is this true?

Question

wolves are only responsible for 1% of livestock fatalities

in North America

Answer 1

Yea, McDonalds is responsible for the other 99%

Answer 2

You seem to have a lot of interest in wolves, that is for sure. The estimate you gave may be true in a northern tier state such as MN, ID where there is a larger population of Timber wolves, but way lower in more southern states where they either do not exist at all or have a small population.

I think most people would agree that the coyote poses a much bigger threat to livestock that wolves. Wolves are a much more evasive creature and would rather stay away from humans if possible. In desperate times when food is scarce and the pack is starving they may take down a large animal, but that animal is more likely going to be deer, moose or Elk if the conditions are right and not be going after J.R. Simplot's fine beef herd.

They are fantastic natural killers but I would guess that in most places the 1% is a high estimate for livestock kills by wolves.

Answer 3

It depends on the area and livestock involved. There are only about 20,000 true wolves in the Northern Hemisphere and they prefer to stay far away from the trappings of humanity. They pretty much eat wildlife resources and very few livestock. So, to answer your question, yes. It is about right. I would say the number of livestock kills attributed to the true wolf species is even lower than 1%,. At the last survey I attended we came up with something like 0.81% in their natural habitat.

Coyotes/Feral Dogs, Bobcats and Mountain Lions/Cougars are much more inclined to encroach the human habitat.

Answer 4

I don't know about your statistics but I will accept the fact that the majority of a wolf's diet comes from wildlife. However, wolves are also known for eating domestic animals. You don't have to loose very many calves, lambs, etc. to no longer give a darn if that is only 1% of all domestic animals killed , it is a considerable chunk of money out of your pocket. You can't blame the farmer or rancher for wanting to put an end to predation at his expense. If you raised animals for a living, where would your priorities be? Protecting a wolf pack or protecting your animals? No rocket science there.

Answer 5

Alot less than that in Kentucky. What numbers are you talk'n bout? Where are you talk'n bout? For some one graze'n round yellostone the number would be alot higher than that between the wolves and bears. But east of the Mississippi I would say more cows get hit by lightning than see a wolf. Where did you get the 1% number? Who was try'n to make a point with it? Or are you try'n to make a point on the hunting page?

Dave

Answer 6

Possibly, depending upon geographical location. Here in southern Wisconsin i believe the timberwolf is an endangered species. I doubt wolves even make 1% of those kills here. A little bit north of here, coyotes are a bigger problem.

Answer 7

Sounds right, they are pretty rare creatures taking the country as a whole and they aren't in most states where livestock are raised in large numbers. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was less.

Answer 8

It could be in certain areas were there is a low population, or it could be much higher 20%+ depends on the density of wolves/area that your in.

Answer 9

not so much the wolves but those silly song dogs(coyotes) kill alot of livestock(mostly sheep and chickens and sick larger animals, cows and llamas) every year but more they kill all the pretty pheasants and fuzzy bunnies i love to hunt

Answer 10

im sure thats what the greenies and government wants you to think better ask a rancher what he thinks.dont have the exact figures but i would say a minumam of 20%