is already receiving substantial public subsidies in the form of wool support and low grazing fees on government lands . They asked why sheep ranchers should recei ve government assistance for killing the public's wildlife on public lands. While groups like the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the Defenders of Wildlife attacked on the national leveL local groups hallenged the predator control programs operating within their own counties. The predator control program is a cooperative program jointly financed by the Federal government and cooperating counties. The agreement to authorize the program is renewable annually, and in our county (Sonoma) it is challenged every yea r. Tn these annual debates, the environmentalist arguments range from emotional appeals concerning inhumane methods to the recitation of statistics demonstrating that coyotes cause only minimal damage to the state's sheep population. For example, they quote the government's own statistics showing that coyotes kill only 6% of California's lamb crop each year, and they add that most of these deaths could be avoided by more careful management practices. One of my friend jim' s favorite stories regarding these hea ri ngs involves my Uncle George. George is a sheeprancher; he is invariably a member of the inevitable panel that is formed to examine the county's involvement in the predator control problem. One year he was telling the environmentalist members of the panel about his problems with coyotes, and he invited them to take a drive around his ranch with him so they could see for themselves the magnitude of his problem. After they had completed the tour, George asked them if they had any questions, and one young man turned to him and said, "You should grow soybeans." Every year, our county supervisors renew the contract for predation control with the Federal government. From experience on our ranch, we have found the arguments The coyote is the fall guy, not the economic system. presented by both sides to be only partially correct. Our research and observations show the following: 1. As soon as coyotes moved into the area, we began suffering heavy losses (15-40% of our lamb crop and 10-15% of our ewes per year). The statistics Cited by the environmentalists are simply that-statistics. They say nothing concerning actual events in particular times and in particular places. Losing 6% of the California lamb crop may not seem significant (though even that many is quite a few) until one remembers that many of California's sheep aIe raised in the irngated pastures of the Central Valley where hardly anything real, including predators, exists. The wilder areas suffer correspondingly heavier losses in order to produce the gross statistic of 6%. Look at the statistics for the wilder states-Nevada loses 29% of its lamb crop to coyotes, Colorado 15%, Utah 12%, and New Mexico 11 %. 2. Marauding coyotes eat very little, if any, of the sheep they kill . Of the dead ewes I have found, the most that has been eaten is a few pounds of the internal organs. Why do they kill them? It is our opinion (and the opinions of the local ranchers) that coyotes are much like dogs that get loose around sheep-they just like to chase what runs. This would explain why it is often the healthiest ewe or lamb that is killed, (or they are the mOSt likely to run. Animals lhat do not run and do not otherwise display symptoms of sickness or weakness are not usually attacked. I have noticed much the same thing with dogs and sheep. If the sheep do not run and sland their ground with the doS, the dog often does not know what lO do and leaves the sheep alone. June 1981 RAIN Page? Whatever the reasons that coyotes kiJI, it is our observation that they eat little of their prey, and they never return to a carcass for another meal. There seems little evidence that they kill out of hunger. 4. Coyotes are not native to OUI ranch. Prior to logging, the area supported a climax ecosystem defined by mature redwoods and Douglas-fir. It did not support the wildlife nor habitat necessary for the coyote. After consulting the ethnographies of the area and talking with the older ranchers, we concluded that coyotes did not ltve hcreuntil recently. 5. The belief that it is only the old, weak, or injured coyote that kills sheep is wrong. Besides the observation that these are young, healthy animals being killed, this belief presupposes an illogical premise. One can just see a sleek, young coyote sitting on an outcropping overlooking a pasture fu ll of sheep saying to himself, "No, not one of these fat lambs, they are beneath me; I'll go catch something difficult. " After considering all these findings, I asked myself again , " Is it worth it to raise sheep here, or should we let the land go wild, or what else can we do with the land? What happens if the coyotes run us and our neighbors out of the sheep business? Looking at what had happened to other ranches of our area, there appeared a number of options. 1. The rancher can switch to running cattle. However, cattle are even less profitable than sheep. They make less efficient use of the grassland and are unable to get into the pockets OD the steep hillsides. They cannot overwinter on the grass as sheep can and must be fed expensive hay through the winter. In an area where it takes 1000 acres of land that one owns to rajse enough sheep to make the median income, cattle are not profitable. Loeal ranchers who have switched to cattle do not survive off their ranching income and must conduct logging on their land or work on the outside to supplement their income. In addition, cattle requie a lot more labor, better fences, and more capital. Cattle are at least as ecologically offensive as sheep. They trample fragile microhabitats, and in the summer they transform the creeks into feedlot runoff channels. 2. The rancher can go out of busmess and sell his land. A large neighboring ranch was recently sold to Louisiana-Paciac to be used for timber production. Surely no one can think that any goad can come out of more resource land falling into the hands of such multinationals whose motives are not in the best interest of anything-trees, coyotes, or people. Other local ranches have been sold and divided into smaller parcels-generally 40 acre pjeces, These are then sold as recreational or second-home lots, another form of land use that is symptomatic of a disease that benefits no one. While this disease has many forms or manifestations, itsl"lluse is our acquiescence to socioccological destruction all around us as long as we can afford our own little escape, our own park, our own unsullied and unused place. Or they become the homesteads for " back to the landers. " The latter use has its good and bad points. First, it provides a parcel large enough for people to operate some form of self-sufficient homestead. It provideS'the land base for a movement that is healthy and produces benefits we are just beginning to see and understand. ThlS movement provides the in-place research station that experiments and works with new forms of architecture and design, new energy source~, sustainable agriculture, the recycling of human and other wastes, watershed rehabilitation, hoWstic health, and decentralized politics, all intertwined with conscious attempts to improve the self and clarify its corri!ct role Within the eco-system. Yet, too often the land is not used but becomes the private open space for the owner (as is the case with typical residential subdivision). The Land is left to go wild. The number of people making even 25% of their income (including groWing their own food) off their land is extremely small. 3. Another option is to find some other crop-as the man said, " Grow soybeans. " The soils, terrain; and climate of the region se verely Bmit agricultural potential. Recently, a lew ranchers have begun plantmg vmeyards, and there is some hope the area will becont.-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz