Marie Wagner

Grant proposal
Ranchers versus Wildlife: How we can find
a balance

ABSTRACT
Traditionally, ranchers, farmers, and wildlife
managers have not worked well together. Wildlife
management plans often clash with the wants and
needs of ranchers and farmers. The goal of this
project is to interview ranchers, farmers, and wildlife
managers to better understand the causes of
animosity in the key geographic areas of Eastern
Washington, North Idaho, Yellowstone National Park,
and Northern Minnesota, and then to design a
communication plan to mitigate these underlying
causes, all with the goal of better managing wildlife
in these critical areas.

NARRATIVE
Wildlife management has long been contested by some segments of the public, which include
landowners, researchers, wildlife defense groups, hunters, and admirers of the animals, but the
most vocal opposition is often posed by ranchers and farmers. Public opinion can change,
depending on the political environment and media coverage, so it can be difficult to pinpoint the
ideal course to take when managing wildlife. Because of the turbulent situation, this topic
becomes even more difficult when applied to endangered species and carnivores.
With the human population growing rapidly, animal habitat is rapidly disappearing. According to
the IUCN Red List, 85% of species that are listed as endangered or critical are on the list due to
habitat loss (Leary et al, 2008). The people who are directly contributing to the rapid expansion
into the habitats required by many of these species need to be made aware of the environmental
impacts of that expansion. An effective communication campaign is vital to the success of any
conservation effort that depends on cooperation from the public.
Ranchers and farmers are typically motivated by monetary incentives. If something is going to
decrease their profits, they are likely to resist change. Part of the problem is the distrust between
many members of this group and wildlife managers. In particular, the question of whether
producers should receive compensation for damage caused by wild or endangered animals is a
hot-button topic. If a wolf kills a cow, humans want compensationin money or in blood. If
mule deer are destroying their crops, the same concept applies. However, it is up to wildlife
managers to decide if and how much compensation an individual producer should receive, which
creates tension (Irby, Zidack, Johnson, & Saltiel, 1996).
Family history is important in wildlife management as well. Grudges can be passed down from
generation to generation because of what is perceived as poor or unfair treatment by wildlife
management programs. Once again, the factor that causes the most decrease in support for
management programs is the seemingly inadequate compensation for damaged crops or livestock
depredation (Sommers, Price, Urbigkit, & Peterson, 2010). By recognizing these factors and
deciding how best to proceed with negotiations, better communication between groups has the

potential to help wildlife managers protect both wildlife and the interests of farmers and
ranchers.
By being able to talk to wildlife managers and agriculture groups in areas where there is a lot of
conflict between wildlife and people, we can put the information that has been gathered about
potential mediation techniques between the two groups into action. Hopefully, this will reduce
tension. Areas that this project would focus on are: Eastern Washington, North Idaho,
Yellowstone National Park, and Northern Minnesota. These areas are known to have relatively
large numbers of carnivores and populations that take issue with current wildlife management
plans.
Lack of communication between wildlife managers and agriculturists creates confusion and
makes ranchers and farmers resentful. Wildlife managers often appear to tell people that they
have to change without explaining the reasoning behind the change, discussing potential benefits,
or acknowledging potential problems. The goal of this project is to address this problem by
encouraging more effective communication between the two groups. To begin, interviewers will
be sent to personally interview representatives of each group separately to determine what each
perceives to be the causes of conflict between wildlife managers and agriculturists. The
interviewers would then invite participants to a group event in which answers could be
addressed, with the help of a professional mediator to help create a more neutral environment
while maintaining effective communication. It is likely that this process will reveal that wildlife
managers will need to be retrained in best practices for presenting new information; they will
need to understand how to effectively communicate not only what changes are necessary, but
also why change is needed. Using methodically-gathered public opinion data as a tool in wildlife
management planning is a significant change from current planning methods; typically, public
opinion is conceptualized only as a measurement of success or failure after a plan is announced,
rather than as a crucial component to be considered during the planning process. The proposed
survey process will be thoroughly documented and, if it is successful, it could be replicated by
other wildlife management agencies working to address similar regional challenges.

The main issue faced with this project will be that each region has different problems, so this
project will require a few weeks of travel and time to meet with everyone. The most costeffective alternative would be to use an RV to transport a team of three to four people throughout
the region to interview ranchers, farmers, and wildlife managers who live and work in the target
area. The interview questions will be standard throughout the process. With a better
understanding of each regions needs, wildlife management can be less of a burden on those who
are affected by it.

REFERENCES
Irby, L., Zidack, W., Johnson, J., & Saltiel, J. (1996). Economic Damage to Forage Crops by
Native Ungulates as Perceived by Farmers and Ranchers in Montana. Journal of Range
Management, 49.
Irby, L., Zidack, W., Johnson, J., & Saltiel, J. (1996). Economic Damage to Forage Crops by
Native Ungulates as Perceived by Farmers and Ranchers in Montana. Journal of Range
Management, 49.
Leary, T., Seri, L., Flannery, T., Wright, D., Hamilton, S., Helgen, K., Singadan, R., Menzies, J.,
Allison, A., James, R., Aplin, K., Salas, L. & Dickman, C. 2008. Zaglossus bruijnii. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 23 March 2015.
Sommers, A., Price, C., Urbigkit, C., & Peterson, E. (2010). Quantifying Economic Impacts of
Large - Carnivore Depredation On Bovine Calves. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74.

BUDGET
RV rental
Fuel for RV, assuming 12 mpg
Training
Misc. Expenses

Price
$10000
$2.60/gallon/60 gallon tank
$200/person
$400/person

Quantity
1
$156/gallon
4 people
4 people

Total
$10000
Varies
$800
$1600
~ $15000

The most cost effective way to complete this project would be to rent an RV to limit travel costs.
Renting a Class C RV that holds up to five people is ideal as there will be four people traveling.

Miscellaneous expenses include food, extra supplies, and potential unforeseen expenses related
to the trip.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
By viewing my CV, you can observe my excellent record in dealing with problem people as well
as my work with endangered species. Both of these skills have enabled me to procure jobs at
universities and other agencies in the area. I also have many contacts with professionals who
believe in my work and have been actively involved in some of my processes.

CV Wagner.docx

CV Wagner

The software needed for this project is simple and it is already in my possession. I only need
Microsoft Word, Excel and MiniTab. These are three basic software programs that will enable us
to combine and analyze the data as it is collected.
Letters of Reference available upon request.