mjh's blog

The Truth About the Value & Costs of Wolves

Thu 07/07/05 at 12:11 pm

I was out of town when this article appeared on 6/12. It has some very important FACTS about the reintroduction of wolves to the southwest. mjh

ABQjournal: Ranchers, Environmentalists Agree It’s Time for a Change for Grey Wolf By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

State and federal biologists who worked on the five-year review said wolves should be allowed to set up territories outside the current program boundaries, something they can’t do today.

As part of an earlier program review in 2001, an independent team of scientists also recommended scrapping the boundary rule. It also recommended that ranchers take some responsibility for cattle carcasses that can attract wolves, and that wolves be released directly into the Gila Wilderness.

Current rules allow only wolves that have been released in Arizona and then been recaptured to be let loose in New Mexico.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has not moved forward on any of the significant changes recommended by the scientists, but it has proposed some restrictions on wolf releases at the request of ranchers. …

Ranchers say slowing down releases would give the program time to get a better handle on the number of wolves in the wild.

Ranchers believe there are 100 or more wolves in the wild, while the program estimates the population at 51-56, plus an unknown number of pups born this spring. …

The Industrial Economics study for the first time compiles numbers on livestock depredations from the government and from the ranchers. The researchers concluded that anywhere from 37 to 245 cattle, sheep, horses and dogs were killed by wolves in New Mexico and Arizona from 1998 to 2004.

Based on those numbers, the economic impact to ranchers was $38,650 to $206,290, including the market value of the animals killed, the costs of injuries from wolf attacks and the value of the 10 hours or so it takes to prepare each claim for compensation, according to the report.

Pay close attention to the figures in the previous two paragraphs. Over a period of 7 years, *all* animals killed by wolves average in a range from just over 5 animals / $5,500 per year to 35 animals / $29,470 per year (somewhere between one animal every other month to 3 per month — these are *all* animals, not just cattle). Below, you will note that (1) up to 34,800 cows have grazed in that time and (2) Defenders of Wildlife has paid ranchers $33,000 in that same period.

The FACTS show the ranchers are greatly misrepresenting the impact of the wolf. mjh

But the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife, which pays the compensation for lost animals, said all ranchers must do is send in a report prepared by the government and sometimes make a call to report the death.

“They have to put an envelope in the mail,” said Craig Miller of Defenders of Wildlife in Tucson.

Defenders of Wildlife has paid Southwest ranchers more than $33,000 in compensation since 1998.

Even using the high estimate of losses provided by ranchers, wolves killed only about a quarter of 1 percent of the 34,800 cattle in the area in 2002? the year with the most depredations.

But Schneberger said there are a lot fewer than 34,800 cattle in the area now, so the percentage killed by wolves is larger.

An average of 4 percent of the cattle in the area died from causes other than slaughter in 1997, the year before the wolf program began, according to the report. …

Defenders of Wildlife helps ranchers pay for extra riders, fencing and other measures. …

The fund has helped pay for six projects this year. … Still, Miller said the fund is underused. …

The wolf program also has benefits, researchers say. There is a public “non-use value” or intrinsic value in preserving the Mexican wolf that is hard to measure, according to the socioeconomic study.

Federal and state government spending on the wolf program totals about $1.5 million a year, with a benefit of 31 jobs, according to the study. Although not all that money nor all the jobs are in the recovery area itself, there is spending and staff based among the wolves.

The chance to see wolves has attracted some tourists to the area, a trend that is expected to increase as the wolf population grows.

There also are ecological benefits, as demonstrated by wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Wolves there reduced elk populations that had been overgrazing riparian vegetation. That change, in turn, benefited beavers, bears, foxes and birds.

No similar ecological research has been done in the Southwest, but Robinson said it’s reasonable to assume wolves have started “sharpening the wits of prey species.”

ABQjournal: Mexican Gray’s Presence in Wild Challenged By Tania Soussan, Journal Staff Writer

Mexican gray wolf reintroduction in the Southwest is required by the federal Endangered Species Act.

There are close to 300 of the endangered wolves at 47 captive facilities in the United States and Mexico. But the only Mexican gray wolves in the wild in the United States are part of the Southwestern reintroduction effort. [mjh: about 55 in the wild]

Rate this post:

In loco:
Newer: Saint Pete Goes to Hell
Older: Getting the FACTS on Wolves

Supreme Court Cockfight

Thu 07/07/05 at 11:24 am

The conservative case against Alberto Gonzales by Ken Herman, Cox News Service

The conservative case against Gonzales is based on his Texas Supreme Court record and comments he has made. The topics include a menu of conservative hot-button issues, including abortion, property rights, judicial activism and affirmative action.

On those topics, Gonzales has cast votes and said things that are cause for concern among some conservatives who have long waited for the day when one of their own could replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court’s most pivotal swing vote in many cases. …

In addition to Gonzales’ decisions while a Bush appointee on the Texas Supreme Court, Weyrich is troubled by something he heard from Gonzales at a meeting of conservatives.

A questioner asked Gonzales to choose between two legal concepts: “stare decisis” and original intent.

Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided,” and, to some, is a code word for judicial activism. In the legal world, “original intent” means looking to the framers’ original intent as the basis for rulings. It can be a code word similar to “strict constructionist.”

Weyrich said Gonzales came down on the side of stare decisis, fighting words for good conservatives.

“That’s very troubling to somebody who feels as I do that the Supreme Court has bent the Constitution way out of whack,” Weyrich said.

Some conservatives also find cause for concern in Gonzales’ handling of cases while on the Texas Supreme Court and his comment that he benefited from affirmative action.

Conservative concern about Gonzales’ feelings on abortion arise from a February 2000 Texas Supreme Court case in which Gonzales sided with a majority in granting latitude for a teen seeking judicial approval to bypass a state law, signed by then-Gov. Bush, requiring parental notification prior to an abortion. …

Opinions followed in June 2000, evidencing a nasty 6-3 split, with the majority – including Gonzales – ruling that the legislature meant for it to be fairly easy for a teen to get judicial approval for an abortion without parental notification.

Gonzales, in a concurring opinion, said narrow interpretation of the bypass provision “would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

“While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the court’s decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature,” Gonzales wrote.

Then-Justice Priscilla Owen, now a Bush appointee on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote that the majority “manufactured reasons to justify its action.”

In 2001, as Gonzales was floated as a possible Supreme Court justice, Terence P. Jeffrey, editor of the conservative publication Human Events and former presidential campaign manager for Pat Buchanan, blasted Gonzales’ role in the abortion case.

“In the process of approving Baby Doe’s abortion, Gonzales demonstrated that he is a judicial activist of the worst sort,” Jeffrey wrote, adding that putting Gonzales on the Supreme Court “would be an uncharacteristic blunder [mjh: snicker] for Bush, and could permanently mar his presidency.”

Another Texas Supreme Court case has left some conservatives concerned about Gonzales’ loyalty to the concept of private property, a key tenet of modern conservatism in its battle against big government. …

In another 2000 case, Gonzales also was in the majority in siding with a governmental entity in a battle with private citizens. …

Overall, according to a report by Austin-based Texas Watch, a non-profit watchdog group, Gonzales’ votes on the state Supreme Court “positioned himself in the middle of the court and as a swing voter in an overall conservative court.”
=====
High court politics split right, Latinos By Dan Balz, Washington Post

[A] fierce battle has erupted over Gonzales, the former White House counsel and Texas Supreme Court justice. It pits the ideological priorities of social and religious conservatives, who think Gonzales is insufficiently opposed to abortion, against the aspiration of the Latino community to see the first Hispanic named to the high court.

Bush has skillfully balanced his appeals to both groups throughout his career as an elected official, but he faces the prospect of disappointing one side, with potentially serious repercussions for his party.

Nothing prevents Bush from trying to skirt the conflict by naming another Latino who would be more acceptable to the right than Gonzales, such as Emilio Garza, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the uproar over Gonzales, longtime friend and confidant of the president, has heightened the political stakes of Bush’s decision and has alarmed some senior GOP strategists. …

Republicans offered differing views about what Bush’s choice may do to his coalition. Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to support Bush judicial nominations, questioned whether a conservative nominee would alienate moderates. “That’s nonsense,” he said. “The worst thing the president could do for his party’s 2006 election hopes — and especially for Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania — is to go with a nominee who is seen as less principled by conservatives. That would completely dry up the funding. That would completely dry up the enthusiasm.”
=====

Texas Hispanics drawing support for court seat
Factions line up for two Texas Hispanics
By MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

[Federal appeals Judge Emilio] Garza, of San Antonio, tops the list of acceptable Hispanic nominees for right-wing activists in part because of what they view as his like-minded approach to legal issues involving religion and abortion. …

[L]egal experts have already combed through the written opinions and public statements of Gonzales and Garza. The consensus: Garza comes across as a hard-line conservative on issues like abortion and the intersection of government and religion. Gonzales appears more flexible on those issues, though still firmly in the conservative camp.

Rate this post:

In Dump Duhbya:
Newer: catapult the propaganda
Older: QOTD