6 ms·

The people recommending the lower quota aren't far off elite lobbyists in NY and DC, but Wisconsin's own Wolf Harvest Advisory Committee, which includes hunters

The people recommending the lower quota aren't far off elite lobbyists in NY and DC, but Wisconsin's own Wolf Harvest Advisory Committee, which includes hunters in its cohort.

aww_dang 5y ago
The point stands that wolf reintroduction has been lobbied for by groups like the WWF. 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037 https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wwf-s-green-headquarters https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wwf-s-green-headquarters https://defenders.org/wildlife/gray-wolf https://defenders.org/wildlife/gray-wolf https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-of-wildlife-speaks-out-against-wisconsins-proposed-excessive-wolf-quota https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-of-wildlife-speaks-... "Defenders of Wildlife Speaks Out Against Wisconsin’s Proposed Excessive Wolf Quota" Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20036 How many farmers are included on the committee? How are farmers compensated for wolf predation? How are farmers compensated for reduced grazing productivity? Who pays this compensation, if any?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  > who pays… The state of Wisconsin, for one: https://p.widencdn.net/7o52me/WolfDamagePayments https://p.widencdn.net/7o52me/WolfDamagePayments From https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/maps.html https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/maps.ht... I also know the state of MN pays for wolf depredation as well, I’m sure you’re capable of researching this further if you want to know which other states pay out.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Thanks for providing those links. It appears the taxpayers are on the hook for these payouts, in addition to whatever other overhead the program costs. The other questions remains unaddressed from my research. There are other economic factors aside from direct kills of livestock by wolves. Not to mention the transaction costs of engaging with the bureaucracy to make claims, or claims denied. https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdf https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdf >However, there have been concerns from livestock producers in this region about the economic impacts related to factors other than the direct losses of animals killed by wolves. The very threat of depredation by wolves on livestock can be stressful to farmers (Fritts et al. 2003). Shelton (2004) reported that livestock producers have increased costs associated with efforts to prevent predation which may include night confinement, improved fencing, early weaning, choice of grazing area, or increased feeding costs from a loss of grazing acreage. >Though there is not definitive research supporting the following, it is plausible that other impacts predators may have on livestock production include abortions from the stress of being harassed by predators, disease transmission, decreased weight gain from increased vigilance by livestock living near predators, potential reduction in meat quality from stress, and emotional stress placed on livestock producers concerned about depredations. https://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/coping-wolves-wisconsin-part-1 https://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/coping-wolves-wis... >In 2013, verified wolf damage on a farm in central Wisconsin resulted in cattle stampeding into a cranberry marsh, causing $50,000 in damages to the cranberry grower. In 2014, a cattle producer in northern Wisconsin experienced weight loss in 160 steers due to wolf-caused stress. The steers actually lost weight over a three-month period whereas each should have gained 180 pounds. The net loss to this cattle producer as a result of the stress was $43,200. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to question the value of these programs. They clearly negatively impact the quality of life for certain communities. If people in DC or elsewhere want to enjoy the value of wild wolves, perhaps they should create a privately owned preserve for their wolves. Let the users of the services provided by wild wolves pay for the value they derive from it. If there's a responsible way to keep a black bear in NYC, it is in a zoo, insured and funded by user fees. The point may be unpopular here, but the logic is sound. The defenses of state owned wolves here largely fall back upon romanticism, which can be adequately served by private solutions.

The people recommending the lower quota aren't far off elite lobbyists in NY and DC, but Wisconsin's own Wolf Harvest Advisory Committee, which includes hunters in its cohort.

aww_dang 5y ago

The point stands that wolf reintroduction has been lobbied for by groups like the WWF. 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037 https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wwf-s-green-headquarters https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wwf-s-green-headquarters https://defenders.org/wildlife/gray-wolf https://defenders.org/wildlife/gray-wolf https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-of-wildlife-speaks-out-against-wisconsins-proposed-excessive-wolf-quota https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-of-wildlife-speaks-... "Defenders of Wildlife Speaks Out Against Wisconsin’s Proposed Excessive Wolf Quota" Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20036 How many farmers are included on the committee? How are farmers compensated for wolf predation? How are farmers compensated for reduced grazing productivity? Who pays this compensation, if any?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quickthrowman 5y ago
> who pays… The state of Wisconsin, for one: https://p.widencdn.net/7o52me/WolfDamagePayments https://p.widencdn.net/7o52me/WolfDamagePayments From https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/maps.html https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/maps.ht... I also know the state of MN pays for wolf depredation as well, I’m sure you’re capable of researching this further if you want to know which other states pay out.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Thanks for providing those links. It appears the taxpayers are on the hook for these payouts, in addition to whatever other overhead the program costs. The other questions remains unaddressed from my research. There are other economic factors aside from direct kills of livestock by wolves. Not to mention the transaction costs of engaging with the bureaucracy to make claims, or claims denied. https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdf https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0658.pdf >However, there have been concerns from livestock producers in this region about the economic impacts related to factors other than the direct losses of animals killed by wolves. The very threat of depredation by wolves on livestock can be stressful to farmers (Fritts et al. 2003). Shelton (2004) reported that livestock producers have increased costs associated with efforts to prevent predation which may include night confinement, improved fencing, early weaning, choice of grazing area, or increased feeding costs from a loss of grazing acreage. >Though there is not definitive research supporting the following, it is plausible that other impacts predators may have on livestock production include abortions from the stress of being harassed by predators, disease transmission, decreased weight gain from increased vigilance by livestock living near predators, potential reduction in meat quality from stress, and emotional stress placed on livestock producers concerned about depredations. https://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/coping-wolves-wisconsin-part-1 https://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/coping-wolves-wis... >In 2013, verified wolf damage on a farm in central Wisconsin resulted in cattle stampeding into a cranberry marsh, causing $50,000 in damages to the cranberry grower. In 2014, a cattle producer in northern Wisconsin experienced weight loss in 160 steers due to wolf-caused stress. The steers actually lost weight over a three-month period whereas each should have gained 180 pounds. The net loss to this cattle producer as a result of the stress was $43,200. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to question the value of these programs. They clearly negatively impact the quality of life for certain communities. If people in DC or elsewhere want to enjoy the value of wild wolves, perhaps they should create a privately owned preserve for their wolves. Let the users of the services provided by wild wolves pay for the value they derive from it. If there's a responsible way to keep a black bear in NYC, it is in a zoo, insured and funded by user fees. The point may be unpopular here, but the logic is sound. The defenses of state owned wolves here largely fall back upon romanticism, which can be adequately served by private solutions.