Bush admin opposes federal pay for wolf kills. By Mary Clare Jalonick.  Associated Press Writer

We reported earlier on this when Senators Testor (D-MT) and Barrasso (R-WY) introduced the bill.

The administration’s position complicates things with Defenders getting out of the compensation business, which makes sense to me because they got almost no credit from the politicians for their efforts.

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 past President of the Western Watersheds Project and the creator of The Wildlife News.

10 Responses to Bush admin opposes federal compensation for losses to wolves

  1. avatar timz says:

    Typical. We want state control but the feds to pay for it.

  2. avatar Roy says:

    Tim and I agree on this one! Bush made a good call. No that the states have control, we also have the responsibility to fund wolf management. Not the feds job anymore.

  3. I agree too. If the states want to manage wolves, they have to pay.

  4. And, the states shouldn’t bother paying, either. No more subsidies for the livestock industry for this nonsense. If wolves are a true cost to doing business, so be it. There’s no social responsibility to fund the livestock industry.

  5. avatar JB says:

    Good God! Did everyone just agree that G.W. Bush made the right decision? This might be a first!

  6. avatar marnyarnold says:

    While I agree that ranchers should not be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves (especially since many of them graze on federal land), I wonder if this will lead to an excuse for hunting wolves. It seems as if, whenever a business, be it oil drilling or ranching, or whatever industry wants to move into a wildlife area, there goes another habitat.

  7. avatar paintrax says:

    folks, watch carefully as he covers his weak presidency with whatever he can get his hands on. Wolves, G8, environment issues here, but….
    no way will he slow down the profits to his war stocks, eh? Stay the course buffalo chips for everybody.
    Well, after all. He’s making such a killing (pun intended) on the Iraq war, how can we blame him for cashing in all he can?

  8. Paintrax,

    Many canids can get brucellosis, but it is brucellosis canis, endemic to canids. It does not spread to other kinds of animals.

    I appears that brucellosis abortis (the one cattle growers worry about) can occasionally infect canids, but it ends there. They can’t infect anything else. They are like a human who has been infected (undulant fever). Such a person cannot infect other people or any kind of animal.

    The idea that wolves or coyotes spread brucellosis to cattle, for example, is popular in some anti-wolf quarters, but the idea has no merit.

  9. avatar John says:

    There can be a way for this to backfire though.
    It could instil more hatred and encourage lethal measures.

  10. avatar Save bears says:


    Is there any definitive studies that shows the data on brucellosis infection in canids, I have been searching and only found spotty evidence and every other biologist I speak to on the subject, seem very evasive in providing information about this particular subject, specifically I am interested in any information I can find on the abortis strain in canids.


July 2008


‎"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: