APPENDIX A. Big Game Programs. Colorado Oregon Saskatchewan Utah Wyoming

Transcription

1 APPENDIX A Big Game Programs Colorado Oregon Saskatchewan Utah Wyoming Appendix A 1

2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Jurisdiction Colorado Contact Steve Porter Legislation The division of Wildlife s Game Damage Program began in 1931 with legislation passed by the State General Assembly providing for payments for wildlife damage In 1972 liability of damage by wildlife was limited to only big game animals as defined by State Statutes. In 1995 the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) updated the game damage program. It streamlined investigation and processing, reduced costs of providing preventative materials and linked the payment process with the preventative materials distribution process. Objectives To successfully manage the state s wildlife by providing solutions for the compensation, reduction and prevention of damages and conflicts between people especially landowners in the agricultural sector, and the states diverse population of big game animals. The program promotes a higher tolerance level for those big game animals that cause significant damage to private property and allowing the CDOW to manage for significantly higher big game populations for the use and enjoyment of hunters and all other interested in sustaining Colorado s rich and diverse wildlife heritage. The specific objectives of the Habitat Partnership Program are: To encourage an atmosphere of partnership between wildlife managers, habitat managers including private landowners, and user of the wildlife resource. To establish local committees to ensure appropriate public involvement, on a local basis, in identifying range management problems and recommending solutions to these problems. To allocate and commit funds to carry out solutions. To ensure that private land habitat issues are considered in the big game herd management plans. To shift the emphasis for antlerless harvest to kill more of the animals that are causing the problem and fewer of the animals tat are not. Appendix A 2

3 Administrative Structure The Director of the Division of Wildlife, with the approval of the Wildlife Commission appoints a Committee of nine persons to act as the Habitat Partnership Council The council has statewide responsibility and authority. The council consists of the following members: 2 sportsperson who purchase big game licenses on a regular basis in Colorado. 2 persons representing livestock growers in Colorado. 1 person representing agricultural crop producers. 1 person from the USDA Forest Service. 1 person from the US Dept of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 1 person for Colorado State University Range Extension Program 1 person from the Colorado Division of Wildlife The duties of the council are to: Advise local committees and be available for advise regarding issues which may be viewed differently from a statewide rather than a local perspective. Assist in the dissemination of information concerning the Habitat Partnership Program and to facilitate communication between local committees to ensure that duplication of effort in solving similar problems in minimized. Review DAU and DMP plans for compliance with program guidelines and to recommend revisions or commission action as appropriate. Monitor program effectiveness and to propose to the commission changes in guidelines, game damage regulations, and land acquisition planning and review as appropriate. Certify to the State Treasurer that payment vouchers submitted by the local committees are consistent with DMP s approved by the Wildlife Commission. Such certification will be the only requirement necessary to authorize the State Treasurer to disburse funds from the Habitat Partnership Cash Fund. Expend funds as necessary to implement the Habitat Partnership Program and/or related projects. The council submits an annual report to the Director of the Division of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission, the Senate and the House Appendix A 3

4 Agricultural Committees, the Executive Director of the department of Natural Resources and the General Assembly. To facilitate the function of the Habitat Partnership Program, the state Council and Regional Committees, there is a Habitat Partnership Coordinator employed by the Division of Wildlife. Regional Structures There are 17 regional committees representing the 17 regional game management areas of the state. The Division requests nominations from agricultural groups active within the planning area to serve on a six member committee along with representatives of the Division of Wildlife, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. Appendix A 4

5 Regional committees are responsible for: Developing a summary of information available about rangeland habitat capabilities including specific data where available. Assemble all pertinent information about habitats. This is used for production of a Habitat Evaluation Report (HER) After the HER is produced the council develops and implements a Big Game Distribution management Plan (DMP) to resolve forage, growing hay crop, harvested hay crop aftermath grazing and fence conflicts. The regional committees report the state council on any changes etc. The regional councils are also responsible for overseeing the development of Data Analysis Unit Plans. These plans include: Herd population goals and male sex ratio objective. Examine public desires and biological herd capabilities and determine what is an appropriate balance of each with regards to herd size. Collects and organizes most of the important management data for particular herd into one planning document. Determines issues through a public scoping process. Identifies alternative solutions to the issues. Selects the preferred population and sex ratio alternative. Sets 5 year population objectives Compensation Mechanisms Direct payment is used where conflicts cannot be alleviated in any other way and the party involved is eligible for big game damage payments. This can include lease payments to landowners for forage and fence damage on private lands by concentrations of big game animals. Compensation is only used under circumstances where it is not feasible to use distribution management hunts or range improvement approaches to deal with animal concentrations. Mitigation Mechanisms Distribution management hunts designed to redistribute concentrations of big game to reduce eliminate or alleviate conflicts. Appendix A 5

