Erik, ty for this study. This analysis made me wonder whether there is a similar dynamic in wild-horse management. Just as cattle consumption by wolves looks very different once cattle’s overwhelming share of available prey biomass is considered, wild horses are often labeled “overpopulated” only after livestock has already been allocated much of the available forage.
In both cases, cattle dominance is treated as the ecological baseline rather than as a management choice shaping the outcome. Wolves are blamed for eating what management has made overwhelmingly available, while horses are blamed for exceeding what remains after livestock allocations are protected. The deeper parallel may be that cattle dominance helps create the very condition used to cast other species as the problem.
Get those hoofed locusts off the land, or, as I told Lyle Lewis a week or so ago, let's get a natural predator for Nevada's overrun of wild horses and kill two birds with one stone. Elise, I'm way ahead of you.
Federal land managers, specifically the USFS and BLM, really need to be held accountable for their dereliction of duty in protecting the nation's public lands. There's no excuse for sacrificing hundreds of millions of acres of our public lands for ~2% of the nation's cow meat. It is in fact a national scandal.
This is a clarifying read, and the move that carries it is separating consumption from selection.
The 72% figure everyone quotes describes what's on the landscape, not what wolves prefer, and the moment you weight by availability the story inverts: cattle eaten below their share, deer above theirs. That's the distinction that gets flattened every time a raw diet percentage becomes a headline about what an animal is 'targeting.' A frequency in scat answers 'what was around,' and selection answers 'what was chosen' - two different questions the same number can't settle.
Gifford Pinchot and the Old Timers (Vol 1 &2) showcase this epidemic of over grazing at the very origin of our national public lands. This is a beastly cohort that only responds to brute force in reduction of grazing allotments. The best antidote is managing for all natural resources.
We need to revise public animal grazing fees to match what these ranchers would pay on private lands, and watch as the mentality of public-land ownership fades with these private ranchers.
Beef industry will continue with the propaganda-we need to get CA folks educated with the truth. We are raising havoc with the balance and repressing the good science when we actually have it-how do we fix??
Erik, ty for this study. This analysis made me wonder whether there is a similar dynamic in wild-horse management. Just as cattle consumption by wolves looks very different once cattle’s overwhelming share of available prey biomass is considered, wild horses are often labeled “overpopulated” only after livestock has already been allocated much of the available forage.
In both cases, cattle dominance is treated as the ecological baseline rather than as a management choice shaping the outcome. Wolves are blamed for eating what management has made overwhelmingly available, while horses are blamed for exceeding what remains after livestock allocations are protected. The deeper parallel may be that cattle dominance helps create the very condition used to cast other species as the problem.
Get those hoofed locusts off the land, or, as I told Lyle Lewis a week or so ago, let's get a natural predator for Nevada's overrun of wild horses and kill two birds with one stone. Elise, I'm way ahead of you.
In the West, it’s people—esp ranchers—that are overpopulated.
We can help by not buying beef anymore or cut way back on it
Federal land managers, specifically the USFS and BLM, really need to be held accountable for their dereliction of duty in protecting the nation's public lands. There's no excuse for sacrificing hundreds of millions of acres of our public lands for ~2% of the nation's cow meat. It is in fact a national scandal.
This is a clarifying read, and the move that carries it is separating consumption from selection.
The 72% figure everyone quotes describes what's on the landscape, not what wolves prefer, and the moment you weight by availability the story inverts: cattle eaten below their share, deer above theirs. That's the distinction that gets flattened every time a raw diet percentage becomes a headline about what an animal is 'targeting.' A frequency in scat answers 'what was around,' and selection answers 'what was chosen' - two different questions the same number can't settle.
Gifford Pinchot and the Old Timers (Vol 1 &2) showcase this epidemic of over grazing at the very origin of our national public lands. This is a beastly cohort that only responds to brute force in reduction of grazing allotments. The best antidote is managing for all natural resources.
Wolves, wherever they are, are always portrayed as the enemy. Especially when it comes to cattle ranchers.
Just say no to beef
Yes.
We need to revise public animal grazing fees to match what these ranchers would pay on private lands, and watch as the mentality of public-land ownership fades with these private ranchers.
Beef industry will continue with the propaganda-we need to get CA folks educated with the truth. We are raising havoc with the balance and repressing the good science when we actually have it-how do we fix??