1% -5% 

1987 

MOUNTAIN BANDS-ON MOUNTAIN BANDS-OFF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

------ ------ ---- ------ ------ ------- 725 765 1.06 Headquarters Park 711 709 -14 -56 -2% -7% 

839 863 1.03 Libby Flat 824 817 -15 -46 -2% -5% 

856 963 1.13 Nelson Park 820 902 -36 .01 -4% .0% 

907 1,025 1.13 UbbyFiat 89-4 990 -13 -35 -1% -3% 

868 883 · 1.02 Sheep Lake 862 831 .0 -52 -1% .0% 

452 447 0.99 Reeervoir Lake 435 422 -17 -25 -4% .0% 

------ ------ ---- ------------------- 4647 4 946 1.06 4 546 4 671 -101 -275 -2% .0% 

1988 

MOUNTAIN BANDS-ON MOUNTAIN BANDS-OFF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

----------------------- ------ ------ ------- 931 969 1.04 Libby Flat 895 910 -36 -59 -4% .0% 

9-47 910 0.96 Libby Flat 888 852 -59 -58 .0% .0% 

865 1,126 1.30 Sheep Lake 800 907 .05 -219 ~% -19% 

796 867 1.09 Nelson Park 818 843 22 -24 3% -3% 

1,157 1,138 0.98 Headquarters Park 1,307 1,234 150 96 13% 8% 

1,456 Dry/Yrlg Trail Creek 1,181 -275 0 -19% ERR 

1,243 DrylY rig Reservoir Lake 1,183 .00 0 -5% ERR 

1,230 Dry/Yrlg Coppe< King 1,382 152 0 12% ERR 

------ ------ ---- ------------------- 8625 5010 1.07 8454 4746 -171 -264 -2% -5% 

1989 

MOUNTAIN BANDS-ON ALLOTMENT MOUNTAIN BANDS-OFF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

---------------- ------------------- 926 967 1.04 Libby Flat 955 974 29 7 3% 1% 

1,014 980 0.97 Headquaters Park 1,068 954 54 -26 5% -3% 

846 919 1.09 Reservoir Lake 691 700 -155 -219 -18% -24% 

1,022 1,046 1.02 Nelson Park 1,020 936 -2 -110 -0% -11% 

1,113 1,141 1.03 Libby Flat 1,073 1,105 -40 -36 -4% -3% 

1,058 1,076 1.02 Sheep Lake 1,024 1,020 -34 -56 -3% -5% 

1,152 Copper King 1,140 -12 0 -1% ERR 

1,656 Trail Creek 1,652 -4 0 -0% ERR 

------ ------ ---- ------ ------ ------- 8787 6129 1.03 8623 5689 -164 -440 -2% -7% 

TRilL£ IUIIER 2 
139 

1990 

MOUNTAIN BAND5-0N MOUNTAIN BAND5-0FF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS ewes· LAMBS 

-------- ---------- 9137 1,068 1.10 Nelson Park 892 979 -75 -89 -8% -8% 

886 928 1.05 Sheep Lake 704 762 -182 -166 -21% -18% 

947 1,064 1.12 Ubtly Flat 1,004 1,089 57 25 8% 2% 

938 9138 1.03 Headquarte<S Park 871 852 .07 -116 -7% -12% 

844 929 1.10 R-rvolr Lake 843 874 -1 -55 .()% 

1,601 

947 1,050 

54 0.03 

1.11 Libtly 

Trail Creek 

Flat 

1,580 

1,130 1,269 

32 

183 

-21 

219 

-22 

19% 

-1% -41% 

21% 

- 1,258 20 0.02 Copper King 1,256 14 -2 .0 -0% -30% 

-------- ---------- 8,388 6081 0.72 8,280 5 871 -108 -210 -1% -3% 

1991 

MOUNTAIN BAND5-0N MOUNTAIN BANDs-oFF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

-------- ---------- 1,095 1,168 1.07 Nelson Park 1,100 1,100 5 -68 0% .0% 

9134 1,042 . 1.08 Ubtly Flat 1,021 1,053 57 11 6% 1% 

1,022 1,165 1.14 Libby Flat 9913 1,083 -26 -82 -3% -7% 

979 1,066 1.09 Sheep Lake 9139 1,070 -10 4 -1% 0% 

1,173 1,131 0.913 Headquarte" Park 1,134 1,184 -39 53 -3% 5% 

1,156 1,200 1.04 Reservoir Lake 1,089 1,078 .07 -122 -6% -10% 

--------- ---------- 6389 6772 1.06 6309 6568 -80 -204 -1% -3% 

1992 

MOUNTAIN BAND5-0N MOUNTAIN BAND5-0FF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

-------- ---------- 930 Nelson Park 925 10 -5 10 -1% ERR 

1,116 9135 0.86 Libby Flat 1,114 919 -2 -46 -0% -5% 

987 901 0.91 Sheep Lake 947 869 -40 -32 -4% -4% 

1,223 1,167 0.95 Headquarte" Park 1,195 935 -28 -232 -2% -20% 

--------- ---------- 4256 3033 0.71 4181 2733 -75 -300 -2% -10% 

1993 

MOUNTAIN BANDs-oN MOUNTAIN BAND5-0FF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

-------- ---------- 1,037 1,108 1.07 HeadquarteiS Park 984 974 -53 -134 -5% -12% 

790 894 0.88 Reservoir Lake 812 690 22 -4 3% -1% 

-------- ---------- 1827 1802 0.99 1 796 1664 -31 -138 -2% -6% 

1994 

MOUNTAIN BAND5-0N MOUNTAIN BANDs-oFF LOSS PERCENTAGE LOSS 

EWES LAMBS %AGE ALLOTMENT EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS EWES LAMBS 

---------- ---------- 786 688 0.88 Nelson Park 732 599 -54 -89 -7% -13% 

1,031 973 0.94 Libby Flat 1,034 857 3 -116 0% -12% 

1,277 590 0.46 Sheep Lake 1,194 529 -83 -61 -8% -10% 

1,064 688 0.65 Headquarters Park 1,160 622 96 -68 9% -10% 

-------- ---------- 4158 2939 0.71 4120 2607 -38 -332 -1% -11% 

TRIII.£NUMEilZ 
April 19, ' 1996 

140 

People (or the West!,-.,- :~~ ~;·. ·:- : P.O. Box 4345, 301 N. Main Street, Pueblo, Colorado 81003 ' : ·, 

Telephone (719) 543-8421 FAX (719) 543-9473 ' ';' 

Fighting for America's 

Communities 

S'l'Ai'BICIDIT FOR Till! ·1\BCOIID 

House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and oceans, Predator Control in the State of Wyoming. Submitted by Dru Bower. Wyoming Field Director. People for the West 

~•o~• ~or th• W••t is a national, non-profit, grassroots organization 

dedicated to balancing environmental protection with economic growth. With more than 20,000 members nationwide, PFW has seven organized 

chapters and hundreds of members throughout Wyoming. Our membership is 

concerned with recent adversarial campaigns to hinder the traditional 

multiple use law Of. the land and consequences to private property 

rights , public lands access and natural resource production. 

This public comment is submitted to express our concern with the fact 

that predator control practices in the State of Wyoming are coming 

under fire from certain interest groups. Wyoming needs an effective 

predator control program. Ranching is a vital part of the state's economy and our ranchers must be protected from devastating predator 

losses. 

The Animal Damage Control program is necessary, but needs to be 

reformed to protect livestock producers and not tie their hands with 

excessive government over-regulation. 

Wyoming's livestock are threatened by numerous predators within the 

boundaries of the State of wyoming, including, but not limited, to coyotes, red foxes, black bears, mountain lions, grizzlies, bobcats, 

and soon, wolves (with the federal Endangered Species Act/wolf 

reintroduct.ion program now in :full swing) . Not only do predators 

affect livestock populations but also the economic well-being of 

cattle ranchers and sheep producers throughout the state. 

Sheep producers have documented losses exceeding $4 million annually from various predators -- especially coyotes. And although cattlemen 

don't track such financial losses, their cattle and horses are also 

victims of predators on a daily basis. Add to that financial impacts on individual livestock producers from predator control taxes and costs of leqal predator control methods and it is easy to see that 

controlling predators is not just a drop in the bucket. 

Financial losses do not only affect livestock producers but America's economy as a whole. Estimates that ~.5 million head of sheep alone were killed by predators between 1990-1995 translates into the loss of 

$153 million annually to the economy, and nearly 8,000 jobs formerly 

held by ranchers and farmers who were subsequently driven out of 

business. 

The National Coalition for Public Lands and Natural Resources 
141 

Predator control programs need extensive s c rutiny so our nation's 

livestock producers are armed with the best deterrents available and are compensated for their losses. By all indications, the federal 

government has effectively tied the hands of livestock producers 

trying to maintain healthy and safe herds. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registered the use of M-44 toxicant in_the late 1970s, but put more than 20 restrictions on it, 

making it nea·rly useless. Coyote getters suc-h -as sodium 

monofluoroacetate (1080) had an effective rate between 85 and 100 

percent. The EPA banned its use along with use of other toxicants on federal public lands in the early 1970s. Millions of taxpayer dollars 

have been spent on research of alternative methods, but M-44 and the 

toxic collar (both more than 25 years in existence), are the only 

signs of progress made in the area of predator control. 

Now aerial shooting, trapping and snares are being targeted for more government regulation with no sound solution or sound alternative 

being introduced . 

It should be noted that while hunters and trappers are allowed 

licensure for trophy animals -- bobcats, grizzlies, black bears and 

mountain lions -- property owners have no recourse because of the 

Endangered Species Act which protects some of the volatile predators. In that respect, livestock producers have their hands tied completely. We believe the Animal Damage Control program reform must· also re- define predators and list specific recommendations for livestock 

producers to adhere to while controlling predators. 

And while we believe the federal government should play an active role 

in administration of predator control programs, we think state predator control personnel in local areas are better equipped to handle day-to-day operations. 

It should be remembered that predators also prey on wildlife -- while 

sheep and cattle are easy prey, the danger also applies to antelope, deer, elk and birds. An effective control program will help ensure healthy wildlife populations remain in this beautiful state. 

Nearly $300 million is spent in the state each year by recreationists 

enjoying the bounty of the land, so the depletion of wildlife by 

uncontrolled predati on adversely impacts the state's economy in an additional way. 

Selective and safe methods must be pursued in order to protect both 

livestock and wildlife. It's a serious problem that needs to be 

seriously tackled. With more funding and manpower, (only $36 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1995), the predator control program should continue in an environmentally safe and economically sound manner. 

Thank you. 
142 

OCT 1 i 1981 

Sodium Monofluoroacetate (1080): Relation 

of Its Use to Predation on Livestock in West-

.ern .National Forests, 1960-78. rl~t:- _/ 

,:.C....< ~- GREGORY \V, LYNCH AND ROGER D. NASS 

Coac:ttn o\'er ental• animal tlamace control mdl!loch used by 

the U.S. Flsh and WIJdlift Stni« (USFWS), primarily tht' prt4a· 

d't Corotpnvnd 10!0. prcmpttd a Pns.ldtadal Ordtr ln 19il 

bannlnttht •tt of to.:kants on publk llncll. TbJs condnulnt bsn 

of I 010 use has btm reinforctd by the rtnnt policy ad4rns luutd 

b.J the Sttrtllr)' of the Interior. Followin&lbt Wlldal ban, &rn.ttr 

tmpbasl• "''' placed on acrill hunlinc or coyotn for prt\"tntion 

and conccllon of damacr to shttp and coats. Atrill h11ntlnt il 

npcnsiYt, bowt\'tr, and bas only Umlttd applkatlon ln tlmtNftd, 

MOuntainous artas of many IUidonal forntl. In the pniod gnn 

kndc:ants wert buMd. numbtr- of ara.dnc lil'ntocll: reported as 

aoM to ptedadon on wcstua aatioaal forniS haa lnu•wd. 

Nu~~abtts of lode bail stations (1 .. ) uwd throu&h<~ul tlw \\'est, 

from IHO untU the 197lb8n, showed a strona Invent rt .. l5onstiiP> 

•lth numbtrs of livestock reported last to prtdallon on national 

fomu durln1 thtst same yean. 

Ute o( prtda(idcs in the Animal Oamaae Control (ADC) pro· 

aram o( the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sc:r,·ic:t (USFWS) has often 

Men criticized because efficac:y and safety data ,..,rt limited or 

lack ina. The most frequcntl)· c:ri;iciztd predac:icle is Sodium Mono--

nuorN«tatc ( 1080). Althouah the usc of 1080 bad be-en dcdinin& 

since at lean 1he early 1960's. an Excc:utive Order issued by Prtsi· 

dtl\t Nixoft in 1972 immtdiatdy stopped funhtr u• ot this aiNI 

· Mhcr prtdac:idts on public: lands. Reinforcement of this ban on 

1010 UIC and research \US rtc:ently ac:c:omplishcd by an ADC 

Policy Statement issUC"d by the Scc:rctary of the Interior. 

One result of the 1972 ban was the increased usc of aircraft for 

prtdator control. If predacidcs arc rc~tri.:ted from usc indefinitely. 

acri.al control provides the best tc:onomic alttrnati,·c (Gum et al. 

1978). Cain et al. (1972) rated aerial huntinl as .. very rood· in 

dftetivenns for problem solving. ~afety. and la~k of adven t en\·ir· 

onmental impact. Also. a telephone survey by Arthuret al. { 19i7) 

showed that aerial hunting is more acceptable to the ac:neral publ ~ 

than arc the slov.·-a.ctina: predacides. Aerial huntin& is species eltc· 

ti¥t and may of1cn be sclccti,-e for the depreda cin& individuaL 

£\~ns and Pearson (1977) sho~oed thatlhc reponed number of 

coyotes taken by :\DC pcnonnc-1 aencrally rose durin& 1972-76 

and that the pcrctma~eohhcsean mal~ taken from a ircraft artally 

increased (fi&. 1). Mmt coyotes taken urlicr with prc-dacidcs -.ere 

not n:CO\Iered: conseque-ntly. the increase in numbers of coyotts 

reponed taken in the ADC prosram since 1972 is pro bably a 

n::flCC'Iion or incruscd usc of methods that Kad 10 lhC' t C'CO\"Cf)' or 

animals, ralher &han an increuc in numbers of animals killed. 

Thouah aircrafl may be an effective (albeit upensi,•e} replacement for predacM:I~ in ccn.ain high-c-ountry mudov.· Jruinaareas. 

c.!:r~:;..::::;.::.:~~~:t~:r;:~::=~~~ ~n:-= L,_e.\c..-.c...,_ it t:S. fGm~ScMc:c. h& )Je. AfiOtl. Wy--.IJitl. WINNICI'ifl~vMOnollc t5.""

.IOVIIlNAI. OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 3o4(5), s.stt•mW 1911 

< 

. ·.:.t::·--... ?-----' ' .. ,.!h.." 

l :1 /'---

f ,.:! ~. 

1 ,. j 

d 

: .___~·--~~---

Fia. 1. '"""-'•P of ro.~wn ,,,..,,b_,· A DC fWTJCJn7111rn 1J6•ircn~ftnrom 

£,wm •d Pt~~Twn 1911). 

their effccth·eness is sharply reduced in timbertd, mountainous 

area1 that make up a sianificant ponion of the na:ion.al forests. 

Conwqucntl)'. nen the increast in the aeri1\ damate control since 

the 1972 predacide ban has not reduced. or e,·en hckl constant. the 

losses of sheep on national forests. On the contr:uy. los~s may 

hne increased because 1080. \ll'hich 'Alii frequently used in moun· 

tainou1 ftlions, was not re-placed with an equally effecth·t C\lntrol 

mtasurc in thew artas. Comparison of upandtd a<trial con1rol. 

11\llnbtr oll080 Nit stations used in the West and the rcpontd toss 

ol lheep and 1oau to Pfcdation oa 1he Fornr s~ni« IIDds ts s)to-.·n in F:aure 2. 

Mtthods and Discussion 

Sheep and aoat losses· were tabulated from 1960 thrOUih 1978 to 

dettrmint 'A"htthcr significant dirTerencn occurred after the 1972 

pr~dacide b11n. lrtform;ation ••ai\abio; frum the l: .S. Fo.>re,t S..:n i.:t' 

is mort dtlail~ than that from any other source for comparing 

Iones of li\·cstoc:k (goats. as "'ell as sheep. arc included in tht' 

reponed num~r of animals r.raz~ on the national forests. but the 

number of soan is so small1hat it can be ianored in c.akulationsl. 

The animals arc: counted .,. hen 1hn arc released on1o the roresl 

land each summer. and apin when- they are rt'mo,·ed in the fall. 

The difference in the t•·o counts is the number of animals losl to 

preda.ion. "'·eather. to~ c pla nts. :tnd other uuses. 

Wagner (1972) reponed the Forest Sen ice estima ted l~ c-l s of 

prt'dator losses durini 1he su mmer aruin1 season on tht national 

fore~u ranJtd bct\ll·cen OA and 1.5 pcrccn l. [\·en whtlc the usc of 

1080 MS decreasing during 1960-72. I he numbe r of sheep lost to 

predators on the foresa in the West was incrusing( T3ble I). These 

incrusina losses occuHcd d urinJ a n a lmost s1eady reduction an che 

numbers or 1h«p bein~ grazed. Also. 5ina arazinJ season\ on the 

forested areas are usu.lly shon. these los)C'S or up to I.S pcrttnt 

were conccntnlcd in time. Grazinatimc varied in 1972fr.:m0.7to 

more tban II motuhs but avnaJC(I onty ~ rnon1hs in 68 na.ttoftal 

forests in the 17 wcstt'l'n Stain (Pearson 19n). lossn sufkrcd 
·~ 

-~ 

~\ \ 

.... " .................. " .... ., ,. .. .. 

143 

durinp. the summer ~r;aJ.ine on the (orci\S arc in addition 10 the 

hc:ny IOUC'S thai occur durinJ ~nd immediately after the lambinc 

Kason in late v.·intcr and carl)' spring (Gee ct al. 1977). 

Another study outlining los~s reported by livestock rai~ers to 

For~st Service officials sho.,.. ~d that during i9Sb- 71 th~ loss rate to 

predators ne,cr exceeded 1.9 ~rc~nt (G~c ct al. 1977). T his lo~s 

rate e5scntiall y aprec~ with that reponed by Wa~ncr (1972). From 

J9i2 throu~h 1978 . .alter the predacide ban. the reported IOHt'\ 

from the national foresiS were nc,·er less than 1.7 percent and 

ran~ed up to 2.5 percent. 

Lambs i!Tillltd on the n:uional forests arc nearing market siz:c 

and rcpr~~cnt a muimum in,cstment for the rancher, in both time 

and money. Thc:sc anim3h ha\·c sun·i\C:d the more critical urlya~e period .,..hen most losses occur. Ob,·iously. predation losses of 

lambs during this period ha,·c a grntcr potentialcconomicimpaCl 

on the livestoc~ operation than do the early-season Iones. 

The Forest Ser\'ict data. repOrted as the number of animals 

grazed, includes only those over 6 months old. Howt"Ve:r, the 

number of animals reported lost to predation includes all animals, 

and most of these arc lambi(lcss than 6months old)on the summer 

~nge . A hahing of the pcr«ntai!C of animals omcially reponed 

lost to predation may more accuratdy reflect the losses incurred 

during the summer @:!'luing se:~son. Pa~t!y off~c-tting thi$ reponing 

dirfc:rence is the: possibility t hat many lossrs reponed as •unknown 

cause" arc the result of p~dation. 

A linear regrc:ssion was calculated on the numbe-r of 1080 bait 

statiom placed throughout the West (X) aod the percentage of 

shup reponed lost to predation on the: nationa;l forests (Y) in t:.S. 

Forest Sen·ice Regions I throus:h 6, for the 13 yc:an (1960-72) 

immediately prcceedins, the predacide ban (Fig. )). The cocfficic:nt 

of d~termination (rl) in this test is 0.86. While the numtKr of 1080 

bait 5tations decreased. the pcrccnt.age of sheep !eported lost to 

predation on national forests iR(reased. _ 

fie. 2. Rdatioruhips omon.r (A). tht numbtr of J080bait stotiampltu-~d 

throughout tht H'tll (rrom Cain t1 t1/. 1971. and Or~ is Gwtod. )(H 

Ptukh4m. Qf!d Gtorrr Rost. sutiot sttJ/J spuiGiisuln 1U1ions 6. I. tmd ], 

rtsfHt:t i'~~~ . l 'SFU'S, pusornd ~ommunicati011). (8). 1hl' rrumlH'r of 

shttp and roau upolftd lost to prti!Dtou 011 rht tttltiortalforrsu (from 

GH n of. 1971, ami Jt"Y Austin, ~ompu"r sprdalist. L'.S. Fornt 

Stn•ict. H'cuhir~tton. D.C., p"soruil communil"tltion). and (C). tht 

numbtr of cO)'O"s tllktn by A DC pusonntlt••ith tlircrofr (from £v.2ru 

and Pttlm.m /911). 

Some of the initial reports may. in pan. rcnect dissatidaction 

v.:ith the: predacide ban. The last of the 1080 bait ilation~c:rc: 

removed in the spring of 1972 and the effect of the baitinc s)lt)uld 

have Jastr<l through the summer grazing season. However, the 

rc:portcd losses in 1972 v.c~ almost 27% hiJhcr than those in 1971 . 

E\'cn discountir.t this possible one-time emotional reaction, the 

annual pcrcenta@t losses reponed in S of the 6 yeal"5 from 1972to 

1977 were greater than the highest reponed before 1972. In 1978, a 

year that saw a much l(l.,..·cr level of predalio.n than the 6 previous 

years, the percentage of animals reponed lost to prcdaton w.u still 

Tablt I. Tot•l """'bu of IOH halt stat'ons, shnp and coats craud, and IOSHS anrillu.tt'd to prtd.ld<lft on aadonal fornl:l, Rtck>M 1·6, 19&6-71. 

Nu.mbcr or sheep ShetE and 10aa reEoned lon 10 Eredation 

Yw Nu.mbcr or 1080 stationst &nd to•u a:razcd: :\u.mbt'r~ Percent oftCXJII&nimllls 

1960 IS.349 l.Sli.OOO 28.SOO 1. 1 

1961 15.113 2,oll6,00U ~s.uoo 1.0 

1962 IS,079 2.334,000 24.900 1.1 

1963 16.692 2.231,000 28.400 1.3 1964 IS,017 2.158,000 26.100 1.2 

1965 14,417 2.025,000 26.700 1.3 !966 14,66S 2.027,000 30.700 .., 1967 13,9JO 1,941,000 26.800 1.4 

1961 13.260 1.879.000 27.200 ... 1969 \1 ,42J 1.82!.000 lS.OOO 1.9 

1970 11,313 1.741,000 32.600 ... 1971 8,914 1.696,000 32.100 ... 1972 7,289 1,6$2,000 40.700 ,_, 1973 0 U98,000 31.)00 2.0 

1914 0 1,470.000 )7.000 ,_, 197S 0 1.$49,000 )1.800 2. 1 

1976 0 1,749,777 ]2,879 ... 1977 0 1,472,561 37,442 ,_, 1978 0 1.283,672 21.4S7 1.7 

1

lnform.111ion for J9t(l. 70 i~ C&in t1 al. (1972). Oat•. fr~m 1911 •nd 1972 (omn from Orvi$ Gutllld. Jot hckhrn. 1nd <ieo'le Rost, wnior ADC st.11IT speci•lisu,liSFWS Ret•onl 6, I. 1ncl 2, ru~C\•vel)o. p!'UOIUII commumnUQnl 

'Data for 1960-7) a A !loll\ (ift ct .111. ( 1917)and thOl-e frQm 197~ 11 art from Jcrry_Auaie. computu speri1Ji11. U.S. fOR"SI Scrvior:. Wutlin&'on. D.C .• IR"O<IAI cum-ic:lllioL 

JOURNAl OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 34(5). Sept•mW 1981 
144 

! ... 

l i .. l 

• ! " 

{ .. 1 

! Ll 

il~~ .. ~ ......... .. na. 3. A'umiHr of 1080 Nit J«lliotU IIHJ (thowarrds) ill UIDtion to 

uponrd lou~s of shNp tmd foots 10 prrJGtiol'l 011 .,..,JlUfl ru~tioNII 

fomu. 1900-71. (r•-0.16) 

JOURNAl CW RANGE MANAGEMENT 34($), Septemblll' 1111 

pcater than in ill but 3 scan hom 1960-71. 

Concentrouion of dfort in the AOC program ·•ns redirected in 

favor of aerial hunting ahtr thC' ban of predatidc u-.t on public 

lands. Although the pcrctntagc of prcdaton La ken by ADC pcrsonnd using airctah has increased. most ranchers btlit\"C thou 

bcllcr protection of li\lcstod: wu achin·cd with prcdacidc~. A 

comparison of reported lossr-s before and after the predacidc ban 

adds wci~ht to this belid. Althou~:t-. other filctors such as high fur 

prices mil,. ~ aff<cting lo~scs on national forrst . there was an 

inn:rsc relat ionship bC"t'Kccn the numbrr \l( b.1i1 )tiHio ns u:ioC'J .1nJ 

li\ t~tod lo~~~ , 

Lituaturt Cittd 

Ar1hur,l.M., R.L. Gum,E.H.Carpmltr,lll'ld W.W. Shaot, J9n. Prtd.lltor 

control: The publiC'\'iewpnint_ lr.11ns. \"_ Amer. Wildi.Conf. .a~ ll'?-14S 

Cain, S.A .. J.A. KadiK. D.L. Alien. R.A. Coolty, M.H. llornocku, A.S. 

Uopold, and F.H. W•cntr. 1972. P~datorcontrol-1971. R.rpon to the 

Council on En..,ironmrntal Quality and the Dtpanmcnt of the Interior 

by tht Ad..,isory Comminre on Predator COfmol. Ann Arbor: L'niv 

Michipn Prns. 2!J' p. 

Enns, G.D., and [.\\'. Pnrton. 1977. Coyo1u hu'~'ttd and methods 

u~~d in thr CC'O~rati, c ff'Gtral :1nima! damarr control p:o1ram in 16 

~stern statn. 1971-76. Suppi. Rtp .. Den>ttr Wildl. Rn. Ctnlft. C.S 

Fi!h Wi\dl. Strv., Work l' nit 1230-9J0-.1l-l. 10 p. 

Gft, C.K., R.S. ~acktty , W.R. Iallty, R.L.Gu"', an4 L.M. Archw. 1t77. 

Shnp and Uimb lout'1 10 prtdatou and othrr caaats tn the: -...nurn 

United Stlln. AER-369. t:.s_ Dtp. Arr .. Econ . Ru. Scn·. 41 p. 

Gum, R.L.. L.M. Arthur, al'»d R.S. ~ta<bJ . 1971. Co~ ott control: A 

simulalion ro·aJualion of ahernati,-c malrfn. "ER-408. U.S. Ocp 

A&r .. Econ. Stal. Coop. Sen. 49 p 

Par!MNI, [.\\'. Jtil. Current JrazinJ of domt$tic shtep in national fornt1 

of the -...·estern Llnittd StattL SuppL Annu. ProJ. Rcp .. (Xn\et Wild I. 

Rrs. Center, U.S. Filh Wildl. SC'rv. II p 

Wacrwr. F.H. 1971. Coyott'1 and shtrp. Some thoulhts on ccolon. economics, and e1h.ics. 44th Honor lecture. Fac. Au .• Utah Stalf lini,· .. 

lopn. S9p. 

... 
145 

Reprinled'""" .Jounvlol Ronge ,__. 

Vol. 30, No . • • ./tit 1877, p 2.._252 

Sheep Losses on Sel~cted 

Southern Wyoming 

JAMES R. TIGNER AND CARY E. LARSON 

Ranches in 

HJchll&hi: Tobelp,......coallklln&dallltlaboutdleoeftrityolprecbtorlossesco Federal Exec;utivc Order 11643 in die-., illdiiSirl', _,losses r.- aD ca.,.. were...,.... dllriDclf73-75 Ia a.. 1972. The Cain Committee also recom· 

-hera w,_... ..-. ~ bmi.U.. •arled -ayucl100f11, about mended a long·tenn research program 

lt,OOO..aud--..,.. -red..tl,_durlacspriac loJnblac...Sdle ba$ed in the DivisionofResean:h, U.S. -uclwlllteranzlac-.MooColtl>o-., ..... tead<4bybenlen.lallll> FISh and Wildlife Service, which .,_ wos~ lhuewe, ucl sprtq losses were alwaJS~ Llw1 • ....,..""" w1ater losses eomblaed. Of 4,440 dead s11eop uamlnad, ,..._. ldDod l,lll .,. would pmvide infonnation oo the 

:tHo. AlllloooP predatloa - tho 1orpst ........... of-ror Iomba (2411>), e<ological problems associated with weatba-.... Jatedloaessachsdealhsl'rom .. _,_loa,acddeDtsor-, predators. ineludin& the actual live· II combined, ........W probably bne been hl&hor. Dlsusokllled the most.,. .. (Ulro), stock losses they caused. Subsequent· 

with predalloa tho secoad most important cause or death (1111>). Of tho deaths from ly, the Service's Denver Wildlife pre<btloa, coyotes caused7711>, black bears Ill!>, and &oldea ea&les !I'll,, Durlq the 3 Research Center was charged with the 

yean, laiowa Jlftlb19< ldlls were 0.111> or t1>o •-..tl ,_ ucl 1.5'11>, 1.1'11>, and responsibility for this and other preda· 

3.111>, ,_tlY<Iy, ol tho lambs l'ro~ the study herds. tbere wer< 1,135_.,... ODd k>r research. This article reports the 

,.Iomba lllisslnl. mostly after the summer...,.., malaly due to mlscountlna and ll!oae . ; findings of one of tho resulting investi· 

-I !'rom oae ranch. gations: 1 3·ye::r field study to deter· 

The conflict between sheep produeer> and their critics over dte loss of 

sheep to predat01>, chiefly coyotes 

(Canis latrQJU), has opened 1 credibili· 

ty gap of major proportion. The sheep 

industry states thai ptedator losses are 

severe and that it cannot survive 

without effective predator control. Opponents believe that the predator losses 

claimed by shcepmen are exaggerated, 

control practices pose problems of 

environmental contamination, preda· 

.,,. are public propeny and have 

positive social value. and predator 

management should stem from a basis 

broader than control alone. 

Although not supponed by un· 

challengeable data. evidence from the 

Cain Committee (Cain et al. 1972) 

suggested tllat predator control in some 

... 

an:as lhay not be u effective as popu· ~a,r~y believed. 'the predation ..e may 

riot Iii denSity dependent, aOO predatiOn 

on sheep may not be u pat u commonly'tbo\;;;;lu;-One of the Corn· 

minee's recommendations was 10 ban 

all tlisting lollic chemicals for use ln 

operational predator control, and this 

was amona the steps implemented by 

mine the magnirude and causes of 

sheep loss during range operations in 

Che mountain West. 

Methods 

This study was conducted rrom April 

1973 through December 1975 oo five 

sheep ranches ba...t in Carbon and 

Sweetwater counties, Wyoming. One 

fll. 1. A bnbdtllllwatllf4JdHby•toyot~btaNIII:iiW. 17wlnkwu'WNJONriDtutlwtlwiGMb 

CO.U -ltdw U..,/..Wit """solnlqwNlyiitW.,_ rlw-. 

.OURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 30(4). July l9n 
146 

h;.;n!. ct,o:-.:n b~: the rancher. was 

~:..:J11..'t! .>:1 c: Kl ~a c1, bu< .mh· thre~ -;;;;;;;;;;;::;=:~~!l':i::f!~;;:;: \ol:crc lol hJv.·c:d for the entire Period . ...: 

R:mch Cu. JS dropped from the study in ~!9::!1':;~ 

Apnl 19"75 for lad: of project per~ 

sonnel ; Ranch A went out of business in 

April 1975, and a second herd from 

during Ranch ·the D (Herd rest of D-2) 1975. 

was followed :t~~~~~~ ~ 

Ranch O~ratioru and 

Husbandry Practices 

Range Sheep operations have been 

developed for use in the vast descn and 

mountain areas of lhe WesL Since the 

land is semiarid and forage tends 10 be 

sparse. grazing must e;uend over con· 

siderable areas. Large uacts of public 

land, often leased for grazing , are inter· 

spersed with private land. and ~laai . 

ly linle of it is fenced. In response to 

these conditions the five ranchers in the 

study . like most in the ma. used sheep· 

herders to tend their herds (one ranch, 

8 . used herders only in the summer), 

lambed on the range rather than in a 

shed, and had separate winter and 

summer grazing ranges. much of it on 

public lands. 

F"11. 2. Typical ~JefGtion itt tN fGJJ, wiN~r. Gtt.d sprint lhup um,~s in SllfllMm W}'Ofl'l'iiiJ . It is 

domiMtrd by biJ SIIJebrwJr. 

The ranchers' crossbred ewes were 

predominantly of · lhe fine-wooled 

Rambouillet and medium-wooled Columbia breeds. Suffolk and Hampshire 

rams were sometimes used to improve 

the meat quality of lambs. Various 

types and intensitiesofpredatorcontrol 

were u"'d for all herds throughout the 

study: project personnel neither assisted nor interfered with it. 

From about October through June. 

sheep were grazed and lambed in the 

semiarid rolling p~ins and foothills 

averaging about 2.000..m eJcvatM:xt. In 

this area. precipitation (mostly sununer 

rain) ranges from 13- lO 31--cm a year. 

and the vegetation is dominated by bi& 

sagebrush (Artemisia tntl~ntat!l), but 

depending on lhc: clevacion. exposure. 

and soil type, Olber woody plants 

occur. inchJding juniper (Juni~ru.J 

scopulor .. ). aspen (Populus tremuloidu). saltbush (A.triplu sp. ). greasewood (Sa~obatus ~rmiculatus). S<trvk:-ebcny (AmtfonchWr alnifolia). bitterbrush (Purshia tridtnrota). mountlinmahogany (Ctrcocarpus momanILS), Gambel oak (Qwrrus gamiN/Iii). 

and chokecherry (Pnurus irginianus) . 

The dominant gnsxs are \\"Cstem 

wheatgrass (Agropyron smirhii). Junegrass <K«I~ria criSIQia). Indian rice· 

grass (Ory:opiii hym<noid<I), Sandberg bluegr.w; (POG HCUndo), and 

needleandthread (Su·pa comata). Jmponant forbs are umbrella plant <Eriogonum sp.), biscuiuoot (Lomarium 

sp.), phlox (Phlox sp.), and sc>rlet 

globemallow (Sphatralcta cocdtwa). 

Poisonous or noxious plants present are 

woody aster (Aster xylorrlri:,a), haJogeIOn CHalogtton glom~ratus). vetch 

(Astragalus sp.). death camas (Zyga· 

denus sp.), and greasewood. The area's 

characteristic strong winds promote 

evaporation and increase the severity of 

winter stonns but also permit winlcr 

grazing by blowing snow from the 

ridges. 

During July through September, 

sheep grazed mountain allotmcnlS in 

the Medicine Bow and Roun Narional 

Forests. Elevations in lhc area range 

from about 2, 150 to 6~ m, and the 

climale and vegetation vary accordingly. In general . sheep were grazed in 

monrane habitat . where stands of 

conifers and other trees arc interspersed 

with hillsides and meadows. Tbc vege· 

tltion is quite variable. ""ith extensive 

areas of lodgepole pine (Pinus ~on

Jorta). aspen . Gambel oak. alpine fir 

(.Abies Jasiocarpa), and Engelmann 

spruce (Piaa engt'lmannii). interspersed with meadows and hillsides 

containing big sagebrush. timothy 

(Phl~um pratense). hairgrass (Deschampsia sp.), sedge (Car<x sp.), bluegrass (Poo sp.), Idaho fescue (F<stuca 

..OURNAL OF AANGE MANAGEMfNT J0(4). Juty 19n 

idahoen.si.J), ncedlegrass (Stipa sp.). 

bromegrass (Bromw sp.). mulesears 

(Wytthia ampltxicau/is). dandelion 

(Tara.racu.m sp.), ger2nium (Guanivm 

sp.). as well as less imponanl forage 

species. 

One herd of sheep grazed in the sub· 

alpine and alpine rundra in 1975. 

Knight et aL (1975) referred tO the 

vegetative cover as alpine turf. which 

occurs in open areas and is predominantly bluegrass, alpine avens tGtum 

rossii), alpine sage:won f.Arttmisia 

scopulorwn), sedges. rushes (}uncus 

sp.). Pany clover (Trifolium p4rryi). 

and dandelion. Willows (Sa/i.t sp.) are 

round along the streams. 

Range lambing began by fonning 

herds of about 1.000 to 2.000 ewes as 

\hey kft the shearing pens in late April 

or early May. E~cept on Ranch 8 these 

herds were tended by herders throughout lambing. The sheep usuall y bedded 

ncar the sheep camp at night and in tM 

morning the main herd was moved 

away from the ewes that had lambed 

during the night (the drop bunch). This 

procedure began about May 10 and 

continued unlil about .SOO ewes had 

lambed. The ewes and chcir lambs were 

then gathered so the lambs could be 

tlil-doeked and marl<ed and the males 

casarared. This dcxking opc:ra1ion was 

lhc first accurate count or lambs. 'After 

the first docking, a second series of 

245 
147 

d~ bunches was scaned from the m:tin rounts were made when the lambs were walked, nuBCd, or digested milk. In 

herd until a band of SOO was gathen:d docked and marked, when sheep wen: January 1974, a short course in sheep 

and the lambs docked. These two bands moved 10 !he summer range, as !hey lefl diseases and necropsy leebniques was 

made up a lambing herd of about 1,000 lhe summer range , and again when !he · conduc:led for project personnel under 

ewes and their lambs. Remaining ewes lambs wen: shipped in October. The contract by lhe College of Veterinary 

lhat had not yet lambCd wen: put with other regularly scheduled count took Medicine at Colorado State University. 

lhelate l'lftl~ing ewes from other herds place in late November or early Decem· Necropsy n:sults for each sheep were 

tl make up lhe late-lambing herd. her when lhe wool around -<he sheep's n:corded in !he foeld on a pocket-sized 

On Ranch B. lhe lambing herd was • eres was sheared. Because of lhe necropsy card. Data wen: also entered 

placed in a fenced 2.000 ha pasture and • dttliculty of counung large numbers of on the anjmal's identity and location 

allowed to graze, bed, and give binh sheep, any herd count where two_ and, when: possible. on its sex , age. 

unanendcd. Some sheepmen U5e this ll~IVJduals counted wathm five ?C ten weight, and the: cin:u.mstances sur· 

method because of !he difficulty of antmals of each other was cons1den:d rounding its dealll. 

obtaining competent herders and be· good. Two persons usually counted lhe Any wounds on !he s~p were 

cause !he range is utilized bener by S"fP19 3 • p~cau~o? •s~~ns~ en:,; examined closely for "'bcutaneous 

unherded sheep. n • eac tee_ n•c•an IV . '" bleeding, indicating that' lhc animal 

In this study the entire lambing herd closest t~wn and tned to. monitor two waS alive when wounded; this usually . ' . . herds; thiS proved unsausfactory be· was momton:d untd lhe late·lambmg · r 1 . ld be .

111 was evidence of predation. The way and dry ewes wen: separated, and !hen cause too 10 c ume cou spent WI each species of pn:dator killed sheep 

lhe herd of early-lambing ewes and each herd. In subsequent years-. man was quite distinctive and, coupled wilh 

their lambs was followed. This herd was assigned t? each herd and _giVen 1 orher clues such as animal sign at lhc 

usually maintained its identi"' lhrou•h small camp trader so he could hve ncar scene or !he """•nnhic location, · . ~; • lhe herd and move with it in sprin"g and o--r-r lhe summer and sh•ppmg. but a few Du . the . 1 b' usually allowed positive identification summer herds were composed of summer. "!"~ spnng am mg even when more than one species of . al , _, 1 b' herds season, techn1ctanS generally worked d had ,~ ·L- In antm s '"?"' sever.. am •n_g . . • from dawn to dusk, 6 days a week and pre ator ,.., on ""' carcass. thus changmg the number and mdlVldu· he 'bl Olhe .,.,..; general, coyotes attacked ewes at lhc al sheep .being monitored. w n posst e an r rver throat and lambs at !he head or duoll, 

After !he summer herds were formed scarcbCd on !he seventh day· Herds on or both, depending on the size of lhc 

· Ju or July !hey were driven 10 !he summer 1311ges were ?"'nllOred' days lambs. Golden -•les 1 •-wiG ""-· "' ne • . . a~k.aswerelhewmterhcrdsexcept -.. ""' .-wr summer ranJC (albouta week s lrlp) tn Raroeh B 'f !he '!ted The sanos) in this study killed only smaller lhe mountains or occasionally were 00 • t wea r perm•. · . lambs (less than about 22-k&) with the 

hauled then: by lniCk. In September, ~h B herd was not monitored '" talons entering !he lamb anywhere 

the sheep wen: driven off !he summer Winter because ewes from se:= ~rds along the back and sides from !he tail to 

l211JC 10 !he shipping point. Then in wen: placed togerher, unhe ' tn a the head. It was rare for an eagle 10 

early October, the lambs (except n:· s.~OO-ha pasture where accurate sur· bn:ak a boroe larger than a rib, allhou&h 

placement ewes) were separated and >edlancc was unposs•ble. . . they did dissect pans of !he skeleton at 

shipped eilher 10 a farming area for On each worttn& day • !he tecltntclan the joints and could open lhe skull or 

futlhcr fanening or directly to market. scarcbCd !he area for dead sheep, small lambs. Black bean (Ursus amer· The n:maining winter herds of about g~nerally on h~~ck. Horses pro- ictu~a) appeared less selec:live than 

2.000 ewes and replacement ewe· v•ded. good VIStbthty as well as coyotes and eagles. They took ewes 

lambs wen: formed and driven to !he moblhty • and stnce .!heY an: a cOtMion nearly as readily as lambs and generally 

winter range. Rams were put wilh !he pan~ ranc.:..~tto~~ere .:.,nlikc~ inflicted much greater anatomical dam· 

ewes for breeding from about mid· tl .• ... ··-"0?· I e tee • age than did coyoca. Bobcats (Lynx December to albout Fcbnwy I. The n•c•an was responsible for !he sear<:hes, ,../us) killed a few lambs. leaving !heir 

ewes &razed on !he winter 13118e unril any n:pons of dead shcc~ by herders, diSiintlive claw marks on lhe prey. 

shearing, after which lhcy were moved tane!tt"· ~ others wen: mvesugated. Domestic dogs killed some sheep in 

tl the lambin& ground, completing !he Dunng wmter • when bones could !heir usual messy anacks; !hey were apt 

annual cycle • generally not be hauled to thc·gr;az•ns ro bite !he sheep anywhere and might 

. Project pe~nel made a conccned areas. ~cause of bad wea~er and road only wound lbe victim. 

effort 10 interfere as linle u possible CO?d111005• herders . prov•ded much While predation was usually easy to 

with routine ranch activities so that the 11 ~onnauon to atd m tindmg dead diagnose. other causes of death such as 

nonnal openation of the ranch would an•mals. c~posure, disease. or poisonous plants 

continue (it was particularly imponant Morulity and were not , particularly iflhe carcass was 

not to disaurb ewes with newborn Producttv1t1 Mnsu~ments decayed. Wben tcmpenatuR:s were 

lambs), and so that ~rion panems Each dead sheep found wu necrop- high, it was usually impossible to 

.would not be changed. sied on !he site and !he cause or death determine !he cause of dealh after mono 

Although a few counts of sheep determined if possible. In 1973, !he than one or two days unless !here was 

herdsweremadeforlhepurposeoflllis lechnicians were given training by !he subcutaneous bleedinc. If predation 

Study, most were scbCduled 10 coincide project leader in necropsy techniques was not !he cause of dealh and !he 

with ranch operations. Usually !he first and in general followed !he procedure diagnosis could not be made from gross 

count in !he calendar year was at outlined by Rowley (1970) whereby evidence, !he death was listed as 

shearing in late April or early May when dead. newborn lambs were examined to undetermined. 

lhe lambing herds were formed. Orher determine wherher !hey had brealhed, With rough terrain and thick veseta· 
148 

tion in the study areas and the possibility of predators C2tl)'ing carcasses 

away. it was vinuaUy impossible to 

account for all the lambs bom on the 

range. Therefore . a contract was made 

with the Depanmc:nt of Animal 

Science. University of Wyoming. :o 

determine the birth rate of the study 

herds in a lambing shed. The ewes had 

their lambs under the surveillance of 

the Extension Sheep Specialist from the 

Univer.;;ity of Wyoming. Bin.h rates. 

lamb mmtality. sexes and weights, and 

other pertinent information were 

recorQed. and then the ewes and lambs 

were returned to the ranchers. Since 

the results of this work have now been 

~eported in a separate publication 

(Faulkner and Tigner 1977), only birth 

and docking counts arc reponed here. 

T01bk l. Producthity 1nd pn-docilin& 5ossa In r•n&~ La.mbin& llS ~lm11~ by birth raid Vld 

dod.ln& ~unts . 

l..&m11S per 100 ewes ... _ .. In sheds On Dngc of ranae 

lambs min- Total Alive at Total \mown Undod:.r:d A!iveet ing(-)Of 

Yw Ranch bom docking bom knowndead 1 dod:. in& surplus(+) 

Resull5 

Sheep losses were estimated from 

19i3 A 

8 

c 

0 

E 

1974 A 

6 

c 

0 

E 

1975 8 

0 

e Mc:an for all 

110.0 

134.0 

91 .6 

112.0 

94.6 

144.2 

128.!i 

132.0 

128.0 

114.7 

110.4 

110.0 

herds and yurs 120.5 

83.6 

91 .5 100.5 

140.0 115.5 

8J.I 92.8 

10:5.0 8:5 .7 

73.9 112.0 

ll:S.J 120 .7 

118.7 136.7 

124.3 116.0 

120.0 108.3 

9S.3 11$ .6 

103.2 112 .2 

93.1i 105. 1 

107.4 108. 1 

three main categories of data: the determined, disease and predation look 

number of dead sheep found and the rhe greatest percentage of ewes, and 

cause of their death as determined by predation, exposure, and starvation 

tield necropsy, a comparison of lamb took the greatest percentage of lambs. 

production in the lambing sheds with Coyotes were the dominant predator 

lamb counts on the range, and the throughout the study and essentially the 

counts of sheep at the beginning and only one in winter; golden eagles killed 

end of each season. Each of these • only spring lambs, and black bears 

indicators presented some problems, killed sheep only in summer. After 

but tOgether they completed enough of 1973, with better surveillance of the 

the picture to show cenain patterns. herds and improved competen<::e in 

Necropsy results for the 4,440 dead necropsy techniques, the number of 

sheep examined during the study are sheep found and examined each year 

summarized in Table I. As e1.pected, increased by about 50%, and more 

bmbs were more vulnerable than ewes, were assigned to definite causes of 

especially during their first weeks of death . Even during the last two years. 

life. Of the causes of death that could be however. an unexpecredly large numT1bk- l. Nta'Opsy res:ull.s ror 3 yean: p«ttnt:q:es or dead ewes, nms, 1 and lambs &$signed to 

each c:ause of dealh. by season. 

Season 

Cause or death Sprin& Summer Wintel All >ea><>m 

Ewes In • 840) 

Physical abnomuliry 0.4 0.1 

o-.... 2).2 23. 1 30.8 26.3 

Accident 10.0 6.6 1.S •. I 

: Poisonous plant u 5.2 0.9 3.1 

Predation 9.6 23. 1 21.8 18. 1 

• E.t:posure 2.9 1.0 

Dlh<< IS .7 1.0 I U 10.1 

Urwktennined 33.9 41.0 27.9 33.2 

Umbs (II "" )600) 

· Stillborn 10.9 8.4 

Physical abnoonaJity 0 .6 0.5 

, Disease ) .8 4.9 65 4.2 

• Accident 5.1 5.8 Z.7 4.9 

. Poisonous plant 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.2 

Pmtacioa 16.0 63.0 38.7 24.4 

• Startation 11 .5 2. 1 0.3 1).7 

. E"""""' 18.6 )2.4 17.6 

o.n., 2.2 3.2 11.4 3.2 

Undetermined 25.3 20.8 6.S 22.8 

1 Only 16 ~ ~ knowft • hive died. so r.hty .n: ii'ICI~ w1tl"IIM ~""'EI . 

• Win~a period coven J97l-"l4, 1974-75, aNi Ck!ober 10 Or:<:c:mbu 1975 . 

.JJURNAl Of RANGE MAHAGEMENT 30(4). July 19n 

11.7 71.9 

1.0 93.5 - 9.5 

2.2 IIJ.J - J8 .!i 

8.2 84.6 - 4.8 

3. 1 82 .6 -36.3 

!2.8 79.2 +17 .4 

23.2 97.5 -2.J.!i 

9.4 127.3 .... 8.2 

12.4 103.6 -16.0 

9.3 99.0 -19.7 

30.6 85.0 + 0.9 

36.0 76.2 + 1.8 

12.2 92.9 - 4.9 

15.2 92.8 -10.2 

ber of dealhs appeared in the .. un· 

determined" category. Most of these 

undetennined deaths were apparent!) 

not due to predation. except possibl} 

When carcasses were not found prompt· 

ly and golden eagles or black bea!' 

were active in the area. Eagles and 

bears are scavengers as well as preda· 

10rs (much more so than we observcC 

with coyotes), and if a dead sheep w~ 

not found within a day or two, it Wa!; 

extremely difficult to determine whetb .. 

er they had killed it or merely fed on : 

after death. 

Table 2 compares lamb production it1 

the shed-lambing study with lamb 

counts on the range during the study 

The tigures for lambs born in the shed•; 

include both stillborn and live young , 

so could be considered an index of th~: 

herd 's reproductive pot~ntial . Bin.h 

rates in the shed were higher than tht· University personnel or 1he rancher; 

anticipated. The percentage of lamb·; 

~turned to the rancher from the shed·; 

was :omparable with this same count 

on the range except that the shed couni 

was usually conservative because ewe ~ 

were sometimes returned to the rand 

before all had had their lambs. Thes. ~ 

late-lambing ewes were included in th-: 

calculations for shed docking. bUl ofte1 

their lambs were not . since the ewe: 

were rarely identifiable after bein i 

returned to the parent herd. To provid· 

an estimate of range losses before th1 

lambs were counted at docking, lamb 

born in the sheds are compared witl 

lambs accounted for at docking time 0 1 

the range (those: alive at docking plu 

those known dead before docking: 
149 

Number vi ohocp ....... -by._ Toultoow. 

Herd size a SciJlbinh and Di&eaSeand Actidcnt dc.t(includts ~ntqc 

11att oiiCUCin EAposurc Scarvatioe Prcdalioa abnormality poisonous pl..u ~ unddcnnincd) known dead 

y._ Ranch-E--l--E--L- --E--1.- --E--1.- --E--L- E 1. - E I. E I. E L 

1973 A 93S m 46 l9 7 

B 11.. 1146 10 II 17 .• 

C 1373 ISIO 3 13 6 

D 1247 IIS3 22 24 I 

E S09S 4363 7S 1 40 

1974 A 797 183 " S9 2 

B 12S7 143 42 4lJ IS 

c 2017 2721 ss 37 36 

D 103S 1171 II S 3S 

E 1110 1199 I 19 

197S B IS31 1716 

D 1317 1496 

1>-l 1066 708 

E 119S 1231 

toWs 21,11921,641 

171 

277 

S7 

I 508 

21 

62 

23 

41 

433 

10 

I 

ISO 

20 

12 

12 

21 442 

49 

:14 

17 

13 

311 

16 

29 

I 

4 

77 

s 

7 

2 

19 

14 

21 

IS 

106 

IS 

II 

l 

14 

I 

10 

12 

S2' 

4 

II 

9 

34 

IS 

41' 

12 

4 

72 209 

16 138 

I 96 

II 

12 

.., 

119 

161 

I 27S 30 283 

20 170 

24 146 

7 113 

Sl 491 

S6 SOl 

II 14 

2A 149 

2a) 1,766 

1.7 17.1 

0.7 1.4 

0 l .S 

0.9 10.3 

0.2 3.7 

1.0 31. 1 

2.4 19.1 

1-0 6.2 

2.3 12.4 

0.6 9.4 

3.S 21.6 

4.0 33.S 

1.0 11.9 

2.0 12.1 

1-3 12.1 

t forth£ "'""' tc:aSOIII, wkaKCWWCOdt&ofr.ts~be!UdtbcfOft ~-- ~JWn WCRided; _,_ dlc)'WCR:ftOt, lwfd lia: rtpra forcwa.dlimbllle* 

~alive • 4octiec ,a. Cfle-*' fOVftlf ..r tter- ckxtil'll-

~ lncludn I' Grpbane4 (bwnmed) ..t remo-t hen ha-4. a Includes 9 orphaned (bulnned) and mnoved 6'0nll had. 

This extrapOlation projects the pen:enlage of lambs that wen: born and 

probably died on the range bul wen: nor 

found . 

mariu lhe major causes of sheep loss 

for each study herd each year during the 

lhree major seasons in sheep man· 

agement. 

In southern Wyoming the weather 

plays an imponanr pan in sheep 

management. WiniCI' weather affects 

lite timing and success or bn:eding and 

lhus the date of lambing, as well as the 

survival and physical condilion or the 

pregnan1 ewes and their resultant 

produclivity. Spring weather also affects survival, panicularly that of newborn lambs, and spring and summer 

weather is imponanr lo forage production. Since the weather and other 

factors were different each year, Tables 

3, 4, and S give herd counts and sumSp~ 

Spring losses include those recorded 

from the time lite sheep left the shearing 

pens to hegin lambing until they wen: 

counted onto the summer range. The 

study began "'t shearing time in late 

April 1973, following the most seven: 

and prolonged winter since 1949. 

Heavy snows stan<d before the breeding season in mid-December and continued until the first of May. Large 

numbers of sheep died during the 

winter despite the ranchers· effons to 

supplement their natural feed. The 

herds from Ranches A, D, and E 

suffen:d the most, and their productivity was low (Table 2). Those from 

Ranch 8 and particularly Ranch C 

survived lhe winter much better. and 

both their oppearance and productivity 

indicated beuer physieal condilion. 

After the first of May the 1973 lambing 

season had generally good weather; 

precipitation wu above average and 

produced good forage. Survival of the 

remaining ewes and lambs was good, 

but there were probably more deaths 

lhan are indicate-'. in Table 3. With the 

bad weather and the greater number of 

animals monilored in 1973, one would 

have expected more dead lambs to have 

Table 4. Mol« ca- <ldatb ODd._.. r-.. vlcwa (E) ud-(L).....,. tbo-- Number of sheep bown dcld by cnsa Toult..... 

Henl size II Disease and 

-- dad(indudcs Pa-cco- ... v~ ...... Scuv.aton ~»oft poi50n0US ptanl """""'"' ............ j) 

Year Ranch I. - E 

- --I. ---- E I. E I. E I. E I. --E I. 

1973 A %6)() 1110 16 II 60 59 2.3 4.9 

8 1021 1016 2 13 6 .II 0.6 1.7 

c 1469 1657 I 3 10 0 .2 0 .6 

D 1091 IOS9 I I) I 18 0.7 1.7 

E 1246 1200 12 4 II 22 0.9 1.8 

1974 A 1742 140S II 24 26 1.4 1.9 

8 1060 1264 12 • 20 0.9 1.6 

c• lOSS 2703 17 • 21 0.4 0.8 

D 1031 IllS IS 16 %7 1.6 2.4 

E 1491 I 60S :14 • .. 0.6 4. 1 

197S 8 1007 1046 69 2 2 I 76 0.1 7.3 

D IOS3 910 %9 2 ·s • 4S 0.1 4.6 

t>-2 1040 S7S %6 21 36 3S 3.5 6. 1 

E 1226 1135 16 ) 6 24 0.5 2. 1 

T...U 19,169 11.040 10 49 294 60 24 16 42 212 467 1.1 2.6 

'~ C chpped II'OftiiWdy Mps~ 9; &Gun NCGfdcd eMily dwou&fllhll dille . 

... ..OURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 30(4), Jdlt 11n 
150 

T.W.5. MoJora..,..ei _ _,_._..,._(E)_,_(Ll4• ....... --. 