6 Incentive Mechanisms Habitat improvement projects to encourage big game to use other areas during certain time of the year or to improve the habitat where they are concentrating. Fence improvement or repair. Eligibility The private landowner is eligible for compensation for damage caused by big game unless he unreasonably restricts hunting, thereby negatively impacting the harvest objectives or if he charges more than one hundred dollars per hunter per season. Additional restrictions can be developed by the local Committees to respond to local needs and to ensure the most efficient use of available resource. Source of Funding The Habitat Partnership Program costs are paid out of the Habitat Partnership Cash Fund. The amount allocated to the fund is limited to 5% of the average annual deer, elk, antelope and moose hunting license revenue attributable to the herds covered by the plans during the immediately preceding three years. Gifts, donations and reimbursements from other sources can be added to the fund. Additional funding is sought from federal agency cost sharing and private wildlife interest groups. All interest generated by the fund is credited to the fund. The compensation fund is based on allocation of general revenues from the state. Compensation Program Costs $1.5 million annually broken out as follows: $450,000 for preventative materials $685,000 for validated claims $235,000 for operating and manpower costs Appendix A 6

7 In the year 1998/99 there were a total of 355 claims for a total of $479, US. The summary of claims is provided below: Bear $253,743 Elk $ 94,487 Mule Deer $ 33,969 Mountain Lion $ 95,571 Pronghorn $ 565 White Tail Deer $ 1,167 Supply of Fencing Materials: The state supplied 209,888 feet of preventative fencing materials at an average cost of $1.35 per linear foot. Distribution of these materials was as follows: Producer Number % Apiaries % Orchards % Nurseries % Gardens 3 1.4% Vineyards 2 1.0% Stackyards % Haysheds 5 2.4% Paneled Yards 4 1.9% Sod Farms 1 0.5% Horse Yards 8 3.8% Forage 4 1.9% Extra materials % Contentious Topics/Areas At the present time the Game Damage Compensation Program is undergoing an evaluation to: Tie into other CDOW landowner programs i.e. the Habitat Partnership Program and Ranching for Wildlife Program. To improve the investigative process for bear and mountain lion damages to livestock. Appendix A 7

8 To address non-agricultural payments to landowners (property damage to tents, campers etc.). Other contentious topics include Legitimacy of the use of sportsmen dollars for the payment of damage to private property. The fact that the program only covers big game animals as defined by State Statues. Program Cost Trends The Game Damage Compensation Program has not provided information on cost trends however given the increasing conflicts due to higher animal populations it is expected that the compensation levels have risen. The Habitat Partnership Program has fixed funding from core funding and the 5% of hunting revenues. It therefore only spends what it has available. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Jurisdiction Oregon Contact Beth Waterbury Legislation Wildlife policy ORS as revised during 1993 Access and Habitat Program (bill 2538) Objectives Manage wildlife in a manner that is compatible with the primary uses of the lands and waters of the state. Major elements include: Advice on potential corrective action to solve damage. Providing repellents to landowners. Hazing offending animals. Providing barriers (haystack panels, stacked fences etc. Allowing winter feeding either preventive or corrective. Green forage program (planting diversionary crops, fertilizing, building fences, water developments etc.). Wildlife removal by hunting, trapping and transplanting or kill permits Appendix A 8

9 Management of Elk is a major component of the Oregon program. In 1981 the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted Elk Management Objectives (MO s), covering 28 Big Game Management Units. These were re-evaluated in In 1992 the Commission adopted an Oregon Elk Management Plan that called for development of Statewide s by 1997, this was accelerated by the Oregon Legislature for completion in The MO s sets the number of elk in an Elk management zone. Each MO considers the department s statutory obligation to prevent the serious depletion of wildlife, provide optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits, and to regulate elk and the public enjoyment of elk in a manner compatible with primary land users. In areas where elk winter mainly on private lands, landowner desires and damage to private property are critical factors which influence the MO. Administrative Structure Under the Access and Habitat Program, there is a seven-member board appointed by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. The board consists of: 3 members representing hunter interests. 3 members representing agriculture and timber interests. 1 member at large representing the general public. The role of the board is to review access and habitat projects and make recommendations to the commission The Access and Habitat Program provides fund for projects that include but are not limited to: Wildlife crops Rangeland forage seeding Controlled burning Pasture and meadow fertilization Protective fencing Rangeland rehabilitation Education programs Regulated hunt programs Farming equipment purchases. Regional Structure Bill 2538 established six regional advisory councils comprised in the same way as the board. Appendix A 9

10 Compensation Mechanisms Oregon does not pay direct compensation. Mitigation Regular hunting, depredation hunting, trapping. Hazing offending animals. Prevention Green forage program such as planting diversionary crops, fertilizing etc. (forage enhancement). Fencing programs. Providing repellents to landowners Incentive Mechanisms None. Sources of Funding Funding sources for the Access and Habitat Program include: $2.00 surcharge on hunting licenses Appendix A 10

