Conservation Groups and Livestock Interests Work to Create a New $25 Million Rancher Slush Fund

Recently we were informed of a new effort by two conservation groups, a Native American tribe and livestock interests “to secure $25 million from the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill to help livestock producers reduce the risk of livestock losses to grizzly bears, wolves, black bears and mountain lions.”

This taxpayer money is meant to “reduce the impacts that carnivores can have on livestock producers” although how the funds’ effectiveness would be monitored is unclear.

There is no doubt about the need for ranchers to incorporate non-lethal, preventative livestock husbandry practices into their grazing management regimes in order to prevent conflict with wolves and other native predators.

The question that needs to be answered is who ought be responsible for the costs of needed animal husbandry ?  Do ranchers have a right to a predator free landscape ? Given what we know of the past, how good an idea is it for taxpayers to further subsidize efforts that ought be standard management practices ?

Here is a list of those organizations that have signed onto this idea so far:

• Montana Stockgrower’s Association
• Montana Woolgrower’s Association
• Montana Cattlemen’s Association
• Montana Farmer’s Union
• Blackfoot Tribe
• SFW, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
• MACO, Montana Association of Counties
• Montana Livestock Cooperative
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Madison County Commissioner
• Jefferson County Commissioners
• Beaverhead County Commissioner
• Granite County Commissioner
• Natural Resources Defense Council

Why should taxpayers be expected to cover this cost of livestock production ?

On federal public lands, the cost of the grazing fee is dramatically below market value despite direction in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) that the BLM recover market value for livestock grazing and other commercial uses of public lands.

One of the reasons the Forest Service and the BLM cite for the dramatically low grazing fee is that livestock may be lost to predators.  So, taxpayers are already providing subsidized forage to ranchers to protect their livestock from the risks on public lands – including predators.

Why another slush fund for ranchers ?

Subsidies Aimed at Increasing Ranchers’ “Tolerance” for Wolves Haven’t Worked

Since 1987 Defenders of Wildlife has compensated ranchers for livestock losses attributed to wolves in an effort to increase ranchers’ “tolerance” for wolves.  We at The Wildlife News have scrutinized the efficacy of past efforts to bribe ranchers for their “tolerance” of wolves, and while there is a legitimate argument to be made that such efforts may be helpful in the realm of general public relations – any claims to efficacy on the ground, at increasing ranchers’ “tolerance” for wolves or for curtailing the Livestock industry’s willingness to deploy considerable political capital against wolves are generally unfounded.   It’s been a slush fund that has done more to line ranchers’ pockets and introduce a “moral hazard” preventing precautionary husbandry practices than anything else.

Fortunately, once wolves were delisted by a congressional rider, Defenders ceased paying for those losses in the Northern Rockies. Unfortunately, ranchers convinced the federal government – i.e. taxpayers – to keep the spigot of dollars flowing in 2010 and into the foreseeable future.

Tax-Payer Dollars Have Been Co-opted From Similar Pilot Efforts In the Past

One recent source of compensation funding came from language inserted in the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Act which appropriated $1 million in funding for five years that was distributed to several states by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  The language of the appropriation explicitly directed that funds be spent equally for compensation and on proactive, non-lethal efforts to avoid wolf and livestock conflicts.

ALLOCATION OF FUNDING.—[The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting jointly], shall allocate funding made available […] equally […] to assist livestock producers in undertaking proactive, non-lethal activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to predation by wolves; and […] to compensate livestock producers for livestock losses due to such predation.

Despite the explicit direction of Congress, the USFWS issued a waiver for fiscal year 2010 telling the states that “distribution of grant funds may be divided between the two purposes in whatever proportion each recipient State deems appropriate.”  This resulted in the funds being used entirely on compensation efforts in at least the state of Idaho.

To make matters worse, the distribution of federal, state, and private dollars to compensate ranchers for wolf kills has been an unfettered disaster.  The bodies responsible for distributing funds are made-up of ranchers themselves and by county commissioners more enthralled by the cowboy mystique than any sense of fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.  The programs have not been subject to any meaningful public scrutiny and ranchers are getting paid for verified and unverified losses alike – there exists no accountability or practical measures of fiduciary responsibility.  It is a slush fund.

Additionally, the State of Idaho receives money from the federal government for wolf management expenses.  Out of this funding, $100,000 is diverted away from management to the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation and is spent to reimburse ranchers for livestock losses.  Much of this money is actually spent on unverified losses of livestock to wolves.

The documentation required to receive compensation for unverified losses is rather loose and leaves the possibility open that negligent ranchers will receive compensation for livestock left or lost on public lands at the end of the season.  One other observation that has been made is that it also dilutes the amount that other ranchers receive for verified losses.

One recent example of reimbursement for unverified losses which illustrates just how thin the evidence has to be, involves reimbursement for sheep that trampled each other to death.  The investigator at the scene was unable to determine whether wolves were even involved in the incident and the sheepherder never saw what caused the guard dogs to start barking and growling which caused the sheep to pile up and trample each other to death.  The tracks of a lone wolf were found in the area but it was never determined whether the wolf was there at the time of the incident or came across the dead sheep later.  Nonetheless, the sheep operator was reimbursed $6,226.90 for the loss of 18 sheep and 58 lambs despite the complete lack of evidence that wolves were involved.

