PR funds for wolves

[gejohnston]

maybe this belongs in EE, but I think it belongs here too.

George Edwards is a pragmatic, easy-going man with a difficult task: compensating ranchers who have lost livestock to a growing population of wolves. He runs the Montana Livestock Reduction and Mitigation Board, a new agency that deals with wolf predation. The agency tries to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts and may someday help ranchers find ways to better live with the wolves that depend upon private lands for their survival. So far, though, most of its missions are on hold, because all of its scant funding is being used to pay for wolf-killed livestock.

Edwards -- like many livestock producers and a growing number of other rural Western interests -- is frustrated. Not only does he not have enough money to mitigate all the effects of wolves roaming private land, but he also believes that the brunt of the costs are being borne by the very same folks who are being impacted the most – ranchers and hunters. Ranchers pay with their livestock; hunters, through licenses and taxes on firearms, pay for the wildlife habitat and the game herds that feed the wolves, whether they want to or not. With the exception of Defenders of Wildlife, which has paid out $1.2 million over 22 years to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to predators, so-called non-consumptive wildlife groups – the birdwatchers, hikers and environmental groups -- have not directly offered any money for wolf-mitigation efforts or to purchase or restore habitat. Except through filing increasingly unpopular lawsuits, these groups end up with little voice in the policy making process.

“These people (environmentalists) have money to spend on lawsuits to prevent anybody from managing these wolves,” a Montana Department of Livestock employee recently told me, “but they never offer a dollar to pay for the damage they cause.”

The losers in all of this are the predators themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
http://www.hcn.org/articles/money-where-your-mouth-is/print_view

I support reintroduction, which lead to an interesting conversation with a friend that lost several sheep and a guard dog to wolves, and I have no problem with PR funds being used for it. The intent, IIRC, was for all wildlife and not just tasty game animals. My question is, how should the wealth be spread?

[petronius]

1. That's a very thought-provoking article, thanks for posting it

I think using P-R money to directly compensate ranchers for livestock loss would be appropriate, but it doesn't really get at the bigger problem of funding conservation and bringing everyone to the same table. I've always been a little worried about P-R as the number of non-hunting purchasers of firearms and accessories (and perhaps archery gear) continues to grow and represent a larger proportion. All of these purchases contribute to P-R, but the buyers aren't benefiting any more than any other person (except to the extent, which I think is small, that P-R supports public ranges). It seems that eventually the firearms industry might be tempted to make the same argument that is cited in the article as coming from the broader outdoors industry - that many buyers are not engaged in the activities supported by P-R. I worry that the shooting industry may be increasingly tempted to raise that argument whenever we hear calls for gun/bullet taxes to support crime prevention, health services, etc.

What I like better is an expansion of the P-R taxes to a wider range of outdoors equipment. I don't hunt, and I don't shoot on public lands (I actually contribute very little to P-R) but I do a lot of hiking, camping, diving, etc - all of which may benefit from P-R funded measures. It makes more sense to me that there should be a comparable excise on my equipment (backpacks, tents, camp stoves, water purifiers, dive gear, kayaks, whatever) to spread the conservation cost to a more representative pool of users...

[gejohnston]

2. I agree,

the tax itself started in 1919 but went to general funds prior to PR's passage.

[Eleanors38]

3. This is an oft-repeated tale. I get tons of save-the-wolf-type

solicitations. One group, the National Wildlife Federation, supports efforts to recompense rancher losses. But by & large, the others seek to expand membership, and file law suits. In many states, including Texas, hunters pay fees beyond licenses in the form of public hunting permits and state "stamps" which support management areas and ALL of the wildlife therein. More animal "rights" and animal welfare advocates should pick up this burden instead of bureaucracyzing sentiment.

I support wolf re-introduction; as a hunter, I don't get upset with the competition.

[gejohnston]

4. I think that has to be part of the conversation

but each side like to stick to the simple rants without looking at the big picture. Personally, I think I would have like the old west, were bison out numbered the oil fields. But then, I was the guy shopping for a lever action while everyone else was too much for the few ARs to be found.

[2naSalit]

5. I kind of stumbled on to this thread looking for something else

But as member of the environmental organization side of this argument I feel I should say something here. To begin with, there has been over a decade of environmental organizations offering up discussion on changing policies to include wildlife watchers and general outdoor enthusiasts to the PR funding but that set of offers always falls on deaf ears as the policy makers in the wolf inhabiting states would rather bitch about how they are victims of the presence of wolves than work out a solution that is more inclusive. I was there in the room during many of these conversations with state legislators and was basically told to sit down and shut up every time.