11 Allocations from ODFW s green forage and deer enhancement and restoration programs. Proceeds from the auction and raffle of up to 10 deer and 10 elk tags These combined funding sources provide $2.5 million between January 1994 and June 1996 and additional $3,680,000 was levered from other sources. Program costs In excess of $1 million per year. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Jurisdiction Saskatchewan Legislation Objectives The objective of the Big Game Damage Compensation Program is to provide compensation to farmers for commercial crop losses and damage to stored forage supplies due to big game animals. Administrative Structure The Saskatchewan Big Game Compensation Program is administered by Saskatchewan Crop Insurance. Regional Structures Saskatchewan has initiated local public advisory committees to help direct prevention programs. The local public advisory committee or PAC approach to damage prevention programming results in more innovative local programming than would be possible to plan for at the provincial level Compensation Mechanisms The big game damage compensation program covers damage caused by big game (white-tailed deer, mule deer, antelope, elk, moose and bear) and will provide compensation for damage to all commercial field corps: stacked hay, silage bales, honey, market gardens, tree nurseries, sod farms and leaf cutter bees. The Waterfowl Damage Compensation Program coves crop damage caused by migratory bids. Appendix A 11

12 Producer receives up to 85% of the loss. There is a $200 deductible per crop for all claims. Payments are based on the grade in the field to reflect the actual harvested quality. Maximum claim of $5,200 and provisions on the number of stack yards per quarter section. Compensation denied to producers who have not taken adequate prevention measures, in particular if they have refused the permanent fence package. Mitigation In season depredation license. Depredation hunts are used to address a particular damage problem in a specific area. Damage control permits that permit the landowner or designate to kill big game animals of the number, species, sex and for the specific land location named on the permit. (These permits are rarely used.) Prevention Saskatchewan has a permanent fence program. The program provides the materials and the landowner must install the fence. Landowners with recurring big game damage can apply at their nearest SERM office, where they are put on a waiting list. The producer must agree to erect the fence within the time specified, must build the fence to meet the minimum specifications (7 high wire where deer are the only concern and 8 where elk are involved) Lure crops are being tried on an experimental basis. Temporary fencing is provided on emergency short-term basis. This is a nylon 7.5 high fencing material that can be attached to posts driven into the snow. Blood meal is also provided for use as a temporary prevention measure. Intercept feeding has been used successfully in Saskatchewan. Producers receive $200 per intercept feeding site. To ensure this does not become a permanent winter feeding program by producers, those who use it are offered a permanent fencing program. If they refuse they are not eligible for the intercept feeding payments. Appendix A 12

13 Source of Funding Until 1998 the Saskatchewan compensation programs were funded by a Big Game Damage Fund licence of $ This was a surcharge on hunting licences. After the Government announcement of a one time contribution of $27.8 million ($12 million for Waterfowl and $5.8 million for Big Game from the Federal Government and $5 million for each program from the Provincial Government) the $11.00 licence charge was dropped. Cost of Operation (1998) Waterfowl damage prevention $ 400,000 Waterfowl Damage compensation $3,000,000 Big game damage prevention $ 300,000 Big game damage compensation $2,300,000 $6,000,000 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Jurisdiction Utah Legislation Title 23 Wildlife Resources Code of Utah Chapter 14 Division of Wildlife Resources and Wildlife Board Chapter 16 Big Game Chapter 23 Cooperative Wildlife Management Units Application The Division of Wildlife Resources within the Department of Natural Resources is the wildlife authority for Utah. Wildlife impacts by protected wildlife are covered by the specific provisions indicated above, which apply to big game, pheasants, beaver, bears and mountain lions. Objectives Establish policies best designed to accomplish the purposes and intent of all laws pertaining to wildlife and (1) recognize that wildlife and its habitat are an essential part of a healthy, productive environment; Appendix A 13

14 (2) recognize the impact of wildlife on man, his economic activities, private property rights, and local economies; (3) seek to balance the habitat requirements of wildlife with the social and economic activities of man; (4) recognize the social and economic values of wildlife, including fishing, hunting and other uses; and (5) seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis. Administrative Structure Under Title 23, the Division of Wildlife Resources within the Department of Natural Resources is the wildlife authority for Utah and shall protect, propagate, manage, conserve and distribute protected wildlife in the state. The Division is charged with determining the facts relevant to wildlife resources and is subject to the broad policy making authority of the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board consists of 7 appointed members, with at least one having expertise or experience in each of the following areas: wildlife management and biology, habitat management, business, and economics. The Wildlife Board is advised by regional advisory councils of 12 to 15 members in each wildlife region, representing agriculture, sportsmen, non-consumptive wildlife, locally public officials, federal land agencies, and the public at large. Key characteristics are that no more than two members can be from a single wildlife region and that the Wildlife Board is available on short notice (i.e., 5 days or less) to deal with emergency situations. The Division of Wildlife Resources has prepared deer and elk management plans for each deer and elk herd in the state. These seek to balance relevant multiple uses for the range using target herd size objectives and were submitted to the Wildlife Board for approval. Revisions to management plans may be submitted as necessary. Regional Structures Title 23 provides for cooperative wildlife management units, consisting of contiguous areas, to be established by landowner associations regionally to provide income for landowners, create satisfying hunting opportunities, increase wildlife resources, provide liability and hunter damage protection to landowners, and provide access to public and private lands for hunting. These units are registered with the Wildlife Board, comply with Wildlife Board rules, and have an operator designated by the landowner association to operate the cooperative wildlife management unit. Appendix A 14

