The Spider, the Large Predator, and Coexistence

As a wildlife lover, I can sometimes find it hard to really identify with anti-wildlife forces. To be fair to those forces, I've lived most of my life in suburban settings where I was never close enough to wildlife to come into conflict with it. I dream of a future where people can coexist with wildlife, including predators like wolves and mountain lions, but if I'm going to be honest-I'm not sure I've fully come to terms with the sacrifices implicit in that dream. To help me get into a more appropriate mindset, I find it useful to compare predators to spiders. Perhaps this analogy will help others of you as well.

Since I was little, I've disliked spiders. They're scary and they seem to come out of nowhere! And for many illogical reasons, I really don't want one on me or near me. I've often been called a hypocrite for my irrational fear. How can I claim to want to conserve wildlife and still be so anti-spider? I always reply that, "I want spiders to live! I just don't want them to live near me." I think this is a stance that many people can agree with when it comes to all kinds of wildlife, including spiders and larger predators. I get it; even though I know how unfortunate that is. Spiders and large predators have to live somewhere. And if ecosystems are going to be as healthy as I'd like them to be, they have to live lots of somewheres-including somewheres near humans.

Knowing that my dislike of spiders was not in the spirit of the loving, wildlife enthusiast I'd like to think of myself as, I've slowly gotten better about spiders with time. I've become more tolerant of them. I see many spiders and let them be. I no longer feel the need to yell and run when one is within reaching distance. I'm confident now that the spiders I'll find day to day can't kill me, and that if I was forced into a dreadful battle with one, my size advantage could ensure my victory. But that doesn't mean I've become spider-neutral. I still kill the ones I find in my room. Millions of people around the world will agree, that is just too close for comfort! How can I be expected to sleep when I know there's an 8-legged creature capable of crawling on me, biting me, or even running into my mouth at any moment?! My fear or paranoia is real. Still, it might be much less real than the fear others have of more dangerous predators.

Larger predators bring fears of lost pets and lost livelihoods-fates much more serious than spider bites! For some, irrational fears similar to my irrational fear of spiders are an unfortunate addition. All of these fears are natural, perhaps even evolutionarily beneficial. The people who have them are not evil and do not necessarily wish all predators were dead. It is possible they would be happy knowing predators existed, as long as they did not exist near them. It is even possible they would be willing to help predators to live successfully, as long as they did so far enough away. We all know an animal, even a person, we would never want dead, but that we wish would just exist so that they never interfered with our personal lives.

I kill spiders in my room. Some ranchers kill wolves that come near their property. Lovers of wildlife everywhere cry inside. If only there was a way for spiders in my room to live hidden somewhere...in such a way that they never came out and I never knew they were there. In such a way that they could fill their ecological role without disturbing me. This is an idea quite similar to the reasoning behind well-developed wildlife corridors that funnel wildlife through urban areas and non-lethal deterrents that keep wildlife at bay. Instead of demonizing the people who want to kill the wildlife we value, we need to invite them to our team so that we can use the clever brains we were blessed with to come up with innovative solutions that benefit all stakeholders. (I know I'd pay my share to keep spiders out of my room.) If we can use whatever analogy is helpful to us in order to begin to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have opposing views, I know we'll realize that our 'opposition' really isn't that different from us and that coexistence is possible.

Coexisting with Bears

While I was in Idaho working with the Idaho Conservation League, I wrote a guest blog on coexisting with bears after having to cancel one of ICL's hikes due to bear activity in the area. The blog I wrote is in its original form below, and you can see its edited version on the ICL's webpage by clicking here.

Bear Bursts Bubble of Beehive Lake Hikers

Coming to Idaho for the first time, I was really hoping I could finally see a bear in the wild (one of my ‘bucket list’ goals)! But after having to cancel our most popular hike-the July 27 Beehive Lakes Scramble Hike- because a bear removed food and camping equipment from a campsite in the area, I had to come to terms with the fact that people seeing bears in the wild may not actually be a good thing.

Bears that encounter people regularly and are not harmed begin to lose their fear of humans. If bears also consistently find food and garbage to eat when people are around, they can begin to associate people with food and can even become reliant on humans for their meals. This dependency can cause bears to become more aggressive if their new food source is unexpectedly taken away. While this aggression can be dangerous for people, habituation to people is possibly more dangerous for bears. Habituated bears are more likely to be killed as “problem wildlife” and are also more vulnerable to hunters and being hit by cars.

