LAURA LUNDQUIST, Staff Writer
Wolf and grizzly advocates cheered two grants that encourage livestock producers to adopt nonlethal predator-control methods. But to get additional consideration, advocates may need to ante up themselves.
On Thursday, the Montana Livestock Loss Board announced that it had received a $170,000 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $100,000 of which is to be spent on non-lethal methods for reducing wolf-livestock conflicts.
The money comes from the wolf livestock loss demonstration project, a five-year program initiated by U.S. Sen. Jon Tester in 2009. The program hasn’t been fully funded, so the board received only one other $140,000 grant in 2010, which paid for livestock losses.
Also on Thursday, Defenders of Wildlife announced that it would give the board a $25,000 grant to reduce grizzly bear-human conflicts, also by nonlethal means.
Defenders of Wildlife used to reimburse ranchers for losses due to grizzly bears. As of Aug. 1, Defenders paid more than $20,000 to Montana ranchers.
They can now put that money toward reducing conflicts because of a new state law that requires the state to reimburse ranchers starting on Oct. 1.
Livestock mitigation coordinator George Edwards said the board would probably look for projects that can reduce conflicts involving both predators so the money can go farther.
The Blackfoot Challenge has developed a number of such projects, the most popular being the use of a centralized composting site for livestock carcasses rather than ranchers each using their own “bonepiles,” which attract predators.
“The board was impressed when they heard about the Blackfoot Challenge program – they have measureable results,” Edwards said. “The board would be most likely to support that and maybe some range-rider programs.”
In order to get some of the grant money, ranchers or livestock groups have to provide a 50-percent match.
Up until now, the Livestock Loss Board has been concerned primarily with reimbursing livestock producers for wolf-caused losses.
“We were more than ready for the (FWS) grant. It’s not that the board hasn’t wanted to do prevention work – we’ve discussed it at every meeting but just haven’t been able to find the funding,” Edwards said. “The board decided it should always take care of death losses first.”
Wolf advocates were happy to hear about the grant, but Mark Cooke of Wolves of the Rockies said he would be attending the Livestock Loss Board meeting on Friday in Choteau.
“We just want to monitor how they’re spending the money,” Cooke said.
While the situation has improved slightly for wolves on the livestock front, some organizations are still unhappy with the upcoming wolf hunt and outside money going to encouraging more lethal removal.
In June, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation gave $25,000 to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks for its wolf-collaring program because “RMEF staunchly supports management to balance and control wolf populations,” according to its news release.
Kim Bean of Wolves of the Rockies said wolf advocates might have to find a way to get non-consumptive wildlife money out there.
“Everyone is making cash off the wolf, sending out mailings asking the public for money,” Bean said. “We need to change things but we need to have a collective voice.”
That voice may be heard in Washington, D.C., on Saturday at a national rally for wolves on the Washington Mall.
But FWP spokesman Ron Aasheim said money doesn’t buy everything.
“Donations of money don’t necessarily guide management,” Aasheim said. “The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation money supplements an already existing management effort.”
Closer to home, after another collared wolf was killed outside Yellowstone National Park on Aug. 24, advocates renewed their push to have the hunt quota reduced to three from four wolves in management unit 313 north of the park.
Cooke made the request during last week’s FWP commission meeting, saying that the wolf population count was down in that area. The commissioners declined.
Bean said less than 40 wolves, all park wolves, remain in northern Yellowstone.
“The 313 quota targets park wolves,” Bean said. “I don’t oppose the killing of (wolf) 820 but we’ve got to lower the quota or they’ll really diminish those packs.”
Commission chairman Dan Vermillion said he wasn’t inclined to change the quota now because the commission will have the opportunity to make changes in December.
“Lethal removals should not come off the sportsmen’s opportunity unless there’s a significant biological reason,” Vermillion said.
Vermillion agreed that it would be useful to have some way to measure non-consumptive users of wildlife. He once unsuccessfully proposed that wildlife advocates buy a special wolf tag so FWP could learn how many would support wolves with their pocketbooks.
“The using public is changing – hunters are a shrinking population,” Vermillion said. “We have to figure out how FWP will adjust to bring more people into the tent.”