15 Mitigation Mechanisms Big Game - Owners of cultivated crops, livestock forage, fences or irrigation equipment that suffer damage are required to notify an official within 72 hours. The appropriate mitigation measures for the extent of the damage will be determined and may include herding; capture and relocation; temporary fencing; removal; hunting; and harvesting. The appropriate mitigation measure is determined in relation to damage, revenue received by the landowner, and the big game population management objective for the area. Beavers - Landowners may receive authorization to kill or trap problem animals. Compensation Mechanisms Big Game - Landowners may receive compensation for damage to cultivated crops, including crop residues that provide forage value to livestock; fences on private land; and irrigation equipment. Damage notification must occur within 72 hours of discovery, and an appraisal of damage is made as soon after notification as possible. A claim of $500 or less may be paid after appraisal; a claim over $500 or one that brings the yearly claim in excess of $500 is paid only after the total amount of all claims is determined in relation to the amount appropriated for the General Fund by the Legislature, and may be pro-rated if the account is over-committed. Bears/Mountain Lions - Compensation is available for injury to, or losses of, livestock. Notification to occur no later than 4 days after damage is discovered. Up to 50%of the fair market value, up to 50% paid from the Wildlife Resources Account and the other 50% from General Funds appropriated annually by the legislature, to the extent available. Appendix A 15

16 Incentives Mechanisms None Eligibility Any cultivated crop grown for commercial gain on private land eligible for agricultural use valuation. Livestock defined as cattle, sheep, goats or turkeys. Source of Funding Funding of Title 23 comes from a Wildlife Resources Account (WRA) within the General Fund of the state government. The WRA is supplied from several sources of which the most important are: revenues from sales of licenses, permits, tags, etc. issued by the Wildlife Board, sales, lease or rental of rights, fines and violations, and funds appropriated from the General Fund. Program Cost Cross-Compliance Claims for big game compensation may be denied or limited if: reasonable care and diligence to avoid the loss or minimize the damage has not been exercised; hunting has been unreasonably restricted. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Jurisdiction Wyoming Contact Hank Uhden (6574) Jay Lawson Legislation Bill # 0136 Enrolled Act # 132 article 3 Wyoming Animal Damage Management Program. This is a new section to the Wildlife Act specifically relating to agriculture and animals; providing for animal damage management and creating the Wyoming animal damage management board. The existing act under article 9 provides for compensation caused by game animals or birds. Objectives The State of Wyoming states that it is important to the economy of the state to maximize agricultural production and at the same time to promote, to protect and conserve the wildlife resources of the State. This is the basis for the Appendix A 16

17 creation of the Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board. The objectives of the Animal Damage Management Board is to coordinate and implement an integrated animal damage management program, based on best available science, for the benefit of human and natural resources throughout Wyoming. The act states There is created the animal damage management board for the purposes of mitigating damage caused to livestock, wildlife and crops by predatory animals, predacious birds and depredating animals or for the protection of human health and safety. The board my mitigate damage caused by depredating animals by and through a memorandum of understanding with the Wyoming game and fish commission. Administrative Structure The Animal Damage Management Board (ADMB) is composed of 12 members appointed by the governor, they include: a) The director of Wyoming Department of Agriculture b) Director of the Game and Fish Department c) 1 domestic sheep producer d) 1 cattle producer e) USDA state director f) 2 members representing the interest of sportsmen, outfitters and hunters g) President of the state predatory animal advisory board h) 1 member from an urban area i) 1 member of the Wyoming game and fish commission j) 1 member of the Wyoming board of agriculture k) 1 member representing the interests of nonconsumptive users (Urban) l) a representative for the USFS (non voting) This is the state board, which sets overall direction and administers funds. Regional Structure (Predatory Animal Board County Board) These boards have been in existence since the 1950 s but only focuses on predatory animals. Their definition of predatory animal includes those that damage crops. Working money based on mandatory check off per head ranging for $0.80 to $0.20. Industry manages the money by a peer elected board. Under the state board are district boards whose duties include: a) Determine local priorities for the management of predatory animals and predacious birds that prey upon and destroy livestock, other domestic animals wildlife and crops. Appendix A 17

18 b) Devise and put in operation those methods that best manage predatory animals and predacious birds that prey upon and destroy livestock, other domestic animals wildlife and crops. c) Administer funds received to carry out the animal damage management program d) Maintain existing financial and physical resources e) Provide input to the ADMB Compensation Mechanisms Under the original act, enacted in 1980 the following compensation program is still in place: Any landowner, lessee or agent whose property is being damaged by any of the big or trophy game animals or game birds, must report the damage within 15 days to the nearest game warden, damage control warden, supervisor or commission member. Claims are considered, based on a description of the livestock or bees damaged or killed, the damaged land, cultivated crops, stored crops, including honey and hives, seed crops, improvements and extraordinary damage to grass. The basic procedure for compensation is as follows: a) Claims cannot be less than $100 (this has recently been dropped) b) Landowners must permit hunting c) Landowners must notify WGFD no later than 15 days after the damage d) Landowners must present a verified claim that specifies the damage and amount claimed no later than 60 days after the last item of damage is discovered. Verified claim, is a claim which the claimant has signed and sworn and affidavit e) Claims are paid within 90 days. Compensation is also paid by way of a landowner coupon program in which redemptions of $11.00 are paid to the landowner for every deer, antelope and elk harvested on private land. Mitigation At the present time the ADMB is a 5 year pilot project where it has set up a system to handle proposals that are related to animal management mitigation measures and research on animal mitigation measures as the relate to agriculture. Incentives Appendix A 18

