Bill Overview
Title: Developing Alternative Mitigation Systems for Beavers Act
Description: This bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to establish a competitive grant program to assist projects that use nonlethal measures to reduce property damage caused by beavers and maintain or enhance habitat for beavers and other wildlife. In awarding grants, the FWS may prioritize projects that (1) include monitoring and research that facilitates evaluation of such projects and identification of best practices, (2) includes educational and outreach activities, (3) are located in an area that ensures grant recipients represent diverse geographic areas, and (4) satisfy any other criteria to effectively reduce damage to property and maintain or enhance habitat for beavers and other wildlife.
Sponsors: Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who benefit from or are affected by improved wildlife management systems involving beavers
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets the management of beaver populations, which are primarily found in North America.
- Beavers are present in other parts of the world, including Europe and Asia, but this bill's focus is specific to the U.S. due to its jurisdiction.
- The bill emphasizes nonlethal management and habitat enhancement, which can impact the wellbeing of local ecosystems.
- By improving habitat conditions, the bill could influence other animal species beyond beavers.
- The initiatives in this bill will affect environmental policies and stakeholders related to wildlife management globally.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on improving beaver management, which directly impacts regions where beavers are common, particularly in rural or semi-rural areas of the U.S. that have either significant beaver populations or related environmental challenges.
- Priority will be given to projects that can showcase non-lethal and innovative solutions to beaver-related challenges, as well as projects that emphasize educational components.
- The grant distribution should reflect diversity in geographical areas, suggesting a broad impact across different U.S. states where beavers are prevalent.
- Individuals directly impacted include property owners near beaver habitats, those involved in wildlife management, and local governments dealing with beaver-related land issues.
- Some U.S. regions or communities may not see immediate effects if they lack significant beaver populations or related environmental issues.
- The impact on wellbeing is expected to be higher for those directly engaged in or affected by habitat management and property issues.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife conservationist (Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the DAMS for Beavers Act as a crucial step towards humane management of wildlife.
- The non-lethal approach aligns with conservation goals and helps maintain biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Farmer (Minnesota)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing beavers non-lethally can reduce flooding without harming the ecosystem.
- If grants help implement better systems, it could save me a lot in flood-related damages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Ecologist (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this act will set a precedent for wildlife management in the U.S.
- The educational component is vital for altering public perceptions positively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
City Planner (Montana)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy offers a compromise between development needs and environmental conservation.
- Effective communication and community education funded by grants can ease local tensions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired Professor (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Non-lethal management is the right direction for forward-thinking wildlife policies.
- It signifies a shift towards more sustainable ecological relationships.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy complements our advocacy for humane treatment of wildlife.
- It can guide future policies with findings from these grants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Property Manager (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this strategy works, it could minimize property damage effectively.
- Balancing non-lethal management with property protection is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Graduate Student (California)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing the legal framework for wildlife management evolve is exciting.
- This act could inspire more comprehensive ecosystem policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Idaho)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants could provide much-needed resources for infrastructure solutions.
- I'm hopeful that it will foster better coexistence with wildlife.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Wildlife Photographer (New Mexico)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that protect and enhance beaver habitats are essential.
- This initiative might not directly change my work but it supports the causes I advocate for through my art.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $95000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $175000000)
Key Considerations
- The necessity to balance ecological and economic aspects of nonlethal beaver management may require ongoing policy adjustments.
- Ensuring sufficient funding and expert resources for the effective monitoring and evaluation of grant programs is crucial for long-term success.
- The impact on local communities, especially those dependent on traditional land use practices, will need careful consideration.