Jktd liu II CNc.ueMd AcridcM 

_,_.....,._ 

TDI>l'-o 

~~~ttofscasoe. &pown: ~ Pn:ct.taot. poi10ft011$plaat •ndochcr ~ Uowndud 

y.., bnth EL ELELELELEL E L E L 

197}-74 A 1929' 

~ UOJ' 

D 1576 

E 1043 "" 133 

1974.-7$ A ~~· 

D 1610 S()9 

E 586 1414 

197!5 to D 1030 0 

Doc. 3 1 [).l 120 1067 

E "l mo 

Touk ttn1 ,.3.,.. 

' bcNdn boclll c-a Mid cwc La~Rt~~ . 

' htch.lclcs dtad fWN. 

119 • 13 

lO' 10 

' 10 " ... . .,.. 12 I 

20 21 .. 31' 

6 20 IJ 

26 ,. 

16' 

" II 

" 139 76 142 110 

17 "' 129 10.1' 

ll 47 J 2.31 

I 17 17 Ll ).4 

7 4 J9 19 3.7 l .J 

ll ' 102 " 10.41 

9 2 ll J4 1.9 6.7 

J 12 10 ., 1.7 3.2 

23 Ll I IJ 11 1.6 1.6 

I I II 0.2 1.2 

29 "' 32 J4l )67 1.6 2.6 

• Does 101: inci ~Mk wiMCI' llctds io wlltdl ewes and c•c Wnbs owm: nMitC:d IOICdlu. 

been found. One explanation was that 

lhere were too few staff membeB, they 

were inexperienced. and lambing conditions did not lend themselves 10 

searching. For example, the ewes from 

Ranch E were sheared laterthan nonnal 

because of the long winter so they 

began giving binh in the shearing pens. 

They were then driven some 65-km to 

lhe lambing grounds, and many gave 

binh on the trail . Lamb survival w.S 

predictably poor under these conditions, but accurate monitoring of 

S.OOO ewes over a 6S-km trail was 

virtually impossible. Had conditions 

been more favorable , most categories 

of dead\ would probably have been substantially higher (and the number of 

missing sheep lower). Conceivably. 

predation was not as severe in 1973 

because an unusually high winter kill of 

bolh domestic and wild ungulates left 

much carrion in the area. However, we 

rarely saw evidence of coyotes feeding 

on carrion. or even returning 10 feed on 

lheir own kills. except. in winter. 

In the winter of 197>.-74, then: was 

much less snow than in 1972-73, but 

me wind was strong and persistcnl. 

However. the sheep wintered well and 

lhe lambing season had favorable 

weather. The summer was drier than in 

1973 but there was adequate forage . 

Productiviry in most herds was excel· 

lent; those from Ranches A and C, in 

fact, produced more 1'211ge lambs than 

projec~ from the shed·lambing 

counts (fable 2). Although no lambs 

were known to have died of exposure. 

173 starVed and 157 wen: killed by 

predatO<S (fable 3). It appeared that the 

ilcreased predation and the associated 

harassment of ewes and lambs might 

have led to more lambs being aban· study that sheep, panicularly newbono 

doned and thus starving,but this hy- lambs, died from a variety of causes. 

pothesis could not be followed up in Even with greatly different weather 

1975 because bad weather obscured conditions each winter and spring of the: 

any such relationship that might have study. losses during the lambing season 

existed. In spring 1974 there was an · always exceeded those for the other 

unusually large number of undeter- seasons combined. 

mined deaths. Nearly half of these • 

occurred on Ranch 8, where the ewes Summ<r Losses 

lambed unherded in • 2,000 ha pasture. Summer losses include those fro<> 

\

An early June snowstorm was sus·. the time the sheep were counted onbl 

pee~ of killin& many of them, but it lhe National Forest grazing allotments 

was not possible to thoroughly search in June until lambs were separated frorn 

more than a third of the area each day· lhe ewes for shipping in early October. 

and since sheep can: asses decayed very Deep Snows aild unseasonable weathc r 

rapidly in warm weather and golden sometimes changed lhc:se dates. and in 

eagles had fed on many of them, the 1975 severe pn:dation coupled with 

cause of death often could not be poor herding caused the rancher to 

detennined. remove Herd 0-2 before the summ<'r 

In the winter of 1974-75 there was allotment expired. 

more snow but tess wind than in Losses w.'-'m: much kr«cr in the 

19H-74, and the sheep sul"ooived in summer lh.;, thespring, but the 

good condition. It appeared thai the percentage killed by predatOB was 

springofl975wouldproduceabumpcr substantially higher. During the three 

crop of lambs, but two severe snow years of the study. predators were 

l

stonns a week apan during the peak of responsible for 50.5'1 of all known 

lambin& caused heavy losses. This is deaths on the summer range. vers\.:s 

renected in the low survival at docking only 15.4% on the spring lambing 

(Table 2) and the large number of rnnge. With the change in season and 

exposure deaths recorded (Table 3). grazing area, there also was a change in 

Ranches 8 and 0 were the most species of predators. Goldt:n eagle 

severely affected by the bad weather. predation stopped in the summer and 

Ranch 8 also suffen:d consider:able black bear predation began. As usual , 

predation:goldeneaglcstook6llambs, chc coyoce was the dominan1 predator. 

and coyotes took 95 12mbs and ten but bear kills outnumbered coyo<e kills 

ewes. Even &hough fewer animals were 34to 31 in summer 1973. Mosto(lhese 

monitored inl975 because Ranch A bear kills occurred on Ranch A, where 

went out of business, the number of sheep were~ in a fenced 1,8CO 

dead animals found inc~ased . This ha pasture that included a ~<P· II!Jiih 

was probably due to better survei11ancc ~n. The large nwnber of undeter· 

and to the increase in deaths from iiiliiea deaths for this herd (91. versus 

predation and exposure. 22 for all other herds that summer) al!;o 

Thus. it was apparent early in the includes many cases of suspec1ed bur 

..OURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 30(4) . .uy 11n 
151 

pn:dacion, whe~ either the carcass was 

badly decomposed when round in the 

thick vegetation or tho bear had oaten so much or it that the cause or death could 

not be dctcnnined. On one afternoon 

two technicians saw three black bears 

of different sizes and colors on this 

allotment. -

6umdisease andexposureinbolhi97J- lambs that we suspected that other 

74 and 1974-7S. carrasses may have been carried off by 

Coyotes were responsible for the predators. 

most losses in the winter or 1974-75 

In 1974 the number or sheep found 

dead on the summer range (Table 4) 

was a little greater than in 1973 and 

confirmed predator losses were higher. 

when they killed 124 of the 307 dead 

animals examined. Disease and ex· 

posure accounted for most of the 

n:maining monalitics. During the three 

winters. coyotes were responsible for 

30.5% of all known deaths; disease and 

exposure foe 35%. 

panicularly coyote kills on Ranch E. Misslnc Sheep 

The smaller number of undetermined A perpl .. ing soun:e or loss that is 

dealhs reflects better surveillance and often blamed on predators is missing 

inproved competence in diagnosis. sheep. Other investigators have also 

Still more dead sheep were found in experienced this problem (Davenpon et 

1975 (Table 4). Most or the increase al. 1973; Nass 1975). In 1973 we tried 

was due to predator kills," many found attaching mortality-sensing transmitthe month before shipping. Of S5 ters (Kolz 1975) to about 400 lambs in 

mortalides from Herd 8 during the an artcmpt: to trace missing ones. Howmonth, 51 lambs and one ewe were ever,rigidcollarattachmentscouldnot 

killed by coyotes. The dead lambs were be used on growing lambs and would 

estimated to weigh about 32-kg each. probably have interfered with predaRanchers particularly resent predator tion. The attachment method chosen in 

kills at this time because they have feedlot trials, cementing the IS-em 

spent most of the cost of producing the lransmiuer 10 the wool behind the 

lamb and have not yet seen any return withers, proved unsatisfactory, and 

on their investment. much time was wasted in tracing 

The D-2 Herd, while suffering unaua~ed transmitters. Therefore, we 

substantial predator losses, also had abandoned attempts at ntdio telemetry 

deallts from selenium poisoning (listed and relied mainly on herd counts to 

under "disease" in Tables I and 4). indicarethenumberofmissinganimals. 

When this clement is present in lhe soil. If sheep were ... ~issing from the Nationcertain plants translocate it and can al Forest grazing allotments at the end 

cause death when eaten (Siegmund of summer. aerial sean:hes of the 

1973). However. as no work was done allotments and drive trails were made. 

on this allotment in 1973 or 1974, it is Generally these were no< very producnot known whether losses from rive. since the deciduous trees had not 

selenium poisoning we~ different in yet lost their leaves. but about 100 head 

1975 from other years. • from Ranch A were found by oerial 

Winter Los:ses 

Winter losses included those from 

the time the winter herds were formed 

a1 shipping in October until the spring 

counts at shearing in April or May. 

Losses recorded during the winter 

season are not directly comparable with 

lhosc during other seasons because of 

missing time periods or herds. and 

some earlier herd counlS did not 

distinguish replacement Jambs from 

adult ewes. 

The largest number of winter deaths 

occurred on Ranch A in 19H-74 

(Table 5). According to the herder, an 

uncastrated lamb bred a number of 

ewes in early fall 1973; they began to 

lamb in late January 1974. and most of 

lhc: lambs died of cxposu~. In addition. 

lhe Ranch A herd contained a large 

number of okl ewes. and many died 

search m Sepcember 1974. 

Numbers ofsheep missing during the 

lambing season were difficult to determine. The projected predOcking losses 

of lambs (Table 2) suggested unusually 

large numbers missing in herds C and E 

in 1973 and in herd B in 1974. 

However. since these extrapolations 

I

. showed s"rplus lambs in four cases. 

they should be interpreted cautiously . It 

was even difficult to account for all 

, ewes on the lambing range. For 

I example. on Ranch B. ewes and lambs 

from adjacenl pascures were often 

tOund in the pasture with the study 

herd. and sometimes accurate counts 

were not made of the late-lambing and 

dry ewes removed from the herds. 

Although unaccountably n\issing sheep 

may not be a severe problem in the 

spring. there were so many uneaten or 

only partially eaten predator-killed 

This situation changed in summer 

(Table 6). Four examples of high 

numbers of missing sheep aR apparent: 

Ranch A in 1973 and Ranches A, B. 

and E in 1974. The Ranch A herd was 

managed far less intensively than the 

others and showed disproportionately 

high losses 10 most causes. Even so, it 

5 difficult to accept that 346 and SOl 

sheep were left either deod or alive on 

lhe forest allotment at the end of the two 

summer seasons. 1be intensive 

sean:hes after the sheep left the area 1 

would have located many of these 

animals had they been there. The 

manner of their disappearance is still 1 

matter for conjectu~ . 

Tablo,. N-oC-. ...... alletlloe 

summer r:razla& teUOD. 

llaschenl Nuonloet ........ Year Ranch size _.., miSiiin& 

1973 A 38<0 346 9.0 

B 2107 l7 0.1 

c 3126 0 0 

D 21"' 9 o.• E 2446 39 2 .• 

191• A 31., ))t 15.9 

8 232• 99' • . 3 

c 41S& 

D 21-% -· 2S 1.2 

E 3103 as 2.7 

197S B 20S3 

D 2033 -· :u 1.2 D-2 t6lS <19 3.0 

E 2361 21 0.9 

Tout 13,669 t.23S • . l 

1 RMidl employee saw lheepmia •idiiiiC!lha'bctdbul: C'C*Id!MIIp:tacouc. 

' lt.wd C •• ~ fnam INIIJ• Awpu 9. 10 lftiuill&sfteqtllflkfiOWA. 

~llttdcrleftOM:·fourth IOc:a:-halfollhcshotpOft 

tht .uiM'IC!' rMJC. so number ~~~iMina ill -*--· 

Some or the 99 sheep missing in the 

summer of 1974 from Ranch B were 

not lost bot traveled off the summer 

range with other bands of sheep. This 

was reponed by one of the ranch 

employees. but he made no accurate 

count of the Herd B sheep he saw in 

other herds. The imponance of 1 

competent herder was again illustrated 

in Herd Bin 1975, when 2S to SO% of 

lhe sheep that were counted onto the 

summer range did not retum to the 

shipping area. However. most of these 

sheep were probably recovered from 

lhe other herds because the rancher was 

aware of the situation. High losses in 

the summer of 197S in Herd 0-2 also 

.eflected a labor problem. The herder 

..OURNAL Of RANGE MANAGEMENT 30(4), July tAn 
152 

often allowed the sheep ro scalier T- 7. "-• ..... .,,....,_ • ...,., ....._ 

widely lhrough the fOreSI durin& midday. making il diflicuk 10 "'£roup them 

in lhe evening. Many of the 32 pr<dalor 

bsses occumd during the day. probably because of the .. loose .. herding. 

The 85 ~beep missing in 1974 from 

Herd E mighl be Jaraely attriburable 10 

Sprins t973 

t974 

197~ 

predalion. Of the lhree summers, !his s."""" 1973 

herd was P"'Yed on IIIOSl seve,.,ly in 1974 

1974, and aboul 75% of !he dead 197~ 

19~8 1103 1243 1494 

1371 . .1.<011 

... 91 

1477 

tOll 

animals found were killed by predaron. Winou 197.1-74 1309 6611 

moS!Iy coyoces. Pan of the allounenl is 1974-7~ 1091 961 

covered wilh lhickets of Gambol oak, 197~ 1120 1211 

0 

0 

0.1 

0.2 

0 

0 

........ -'"'""by,..._. E- t..a 

H;,h M<M Low H;p Meu 

0.3 0. 1 0.2 3.7 1.6 0.3 0. 1 0.4 6.7 ~ 

0.6 0.4 1.0 9.1 3.1 

~ 0.3 1.0 1.7 l.l ~ 0.2 0.6 3.4 1.4 0.6 0.3 1.4 6.6 3.9 

0.1 ~ 1.4 2.0 1.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 3.9 2.9 0.3 0. 1 1.0 1.4 1.2 

0.2 

~ where dead sheep could easily have Means '"' 1973 

been Sheep missed were by the sometimes surchers. missing _oj]_ ....... __..:~~~-------------.:::!-----'--~ 0.2 2.1 0.2 3.2 

during the winter season as well. On . 1.5lo3.2%oflheirlamb5lopredarors. 

Ranch D, 32 sheep were missing in or 1.2% of !heir sheep overall. 

winler 19H-74 and 21 in 1974-75. On Wealhet-relareddealhs. if !hey could 

Ranch E, 19 were missing in 1973-74 be lumped inro !hat broad grouping. 

and 12 in 1974-75. During the laSIIWo •would probably have been higher !han 

and one-half monlhs .of 1975, 49 predarion losses. Exposure. however. 

"'placemenl ewes but no adull ewes. which caused 14.5% of all dealhs, is 

were missing from Herd D-2. a puz- lhe only eotegory easily attriburable ro 

zling silualion because more searching bad weather. We know !hal some of !he 

was done on !his herd !han any other.ln dealhs attribu~<:d 10 SlarVarion, acciaddirion lo horseback searches, 3 houn dents, and disease were induced by 

were spent in an extensive aerial sean:b Wtclemena weather. but it is impossible 

in and around the areas where the herd 10 delermine how many. 

had grazed, bul the sheep were nor Allhou h 1 Jtil•-• •--~ . • •. found dead or alive. Ranch A showed . II ~ es .a.~·-'"·~ abnormally high numben of sheep spnng, bean ltilled ewes and lambs m 

missing when il wasliquidared aflerthe lhe summer, and bobcats and dogs 

win~<:rof 1974-75. but the counu were killed a few sheep, !he coyoce was~ 

incomple~<: and the number missing map predalor. Coyoces were"'~'­

could nor be 11C1:Utll<:ly derermined. ble _fe< 77% of all known predalor kills dunng the Sludy and for 18% of all 

"'corded dealhs. Whether predaror 

A lopic of primary inl<:"'SI in !his 

Sludy was the exl<:lll of sheep losses 10 

f"'dalO<S. Of the eousesotdealhdel<:rmined by necropsy, predolion was !he 

second liiOSl importanl for ewes and 

mosl imponanl fe< lambs (Table 1). 

PredatO<S killed 18.1% of the dead 

ewesexaminedand24.4%ofthelambs, 

or23.2% of the sheep overall. Pen:enr- qes of the ranchers· herds losl 10 

known P"'dale< kills ore summarized in 

Table 7. These figures ore based on 

mean herd counts and mean seasonal 

losses for all nnchers. so !hey suggeSl 

trends rather !han illusua~<: individual 

bss silWilions. In oddilion they ore 

probably low for 1973. when surveillance was inadequate because of 

bad weather and roo few personnel. and 

possibly low fe< 1975, when the srudy 

Slopped on December 31 ralhet !han 

conrinuing lhrough April. These calculllions indicate !hat the ranchon in 

lhe study lost 0.2% of their ewes and 

losses have increased since the ban of 

.,;(icants on public lands went into 

effecr in 1972 can1101. of course. be 

answered bY !his srudy. Nevertheless. 

lhe general !rend was an increase in the 

!ale of predolion from 1973 lhrouch 

1975 (Table 7). Considerable money 

and effon was expended by !he coopetaling nnches in predator conuol. 

bur predation coorinuecl. 

The"' were predalor kills in every 

herd lhroughout the Sludy. Generally. 

ewes were noc killed if lambs we~ 

P"'senr. We moniro...d only one herd 

(D. winler 1975) in which the"' w= 

no lambs; coyOI<:s killed 0.3..., of lhese 

ewes in 2 monlhs. The pllesl loss of 

lambs 10 P"'dalO<S was in Herd 8 in 

1975 (Table 3). Allhough !he lambs 

killed bY predarors composed 9. I~ of 

f1e lambin1 herd and 6.6% of the 

summer herd (Table 7), !he aYenlge 

bss of lambs for all herds in 1975 was 

3.2%. 

The pen::enrages of sheep losr 10 

f"'dalo" in Ibis Sludy (Tables I and 7) 

do 1101 differ much from !hose "'porud 

by other workers, even. !hough the <ttra 

we"' collected diffe,.,ntly. In Urah, 

Davenpon el al. (1973) found !hal 

verif~ed predator kills accounted for 1.8 

l040.3%ofall ~rded lossesandlao>k 

U% of !he 17,453 lambs sludied. 

Nielson and Curle ( 1970) in a Utah 

queSiionnaire sludy found !hal aboul 

6% of all ~p were lOS! 10 f"'dalors 

and !hal coy01es accounted for 78% of 

all f"'da!Or losses. Nesse (1974) in a 

California survey, found an annual 

f"'dalion "'"' of 1.1 'I; for ewes and 2.7 .. fe< lambs. Nass (1975) sludi·:d 

f"'dalot losses in Idaho and found a 

predalion tal<: berween 1.1% and 1.7<;1, 

i>r lambs, and 0. 7% and 1.4% for 

ewes. Predator conuol was in effect 

during all of lhese sludies. 

Akhough !here ore no fig""" 10 

quanrify the loss. we believe thar 

predators were responsible for indirr.ct 

damage 10 the herds as well as <Mil· 

righl killin&. Scanerin& of a herd by 

f"'dalors, panicularly a drop bunoh 

during lambing. probably Cllused sorne 

ewes and !heir lambs 10 becorne 

separated so lhal lambs died frc•m 

stanadon. tr:ampling. or expost~~ R 

without their death being attributed to 

P"'dalion. 

A part of the controversy o\·er 

P"'dation on sheep has been wherher 

P"'dators lake " !he weak and !he sick .. 

or prey on the ··fattest. heavN~st 

lambs ... While wild populalions of ungullles may "'acrro predators by losing 

f1e weak and sick lim. domestic sheep 

are so defenseless !hal il makes linle 

diff.,.,nce whether lambs ore healthy or 

nol-<oyoces and bears can kill Jambs 

wirh ease. In faCl, il is possible lhll rhe 

hcakhier. more active lambs attrxt the 
153 

aucntion of pn:dators. We had hoped to yields, as indical<d by the docking 

lhrow some light on this controversy by percentages in Table 2. For example. 

o:cording lhe weight of dead lambs at RanchC had fewer stock sheep !han lhe 

necropsy. Unfonunately. the weights other ranches and was managed more 

proved of linlc value because predators intensely. Every morning during the 

or .scavcngcn had ofccn removed parts lambing season the owner actively 

of the can:iss. Funhennore, for a panir.ipated in moving lhc ·main herd 

lamb's weight to indicate its heallh, its away from lhc ewes !hat had lambed. 

age would have to be known; but age and the docking pettcntages reflce~ed 

was an estimate and often had to be lhis care. Management intensity. how· 

t:ased on weight. However, it was ever, decreased u the number of sheep 

possible to obtain the sex of many of the under one ownership increased. The 

dead lambs; where known,lhe sex ratio n::suh was reliance on Jess competent 

was approximately equal. • employees and lower survival oflambs. 

In soulhem Wyoming, where !here Certain problems associated wilh 

may be 4,000 to 6,000 or more stock range herds are largely unavoidable 

sheep on a ranch, it is common for one l.lldcr the management systems used in 

or two herders to care for 1,000 to "'"them Wyoming. Lambing sheds 

2,000 sheep. Additional help was would reduce losses from wcalhcr and 

needed during lhe lambing season, but perhaps from predators, but apparendy 

mrely in our area were more than two t!1c lack of suitable pre- and postherders assigned to a lambing herd. lambing pasture and lhc labor problem 

lbey usually received no supervision precluded shed lambing. Stillbirths and 

beyond brief visits by a "camp tender" disease deaths probably cannol be 

once or twice a week. Although !here altogether eliminated but could have 

are still a few good middle-aged been reduced in some cases by ualous 

herders and a few " old-timers" in their • C\llling of !he older orunlhrifty animals. 

sixties, most of lhc herders hired were lbe accident rate could have been 

young and inexperienced. The combi- lowel:'d by berte~ management, implynation of inexperience and poor super- ing again problems of labor, and losses 

vision of lhc herders resulted in mixing fOllowing shearing could have been 

of herds, -accidcnts, .o missing · sheep, lessened if shearing crews were ~Iter 

dealh arid abandonment on the lambing trained and more careful. Some ewes 

grounds, scartering of lhc herds, !heft died from .shearing injuries, some 

of lambs, and numerous other prob- aboned because of rough handling, and 

lems, including predation. For exam- some probably could not nurse !heir 

pie, Ranch A and Herd D-2, with poor lambs because of injuries to lhc udder 

herders, and Ranch B, with no herders a teats. 

during lambing, showed excessive These examples serve to demon· 

~dal:orlosses . Fromourobservations. scratc that white predation was a 

even the most competent of herders significant problem it was no1 the only 

cannot stop all losses. from predation one. Predation is dramatic and arouses 

or any other cause. btu good herding emotions, but its magnitude is often 

can definitely reduce them. Yet. close lied to orher circumstances. However. 

herding can also cause problems, tanchers feel !hat predation. unlike 

particularly in the utilization of the weather or economic conditions, is a 

rmgc, and the presence of incxpcri· problem that could be alleviated im· 

enccd or incompetenl herders on the 

lambing grounds can be as damaging as 

it is helpful. Nevenheless, good managemenl of the ewes and lambs on the 

lambing ground can improve lamb 

mediately if efficient and safe techniques ror the control or predaiOrl were 

made available co the liveslock in· 

dustry. 

Literature Cited 

C&lo, 5. A., J, A. Kodloc:, D. L. Altcn, R. AC .... y, M. C- H ......... , A. S .......... 

....t F- H. woc ..... tm.-........._ 1971 report 10 the Council on En¥iroNMntal 

Qualicy and lhc Depattmo .. "'t- by ... 

ad<~iiOt)'comtniaec:on predllOtc:ontrot UN<~ . 

of MK:hi&an Pleu, AM Atbor. 297 p. 

Davmpo<t, J, W., J- E. ...... oad J, P. 

WortuDaa..tm. As~cssmotaoishcq> 1oucs 

10 ...,...._.. P"''llcm 10 Ullh sh<q>men--1 

cona:m co Utah racan:hcn. "'· b.p. Sea., Utah Stale Univ., t..os:an. Ita. Rep. 1. 11 p. 

foulbcr, E. K., ud J, L Ttpor. tm. BUtll ..,.. ol sheep &om ...,.. opmtiaos ia 

Cartloa Coun<y, w,.....,. "-'· &!. s..v .• Ulliv. of Wyomina. t.ar.mie. Ita. Rep. 8 -

643 ... p. 

Kalpol, D- H., A. D.,..,.._, C. T. - · K. L- D1oao, M. Puller, P. A- Rtdlanl, 1'. C. s...-, J, F. 11otlooJ•, A- L W ..... , and R. W. Weeb. t975- The Medi· 

cine Bow ecoloa,y project: chc pocentia! StftSilivity of various CCOS}'*m c:omponems 10 

wiluet precipiwion in dte Medicine Bow 

Mountains, Wyomina. Oiv. Atmo~ . Water 

Raow-. Manqe .• Bur. Roc., U.S. Dep. 

lncerior. Oenwr. 397 p. 

~ A. L 19'75. Moculity-ICUin& wildlife 

transtniUcn. Trans. Ann. ltody Mountaitl 

Btoetl&incerin& Symp. and laccmational ISA 

Biomed.K:al lmtn&mCRwion Symp., Denver. 

p. $7-<10. 

Nlelooa, D., and D. Curlc-1970. - ..... 10 Utah's ranee sheep induscry. The Na1. Wool 

Grower. 60(tl):t4-t6,22. "-. R. D. 1975. LAss dau """'*<~ ror Idaho 

sheep ranches. U .S. Dep. hucrio.-. Wildt. 

Raearch Ccnccr. OcnYU. Unpub. narr. rtpOtt, 

June . p. 13-1.&. 

-·C

wdics

. 

. 

E. 

Di.v. 

1974, of Wildt Sulewi4< 

and 

coyo<c 

Fish. 

~ 

Bioloo. 

Uni<~ . of California, Davis. 19 p. 

Rowlt)'. 1. 1970. Lamb predal:ioa ia Auanlia:. 

inddtnce, pn:disposiAC c:ondictofts, and idcntirJC:alion of wounds. CSIRO Wildt. Res. IS: 

79·123. 

Siqmond, 0- H. (cd.)- 1973. The M=k Vctcrinuy Manual. Mcrd: and Co., Inc: .. 

bhway, N. J. 1.600 p. 
154 

Sloeepbtrda-Trtsba TldemmD a her Tm S1oep, Wyomllla. CU11P 

How Sy keeps the coyotes away TEN SUiEP, ·W70- -Two sam-

""" - Triohol'lllemola, a Warlaad, w,.,.,......,..,w_,.t.«XXIhoep 

~MIIIIoliPoraadl<aaCW)IOIIIOic'a 

Bichon .........._ .... ....,. r .... lll<:n:ia __ .,....., .......... . 

lhcftop.lllll~-..,....,bul 

100- maybe block ---lioaa, ldlledclaoe 1160. 

9001hoepD- l.all-T-- in lllo-pla. --Silo 

clid.uloooaay.lboclillonace-Sy,a 

cioat. dirty-- a-~ dot· s-.•1111••-··-. ......... ........ a( elfectift, --lcdlal - boilo1 aod m..-.11141,..... by sllocp- ._._. .. w.._ Wa:lltul ....... JII1Cii;es an: cmaCpraii!Ciilw ----~WIYI ..... fnm-..- W"111llhoepiiiiCIIon raa... lll:ta(quoliliod - """will aocqlllhc -·· low poy -.1 ruged c:oadi&iau, many 

w ...... lb:b_ldi_Samo ........... -....- ......... _ _...aCii-~.rIUI'd dap ., declric fCIICial- u- I""'P<'<Y.IIIaecanmluoolhc-far 

---6aled~.....,.­

po;.... .. ,.... .... 

u..Jiy - willa ........ Dact. 

IIJI'd dap-ID adapl- c:llaraa IIIII S11J alert far ........, espociaJiy at 

.. ,. -..-... ..,;,e. "Evuy .. ,. ... ..,.. .... _....,.. ..... T-ays. "You'D-lhc..,.... 

'-lioc. lbca you COD - Sy bRio~, IIIII pn:II)'SIDII dae..,....cis~Ra" " 

'"llley'"" really - -· ..... Cor u," ••1• Briabaa Ci1y, Uld, 

sb<q> IMCIIet Malcolm Y """'· no uses IWO Grca i'yRneea. He pues 

sheqt ill lhc Waaldi-Cadoo Nalioaal 

Fotesl's ML Naomi Wildemess AieL 

where a dlftle-year lrial ........,. wiD 

allow·aovemmeal aerial eeyo~e .-

nina only if prcda10r-caoscd losses 

........ anaill- wbcn:IIJI'd 

clop.,. osd. So for,......,- been 

... _tillinp. 

-M.M. 
155 

--Llama -=-------------~'----CmUJ•••dfromp•g•o•• ---

doillg wiut comes n;tNnlly, 

- according to Darlene V:aupn of 

W'utd River l.Jamas in Lander. 

11\at's just their nomuJ behavior. 

'Mley'~ :a curlou$ 3nirtul, an~ 

thetefote when something comes 

into their :ares thai's dilfertnt, 

they'U go toward it fast • 

llamas :ue also narur;,Uy waJY of 

C21iids .ruch :u cOVOtes. fo.xes .00 

dogs, according t~ a 1993low.t 

State t:nivenity study on guard Uanu.s. Abo, aher they ble'come familiar with .1n 3ft':l and grow 3ft3Ch~ 

to the sheep, they become ':~ct.ive 

leaders and prolecton of their 

flock," the srudy stnes. 

"'They're a ~ly :lninul, 50 

they'U bond with the sheep,· Eilffn 

said.·"lhey eat aoythina a .sh«p eats, .ta they're very euy keepers.• 

In bet, Mumford dUpbyed some 

jellousy when me Utbi1keits 

"<emmy -.glu 2nOih<t u.nu home ro the ranch. The new lbma, 

· 7-mooth..old Ashley, will be a pet 

aad PIX a ptd. 

Mumford's taCtion ro ~he new· 

comer wu justl8ed ance, .Iter :an. be pobobly doeoa'- wtw • llama ... l!lleea no<ed. He lwn' 

Jeen ooc ~ he wvwaned. 

'1'be r.o Damu woal lllfCOd 100 

....:~>-_.nor.-. 

beauoe.....ro.lm!PboodAihley lnd DO""""' be- u. sheep 11\W'd. ... $lid. 

"'lddJ<iooiO ....... aood guard, Mumfad wu for a ciiDc 

socnedUng ola c:deb«y. Hts orlgi· 

nal owners, John and lkfty Lye of 

Riverr:on.~JOme!'ofcl'l<"flnl 

ranchets to uy using Uasms as 

................. lbe Lyes, who ranched Gear 

Pavmion. llWally tried tJSin& several tlanw in lheU pasture. Then d'M!y 

bought -4-mont:h-d:t Mumford rn:.n a Nebr.lsk2 ran.chtt In 1980. they 

Slid. 

Mumford was named by the 

tanchet's children after The AmU· 

1ng Mumford, the,...,... chine· 

~er oa ~e Sueet' Mt05e c:atd:l 

~ b "A Ia pe:anut buMt sand· 

-EveuruaUy, · the Lya' c~ 

aat2aed !metal from~ 

and mtdb KI'C8 the country. 

Mumford sppesred in nunwt'DU$ 

smdet. Including one In the ctilldren'l m2pztne '11'sdonal Geo- snphk: world.· The m2gazine noted In Oc:lobet 

1982 dw ·~at dwUiliW:nlry o( Wyoming ~ rcuowtna: Mumlocd's career as 2 pard W· 

maL ·n.e univenlfy mo obWMd 

lbnw o( Ia own 10 use U1 nperimenu wCih .$beep. 8euy :Mid. 

""""& .......... blllz,)dlo 

alta joked that he wa.ed k) 

aaswer !he phonr wbm dw ldevillaft show "That'•lnaedlllt· 

calk!d. Then he really did 1ft a caU ..... them. 

Mumlonl, alert aa4 at tbc ready, wMcb<d out for ooc of bis charJleo. He's been ~ 

wtlb •Met> na- sloe<: he ,... a ocwborn. · 

Tbe penoa at tbe ocbef tDd ol 

the line wanted to conw ouc md 

fUm Mumlocd In l\aioa c:twmg 

down coyores. but ...tlen}ohn 

explained lh21 you doa't ohm~ 

coyotes- you juSI Jte the d2nujJe 

they le:lve- the show 10$1 inueres~:. 

he said. 

Th.e Lyes and their lWna even 

showed up in an EnsJlsh tutbook 

pronoun exrcbe - the teSU.Ir, 

they rhlnk, ol 2 rde:ue fonn ~My 

slped whm MurnfOtd ~ profiled 

in "National Geographic World." 

The ~ 1n5 published by 

Houghton Mifflin in 1988. 

Aput liom his celebrity SlilNS. 

Mwnford proved ro bf: an effective 

guard for the Lyn. Th.e ~r befo~ 

they p him. lhey losl il ~~p ro 

p~rors. ~ yar 2ft«. eisht of 

their sheep were Killed. John ~id 

The Lye t\2d. accordltiS to Eil~n 

Urbigketc. •ofkn condng 0\11 ol 

their nrt" b )JunUocd •-hen they 

d«ided 10 .ell hint a,nd ;~ OUI o( 

the r.anchin.:: b'UiiMU. He • ·:b purchned by the l'tbigk~itJ in M:w:h 

of198';, after the Lye &ocidcd ttut 

MwnfOtd ..-as ·a shoeep and he! 

belonas wilh sheep.· John aid. 

Mwnfcxd Ml'ds to h;a,•e sheep 

210Und him, or ~be he'~> · a n~l'\:ous 

wreck: John added. Rl;ht no•· 

QlOS( ct the l'cbi&kelts' ~ a~ :at 

their ton's r.11nch for bnlbing. but 

thc!y le(! a few eown L'1 that com! 

to keep MunVord con1pany, Eibm 

..... Even lhoush lhe UrbigkeiU own 

the counry's most btnous lbnu, 

Mumford iKI'! the onJ..,. ~ OUl 

there. Vaugtu.n estil1~1ed llu! 

about 10 Franom Counry families 

own 1J.amas, either as prds or 

.,.... A llama inrended as .a JI.Wd may cast anywhere ~ 1300 and 

S\,000, Vaugtun said, depending 

on !heir ;~ppear.~nce. "Some llamas 

areberterlookins,JUS! Iikehorses 

or an)1h.ing else." she said. 

Uarn.Js ue good pack animals a.s 

wdl. Vaug!wl said, and becaUJe ol 

their senlk narure they are popular 

:a show anim2ls fot' children. 

"ihey're a forsivins :1nima.l, • she 

.u.ld. ·vou an be .a linle inept at 

doing !he work. and !hey'U forgi\-e 

you for it" 

It doesn'l JeenllCI n\atter much 

whethet:!.ptdUam.aislnttoduced to sheep right after 'Ne3ning 

or :a1 a !:iter .:aae. The looa.·a St:tte 

L'nh·etsity srudy found that 1he age 

of 11.am:u :after rhey're :s re;~r old 

did :\OC reb.te to rheir eff«ri,·eness. 

The e;,.pertlmces of a Nt:alllli'er· 

ron f;unily 10 ..-hon1 V:1uy:h.ln 

recently )Old :1 ~td lbnu se-eR\ 10 

be;ir !his our. The 9·yeu-old llama 

i:; doing •-eU. she ~ld . 

-~:~ sold her a1 a time of year 

when lhe :sheep ~~ lantbin&. so 

she go« used 10 beins: wilh lhe 

)h~~p :Jnd only the $beep.- she 

:f.lid. 

How~·er, thee s~ sf~ things 

r:tnchets should keep in mind 

:about gu;ard llamas. FOI euntple, 

nuk! llanw kep wid\~ have 

lObe added. VsusNn ~aid. 

beause they breed ye:ar·round 

insl:e:ld rX in JnSOns like orher 

r:.1nge 2n~ls. • Arly day Is breed· 

ing day for s U2n12. • she uid. 

The Lyes ie:l.t'4ed dw lesson the 

hard wzy when they owned Mumford. He wuuldn 't leave the ewes 

alone and drove off any t2m who 

wantl!d to ge.: near them, john said. 

Uamas also tend to work best in 

smaller pasrures. Vaughan s:aid. tn 

large, e:qn.nsive plOtS of bnd, they 

can·t .see what's coming 35 ~u as 

they can in smaUer fie!~. she s.:aid. 

lli.nus also ta\·e 2 few had 

h3bits. like spitting. Mumford spi~ 

when he sees 50mC'thing he doesn't 

like or when ~e L:tbigkeits' dogs 

sre borherin:g him • .Eile-en said . 

-when he putS back his ears and 

suns chewing. watch out!" Eileen 

said. "It's awful. It stWa and ir's 

slickv and it's terrible.· 

Sh~ :1Jso !'eC2IIs :ltl<)(her tlnte 

when Mumford n1:1dc himself :1 

nuis.:tnce .. \mountain lion tud 

~n spooC'd . .1nd lblph decided 10 

corr.slthe lbm:a tO k~p him out of 

trouble 

81J't IO ~ 10 the COfT:ll. ~lunUOfd 

tud to eta» a ditch full ofw:ater, 

.1nd h~ didn ., like that ide. at all. 

R.:!.lph and his JiSfer tud to pull 

~lumfotd "inc:h·b) ~ch· aci'05i the 

ditch. 

"She'd puU. he'd push." EiJeen 

s.:aid. "Munlford would dig hi:; feet 

in .1nd spit and holler.· 

Over:aU. though. the UrbisJ<eits 

chink du1 :\lumlord Is neally good 

10 ha\·e uound. 

"You ju.lit (all in love .nth them." 

Ekm said. "II 8ft~ 2ddict~-e. • 

Uarrw are a linle like cat5. she 

Jdded. "You don't""" t~n. 'They 

own you. If» on 1~ir temts. • 
Friday, March 4, 1994 

Eileen Urblgkdt offered a treat to Mumford, who's been guarding the 

Urblgkdts' obeep for o.loc -· Hla career .. a guard llama began on'a Pftllllon-arca obeep ranch owned by John and Betty Lye, now of RJver· 

ton 

County'

llama st

0 South American an

effective in protectin

against predators, ow

By FeUcla Jordan 

Ranger Staff Writer 

At the Urbigkeit Ranch in C

may safely graze. 

Yes, coy01es do lurk around 

place. They just don't bother t

much. 

Look out at the fields and yo

the rea:;on why. He could be o

bunching the flock Into a tight 

placing himself between a coy

sheep. And if th:lt coyoce tries 

funny, you might Just~ hlm 

speed, running about as fa::ol 3

while the c<lyoce flees from th

onslaught of tht! Urhigkcib' .. 
157 

Jenna, ra11ge warrior 

Donkey keeps dogs, coyotes at bay 

llyTOM MAST Stflr 1ribunc :traff wriiP,. 

cr ~~~[~arri~u~~;::~ehr:nhc!i Oouhl~ that a young f\."111ale don· k~y nan1cd Jcl)na would be much good comh;uing prc:dtttors. 

Harris, 72. h115 been a:t~ociat ~ 

cd with lhelivcsto~k hl.rsincs~ all 

his life. He bas rai•ed canle., 

rr~il!~~:..o;;;l~·~~~~e fo';"~o ytars. H111 · when the -familv ICllmod 

1b.11 donlt•'JI• mil!lll be drccti ve 111 nmnintt uff pn:d'lton;, HaTJir- con· cede• he was "pretty sltcpticol. • Still, they decided to give it a 

trY. Su Jcn"o Wtsl'l ecquired and 

pf:~eed with the cashmere ~o•u. At !inti, it appeared the donkey miJ!hl be afraid of lhc goats. 

"'J'lH:n ~he ~01 tn goio~ wilh lhcm. and I really didn' t think 

she was dni~~ a wh~lc 1('11 ... be !llaid. 

Jlarrhc even C<tnsidcred ~CI· 

ting rid of Jcnna. but his wife, 

llelly, invbncd thni 1lu.~ donkey 

wn~~~~ "!~~;'3!!~s~~l~J'!,;rf.~~~~ lowed. 

Wherever the gmus ~:,o , the donkey i• sure the follow. She 

has even been kn1>wn to r<>und 

up stray.. If the <hc.-p were out as much as Ule guKb, »he'd 1Uick 

with them. too. ~rah Hani5 said. 

•Mean,•&nu 

lnlnlng required 

Jcuna. u il happen,;, i~ a 

herder with a f\rnnounced 1nean ~treak, e10pccially when it come~ 

\u c1nids. She'to nnt ovcrty f'ODd 

ufdcct,\litiJer. 

24·721 96-6 

She! will wheel :shQut ('ltl the 

hw.Jcr· ~.:ullic xtock dog,.1 ar::l lrl'll)' 

m~naciug,ly. Whun • sroup ni" c.k:ur uppcared at the feed woultdli 

last winter, s1No: nan tbcm bock In- In I he hills. 

"They're (dMkcys) kind of n1enn," Saroh said. "She'll go at 

the ~OilS with her teeth hored, 

just like she's guin~:to re*llY get I hem . .... nd I wouldn't be our· 

pri""d if she would, ifohe could catch them." 

Jeua ruquircd no train ina aiud . needs no Apt'Chtl conJCidci"Mlinn. She wa• timply plac•..J with •he c,oots fi,r two or three week$. du.-n turned aut with them. 

llefotc Jcnna's time. the llar- ris fomily lost •evcral youn~ 

goats 10 predators. <:nyolos 

would cotnc right down lu the 

com~! at night, Sarah said. 

Sometimes after dark, she •aid, coyutcs still con be heArd outside. ~·nnnwcd by lh~ hraying ufo donkey. Followed by si· lcnce. 

ln the year and a h:~fr since Jcnna arrlvc:IJ, prcdaror los~c~ 

among the :!ih<:CJ'I and gc.nttN hnve 

been eliminated. There nrc otill coyote• ahout. Sanh "'id. They 

ju>t oon 'I ~, indlncd lo tan&IC with the three-year-aid tlunkcy. 

l..llde success witlt 

dOill&llamu 

In the """'· the family triad guard do~• and llomas In protect 

their stock. Neither worked •• well u the donkey. The llam.:~~ wuuld ju1np the 

fc1'ces, and b~~.~ .. t nt• un lJac bunM:A and catde, while •the t:Uard 00@.• tend to winder."' Sarall a1id. 

"They'd ri)Ouo alut. They'd end 

up in J~:~y Em and IJ\:"('1.,;: woulc.l 

feed 1hcm. You couldu't keep 

thcnt humc. " . 

'fhe 11"""is r~mily kcx.., about 

400 lfO•ts and 50 R•mbouillct sheep. In the past, they ran tbou- sond• ofshc•-p. And M•rk Barrio thinks <.Jnnlcey~ could be juKt ttK 

r.::tlC:ctive with large bn11dK ""they arc with smaller llock•. 

"It's like anythin¥· ,like llamas. doB•· Wilh anyth•ng, there'• l'"xJ ones nnd mw.:s who won~~ 1 1111PP'"'"·" he !laid .. "But I hllvc a feeling thul tllcy'd du quite alii· 

11c rrotedin~." 

With large hantl~, whcrc c()_y~ 

OtCl' misht COtnC from !<CVCral di .. 

rcctinn"· Jlll'rc than one burrO might he required, he xaid, but 

"I think tl1ey'd do their shan:." Jennu, it .;eppears, ia 

nut unique. Sionilor donkey be- havior ha!C been tC}JUrtcd oltroc· 

where. 

Accor~tiug lb a r('.c:<'!n l As!<n· eiah.-d Prc!t.l:i Rl'cuunt. thr c:xa1n ~ 

~~crt ,,:ar ~o;~·~~: 0~:~ ~~~ eJ~~f- lnat~d prcdafor lo!lscK in a f'Ioc.k 

of 500 <hccp fur at least the p .. l 

three yc;m in a ncil,(hborhood rc· }'t\lttdly·inrc!ltcd wnh cuyntcN. 

· • 'The shc•-p gather aruund her 

in the field, ami •he cbaM:< dnt:• •nd ~oyolcs uut nf rhc nc1d~ •• said the dunkcy'~ owner. fllrwid 

tlam. M:dc dnnkey~ dun"t work out 

lUI pard~. the H~arri,;e,; $tl)'. Nci· thcr. opparcntly, do remalc don· keys with younQ. 

But Jcnna hal'l llllo' CIJ cm.:c.:tivc 

heyond cxpc.""CtationA. "Wll »Urc lulvc had gocd luck,'' Mark Harrill said. "We haven "t bad pn:da~ 

tor lo)l~e ~ · 
158 

If there i s any truth to this article 

1080 should not be released to controi 

game birds,,and animals . 

. ~~~ :ic-~JRa{mond Record 

Box 302 

Gillette, WY 82717 

I see no reason the 

losses in livestock, 

· 1 080 was developed ·"-::"' '"'' 

during WWII ••• 

In the Feb. 16 Agrl-New1 lheyfoundoneoldmanwilh 

lhere' san article about "Col- !he quickstep. No hanndone. Iars would kill coyotea that aoyousee,l080isoneofthe 

kill llheep." It ststed en vi- safest tools we bave to con- ronmentalists and others trol the predator. 

worry the wpoiaon" in the It is not in a true IICIIIe a collars could kill other ani- poison. It is a blood thinner 

mals. made from the mold from 

First, let me tell them that clover. The canine baa blood 

1080 is not a poiaon. 1080 veuelsonthesiarfeceoftheir was developed during WWII lltOmal:h and 1080cauaesln- to kill off tf.e German guard tcmol bleeding. It is a paindogs. It is spccificllly de- Jess deslh and I 080 wib not 

signed to kill a canine spo- kill-anything 111111 doel 1101 

ciesandwiiiiiOIIdUaneagle, bave these chancteristia. , magpie, eu:. Purthennore, . I bave wau:hed eqles reect,. 

there bas never been a hu-' ' on a 1080 bait for one hour man deslh caused by I 080. llld fly ofT. It is vel)' unlikely ·One or the most experi- ' to kill the leC08d KaYeiiiCf. 

enced men I've known han- ltitoneofthesafesttoolswe 

dling I 080 wasCiaytonZook baveeverhad llldmuch more from Miles Cit)', MonL He .. 1080 Is used in our cities to was the superv1sor of ADC kill ofT rsts lhan wu ever for eastern Montana. I used in the West to coatrol 

worked wilh him aeveral. Pft'daton. 

years. . . -lilslead or the enviroamen-. When ean.da startcd .the ~ tllists buclrlnalts lllie,lhey, use or 1080 to reduce the c could help a lot JQOre by en- predator problems, Mr. Zook cour&Jinslts use. We misht. wenttoCanadatobelpthem. lhen see 10111e blnll.• "nle, They used 10111e elk that were ~ is aone aad what a· overpopulatins Waterton cnme. Part. The can:asaes WCR Wuhouldbavel080atthe 

treated wilh I 080 and loeded county level. Controlled llld onto a rail car to be shipped. used property and safely, we 

The car was pubd near a could oil benefit by IL It is 

.-vationdurinstheweet- 1101 apinat the law to use end. Monday the treated IIICIII 1080on private property .The 

was Ill gone. The Canalian feds just made lt apuist the 

officiolswerenearpanic.Mr. Jaw to tranJpOrt it- a ?:oak auured them that a bu- lillie line. 11ie bigeat plant ~would bave ..,_ , where 1080 Is maiiUfac:IDred 

17 pounds or that meat to is Hot Sprinal, Arlt. 

harm them. After lntetview . Jim Mumion 

IDdlnvati&adnlthellllhel, · Shawmut, MoaL 
159 

••• - ' ,• ' ' .•• :. :·. : ....... ·: ·:: '\" ;~ '•·"'"f;¥ ...... '-~ .- ........ ... '. ·;. .;r,. .. ~.; •. ·'! ,, :: :. j': ~· f-0.'\ / .. ~ ... ":: ~'7! ' 

*~ r~;, 

Congresevoman Barbara Cub1n 

U.S. Sousa of Representatives 

Casper, Wyoming Otfict, VIA FAX 

:~ ~­

Dear Consrea•woman Cubiu, ~ 

April 8,1996 

The Monu.n.a Woof' ~row~ Aiuociatio~-- hae a membership ···,of 2,300 

sheep producers in Montana, W!f vish to d'011pli.ment you on Y.our hearing 

regarding Animal D~&• Coctro:l under OS~/APRIS. We voul~ abo like 

to have our commants entered into the hea'ring as the pro'b.J.en of animal 

datllage control is 8it.vere in Mofti:ana. "" 

Shaep numbers eoa.tin\14 . t 

numerous including $~i;' .' ' 

payments to growers • . ,_ 

~oing out of sheep ra~ s1fi--'1-•: 

.;reason is 

vided 1ncen't1v e 

rs list tor 

Statistical Reporting ~erVtca -~~-u .. _, _ ,.•r·. ou. _.: " . .".' 

than normal lossBs,. at)Cf :· thoa~. loi"ses wOul~· ·.w .. e-~m;tr, . . •~-~t it vera nat 

far the efforts of aa.ta&l clause. control ~ ' ~~~.QA ;. .... ithat data for 

last year sho,-s ~lul~ r_red&1:'ol'._... . ~ .... ~~,- .mion dollars worth 

of sheep in t"9~5 : ~~d = . . ;.9 ~~~~::. A~;~:::.: : . ~~~ i~~~rt!dator rt!- spon•ible for most of the lo .. es :tfig· .5-=miiH'C:m-J\to-I:tars in 199~. 

I have ineluded a complete report of the MONtANA Sli!EP AND 1.AKB LOSSES- 1995 

for your revi.ev. 

We want to be pan: of the ncol'd aa favoriua c.ont:ia.uad funding for 

anim&l damage'! control proarame And in fact teyins t:o find mare dollare 

fot' in the field predator control vorlt. OUr Montana producer• are eperuling 

their own dollar• on predator control both lethal and rum lethal. Every 

count)' has a per capita fee tor pradator control plua a etatevide tax 

for predator controL Each grover spends dollars on guarding animal•• 

•nar•s. tra,s, •hoot:iug &'Dd hneiDI in order to r~uce: their loss. 

S~l!M.- ./, .~A -----

~&(~ 

Secretary-TreaeuTer 

ce BTyc:e t.eeee. Wymdna \laol Crov ~• Asan. 
MONTANA 

AOIUCIILTVRAL 

160 

. STATimCIIUVICa 

lOII .... P"" 

MONTANA 

SHEEP&LAMB 

LOSSES-1995 P.O. aoK.4)69 

Hcle~~.a. NT Sf~· 

Pbane: (406) 441-1140 (IOO)m-W2 

lid-: I"£BR1JAIIY 1996 

Mont..,. sheep .t lamb pmduc:crs lost 92,000 animalo to wealher, predators, di..U. md other causes 

during 1995, representing a tolal value ofU3 millioo, ~~~:Cording to a survey conduc1e<l by the Monoana 

AIUicultural Scatistics Service. The tolal number of sheep lad lambs lost was down 12 pen:en! from 1994 but 

the total value of inventory lost in 199S rose 8 pm:ent. Higher market prices Ibis past y-n:sulted in an 

inc=sed value or •beep and lambs. The decline in sheep ond lamb losses is portly due to the drop in tolal 

inventory which is down 8 percent from the P«VioiiS y-. Sheep and lamb deaths amounted to 9.9 percent of 

the January I invmtory and lambs bom, sli&htly lowor than the JnVious year. 

Predators caused an estimated $2.0 million in 1.-. in 1993 up from $1.9 million the previous year. 

l.osses due to predawn amounted to 4.0 percent of the January I inventory and lambs born and 40 l"'"'ertt of 

all sh.eep ond lamb death•. Coyota remained the lqest pmlolor and the lar&est cai!Se of all deaths. The value 

oflosse.• attributed to coyotes wos S1 .S million. Tbe number of sheep and lambs lost 10 all pmlators Ultaled 

37,100 head, down 5,800. bead from last year. Coyotes aceounted for 30 perct111 of all death losses in the stale 

and 75 p<:n:ent of all preda!or losses. Lamb losses by all ~ton amounted to 31,400 bead, down 14pen:ent 

from last year. Most of the decrease in lamb losses was due to a fall in fox md eagle losses. Lambs lost to 

eagles dropped 2, 700 head while fox losses declined 2,500 head. The number of sheep lost to all predate" 

totaled 5,700, dov.11 14 percent. The large>~ cawc of sheep losses was coyot<:s at 4,400 head. 

The total value of non-predatory losses was $2.8 million in 1995 up from $2.6 million the pre-.·iou• year. 

n-prcdarory tosses accounted for S I percent of all losses. There were 30,900 bead of lambs loot to weather, 

C!Jscase 311d ulher non-predatory causes i.n 1995, down 12 pen:cnt from the previous year. The lar&e>t cause> uf 

lamb• losS«S were weather conditions at 12,700 bead. Adverse wealber conditions resulled in a number of 

producers losing more newborn lambs tbato the pre,ious year. Sheep losses to non-predatory factors totaled 

IIi lVIII I~ rv-n·rm loYm rhun I ~'!t :\hmlln:rr tn nl~ nrG 'nminnGd 111 hG Ills llliiiiliiVn·nmalolY ~i~~~~ il 5,700 head, down800 bead from""' previous year. 

The value of sheep and lambs lost to unknown C&IISeS jumped 29 percent from lost year to $. 5 million. 

Lambs lOst to unknown caiiSe5 were up 1,000 hcod to 4,700. Unknown causes claimed 3,300 sheep, 300 head 

fewer than last year. 

Sheep & Lamb Losses-1995 

Causes of Death 

1gg1 19Q2 1DQ3 19G4 1fi5 

~ Uf'lknown • Pr.natoot i1 Non·Predfttors 
161 

SHEEP f< UMJIS: ..._totx- B•c--!beotJIIocllr, .,_, ~UH 

SIZI OP 1'1.01% 

CAUSE OF LOSS 1-99 100.999 1000+ All Silll:l 

won t!l94 I 1995 1!194 I 1995 19!16 I l99S t991 . r 1m I 1993 I 1"" I 1993 

Fox I - ' ) !I 6 4 4 ) • 4 

Doa ) 6 I 2 - - 1 2 2 I 2 

Cor- 19 17 32 31 l9 21 1:1 21 21 rT 30 

EaaJe I I 2 3 9 4 I 2 2 ' ) 

llobcu .. - - - - - - - - - - liar I 1 - - I - - I I ' - MOUDtaiaLIDII - I I I I - - I I I I 

OlhcrADimW - I - - - - - - - - - Ulllaxnvn Prodalon 21 I v I v - v 21 'JJ 21 I 

Tota!~U Z5 rT G 41 • ... 33 Y7 Y7 .I • NODol'nd8ton 

All DIHuco 19 12 16 13 13 9 II II 11 u 10 

w-. CorldiliGu 10 " lll 14 14 10 II 16 II il II 16 

lWoD - I I I 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 

Larnbin& 

Compl1oalioas 19 15 II 10 • 7 15 15 " 10 9 

On !lack I i I I I I 1 2 3 2 I .. Ap 9 ' ' 6 3 4 3 6 7 • • Tloeft - - I I 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 

Olbu 9 10 2 4 I 4 4 I 3 2 4 

Total NODJ'hdoian n 62 53 .. .. • " !6 55 51 JD 

um.-c- • ll ' I 7 11 • 7 I 7 tO 

ToW a-rt 100 100 tOO 1111 tOO 100 100 100 ... 100 •• II Tocall moy noc add due 1t1 .........tlq. V Not ••allable. - O..X.. len dlllll pon:all. 
162 

SHEEP & LAMBS: LoiSel b C M Of ause_._ OIIWia 1.994-1995 

I c..:..: SHEEP LOSS LAMB LOSS TOTAL LOSS 

of Nllmber VaJur ill Doltm N...- Vallie ill Dollon lfumblr Vllue ill Dollars Loss oCHead (0001_11. 31 of Head (000) 21, 31 or Held (000) 31 

!994 1995 1994 ~ 1995 1994 1995 1994 1!19~ 1994 1!195 1994 1995 

Prodoton 

f'OZ 100 - 6.6 - S,!IOO 3.400 237.5 166.1 6.000 3,«l0 244.1 166.1 

Do1r SOD 700 33.0 , ,4 500 900 20.1 44.0 1,000 1,600 53.1 101.4 

Coy ott: 5,000 4,400 330.0 360.8 23,500 23.600 946.1 1,152.6 18,500 18,000 1.276.1 1.'13.4 

Eaalc 100 lOO 6.6 16.4 5,200 1,500 209.4 111.1 5.300 2,700 216.0 IJI.S 

Bobcat lOO - 13.2 - 100 - 4.0 - 300 - 17.2 - Bur 200 100 13.2 8.2 «ll 200 16.1 9.8 600 300 29.3 18.0 

MOWlUin LKm 400 200 26.4 16.4 600 300 24.2 14.7 1.000 500 50.6 31.1 

O!bor Aaimals 100 - 6.6 - 100 - 4.0 - 200 - 10.6 - IJnlcnowa 

Prodalon 41 100 41 1.2 "' 500 "' 24.4 41 600 41 32.6 

Total 

Pmloton 6,600 5,700 435.6 44'7.4 36,300 31,400 1,461.4 1,5J3.6 42,!100 37,108 t,m.o 2,0111.0 

NooPrcdotGI'I 

AU Oi5t:asts 4,500 2.800 297.0 Z29.6 11,200 7,200 450.9 351.6 15,700 10,000 747.9 ~81.2 

Wta.tber 

Conditions 1,900 1.600 125.4 131.2 9.900 12,700 398.6 620.3 11.800 14,300 524.0 751.5 

Poiaon 1,400 1,500 92.4 123.0 800 400 32.2 19.5 2,200 1,900 124.6 142.5 

Lambi"!! 

Complications 1.400 1,300 92.4 106.6 9,300 7,100 374.4 346.8 10,700 8,400 466.8 453.4 

On Sw;k: 1,800 1,200 \18.8 98.4 100 - 4.0 - 1,900 1,200 122.8 98.4 

Old A&c 6,500 5,700 429.0 467.4 

8!f.6" 

6,500 5,100 429.0 467.4 

·,.1\ 700 1,000 l 82.0 2,200 1,000 43.8 2,900 2,000 134.8 130.8 

Other 600 900 39.6 73.8 1.500 2,500 60.4 111.1 2,100 3,400 100.0 195.9 

Total 

Ncm.Precbtor'!' 18,800 16,000 1,2-40.8 1,312.0 35,000 30,900 1,.of.1 1,!09.2 53,800 ,..;,900 1,649.9 l,Sll.2 

Unlmowa 

Caum 3,600 3,30(1 237.6 :mu 3,700 4,700 14J.O zn.s 7,30(1 1,000 386.6 5011.1 

Total Lad lt,OOO 25,000 J,Jl4.0 1,050.0 75,000 6'7,1100 3,019.5 3,m.3 104,000 92,1)1)0 4,933.5 5,322.3 

II Average reported value for Ewes 1 +. 21 Lamb values ctl'&ll co matbt year nera&c price rc<:eived for lambs multipJied by an aver:1gE 

wci&hl of fiO pountb per Jamb. 3/ Totab m•Y DOt add due to roundin&. 41 Data llOI: available. - Dc:no~es less dWllOO head. 
163 

tomniODOLOGY- DIJ1NITIONI 

The lboep IIIII 1omb ~ ulili:.rcd multi--somp1ills pnxeclom. The oam:y i11Y01ved dtawina • nndoon sample li1lln a list 

or~--~ m.oilltained by tbc Mml1110 A8Jiculllnl Sta~slica ScM=. Ia odditiou, :oboep prodllccts llvins ill ald<cted ample 

~f O(q Mill'~ WCfC izll<ni<W<d. This pmcodurc ........... mmpl .. o '"""""l!e of Wop pooduccn by >=>UDline for rmc:hcnlf""""" wiw> 

may 1101 be OD tbc lilt. 

~1-....p lllld lmtb loss C31imal<s publish«~ by tbc USDA inc!ude sbeep 1ooots for tbc ~year, bUI include ooly llwelamb losses 

lhat ncx:ur oftct docking. This sp<:aal roport illcludlol an tt<imalO of lamba lost belilre docl:lnl L, woll. 

COOPIRATTON This >tudy wos uodt:rtal:cn 01 the requos< of the MoaLilla Wool Orowers Auociatioll wbo also provided funding. Tbc Montana 

Aaric:t~ltun\1 Sroli>tics Sc:M.:c coaducted the """'")' and ""J"C*S oppr<ciali011 IQ all ooopcntizli ol>eep prodiiCCI's. 

Sfn:"£P A LAMBS: lavoeton. Dutb t.o.... aad ValtM or t.o. ... Moataaa,19H-199S 

Jan. 1 

Sheep& 

Lamb Lamb All Year lm•ent«y Cn:>p Sheep (000 head) (000 LoQo:s head) (000 

bead) 

1986 523 450 45 

1987 563 440 45 

1988 597 460 so 

1989 600 500 43 

1990 663 SJS 40 

191 683 585 42 

1992 678 510 35 

1993 564 480 35 

1994 534 465 29 

1995 490 410 25 

Predator La .... Nw- Ulllaaown 

Year (000 head) Preclalor Cauxs 

Total %Jm.l Loss (000 

Loss lavearaty .t (OOObd) hood) 

LamboBom II 

1986 42.1 4. 1 72.1 17.8 

1987 36.9 3.5 79.8 20.] 

1988 43.1 3.9 84.7 22.l 

1989 35.9 3.1 80.8 24.3 

1990 39.1 J.l 79.9 14.0 

1991 44.9 3.4 83.5 13.6 

1992 41.2 3.4 63.0 7.8 

1993 40.2 3.7 59.4 8.4 

1994 42.9 4.1 53.& 7.) 

l9S 37.1 4.0 46.9 8.0 

1/I..,bs bom eqoal> lamb orop plus Jambt loot bc:fu<e doekina2/ 'fotalo may uot odd becawle of ,.,..,dina. 

DEA lii LOSSES 

LAMBS All Sheep .t L11mb 

(000bea4) La, ... (000 bd.) 

Beton. Aile< All Total %JilL I 

DockiDs DockiDI Lambs Loss lnvQUory & 

LambtBom 1/ 

45 4l 87 B2.0 13.0 

47 45 92 137.0 13.0 

53 47 100 150.0 13.5 

55 43 98 141.0 12.2 

53 40 93 133.0 10.6 

54 46 100 142.0 10.7 

39 31 77 112.0 9.1 

36 37 73 108.0 10.0 

35 40 15 104.0 10.1 

34 33 67 92.0 9.9 

VALUE OF LOSSES rOOO doll"') 

Non· Predator Prodalor Ulllaaown Torall/ 

2.051.1 J 437.9 920.0 6 ,409.1 

2.260.6 4 825.4 1,343.0 1,428.9 

2.519.7 5 115.3 1,386.6 9,021.6 

1,956.4 4264.8 1,405.0 7,626.2 

1,491 .1 3,516.1 659.8 5,7 )7.0 

\,590.0 ] 179.6 550.4 S,320.0 

1593.6 2 696.0 374.6 4.664.1 

1767.7 2891.8 418.8 S.Q78.2 

1,897.0 2,649.9 386.6 4,933.5 

2001.0 2821.2 SOO.l 5.322.3 

; 
BIODIVERSITY ASSOCIATES 

and fRIENDS OF THE Bow 

April 18, 1996 

Representative Jim Saxton, 

164 

U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Saxton: 

P.O. Box 6032, Laramie, WY 82070 

(307) 742-7978 (voice) 742-7989 (fax) 

I wanted to write and thank you for the invitation to appear last week in Gillette during the hearing on 

predator controL I appreciate your taking time to travel to Wyoming and facilitate this important 

discussion. You indicated that the Hearing Record would remain open for 10 days following oral 

testimony, and I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to submit the following information on 

issues discussed at the hearing which I felt needed further clarification. I hope you will take the tim" 

to read what we have written and let me know if you have any questions. 

(1) Wyoming Department of Agriculture fand Wyoming Farm Bureau) request for a $900 000 block grant 

of federal money without restrictions 

In its testimony, the state Dept. of Ag. indicated it wants the ADC budget but is not interested in 

administering the program unless it can be assured of "an attendant relaxation of the ruies and 

regulations." This request is not consiStent with federal environmental law and policy. 

Furthermore, the request is not representative of what most Wyoming people want. Ag operators, 

including both farmers and ranchers, total 2,500 in our state; that amounts to 0.5% of our residents. 

(Casper Star Tribune, 7 /23/95). Wyoming people as a whole do not want ~ore indiscriminate killing of 

native wildlife, including coyotes, and they are not willing to see a reduction in environmental 

protection. For example, there has been overwhelming opposition from ordinary citizens to the use of 

M-44 devices because people have lost pet dogs which were m1stakenly poisoned. Also, an opinion poll 

done by the Survey Research Center on the University of Wyoming campus reported last year that 61°k 

of Wyoming residents approved of the federal government's efforts to improve the environment. Only 

14% perceived a worsening. (Casper Star Tribune, 4/8/95). 

We can understand why the livestock industry might be motivated to make this request out of their 

special interest; what I want to underscore for you is the evidence which demonstrates their view is nm 

shared by the majority of Wyoming citizens. Because we hear them all the time, we are familiar with 

the industry buzzwords "local.control," "states rights," " flexibility" and "over-regulation," but I want 

to assure your Committee our citizens are not fooled by this kind of rhetoric. We want - and expect --

industries operating in Wyoming to be held accountable under our country's environmental laws. 

(2) Cla jms that agriculture js the second largest industry jo Wyoming are unfounded 

The director of the state Dept. of Agriculture gave the impression last week at the Gillette hearing 

that ag ranks dose in importance to tourism in Wyoming's economy. lhis is not true. The state Division 

of Economic Analysis reported agriculture ranked 9th in total employment, lOth in labor and earnings, 

and 9th in average annual earnings. (Wyoming Dept. of Administration Report, 6/30/95, see attached). 

Industries that ranked higher than agriculture in importance to Wyoming's economy included, among 
165 

other sectors, reta.il trade, services, government, mining and transportation. Earnings from all of 

agriculture-- farming, ranching, forestry, and fisheries-- totalled $289.5 million in 1994. The state 

forecast for economic growth has proJected declines in constant dollar earnings will occur throughout the 

agricultural sector over the next twelve years. 

Tourism on the other hand has been forecast to increase. The Wyoming Tourism Division reported 

visitors to Wyoming in 1994 equalled 7 million. These people spent $1.7 billion, created the equivalent 

of 40,634 full-time jobs and generated $670 million dollars income for the state. (WY Tourism Division, 

reported in Casper Star Tribune, 5/ 4/95). As you know, the overwhelming number of these visitors came 

to see Wyoming's wildlife, including its coyotes, eagles and other species which are presently targeted 

by livestock owners and killed with ADC dollars. 

(3) Ranchers claiming they will go out of busjness w jthout predator control are examples of 

non-sustainable operations. 

Big livestock operations exemplify the failures inherent in the ADC "predator control" program. 

These include ranches like the Walton which graze over 2000 head of cattle on public lands. They 

make money off the backs of the public's wildlife by claiming substantial losses due to grizzly bear 

predation. By their own admissions, the big ranches exemplify operations which will go out of business 

without predator controL They are not sustainable. Ranching operations which have only managed to 

keep themselves in business over the years by demanding, and receiving, thousands of dollars of 

compensation, should not be further subsidized. 

The best solution to the "predator" problem on the Bridger-Teton National Forest and other public 

lands is to keep defenseless domesticated animals out of areas of historically high predation. And 

regarding what is affecting the economic status of cattle businesses, we submit it is not competition with 

wildlife but other factors such as the importation of livestock on the global market which are 

undermining profits. In 1994 to 1995 the U.S. imported 251,000 metric tons of Australian beef. Imports of 

live cattle from Canada and Mexico represented 2.9 million head and 3.4 million head. (Casper Star 

Tribune, 4/ 1/ 96). Continuing ADC subsidies will do nothing to improve this situation. 

(4) Killing predators to increase game animal herds is not cost effective and unwarranted. 

You expressed concern about the degree to which wild predators are responsible for declines in big game 

populations. I would like to underscore the importance of testimony already.in the record from our 

group, from Wyoming Wildlife Federation, and from the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. indicating 

that loss of habitat (not predation) is the major cause for population declines in Wyoming game 

animals. 

In addition to this, it is also important to note that predator control, when used, has not proven to be 

cost effective. A Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 1989 analysis of predator control reported that killing 

coyotes cost $59.12 per fawn versus $33.35 per deer value returned to the state economy. This amounted 

to a net loss of $25.77 per animal. With pheasant populations, the ratio was $9700 cost vs. $6300 

benefit resulting in a net loss of $34.50 per unit. The conclusion of the report was the current methods of 

measuring success of predator control in reducing predation show it is not cost effective. (A White Paper 

on Wildlife Related Predator Control, WY Game and Fish Dept., 1989). 

Overall, lethal predator control cannot be justified economically. For instance, consider aerial gunning, 

the method used by ADC to kill the most coyotes for predator control purposes in Wyoming. Over the 

2 
166 

period 1984-1994, the AOC "take pee hour" by fixed wing aerial hunting in the Bighorn Basin in 

Wyoming ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 coyotes shot per hour. Given the cost of airplane, pilot and gunner, this 

results in an estimated cost of $75 to $100 for each coyote shot in Wyoming. (See BLM, Worland 

District, letter 1278(013), dated 6/ 23 / 96). 

(5) Wyoming reports of livestock losses are exaggerated and unreliable. 

There was a great deal of discussion last week about the "magnitude of the problem." A continuing 

question surrounds the statistics Congress and the media have been given regarding claimed losses. Of 

the top livestock producing states in the United States, Wyoming ranks 20th. Yet, in 1992, for example; 

Wyoming reported the highest number of livestock losses to coyotes, nearly twice as many as Texas, th•' 

first ranked livestock producing state in the country. 

States with the ten highest reported coyote damages in 1992 were: 

#1 

#2 

#3 

#4 

#5 

#6 

#7 

#8 

il9 

#10 

WY 

Mf 

CA 

TX 

OR 

UT 

ND 

ID 

co 

OK 

# lost to coyotes 

7,194 

3,776 

4,183 

3,783 

3,157 

3,534 

1,944 

3,009 

3,198 

3,228 

Events Reported 

There is no rational explanation for why .Wyoming should have two times more coyote damage than 

states with more livestock (like California and Texas) and comparable coyote populations (like 

Montana and Idaho). The Wyoming livestock industry's loss claims have not been substantiated and 

. should not be the basis for determining how much federal aid comes into the state via the ADC 

program. (Figures taken from National Agricultural Statistics Service, NASS, under contract to ADC 

and reprinted in "Audit of the USDA Animal Damage Control Program," Casca~~ Holistic Economic 

Consultants, Research Paper No.31, April1994.) 

Thank you again for this opportunity to conunent. We urge Congress ·to stop funding the massive ADC 

program as it currently exists with its emphasis on lethal methods. This would mean significantly 

reducing the agency's overall budget and allocating a total, smaller amount of money for research, 

education and consultation on non-lethal methods. 

Sincerely, 

t.__/ , 

LeilrJ!Jf!-a 

3 
167 

ST AT E OF WYOMING !0 :30 7 -777-585 2 

S'J'A'fJ<; OF WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION A 

DIVISION OF ECONOMIC ANAJ.YSJS 

327 1<:, !<:MERSON BUJJ.DING 

CHEYENNE,WYOMING8~2 

PH. (307) 777·7504 FAX (307) 777-5852 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Friday, June 30, 1995 

Contact: !)avid Black, Bconomist 

APR 19' 96 9 :54 No . 004 P . Ol 

To~R/ F~m 

Co.IDefl\. "" l•hOtlU' 

MODERATE ECONOMIC GROWTII FORECAST FOR WYOMING 

CHEYRNNR -- Wyo111ing 's economy is projected to grow moderately, according tn u rt!pm1 

~e leased by the Wyoming })epartment of Administration and Information, Division of Economic 

Analysis. The recently completed "Wyoming llconomic Forecast Report" for 1995 indicates that 

total employment and income are both foreca'ited to grow over the next twelve years. 

Total employment in \\'yoming grows at an annual avemge rate of 1.4% from 1994 to 

2005, compared to the U.S. average of 1.6% per year until 2003 and then 1.1 % for tlle remainder 

of U1c forecast. Employment increases from 285,230 occupied jobs in 1993 to 33B, J 00 in 2005, 

an increase of 52,870 jobs. The services sector will cxpcr.icnoc the mo•t growth, at 2.6% per 

year. The setvice sector wHI continue as the statc:•s largest employer, accounting for une nut of 

every four jobs in Wyoming by 2005. The retail !rude sector becomes the second largc.<t 

empluymenl sector in the year 2000, bumping the government sector to third. Mining 

employment, at its all-time high in 198 J, encompas.ed 14.4% of the labor force in Wyoming. 

However, by tlle yeur 2005, mining is expected to .involve only 6.3% of the labor force. 

According to David Black, ar1 cconmnist with the Division of Economic Analysis, the 

majority of the jobs created over the next twelve years will be within the service and retail trade 

sectors. "More Utan 68%, or roughly 36,000 uf the jobs created over the ncxl 12 years will he 

jn the service and retail trade sectors." Black S.."lid. The only sector projected to \":xpcricncc a 

decrea.c;e in employment is the agriculture sector. 

Total labor and proprietor earnings gmw at an annual average rate of 5. 1% in current 

dollars, from $6.5 billion in 1993 to $11.7 hillion in 2005. Earnings in constant dollurs 

(inflation-adjusted using U.S. CPI·U for Western Slllles) increase by an average of 1.7% per ye"'· 

The greatest growth in caruings will occur in Lhe manufactudng sector, with constant dollar 

earniogs projected lo iocroa.<ie by Wl average of 1.7% per year. Constant dollar annual earnings 

increase in the mining~ manufacturing; tm~sportation, communication, and puhlie- uti1ities 

(TCPU); wholesale trade, servjces, and government &eetors. Declines in constant doJJar earnings 

occur in the agriculture; construction; retuil trude; and fwancc, insurance, and re<sl eStl'lte (FIRE} 

sectors. 

Total personal income (TPI) for re!!iidcnts, jn currenl doJiars, grows ld an i\Verage annual 

rate of 4.8%, increasing from the 1993 level of $9.3 billion to $16.2 billion by 2005. TPI in 
168 

STATE OF WYOMING ID:307-777-5852 APR 19'96 9:54 No.004 P 02 

constant dollars increases ut un average annual rate of 1.4% over the forecast Per capita 

personal income (PCI). in current dollars, increases at an average rate of3.9% annually, grOwing 

from $19,750 in 1993 to $31,230 in 2005. After adjusting fur average annual inflation of 3.3%, 

constant dollar PCI increases by an average rate of 0.6% per year. Population grows slowly over 

the forecast, averaging 0.9% per year. Wyoming's population •hould exceed 500,000 persons 

in 2001, and should reach 519,980 in 2005. Inflation as measured by the CPI-U for Wcotcrn 

States will run at an average of 3.3% per year. "We are forecasting that earnings, TPI. and PCI 

will grow at a rate greater than the inflation rate, leading to some rca) increases .in disposabJc 

income." Black said. 

The report also contains a more detailed look at the mining and agricultural sectors of the 

Wyoming economy. The mineral section looks at employment, earnings, price, and productjon 

for coal, oil and gas, trona/soda ash. and other minerWs. The agricultural RCCtion forecasts 

employment and earnings in the fann sub-sector and the agricultural servjccs. forestry. fisheries, 

and other ttub-sector. Gross farm income. farm marketing receipt"· beef marketings, and ~ulc 

prices are also forecasted. 

The Wyoming Economic Forecast Report may also he obtained clcctronically via the 

Internet thmugh the Wyoming Ferret gopher server or by connecting with the Perret directly. 

Other information from the Division is also available on the Ferret. To connect with the Perret, 

in Wyoming dial 1-800-264-1285. Outside of Wyoming or in Cheyenne, dial 777-6936. The 

Internet address for the Ferret is "gopher:/lferrel.stute.wy.us". 

The file is located in the Economic Analysis subdirectory. To reach the l'orecast tile, at 

the main Ferret menu chose: 

-WYOMING STATE GOVERNMENT 

-EXECUTIVE BRANCH 

-OTHER DEPARTMENTS 

-DHPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION 

-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DNISlON 

-WYOMING ECONOMIC FORECAST 

Copic.• of the full report are available upon rcqucot by rontocting the Division of 

Economic Analysis at (307) 777-7504. 
169 

STATE OF WYOMING ID:307-777-5852 

Wy~ Ttrt.al Emplo)'D18Dt {In ThouMnd•) 

POii:Ec'Aii'n: llliA.'t~ ~;::; 

c-tnalc........,u.. 

Mlillllll'llol"tl_,-

-·---

"i'"'M..-;o;-Y."-o .. ~ 

ataMloa,&.J'ubti"uti Hdr.• 

,..c~"!'•• 

... rna-... 

~Chul'• 

""""-

~""-

,.L._,., 

o.1n 

Ui.illl 

.a. a.,. 

111.112 

.(1.61'fo 

·l'l.iti' 

·1-~ 

U.H 

1.A4'llo 

l(Uti 

0.11«, 

-l.ln. ·~ 

:~~-

.... 2!1'3.1\7 

u .. 

IU6 

... ,. 

18.51 

.(l.~!t'S-

,_:: 

lUI 

Ull)o .. 

16.67 

3.lii'Xo 

... .... 

!H.'n 

a.7ft4 

2!16.11 '"' 

1.01~ 

''ii~ 

.... 

III.M 

...... 8.~ 

O.t.K 

..... 

·-1ti.71 

O.A5'1. 

... O.U«. 

6.4.0 

t.U'll. 

rln•ne<\fJOI!Inr.al't'A 

.......... :::;-1 ..... --:3··:.::., __ _!:C -~J 

1'1.~1 l'I.U 

!ii:.~Ho Ol-4~ 

.... 

.... .... "" 

"'·" fl(l,'(t 

_o_.JM. n.Jn. 

--~PA TA 

r.t.lt.Mt ............. '""-

~ ... J"IOS...olW..tr. 

Mint.,. 

-

K....,..,.•riaii'U ..... tl 

TIW:wiPWiiiitO.., oo-~=-­ .. lo.U_ A J'1dotio VWitie• 

h-.... i*rt.,c-a Pvblt .. Ul-1~1 .. (1~11 

Whti.W•",.,=od'-'o __ _ 

-Wji~"T;-tid;(lMHttJ 

p;, .. ._noc~,l ... llow-i .... s ... u......_t> 

"'(!JoiiiiiP 

~9~ 

4-Ciuo••" 

'lloCI..,.I:IIo 

"'-l.._.... 

'I'C~ ..... 

~_CJ,_an~. 

""""" .. """""'" 

~ 

S(:h•n•• 

-*~!-~_11_1! 

'I. C ....... 

.,_Cioti"P 

tA-u..,. ... 

-"'~~ 

.. ~ 

~c....._ 

~.,.._.. 

.,._.. 

~c ..... 

; 

.... - ... ie:roo.l6 l?,lk.a:l ST,4T6.'lt. 

.... , ... ..... f.4.4TUllt $t.liTUO IUIIIUII 

--M~ 1.11'11. .... f:M.50 tiU:oo I21UII 

• a.MW. . , .... 7,1!1'J 

$181.71 11'71AI'i ll'JU. 

·lO.lti'Jio ·10.00"' lUI.,. 

II,HJ,G-f SJ.I8i'i.~- ll,:inJ9.11 

'·"" m• UK 

1G,,tlf ''.,11-litl ........ 1,r.ll'l. o.:n'JI. __ _}~ 

...... iiiOTs" ,.,, ... 

--~~- 'r.O<l .. .... "'"" 1290.86 

-UK 

~--·· 1.tMt 

S:Sn.s:; ....... IS11:1.03 

.... 11111.,. .... ttiio.'otl "t:atf.'iil'- tue:.n __ !-!f"' :utr.'li S.1a'-' 

$(l4U~ toe1.n STi1JU 

4.%'11o ..... C..lil'llo 

S-l~.$9 HU.U ...... 1.49' ... Hil-A- V.Uit 

-P14.18 ....... ...... 1,4(o'JO MW. (0.42'" 

$142.25 ll~L'\T SUi<I.M 

0.0~'" 11.42'1- :u~ 

,., .. I118M ITM.M 

..... . .. ~ . ... ....... ...... '(.&70Aii 

un. ..... ·- -----

·~G'I.IO .., .. 128UI .... 

tt'fOM ll'IUS ·- snuo ··- ,J.IK S.RK 

ll.HJtJ.t.IU l,IIN.IR 

·- -.-;:-see·.u a.JI" 7.nw •-'1"1"- 1'7".1!1.:.-l IIIIS.U ....... .... ..... 11,658.41 tJ,S2tJ.7tl r-utsM """' 4-'011; 4.0001. l.r.K 

-~~~;_ il,r;-;: 1,111i1-TII 

..... 

. 

u 

. :.!, 

. 

0.\ 

'· 

0 " 

--· 

. 

'' 

.... 

a "" . .ao 

.. <! , .. 1,1 '"' r.•.a:. 

1 

o.· 

' ' 

" 

&?,MG.'lli ·-

IUiO.'ltl ··- 1.,. 

1301.1'0 

...... $111.U7 

:u~ 

tl,JIIIi.2111 4JJ1'!1. 

tm.ni 

1.~ ... .. ....... un. 

ltl!tlml 

0,'/s<,lt •.• $.116.10 

lUll~ 

N(il.:!lll 

~.n-.; 

t'tl-.'1.~11 

"-""' 

....... 1.117'll'-

Woi.IW 

4.'Jn. 

$1/iit.i"t 

1.701. 

tiMJt4 

I~ .. ..... 

121'-02 

·~ I1Tt1.01 

O.Gl'At 

11,416.5.'1 

&.11!1 .. 

....... 

fUGUI ·~ ..... 11,010.111 

1.26'1. 

.... &8,Ui.'l:fi ,.,. 

14,1114.7(1 

..... ....... 

-un 

$1'1Ufo 

.... IUJI'I.Ii UK 

$TI'S.M 

...... 

~-'' li.lli'l. sxri-_.z 

Ulll'llo 

"'"'" 5~14« 

tM:Ol 

.... 

tii1G,11 

·-~~~ 

"'"'-"~~ .... .riti:iJj 

7.15'1-

~ __., 

r.-'-1 .. "j4in.io 

_ .. 1. .. 

.... 

$J'Ji1.117 

l.ofi'lSI,MUt 

...... tri'ki 

<l.SWIll,Ar4U 

...... fl,08S.8$ 

,1,-,::1!!'_ 

--~ 

tuw.&1 

"'"" 14,11.10.11'1 

~ .... 1 .. 

t;2N.M 

-u.lK 

•r(oti"."6-J 

.a.:~~~"' 

-sinus ... ,... I'JlU.Il 

..... 

$(~.11 

l.t'I'J, 

$:111.110 

4.'JI .. 

f;VJJ.1~ 

r..M9. 

....... :t.llli"' 

ftltl).50 

l.lWJ', 

.,.~ .... ,, ---~ 

1?4.eoJ 

~~~ IH'of~ 

·~-02 

f314.011 ·-...... 

.1114.71 

.... $1,04t.04 

----~!~ I.IH. 

$t,!NA.86 

..... $1,lo:l:t:f 

L~ 

APR 19'96 g:ss No.004 P.03 

r-----)Ojjij 

ttl,U1;2.70 

'-~S.. 

Sli,(Jic!I.Stl 

--.~';-

~~ ... . .a.Uif. 

$1,6<11.M 

4!oll" 

l1110.1:l 

1.18'.11. 

f!>Of,48 

(.Jat,j, 

$.'\,UA 

U4'll'· 

ff\)t.li4 

G.84'.$ 

II'JI.I:l __ .!!!!__ 

p.tt_M 

V,W,I. 

'GI!I,OO 

IT/;~ $1&U4 ·-~·'-"- r;A•O'-' 

...... (i~f .. 

.. .... 

, ... '-"''-r.r. 11.41'.11. 

$U:t1Ut> 

-.i~ '-"~ ... - M-t.(H 

IUI<tlo 

tll,(i:.iiil 

t.U '"~ .12. 

L... .. J-"•'-" 

... ..... ... . . .. US.711 12!1.~A IIJU4 Ull.lll 

J,llil'k· !.lilt'- 1.)~ 

!6.88·· Jll.tr.i U\.IU tG.a'l 

fl. I~ .(IJI'JI . .Q.21'11. 

~-~1 ZO.II.1 !1.11 )I)AJ 

u~ Uill~ 1.40'.' 

"·" 21.216 ~1.7(1 1:.1.01 

l-~~- Ull?l. 2.04"' 

l~.r.l l:I.«RR UIW 

U8'JI. l.~il'-" I 

... ,.I l\1.12 

o.r.~·" 11.1111')1 (IJIG'JI. 

. ..1/'I.Cl'l l(l,'i'J )1.1.44 

1.(1(;<;1. 1"" "" .... ~.811 r~1.49 S{;.,u 1.27?1"-· Ull'.l. 

w.oo l~.lli 

·~·I .... 1 . ., .. 1 u;s.., 11.171 "'~ tlb.lm 1111.71 

~.2~ Ul\11. U4'.1o .... t;).UII IU.I!I fll.:ll m.tr. 

fl-1~'110 O.J~ UU'J'll .... ... Sii,UI.:\ & $10,111.11 tln,tJn.~ f'Jl,1,6:1tl' •11.1•~-lU 

"' .a.f-t'\- s.oa"' ~-14'' t.Jrtll. ""' '-G.IIIU ~ U.l'JI.Ol t;ft,21,r..v. 

~~ .,._.. .. 1Jit..S. ~.~~ 

.. $US.S3 $.'Vl2-'ICI 

J.l,( . .. ,,. -

'"' .all $161M $149.411 

-t,9l' ~ -ll.lll\11- •i.n:\\11, 

&l,f.tlU 9' U,~'IMI'I $J,w».04 

u V\lj. 4.16~ ''-"·'4 4'/!Wll 1 i&if.Tu'"" $620.Jfl 

._, . ...

... .. ' saar..!~ 

1.18 •. ' sG'ili.1 •.. .. '$2:7~.11 'I 

_____!;~-~-. 

1.1'1•• 1.\lll'lSiii4:~4 $t1itlfi.9~ 

4.41 .. "-""'-' 

$»'J.1, hH.OII 

O.A<I'W. t.2'f•.f, 

s-sioJI& $1iiiA.t.:2 

,;61~ ----~·RII"' I f.~-116-111:1 tm.oa Jo.~'loJo IJ.)Ii':t 

-· lit $1,()4!U4 $1,11.*'.7T 

"' 5.00'X· 6.211"4 

~u: I U3C.II tr•t..U 

l~1· II- J4:tlt 1.79'1. .,.., .80 $i17U'/ $S:t!Uti 

t;.'t ~ G,iiii'J. S.ll'-' 

11111. :\., tHtO.tl,\ --.~~-411 

ll.l~ :4o IAII'I· I.I!W-

-· fili tt,ntr.AA •i);-iJ'.i!,i .... :4< u1~ ur.~t. 

·~Ill S."' $MIU1 $~"1-\l.Vl'! 

1.0( "" _0.110«. (!!WI'l. 

tNlU 

... 

llii'J.V fllll.:l2 

0.71'1-

~:~~ 53 $1,.5'l.w7 

" l;i.Q-1')1. 

'"' Ill $1,001.2'/ 

~ ·~ 

"' ;t,-4)')1. 

-i b,IU.llll 

1,11111.7. •• ,1-11\06 ·- 1-"'.S ...... 

IHJ.13 

~-~ .. $111:t.illl 

U,IICiS.-ttl 

~.8oll ... 

tl,ii:i.i(i(i 

:l.14'K.-

u,u·t.fl!l 

•. 57'4 

tUG0.'74 

1.11 ... 

.sr •• ~.r..211 

l.N'.II 

$:'11'/!I.W. 

u.o-n-

*'••.&o -:t.~. 

ll,74S.Sl 

to.2~·· 

$11SIUI:I 

J.\15'). 

$'13:2.'1(1 

Ji.28'A-

$!161.0~ 

~.UJ'~ . 

&c~'IA.Ho 

r..r.!l'lo 

13015.13 

li.3J'J. 

f.J.J!IB.,O 

t.JIIi•J. 

f.Fo(t!l,,U 

1r.r.w. 

f.tlll.ll-1 

ll..lit'lo 

...... a.n2'1. $l,lU.OI 

·-~""' ~1.SS 

J.focr,i, 

l\OO.fili 

J.~:N; 

$;1,1:!4~ 

ll,I)4(;,111J 

ll.•IW.to-t '·""" 

4.1>" $J,I'IG.:\~ 

1JI/,•l, 

t$7t.U 

1,1()',1:. 

k.al.U 

~;r,.._;­

UOUIG 

~-tl(i'(. 

$1,1'll.i8 

4.41 ... 

15-tS.I>I 

l.lf'.t 

$1\1(1,~ ,..,;..., 

f.li.6?0.n =~fall ll.l~.!r/- 4./iW. 

1.41!.,. 
170 

STA TE OF WYOMING !0:307-777-5852 

ta.~ P~"ff:::.li UATA=---

, J'Lo-..ra...w...-

. ..~~ 

~~·-..aa--- .. l' 

Pbc"•ot~(lllloM" ar.,MT.'Ill 

I t'CipW.U•• """" ..... " ... ~ .. _-'*1*---''~!~

r 

~,.

... 

,....,__a 

~&.P--.a

......... ~ ., 

c---rw..J ... w.,......,.u.,....l.., 

.. c flOW.t. 

.,._ 

APR 19'96 

tT.lll " $1.UUI 

U6'.1o l .U'l. 

.... lii'W:J 

·- ~ 

IM.II' ..... &21.11 

t'.1M. 47~ ~~!-

IU.:\0 IU.II$ 

·l .flh 

...... _Eh 

...... ...... i",IIJ 

·~ UK 

.... 

.... 

...... ..... 

..... 

9:56 No.004 O~ 

l'l.~ li'J l l,M4.'Jl 

~ c,I ~'J. 

t. ).l~ 

11.77'1-

• • UI I UOI 

:u"' $.11-:l'ltH.3"J ll<ll.:lfo 

.(l.li"''J. O.IA'IIo 

l~ s.s 

u ... .,. :u~:-. .. 

- "illica 

til (~ a.:IUt ., ... ,.,.. '"-" . ., ..... o.1n D.»'l. 

.. , ... II~.K. 

··- 11.1 1'1> 

.... ...~ 

4A .. ....... ....... 1fl-~ 

4;~'1;- :ur,.. ...... hiUW 

·O.IK 0.41'}. 

""·71 .... .. . 

"'IO'Jo ·" tiC.. iii' $11.111 

·D.llt•.t ..... ..... ... 1.18 

'""' I.U'J. 

... ...... , .'l'n. 

t:...S.. ..... ,_,fA 

... UI ~~ IT 

u."'n ..... ""N' ·-···j3ii_in 

U1' 

fii.iJo tiU~ ""~ G.tl• o.on Jl.l-1 ,,,.lr, u~-. 

.... .... ·- m: 

'"· ....... 

....... 

··- ftiU:Ifll 

.... ....... ...,_, w .:u 1 .14.' :l.c.'l'S 

SlUt $)1 ,\ltl 

a•n .... "'·"' _., ... ..... ...... ,,1.!11 .!;II' 

lNM.11 ·- llr..ol'-' 

.w:. 

l-'!'1. 

C.U•S 

,, .... 

111111."1¥ 

:uM. 

U:!A -~ 

,_, ..... ....... 0 Ji4'11o ,,,_. ..... 

IU-1 

·1.111'11 

... ... U!l'iL 

$311 .111 

I .Sf'J, 

M .n t.ll1o 

tuua 

..0.02'£ 

...!U'I 

..... . .. t:i.i u 

""' 

.,.,_,. ....... 

...... ..... 

fiO.G4. 

1I1

·-1Af 

11.11'1. 

Sl~ tu 

a,11,. 

...., 

'*'"' 

t

·-HMIJ 

J"n.l:t 

:'l.fl."'No 

flli.OI 

..... 

...... 

""' ·-

11'1fi·.

-

"rl41 

•• ,,f,k.~l 

CHI "' 

tiH60 

v.::io:t 

"ll.4l 

JUU..-. 

lll'ft 

1.""' 

a:rt.u 

l.li'l· 

*'II.U 

4.0i'. 

,,,_" ( .II .. 

1 11.\H 

Jc;~ 

..... .( .. er. .. 

.... 

•11.1""' 

UUII 

11.14~ 

uuo 

n.AI-. 

141 ... 

., ... t l UI 
171 

. STATE OF WYOMING ID:307-777-S852 APR 19'96 9:57 No .004 P.OS 

... ~~iii I lllf~..OII I -I -I 

..... IJ.JI IU1 

.... ..... .... ... ._.. . .. S.'ltW. ..... ..... 11.8:1 .... 11.14 

I . .C:.IW. 

''" ·-1M ·-Ul 

..... , ,. . ... ... '"" ... IlL .. ' 2f.t.if1 ..... ...... ·- ..... . .- ..... ........ t.t'l't.t'7- Ult.UI ...... ""' .... ..... ,_ .... ..... .... .... .... . , .... ·- .... ..... Uua ..., .... "'"' .... .... .,.., .., ..... ·-""' ..... 4.11 • ..... .... .... ··;.-:N .... ... .. 0.13 ·- ·- .. .,. ... ..... .. ... '#14 u., .. .... ·- ..... $.1.14 ..... .... .. .. ,_ ·- ·- J.H"- ..... . , ... , .... .. ...... u ... ,_ ..... .... -·- .... .. .. ·- .... .... .... ...... . 'WJ:n .., .• ... .. ... 4JI1 .. ,_ u.uc ...... ..... ·-..... f!A ~ ..... ., .. ..... ..... ..... .... .. III..U 

·-· .. J~~ .... ..... 

-.....-......-·- .1!!0!.1 -I ... I ... KMI .... I ~I KOII .... ..,. ·· ..... . .IIIIo 4 .... 

... lUI .... ,,. .. .:; : .... ..... :~.A~~ 

. ~ ... .... ··- ._,_ ,_ 

JI,OCIUI 

...... 

-·· _ 

4 ... 

.. ...... 

-· ~-

:I :~J :I ...... 

• J,Tft,. 

..... ""· ..... uua ....... ,_ .... ...- .... ...... ...... .... ··- ...... ...- ..... ....... ..... ·-.... 4-lltlo ._ 4-0 .. .... ' 141M' t4UI ..... liui .... .. . :!:...~ . ._ 

..... .... ..... ...... ..... ~~ ..- .... 
172 

~tatement of Wm. N. Tal i afe r r o before Wvomin~ Game and F is h Commissi ~ 

fJ<"'t.nhcr :~. l9 Y5 

Wv nmi n 2 Game and Fish Comm ission 

first rna,- 1 sa,· thank vou for lettine: me address your 2rouo on 

the nroblem of nredation unon our livestock bv Wvomin~ ~i cilife. I 

have since Anril 11. 1995 corresnonded ~ith this ~roun o u i :0 fte~. 

mavbe more than an~on e r eal l v aooreciates. Howe ~r . mv re~S() n for 

t..·rl in ~ is t :f? ha\'P. ha ~.i. . ~:: th e na.sT. and have rece i'.·ed th is sorin'l' 3~:··. 

sumu·:., - ·Htt.)st.:.>.n t !. ;.:d i;_i ~s 0 f ·')u r livestock bY oublic a nimals of 

ill~h t hi s cJ iR sio n t1a~ be ~n assi2ne d r esoonsibili t v f or . I never 

an rt to s ubmi t 3 a~ ~ c la i m and was honeful that the Game and Fis h 

De "'a : .. nt t,Jould remo ve n ro blem animals before dama ste occ u r red and a -;: 

least rem~ e those causin ~ damace after dama«e was curr ~. 

You r e ceiYed a v first letter as aentioned abc,·e abo\.! t rr.i ~ .-\or il 

notified Denartmen t s< rl ne ! in ~Ia ~ ~·~ t~ 0r~~ llAvinr nr0 ms . I 

rea\ ~?steci De nrt.men':'~ ··)t·•,·-;t··:l•:•·· l t: o r~mo·.- e nro iJ l em a n imRls an('] make 

1. (·r.··.~.- .·,· . .:. .) ·: Jl ·~i · t .:"l ,- ~rif·.- ~he losses ;.:c· t> (:re :..•r:ce !. '· i r. 2: r:·a r:-h cia·.· 

·.r~ \; .~ t.::-.. s r:-··:r-r· ri..")n•?- .~··: :·r--D r in !~ ht:- -:'3.Si~ 1: nere- ~•2 t.'et ~ !":li s si niZ 10 

am~ ·~ t·~ ~~ ~ ~~~al1 hurt~h he ~ the onlv nrcdator tracks seen in the 

no~ ~~ ~e ~rom 3 mot1ntai n l ion . At that time department nersonnel 

.:-amt'" to ;:hE- ranch and ma de a verification attemot on lion dama.:e. 

sent vou a letter a2ain on July 7, 1995 «ivin~ a su•mary of the 

losses our men observed throu«h the period May 10, 1995 - June 30, 

1995. This letter a«ain reouested the Denartment be directed to 

remove nroblem animftls from our lands and around our livestock, come 

and verify losses and a~ ai n nothin« transnired excent a letter from 

the De na rtment statin~ dam ~es are onl y paid on trophY «ame animal 

dePredations. 

Now I wish to nresent to the C01a•ission mv lo«ic of why I feel 

the da•a«es nresented to this body. in the letter you have .iust 

received as of October 18. 1995, is .justified. proper and rillht. 

If we look at the statutes passed by the Wyomin~ Le« i slature and 

l;hat which makes un State Law which .roverns this Commission and your 

Denartment you will find t he followin.r: 

1. Title 23 deals with Game and Fish, Chapter 1 Administration. 

Article 1 General Provisions. 

23-1-101 Definition of Wildlife 

f viii) "PredatorY aniaal" •eans coyote. .jackrabbit. raccoon. 

red fox. wolf, skunk or stray oat. 

23-1-103 Ownershin of wildlife, purnose of act. 

. "For the nurpose of the act . all wildlife in W:vo•in« is the 

~roperty of the state. It is the purnose of this act and the policy 

of the state to provide an ~~~uate and flexible ayste• for control . 

propa«ation, mana«ement, protection, and re~ulation of all Wyomin« 

wildlife . There shall be no private ownership of live animals 

classified in this act as bi« or trophy llaae animals. ·· 

Article 3. General Powers and Duties of The Commission. /~ 
173 

23-1-302 Powers and Duties. The Commission is ~!yec~~ and 

eml)owered: 

(viii) To authorize the chief l(ame warden or his desil(nee to 

kill any wildlife in Wyominl( when in the .iud~ement of the commission 

the killin~ is necessary or when the animals or birds are doing 

substantial damage to property. Cin our case we have receivHd more 

than substantial dama~e and nothin~ was done to relieve our property 

from depredation as directed by the Wyoming Le~islature. Thus the 

Commission and Department's failing to abide by the law is replete 

with ne«ligence, and failure to comply with the law caused us a 

terrible property loss.) <Please notice and re-read the bold type 

remember you are '"directed and empowered to kill any wildlife in 

Wyomin~ when the animals or birds are doin~ substantial dama~ e to 

property. ) 

The Wyoming Legislature has also mandated via state law in 23-3-103 

(a) that, "Predatory animals and predacious birds may be taken without 

a license in any manner and at any time except a's provided by W.S. 

(23-2-303(d), (23-3-112), (23-3-3051 and (23-3-307). *The above deal 

with traps, time and identification. Type of weapon and shooting 

across others lands. Type of bait. Shooting from and across public 

roads and usin~ firearms while under the influence of alcohol. 

This Commission has failed to comply with the law. The Commission has 

failed to direct the Department and the Department failed to carry out 

the mandates of law expressed by the Wyoming State Legislature. 

Under the United States Constitution, which each of you took 

an oath to uphold when you assumed your position as a 

Commissioner, is a small part of the Bill of Rights, the 5th. 

Amendment to the Constitution. The last part of this amendment states 

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 

law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without ,just 

compensation."" 

The 14th. Amendment to the Constitution in section I states: "All 

persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the 

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the 

State wherein they reside, No State shall mak e or enforce any law 

which shall abrid~e the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 

liberty, or proper~, without due process of law; nor deny to any 

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" 

Within the Wyoming Constitution Section 6 states: '' No n~rson shall b0 

deprived of life, liberty or pr_qpertv wit.hou"!· due: nrocess of t a w ." 

Sect. ion 32 st:.:-.tes: "·Private orooe rtv sha~ l no• •r ·a e 

use unle ss bv consP.nt r.f :,!~-~ t' -~ rJ· .. t t c t.:;.l.vs of 

ne ees~ :. t·· .• ·~r. !_J :trt.::. ns . . :.· .:.umc s or di tchcs on or aoross 

r· Jt~ r :- ·, r auricu1tur:~1. ;ninin!!, ,"Qi i ti:lt! . domes :· ic o r 

._t~. :. .ary ournos(!~ . no r i~ a~ :::_ :~:_~~ -wi thout '1u~_p~_pensa:tio_~·" And 

':iection :~ states: •• Private property shall not. be taken or damaged 

for public or private use ~ithout just compensation." 

24·721 96-7 
174 

I believe our claims to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department of 

$30,587.80 dollars are proper, in order and should be paid. I am 

requestin~ such compensation since there has been a takings of our 

private property by public animals under control of a Department of 

state government that has failed to do it's legal duties; as a result 

we have had public animals taking our private property, a takings we 

haven't been compensated for. 

If you have any questions I would be glad to try and answer them. 

Thank you. 
175 

Stateman of 

Ela1ae Allestad Represeutin& the 

Montaua Wool Growers Assoclatlon 1: . 

American Sheep IJlclustrr 4ssnclat!on 

before the 

United State Senate 

Subcommittee Oil Parks, Bistorlc 

May 23,1995 
176 

My name is Elaine Allc.stad. My family owns and operates a sheep and cattle unch a= Big 

Ti.mb«, Montana. I am a Sweetgrass County Commissioner and a former Commissioner on 

Montana's F'J.Sh W'lldlife and Parks Commission. We run on a u.s. Forest Semcc grazing 

allotment seven miles north of Yellowstone National Park, an area 1hat has stzVed u grizzly 

bear habitat and now serves as habitat for gray wolf rr:t#it:ry. I thank you for tbia opportunity 

to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on this most iloportant subject, the wolf. 

~it can be said the bald ea:Ic n:pzesents the succ:esses of the Endangered Species .Act, then it 

can abo be said tbat the wolf best repte:JCDtS the Endangered Species Act's Cailmes and abuses. 

Foremost among these abuses is the f.act that the gray wolf .is not in danger of extinction. 

Canadian biologists estimate there are between 4S ,000 and 60,000 wolves in Canada. Over two 

thousand gray wolves are found within the continental United States and another 7,()()()-10,000 

gray wolves are found in Alaska. The wolf issue is not about rr:;t;QVer'J of a threatened SJICcies. 

Nor is this iisuc about biology. The wolf issue centers around regulamry c:ontro1 of natural 

The issue also centers around the miquided policies of natural regu1atiml. 

When the public thi.nla of wolf recovery, it typically thinks of Yellowstone National Park and 

northern Minnesota. However, the Yellowstone rwJVery plan has less to do with Yellowstone, 

and more to do with the majority of land base in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The E:aste.m 

Tunber Wolf Recovery Plan not only covcr3 Minnesota, but also Wisconsin and Michipn. This 

plan also call& for recovery of wolves in Maine, New Hampshire and New York. 'The rei wolf 

Is now found in Florida, Mississippi, North and South Carolina and Tem~CSSeC. Plans are befn& 

dr.lftcd to recover the gray wolf into Washington and the Mexican wolf in Arizona. New Mexico 

and Texas. 'The U.S. Fuh & W'lldlife Service (USFWS) is further evaluating wolf recovery in 

Colorado. Finally wolves are dispersing from Minnesota into North and South Dakota. In: total, 

twenty one states are in some manner affected by the USFWS's wolf recovery efforts. 

ASI is opposed to wolf repopulation or reintroduction if the recovery program restricts tile use 

of private property or the utilization of public lands by the private sector. We wish to discuss 

with you the regulatory and predatory effects the wolf has had on the sheep industry. We will 

focus on. the Minnesota wolf recovery plan, as it best demonsaates how other wolf rccnvery 

plans such as those for Yellowstone and Central. Idaho are llkcly 10 affect our industry in the 

future. 

--;.LESSONS LEARNED PROM 'lliE MINNESOTA WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM: 

The Eastern timber wolf recovery program has lakr:n an enormous toll on the livestock industry 

and qricul1ure in general In northern Minnesota. According to USDA figures, there, were 

~ 12,230 farms and .91,000 sheep in the Minnesota wolf IallgC in 1979. By 1982 the number of 

loJY farina in Minnesota wolf range declined 41 percent to 7,200 farms. By 1986 sheep number in 

Minnesota wolf Illllge declined 82 percent to only 16,000 sheep. This decline in sheep numbers 

in wolf xange OOCUired when sheep numbcr3 in the rest of the state increased. 
177 

Pa&e 2. 

1. Liyestock Losses to Wolyes 

- Between 1977 and 1986 an &VClii&C of 234 domestic animals were verified as lost to wolves in 

Minnesota. From 1987 to 1991 this annual average increased to 1150 domestic animals, five 

times the number lost during the previous period. The year 1989 was extremely bad for 

f\1 predation with 1, 734 confinned livestock losses. The state of Minnesota compensated livestock 

'-:!5 producers $43,644 for their losses to wolves, but by Fcbruaiy 1990 the compensation program 

was bro.ke. The federal government and organigtions such as National Wildlife Pedemtion did 

not provide additional funds to the compensation program and many produCClS bad to wait until 

~t fiscal year to receive payment. Since 1989, wolf predation levels have remained high. 

The inczcase in predation has occurred as wolves attempt to repopulate the brushy agricultural 

areu to the south of the recovery area. The impact of this predation has been particularly hard 

on the individual farmer. For example, Ron IDocb from Itasca County, Mhmesota estimates 

thai he's lost $50,000 in dairy and beef cattle to wolves in the ten year period between 1982 and 

1992. Accoiding the USDA Animal Damage Control, a high level of wolf-livestock conflict 

occurs in parts of Roseau and Kittson County which are located outside the wolf recovery areas 

designated by the USFWS. One Roseau County turkey fanner suffered aver $11,988 in damage 

bciorc the wolves causing the losses could be brought under ccmtroL In &cal year 1m, 

WlSCOJISin also began to suffer heavy wolf predation. Douglas, Wa.shbum and Lincoln counties, 

lost 111 domestic animals to wolves. 

"-

In 1992 the U.S. Fish & W'lldlifc Sc:nice Wucd a report attitlcd · "1'raads and Management of 

WolC/llvestock Contlict in Minnesota. • In earlier reports, USPWS analysts found thai livestock 

r'1t prtdation was statistically insignificant. However, heavy wolf pxedation loaes in 1987' 1989 

~ and 1990 flm:ed the USFWS to mocfify ar1ier couclusioDa. JJSFWS's UJXfatc;d data couclndeci 

that liyestoc;k Iosw increased wltb time and distribution. '!be USFWS report suggested that 

preventative wolf control measures be taken. in Miuncsota. 'lbc report abo states that up to 30 

percent of the Minnesota wolf population wiD have to be tak'm annually to prevent increased 

conflict. The USFWS bas not tal= action on this report and is 1llllibly to do so considering 

the environmental uproar created during Alaska's wolf contml efforts, Moat disturbing is the 

eport's conclusion that because faclmJ in MinDesota am differatt tbaD in tile West. the West 

~can expect even heavier livestock losses than thoao elpetienced in :Minnesota. 

2. Compengtjgn Pm!PW"• fpr Wolf J.ppes 

Tbc Mlnucso1a Departmt.:nt of Agriculture baa a compcas81ion programs to pay farmers and 

macbc:n for losses cawed by wolves. This compensafion propam, however, ia cumbersome, 

and 10111e farmer don't take the time to Ule iL All suspected wolf losses muat be mnfiJ]J!I'II by 

a Naturalllesoorces Conservatiaa. offu:cr and payment bas been limited to $400 per head of 

livestock. This payment by no means covers the $1,000 value of a typical oow in today's 

market aDd, even if the c:ompcnMtion levels were raised, it is difficult to dctcrminc a fair wlue 

for the lime and energy that :candlers invest in breeding programs 10 pmducc quality herds. 
178 

Page 3. 

The fact that wolves can consume all edible parts of a carcass in a short manner of time is ~ilso 

a problem with the compensation program. If to much of the carcass has been consumed 1:n- if 

decay prohibits identification of cause of death, no payment will be made. Meticulous Canadian 

studies show that typically only 60 percent of all livestock killed by wolves can be positi·vely 

identified. Thus, 40 percent of the rancher's losses to wolves arc never compensated by the 

state of Minnesota. 

3. Increasr4 Livestock Losses by Other Predators 

In addition to wolf predation, the Endangcral Species Act places restriction on the sheep 

Industry's ability to control other predators such u coyotes and bobcats. Many areas of northern 

Minnesota saw coyote predation on sheep increase 300 to 400 percent after the wolf wu listed. 

No compensation programs is available for these losses. 

Prom 1969 to 1974, registered trappcn were paid $50 for every wolf, $35 for every coy•ote, 

lynx and bobcat they trapped, and $5 for every fox. The state's Directed Predator Control 

Program was terminated in the wolf recovery region on September 5, 1974 after the wolf was 

listed u endangered. Today, if predation on a farm is found to be fox, coyote or bobcat .relalcd, 

the livestnck rWc:r can request the Minnesota Department of Natural .Resources Conservation 

Officea to open his farm for predator coDll'Ol. under the State Directed Predator Control Progmm. 

If opeued, then control of these other predators can be initialed by a state certified trapper. 1bis 

has made the state predator control program a reactive program lather than a preventative one, 

and lends itself to increased costs for controlling p.tcdators and higher livestock predation loS.!:es. 

A 1982 USFWS study estimated that coyote ldlls were 17: 1 in comparison to wolf kills. A 1993 

USDA Animal Damage Control report notes, however, that this .ratio may be increasing. A'DC 

stated that "coyotes remain an important factor in alleged livestock losses in the wolf range, lUld 

the coyote population has been increasing in recent years. • 

The increases in coyote and fox populations arc not just an economic danger to livesbxk 

producers but also a danger to the wolves themselves. A 1993 USDA Animal Damage Control 

report stated: 

'"'Ibc CUlrellt high populations of coyotes and red foxes in Minnesota may be a vector for 

the transmission of sarcoptic mange to the state's wolf population. During 1993, 11 

wolves wm captured that exhibited mange. These arc the first multiple cases of maJtge 

in Minnesota wolves that wolf control personnel have observed in the 18-year history of 

the wolf control program. Instances of sarcoptic mange were also reported in Wisconsin 

, wolves during 1992 and 1993. • 

4. Dinz js an Increasing Problem in Wolyes 

Disease has become a mOl'e significant mortality factor to tbe wtem timber wolf than human 

mortality. Some of the diseases a.ffect:ing the wolf include Canine oarvavirus (CPV), Lyxru~ 
179 

Page 4. 

disease and heartworm. Lyme disease has been found ill Minnesota and Isle Royale wolves. 

1991 research shows that half the variation in Minnesota's annual pup production and one third 

of the variation in wolf pups production in the Superior National forest is attributable to CPV. 

Lyme disease is most often transmitted by ticks. This disease call8eS fever and severe aches in 

humans and if not treated immediately will debilitate an individual for the rest of his life. The 

first reported case of Lyme diseal:e in humans in the U.S. was reported in 1975. By 1991, 

9,344 people carried the disease. On :May 11, 1992, U.S. News and World Report .teported that 

there had been a 1,700 percent increase in human cases of Lyme disease since 1982 and stated 

that "only AIDs is spreading faster. • In 1992 there were 200 caliCS of Lyme disease per 100,000 

residents ill California. Lyme disease is also common now in wolf populations. From 1972-

1974 none of the wolves captured in Minnesota tested positive for Lyme disease. From 1977 

to 1984, 3 percent of the wolves captured in Minnesota and Wl.SCOIIsin tested positive for Lyme 

diSCIIlle. Between 1987 and 1989, 47 percent of the wolves captured tested positive for this 

disease. Finally in 1992, 75 percent of the wolves in Wuconsin test positive to this disease. 

S. Impossibility of Pelisting the Wolf as Threatened or Endangered 

Another problem with the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Program, is the fact that it has been 

impossible to delist the wolf once it has reached ret:Overy levels. Under tbe original wolf 

recovery plan, a stable population of 1;000 to 1,200 wolves was deemed u ncc:e:ssary to ensure 

the continued viability of the wolf. In Aprill978, the wolf wu down listed to tbrcatened which 

would allow limited wolf predation worlt to t=llmC. But a lawsuit initiated by environmental 

groups restricted the control of wolves to only those wolves actaally causing the depredation. 

ADC notes that this lawsuit tumc4 wolf control from a preventative program into a n::active 

program. In 1979 there was an estimated 1,23S wolves in Minnesota meetina recovery leveb. 

The state of Minnesota attempted to regain ID8Illi8C11lent of the wolf from the fcdetal govcmment 

in 1980, but the USFWS tumed down the state's request. After acbic:ving a stable population 

over an eight year period the Minnesota Department of Natui2l Resources was granted its 

request to hold limited sportS hunting of the wolf in 1983. A Siem. Club lawsuit, however, had 

this deasion overturned in 1984. In 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court 

decision outlawing the public harvest of wolves in Minnesota and reaffinning the USFWS's 

re3p00sibility for managing the species. Wolf numbers continued to inctease during the late 

1980s and as wolves expanded onto traditional farm lands, livestock predation losses also 

increased. 

In 1990 the wolf {lopulati.on was estimated Ill 1,500 ani.mala, and the state of Minn=ota 

recommended that the USFWS COI13i.der rcmovin& the wolf from the threatened list. They also 

a.skcd that wolf population &nanagemcnt be allowed in areas where established &oais had .been 

achieved. The USFWS, however, ignored these requests and drafted a new recovery plan that 

not only continued to protect the wolf, but also initiated controls on access, development and big 

game hunting. 
180 

~s. 