19 None reported Eligibility Any landowner, lessee or agent whose property is being damaged by any of the big or trophy game animals or game birds are eligible for compensation. They must however allow hunting or their property Sources of Funding The compensation program, by statute maintains a working balance or $500,000 US. The ADMB board has $100,000 base funding from the Wyoming game and Fish Commission. It raises additional funds by Landowner coupon affidavits, ADM stamps and a voluntary branding inspection fee. Predator management board raises money by a mandatory check off per head of cattle or sheep Landowner Satisfaction Discussions with staff indicate that the programs work well with crop damage from deer and elk but there are significant problems with respect to compensation on predatory kills of livestock. The problems arise around the verification of kills. Program Costs Costs have been rising mainly due to increased wildlife populations. Appendix A 19

20 APPENDIX B Trophy Animal Programs Grizzly Bear Appendix B 1

21 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Application Grizzly Bear Background The US Grizzly Bear Recovery Program focuses in 6 remaining areas in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming that have habitat suitable for self-sustaining grizzly populations. Of these areas, 5 are currently inhabited by grizzlies while the Bitterroot Ecosystem area of Idaho is not. The grizzly was listed as a threatened species in In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee was formed with members from the National Park Service; the states of Idaho, Montana, Washington, Wyoming; and British Columbia. The goal is to remove the grizzly from endangered species status. Contact Location Hank Fischer, Defenders of Wildlife Ed Bangs, US Fish and Wildlife, Bitterroot Ecosystem, central Idaho and part of western Montana Legislation Endangered Species Act (1974) Objectives Grizzly bear re-introduction in 2000, designated as non-essential, experimental population. A minimum of 25 grizzly bears would be reintroduced over a period of 5 years. The program has a recovery goal of approximately 280 grizzly bears, to be reached within 50 to 110 years depending on survivorship of young bears. Revisions require public review and formal US Fish and Wildlife approval. Administration Day-to-day management by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in coordination with Idaho Department of Fish and Game and/or the Nez Perce Tribe, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the US DA Forest Service. Regional Structures Citizen Management Committee (CMC) comprised of 12 local citizens, 2 agency representatives from federal and state agencies and 1 member from the Nez Perce Tribe. The CMC is responsible for recommending changes in land use standards and guidelines as necessary for grizzly bear management, leading toward recovery of the grizzly bear and minimization of the social and economic impacts to the extent practicable. The CMC is to be assisted by two scientific advisors. Appendix B 2

22 Damage Prevention Measures Hazing and harassment of grizzlies on private lands allowed. Removal of animal carcasses, use of guard dogs, improved herding practices. Mitigation Mechanisms Special designation of experimental non-essential population within the Endangered Species Act allows ranchers to shoot a grizzly seen killing livestock. Bears can be killed by landowners on private lands in self-defence. Bears killing livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, mules or bees) and evading capture would be killed under permit issued by US Fish and Wildlife. USDA Wildlife Service would be destroying problem bears. Capture of offending bears and relocation. Electric fences. Compensation Mechanisms At recovered population level, yearly livestock losses to predation by bears are anticipated to range from 4-8 cattle and 5-44 sheep. Incidents related to property damage, and conflicts involving human foods, garbage, gardens, orchards and beehives are calculated to average 5.5 in number per year. This loss is estimated at $2,720 - $8,568 per year. Experience with recovering grizzly populations in other areas suggests that 63% of the nuisance incidence were related to sanitation problems where bears obtained garbage or other human food, 24% property damage, 7% bee hives and 7% orchards. The recovery program does not propose a compensation program for ranchers, but does favour the payment of losses to individual ranchers out of a special compensation trust fund (similar to the gray wolf fund). Incentives Mechanisms Eligibility All owners of livestock would be expected to be eligible for compensation. Source of Funding Program Evaluation Status of the program to be reevaluated at 5-year intervals. After ten years the CMC, using the best scientific information available, will make a decision on whether the reintroduction to create a self-sustaining grizzly population has been successful. If failure is indicated, no more bears will be introduced. Appendix B 3

23 Program Cost Annual costs in first 5 years - $434,000 Annual costs after 5 years - $193,000 Appendix B 4

24 APPENDIX C Predator Programs Utah Minnesota Arizona/Montana Greater Yellowstone/Central Idaho Manitoba Wyoming Appendix C 1