In order to reduce the likelihood of bears becoming habituated to us and our food, the Forests Service will temporarily close an area after an unfortunate bear encounter. This ensures that the bear involved in the incident won’t find people should he return to the site of the encounter in search of more food. It prevents the bear from relying on the site as a food source, and reduces the chances that the bear will develop a people-food association or become habituated to people.

We can do our part by making sure to comply with the Forests Service’s 2011 Food Storage Order when we’re recreating in bear habitat that hasn’t been closed. The order is effective every year from April through December, and states that everything that might smell like food to a bear should be stored in a bear-resistant manner or in a certified bear-resistant container when unattended. The items may not be buried or burned in an open fire at a campsite.

In order to sore food, grease, beverages, and scented toiletries in a bear resistant manner, you should either

1.  Hang the scented items 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet away from any structure a bear might be able to climb
2. Take advantage of bear-proof food storage lockers installed in various locations or
3. Store the scented items in a vehicle, hard-sided building, or behind an electric fence.

It’s true that seeing bears up close may not always be a good thing, but if we’re smart about recreating in bear habitat we can peacefully coexist with the wildlife in the wild places we appreciate.  

Incidental Trapping of Lynx in Idaho

This past summer I worked with the Idaho Conservation League in Sandpoint, Idaho! I accomplished a life goal of seeing a bear in the wild, met some truly kind people, and enjoyed researching incidental trapping of lynx, wolverine, and fisher. The following is a report on incidental trapping of lynx in Idaho that I wrote near the end of my internship. I'm also including a picture from one of my hikes in Idaho, just because it was so beautiful there!

Incidental Trapping of Lynx in Idaho

Incidental Capture in the Past 12 Years

Three lynx individuals have reportedly been incidentally trapped in the past twelve years in Idaho, and all three incidents have occurred within the last three trapping seasons. In the 2011-2012 trapping season, a purebred male lynx (Report IDFG sample 2012-R7 hair and scat 2_8_12 attachment) was trapped in the Salmon region of Lemhi County and released alive (lynx salmon region attachment). During the 2012-2013 trapping season, a juvenile female lynx was trapped, injured by the trap, and shot by mistake in the Purcell Mountains. The taken lynx is the only verified female lynx in the Purcell Mountains in the last 3 years (lynx panhandle region attachment). Then, in the 2013-2014 trapping season, a female lynx was incidentally trapped and released alive in Idaho Panhandle’s West Cabinet Mountains. The lynx was uninjured and given a satellite tracking collar by a Fish and Game biologist who was able to help with the examination and release of the animal (Lucid, 2014). In every incident, the trapper who incidentally caught the lynx had been trapping for bobcat (lynx salmon region attachment; lynx panhandle region attachment; Lucid, 2014).

Table 1. Summary of known incidentally trapped lynx in Idaho since 2002, including the season, month, location, target animal, trap type, sex, and fate.
Season	Month	Location	Target Animal	Trap Type	Sex	Fate
2011-2012	January	South Fork of Williams Creek (Lemhi County)	Bobcat	#3 Long Spring Trap with Offset Jaws	Male	This lynx was observed in a legally set trap, targeting bobcat. The animal was reported to Fish and Game and ultimately released alive. It was the first verified lynx sighting in the area since 1983.
2012-2013	December	Purcell Mountains (Boundary County)	Bobcat	#2 Victor Foothold Trap	Female	The trapper mistakenly identified this animal as a bobcat. After shooting it, the trapper discovered that the animal was a lynx and reported the incident to IDFG.
2013-2014	January	Cabinet Mountains (Boundary County)	Bobcat	#2 Victor Foothold Trap	Female	This lynx was incidentally trapped and reported to IDFG. The animal was collared and released alive, unharmed.

Why Incidental Capture of Individual Lynx Can Be a Problem

Losing even a couple individual lynx can be problematic for the population of Canada lynx in the United States. There are believed to be less than 100 lynx in the mid-high elevation forests in Idaho (First Canada Lynx…, 2012) and because of this, are considered a, “species of greatest conservation need” (lynx salmon region attachment). Aside from Idaho, lynx can only also be found in Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Colorado (after being reintroduced) (Basic Facts…, 2013). Partially because populations of lynx in the United States are so limited, Canada lynx are listed as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (lynx salmon region attachment).  

