Thursday, February 16, 2006

Wyoming agriculture industry predator control proposal calls for $10 Million from taxpayers

Industry seeks vast expansion of predator control

By BRODIE FARQUHAR
Star-Tribune capital bureau
CHEYENNE -- Members of Wyoming's agriculture industry are gunning for a $10 million expansion of predator control efforts in the state, partly to prepare for state management of wolves.

House Bill 24 is sponsored by the Joint Agriculture, Public Lands and Water Resources Interim Committee. The measure, which received the necessary two-thirds vote for introduction in the House, is scheduled to be considered by the House Agriculture Committee this morning.

The bill stems from a legal opinion issued last March by Attorney General Patrick Crank. In that opinion, Crank said predators are considered wildlife and are held in trust by the state. Further, the state has given local predatory animal districts control over predatory animals, including those that prey upon wildlife not just livestock.

Many Wyoming counties have predatory animal districts, with boards that direct predator control efforts in their areas. The boards are funded by fees collected during brand inspections, along with some state funding, and board members are elected by livestock producers who pay for brand inspections.

The state also has an Animal Damage Management Board, which was established by the 1999 Legislature to coordinate a statewide predator program. The program is administered by a 15-member board. It is funded through an annual $100,000 allocation from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, a $125,000 appropriation from the state's general fund and $5,000 from other sources.

Crank held that the Animal Damage Management Board is required to consider requests from local boards for assistance, but is not obligated to fund those activities. Finally, the attorney general said the state board is not obligated to fund federal Wildlife Services control efforts, which make up more than 10 percent of local districts' bills.

The upshot of all this, said John Etchepare, director of the state Department of Agriculture, is that local predator management boards don’t have the money to do anything more than manage predators in order to protect livestock. To do more such as knock down skunk populations that are prone to rabies outbreaks, or to manage predators for wildlife values requires a larger income stream, he said.

“The attorney general ruled that these local boards are responsible for any and all predator issues,” Etchepare said.

He noted that several local boards are broke and out of business, while others are hanging in there.

“If the feds ever allow us to manage wolves, that’ll have a huge impact on these predator districts,” he added.

What the bill would do

HB 24 calls for a $10 million appropriation per biennium to boost predator control efforts. About 3 percent of that amount would go to administration, with $9.7 million made available for local predator management district boards to apply for grants to supplement and enhance their efforts. Those districts now have about $550,000 to work with per year.

Grants could cover the costs of full-time and part-time trappers and the costs of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for predator management for livestock and wildlife. In order to qualify for grants, the local boards would have to expand their membership by three hunters or sportsmen.

The bill also would increase livestock branding fees to $1 each per sheep, goat or cattle up from 80 cents per head of sheep and 50 cents per head of cattle.

Hank Uhden, interim manager for the Department of Agriculture’s technical services division, said predator control revenues have dwindled over the years. Over time, livestock operators have been switching from sheep to cattle in part because predators take more sheep than cattle, and because the predator control fee is higher for sheep than cattle.

“A decade ago, the revenues were about double what they are today,” Uhden said.

Terry Cleveland, director of Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said the Game and Fish Commission supports the bill because it would help fund predator control programs aimed at aiding wildlife.

“Since wildlife is of interest and value to everyone in the state, it is appropriate to use general appropriation funds, rather than tap hunters and fishermen,” Cleveland said.

Jason Marsden, director of Wyoming Conservation Voters, acknowledged that livestock producers put a great deal of faith in predator control efforts, but there’s not much solid science to back up the contention that predator control programs are cost effective.

A better use of that additional $10 million, if it is all in the name of being pro-wildlife, is to spend the money on such things as habitat or forage improvements and disease prevention, Marsden said.

Predator control produces only temporary effects, Marsden said. Current research indicates that if 70 percent of a coyote population is taken out over three years, there’s only a two-year period of low coyote predation before it spikes again, he said.

Directing that $10 million into a more liberal livestock compensation program might be more cost effective for the public, Marsden said. “Depending on who is doing the counting, the cost per coyote can range from $70 to $600 or more,” he said.

  • Casper Star-Tribune
  • 0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home