25 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Jurisdiction Utah Legislation Title 23 Wildlife Resources Code of Utah Chapter 24 Wildlife Damage Compensation Act Application The Division of Wildlife Resources within the Department of Natural Resources is the wildlife authority for Utah. Wildlife impacts by protected wildlife are covered by the specific provisions indicated above, which apply to big game, pheasants, beaver, bears and mountain lions. Objectives Establish policies best designed to accomplish the purposes and intent of all laws pertaining to wildlife and...: (1) recognize that wildlife and its habitat are an essential part of a healthy, productive environment; (2) recognize the impact of wildlife on man, his economic activities, private property rights, and local economies; (3) seek to balance the habitat requirements of wildlife with the social and economic activities of man; (4) recognize the social and economic values of wildlife, including fishing, hunting and other uses; and (5) seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis. Administrative Structure Under Title 23, the Division of Wildlife Resources within the Department of Natural Resources is the wildlife authority for Utah and shall protect, propagate, manage, conserve and distribute protected wildlife in the state. The Division is charged with determining the facts relevant to wildlife resources and is subject to the broad policy making authority of the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board consists of 7 appointed members, with at least one having expertise or experience in each of the following areas: wildlife management and biology, habitat management, business, and economics. The Wildlife Board is advised by regional advisory councils of 12 to 15 members in each wildlife region, representing agriculture, sportsmen, non-consumptive wildlife, locally public Appendix C 2

26 officials, federal land agencies, and the public at large. Key characteristics are that no more than two members can be from a single wildlife region and that the Wildlife Board is available on short notice (i.e., 5 days or less) to deal with emergency situations. Regional Structures Title 23 provides for cooperative wildlife management units, consisting of contiguous areas, to be established by landowner associations regionally to provide income for landowners, create satisfying hunting opportunities, increase wildlife resources, provide liability and hunter damage protection to landowners, and provide access to public and private lands for hunting. These units are registered with the Wildlife Board, comply with Wildlife Board rules, and have an operator designated by the landowner association to operate the cooperative wildlife management unit. Mitigation Mechanisms Permits may be issued by USDA Wildlife Services to remove predating bears and mountain lions. Compensation Mechanisms Bears/Mountain Lions - Compensation is available for injury to, or losses of, livestock. Notification to occur no later than 4 days after damage is discovered. Up to 50%of the fair market value, up to 50% paid from the Wildlife Resources Account and the other 50% from General Funds appropriated annually by the legislature, to the extent available. Incentives Mechanisms None Eligibility Any cultivated crop grown for commercial gain on private land eligible for agricultural use valuation. Livestock defined as cattle, sheep, goats or turkeys. Source of Funding Funding of Title 23 comes from a Wildlife Resources Account (WRA) within the General Fund of the state government. The WRA is supplied from several sources of which the most important are: revenues from sales of licenses, permits, tags, Appendix C 3

27 etc. issued by the Wildlife Board, sales, lease or rental of rights, fines and violations, and funds appropriated from the General Fund. Program Cost NA PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Contact Location International Wolf Center, , or Dr. L. David Mech, Biological Resources Division, US Geological Survey Minnesota Legislation Endangered Species Act (1974) Application Wolf Objectives Wolf recovery in northern Minnesota. Expanded in 1992, to include the establishment of packs in Michigan and Wisconsin. Population goals were set at 1,250-1,400 wolves in Minnesota, 80 in Wisconsin and in Michigan (estimated recovery by 2005). Administration US Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team. Regional Structures None Mitigation Mechanisms USDA livestock depredation control of wolves that prey on livestock (over 1,500 wolves killed through this program, not including illegal killings). About 10% to 16% of the Minnesota wolf population are killed by humans annually. Compensation Mechanisms The state provides some livestock loss compensation to the farmer. Incentives Mechanisms None. Appendix C 4

28 Eligibility All owners of livestock. Source of Funding US Fish and Wildlife wolf management. USDA Wildlife Services depredation control. State compensation. Program Cost, 1998 Compensation $ 50,000 Control Costs $255,000 Total $301,413 PROGRAM EVALUATION: Current Status As a result of successful recovery, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is considering delisting the wolf, meaning that wolf management would be transferred to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This would occur provided that Minnesota devise a management plan that would ensure wolves would not become endangered again. In 1999, the state legislature favoured a more restrictive wolf control program with hunting and trapping as long as the wolf population exceeded target, restrictions on range, and ability to kill a wolf posing a threat to livestock, guard dogs and pets. DNR s plan supported only killing of wolves caught in the act of killing livestock or pets, did not favour population control or range. As a result, consensus was not reached and the establishment of a state wolf management plan was deferred. The livestock industry has threatened to sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service to delist, several wolf advocacy groups have threatened to sue to prevent delisting. Since 1988, wolf populations have increased by 35 to 50%, while the number of wolves taken for depredation control has increased by 127%. Mitigation Comment Depredation-control trapping has not kept up with the wolf population and range increase. The numbers killed probably minimally represents those actually doing Appendix C 5