In addition to having low population numbers, removing a couple individuals from a lynx population can be detrimental because lynx naturally live in low densities (notice of intent). On average, lynx have population densities of between 2 and 9 individuals per 100 square kilometers (Canada lynx…, 2013). To put this number in perspective, 100 square kilometers is equal to about 24, 710 acres and the total area of Disneyland in Los Angeles as of 2009, including 3 Disneyland hotels, Disney’s California Adventure and Disneyland Park is only 510 acres (Filippatos, 2009). Removing 2/9 individuals in an area this large can make it very difficult for lynx in the local population to find a mate. Should a female lynx reproduce, she will only have 3 to 4 kits once every 1 or 2 years, and those kits will need to stay with their mother for at least a year (Canada lynx…, 2013). If a mother lynx is incidentally taken early on in her kits lives, her kits will most likely die. 

A lynx that is incidentally trapped and then released alive may also end up having negative impacts on lynx population numbers. Foothold traps have been shown to cause injury to coyotes and wolves, and are similarly able to injure lynx. Traps can harm the teeth, gum, tongues, and especially feet and legs of trapped animals (Zemlicka et al., 1997). Lynx caught in body-gripping traps, “endure physiological and psychological trauma, dehydration, and exposure as well as injuries to bone and tissue” (Trapping in Lynx Country…2012). A released lynx can also die of frostbite. If a lynx is left for 3 days in the snow, their foot could freeze. This animal would still be able to run off, but may not survive for long (Professional Trapper, 2014). These injuries and the stress that results from being trapped can prevent a lynx from properly caring for itself or its young after being released, and can result in indirect lynx mortality (Trapping in Lynx Country…, 2012). 

Incidentally trapping 3 lynx individuals within a 12-year time-span, 2 of which were released alive, does not indicate a major problem for Idaho if the number of reported incidents are not a dramatic underestimate of the true total. It is interesting, however, that every incident occurred within the past 3 years. Removing 1 lynx in a year, if it becomes a pattern, would be incredibly problematic. It is unclear whether these incidents represent an increase in incidental trapping, if trappers are better reporting the animals they incidentally trap, or if the 3 incidents simply represent a random spike in the data set. In any case, it is reasonable to believe that incidental capture of lynx may increase. The number of trapping licenses sold by Idaho doubled between 2001 and 2008 (United States, 2011). The opening of a wolf trapping season will increase the overall number of trappers in Idaho and if bobcat pelt prices increase, that would create an incentive for more bobcat trapping as well. As lynx are easy to trap (notice of intent; Washington Department of Wildlife, 1993), and they are known to be incidentally trapped in traps meant for bobcats and coyotes (notice of intent), an increase in wolf and bobcat trappers will increase the probability and incidence of incidentally captured lynx. Moreover, wolf traps are larger than bobcat traps and are much more likely to break the legs of an incidentally trapped lynx according to the executive director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies (Byron, 2012).

Idaho needs to maintain its limited number of lynx incidents, lest it experience the incidental capture levels of its neighbor, Montana. Montana’s population of lynx is larger and a 2001 study showed that 35% of all lynx mortality in the studied area were caused by illegal trapping and shooting of lynx. 3 lynx died after being incidentally captured in the winter of 2001 alone. Almost half of the lynx who’ve been incidentally captured in Montana since 2000 died as a result of being trapped (notice of intent). 

Despite the risk of incidental capture, it should be noted that incidental capture is not always considered a negative event. The latest lynx to be captured was collared and will contribute to a better understanding of lynx behavior.

What Can Be Done

There are several known ways of reducing incidental taking of lynx. Some of these ways are put forth by Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) in their hunting and trapper seasons publication. The publication shows trappers how to distinguish a lynx from a bobcat as well as how to distinguish each animal’s tracks. It recommends bobcat trappers place traps on the edges of open areas as lynx prefer to stay in covered habitat and to avoid placing traps where lynx tracks are found. It reminds trappers that selecting the proper size foothold traps can also reduce incidental capture of lynx. (A Number 2 coilspring or Number 1.75 coilspring trap has a small enough trap jaw spread to avoid trapping a lynx but is still effective at trapping coyotes, foxes, and bobcats.) The publication also notes that padded jaw traps can minimize injury of captured animals and advises trappers to carry catchpoles to release unintended captures (Idaho Fish and Game, 2013). Trapper education like this is very valuable, and there is some funding to provide for it. Incidentally killed animals turned into Fish & Game are sold and the money from their sale goes toward trapper education “and associated activities” (Idaho, 2004, p. 5). Unfortunately, however, trapper education is not required for trappers in Idaho, with the exception of those trapping for wolves (Idaho, 2004). This policy differs from other states like Washington (Trapper Education…,2013) and Maine where trapper education for first-time trappers is required (Jakubas and Ritchie, 2008). Perhaps the first step toward reducing incidental capture of lynx and other protected animals is to require trappers in Idaho to pass a trapper education exam prior to being issued a trapping license. At this point, it’s unclear whether or not trappers are voluntarily reading IDFG’s pamphlets and benefitting from their knowledge.

