Post by: Special T on November 30, 2015, 07:12:47 PM
Judging by public comments made during the Idaho Fish and Game Commission’s quarterly meeting at the Community Campus in Hailey last week, the issue is important to Wood River Valley residents. Fifteen people urged the commission to ask the state to pursue less aggressive methods of reducing depredation, while only two people emphasized the importance of lethal control. Many commenters suggested transferring part of the $620,000 in state money available this year for lethal control of wolves to preventive measures.
Last year, the Legislature created a Wolf Depredation Control Board, and has allocated $400,000 in general fund money in each of the past two years to kill wolves. The new law also provides $110,000 annually from assessments made on livestock producers and another $110,000 from the Department of Fish and Game.
During a review of public comments Thursday, Nov. 19, Department of Fish and Game Director Virgil Moore said state law doesn’t allow for the kind of transfer suggested by Wood River Valley residents. The legislation requires all money in the wolf control fund, with the exception of the Fish and Game money, to be used for lethal control. Money raised through hunting license and tag sales must be spent on game-related activities.
However, in 2013 and 2014, the state received a total of $108,152 for depredation control measures through the federal Wolf Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program. The grants, which are distributed to the states by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pay for half the cost of enacting ranching improvements such as guard dogs, herders and wolf-scaring devices.
Jon Beals, project manager with the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation, which distributes the grant money to ranchers, said only $12,000 of that fund has been spent—on a couple of guard dogs, a lambing pen and a range rider for a cattle operation.
“We have just not received proposals,” Beals said. “It’s tough to get Idaho producers excited about prevention.”
This year the state received none of the $450,000 in prevention grants distributed to five states and one Indian tribe. Beals said he was told by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it wanted to support projects in other states and that it had noted that Idaho had not spent all of its grant money.
Beals acknowledged that many ranchers probably don’t know the money is available.
But Blaine County Commissioner Larry Schoen faults the state for not making more effort to contact them. Schoen has been the county’s liaison on a multi-agency steering committee for the Wood River Wolf Project, which has used deterrent measures to help ranchers reduce wolf depredation.
“I’ve been in touch with the Office of Species Conservation over several years and have offered repeatedly for project participants or staff to assist them with outreach and education, and talked to several state agencies to encourage them to create curricula on this topic,” Schoen said. “I’m not aware of any project participants who have been contacted.”
In September, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Idaho Office of Species Conservation and the Idaho office of Wildlife Services, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, co-sponsored a workshop for livestock producers on nonlethal deterrence. Suzanne Stone, Idaho representative for the nonprofit group Defenders of Wildlife, called the meeting “disappointing.” Stone said much of the discussion was about killing wolves rather than preventing attacks.
“It was tough sitting there knowing that there was a lot of information missing that would have been helpful,” she said.
Several of the states surrounding Idaho—Oregon, Washington and Montana—have spent far more of their grant money. Montana, for example, has received $200,000 from two prevention grants since 2013 and has spent all of it.
“We could use triple that amount easily,” said George Edwards, executive secretary of the Montana Livestock Loss Board. “There’s a lot of interest.”
Beals said his office is putting together some more projects using the federal grants, including one with Lava Lake Lamb near Carey.
“I’d love to have producers get in touch with me and not be intimidated by the cost-share part. We can work around that,” he said.
http://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/money-to-deter-wolf-attacks-goes-unclaimed/article_ee24c44e-9300-11e5-a103-1f6050ea10ed.html
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 26, 2015, 06:33:13 PM
Post by: The Gobble-stopper on December 26, 2015, 10:36:59 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 27, 2015, 01:12:59 AM
The ranchers I know, won't take any money from the WDFW because they don't want to be in the back pocket of the enviromentalist controlled WDFW...Wouldn't doubt that would be the truth too. Take the money and have to do it their way.
