Little discussed amendment to bill would pay livestock owners for losses, but also give grants to be proactive and use non-lethal measures-

Livestock operators are always getting new subsidies from the government, but this amendment could be positive because it is more than just paying people for their losses to wolves. It also provides grants to states to use non-lethal methods to prevent losses from happening.  Idaho has pretty much abandoned asking livestock operators from doing anything to prevent losses. Hopefully this amendment will change things.

Lands bill offers wolf-kill money. By The Associated Press.

Tester: Passage of ‘Wolf Kill Bill’ Was Common Sense. Montana Senator says, “… the Wolf Kill Bill isn’t just about repaying ranchers.” By Jon Tester, U.S. Senate, Guest Writer. New West.

avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

6 Responses to The new lands bill has compensation for losses from wolves

  1. avatar JEFF E says:

    The good Senator from Montana(excuse me while I choke down some bile) Tester has this to sya over at Newwest;
    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/tester_passage_of_wolf_kill_bill_was_common_sense/C37/L37/

  2. avatar JEFF E says:

    sorry should have been “say”
    the bile made my eyes tear up

  3. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Unless I am missing the point entirely, this seems like it might actually work well. If it works in Montana then maybe Idaho and Wyoming can learn from it and other states may change their opinion. Call me overly optimistic if you want.

  4. avatar vickif says:

    I hate this, yet more freebies for ranchers. Puke! We let them defile public lands for virtually free, now we are going to pay them even more for it.

  5. avatar SAP says:

    Vickif – so, if the program operated only on private lands, would you be ok with it?

    Some wolves sometimes kill livestock, then they get killed as a result. Those are the rules, even with ESA protection. Would you rather these conflicts and lethal control actions just keep right on piling up, without figuring out proactive ways of dealing with them?

    And if you think there are some easy, straightforward, guaranteed effective methods of non-lethal deterrence, I would guess that you haven’t been out on the ground trying to apply those methods.

  6. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    I don’t like the ideas of ranchers getting more subsidies but I think this sort of a compromise may be necessary to keep wolves around.

Calendar

March 2009
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: