State Compensation for Wolf Kills

I was surrounded by a bunch of beekeepers when a newer beekeeper asked about how to deal with a problem bear that had been harassing their hives.

"Three S's," a grizzled old man replied.

"What do you mean?" the newbie asked.

A wide grin came across a bunch of faces as the experienced hand described his stratagem, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up."

Wolf and Hound: Enemies in fact and fiction

I am sure there is much bravado in these beekeeping circles.  Old men talk amongst themselves about killing problem wildlife in the same way young men talk about their exploits with young women. 

That the illegal killing of problem wildlife happens less than advertised, is not to say that it does not happen. 

Reducing teen pregnancy and reducing illegal wildlife kills both begin in the same place, accepting reality as it stands.  In the first case that means accepting that teenagers are sexual beings; in the second that abundant wildlife imposes a cost.

People feel emboldened when inaction costs them money.

These are widely understood.  My wife hit a turkey last month to the tune of a $2,500 repair bill.  My insurance company went out of their way to explain that, because the damage was caused by wildlife, my monthly premium would not change.  Urban drivers who are less likely to strike wildlife are, in effect, subsidizing my auto insurance. 

It is a price they pay to keep those who leave near wildlife from suffering from that wildlife.

Farmers are regularly compensated for livestock losses due to wildlife.  This is not controversial because most Americans understand the role of and are sympathetic to farmers.

One of the costs of hosting a wolf population

In Wisconsin those who hunt bear, raccoon, bobcat or coyote with dogs and suffer wolf losses are also compensated.  One writer is attempting to arouse some controversy around the issue.

The screed, re-printed by a variety of publishers, is a flimsy attack posing as investigative journalism.

Let's take the main points one at a time.

Point: Wisconsin is the only state with a program that compensates dog owners.

Counter-Point: The rebound of Wisconsin's wolf population has exceeded all expectations and we are now wondering how many wolves the state can sustain.  Perhaps Wisconsin is doing something right?  I don't know and neither does the author.

Point: People who have broken the law in the past have received payments.

Counter-Point: So what?  Does receiving a speeding ticket mean you forfeit your right to other legal protections under the law or restrict them from benefits they'd otherwise be entitled to? 

Point: Many people are repeat claimants to the compensation.

Counter-Point: People like to hunt near where they live and in places that are familiar.  Wolves are not a random event but are more likely to kill dogs in the area that they range.  Sometimes the range of wolves and the range of particular hunters are going to overlap.  It is not surprising that there would be repeated claimants.  Perhaps people are not learning from experience, how exactly should we address that?   

Point: The program rewards people who put their dogs at "extreme risk."

Counter-Point: The program compensates people who work dogs that were bred for work.  Work includes risk.  The presence of wolves is what makes that work an "extreme risk" and the program exists for the very reason of compensating hunters for a risk they did not undertake but was fostered on them through the Wolf re-introduction program.

Point: Some of the attacks happen in the same place and people keep on going back to that area.

That "Probable Range" is conservative to the extreme.

Counter-Point: If one pack is a particular problem, perhaps the DNR should cull that pack?  Otherwise we might just have statistical noise. 

I can speak from my own experience that the official map of the Wisconsin wolf range is conservative to the extreme.  That little circle in Dunn County, I live there and I see wolves annually and stumble upon scat and kills often enough that it is almost not worth mentioning anymore.  Somehow, I doubt that small green oval represents one wolf or one pack in isolation.

Point: Other states report fewer incidents and they do not have a compensation program.

Counter-Point: Hunters are less likely to report a loss when there is no compensation to be had.  It is called incentive.  It was covered in your Freshman year economics course.

A follow-up article attempts to cast the compensation program, not as a legitimate response to legitimate needs, but the fruit of high powered, pro-hunting, lobbying groups who have donated a combined (shudder) $56,000 to the re-election campaigns of Governor Scott Walker and the members of the legislative committees overseeing natural resources.

Source

The real influence of hunter's groups, however, arises not from thousands of dollars of campaign contributions but rather thirty-six million dollars of revenue collected in hunting licenses and permits, all of which support the wild places we all love.  It may drive animal lovers nuts, but animal hunters finance the infrastructure that makes Wisconsin's wild places possible. 

The wolf population was financed by hunters, including those who hunt with dogs. 

I doubt the issue truly the $56,000 dollars were spent to compensate the owners of hunting dogs in 2013.  $56,000 is a lot of money to me but, in terms of the decreased ill-will it purchases, it is the deal of the century.

What really seems to be at work is the continued ideological assault of armchair naturalists who adore the idea of nature to the extent of vilifying hunters who spend time in it, make use of it, and, through purchases of licenses and permits, fund it. 

It is to the Wisconsin DNR's credit, they've done a lot to educate the public on the risks posed by wolves and recognize that total avoidance is not realistic. The DNR is also resisting calls to end the practice of compensating dog owners.

We love the outdoors.  We love our dogs.  We, for the most part, enjoy sighting wolves, bears, and other not always benign wildlife, in the places we live, hunt, and camp.  Money does not replace the loss of a good dog, but it does communicate that the loss is recognized and provides compensation for the some of the time and money invested in a hunting dog. 

It is the feeling of not being heard, that government is unresponsive, combined with financial loss that causes anger at wildlife losses to mount over time.  Eventually "shoot, shovel, and shut up," becomes less an issue of bravado and more standard practice.  And that would be a loss to the state's bio-diversity and the citizenry as a whole.