Another example in Montana, where 126 unattended sheep were killed by wolves, even after warnings to move or guard the sheep were ignored, illustrates that negligence is rewarded using compensation money and that money from programs intended to increase tolerance for wolves is spent without any requirements on behalf of the recipients.

Will The Money Be Spent to Subsidize State Efforts to Reduce Wolf Populations ?

Initial ideas for how these proposed dollars would be spent include the suggestion that they may be used to help trap and collar wolves to help ranchers monitor packs.

State governments are actively looking to reduce wolf numbers.  A critical component of anti-wolf efforts to dramatically reduce wolf numbers relies on managers’ ability to hunt them down.  However, as it stands managers have got a real problem as confirmed by information received about the proposed non-lethal protection fund :

The idea for this fund came out of the recognition that there are chronic budget shortages at the state and federal levels for carnivore management

State budgets are plummeting, as are Wildlife Services’ resources, so dollars to trap and collar wolves in order to monitor their locations are harder to come by.

As the saying goes: ‘a collared wolf is a dead wolf’. It even goes beyond that.  Collared (i.e. “Judas”) wolves lead Wildlife Services, state officials, and perhaps even ranchers and hunters to the pack, enabling managers to kill at will.

Even as these dollars may be raised with the best of intentions, is it likely that the monies acquired by this Farm Bill program would be used for trapping and collaring wolves ?  Is it likely that in the future, those “Judas” wolves will enable control actions aimed at eradicating entire packs from the landscape ?

What other budget shortfalls that were once used to “MAN”age wolves at the state and local level may be offset by these dollars ?

What Are the Environmental Costs of “Co-Existence” Efforts That Have the Effect of Subsidizing Ranching on Public Lands ?

Some of the larger wolf-advocacy groups are frequently put in a position of both publicly celebrating the ecological contributions of wolves (i.e. “trophic cascade”) to landscape recovery across a myriad of habitats while seeking to work with ranchers and ranching industry groups to find common-ground and opportunities at reducing conflicts in the name of predator recovery.  Obviously this effort is one such case.

But is a strategy of finding government money to cover the cost of livestock production, particularly on public lands, consistent with the habitat recovery objectives so championed as a primary reason why wolves are important to the landscape ?

Livestock grazing is the most ubiquitous and destructive land-use on the western public landscape.  Spending tax-dollars to cover the costs of business for ranchers helps keep that activity on public lands, even if it does prevent wolves from interacting with livestock.

“Co-existing” with Livestock means ecological impacts across the landscape, diminishing wolves’ ecological niche.

In addition, George Wuerthner notes:

Even so-called “predator-friendly” livestock operations can have a negative effect on overall wolf recovery. For one, there is no free lunch. Currently, the majority of forage is allotted to livestock, leaving less to support native herbivores. In many areas, this significantly reduces the overall number of prey animals available to wolves.

Second, the mere presence of domestic livestock displaces many ungulate species, from mule deer to elk to antelope. Displacement can force native herbivores into less desirable habitat, making them more vulnerable to weather, poor forage and other impacts that reduce their populations.

Third, dead animals left on the land are attractants for wolves. Wolves often get their first taste of beef or lamb by consuming a dead cow or sheep before they prey on live animals. By creating conditions that can turn a wolf into a livestock predator, even a predator-friendly producer may contribute to the death of wolves if the animals wind up killing livestock elsewhere.

Is there even a need for this additional subsidy?

As we have seen in Idaho, and soon Montana and likely Wyoming, under state management the wolf population has severely declined due to high levels of mortality.  In Idaho the population was reduced by 48-59% in just one year leaving an estimated 496-539 wolves just before pups were born in April.  Presumably, this leaves fewer wolves in areas where conflict occurs and negates any rationale for providing an additional subsidy.

Public Lands Ranchers Already Receive a Myriad of Subsidies

Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program
Wool subsidies
Livestock subsidies
Livestock Indemnity Program
NRCS
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
Public Lands Grazing Fee
H2A migrant worker program

Is there a way to require ranchers to incorporate non-lethal, preventative livestock husbandry practices into their grazing management without the use of tax-dollars ?

Yes, at the very least on public lands.  Public lands livestock ranchers apply for permits to graze their cattle on hundreds of millions of acres of public lands.  Those permits are subject to a variety of environmental laws and agency rules meant to regulate the land use in order to ensure species recovery, water quality, and other environmental values.  Every permit is subject to “Terms and Conditions” which are enforceable by law and which manage where livestock may be in an allotment and for how long, maintenance of fences and livestock installations, how much forage livestock may eat prior to moving along, and other management protocols prescribed to protect the public interest.

Given the fee for such permits are already subsidized to financially accommodate the threat of conflict with native predators, there is no reason why a concerted effort by wolf-advocacy groups could not encourage the Department of Interior and Agriculture, at the planning level and even individual permitting processes, to incorporate non-lethal, preventative livestock husbandry practices as “terms and conditions” of use of public lands.  In fact, many groups such as Western Watersheds Project, are working on the ground to accomplish just that.  If ranchers want to use public lands that belong to everyone, why should they not be expected to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect their livestock AND protect members of the natural communities including predators ?

The Christopher Columbus method of putting livestock out on the landscape in the spring and then “discovering” them again in the fall does not reduce predation on livestock and shouldn’t be rewarded with greater subsidies.

There is no reason to subsidize the very industry-group whose antagonism toward wolves is largely responsible for fueling the War on Wolves.

Written by Brian Ertz and Ken Cole