On April 3, 2025, WyoFile published an opinion piece by Dagny Signorelli of Western Watersheds Project, titled “Grizzlies pose minimal threat to Wyoming cattle.” This opinion piece is misleading at best, and is just a continuation of Western Watershed’s unfounded attacks on livestock grazing in the Upper Green.
Opinion
The bar charts presented by Ms. Signorelli are for livestock deaths throughout Wyoming, which does not reflect the impact on ranchers in the Upper Green from depredation to large carnivores (grizzlies and wolves). Further, she states: “The ranchers on this allotment reported 94 cattle killed by large carnivores, 91 of which were due to bears. Using these numbers, large carnivores, including grizzlies, killed less than 1% of the cattle authorized on the Upper Green River allotment in 2024.” This misrepresents the data.
Her analysis claims that large carnivores killed less than 1% of the cattle authorized on the Upper Green River Allotment in 2024, but this assumes that 94 cattle represent all of the cattle killed by large carnivores on the allotment in 2024. However, Ms Signorelli knows that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department pays livestock owners based upon formulas that reflect the fact that not all livestock killed by large carnivores are found and verified by agency personnel.
Grizzlies and wolves predominantly depredate younger cattle, especially calves. Calves are the cash crop for a rancher. In the early 1990s, prior to the return of the grizzly and wolf, the calf loss rate, from all causes, on the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment was around 2%. In 2024, the calf loss rate was 11%, nearly six times the pre-large carnivore calf loss rate. In 2017, our calf loss rate was nearly 14%. Studies conducted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department on yearling cattle also show that more yearling cattle are killed by large carnivores than are found and verified. Livestock losses on the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment are not “extremely low” as purported by Ms. Signorelli, and in fact calf loss rates are extremely high.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission has a sound compensation program that adequately reflects the cattle killed by large carnivores, including compensation for cattle that are depredated but not found. We are appreciative of the commission’s and department’s hard work and money that has been put into the grizzly bear and wolf programs.
The grizzly bear is a success story. Grizzlies continue to expand their range and population, and we ranchers are still on the landscape alongside this species. In fact, our ranches provide the open space, migration paths and habitat for a multitude of species. If you don’t like ranching, go see how well large ungulates migrate through a city and its pavement. Ranching holds the working landscapes of the West together, and these working landscapes support the abundant wildlife the West is known for.
After reading this piece by Coke Landers, I’m confused. Domestic European cattle are native to the Upper Green River Valley while the Grizzly Bear and Grey Wolf were not?
Takes real arrogant and self centered individuals to think that they are so special that they should be able to dump their cattle and sheep on the National Forest where all the wild animals are supposed to live and that all the predators should just pack their bags and leave and never bother their stock . Must be something for a person to think they are that important.
Every beef cow trailed into the Upper Green River for summer graze could disappear into the belly of a UFO in one night, and the US beef industry market and consumer would never miss them. Not when nearly 40,000 other Wyoming cattle die from all other causes statewide in a year , 400 times the mortality allegedly lost to native apex predators on the Upper Green.
The bears and wolves are not stupid about when and where to hunt prey. They also have a profound appreciation for the superb quality of Wyoming beef on the hoof. If Mr. Landers and his ilk do not want to lose cattle , they should quit feeding them to bears and wolves.
Dear Mr. Rocheleau,
I see you are a writer and advocate for wildlife and wildlife habitat worldwide. I commend you on your endeavor and it is a valid one.
However it is a more effective endeavor when “facts” are not cherry picked to enhance a given view. Some people will believe such representation because it enhances their personal view. Others, who have more accurate information and perhaps personal experience with the subject, will see such representation of the facts as destroying that person’s entire credibility.
Ms. Signorelli has made this error and Mr. Landers, who is intimately familiar with the history of large carnivores interaction with livestock in the Upper Green River, legislation and scientific study on the subject has corrected her.
Dagny Signorelli presented facts. This piece presents slanted opinions.
I’d be interested in hearing what one of the “facts” are that you like, and what one of “slanted opinions” are that you don’t like.
In this manner, we will have something tangible to consider and maybe learn from.
“No sacrifice is too great” for whatever a lot of people want….however it always depends on who is making the sacrifice how correct it is. For those who enjoy seeing an animal being torn apart and eaten alive or dead by a predator, it is worth it, for those who lose an animal that is either a pet or livlihood, it is disaster, NOT pure enjoyment.
My wife and I just took a trip through the central part of Nebraska from border to border. One of the things that stands out in my mind that we saw were the ubiquitous calving pastures. Of note, there were no guard dogs, no fladry, no riders patrolling the perimeter, nothing, just peaceful cows and calves. That simple observation expresses a serious difference between producers in states like Nebraska and those in Wyoming. The conclusion? There is zero risk of loss to large predators. None. That alone puts the Wyoming producer at a disadvantage, regardless of the percentage of loss. The articles written by the promoters of the return of large predators to areas they have not occupied for almost a century are not truthful when they claim losses are insignificant. ANY loss is significant, and they know it, but they continue their disingenuous propaganda to garner support from the ignorant general population.
welfare ranchers shouldn’t be raising cattle in close proximity of predators if they don’t want to experience losses. if the welfare ranchers need government handouts to survive they should find a different career.
building a submarine yard in wyoming makes the same amount of sense.
Well done Coke. Hope this gets out to a lot of people.
Good article! Very informative!