Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to provide emergency relief to producers of livestock with herds adversely affected by Mexican gray wolves, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to provide emergency relief to producers of livestock with herds adversely affected by Mexican gray wolves. Additionally, the bill increases the indemnity compensation that producers are provided for reimbursement from 75% to 100% of the market value of the affected livestock.
Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]
Target Audience
Population: Producers of livestock affected by Mexican gray wolves
Estimated Size: 3000
- The Mexican gray wolf primarily inhabits areas in the southwestern United States, particularly in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as parts of Mexico.
- Livestock producers in these regions who experience losses due to predation by Mexican gray wolves are the direct target of this bill.
- The legislation aims at relieving the economic impact on these producers by compensating them fully for their losses.
- Similar relief measures for wildlife-related livestock losses would typically affect a substantial number of producers in regions where the species is present or recolonizing.
Reasoning
- The Mexican gray wolf primarily impacts livestock producers in Arizona and New Mexico. The policy aims to reduce economic loss by fully compensating affected producers.
- The budget allows support for a limited number of producers each year, impacting those experiencing the most loss due to their specific proximity to Mexican gray wolf habitats.
- Livestock producers vary in size and impact from wolf predation, hence wellbeing improvements will be more significant for those heavily impacted.
- Not all producers within Arizona and New Mexico are equally affected; the most remote or wolf-dense areas potentially face higher losses, which the policy targets.
- Individual variations in wellbeing responses may occur based on personal financial resilience, reliance on livestock for income, or perspectives on environmental conservation.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Alpine, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's about time we get full compensation for our losses. We are constantly at risk of losing livestock to wolves.
- With the increased reimbursement, I feel more secure in continuing my livestock operation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Sheep Farmer (Gila, New Mexico)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would mean a huge difference for me. Starting out, every sheep counts.
- I live in constant fear of losing animals, so full compensation sounds like a lifeline.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cattle Farmer (Socorro, New Mexico)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring that I can recover some value from losses due to wolf predation.
- I support wildlife, but this compensation helps balance my livelihood as a farmer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Goat Farmer (Silver City, New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about how much it will really help small-scale farmers like me.
- Full compensation is good, but implementation details will matter too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Rancher (Show Low, Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not benefit directly now, but it's a positive step for the younger ranchers.
- Compensation could encourage more sustainable cohabitation with wildlife.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Wildlife Enthusiast and Hunter (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's support for producers while maintaining wolf populations.
- Personally, I value wildlife and see this as a compromise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Ranch Hand (Eagar, Arizona)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional compensation is essential to maintain our operations when losses occur.
- I think it reflects good support for agricultural communities like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Agricultural Researcher (Las Cruces, New Mexico)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a well-targeted policy for producers at risk, balancing agricultural impact and conservation.
- Long-term effects will need careful assessment to guide future policy adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy as a means to promote coexistence with wildlife.
- Ensures that producers are not unduly burdened by conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Policy Advocate (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an important policy decision for rural economies.
- Full compensation encourages smaller producers to maintain their operations amid challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15750000 (Low: $10500000, High: $21000000)
Year 3: $16537500 (Low: $11025000, High: $22050000)
Year 5: $18170625 (Low: $12127500, High: $24255000)
Year 10: $22009091 (Low: $14693775, High: $29372025)
Year 100: $75533534389 (Low: $40999499487, High: $157337747038)
Key Considerations
- The bill provides financial stability to affected livestock producers, potentially preventing business closures.
- While beneficial to producers, the policy increases government expenditures without clear offsetting savings.
- The geographic limit to Arizona and New Mexico reduces the overall financial impact on the national budget.
- Compensating producers fully may encourage livestock practices in areas with known wolf activity, which could increase future costs.