29 damage. Restrictions on the program, such as finding physical evidence of livestock damage, limiting the control to one-half mile of farms where loss occurred, and trapping only for limited periods following depredation, has compromised effectiveness for farmers. Potential to control wolves by means of a sport hunting season in the fringe zone between wilderness and agricultural zones was quashed after a legal ruling that such taking would not be permissible under the Endangered Species Act. Alternatives to killing problem wolves, including guard dogs and translocation, have been found to be ineffective so far. Current estimate is that more than 500 wolves will need to be killed for livestock damage control by US Fish and Wildlife estimates that about 1% of farms within wolf range suffer livestock attacks, of which about 15% engage in practices that encourage wolf depredations. Depredation control costs in the period are anticipated to average $343,000, rising by 84%. Sport hunting of formerly threatened species would be contentious. Compensation Comment Request to be increased on wildlife and expanded to include loss of pets or guard animals. The Minnesota Legislature recently increased the maximum compensation payment per animal killed by wolves from $400 to $875. Compensation costs in the period are anticipated to average $117,000, annually, rising by 235% over 1998 costs. Program Cost Trends Under current trends, the wolf population is expected to rise 40% to 3500 animals by The total program cost is expected to increase 206%, while the average program cost per wolf per year is anticipated to increase 33% to $146. Meeting Wildlife Need As a result of the Minnesota federal wolf recovery project, wolf numbers have increased from several hundred in 1978 to in excess of 3,000 in This is roughly twice the number set, as the minimum needed for a viable population. In addition, populations of wolves have been established in the adjacent states of Wisconsin and Michigan at 200 and 180, respectively. Meeting Agricultural Need Appendix C 6

30 Although the wolf recovery program met its goals in 1989, the population continues to expand its range into agricultural areas. In February 1999, a roundtable of Minnesota citizens attended hearings to debate a wolf management plan. Among the issues addressed, the round table recommended: creating a state depredation control plan similar to the current federal program (i.e., trapping and killing). increasing compensation for wolf-caused losses to livestock (including veterinary fees) pets and guard dogs. allowing property owners to take wolves caught in the act of depredation. Minnesota Legislature to provide $500,000 to study non-lethal wolf control methods and inform farmers of best management practices for preventing wolf depredation. Long Term Financial Sustainability of Program Depends on management program prepared by Minnesota. Advice to a New Program (e.g., how to implement) The Minnesota DNR option includes a provision that no further wolf population control occur other than the wolf depredation control program in effect. However, as the wolf range expands and populations increase the cost of killing increases, as does the number of wolves to be killed. Cross-Compliance No current requirements to undertake depredation prevention in order to receive compensation for loss. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Contact Defenders of Wildlife, Patrick Valentino, Location Arizona /Northwestern Montana Legislation Endangered Species Act (1974) Application Mexican Wolf in Arizona/Northwestern Montana Objectives Wolf re-introduction of endangered species Administration Appendix C 7

31 US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Structures None. In March 2000, translocation of previously released Mexican wolves to a Secondary Recovery Zone was subject to public comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA), which concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). More than 9,000 comments on the EA had been received. Damage Prevention Measures Haze pack away from ranchers. Not allowed to shoot animals caught in the act of killing livestock Mitigation Mechanisms Supplemental food provided near the den site (Arizona) Translocation of Mexican wolves to resolve immediate conflict situations Compensation Mechanisms Full compensation is now paid for livestock depredation. Northwestern Montana confirmed livestock losses amounted to 13 cattle, 19 sheep and 2 dogs in 1999, all of which occurred on private land. Depredations resulted in the killing of 9 wolves, and the moving of 4 wolves. Total pack size is estimated at 63+ animals. Total compensation paid amounted to $ Incentives Mechanisms Recently in Arizona, a Wolf Country Beef labelling program with two ranches adjacent to the wolf recovery area was formalized. Ranchers agree to allow wolf colonization to occur on their private lands and to eliminate the use of lethal predator control. In return, the beef products of participating ranchers bear an Authentic Wolf Country label that are typically sold at a premium in the market place, paid for by a public that supports wolf recovery. Eligibility All owners of livestock are eligible for compensation. All participating owners of livestock can use the label. Appendix C 8

32 Source of Funding US Fish and Wildlife manages the wolf recovery plan. Defenders of Wildlife, a national, nonprofit, conservation organization with 320,000 members and supporters, maintains a $100,000 compensation fund to compensate ranchers at fair market value for losses due to wolf predation. Our goal is to achieve wolf recovery, not to make ranchers pay for it. Ranchers participating in the beef-labelling program agree to donate a portion of sales, recovered from the marketplace, to Defenders livestock compensation fund. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Contact Location Hank Fischer, Defenders of Wildlife Ed Bangs, US Fish and Wildlife, , ext. 204 Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), Wyoming; Olympic National Park, Washington; Central Idaho Legislation Endangered Species Act (1974) Application Wolf Objectives Wolf re-introductions designated as non-essential, experimental populations. Administration US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Structures None Damage Prevention Measures Special designation of experimental non-essential population within the Endangered Species Act allows ranchers to shoot a wolf seen killing livestock. Hazing and harassment of wolves allowed on private land at any time and on public grazing lands near livestock. Mitigation Mechanisms Appendix C 9

