Trust Fund for Grizzlies, Wolves Weighed

International Business Times. By Matthew Brown.

The idea is that Congress would provide most of the initial money and create a quasi-governmental fund, to which states, individuals, non-profit and for profit corporations, could add. The fund would take the burden off of state departments of fish and game, and reduce resentment by some hunters for the diversion of funds for these animals. It would also shield the management from the political instability of direct congressional appropriations and keep a national presence in the management of these animals despite their delisting.

On the down side, I can see a lot of money going for “management” that simply leads to dead wolves and bears, and is yet another subsidy for the public lands livestock industry. Most of the current management money for wolves simply goes to collar wolves so that they can be easily shot if a couple of dead sheep or cow calves turn up.

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

4 Responses to Trust Fund for Grizzlies, Wolves Weighed

  1. JimBob says:

    Ralph, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that it will lead to more “mangement” actions. That was my first thought as I read your post. I also find it hard to trust that the government does not have a dishonest motive for any seemingly helpful initiative. I hate to keep throwing things back on Bush, but that’s what he and the current political forces have created–lies, corruption, spin, etc. If it sounds like it’s good, it’s probably bad for the environment somewhere.

  2. I agree. People will say I’m just a Democrat, a liberal, etc., but there has never been a President of any party so uncommitted to the rule of law.

    Almost every day there is a new scandal involving law breaking. Just yesterday I was revealed Bush was spying on Americans without even bothering to go to the secret court that rubber stamps wiretapping requests. It is an impeachable offense, but he won’t be impeached because he has Cheney as backup. If things get bad enough, however, I expect the impeachment will be started by congressional Republicans who see it as necessary to their own self interest

  3. Dave Jones says:

    The proposed trust fund seems to let the states off the hook too easily — if the states want to manage wildlife, they are obligated to provide proper funding.

    Perhaps one positive aspect of continued Federal funding is that the States will not be able to (legitimately) use the arguement that they are paying for everything with sportsmen’s money and that therefore the greater public shouldn’t concern itself with decision making. Of course we know they don’t care what the broad public thinks anyhow, so its probably besides the point.

  4. be says:

    Yes – it reminds me ofTHIS VIDEO regarding “wolves and women’s sports” which illustrates the financial maneuvering the state of Idaho is planning in its assumption of managment.



‎"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