In addition to the step Idaho has taken with its educational publications to reduce incidental capture of lynx, there are further steps Idaho should pursue. Legally, anyone who incidentally takes an animal protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 must have an incidental take permit. In order to apply for an incidental take permit, Section 10(a) 2(a) of the Endangered Species Act  (ESA) states that a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must first be approved. The HCP must include an assessment of the likely impact of incidental take, a plan to minimize and mitigate negative impacts, and a proven funding source with which to implement the plan. In addition, the HCP must include alternative plans the applying agency has considered and the reasons why those plans were ultimately rejected (Endangered Species Act, 1973). IDFG should follow Maine’s lead and create a lynx HCP in compliance with the ESA to ensure that incidental take of lynx is minimized in the future as well as to prevent having a lawsuit filed against them. A lawsuit is currently being filed against the state of Montana for not showing “due care” to prevent incidental injury to lynx as required by the ESA (Byron, 2012) and specifically, for not having incidental take permits (Zuckerman, 2013). A similar lawsuit was won by environmental groups against the state of Minnesota (notice of intent).

When asked if IDFG had an incidental take permit for its trapping program, IDFG responded with a Section 6 Cooperative Agreement. This agreement covers take of endangered species when incidentally taken during work for conservation programs. An Idaho Fish and Game official confirmed that this agreement does not substitute for an Incidental Take Permit. 

IDFG should make regulations specific to lynx sensitive areas as part of its HCP. The lynx that was incidentally taken in the 2012-2013 trapping season was taken just outside an area designated as critical habitat for lynx (Buley, 2013). In defense of this designated critical habitat, it may be worthwhile to note that last year when Multi-Species Baseline Initiative set up cameras along paths in the Purcell and Selkirk mountains, every lynx image they obtained in the Purcells came from within critical habitat area for lynx as designated by U.S. Fish & Wildlife (Lucid, 2012). Having lynx taken just outside the borders of critical habitat greatly reduces the effectiveness of having critical habitat and is unacceptable. One category of area-specific regulations that can be pursued focuses on how traps are set. In Maine, for example, trappers using a conibear trap with an opening larger than 4 inches in lynx territory are required to set the trap at the end of a leaning pole, with a small diameter, which leans at an angle 45 degrees or more to a tree. The pole must be less than 4 inches in diameter and the trap must be at least 4 feet above ground. Animals like martens will climb leaning poles like these to traps, but the small poles will deter larger animals like wolverine and lynx. Area specific regulations like this are not unusual. In Wisconsin, land sets for all furbearers are prohibited in special fisher wildlife management areas (Kucera, 1998). 

As IDFG mentioned in its hunting and trapping pamphlet, what traps trappers choose to set can also make a big difference in reducing incidental injury and taking. As previously mentioned, using the smallest traps possible for the target species can reduce the probability of injuring an incidentally caught animal. Padded-jaw traps and traps with laminated and offset jaws can reduce injury (Hiller and White, 2013; Idaho Fish and Game, 2013). These types of padded traps are required in California (Lewis and Zielinski, 1996), and IDFG should consider making these types of traps a requirement as well, at least in areas around critical habitat for protected species like lynx. Body-gripping traps are designed to instantly kill the animals trapped in them and are illegal in Washington and California (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2012). A lynx that walks head-first into a conibear trap, will most likely die (Jakubas and Ritchie, 2008). These types of traps and lethal snares should be illegal in lynx-sensitive areas. In areas adjacent to lynx-sensitive areas, lynx exclusion devices should be used in conjunction with body-gripping traps.

Gear alterations and additions are another way to reduce injury of incidentally captured animals. Tranquilizer trap devices (TTDs) have been shown to reduce struggling and injuries in the foot, leg, and mouth of animals compared to traps without tranquilizers (Zemlicka et al., 1997; American Veterinary…, 2013), by about 47% (Zemlicka et al., 1997). It is important to note, however, that since TTDs immobilize an animal, they make that animal more susceptible to predators. A coyote could kill a trapped, unconscious lynx (Professional Trapper, 2014). Devices that emit a signal once a trap closes can allow trappers to more quickly release, euthanize, or take trapped animals. This may reduce injury and mortality due to anxious exertion and predation (American Veterinary…, 2013) if trappers can afford them.

