Sunday, March 1, 2015

The Predator Paradox: Ending the War With Wolves, Bears, Cougars and Coyotes by John Shivik




Why I Read It: Full-time job is as a naturalist.

Summary: The author tries to find the bridge between the loss of livestock and the wholesale retaliatory slaughter of apex predators.

My Thoughts: This book boils down to one pertinent fact.

When we consider the depredations of the country's top natural predators on livestock, on people and on pets, etc., oftentimes our reaction is to make a big sweeping move. Wolves killing sheep? Kill all the local wolves. Grizzly bears attacking campers and hikers? Kill all the bears. But we know the domino system will be in effect.

If we kill the top predator, its main wild prey can run rampant. Kill all the hammerhead sharks and we'll be overwhelmed on our beaches by overabundant stingrays. With no natural predators in Massachusetts, where I live, white-tailed deer have become a nuisance species, spreading Lyme disease and devouring forest floor habitats, not to mention the front yard tulips.

But, Shivik argues, supported by the numerous ongoing experiments he covers in this book, even just destroying the local population of predators is the wrong way to go. We tend to think that each and every wolf is the same as the next one; if one wolf is a sheep killer, they all are. But we are finding that, just like us, there is individual variation in the way of personalities in the world of our biggest mammalian predators. Oftentimes innocent bystanders are being picked off in the war against them.

But how do we know who is a sheep killer and who is not? And are there ways that we can train wild predators to shy away from the desire to take livestock? Shivik walks us through the thought process. Can we give visual or olfactory reasons not to kill? Will a distasteful scent tip a bear off that attacking a hiker might be an unpleasant experience?

One way or another, the author argues, we have to stop the war, lest we interminably damage the balance in the ecosystem (more than we already have). Yes, we have questions of economies to consider; we can't let our livestock producers live with constant losses. But we also can't let the wild world down, either.

No comments:

Post a Comment