The 1991 plan not only c:a1led for the mainteoancc of 1,411-l,S70 wolves in :Minnc30ta, but ulso 

establishment of a secoud population which consists of 80 wolves in W'UCOilSin. 80-90 wolves 

in Michigan and 25-35 wolves on the Isle of Royale. Once a total population of 1,41H,:570 

wolves il ni8Ched in the three Slate3, this population must be maintained for five years bctim 

delisting will be considered. Estimafed cost of the rcvUed m;ovc:ry plan was $13,500,000, :utd 

estimated date of rccovcry is 2002. 

The l991ICCOVc:ry plan also calls on the USFWS to evaluate the Ceuibility of~ wolve~~ 

to a 2,SOO square mile area in eaatem Maine, a 11,300 aquare mile area COJI&iatiD& of mo11tly 

private .land and the Baxter State Park in northwcstcm Maille and New lhmpshite, and the 

.AdlroDdadl: State Forest Prcacne in New York. Thc plan calli lor the identificatiou of 

•dispersal c:mrldon" and otbe:r posaible aights for wolf ~tablislunent eitiH:r natutally or 

tbrou&h tDDsplant. 

The USFWS JJOW estimates that there arc 2,000 wolves in Minnesota, 70 in W'uconsln and S7 

in Mic:higaD. USFWS biolopts now, however, bu begun dilc:ussiDns about mana&ia& wolves 

on an ecosystem basiJ with 200-SOO wolves in each of the Michigan and W'JSCODSin ecosystenu. 

They arc also cliJcussiq placing further %UtricdonJ on recreation in Voyager Nllional Pad~ 

6. Wolf ia Being Ulcd For l.and CgntmJ. Put1NW 

'Ibo 1991 Baatcm 'l'imber Wolf~ Plan encowagcs Iand-I* ~ !hat mi.nimiize 

•ccmlbf!fty andfntcmivecommcrcialdevelopmauin thczoues designated form:avery. nc:alls 

Cor NEPA analysis to evaluate tbc impact of private and federal projects on the wolf. n 

clbcoura&a tbc buildiAc of permanent mads, adverse development. human v:ttfement, and the 

deiUuclioll, dlstmbaDcc or Olher adverse modfftcation of ba1iliat that midn reduce wolf 

popula1ioDa or restrict their rccovety. 

The USFWS appears to have Janonx1 a 1990 Yale UDivcrsity mrvcy conducted to ddaminc !he 

¥fewa wbidl .residents of Mtcbjpn llcld about wolf ret»Vf11rJ ialo lbeir 11ate. 'l1lo majority of 

rasidcnts be1i&M:d that euvironmeatalist would IIIC tbe wolf u an em1111 to stop clevclopmc!lt, 

aad tbo -.Jority of cidzcaa CJppOied tuea 011 dcvelopmc:Dt or pllciDs llmib on human ..UJcment 

ID the Upper Pellhlsula u waya of support1na tbc wolf. Few aupponed road domn:s IIIII most 

IUppOrtDd lbc IIOiioD that valuable mfnemls, if dbam:tccllll tbe Upper Pculllaula, lbou1d be 

clcvelopecl cvm if it occurred Ill areu w.bae wolves wen loc:aacd. 

In the plan. tbo OSFWS calla for the uccd Cor atrong .resuJations. To quote the USFWS, 

"llecauuc wolves bave survived for 10 1oq in Nlnncsola despite bounties and year-around 

huntia& ad trapping, tbcze may be a question u to wby any mstrictioaa aeed DOW be placecl on 

the taldq of the wolf.• They ao 01110 ay, "W'Jdcspread indum••Jndon, .miDea1 eq~loitatic~Dt 

ad pneral davelopmeDt could tbreat= much of the wolf's remainiq maae. makin& J'CIII]a1ion 

lD=uiDIJ.y aipiRcw to tbc popnt•dona left. Additiooalroada, milroads. power 11om, miDcs 

and toudst facilities could fudber carve up much of umdlem Mllmelota. 'Ibis woul4 dLuupt the 

Dll1UI1 repopulation of depleted areu by wolves and promote hipcr human densities whit:b. 
181 

Page 6. 

could compete with wolves for their wild prey. • 

USFWS dailtl3 that a road density greater than one road milc/squam mile has a negative effect 

on wolf recovery and the basic bn:eding unit of the population. In the eastern wolf recovery 

program, miDimizing road development and road upgrading ia emphasized. The USFWS claims 

that low-standard woods roads have the ~ risk to wolves because they are tiaveled by 

hunters and trappers and th~ recommends closure and mregctarion of many of these roads so 

road mileqe is at or below threshold levels. 

The plan also calls on the USFWS to maintain or increase prey populations, especially deer, 

moose and beaver, through habital improvCIIlCPt. In addition to habilat improvement, plans to 

introduce the woodland caribou into the United States from Canada are also beini analyzed. 

The USFWS expands ita authority to regulate the stale of :Minnesota's hunting harvest of deer, 

moose and beaver within the plan to ensme a auflicicot smplus far the wolf and willlCduce this 

harvest if i1 feels necessary. The USFWS also baa iDcreased law enfarcement, especially durin& 

h11111iq ~ to ensure compliance with this top down regulation. Presently the USFWS is 

evaluatini whether coyote season should be closed ciurlng bf& pme season in wolf areas. 

The livestock iudustty ia faced with livcstock-cuws-disposall&ws, and are askeci to keep their 

livestock in or near bams until young are produced. These last practices geucrally calls for 

additional suppJemcntal feeding, which produc:e:s may or may DOt be able to afford. 

7. Jl!rumcia! Burden on USPA Animal Damace Contml and Stato 

1bc Minnesota wolf m:DVery effort is DOt only a financial burden on the state of Minnesota, but 

a burden on the Umitecl funds available to USDA Animal DaJna&e Control. In 1990, ADC had 

a $140,000 budget to control clepRdat.ing waives in Minnesota. ADC 1311 out of funds before 

the end of their fi:JCal year by bavin& to tnlvel u much u 15,000 miles per month answering 

complaints and c:becldng traps. The eflOrls of Congiasman James Oberstu and other 

Congressional delegates were able to increue the Mlnu=ota ADC program budget in fiscal year 

1992, however, little or I10lle of this fwldin& came from the USFWS. 

In mpM.t to livestock compensatim, the 1991 wolf recovery plan calla for the Wtiatlon of a 

$50,000 federal compensation program hqlnnh'i in 1994, but thus far no funds have been 

committed to compensate livestock louc3. Cutr=t compensation continues to be paid by the 

Minnesota Department of Agricu11um and MinDcaota tupayen. 

IDBTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 

Yellowslone National Parle was first discovered by John Colt«. When Colt« told Othcra of hU 

discovery of the areas now known as Mammoth Hot SpriDp and Old Faithful, people believed 

the stories only to be another mountain man's tall tales. Fc1low mountain men IWIIcd the 

"mythical• place Colter's Hell In fact, this place of geysen aDd bot springs bad been a type 

of hdl for John Colter. During hU travels through the present day park, Colter faced near 
182 

Pqe7. 

l1aiVa1lon condl.tioas due to the lack of game found in the area. Later in the 19th century others 

discovered Colter's Hell, but the we.u was quiddy cbangjna. 'lbc river ODCC called "'lbc Little 

Bile River" by the Crow Indians was DOW called Yellowstone, l1ld communidcs such as 

Uvin&ston. Bozeman and Cody wem sptinginc fmm the prairie. Ptcsidalt Ulyuca Gt:w, 

however, had tbe foresi&ht to preserve the unique qualities of areas 111ch u Mammoth Hot 

Springs from the west's development by esfablishinz the Dation's Jim DaliaDal park. in 187.2. 

Civilization also began pushing plains' aoimala such as elk, ¢zzly, and bison further from their 

natural habimt and into the high country. In 1883, hunting within YeUowstonc National. Park 

was banned to all but a small tribe of IndJans .~ivins within the parlt's boundaries. In 1902, 

bison were imported from Charla Goodnight's cattle and bison herd in Kansas to expand the 

park's twenty-two head bison population. (This il how bruccllosia most likdy Clltabl.ished it;clf 

in Yellowstone.) To protect this population from c.."dincti.on and to protect other pmc animals 

who had Cound refuge within the park, park rangen began tDippin& and hunting another 

newcomer to the park area, the pay wolf. From 1907 to 1952, bison were run like cattle on a ranch in the.Lamar Vallcy of Y cllowstone Park. Fences were built, meadows were hayed, :md 

bison were branded for identification. 'lbc bison herd grew to a size of 1,200 head. 

Elk abo did well in the park. Southem elk herds migia1ed to hay feeding grounds near Iaclc;on 

Hole, Wyoming in the winter. Nonhcrn herds met the pressure of fall huntillg during their time 

of migration and these herds often ended up being fed by the Patk ScrvU:e and loc:al mnchers 

dllrinz the hard winter months. To prevent ovcrgmzing of park.rcsourte~, sanacn would control 

elk populalions by shooting elk ia the backcountry of Yellowstone. 'Ibis practU;e also served 

to feed bear populations and prevented bumanlbear conflict. The grizzly and blade bw 

populations within the park became very dense. 

In 1963, the naturalist Aldo Leopold wrote a report to Congress recommending that all pres.:nt 

management practices within the park be stoppccl and that a system of managing by Natuzal 

Ecosystem Regulation be started. Under this system of regulation, there was to be no artifkial 

feeding of bears, elk or bison, there was to be no reductions of herd populations and all thiugs 

were to be allowed to zegulatc them.sclves. This policy was made official by the Park SetVicc 

in 1967. 

Between 1967 and 1986, bison populations ifCW from a size of 400-600 head to 2,100. The 

southern elk herd could lli1l migiate to Jackson Hole to be em hay durlAg the winter montbs, 

but the qnal summ~ and winter habitat far the northcm elk herd lay 75 miles doWDSUcii.IIl 

from Ycllowstoac Park. Hi&hwaya, cities and fmns now covered lhia region and the elk w•~ 

effectively fenced into the park. Between 1967 and 1986, the northern elk herd swelled frl)m a population of 5,000 head to over 18,000 head. Easy winters prevented large herd die o1fs, 

but the puk's natwal resources were beina destroyed. 

~ tbe fact that the average elevation of the Yellowstone Ecosystem is 8,000 feet above liea 

level and tbe wolf seldom dens at elevations over 7,000 feet, the wolf has bcm!De the par!Q 

solution TQ ita mi•ll!l!l!liU"'CDt by go !DBPiiCmcnt. 
183 

Page 8. 

NAllJRAL ECOSYSTEM REGULATION 

Environmentalists have intoned the "balance of nanue• theoxy as scriptuie for twenty-five years. 

Many environmentalists claim that prcdaton are necessary to control populations of both small 

and large game species. This theoxy became wen cntt=cbed wilhin the environmental 

wmmunity when the observations of U.S. Fish & Wildlife SetVicc biologist David Medt were 

published on wolf and moose interaction on the Isle Royale from 1958-1962. Since this time, 

Mech and other nature biologists have come to realize that nature is never in balance, but mtber 

it's in a natural state of constant chan&e. 

The Isle of Royale is a 200-sq~milc island in I..akc Superior. This isle lies eighteen miles 

off shote and was detc:rmined a natural laboratory for pn:datorlprey studies involving wolves and 

moose. 1bc island was a dense pine forest habitat with a feN caribou until 1900, when it was 

logged and burned by miners to expose copper veins. ArDimd 1915, moose found their way to 

the Isle and the island proved to be an i.de:al. moose habila1 of aspen. birch, pass and sluubs. 

In 1936, a forest fire a&ain bumcd the island's regrown pine forest. As gnw, shrubs and aspen 

trees teo-vegetated the island, moose population flourished to numbers of 2,000-3,000 head. 

In 1940, the Isle of Royale was declared a National Park and in 19SO, wolves established 

themselves on the island. From 1958 to 1969 a wolf/moose study took place on the island. 

During this period of time a stable population of 600 moose and fourteen wolve:s was maintained 

by the island's habitat. This study set a pm:cde:nt for Natural Ecosystem Regulation. In 1975, 

the JJle of Royale study was continued. 1bc new study showed the moose population bad pown 

to 1,200 head and the sincJc wolf pack now numbc:Rd twc:Dty with a liD&lC dominant female. 

By 1980, the laic of Royale had mtumcd to mostly climax pine forest bccal1le no forc.st flre.s had 

occwrcd in n:cent years. 'Ibe moose population bepn to llalVe to dealh and numben quickly 

decl.incd to 700. The wolf populati.cm in 1980 had quickly pvwn 10 fifty with tbe slngle pack 

now divided into five separate pacb with five rcproclucing females. In 1981, both the moose 

and wolf populations began declining. Because the island had only a limited amount of surface 

ma. the wolves began killing one anotbet as cmc wolf pack crossed into the tmitory of another 

pack. Today only twelve wolves remain em the island, and these wolves are bcoomlng so inbred 

that extinction is expected wUbin the a= ~ yean. Tbo USFWS is now amsiderin& 

=:lntroducin& wolves to the Island. to help IUSiain the wolf populadon. 

Later mearch on the Isle of Royale bas mado a point that CllVinmulclltaliaU sd1l n:fuae to see. 

Pn:datorl (wolves) do not amtrol the prey (moose) populaliona. Ratb«, the prcy (moose) 

population det=:miDes the number of preda1ma (wolvea), aud the availahle vesetad.on (grasses 

and shrubs) dc:lcmUnes the prey' a (moose) population numbers. Recrowth of the island'a pine 

forostl replaced tbe plants and shrubs that moose clq1aldcd upon for food. As the mOclse 

became weak with stUvatlon, they bccamo more sUscc:ptible to praladon. Walvca diCil began 

kil1ina unusually large numbers of adult moose and with the incR:ascd food supply the wolvca 

bad larger litters and higher pup StUVival rates. Oru:c the moose population was df'1!!maled, the 
184 

Page9. 

wolves began to starve themselves and today face extinction on the islalld. 

Gmy wolves in Alaska have already shown their ability to reproduce at a rate of twenty percent 

per year when game populations are plentiful. Canadian officials have documented caribou 

herds !bat have reached points of extinction only to be saved by wolf population contl:ol. 

Canadian elk populations have also been c:leciJnmd by unconttOllcd wolf populati01111. Canadian 

J:eSearCh bas shown in regions where there are long perioda of cold and vegetation n:covCfl; is 

slow, there will come a point where uncontrolled wolf populations can over take a prey species 

populations and drive this population to levels so low that nawral population recovery is 

impossible. canadian wildlife xescarcher call this situation a "pzedator pit. • 

Canadian res:arcllcrs have also come tu the reaUzation that hunting and uncontrolled wolf 

population& cannot co-cWt. Yellowstone National Park has a climate very similar to that of 

many areas of Canada. With the park's policy of Natural Ecosystem ~ and as tfle }kuk 

rd'orcsts after a large 1988 fire, "predator pill" may eventually develop within the Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, should the wolf be introduced. . Once this point is rCached, wolves \WUid have to 

find altcmative SOUICeS of prey. John Gunson, supeMso1' of Alberta, Canada's Camivme 

Research and DOCUlllCiltation, compares this situation to that of a plague being Ideascd on the 

livestock industry. 

STATUS OF WOLF RE-INTRODUCTION PLANS FOR YELLOWSTONE AND 

SURROUNDING AREAS 

The U.S. Fah and Wildlife bas completed its Environmental Impact Statement, its ICCOvery pl:&n 

for Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, and bas introduced wolves into the region. 

There waa however, another plan, &eneral.ly accepted by industry, huntel'l, and state agencies 

with the Yellowstone and Idaho recovery area. In December of 1990, the Secn:tuy of lnte.Iior 

at the direction of Congress appointed a ten member Wolf Management Committee charged 

le&islativcly with devclopin& a wolf m-introduction and management plan for Ycllowstctnc 

National Park and the Central Idaho W1l.detness. Members of the committee included: cme 

representative from each of the Fah & Game departments for the states of Idaho, Montana ill1d 

Wyoming; one representative eacl1 from the National Park Servil:c, the U.S. Fish & Wlldlife 

Service, and the U.S. Forest Service; two representatives from raviroDmcrual otpnizations; a 

J:qJieSCDtative from tbe huntin& community and a repre&:ntative from the livestol:k industry. lim. 

Mapgaa, past ~t of tile American Sheep lndu.stry Asaociation, xtVCd 011. tbe committee 

as tfle Hvestoc:k industry tqJrCSCiltativc. 

At a cost of over $300,000, the fedel:al WolfManagement Committee de1ibetared and devclaped 

a wolf recovery plan Cor the areas of Yellowstone Park, Glacie.r National Park IDd Central 

Idaho. On May 1.5, 1991, the plan was dclivaed to the Seaela1y of Interior R~eommending that 

Conpess des.iplte Idaho, Montana and Wyoming u nonesseotial, expc:rh=rtal wolf rc:CDVC!'J 

an:aa which ia allowed under Section 7 of the Endangaed Species Al::t • . Tbc Committee also 

recoJillDCSlded that once thirty pacb were established aDd stabilized, the lhr= states would be 
185 

Page 10. 

JiveD the power to IDaiUiiC wolves and impacts on livestock aDd biB game. The plan most llbly 

needed to be implemcDted legislatively. 

National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wlldlife wen: the two wolf C4mmittce member~ 

that voted apinst the Wolf Management Plu tbal aDowecl m-.lmroductiml of wolves into 

Yel.lowatone Patk and Centl2l. Idaho. Defalders of W'Wilifc lmmecliatrty beptl lobbying 

Coagn:ss to reject the plan and Initiated a lawsuit in the federal courts ordeziDi the F'uh & 

W'Jldlife Se.rvice to implement oae portion of tile agency's 1987 pJan-tbat por1ion relating to 

Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho. 

Under heavy lobby from the environmentiats, the House ApplopriatioDJ Committtc ignored the 

Wolf Committee Plan and appmved $348,000 to do an EnviroJuDallallmpact Statem=t for wolf 

recovery Wider parts of the 1987 plan. 'l1lc American Sheep Induslry Aatnci•t!na, tbe Gem 

State Huaten Association and tbe state wildlife qencies from. MaDiaaa aDd WyOIIIiq were 

qered that the minority opiDicm of two orpnlptions such aa NatioDal W'lldlife Fcdention and 

Defenders o!Wikllife would have a Dllliorlty c:ontto1 over the ouu::omcofthc WolfMaoa&cm=t 

Committee Plan. 

Wbi1c the tJSFWS did consider and implement portions of the Wolf Advisory ComJnittce Plan, 

other important aspect.s of the plan ioclnctiq compensation and pmleCdon of propeny were left 

out. Today's Senate Submmmittce may wish to review die Wolf Mvbory Committee's 1991 

rec:ommenctatioua and analyze the poss!bl!!tim of legislalivd.y haDdl1na the Yellowltonc and 

Idaho wolf recovery efforts. It is the lear of the lbeep iDdustry tbat preservalioallt will 

eventually usc the court system to implcmCAt many of the provisioas andi'Citrictions of the 1991 

Bastcm Timber Wolf Plan in the Yellowatoac xeglon. 

MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY IN AIUZONA AND NEW MEXICO 

1be USFWS ia pmscady ~Ill BzaviloamcmallmpactStatrment~ to reintmclucc 

the M=ican wolf to the Blue RaJ1ic aea of Alizolla and tbe White Sands Missile Ranp in New 

Mexico. Much or the !und.in& tor these reintroduction efforts is COIJlina through amnts by the 

National Fish lr. Wildlife FOWida!ian. AI of August 1994, there were 89 Ml::xicall wolves in 

captivity in the U.S. and Mexico. 'lbe U.S. populatiM originated flom a liDglc femaJo who was 

odafually bred bact to her Dl. Bjotogists lii'C QO!ICC!1!C'4 about die JobreediD& coefficient Oil 

the3D wolves, and am consi&::dn1 hybrldizlna the Mc:xican wolt wida .ita couaba the lf&J wolf. 

'Ibe u.s. Fish lr. W'Jldlifc Service hu already compk:tcd aD ms ta allow the hybridization of 

tbc Florida pan1bcr, 10 hybridization of the McdcaA wolf is a disdDct poaibillty. 

'lbe orillna1 Mexican wolf recovery plan called tor the establislmletlt of at .least 100 Medcan 

wolves ill the wilda. This plan Tf'.!!'M!mendeclan asea of 11 kut 5,000 square mile~ for each 

wolf populadon. The White Sand Miai1e Ranp is the largest ma of tedcnllaDd in the former 

.mnae of the Mexican wolf and COilSim of 3,200 square mi1ca. 
186 

Page 11. 

Industry is concerned that the Mexican wolf recovery plans as drafted, are neither biologically 

or ecologically feasible. Concerns with the Mexican wolf r=JVerj plan include: 

1) The size of the missile range is to small to contain the wolf popularlon; 2) The plan ignc~ 

the effects of some SO cougars already in the recovery area. Young lions typically disperse fiom 

the uca when mature, which indicates the deer herd may not be capable of sustaining a ttlird 

pn:dator, the wolf; 3) Because the Mexican wolf population is so small, hybridization with 

coyotc:J could affect an already limited gene pool, and; 4) Pleda1:ion ~on suaounding 

ranches could be high. Mexican records show that one 74 pound female wolf killed 110 stcet3 

and heifers in a two year period. Another wolf in Mexico killed 18 steers in one month. 

The New MeJtico Wool Growers have actively opposed the intnxluction of the wolf to the 

missile base. In a 19871ettcr to Major Gene:al Joe Owens, the Woolgrowers stated, -we would 

point out to you that when the people ranching on those lands in 1942 gave them up to the 

United States government for military testing purposes, they did not intend for the U.S. 

government to use those lands for wildlife or endangered species predator research. • 

Finally, industry is concerned with the discussions about hybridizin& the Mexican wolf with lhe 

pay wolf, but also about the fact the USFWS is moving ahead with efforts to hybridize l:he 

P1orida panther with cougars brought in from Texas. A 1uly, 1991 USFWS report entitled 

•supplemental EnviroiUUCiltal Assessment, A Pmpow 10 Establish a Captive Bn::cding 

Population of Florida Panthers, • indicates that the service may ba.ve a1Icady rc1eascd Tc:as 

cougars into north Florida. These efforts to pwposcly hybridiz.c not only violale the EDdangered 

Species Act, but also violates Solicitor Office rulings on the issue. In 1981, the Solicitors Offil:e 

ruled that the production of hybrids between two subspecies would not be in the interest of l:he 

Endangered Species Act after the USFWS crossed the endangered dusky seaside sparrow with 

a morphologically similar subspecia, the Scott's seaside sparrow. The dusky seaside sparrow 

lllldcr this ruling was allowed to go extinct. 

AJ stated above, the sheep industry is opposed to the USFWS hybridizing animals cumntly 

listed u thRatened and endangered. The sheep industry ia abo oppoaed to the U.S. FW1 &: 

Waldlife Service protecting hybrid aoimal.a. 

Genetic analysis of 86 gray wolves from Minnesota indicate that in 1991 more than half oft~ 

wolf population baa mitochondrial DNA dedvcd from coyotc:s. In ita 1991 :E!utcm Timber Wt:llf 

Recovery Plan, the USFWS Jtated that "because of change3 in habitat, human hahitadoo patte:ns 

IUid development, popula!ions of wolves IUid coyotes may become blcrcasingly disjwu:t. nw 

teDda1cy may increa.se cbanc:ca for wolf-coyote contact IUid thus hybridization. • The pl2n, 

however, called for management to MCiuce the 111celjbocvl of hybrictiudcm occurring, 

'lbc USFWS appears · to be changing its attitude towards hybrid animals. At a recent w•:ill' 

management hearing in Wuconsin. USFWS slated that it intellda to C11abUsh JegU1ations fer 

dog/wolf hybrids, but not fer coyote/wolf hybrid because they feel the coyote/wolf is evoluliclll.. 
187 

Pase 12. 

This point was .reaffinru:d in the USFWS's denial of the sheep industry's petition to dcUst the 

red wolf. In 1990, two genetic sc:i.entists analyzed the DNA of all the red wolves the USFWS 

bad in captivity. They also analyzed the DNA from all the ml wolf pelts collcc:ted over 60 

years ago. These scientists found some DNA that matched that of the gmy wolf and some that 

JDatched that of the coyote. There was no distinctive ml wolf DNA found. The scientists 

concluded that the ml wolf was actually a gray wolf/coyote hybrid. In denying the sheep 

industry's petition to dcUst the red wolf, the USFWS stated "'lberefOIC, there will be no cllange 

in emphuis or commitment for rccovecy of the red wolf as a top prcdalor, whether or not this 

species' taxonomic position is reaolved. The rccovecy of the red wolf ia most important fur 

reestablishing this canid's unique and evolutionary role that baa been vacant for some time in 

ecosystems of the Southeast. • 

ASI believes the USFWS new positions on hybrids ia a serious misdirection in need of 

cmmction. First of all, the Endangcml Species Act only cxteods authority for the protection 

of species, subspecies and distinct populalions of species, not for the protection of hybrids or 

the advancement of the theory of evolution. 

Secondly, the precedent establi.shed by the agency's protection of wolf hybrids has serious 

ramifications on the protection of other species, espec:ially plants. ByJ:tridintion is common in 

many plant species. However, hybrid plants typically die out within several generations 

naturally. If hybrids arc provided protection under the ESA, the USFWS would be faced with 

the hopeless task of attempting to reverse the laws of nature to ensure their SW'Viva1. 

COST OF WOLF RECOVERY 

The cost of wolf recovery has been great in terms of Congrcasional approprlations. In 1991, 

for example, wolf recovery received $2,428,000 ln appropriations with an additional $600,000 

bdng requested for Mexican wolf rccovecy. There were 600 tbrcatcncd and endangered species 

in 1991 that ecei.ved less than the $600,000 requested for Mexican wolf recovery. There were 

63 species that Ieeeived no funding in 1991, and 33.5 species that rcc:eived 1ess than $10,000. 

Thus tar, $1.3 million has been spend on Mexican wolves with another $7.2 million in projected 

costs for the uext 10 years. 

Between 1991 and 1994, over Sl milliondollan was spent studying wolfrecovmy in the sta1ca 

of Washington and Idaho. Another $50,000 spent studying wolf JCCOVCI}' into Colonido and 

$300,000 was spent managing wolves already present in Glacier National Park. Ycllowatone 

Park recovery efforts in 1994 costed over $2.3 million with the Department of the Interior now 

requesting additional funding. Appropriated funds ate being ap:m on species lila: tbc wolf and 

the grimy, which ate in no danger of extinction, while truly endangered spec:ics like the 

blackfooted ferret receive nothing in terms of USFWS funds. 
Page 13. 

CONCLUSION 

188 

'Ihe problems discussed in this testimony are not unique to the wolf. These saJDe abuses are ;iiJso 

found within the r«;oVery efforts as.tociated with the grizzly bear, the bald eagle and the desert 

tortoise. The American sheep industry has 1camed some hard lessons about the impactl1 of 

wolves on our industry, u seen with the loss of eighty-two percent of all tbe sheep and lal!llbs 

in northern Minnesota. 

AJ stated in the introduction, the gmy wolf is neither thieateu.ed nor endangered. Canad:ian 

biologists estimale tbcn: are between 4S,OOO and 60,000 wolves in canada. Over two thousand. 

pay wolves are found within the continental United Slales and another 7,000-10,000 cray 

wolves are found in Alaaka. 'Ibc wolf iJsuc is not about m:overy of a thii:aU:Ded species. Nor 

iJ this issue about biology. The wolf iJsuc cc:ntcrs around ft:&Uiatory control of natlaal 

~- n also centers around miaguide policies such aa natliJal regulatian.. 

Our industry's losses to wolf predation have been significant, especially since 1987. Recent 

losses to wolves are mainly the result of ~loding Minnesota wolf populations elq)allding out 

of the ret:Overy area and onto farm and ranch lands in centtal Minnesota. The sheep indlllltry 

asks that Congress investipte opportunitiell for federal compensation programs, not just for the 

wolf predation losses but also grimy bear. The burden of federally protected species sho:uld 

not fall on the producer or the state. Nor should the financial burden of contxolling depredating 

wolves rest solely on the Animal Damage Control Program, but rather with the USFWS. 

Our Jndustry'a losses to wolf ptcdation are insignificant; however, in comparison to losses 

ex.perienced ~federal wolfrquialions have ~ted us from conuolling other ~3rs 

lib the coyote, bear and bobcat. Without preventative control of thea predators, the sheep 

industry cannot survive. In Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, the USFWS is DOW plaCing 

restric:tio111 on the use ofM-44s, our industries most selective and humane predator control tool. 

Approximately SO pen:cnt of the foxes taken and almost 20 percent of the coyote.1 takm in these 

three states are with M-445. The BLM is also restricting the use traps larger than 13. Without 

these larger traps, our ability to control predators such as bears and cougars is restrictl:d. 

Coyote tG1P3 are also being prohibited in areas where wolves are dennini· These rcstrictU)IIS 

on the .industry's two most efficie't tools comes at a time when ~tor losses in these three 

states have incralsc 38 percent due to environmental appeals on ADC activities. 

Our industry' a losses to wolves will also be insignificant 1:0mpared to the restrictions ·the 

USPWS plans to place on land use. ASI ub Congt=s to further investlgalc the dcgn:e to 

whk:h USFWS has closed roada, placc:d restriction on land development, and .restricted lhe 

atatc's ability to manage ita bi& pme animals. 

Conpas Deeds to realize tbat natural regulalion, as practiced by the Nadonal Park Service,. is 

a failed policy that will not be resolved by wolf reintroduction. Natural regulalion is not ba:ICd 

on science and should not be used to .IIWIIIie federal assets. 
189 

Pap14. ' 

Tlui lbccp iudumy fee1a that die C111:rCDt Yellowltooc tot:ovcrry will oantiDue to I» c:ba!l•ged 

fn tbe courts by prese:rvatl.oDf until they obtalA the IIIUI1C mttdcdoD in Montana, Wyomia& and 

Idaho u an: fowul in lbc Bastcm Timber Wolf Recovc::ry Plall. 'lbe sheep iDdustry asia 

Coqn:ss to investlpte opporiDI1ities to preferably ddist the p.y wolf or, if lhilldion ia not 

feuible, look ll Jecislatively implcmead"' tho 1990 Wolf Adviay Cmnnitteo Pllll. Almost oae lllil1ioa head of lbeep llld c:attlc ue iD tbo immediate vJdDity ot dtc YeiJDwllaae/Cemral 

Idaho mcovay mu IDd ue jeopardfml by dtc cmm:nt r=tl'lfZ'/ efforts. 

Tho lllecip iDdustry questions tile Mc1dcaD. wolf Jfi:OVety plaD u beiDi diaftcd. '1'hil draft plan 

la adtbcr biologically DOr ecolo&ically teulble. 

Fmally, ASI bclfcves die USFWS aew poliiioDI 011 hybrids i1 a ICdoua milclin:cdoa in aecd of 

ooaecdoa. Pin& of all, Cbo Pndnpred Spoclel Am oaly fllfiiDdl autbor:itJ Cor tbo pmiCCdmt 

of speclea, IUblpec:Jes Uld clladDCt pnpdad0111 of ipCCZI, DOt Cor .die pl'OfiiCdall of hybdds or 

tbe a4vanccmeDt of the theory of evoluti.oD.. . CaDpa aecds to ~ tbo u.s. Rill & WUd1ife 

Sarvice'• erncqiJII po]1da reprdiq hybddlllld determine it tbla policy il within the &oals 

Coii&RII envisioned for the Badangcnd Species Aa. 
190 

~ Abundant WUdlUe Society 

of North America 

•12665 Hwy . 59 N. •GiUette, WY 82116 •307-682-2826 

I 

April 18, 1996 

Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr . Saxton: 

Thank you for coming to Wyoming for the hearing on Predator Control. 

Thanks also for allowing testimony to be submitted from the general 

public. 

Abundant Wildli fe Society of No=th America (AWS), unlike most other 

wildlife groups, understands the need for predator control. We've s een 

and personally e xperienced their impacts. 

Here are our recommenda tions: 

1. Convince the EPA to allow us e of poison eggs again. We need their 

us e immediately due to the rabies epidemic we're experiencing. 

2. 10-80 is an effective poison . We need to get it registered again so 

we can use it where needed. As was stated in the hearing , when 10-

80 was taken away, an effective alternative was promised. That 

~ever happened . So we need use of 10-80 until such time an inexpensive , effective alternative is tested and on the market. 

3. Give s tates management control of predators. Granted, much was said 

about the Wy oming Game and Fish (WYG&F) "soft-peddling" the predator 

problem. However, the best thing the federal government can do is 

1) Offer expert assistance thro ugh Animal Damage Control (ADC); 2) 

Get federal government out of the way so states and private 

individuals can address predator problems effectively. 

~********x************* 

Do predators cause wildlife population to decline? Do predators spread 

disease such as rabies, bubonic plague, etc.? Do predators kill 

livestock, and is such killing significant? 

'--------Preserving Great North American Traditions--------
191 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

12665 Hwy 59 N, Gillette, WY 82716 

These three questions are what need to be answered. And they could be a nswered very easily. Here's how: 

1. Give full authority for predator control to state and/or a region of a state. This includes allowing any type of predator (including 

raptors) to be removed. 

2. Give them trappers, traps, aerial hunters, poisons and any other 

safe, effective means of predator control . 

3 . Do a three or five year study with another region of the state, with no predator control implemented, used for comparison. 

4. Hire some unbiased experts to implement and conduct the study . This 

study should not be limited to game animals and livestock, but also water fowl, song birds, etc. 

We would suggest using the state of Wyoming, simply because geography 

would work so well. Take the northeast region of Wyoming and implement 

aggressive predator control. Take a comparable size area west of Big 

Horn Mountains to use for comparison. Do not allow any predator 

control except in the case of documented livestock depredation . Conduct a study and publish the results. 

We can guarantee you , if the study is professionally done by unbiased e xperts, three of the conclusions will be: 

1. Predators cause significant impacts on wildlife populations and 

livestock operations! 

2. Incidence of disease such as rabies, bubonic plague , wildlife 

distemper, mange, etc . will decline dramatically! 

3 . Predators are DQi exterminated even under aggressive predator control! 

Why hasn't such a study been done? We really don't know, but our suspicion is Federal and State wildlife agencies don't want such data. 

