I would like to thank Landpoke

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Levin

http://www.defenders.org/programs_an...nsation_trust/

"A notable scheme in the US was started by Defenders of Wildlife, a non-government organisation. Their Wolf Compensation Trust was created in 1987 to pay compensation when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Rockies. The Trust fund of $100,000, started by donations from individuals interested in wolf recovery, pays the market value of livestock verified by federal investigators as killed by wolves. Payments were expanded in 1995 to cover the reintroduction of wolves to Arizona and New Mexico.

According to Defenders of Wildlife, in the 13 years from the Wolf Compensation Trust's inception to 2000, it has paid $136,627 to 129 ranchers for 529 depredation incidents (for at least 167 cattle, 338 sheep and some dozens of other animals including pigs and fowl). This amounts to an average of $235 dollars per animal lost to wolves. The Trust also provides guarding dogs, fences and other depredation prevention measures for livestock ranchers."

"Verified by federal investigators." Somebody check out the rates for even pigs or sheep and see how many sell for $235.

The plan doesn't work you envirowanker. But hey, it sounds great on a website and some faggit politician from New York can go and circle jerk with his constituents that the federal lands are teaming with elk and sage grouse.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by creekster

I woudl just like to point out that it is the Sierra club and not the Sierras club.

Let's do this, right now.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Levin

From RMEF's website:

"We neither support nor oppose the federal wolf recovery program, but we do favor existing plans to remove wolves from the endangered species list so they can be managed locally by state wildlife agencies."

In other words, they support the eradication of the gray wolf. That is totally inconsistent with their desire for a healthy and strong elk population. The wolves take out the sick, old, and laggardly among the elk herds. In fact, the wolf and other predators like it played a large part in shaping the evolution of the elk into the majestic beast that it is.

Just more kowtowing to local ranchers who can't spare a cow every now and then WHEN WILDLIFE GROUPS HAVE PROGRAMS TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR ANY CATTLE LOSS RESULTING FROM A WOLF ATTACK.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would allowing wolves to be managed locally by state wildlife agencies, which have seemingly done a fantastic job in managing the deer populations, be supporting the eradication of the gray wolf?

It seems like the BEST solution for managing local populations (outside of allowing nature to run it's course, which is obviously not a viable solution nowadays) of wolves would be exactly what they support.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

Those stats I quoted before are old.

Total number of payments from 1987 to June 2008: $1,100,122

see http://www.defenders.org/resources/p...tion_trust.pdf

As Defenders of Wildlife states, "Our goal is to shift economic responsibility for wolf recovery away from the individual rancher and toward the millions of people who want to see the wolf populations restored. When ranchers alone are forced to bear the cost of wolf recovery, it creates animosity and ill will toward the wolf."

So does ignorance, as this discussion has shown . . .

That doesn't sound like a fair compensation.

I'll give them credit for attempting to do something, but environmental extremists still don't get it. It's about allowing westerners to make a living, not about pushing a political agenda.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would allowing wolves to be managed locally by state wildlife agencies, which have seemingly done a fantastic job in managing the deer populations, be supporting the eradication of the gray wolf?

It seems like the BEST solution for managing local populations (outside of allowing nature to run it's course, which is obviously not a viable solution nowadays) of wolves would be exactly what they support.

BUTCH OTTER SAID HE WANTED TO SHOOT A WOLF! DAMMIT WHY IS LEVIN THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THROUGH THE SMOKESCREEN OF HIS PLAN TO SPECIES CLEANSE!

For the record I feel dirty defending anything Butch Otter has said or done. While I think man means no ill will, I just don't think he is a real bright fellow. I do think the state is better served with him as the Idaho Guvna than back in DC, he was embarassing. We do better with gay politicians!

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Levin

Landpoke -- so you believed that it's not worth cutting into ranchers' profits for a garbage animal like the wolf. You were obviously ignorant of the Wolf Compensation Fund noted above. Does that change your opinion?

No, I've heard of it I just wasn't aware of the particulars. So you're suggesting that ranchers should have to take pennies on the dollar for a wolf killed cow or what have you?

Even stipulating that, it seems wildly inefficient when poison or a bullet can take care of the same problem for much less.

[Levin]

If the compensation is too low, then Defenders of Wildlife should up the ante; they should lobby for private donations; and if the government cares, it should donate too. I don't know what fair compensation is here, but the principle is correct.

See the other thread on Mustangs to read about Idaho's local wolf management plan. They want to kill 40% of them the first year.

[landpoke]

And just so we're clear, wolves, mountain lions, coyotes etc. add nothing to my quality of life. You can't really eat them and there's not enough of them for wide-spread leather or fur production.

Cattle, on the other hand, are highly useful for the above noted purposes and contribute to my overall happiness and well being. It's not a hard analysis to make.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

If the compensation is too low, then Defenders of Wildlife should up the ante; they should lobby for private donations; and if the government cares, it should donate too. I don't know what fair compensation is here, but the principle is correct.

See the other thread on Mustangs to read about Idaho's local wolf management plan. They want to kill 40% of them the first year.

Tax the ranchers extra, and use the tax to pay the ranchers back.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tax the ranchers extra, and use the tax to pay the ranchers back.

I don't like that solution. Ranchers shouldn't bear the cost for the rest of us; we should all share in the cost.