Most of the NGOs advocating for public land health and well being of a still on the ground but not legally endangered species are and have been willing to compromise from the very start only to meet with opposition from those who dredge up mythological and romanticized "tradition" as the basis of their argument and resort to death threats and character assassination when that doesn't work.

The NGOs advocating for predators on public lands have been paying into the Defenders funding system though Defenders takes the naming rights to it. An organization I was an executive of for years contributed thousands of dollars over the years as well as many more thousands for research on mitigation and management practices based on empirical evidence with academics. Many of these organizations just don't get much press because... wolves eat things made out of meat and we love our cows as pets up to point when we sell them for slaughter.

I have wolves and bears outside my door on any given night or day and I have no fear of them, but I do respect them and their right to exist in this habitat that is theirs first and mine tentatively.

The wolf is not the big bad predator many like to give them credit for, they get blamed for a lot of things they don't actually do and a lot of livestock producers could do their jobs better and stop insisting we taxpayers pay for all their business losses and subsidize their businesses.

Looky here:

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/12/02/predator-defense-exposes-usda-wildlife-services-in-new-video/

#t=91



This part has to change before more tax dollars are collected. I'm not against a tax on my outdoor gear to protect the wildlife and public wild lands that I enjoy, but I want this species of predator (USDA WS) controlled first.

[gejohnston]

6. that USDA unit used to have an office

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)

for the lack of a better word, in Rock Springs. I'm not sure they still do or not. IIRC, they used to use 1080 traps to kill coyotes. Problem was, the bait also attracted eagles, hawks, bob cats, and mt lions. The eagle part pissed people off around here. They supported the 1972 ban while the Stock Growers Association supported their use. True, USDA WS would be on my list of federal agencies/programs that should be eliminated.

As I mentioned in the OP, I support reintroduction, but that lead to interesting conversations with some family and friends in the wool industry.

[2naSalit]

7. I was in

Idaho when the reintroduction took place but am in MT now. It was quite an issue between the state of Idaho and the USFWS to the point that Idaho had a temper tantrum and forbade any state employee from having anything to do with anything regarding wolves. So the Nez Perce tribe stepped up and partnered with USWFS to monitor and host the wolf reintroduction into the Frank Church Wilderness. It's just been a long hard battle since then. The advocates bent over backwards to appease the livestock industry and they kept coming up with more issues, mostly fabrications, and advocates kept leaning over backwards until the cart fell over so to speak.

The 1080 issue is a problem not just in TX and WY but also in MT and ID. A good read about the wolf issue and WS is Wolfer, A Memoir by Carter Niemeyer... been out for a few years now but one of the most comprehensive accounts of what was going on before, during and after the reintroduction from a WS employee who actually handled the wolves at both ends of the situation and a professional trapper himself. I have worked with Carter and everyone you've ever heard of involved in the reintroduction up until about 2010. And I have several former and current Senators and a former Sec. of DOI who not only recognize me on sight but some who also despise me because they know that I won't back away from them when they try to use BS and will I call them out on it... when they see me in a suit holding my briefcase, they wish they had sent an aid instead. It's not that I get into heated debate, I just don't buy the BS and let them know that I will only work within a fact and science based set of parameters when we are discussing policy vs reality. I use peer reviewed data when I talk to them and they have a hard time with that most of the time. I am a policy analyst, most of the legislators at the state and federal level rarely get it, for them it's mostly the good ol' boys and campaign contributors thing.

I also know a lot of livestock producers and seen many vacillate from a position of willingness to work with NGO advocates and being bullied by their peers into making a 180 degree turn in what they tell the media and what they say in policy discussions.

When one of my Senators illegally pushed a rider through attached to a continuing resolution for the budget that removed wolves from ESA protection and banned litigation about the rider, I was done dealing with those assholes. Now I refuse to let anyone know where or when or if I have seen wolves and try to educate the people I encounter about the truth and reality of their behavior vs what they have heard in the media and point them to more appropriate information sources. I can't handle the blatant and ubiquitous ignorance that is perpetuated for the sake of romanticism and BS all designed to bilk the taxpayers and keep stupid perps of global warming/climate change in place. Yeah, the conversations can be interesting but if they don't help people learn about what is real and what is imaginary or involve just plain lying, it's just hot air.



Thanks for the OP though, wish there were more like it to help get people to figure it out.