33 USDA Wildlife Service investigated problems and advises as to necessary actions, which could include relocation in the first and killing in the second instance. US Fish and Wildlife can issue a permit to shoot a problem wolf on private property (under extraordinary circumstances as part of the nonessential experimental population rule). Once 6 or more breeding packs per area are documented (target is a total of 30 breeding pairs throughout Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for three consecutive years by 2002), the special rule allows federal grazing permittees to obtain a permit to shoot wolves that are seen attacking livestock on public land. Compensation Mechanisms Full market value compensation is paid for livestock depredation. Since 1995, livestock producers in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have been compensated about $90,000 for wolf losses, with losses increasing as the wolf population rises. Landowners are required to report damages within a specified period after occurrence. The management plan has predicted losses of cattle and sheep per 100 wolves in each recovery area. Confirmed livestock losses and compensation payments are increasing in both regions, but also fluctuate in response to annual conditions. As of January 2000, there were at least 118 wolves in the GYA. In 1999, confirmed livestock losses were comprised of 4 cattle, 13 sheep, 1 foal and 6 dogs, all except one of which were on private land. Nine wolves were destroyed. Total compensation paid amounted to $6,310. Central Idaho contained 141+ wolves in January Confirmed livestock losses consisted of 16 cattle, 57 sheep and 5 dogs in 1999, resulting in the killing of 6 wolves and translocation of 15 wolves. The minority of losses were on private land. Total compensation paid amounted to $17,887. Incentives Mechanisms None. Eligibility All owners of livestock are eligible for compensation. Source of Funding US Fish and Wildlife manages the wolf reintroduction plan. Appendix C 10

34 USDA Wildlife Service manages animal damage control. Defenders of Wildlife, a national, nonprofit, conservation organization with 320,000 members and supporters, maintains a $100,000 compensation fund to compensate ranchers. We decided that the conservation community rather than ranchers should assume the economic cost of reintroduction. The requirement for farmers to confirm livestock kills within a prescribed period is onerous. Where large herds are kept, the loss of individual animals may not be discovered until round up, at which time evidence is not available and the reporting period has passed. It is reported that reported sheep losses due to coyotes in Utah may represent only 25% of the actual losses sustained by producers. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Contact Herb Sulkers, Director of Field Operations, Location Manitoba Legislation Canada/Manitoba Livestock Predation Damage Compensation Program Application Bears, cougars, wolves, foxes and coyotes Objectives To compensate farmers who suffer livestock and exotic animal damage from natural predators. Administration Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation Regional Structures None Damage Prevention Measures None. Mitigation Mechanisms Appendix C 11

35 None. Compensation Mechanisms Eligible livestock include cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats. Exotic animals covered include elk, fallow deer, bison, ostriches, emus and llamas. Fowl are not covered. Producers must follow acceptable farming practices and must try to prevent losses in order to be compensated. Compensation is available for up to 100% of assessed value for a confirmed loss and 50% for a probable loss. Veterinary costs up to the value of the animal injured are compensable. Incentives Mechanisms None. Eligibility All owners of livestock and named exotic animals are eligible for compensation. Source of Funding Manitoba pays 60% of the compensation cost and 50% of the administrative cost. Canada pays 40% of the compensation cost and 50% of the administrative cost. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Jurisdiction Wyoming Contact Hank Uhden Legislation Predatory Animal Control Act Chapter 6 Articles 1 & 2 Objectives The State of Wyoming states that it is important to the economy of the state to maximize agricultural production and at the same time to promote, to protect and conserve the wildlife resources of the State. Administrative Structure The structure is based district or county boards. The boards are designated as boards of directors consisting of 3 sheep owners and three cattle owners. There is only industry representation because the industry generates the entire compensation fund by way of a checkoff fee on cattle and sheep. Appendix C 12

36 These boards have been in existence since the 1950 s but only focuses on predatory animals. Industry manages the money by a peer elected board. Under the state board are district boards whose duties include: a) Determine local priorities for the management of predatory animals and predacious birds that prey upon and destroy livestock, other domestic animals wildlife and crops. b) Devise and put in operation those methods that best manage predatory animals and predacious birds that prey upon and destroy livestock, other domestic animals wildlife and crops. c) Administer funds received to carry out the animal damage management program d) Maintain existing financial and physical resources e) Provide input to the ADMB (Animal Damage Management Board) Compensation Mechanisms Under the original act, enacted in 1980 the following compensation program is still in place: Any landowner, lessee or agent whose property is being damaged by any of the big or trophy game animals or game birds, must report the damage within 15 days to the nearest game warden, damage control warden, supervisor or commission member. Claims are considered, based on a description of the livestock or bees damaged or killed, the damaged land, cultivated crops, stored crops, including honey and hives, seed crops, improvements and extraordinary damage to grass. The basic procedure for compensation is as follows: f) Claims cannot be less than $100 (this has recently been dropped) g) Landowners must permit hunting h) Landowners must notify WGFD no later than 15 days after the damage i) Landowners must present a verified claim that specifies the damage and amount claimed no later than 60 days after the last item of damage is discovered. Verified claim, is a claim which the claimant has signed and sworn and affidavit j) Claims are paid within 90 days. Appendix C 13