Roberts wrong on fladry, wolf loss pay

Published 12:18 pm Friday, March 6, 2015

To the Editor:

Commissioner Roberts is wrong to describe fladry as only minimally effective in protecting livestock from wolves. Wolves in Wallowa County have never successfully attacked livestock protected by fladry, a fact the Commissioner ignores. Yet she and the livestock industry have never ceased calling for wolf-killing as the only solution to conflict, as if this is 1915 not 2015, as if Oregon is against and not in favor of healthy wolf numbers.

Commissioner Roberts is photographed next to $6,000 worth of fladry, paid for by Oregon taxpayers in the expectation that it be used as a wolf deterrent, not a stage-prop for misinformation. Fladry is most effective during calving, which is right now, when cattle are penned in relatively small enclosures and most vulnerable. Yet rather than urge its use, Commissioner Roberts undermines the good intentions of Oregon taxpayers by maligning this effective tool. Following her lead, ranchers are risking their stock, and we taxpayers will bear the cost of compensation.

Now that direct losses have plummeted despite increasing wolf populations, indirect loss (i.e.: missing cattle) looms larger. Roberts says that compensation “could be small or nonexistent,” but to date all claims have been met in full, and the funding application now being submitted includes full compensation for indirect losses.

Most missing cattle are lost on summer range, usually on public land where they’re seldom checked and are vulnerable to predators other than wolves, to injury, disease, even theft since cattle prices have recently soared. Increasing claims for missing cattle are causing some conservationists to wonder if producers shouldn’t be expected to absorb losses on public land. After all, they’re getting a bargain rate at a fraction of the commercial grazing fee, and Americans value their wildlife and public lands at least as much as the rancher does his subsidized lease.

Wally Sykes

Joseph