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.
Ralph Maughan
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He has been a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and also its President. For many years 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.
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/
sorry should have been “say”
the bile made my eyes tear up
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.
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.
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.
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.