There is no doubt, as Cindy Garrettson-Weibel testified, that state wildlife agencies have "soft-peddled" the predator problem. Your 

colleague, Representative Barbara Cubin, was correct when she said, 

"The people who should be gathering the information don't want predator 

control, so they're not gathering it. That's what I've gotten out this 

hearing." 

Mrs . Cubin questioned if WYG&F's failure to keep records on predator 

impacts was a politically based "lack of will" to do so . We think 

WYG&F's "lack of will" ·is more philosophically based than political. 

There's no doubt WYG&F would be criticized if they came out and stated 

2 
192 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

12665 Hwy 59 N, Gillette, WY 82716 

predator control was necessary, but we've found they are 

philosophically opposed to predator control. And, as psychologists and 

psychiatrists have stated for years, "We live and die ·for our beliefs and nothing else." 

Our universities have embraced and taught the New Age religion of 

Pantheism-- "all is god . " Here are some tenets of this philosophy: 

1 . Man invariably disrupts and wreaks havoc in the en v i ronmen t. 

2. The Natural Balance of Nature is the only way to go . 

3. Nature was perfect until Man disfigured it. 

4. Man must reject all of modern technology and call for a return to a simple, pastoral life free of fumes, 

artificial chemicals, and any noise but the chirping of birds and the croaking of frogs (Science News). 

5. Animals have a right to live as much as man and 

therefore man has no right to eradicate or control any 

living creature. 

The problem is: "This philosophy is bankrupt." It fails to deliver. 

The country of India has embraced this philosophy and its environment 

is horrible compared to ours . 

Note this quote: "We can't understand wild places unless we understand 

predators. As long as we deny the fact of predation or look on it as some sort of universal evil, we can't fully appreciate the processes of 

energy flows that sustain natural systems or the processes of evolution 

that shape them." (WYOMING WILDLIFE, December 1993, pg. 22) 

Here is one of many "nature is god" statements you find in WYG&F's 

literature. They constantly spout these "interconnectedness" and "web of life" concepts which prevents man from management which would 

benefit wildlife, the environment and himself. 

WYG&F knows the benefits of predator control, although they won•t admit 

it. A classic example is their Black-footed ferret recovery program. 

While WYG&F have claimed some success, in reality, it's been a colossal 

failure. Few ferrets have survived and expenses have soared. 

Estimated recovery costs were $3,546,000.00. Identified expenditures 

for years 1989 through 1991 were $4,208,000.00, an increase of 119%.(1) 

There were two reasons for ferret's high mortality: 

1. Predation, particularly from coyotes and badgers; 

2. Disease: bubonic plague and distemper. Interestingly, predators 

3 
193 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

12665 Hwy 59 H, Gillette, WY 82716 

spread both of these diseases. 

So what did the WYG&F do? They contracted a trapper for several years to trap coyotes and badgers in ferret release areas . The trapper is 

good . In 1991, he caught and destroyed 54 coyotes and 60 badgers; In 

1992, 66 coyotes and 63 badgers. 

Why do they trap coyotes and badgers? Their answer is: "Predator 

control and to control the incidence of disease, such as distemper and 

bubonic plague." (2) 

Robert Wenande gave testimony at the hearing . He mentioned watching 

turkeys confined in a grove of trees by a pair of golden eagles. The 

turkeys, needing to graze for bugs and seeds, wanted to leave the 

trees, but when out in the open , they are easy prey for the raptor . Thus, they starved until weakened and then were forced out in the open 

only to all be killed by these eagles. 

That grove of trees was right behind Mr. Wenande's house and he 

witnessed the destruction of wild turkeys in his own back yard. 

While all this was happening, what was the WYG&F saying? WYG&F news articles repeatedly stated that harsh weather in winter and cold 

springs were the reasons for the decline in wild game, including wild 

turkeys. ( 3) 

We can tell you from personal e xperience: That's a lie! 

Yes, harsh weather can adversely impact wild game populations. Turkeys 

would suffer just as much if it wasn't for ranchers. These smart old 

birds move into ranches during those cold winters and help themselves to the variety of food sources provided by ranchers. (4) 

Northeast Wyoming has been a premier wild turkey hunting area for 

years. Now, thanks to abundant predators, turkeys are almost non- existent . 

Much . controversy of declining wild game populations, cutbacks, etc. occurred in 1993 through 1994. We watched the increase of predators 

and knew they were a major part of the problem . 

In 1990, we counted 146 wild turkeys roosting in the big trees behind 

the main ranch house. By 1994, there were only 41. 

Such declines were not exceptions to this region at that time, they were norms. We contacted eight ranches, well-known for wild turkey populations, in the Wyoming Black Hills and found where over 1,000 wild 

turkeys were regularly sighted during the winter months, the sum total 

of seven turkeys have been seen. Mind you, these ranches are where some of the best wild turkey hunting has been in the state of Wyoming. 

4 
194 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

12665 Hwy 59 N, Gi llette, WY 82716 

Here o n o ur ranc h , we' re accus tome d to seeing several broods o f turkey 

he ns with chicks each summer . But as predators increased, broods of 

chicks we re seldom seen . In 1992 , there were no chicks seen, and in 

1993, only four chicks were seen. Of course , the nature lovers would demand, "But how do you know it's 

coyot es that are r esponsible for the decline in wild turkeys?" "Aren't 

there other factors which might be responsible for these declines ? " 

We knew from our survey of ranches with wild turkey habitat that only seven wild turkeys were found on eight ranches. However, we sti ll have 

41 turkeys. Why? 

The answer: Active predator control on this ranch. 

There is a summer camp facility at the back of the ranch where hundreds 

of kids come each year to camp, hike, play games and learn about God's 

creation. It is our desire these kids be able to see wildlife such as deer, antelope a nd wi ld turkeys and other birds. We don ' t care if they see predators beca use : 1) Predators are extremely hard to see. Even 

if they are numerous, few are ever seen; 2) They often carry diseases, 

such as rabies, which are harmful to humans. So the camp manager traps on this ranch to kee p predator numbers down in order to keep incidence 

of disease at a minimum and also because we want wildlife around for 

the kids to see. 

In the fall of 1993, the camp manager trapped 22 coyotes in 60 days, 

plus numerous foxes. Twenty of those twenty-two coyotes were female. 

Thus the reason we still had some turkeys here, although the numbers were low, was because we are actively implementing predator control. 

Sinc e that time, we have implemented a year around predator control 

program. In the first year, we had taken 106 predators, everything 

from coyotes to skunks (no raptors since it's illegal to kill them), 

off this ranch. This winter we had between 80 and 90 wild turkeys coming into the ranc h . 

We can tell you from first hand expe rience that predator control works . The WYG&F knows i t, too . I have spoken with several WYG&F game wardens 

and biologists and, although they don't come out and admit it directly, 

they · leave me with the conclusion that they know there's a predator 

problem, but their bosses don't want them discussing it. You get the 

impression that "Anything but predators is the problem. " 

WYG&F had several meeti ngs across the state getting public input. 

attended some of those meetings and, without exception, predators were brough t up as a ma j or problem. 

Of course, there's more and more public outcry as more incidence of 

rabies occurs . Several horses, pets and other ani mals have died from 

rabies . 

5 
195 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

12665 Hwy 59 l'l, Gillette, WY 82716 

There ' s a great debate on rabies. Is it always in wi ld animals or is 

it brought on by stress or other factors? We don't know the answer, 

but we do know that incidences of rabies drop dramatically when 

predator numbers are kept at a low. 

That was why the poison eggs were so effective . You ·went into town , picked up a couple of dozen eggs and placed them where predators frequently travel and the eggs took care of the over abundance of 

predators. When predator populations are low, reports of rabies are few. 

Furthermore wild game populations thrive under predator control. 

Again, we know from personal experience on our ranch. 

Here• s some facts from the ground level. Twenty- five years· ago, when 

preventive predator control was allowed and encouraged, we took in 20 to 25 non-resident hunters for deer or antelope or both . Today, we may allow 4 hunters at the most. Why? So many predators! 

We have seen an increase in our deer and antelope populations due to our predator control. About 5 years ago, some executives of Ford Motor 

Company and Sturm Ruger Arms needed a place to hunt and were willing to pay $1,500 for a 4-point or better buck. We hadn't taken in any hunters and each $1,500 would be donated to the church camp, so we took 

in these hunters. The results of their hunts? Nothing! We couldn't 

fill any of them. There simply wasn't any big buck deer on this entire 

4, 000 acre ranch. 

Now, years later, we now see 5 to 6 of these big bucks in one bunch -- thanks to predator control . 

One final point. Mr. Saxton, you stated predator control is an area where there needs to be more cooperation between federal and state agencies. We disagree. What's needed is: ~ ~ ~ Qovernment 

gyi 2! ~ business! 

How in the world do you think you can solve a problem in Wyoming when 

you represent New Jersey? And the reverse is true . How in the world can I solve a problem in New Jersey when I was born and raised in 

Wyoming? 

The federal government has usurped authority from states and 

individuals for years and it's time to reverse that trend. 

The Constitution of the United States does not allow the federal 

government to own lands, except for defense purposes. That means lands 

under control of the u.s. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, u.s. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and any other 

federal agency are unconstitutionally held. It was never the intention 

of our Founding Fathers that the federal government should own land. 

Because land ownership constitutes control of the land. Federal 

6 
196 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

12665 Hwy 59 N, Gillette, WY 82716 

co~trol of the land is Socialism and Communism, plain and simple. 

The best thing the federal government can do is its rightful job, which 

is extremely limited by the u.s. Constitution, and then leave the states alone. 

Please include the enclosed brochure, newsletter and photos in the 

Congressional Record . 

Thank you. 

1. Gordon, Robert and Streeter, Jim; "Going Broke? Costs of the 

Endangered Species Act as revealed in Endangered Species Recovery Plans," published by National Wilderness Institute, 25766 Georgetown 

Station, Washington, DC 10007. Phone (703) 836-7404. 

2. Personal phone call with WYG&F personnel. We also have a letter on file in which the WYG&F documents the numbers of predators taken, 

but denies their activities are "predator control." 

3. "Hunters Face Cutbacks in Northeast Wyoming" NEWS RECORD, 3/11/94, 

page 1. 

4. Ranchers feed livestock in winter. Hay, cake and assorted grains are utilized. Such feeding allows for a food source for wild game by 

spillage, natural utilization and discharge from livestock. 

This testimony submitted by T. R. Mader, Research Director of Abundant 

Wildlife Society on North America. 

/) 

~R!tf 

7 
JOIN ABUNDANT WILDLIFE 

SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA 

Reasons Why YOU Should Join 

Abundant Wildlife Society 

1. ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY supports Conservation - the management of wildlife by man 

instead of Environmentalism - the cyclic "balance 

of nature" also known as feast and famine . 

2. ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOClETY supports hunting, fishing, trapping and multiple use .with sound 

conservation management. 

3. ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY supports 

reasonable predator control. We DO NaT advocate 

the extinction of any species. Predators are known 

disease carriers and will decimate wildlife populations if left uncontrolled. 

4. ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY is for land use 

and against land Jock-up. Logging. Grazing. Mining and Multiple Use of public lands are good and 

necessary. 

5. ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SO<JETY believes private 

property rights and ownership are the only basis 

to REAL FREEDOM. Central government control 

is detrimental to wildlife, environment and the 

economy. 

6. Most environmental groups, with no regard for 

truth, use misinformation to further their agendas 

and are anti-God, anti-American and anti-gun (in 

the hands of law-abiding Citizens). ABUNDANT 

WILDLIFE SOCIETY believes America is the 

greatest nation on earth, that its greatriess is due 

to its Christian heritage, and that guns in the hands 

of law-abiding citizens are the best means of restraint against the tyranny of government. 

INFORM YOURSELF - HELP WILDLIFE 

PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM 

- JOIN ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY -

You11 receive: The ABUNDANT WILDLIFE newsletter, brochures on pertinent wildlife issues, and special 

wildlife and environmental reports. 

WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW! 

$25- 1 year $47.50 - 2 years $70- 3 years 

JOIN TODAY! 

For more information call or write: 

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

OF NORTII AMERICA 

U665 Hwy 59 N • Gillette, WY 82716 

(307) 682-2826 

24-721 96-8 

197 

What Everyone 

Who Enjoys 

Wildlife 

Should 

Know 
WUfe as in lro!.tlle1oday. Big Qllll8. QliTl8 

Hrds rod even song birds as becomi'lg more nd more scarce. There is a CRISIS! 

It's not loss of habitat. Most wild animals 

ldjust well to man and his surroundings. In fact, 

nany changes in the environment by man have 

•elped wildlife. For example, when man settl-

•d the west, the land was often semiarid. lrriga-

• on and reservoirs allow wildlife to flourish 

1here few could previously survive. 

Hunting is not the problem either. Songbirds 

1hich are not hunted are scarce. Many areas 

1ith no hunting have few animals to see and 

•njoy. 

On the other hand, due to ability to control 

1umbers of licenses, length of season and sex 

•f animal taken, hunting has proven to be the 

18st method lor the control of game animals and 

•irds. It keeps them abundant and yet controls 

1sm from excessive crop damage or habitat 

lestruction. 

Did you know hunting has been reduced in 

dmost every area of North America? Yet wild 

tame and birds are not to be seen or found in 

nany areas. So what's the problem? 

The problem is PREDATION. In recent years, 

wedators have increased unchec~ed due to 

;everal reasons and the result is destruction of 

nultitudes of wild game and birds. 

Why have predators lncreued? 

Popularity given the predator by groups who 

1ave promoted them extensively Is one reason. =or example, enormous parts of Washington 

1nd Oregon are being set aside as habitat for 

he Spotted Owt. This bird Ia a predator on small 

mimals and birds. 

Protection given the predator has increasld its numbers. Northern Minnesota has always 

1ad wolves. The wolves were kept under conrot by trapping and hunting. The deer populaion was abundant arid northl8m Minnesota was 

:nown for good hunting and viewing of wildlife. 

n 1973, wolves were federally protected. Now 

he deer population is only a small percentage 

198 

of what it used to be. 

Price of furs have plummeted. Thus few 

people can afford to trap with so little return. 

This is due to negative publicity and activities 

of animal rights groups. People, who used to 

regard fur as a status symbol, are now being 

persuaded that the taking of a predator for its 

fur is wrong . 

Trapping is now under fire by many groups. 

It is the intent of these groups to complete!~ 

outlaw trapping. If this happens, predators will 

increase at an even greater rate. Wildlife will 

simply disappear in many areas. 

CoMhued'cwt~»t~e a 

~~=:r.'!:.rO:..~"':'.:.:::t::. 

:::.:-~::=.,-:n,:n,.::;~=-· 

2 
199 

WOLF PREDATION ON SHEEP IN ALASKA 

Several of the kills were accomplished by sewrlng the , 

wind pipes and jugular veins without other damage. J 

3 

n-e pictures_,. taken by an Alaska Fish and 

Game Depertment biologist following a kill by 5 

wolves of 20 IMalthy rsms on November 9, 1988. 

LOCATION: Wrangell St. Elias National 

Park/Preserve In Game Management UnR 11 

between the Dadina and Chestasline Rivers. 

NUMBER OF DEAD RAMS: 20 

12 rams - 1m1e or no use by wolves 

6 rams - 40 to 90% consumed by wolves 

2 rsms- No estimate of consumption. Checked 

too late-damaged by ravens. 

BONE MARROW: All samples checked showed high 

fat levels. Animals not nutritionally stressed. All 

animals checked appeared In good physical 

condRion with no del8cts making them susceptible 

to predation. 

SHEEP AGES: 2-9 years old 

SNOW DEPTH: 14•-29• 

4 
a/21 _. klled by two -In two days In Mlnneaota. 

._ COUII8Iy Wm. C&llles, Ccn-omc.r (RellnJd), 

- Depatfmflllt of Natural Resou,.,... 

Predation Is very hard on wildlife. Dr. Lester 

cCann, Ph.D. has studied predation and 

ildlife for many years. He has found many in-

!l"esting facts about predation. 

1. Predators are the main carriers of deadly 

diseases of wildlife. Wolves and coyotes are 

well known to carry rabies which kills every 

animal infected with this disease. [Note: 

Rabid animals have often attacked humans. 

A rabid wolf was particularly dangerous due 

to its size and strength.) Raccoons carry a 

deadly fowl cholera which have devastated 

ducks in many areas. 

~. Predation is non-specific - meaning the 

predator takes what it finds. Fox, skunk and 

raccoon are extremely hard on ducks, 

-t.wnklledby-onV-1-.Brltlah 

olombla. Pf>oto Coutfllsy D. Janz, BlologJat. 

200 

pheasants and othEir birds due to their nest 

destruction. Many studies have shown no 

young reproduced from nests due to 

predation. 

3. There have been no significant increases in 

wildlife populations without some kind of 

predator control program. 

Common Man Institute has researched 

wolves extensively for several years. Here are 

some findings about predators from· this 

research: 

1 . Surplus killing is common. This is especially 

true in the case of harsh weather. Animals, 

which are unable to get enough forage or 

have to endure cold temperatures for long 

periods of time, become weakened. This 

makes them very susceptible to predation 

and mass killing occurs. 

2. Wolves and coyotes are extremely hard on 

the young, the replacement segment of a 

wildlife population. Wolves destroyed 95% 

of the deer population on Vancouver Island 

in British Colombia in recent years. Studies 

revealed that wolves kept the deer at their 

low numbers by killing off most of the young. 

PREDATION MUsr BE ADDRESSED FOR 

WILDLIFE 10 BE ABUNDANT FOR 

VIEWING OR HUNTING. THE PREDA10R IS 10 WILDUFE WHAT WEEDS ARE 

10THE FARMER AND THE GARDENER. 

YOU CAN'T HAVE ABUNDANT WILDUFE WITH ABUNDANT PREDATORS 

ANY MORE TilAN YOU CAN HAVE AN 

ABUNDANT GARDEN OR CROPS WITH 

ABUNDANT WEEDSI 
Wm. R. Taliaferro 

106 Cedar St. 

Rock Springs, WY 82901 

Aprill5, 1996 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

201 

Sub-Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Dear Members of Congress, 

I was unable to attend your hearing in Gillette Wyoming last week so I am submitting the 

following documents. These documents will give you an idea of the tremendous damage 

we are suffering at the hands of predators, most which belong to the State of Wyoming 

and some Federally protected birds. So far we have been unable to get either the 

Wyoming Fish and Game Department or the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service to come 

and relieve us of the burden placed on our livestock by the animals they are supposed to 

manage. 

We feel a monumental "takings of private property" is occurring and we are at our wits 

end trying to get government officials, who have all taken an oath to uphold and protect 

the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming, to 

validate or uphold our rights as so provided for. 

1 don't know what you can do, but if governments are allowed to usurp our property with 

out compensation, via wild animals they wish to protect; or further just ignore their 

responsibilities to the public, Americans in general are in deep trouble. The House of 

Representative has generally been the people's house. Please help us find a solution to 

our problems and do what you can to convince governmental officials that governments 

under our Constitution has a responsibility to the individual as well as the masses. 

Thank you, 

fi~E-9· 
202 

Green River and Big Sandy Livestock Co's. 

106 Cedar St. 

Ro~:k Springs. WY 82901 

Jan. 30, 1996 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

5400 Bishop Ave. 

Cheyenne, WY 82005-000 I 

Dear Commissioners; 

We lost twenty one (21 ) ewes to coyote depredation from December I, 1995 through 

January 30, 1995. These ewes are worth $90.00 each and were killed on winter ranges 

where we previously asked the Department to "remove their coyotes from". We are again 

submitting a damage claim for an additional $1890.00 to compensate· us for our losses 

derived from Game and Fish Departmental neglect in enforcing Wyoming Statutes 

governing your agency. 

I would again ask the Department to remove coyotes from the lands we previously 

identified and submitted to your department. We would also like sheep predators 

removed from the grazing pastures we will be using during the balance of the winter, our 

lambing ranges east of Kemmerer and our summer allotments on the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest. 

I have asked for and never received the name of a person within the Department whom I 

should call so they could verify our damages. I would still appreciate you specifying 

someone for that duty. We now have radios in each camp which are connected to a 

phone patch. Each morning this person could call us at 307/362-3433 and we could tell 

them exactly how and where to find predator killed livestock when they occur, or if we 

had his or her telephone number we would be willing to call in when we have damages. 

I don't know what else we can do to be cooperative. Again, I'm only asking that you 

please follow the law and do your duty as prescribed within Wyoming State Statutes. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, _ 

/J:k.._~/-

Wm. R. Taliaferro Se</' 

cc: Calvin Ragsdale 
203 

WfOMit-IG 

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT ~ ,)1 

~-- a---1J; / ~ 1: 

Me Willi= R. T•i•f= Fobrumy !6, 

1996 

~4 w 

G=o Riwc Md Big S.OOy Li'.-k Co'•· ~ ~ jY 

~~~;~~~n~~ . WY 82901 

1

r 

Dear Mr. Taliaferro: -

I am in receipt of your letter to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

requesting damages in the amount of$1890.00 to compensate you for sheep losses by 

coyotes. All claims for damage compensation are governed by W.S. 23-1-901 and 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Regulation, Chapter XXVIII. 

Statute 23-1-90 I authorizes the department to consider damage claims by big or 

trophy game animals or game birds only. Your letter states you " .. .lost twenty one (21) 

ewes to coyote depredation ... ". W.S. 23-1-101 defines a coyote as a predatory animal; 

therefore, the Department cannot accept your damage claim request. 

The Department must deny your request to remove coyotes from your land as the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department accepts no liability for damage caused by any 

animal classified as a predator by W.S. 23-1 -101(viii) or any federally protected bird such 

as eagles, hawks or owls. 

If you suspect damage to your livestock by big or trophy game animals or game 

birds, you should first contact Game Warden Tom Schirm at (307)877-3278 and if unable 

to reach Tom, call Regional Wildlife Supervisor Scott Talbott at (307)875-3223. 

However, our personnel do not investigate damage by animals classified other than big or 

trophy game or game birds. 

JL/bp 

Enclosure 

cc: Joe White 

Tom Schirm 

Scott Talbott 

/2~ 

~~n: •. :_ Chief, Wildlife Division 

~,,.......,.......,...,. a.- wval...._, 

FAX 1307) 771 .. 10 
Green River Livestock Co. 

Wm. R. Taliaferro Sec. 

106 Cedar St. 

Rock Springs, WY 82901 

April II , 1995 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

%Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

5400 Bishop Ave. 

Cheyenne, WY 82006-000 I 

Dear Commissioners: 

204 

This letter is in regards to the predator situation in Southwestern Wyoming. We have lost 

tens of thousands of ewes and lambs over the history of this ranch (since 1909), but 

during the past few years we have seen our losses increase to unprecedented and 

unbearable highs. Anymore, we can't even raise domestic ducks, chickens or geese on 

our farms and ranches because of predators (skunks, raccoons, eagles, ravens, fox and 

coyotes) and this winter, besides losing about 100 ewes to coyotes, they killed all of our 

geese at our ranch. 

For years now, we have suffered from the effects of predators. We have asked the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department for help; not only for ourselves but for resident 

birds and game animals as well, however, we have been generally ignored. We have 

watched the Wyoming Game and Fish Department through their personnel oppose 

predator control, author and support rules and legislation which greatly diminished 

effective and efficient predator control methods and manage game animals in such a 

manner that a retired game and fish biologist commented in 1994 "that if the Governor 

really wanted to do Wyoming a favor, be would put the present Game and Fish 

Department in charge of raising mosquitoes. In five yean we wouldn't have any!" 

Because of predators our ranches are unprofitable, game and bird populations are down 

and most everyone is unhappy with the situation. 

May I suggest the Commission review the comments of Mr. Joe White concerning 

Animal Damage Control on the four BLM Districts within Wyoming. Please review the 

comments of Mr. Harry Hluju over the past several years. Review and tell me how 

anyone can support the logic found in "A WHITE PAPER ON WILDLIFE RELATED 

PREDATOR CONTROL" prepared by Dan Thiele, Biological Services, Wyo. G&F, Nov. 

17, 1989; look at the Departments big game populations and trends over the years and see 

if there isn't a correlation between population declines and hunter success and the end of 

old time predator control in 1972. If I am wrong please explain the tenor of their 

comments, conclusions of their documents, and how "habitat" is the only problem when 

livestock numbers have been declining for fifty years. Even the public is finally catching 

on and are "mad as hell" and you as commissioners must realize this with the hostility 

displayed at commission meetings and the public hearings held around the state the past 
205 

two years. Wyoming Game and Fish is really disliked and is fraught with real problems. 

This is unfortunate because in the past, (20 years ago), the Department was pretty well 

thought of throughout this area. 

Anyway, enough is enough. I have reviewed (with legal council) the statutes which 

govern and allow the Commission and the Department to operate and believe both the 

Commission and Department have ignored and been derelict in their duties and 

responsibilities in regards to predators and the damage caused by them. My basis is the 

following: (the bold type is mine) 

(I) 23-1-101. Definitions of Wildlife. 

(a) As used in this Act: 

(xiii) "Wildlife" means all wild mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, crustaceans and mollusks, wild bison designated by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Wyoming Livestock 

Board, within Wyoming. 

(2) Ownership of wildlife: 

Purpose of act. 

For the purpose of this act, all wildlife in Wyoming is the 

property of the state. It is the purpose of the act and the policy of 

the state to provide and adequate and flexible system for the 

control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all 

Wyoming wildlife. There shall be no private ownership of live 

animals classified in this act a big or trophy game animals. 

(3) Article 3- General Powers and Duties of the Commission: 

23-1-302 (a) (viii) 

To authorize the chief game warden or his designee to kill any 

wildlife in Wyoming when in the judgment of the commission the 

killing is necessary or when the animals or birds are doing 

substantial damage to property ..•. 

23-1-302 (a) (xix) 

To designate as protected, game, or predatory, any species not 

designated in Section 23-1-1 (23-1-101) of the statutes, and to 

establish rules and regulations necessary for control of the 

species so designated. The designation may apply to portion of or 

the entire state. 

23-1-302 (a) (xxii) 

To promulgate such rules as the commission considers necessary 

to carry out the intent of this act. 

We can no longer stand the economic losses incurred by predators and since the Game 

and Fish Department has definitely helped neuter our ability (ranchers, county predator 

boards, and USDA animal damage control) to control animals harassing and killing our 
206 

animals; I am asking the Commission to direct the Department to follow the mandates of 

state statute. 

Please have the Department remove the offending animals causing damage to our private 

property within Western Wyoming and please remove all skunks, raccoons, ravens, 

golden eagles, red fox and coyotes from out private lands and prevent their further 

trespass upon our holdings. 

I am forwarding this letter to the various County Commissions within Western Wyoming 

and am asking them to declare the above species as "nuisance animals" as provided for 

under Wyoming Statutes 11-31-30 I, in the eventuality that the Game and Fish 

Department does not carry out its mandate under the statutes. I would also ask Game 

and Fish (as the owner) to follow the mandates of statute 35-10-104 regarding the 

removal and burying of dead animals. This shouldn't be left to the counties and cities of 

the area. 

Thank you for any help that might be forthcoming .. 

Sincerely, ~ 

w..:Lr~ 

Wm. R. Taliaferro-SZ. -

Green River Livestock Co. 

ps: The trespass provisions we have put in place upon Wyoming Game and Fish 

Personnel concerning our private lands will be lifted while predator removal is ongoing 

and if relationships should improved these provisions could be lifted altogether. The 

following is a list of our private lands. 

cc: Governor Jim Geringer 

JimMagagna 

Ron Micheli 

Rock Springs Grazing Assoc. 

Uinta Development Corp. 

"Carter Lease" 

Ranchers in western Wyoming 
207 

~m. k. Taliaferro ~ec. 

Green Hiver and Hi~ Sandv Livestock ~o's. 

106 Cedar :;t, 

Hock tiorin~s. WY 82901 

July 7, 1995 

Wyom n~ Game and Fish Commissi o n 

% W.vominil Game and Fish Department 

5400 Bishop Avenue 

Cheyenne. WY 82005-0001 

Dear Commissioners, 

You may recall my letter of April 11. 1995 reauestin~ your help i n 

directin~ the Game and Fish Department to remove various Predators from ~~ 

Private lands and to preve nt further killin~ of our livestock bv these 

publi c animals. 

Durin~ May while our sheep were ha in~ lambs we started xperiencin~ hea,-7 

lamb losses from predators. I contacted Mr. Ron Lockwood of the WG&F 

Department about May 20th. concernin~ our losses, and a few days later me~ 

with Mr. John Talbot the Department's District Mana~er concernin~ the same 

subject and informed him at that time we would seek reimbursement for our 

losses caused by the Department's animals. 

1 was hoping WG&F personnel would be able to meet with our sheepherders 

each morning to document the losses, however, the only time anyone was 

available was when we were missin~ lambs and mountain lion tracks were see~ 

in the snow moving back and forth from a small group of ewes and lambs 

where 10 lambs vanished over a period of about 6 days. tSteve Moyeles of 

Green River USDA-ADC, and Jesus Garcia a sheepherder saw the tracks) 

The followin~ is the losses reported by the followin~ sheepherders. 

Coyote Eai!le Raven Mt.Lion 

5/11/95 - 6/11/95 Ismael Gamez 6 4 

Juan Hernandez 1 

6/13/95 Lus Morales 40 3 

- 6/30/95 Victor Morales 50 6 

6/18/95 Lupe Hernandez 15 lamb 3 

14 ewe 

6/30/95 Jesus Garcia 35 5 10 

Julio Carmona 36 3 

6/10/95 Felix DeLeon 19 5 

Martine Martinez 24 10 

Primotivo Ibarra 8 6 

TOTALS 247 30 16 10 303 

We have sold our lambs for fall delivery at 77 cents per pound and our 

lambs generally average 85 pounds in wei•ht at delivery. This is a 

119.831.35 loss to our company . We are askin~ the Wyominq Game and Fish 
208 

Department to compensate us for this amount through June 30, 1995. (If you 

wish t o delay payment until after we ship our lambs to see what the actual 

vera~e wei~ht of these lambs are we wo uld be a~reeable to settle at that 

time . 1 

We will be oi n~ to the f orest about July 20th. and if history is any 

r eflection of the futur e I would expect to have about another 150 - 200 

sheep killed by coyote s and b e ar. Our company will submit another dama~e 

report a t the end of September. We would like your p e r sonnel t o be on hand 

throug h out the balance of t h e summer to verify the losses if possible. 

Thank you . 

Sinc e r e l y , , cv-Racl 

Wm . R. Taliaf ro Sec. 

o s : Inclosed is a list of our deeded lands. We also lease about 5000 acres 

of State School lands and lease grazin& rights on abou t 11 , 600 acres of 

Union Pacific c he c kerboard lands in the Slate Creek BLM Administrati ve 

Un it . Our losses occurr e d mostly within the Slate Creek Allotment west 

of the Graham Ranch on Bmi~rant Creek, Slate Creek, Middle Fork of 

o f Slate Creek, South Fork of Slate Creek, at Crave n Creek Reservoir, 

the he ad of Alkali Creek and on Willow Creek in the Pomroy Allotment. 

We lost 15 lambs and 14 ewes on the Bi~ Sandy Allotment east of Highway 

28 and west of the Bi~ Sandy Ri ve r n ear the mouth of Simnson's Hollow. 

Public access to our lands is allowed , no fee is charge and no game 

coupons have been rede emed even though hunters always leave some with 

us. The only r estriction on access has b een with Game and Fish 

pe r sonnel due to the attitude and writings of Mr. Phil Ridd le and Mr . 

Jim Vilas of Kemmerer. 
Wm. R. Taliaferro 

106 Cedar St. 

Rock Sprin~s. WY 82901 

July 19, 1995 

Wyomin~ Game and Fish Commission 

Wyoming Department of Game and Fish 

% 5400 Bishop Ave. 

Cheyenne, WY 82005-0001 

Dear Commissioners and Staff: 

209 

I am writing in regards to your meetin~ held in Greybull on July 10, 

1995. I was quite upset after driving over 600 miles, expending money 

for a nights lodging, only to find the announced "predator policy" of 

the Commission hadn't even been written, adopted in a draft stage, or 

ready for public comment. It was also evident the meeting agenda was so 

large that only lip service could have been given to most items during 

the day and a half meeting. It was very unfair to the public and 

commissioners who made the effort to be in Greybull, and it is evident 

there is something wrong between the staff and the commission as to who 

is in charge and what everyone's responsibility is. 

Being that as it may, back to the "predator policy". What I heard being 

attempted was something so nebulous as to be useless. I would suggest 

the Commission and staff review the laws and statutes each are 

authorized under and develop policy from what our elected officials have 

directed the department and Commission to do. Quit trying to dodge the 

responsibilities you have been given and do the job mandated by the 

statutes. 

If you feel the statutes need changing, then fine, attempt to have them 

changed by the legislature. However, until then we expect the 

Commission and the department to adhere to the letter of the law. (ln 

fact we heard time and time again during the Greybull meeting how the 

staff had to followed their legislative mandate, even when it was burdensome.) 

As ~Y most recent letter to the commission indicates. we have received 

"substantial dama~e" from wildlife to our sheep and lambs. We reported 

to your District Supervisor that damage was occurrin~, we have offered 

the time of our men to show Game and Fish personnel where the killing 

has occurred so as Game and Fish could confirm for themselves and Mr. 

White what is happening. So far we haven't had any response (except 

with Mt. Lion) and haven't even received a letter or acknowledgement 

from the Commission in regards to my first letter of April 11, 1995. 

I am again requesting the animals I mentioned in my letter of April 11, 

1995 be removed from Our private lands. I am again requesting that the 

Game and Fish prevent our receiving further "substantial damage" from 

wildlife. I am offerin~ the services and time of our men to show Game 

and Fish what is happening to our property while grazing upon lands we 

use in Western Wyoming, and if the Department can't fulfill what is 

mandated by statute then I expect to be paid for those damages caused by 

the animals they should have controlled or removed. 

Please let me know what I can expect. 

Sincerely, 

/{)-Y,~k_ Wm. R. Tal1af rro 
Green River Livestock Co. 

Big Sandy Li\·estock Co. 

106 Cedar St. 

Rock Springs. WY 8290 I 

Aug. 1~ . 1995 

Wyo. Game and Fish Commission 

Wyo. Game and Fish Director 

Mr. John Talbott 

5~00 Bishop Ave. 

Cheyenne WY 82006-0001 

Dear John, 

210 

I received your letter of Aug. 8, 1995 and I am sorry if my previous correspondence has 

confused the Department with our damage claims. I fully understand the procedure for 

trophy game animals, however, our claim was submitted because the Department failed 

to remove or kill animals or birds which have and continue to substantially damage our 

property. 

The statutes give your Department all the wild animals and the responsibility for those 

animals. I have simply asked to be relieved of the damage they cause. I have offered to 

be of service to the Department so the level of damage could be verified if the 

Department so wished and have expected the Department to fulfill the mandates of 

Wyoming Law. 

Our damage claim is based solely on your agency's failure to follow the law and provide 

us relief from property damage caused by your animals. 

I hope this explanation simplifies and makes quite clear our claim. 

Sincerely; 

~!:7f!!II ps: If there is still confusion concerning this subject I would suggest you talk with 

Commissioner Les Henderson, I believe he understands our concerns. 

Copies of this and all previous correspondence: 

Calvin Ragsdale -Attorney at Law 

Wyo. Woolgrowers Association 

and any other interested persons 
211 

Wm. R. Taliaferro Sec. 

Green River and Bi~ Sandy Livestock Co's . 

106 Cedar St. 

Rock Sprin~s. WY 82901 

Octobe r 18, 1995 

Wyomina Game and Fish Commission 

c/o Wyomin« Game and Fish Department 

5400 Bishop Avenue 

Cheyenne, WY 82005-0001 

Dear Commissioners, 

In my letter of July 7. 1995 I told the Commission we would 

submit another report of predator dama~ e upon our livestock 

durin~ the period of July I, 1995 throu~h September 30, 1995. 

was hoping the Department would remove the problem predators 

around our sheep but nothin~ was ever done . Game and Fish 

personnel never came to inspect dama~es or inquire about dama~e . 

From July 1. 1995 throu~h September 30, 1995 we lost the 

followin.2': 

Brid«er-Teton National Forest 

BLM 

Dry Beaver Allotment- 27 coyote !herder Primotivo Ibarra). 

Mule Creek Allotme nt- 5 coyote (herder Juan Hernandez). 

Corral Creek Allotment- 10 coyote (herder Lus Morales). 

Grizzly Creek Allotment- 9 coyote (herder Jesus Garcia). 

Bia Sandy Allotment- 84 coyote fherder Luoe Hernandez) . 

Total observed killed by coyotes 135 head of sheep and lambs. 

We had 303 lambs killed by wildlife in May and June, 125 lambs 

killed by coyotes durina July, Au~ust and Seotember and 10 ewes 

killed by coyotes durin« July, Au~ust and September. Th is is a 

total of 438 head. Our lambs averaae weiaht was 93 .5 lbs •• and 

we so.ld them this fall for 77 cents per oound. Our loss to 

wildlife killin2 our livestock this summer amounts to $31.5 33.81 

and if we assume we mi2ht have a natural 3% loss if tho se lambs 

and ewes were left alive our loss due to wildlife is 530.587.80 

dollars. 

We wish to submit the above amount to the Commission as o ur 

dama~e claim. 

We wil.l be movinll to the Rock Snrings Allotment in early November 

to lands we own near and around Green River W~omin~. I would 

aJlain request that Department personne l olease remo v e covotes 

from our lands and the lands we use adjacent to those we own. We 

will always be available for Game and Fish personnel to come to 

the camps and insnect dama2e that will certainly be occurr n~ 

utiless the coyotes ar e removed. Honefullv I won't have to s ubmit 

another dama~e claim after the vears end. 

Thank you for your considerations. 

Sincerelv. 

WA-~

wm. R. Ta li af~ 
212 

Green River & Big Sandy Livestock Companies 

106 Cedar St. 

Rock Springs, WY 82901 

Wm. R. Taliaferro Sec. 

Nov. 9, 1995 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and 

Mr. John Talbot -Director 

5400 Bishop Ave. 

Cheyenne, WY 82005-0001 

Dear Commissioners and Mr. Talbot, 

I am again asking for the Commission and Department to remove coyotes, red fox, eagles 

and ravens from our private lands in western Wyoming. I am also requesting the 

Department to remove animals that might, have and most certainly will, be killing our 

private property upon the winter ranges we utilize. 

Since the Commission met in Rock Springs in October, we have lost 3 goats to coyote 

depredation. We can now expect more losses since we are moving into an area that has 

had very little predator control during the past six months and if! am right (and I hope 

rm wrong ) I will need to know who I should contact within the Department as damages 

occur, so damages may be verified. 

Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

cu . ..ec___ ~J_ Wm. R. Taliaferro -! 
8 IODIVERSITV ASSOCIATES 

and fRIENDS OF THE Bow 

May 20,1996 

Representative Jim Saxton, 

213 

P.O. Box 6032, Laramie, WY 82070 

(307) 742-7978 (voice) 742-7989 (fax) 

U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Saxton: 

Thank you for your May 9, 1996 letter. Below please find the responses to 

Representative Cubin's questions regarding the issue of predator control in 

Wyoming. 

Question #1 on assumptions about sheep deaths: I was referring to the Tigner and 

Larsen study in the context of the unreliability of rancher-reported sheep losses. 

The study referred to missing sheep as "a perplexing source of [sheep]loss that is 

often blamed on predators." Tigner and Larsen at 250, emphasis supplied. The study 

reported "high numbers of missing sheep." It found that some animals "were not 

lost but traveled off the summer range." The study pointed to the "importance of a 

competent herder" in keeping track of animals, and it cited high losses in the 

summer of 1975 which "also reflected a labor problem." Id. In a 1991 interview, 

biologist Tigner was quoted as saying, "There's no doubt that there are more 

reported losses than are actually caused by predators." High Country News, Vol. 23 

No. 1, Jan. 28, 1991. 

It is reasonable to assume that the 100 lost sheep referenced on page 250 would have 

died due to the same proportion of causes found with confirmed losses. Those 

sheep and lambs lost at the end of the season when the weather changed would 

have been especially vulnerable to exposure and starvation. The Tigner study listed 

at least 7 other causes of sheep mortality not related to predators, including 

approximately 30% from disease, 30% from exposure, 20% from starvation, and up 

to 10% from accidents. Taken together, these losses far exceed depredation losses. 

Question# 2-a on compensatory reproduction: Young coyotes are more aggressive 

(we've heard it said, "old coyotes are a rancher's best friend"). A number of 

researchers have concluded it would be better to stop using lethal methods to kill 

coyotes and allow populations to mature. There are a number of reasons why lethal 

methods exacerbate depredation. One is changes in population dynamics such as 

compensatory reproduction (see below). Another involves behavioral changes 

regarding prey species (evidence coyote aversion to dead carcasses laced with poisons 

has increased a preference for live animals). 

• Maurice Homocker, predator researcher and member of the 1971 Dept. of Interior 

oversight committee which led President Richard Nixon to ban the use of 1080: 
214 

"Coyotes in North America have been hunted, exploited and killed since European 

times. Its all been a waste of money and animals. In many cases, the best control is 

no control at all. They will limit their own numbers if you leave them alone." 

High Country News, Vol. 23 No. 1, Jan. 28, 1991. 

• Biologist Robert Crabtree studying unexploited coyote populations both in the 

Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington and in Yellowstone National Park: 

He concluded coyotes with stable populations produce small litters of roughly 3 

pups each, of which an average of 1.6 survive. In areas subject to predator control, 

however, litters of 8 pups are common, while dens with 9 or even 10 pups are not 

unusual. Those in exploited areas (i.e., where lethal methods are used) also begin 

breeding at less than a year old and continue for several years, while the mostly 

unexploited coyote populations of Yellowstone do not breed until they are 

2-4 years old and stop reproducing after about 3litters. High Country News, Vol. 23 

No. 1, Jan. 28, 1991. 

In an interview reported last year, Crabtree commented that lethal methods increase 

the production of pups which leads to more predation. 'Killing adult coyotes," 

Crabtree said, "just doesn't work. It's been shown that coyote populations can 

withstand up to about a 70 per cent removal annually and still have the same 

number of coyotes there every year." Casper Star Tribune, Aug. 17, 1995 

• Member of an ADC Advisory Committee and Eastern Montana College biology 

professor, Jay Kirkpatrick: "It's a proven fact: the faster you reduce coyote 

populations, the better and faster they reproduce." High Country News, Vol. 23 

No. 1. Jan. 28, 1991. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist, James Till, who conducted the study with 

Knowlton on the effect of denning in reducing coyote depredations in the early 

1980's in Wyoming: "I've always felt that a lot of sheep predation by coyotes is a 

learned behavior. Coyote pups raised on sheep probably do prefer sheep. In areas 

where there is a lot of natural prey, they won't." High Country News, 1991 and Till 

J. A. and F.F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of Denning in Alleviating Coyote 

Depredations Upon Domestic Sheep. In: J. Wild!. Manage. 47(4): 1018-1025. 

Question # 2-b on whether or not lethal methods provide a solution: There is no 

contradiction. Extensive lethal predator control has not provided a long-term 

solution to livestock depredation. The key concept here is "long-term" solution. 

• In his book, researcher F. Wagner reported, "the data available point to little or no 

reduction (in depredation as a result of] lethal, preventative efforts that attempt 

region-wide population suppression." Wagner, F., 1988. Predator Control and the 

Sheep Industry: The Role of Science in Policy Formation. 
215 

• The Wyoming Game and Fish Department reported: "Predator control in 

Wyoming in recent years has been primarily restricted to agricultural 

depredations .... These programs have not been shown to benefit wildlife; benefits are 

just assumed. Wildlife related predator control would require removing most 

predators in a given area. This is not likely to be cost effective." Wyoming Game 

and Fish, 1989. A White Paper on Wildlife Related Predator Control. 

• The Wyoming Game and Fish paper cited another study done on mule deer in 

Colorado which showed that even with the removal of ill coyotes, fawn survival 

increased only 10% from 30% to 40%. It concluded that "predator control can be 

effective on a case by case basis when cost is only a minor consideration" but that 

overall "predator control to benefit wildlife is generally not cost effective." Id. 

• The Cain Report concluded that lethal predator control was not cost effective and 

was a waste of money and effort. See,"Report to the Council on Environmental 

Quality and the Department of the Interior" by the Advisory Committee on Predator 

Control, U. of Michigan, 1971. 

The sheep industry and ADC have put forth some arguments that lethal predator 

control can provide a short-term solution where all adults and/or pups in a region 

are killed. The Till and Knowlton study in south-central Wyoming cited in our 

original testimony found that killing all pups reduced sheep depredation by about 

90% even though adult coyotes were still active in the area. (See Till J. A. and-F.F. 

Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of Denning in Alleviating Coyote Depredations UpQn 

Domestic Sheep. In: J. Wild!. Manage. 47(4): 1018-1025. But as we pointed ou't 

earlier, this level of control -- complete coyote eradication -- cannot be achieved 

without exorbitant cost, and as such is not an economically feasible solution to 

livestock depredation. 

More importantly, the public is definitely against pup-killing crusades. Yellowstone 

biologist, Robert Crabtree, has commented that, while killing all the pups may be 

effective, it is unlikely to be acceptable to the human population, in general, and 

could further damage the reputation of the predator control and sheep industry. 

Casper Star Tribune, Aug. 17, 1995 

Our testimony is that the only predator control methods determined to be "effective 

solutions" have also been found to be biologically and socially unacceptable. It is for 

this reason that we emphasize the need to find and fund legitimate methods of · 

reducing depredation: technical support for practices such as guard animals, shed 

lambing, hiring herders, and reducing or eliminating livestock in areas of 

historically high predation. 
ONl!!li!OI!lOFOUIIJ!!!CQHG!I!SS 

DON YC;..NG, ALASICA.. (IWN,IAH 

~~=:- li.TQIQM.I..IGlV,CofoUfOIIMA 

J0N11 J. DUNCN1. JR., TlHICUK 

JOKIEI\.l'I', COI.OIWIO JOMIIT. ooa..rrn.£.CN,JFOIIItNiol 

IIWII'I'IIIAU.AIID.COl.CNIOO 

_.,.l

IBICM.WM

M.CNI!UT

~ 

~ 

mBG. 

IIDWCIW

T(llfW.a.DSf:N

~~ 

, ..uACMUIETT$ 

J.D.Mol.'l"'ffiCCIITM.NIIZOfol4 

-A.OilloWANS,Ot«< 

..... 

~~~ _,._ ...... ---..IOMU.JL.MOI'ftl~ 

=-~~ 

-.u.M -...c:I~ TU.It6 

M:tWIOCIOQMUnNGI,W~ 

JADI:...rrc.t.l.J', WA$-f'OIOI 

~I IJ)NGI..(Y,.,IO

JOHNI. $IW:IEGG.MIZOMI' 

JOHNI. II'diG"'.MIE'o'ADo\ 

Ms. Leila Stanfield 

Biodiversity Associates 

P.O. Box 6032 

216 

11.1;. 'House of ltqresentuttues 

Committtt on .1\~ourc~ 

lillU!Jington, K 20515 

May9, 1996 

Laramie, Wyoming 82070 

Dear Ms. Stanfield: 

GlOitQf .........:ll CA&IOIItNIA MHI»>G DlMOCAA.TlC ..... fl U.....,J.....,..,. ~ 

=:=o~.=.n~ CMULQ.DIH,~ 

I'AT-.u-, _..._ 

IAMOIUOI-,CQilfNICTIC:UT 

aLIIDW'IDIOfoi, ICWIIIflQa) 

P'I'TtiiiA.CWAZIO, O.OON 

l .. f.K ,AI10MAV .. O....-.-MMOoll TMJICitMOfll,--.nMDo\IIOTA 

,... .. --.-

<WftN 

GIE'MTLIJTVDOI

SOI.QioiOtriP a.·l'tCUTT . OI!11J.TllWI . WIGifM 

~ 

fMNII.PAU.ONI. ..... ftfWJIMEY 

CM.-M.DOO.n'

~A.~rw!'ITOM:O 

~ 

--.clD.~ -~ 

='~'='" GUMI ,.~J.Q-Of' fiMCIDliSV.NO 

lloOMLIIALIUStl 

~flY-STAFf 

_.._, 

DoiiWCIG.D'I'I 

DilYOCI!AntiTAA'~()II 

--

Attached you will find questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Barllara 

Cobin. Wbile I apologize for the late timing of these questions, I would ask that you please 

have your responses back to the Subcomminee as soon as possible. This bearing will be 

printed and, therefore, we need to have your responses by May 24, 1996. 

Again, thank you for testifying before the Subcomminee and for your assistance in 

helping the Members to better understand this issue. 

With best wishes, I am 

Enclosure 

JS:lr 

~-,k Chairman 

Subcomminee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans 

[A similar letter was sent to witnesses.] 
217 

Questions for ,L Stanfield 

1. In your testimony (page 3) you said "For instance, on one ranch, the rescarcllc:Ili did an 

~rial Survey for mi.ssiug sheep at tm: end of the summer grazing season and found 100 live 

sheep that would have died (e.g., from exposure or starvation) had the researchers not been 

there. Tigner and Larson, p. 250)." 

We have reviewed Tigner and Larson, and find this on page 250, "Generally these were not 

very productive, since the deciduous tress had not yet lost their leaves, but about I 00 head 

from Ranch A were found by aerial search in September 1974." 

Qucsti~n: Is what we found on page 250 of rJ.gllCI' and Larson where you obtained the 

inforJT!ation that the sheep would have died from exposure or starvation had the researchers 

not ~ thl:rc? How did you ~nc:lude that the sheep would have died from exposure or 

starvation from reading page 250 of Tigner and Larson? Did Tigner and Larson write that the 

sheep would have died from exposure or starvation or is that merely ~njecture on your part? 

(Note:' If she replies that she obtained that information from personal correspondence or a 

persotial conversation ask her for a <:opy of the correspondence or contact Tigner (with the 

Dc:nv~ Wildlife Research Center) and ask him to confirm what she says. If he says here 

statemk:nt is true ask for the name of the rancher so you can confinn Tigner's contention with 

the nureher. In other words close the loop.) 

2. Ori page 4 of your written statement you say, "A number of studies have shown that when 

the coyote population is subjected to increased mortality (i.e., from lethal predator control), 

the ~s respond by increasing their rate of reproduction and the size of their litters. Ibis 

effcct7known in S<:ientific ciJcles as ·~mpensatory reproduction'- results in more young 

pups that the adult ~yotes must feed., a younger-age pack (since there are more young 

coyotes), and more dispersal of ~ve juveniles (as the young sean:h for and establish 

their own territories)." 

; The next two paragn~pbs of your written statement (page 5) say, "Unfortunately, these 

very ~!&Me factors cause an inc:reasc, not a decrease in depredation. For instance, in another 

study !on ~yote depredation on shcc:p in south-central Wyoming,& rcsca:rchers found that 

whe.niJJJ. adult ooyotes and ooyotc pups were ldllcd in a region,9 predation on sheep dropped 

by 98L8%. However, when only tm: ~yote pups were killed, depredation still dropped by 

91.6% even though adult ooyotes were still active in the area. This shows that the vast 

majority of predation on sheep (i.e., 9 out of 10 losses) is traceable to adult coyotes trying-to 

feed tbcir young, Thus, since lethal ~ntrol of ~yotcs increases coyote litter sizes, more 

sheep) depredations will follow. 

A nlliJlbet of rescarcbcrs have thcn:fore ooncluded that it would be better to stop killing 

prcd$Jrs and allow tbc ~yote population to IIUilUrCI; older coyotes have fewer pups and are 

less ~ve. In any case, extensive lethal predator c:ontrol has not provided a long-term 
218 

Page ~o - Stanfield 

solutic!n to livestock depredation, and evidence indicates it may actually exacerbate losses." 

Questilin: You did not reference the work of the researchers you say have concluded it wou.ld 

be better to stop killing predators and allow coyote populations to mature. Please provide th: 

studie~. by those researchers, to support your statement. Is it your contention that contrOl of 

coyote pups in an area reduces losses dramatically? Is it your contention that liner size 

increa$es in equal proportions ("compensatory reproduction") to the numbers of coyotes 

remo~ through lethal control? Your statements that, " ... when all adult coyote and coyote 

pups "-'ere killed in a region, predation on sheep dropped by 98.8%" seems to be in direct 

conflict with your statement that, " ... extensive lethal predator control has not provided a 

long-tb solution to livestock depredation, and evidence indicates it may actually exacerbatt: 

lossesj• Please clarify exactly what your position is. 
219 

QUFSTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

GARYSHORMA 

1. You state that predator control is offensive to the general public. How is controlling 

predators offensive to the public? You state in the same sentence that they view control 

as extennination. Wouldn't it be relatively simple to infonn and educate the public of 

the difference between control and extennination? 

2. You state that 'there is no question that 100 years of predator control has produced a 

smarter, better adapted coyote. Is there any factual infonnation to back this up? Are 

you an expert on evolution? 

3. You say that 'one state in the west controls coyotes to incnme survival of antelope 

fawns". You never tell which western state this is. Wouldn't it be helpful to reference 

this state directly? Also this entire analogy sounds as if it is based on no factual 

evidence. Is it in fact a factual story or not? 

4. In your testimony (page 2) you said, 'Coyotes, the animals currently at the top of the 

list of offending predators, have what is called compensatory reproduction. This means 

elimination of some coyotes competing for food resulU in greater survival of pups, and 

you end up with the same number of coyotes•. Is it your belief that control of coyote 

pups in the area reduces lossea? Do you also think that litter size incnmes in equal 

proportions ('compensatory reproductioo~ numbers of coyotes removed through 

lethal control? -.. 

S. On page 2 of your testimony, you said '$25,000 is a lot of money to spend producing 

one antelope for harvest". What about other wildlife or livestock this control program 

might have benefiUed? Please provide the study of the predator control program to 

support your statement. 
220 

QUF..STIONS FOR THE RECORD 

DANCHU 

1. In your testimony (page I), you said "Many wildlife population studies have repeatedly 

shown that impacts to game populations from predators is minor when compared to 

other impacts such as weather and habitat condition. Abnormal losses of game to 

predators is usually a symptom of the larger problem of poor habitat". You did not 

reference the studies you say have determined that "there are a few cases where 

predator control is necessary to maintain healthy populations of game when habitat is in 

good condition". Please provide the studies to support your statement. 

2. On page 2 of your testimony you said "Recent state legislation states the Game and Fish 

Commission may spend up to four percent of hunting and fishing license fees on 

predator management and control, estimated at $800,000. The sportsmen in this state 

want to be assured that their license fee dollars will be spent for the benefit of wildlife 

and not to fund predator control that subsidizes agricultural commodities". Do you feel 

that the agricultural community subsidizes sportsmen by providing wildlife with a place 

to live and food to eat? Ranchers also spend time and money to fix fences that they 

have watched wildlife run through. If you feel that the agricultural commodities are 

subsidized, then are sportsmen also subsidized by the agricultural community? Please 

clarify what you mean by subsidizing agricultural commodities. 

3. On the last page of your testimony you say "Indiscriminate attempts at predator control 

are very costly, ineffective and often kill many non-targeted animals. Poison carcass 

bait stations attract canion eaters and not those predators that are inclined to kill. In 

fact, more often than not, indiscriminate control programs kill off animals that may 

have beneficial impacts on game populations and agricultural production". You said "A 

successful targeted coyote control program would focus on eliminating those coyotes 

that have learned to prey upon livestock while acknowledging the benefits for pest 

control from coyotes that have not learned to prey on livestock". Please explain how 

this "successful targeted coyote control program" would work. 

4. On the last page of your testimony you said "The Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

supports pursuing nonlethal preventative means of controlling the impact of predation 

on game animals and livestock". "The use of sheepdogs, llamas, mules, lambing sheds 

and an increase in the number of sheepherders, more hands-on management of sheep 

flocks have paid off by dramatically lowering sheep losses while reducing the amount 

of money spent on the lethal control of predators". Nonlethal methods of predator 

control work well in the short-term, but coyotes are very adaptable and have learned 

how to get around the non-lethal methods. The memo from the Subcommittee staff 

shows that coyote packs use three basic strategies to get around non-lethal methods 

such as guard dogs. They are: 1) physically attacking the guard dogs: 2) running the 

dogs to the point of exhaustion; or 3) using one or two coyotes as diversions on one 

side of the band while other coyotes attack from the opposite side. Did your research 
221 

indicate the cost of protecting the animals that are protecting the sheep? While nonlethal methods may reduce the cost of lethal control, doesn't the increased cost of nonlethal control affect cost effectiveness? 

5. You start your testimony with "We fmnly believe that predator management must be 

driven by good data and science not emotion and anecdotes". You also state that 

"Antelope evolved to run and have large eyes to scan for predators, deer to jump, and 

birds to fly largely from the pressures of eluding predators". Is there scientific proof to 

back this up? If so, where did you get your information on evolution? Sounds to me 

like an anecdote. 

6. You say that "presently, there is little hard data supporting the contention that predators 

are having a significant impact on game populations in Wyoming". Then where is the 

good science? 

7. You say that "field autopsies of coyotes killed by indiscriminate lethal control programs 

show a high percentage of these animals survived by preying on rodents and insects and 

actually benefitted agriculture by contributing to pest control", Is there any scientific 

research to stand behind this statement? Could a population of coyotes ever eat enough 

rodents and insects to effectively reduce the population? Also, coyotes are pests to 

farmers and ranchers. 

8. You say that the agricultural community is the beneficiary of predator control. Do you 

know for a fact that they are the only beneficiaries? What about sportsmen? Also, if 

no one else should have to help pay for this, then why should the agricultural 

community pay taxes for other programs that they don't benefit from? 

9. You mention that predator control should only be used in instances where coyotes have 

a significant impact on wildlife. In essence what you are saying is that the public 

shouldn't have to pay for predator control which benefits agriculture, but people in 

agricultUre__ should help pay for it when significant livestock losses are involved. Am I 

correct in assilminj: this? 
CUB IN 

222 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

P.O. Box 106, Cheyenne, WY 82003 

Phone 307-637-5433 • Fax 307-637-6629 

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE CUBIN FOR THE 

U.S. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

RELATING TO PREDATOR CONTROL 

RESPONSES BY DAN CHU 

I. In your testimony, you said, "Many wildlife population studies have repeatedly shown 

that impacts to game populations from predators is minor when compared to other 

impacts such as weather and habitat condition. Abnormal losses of game to predators is 

usually a symptom of the larger problem of poor habitat". You did not reference the 

studies you say have determined that "there are a few cases where predator control is 

necessary to maintain healthy populations of game when habitat is in good condition" 

Please provide the studies to support your statement. 

WWF 

Attached i.~ some literature on predator control and the importance of habitat. Note the 

high proportion of a population of predators that need to be taken to r"ult in short term 

control, and the general lack of evidence that lethal control is effective. 

CUB IN 

2. In your testimony you said "Recent state legislation states the Game and Fish 

Commission may spend up to four percent of hunting and fishing license fees on predator 

management and control, estimated at $800,000. The sportsmen in this state want to be 

assured that their license fee dollars will be spent for the benefit of wildlife and not to fund 

predator control that subsidizes agricultural commodities" . Do you feel that the 

agricultural community subsidizes sportsmen by providing wildlife with a placHo live and 

food to eat? Ranchers also spend time and money to fix fences that they have watched 

wildlife run through. If you feel that the agricultural commodities are subsidized, then are 

sportsmen also subsidized by the agricultural community? Please clarify what you mean 

by subsidizing agricultural commodities. 

WWF 

Agriculture receives property tax breaks, reduced grazing fees on public land, preference 

in land use, crop price supports, weed and pest control. subsidized or free irrigation 

water, water developme/1/s, fencing of public grazing lands, rnral electrification, road 

maintenance. subsidized fuel, wildlife damage paymeiJis, /andawner coupons. landowner 

hunting licenses, predator control, and many breaks and perks that the average citizen 

does not get. Sportsmen have done a lot in return for them allowing wildlife to survive. 

Access fees and all of the above imlicate the sportsmen aren 't subsidized by agriculture. 

WORKING TODAY FOR WILDLIFE 'S TOMORROW' 

Wyoming Affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation 
223 

CUB IN 

3. In your testim~ny you say, "Indiscriminate attempts at predator control are very costly, 

ineffective and often kill many non-targeted animals. Poison carcass bait stations attract 

carrion eaters and not those predators that are inclined to kill. In fact, more often than 

not, indiscriminate control programs kill off animals that may have beneficial impacts on 

game populations and agricultural production". You said, • A successful targeted coyote 

control program would focus on eliminating those coyotes that have learned to prey upon 

livestock while acknowledging the benefits for pest control from coyotes that have not 

learned to prey on livestock". Please explain how this "successful targeted coyote control 

program" would work. 

WWF 

The more targeted your predator control efforts the more successful they will be since the 

efforts are aimed at identified problem animals. Indiscriminate lethal predator control 

can actually worsen the problem, knocking out animals that may serve to naturally 

control numbers of offending animals. With bears and mormtain lions in Wyoming, a 

hunter is sent out to tah the animal killing livestock, or the Game and Fish Department 

removes the offending animal. This invariably causes killing of livestock to cease. 

Indiscriminate killing of bears and mountain lions, which have a social system where 

adult males kill or chase away younger animals, often increases depredation on livestock 

as vacant spaces are occupied by younger, more inexperienced animals that are more 

likely to tum to killing livestock when food gets scarce. All generalized predator control 

programs require liberal doses of money for them to reduce numbers of predators. Any 

success.fulprogram would require lots of money. Dividing the amount of money spent in 

Wyoming on aerial gunning efforts by the number coyotes killed indicates it costs about 

$275 per coyote for aerial gun11ing. That is a substantial cost. Finally, research has 

shown that coyotes that have not learned to kill livestock directly compete with offending 

animals for territory and resources. 

CUB IN 

4. In your testimony you said "The Wyoming Wildlife Federation supports pursuing 

nonlethal preventative means of controlling the impact of predation on game animals and 

livestock". "the use of sheepdogs, llamas, mules, lambing sheds and an increase in the 

number of sheepherders, more hands-on management of sheep flocks have paid off by 

dramatically lowering sheep losses while reducing the amount of money spent on the lethal 

control of predators". Nonlethal methods of predator control work well in the short-term, 

but coyotes are very adaptable and have learned how to get around the non-lethal 

methods. The memo from the Subcommittee staff shows that coyote packs use three 

basic strategies to get around non-lethal methods such as guard dogs. They are: l) 

physically attacking the guard dogs: 2) running the dogs to the point of exhaustion; or 3) 

using one or two coyotes as diversions on one side of the band while other coyotes attack 

from the opposite side. Did your research indicate the cost of protecting the animals that 

are protecting the sheep? While non-lethal methods may reduce the cost oflethal control, 

doesn't the increased cost of non-lethal control affect cost effectiveoess? 
224 

WWF 

One wry good way of limiting the effect of predators without lethal control is 

maintaining wildlife habitat in good condition. For example, a variety of methods tried 

to improw the status of duck populations included short hunting seasons, lower bag 

limits, reductions in numbers of hunters, shooting and trapping predators, and electric 

fences around ponds. None of these things worked, but two good rainfall years and the 

presence of thousands of acres of Conservation Reserw Program lands produced the 

highest number of ducks since the early 1970's. Both lethal and non-lethal control cost 

money. However, non-targeted lethal control, in addition to monetary costs has 

secondary costs associated such as other wildlife killed 

I have attached a study regarding the bonding of lambs to cows as a means of non-lethal 

control. For wildlife, the Cost--(1/fectiwness of predator control has been evaluated, and 

the cost eJCCeeds the rew1111e derived from the animals produced Finally, the 

subcomminee memo you mention intrigues me. It seems to assert that coyotes, ordinarily 

solitary animals are running in packs. Please send me the documents that support this 

memo's contention. 

CUB IN 

S. In your testimony you stated, "We firmly believe that predator management must be 

driven by good data and science not emotion and anecdotes". You also state that 

• Antelope evolved to run and have large eyes to scan for predator, deer to jump, and birds 

to fly largely from the pressures of eluding predators". Is there scientific proof to back 

this up? If so, where did you get your information on evolution? Sounds to me like an 

anecdote. 

WWF 

Nearly all discussions of evolution in science text books cite preSSilre from predators as 

the major reason animals now in existence develop the physical characteristics they 

possess. Large eyes, sensitiw ears, and eJCCeptional speed are used to locate and avoid 

predators, even the stomach evolved so that animals c011/d gulp down food which can 

later be digested in a sqfe place. All of these natural attributes arose from the preSSilres 

of predation. For an interesting book on evolution, I recommend Origin of Species by 

Charles Darwin. 

CUB IN 

6. You say that "presently, there is little hard data supporting the contention that 

predators are having a significant impact on game populations in Wyoming". Then where 

is the good science? 

WWF 

There has been a large am011nt of data collected by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department regarding big game in Wyoming. None of this data indicates there are 
225 

significanJ problems with predator impacts on big game. In fact, until the winter of 

/992-93 and a cold, wet spring, Wyoming had high numbers of deer and antelope along 

with high numbers of predators such as coyotes. 

CUB IN 

7. You say that "field autopsies of coyotes killed by indiscriminate lethal control programs 

show a high percentage of these animals survived by preying on rodents and insects and 

actually benefited agriculture by contributing to pest control". Is there any scientific 

research to stand behind this statement? Could a population of coyotes ever eat enough 

rodents and insects to effectively reduce the population? also, coyotes are pests to 

farmers and ranchers. 

WWF 

If a population of coyotes coukln 't eat enough rodents to reduce the population, as you 

state in your question, there is no reason to worry about their effect on big game. Data 

collected by the Animal Damage Control program from thousands of stomachs of coyotes 

collected in the West will back up my statemelll. Not all farmers and ranchers regrud 

coyotes as pests. Some regard them as helpful in maintaining a balance of rodent and 

insect populations, and believe it or not, some enjoy seeing coyotes and regard them as 

wildlife. 

CUB IN 

8. You say that the agricultural community is the beneficiary of predator control. do you 

know for a fact that they are the only beneficiaries? What about sportsmen? Also, if no 

one else should have to help pay for this, then why should the agricultural community pay 

taxes for other programs that they don't benefit from? 

WWF 

First, in my statement I clearly said, "When the beneficiary of a predator control 

program is soley the agriculture community they should bear the financial responsibility 

for the program''. WWF believes some representatives of agricultural special interests 

groups are using anecdates of predators severely impacting game populations as a ruse 

to secure more Game and Fish dollars to support predator control programs that do not 

benefit sportsmen. 

For instance, in testimony given by Farm Bureau representative Larry Bou"et at the 

hearing regarding altemative funding for predator control he stared "use Dinge/1-

Johnson funds in the states to reimburse livestock producers for their losses to predatory 

animals. Those funds are appropriated for use in providing habitat, and if lambs and 

calves are the habitat for predatory animals, then it appears compensation would be a 

legal use of funds". I remind you that Dingeii-Johnson funds are raised by taxing 

fishermen on fishing gear and boat fuel These funds are to be used for sports fisheries 

restoration and boat access. 
226 

Most hunters and wildlife 17Ulnagers accept coyotes and other predators as wildlife and 

integral to a healthy ecosystem. Those in the agricuhural community who want numbers 

of predators reduced, do so for economic reQS{)IIS. If Congress believes all of the 

American public want predators controlled, Congress should ask the public as a whole to 

fund the program not just hunters. There is no evidence that predator control has been 

of benefit to hunters, only a presumption, only a presumption on the part of those with a 

vested interest in making the public at large believe eliminating predators is necessary 

for everyone. There have been 3 peaks of big game numbers in Wyoming since 1975 

despite the lack of predator control. These were all determined by the weather and 

habitat condition, not numbers of predators. . 

CUB IN 

9. You mention that predator control should only be used in instances where coyotes 

have a significant impact on wildlife. In essence what you are saying is that the public 

shouldn't have to pay for predator control which benefits agriculture, but people in 

agriculture should help pay for it when significant livestock losses are involved. Am I 

correct in assuming this? 

WWF 

All/ am saying that those who want the benefits should pay the costs. Hunters want big 

game to erist in large numbers, so they fund management programs, and even taJC 

themselves to provide extra funding. If woo/growers feel they Med to control numbers of 

coyotes to reduce predation on livestock, they should pay for that control, it is a cost of 

doing business. 

[Committee Note: Attachments were placed in Subcommittee files.) 

0 

24-721 (175) 

ISBN 0-16-052720-1 

90000 

9 80160 527203