Post by: MuleDeer on January 03, 2016, 06:56:02 PM
There is a lot of truth to Campmeat's statement. There are also a lot of producers who didn't want to take part and sign an agreement, because they felt that would be them agreeing with wolves being here. That's what the WAG has been working on the last couple meetings, working with producers to get them the help they need, while not losing their independence. The DPCA-L agreement is only meant as a cost-share to help producers pay for deterrents, hopefully so they never have a wolf issue. It has been and will be a hard sell for many producers, but more are seeing the value in deterrents put into place as long as the wolves are around. Producers are individualists and proud Americans with the heritage they continue...I and many others respect that immensely, and are happy to support them whatever they decide.The ranchers I know, won't take any money from the WDFW because they don't want to be in the back pocket of the enviromentalist controlled WDFW...Wouldn't doubt that would be the truth too. Take the money and have to do it their way.
Post by: nwwanderer on January 03, 2016, 07:12:06 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on January 03, 2016, 07:25:51 PM
Some weeks ago WDFW announced plans to pay indirect wolf costs. What is the status of the plan? Has a budget been proposed? Has the WAG had input? What criteria is being used for payments? What is the source of the payments? This is not cost share for deterrents but payments for lost production related to wolf presence.It has been brought up and talked about in the WAG, and I'll try to get you some specific answers tomorrow. Compensation has been available, and we've heard numbers, but I honestly don't recall the budget, so again, I'll get you some numbers. The criteria is the one subject that requires the most attention, but it has always been part of the discussion, i.e. loss of weight per animal, costs of dealing with wolf loss, etc. Good questions, and I'll get you some answers and post them asap.
I'll be on the road between Puyallup, Seattle area, Omak and Ellensburg for meetings this week, but will get you some info!
Post by: villageidiot on January 03, 2016, 08:28:22 PM
Post by: MuleDeer on January 03, 2016, 09:26:28 PM
Ranchers are very reluctant to take money as has been said because they do not want to be put on the radar. There are no deterrents as good as the smell of gunpowder and the ranchers can and do provide that smell with no help. Inviting the KGB or enviro groups to be hanging around while the gunpowder smell is in the air is a risk not needed. Other deterrents are also being used that are not approved by the KGB so why invite a rat to hang around when they have repeatedly proved their deterrents do not work and also their confirmation of wolf kills is terrible.You sound like you're under the impression that, once a producer signs a DPCA-L, he suddenly has wolf advocates and WDFW hanging around all the time to check on him and the wolves in the area. Does SSS happen? I'm sure it does. But you shouldn't just assume that all those producers are willing to break the law so blatantly. I speak with lots of them, and whether they take part in a DPCA-L or not, they aren't taking the law into their own hands like many of you think. They have reasons why they don't want to take part, but "the smell of gunpowder" isn't a big one, I assure you.
Post by: MuleDeer on January 14, 2016, 08:59:05 AM
Some weeks ago WDFW announced plans to pay indirect wolf costs. What is the status of the plan? Has a budget been proposed? Has the WAG had input? What criteria is being used for payments? What is the source of the payments? This is not cost share for deterrents but payments for lost production related to wolf presence.Sorry it took a few more days than I planned to get these answers for you; busy time of year for everyone, it seems. But here's the answers to your questions, as given to me by Donny Martorello, the WDFW Wolf Policy Lead.
What is the status of the plan?
The Department is in the process of reviewing applications from folks that expressed an interest. The Director will be appointing folks to the Livestock Compensation Panel soon.
Has a budget been proposed?
Yes, $50,000 per fiscal year is provided for compensation for confirmed wolf impacts to livestock, including claims for confirmed wolf depredation on livestock and claims for indirect impacts.
Has the WAG had input?
The topic of the Livestock Compensation Panel was discussed briefly with the Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) as a group and individually with some WAG members. However, given the short turn-around time for creating the livestock compensation panel and recognizing WAG was already tasked with other items, the Department has moved forward with implementing the panel.
What criteria is being used for payments?
WAC 232-36-210 states that claims for higher than normal livestock losses, reduced weight gains, or reduced pregnancy rates must include at least three years of records prior to the year of the claim, the losses must occur on large open pastures where regular monitoring of livestock is impractical (and therefore discovery of carcasses infeasible) as determined by the department, verification by the department that wolves are occupying the area, the losses cannot be reasonably explained by other causes, claims will be assessed for losses in excess of the previous three year running average, and owners must be in compliance with the department's preventative measures checklist and/or damage prevention agreement.
What is the source of the payments?
Funds are provided from the $10 surcharge on personalized license plates.
This is not cost share for deterrents but payments for lost production related to wolf presence?
Payments are not associated with cost-share agreement. Payments are based on claims for higher than normal livestock losses, reduced weight gain, or reduced pregnancy rates per WAC 232-36-210.
Donny also passed on to me the freedom to give his contact info, including his cell number, to anyone who would like to talk with him directly about these or any issues with the wolves. He is a great guy, a hunter, and very willing to listen to and explain things to anyone who wants to know. If you want his contact info, pm me and I'll get you his email and phone numbers.
Post by: villageidiot on January 24, 2016, 07:38:35 PM
Until you convince them your deterrents actually work and are willing to pay 100% of the costs, don't require them to add time to their busy day and pay them restitution for ALL wolf kills you will not get them on board. Hiring wolf lovers to investigate depredations has really set the program back. When multiple circumstantial evidences (trail cam pics, recent tracks, wolf hair on fence, 60 pounds of calf missing in one night) of a kill are present and they declare it is an unknown, then their credibility is destroyed with the rancher. This rancher tells his story to all his friend ranchers and they all distrust the the whole group of agencies pushing for wolf reintroduction. Being truthful and honest with a farmer or rancher is at the top of their list. They can spot a rat quickly and will take another direction and not look back.
Post by: nwwanderer on January 24, 2016, 09:48:40 PM
Post by: Little Dave on January 24, 2016, 10:28:45 PM
Would the cost of this new business process be greater than the sum that would be recovered in a loss situation?
From the point of view of the agency, the accountants need the documentation to allocate funds, and perhaps the biologists would like access to review the documentation for their research projects... but these people are not businessmen and they may not fully understand nor appreciate business concepts like cost.
Post by: nwwanderer on January 24, 2016, 10:45:57 PM
Post by: Little Dave on January 24, 2016, 11:42:19 PM
So... the agency ponies up $50K each year from the cute license plates. Each large outfit could have losses two or three times that much.
I suppose it is kind of like doing taxes, filling out form 9999 to get a tax credit of 58 cents. Then fun times arrive a month or two later when the agency sends the letter about an audit.
Well if there's any good in this, licence plate guy feels good about doing stuff. :chuckle:
Post by: MuleDeer on January 26, 2016, 04:45:07 PM
Post by: JDHasty on January 27, 2016, 08:16:28 PM
All the ranchers I know get up no later than 5:00 am, work all day and never get done till after dark. All these deterrents offered to them requires adding more time to their already overload of work. They've read and talked to other ranchers about the success rate of these deterrents. The only one that seems to make a small difference is range riders which usually costs them extra money which they don't have. If range riders were totally free of charge you'd be seeing more participation. They don't hate wolves but do hate losing their livestock to them or anything that steals their livelihood. Some have decided to stay out of the radar screen completely and deal with the wolves tHemselves.
Until you convince them your deterrents actually work and are willing to pay 100% of the costs, don't require them to add time to their busy day and pay them restitution for ALL wolf kills you will not get them on board. Hiring wolf lovers to investigate depredations has really set the program back. When multiple circumstantial evidences (trail cam pics, recent tracks, wolf hair on fence, 60 pounds of calf missing in one night) of a kill are present and they declare it is an unknown, then their credibility is destroyed with the rancher. This rancher tells his story to all his friend ranchers and they all distrust the the whole group of agencies pushing for wolf reintroduction. Being truthful and honest with a farmer or rancher is at the top of their list. They can spot a rat quickly and will take another direction and not look back.
:yeah:
And I might add that the only three days my cousin and his wife got to take a little three day vacation in 2014 to enjoy themselves was while my six-year old and I were on the ranch visiting for a week and could water cattle, feed cattle and open and close head gates and move flood irrigation dams. They got three days and two nights in Glacier Park and that was it. And when you ranch right up against The Bob you deal with grizzly bears and wolves along with mountain lions.