These recommendations will not only aid in lynx recovery, but animal welfare in general. Incidental trapping injures or kills millions of animals every year in the U.S. and a professional trapper has estimated that at least 2 non-target animals are caught for each target animal (notice of intent). In this past trapping season, in the Northern Rockies alone, moose, elk, deer, dogs, and even one U.S. Park official were incidentally caught in traps (Zuckerman, 2013). By being careful about where, how, and what traps are set these incidents can be reduced, improving the welfare of these animals and trapper efficiency. 

Idaho should also consider implementing a quota on bobcat harvest. Montana has one, and while a bobcat quota hasn’t been previously deemed necessary in Idaho, that conclusion likely did not take into consideration the externality of incidental capture of lynx, fisher, and other animals in bobcat traps. Both lynx and fisher are protected species who are known to be caught in bobcat traps (notice of intent; Coulter, 1960; Lewis and Stinson, 1998; Lewis and Zielinski, 1996), and a quota on bobcat harvest would reduce the number of bobcat traps these protected animals could accidentally be caught in. 

Ideally, Idaho would also institute a rule mandating trappers check their foothold traps every 24 hours to reduce injury, suffering, and mortality of non-target animals. Animals injured in traps have a better chance of surviving if they receive help or are released quickly (Fish and Game Biologist, 2014; Professional Trapper, 2014). This will be a difficult rule to apply, however, for two main reasons. Requiring trappers to check their traps more often will be unpopular with trappers, and a difficult rule to pass politically because it requires trappers to spend more of their time and money. The second reason is that the rule will be almost impossible to enforce. There is no good way to monitor when a trapper checks his traps. Thousands of traps are set all over Idaho, and each trap would essentially need to be babysat to ensure that trappers who are not frequently checking their traps are punished. Some trappers do not check their traps every 3 days as it is. Long line trappers have hundreds of traps each, and it would be impossible for them to check every single one every 3 days (Professional Trapper, 2014). If trappers actually checked their foothold traps every 24 hours, the number of total foothold traps set will likely decrease automatically. Trappers can only drive so far, to check so many traps each day, limiting the number of traps, trappers are able to set (Professional Trapper, 2014). A requirement to check foothold traps every 24 hours already exists in Maine (Jakubas, 2008).

In applying for an incidental take permit, a state must show they have funding to implement their habitat conservation plans. Part of this funding may already exist in the current funds available to trappers who bring in an incidentally captured fisher or lynx for a reward. One way to use funds to enforce new regulations under an HCP would be to provide a reward for trappers who report seeing violations of the new trapping regulations while out trapping themselves. For example, a trapper who goes to set a bobcat trap and sees a conibear trap large enough for a lynx with bait on the ground instead of on a leaning pole, should have an incentive to call a Fish & Game official and file a report. If, let’s say, a Fish & Game official comes to investigate the report and indeed finds a violation of current regulation, that official should be able to provide a worthwhile monetary reward for the trapper who initially called him with the report. The trapper in violation of regulation would be fined, and perhaps a portion of the money earned from that fine would go to the man who reported him. Park rangers can only do so much enforcement of trapping regulation and trappers can trust themselves not to report their own violations of regulation. There needs to be some real fear of consequence, an expected cost for violating regulation, in order for trappers to comply with trapping law. This is a situation where the collective action problem may come in the government’s favor (it is unlikely that all trappers will be able to ban together and agree to never report each other with financial incentives on the line. Each trapper will always have cause to worry that, even with such an agreement, someone walking by would find a trap in violation and want to anonymously collect a cash prize for their find). A system similar to this is in place in North Dakota. In this program, called R.A.P., rewards for reports of wildlife violations range from $100 to $1,000 depending on the seriousness of the reported crime. The funds for these rewards come from private donations (Furbearer Hunting…,2012). 

Part of the legislation necessary for a system like this to work is imposing a large enough fine for breaking new state trapping laws. The fine needs to be high enough to create a substantial incentive not to break the law, even with a low probability of being caught, and also high enough for the fine to provide funding for IDFG and the anonymous people who report true regulation violations to IDFG officials. 

In addition to new regulations for better trapping practices, Maine has a 24/7 widely publicized hotline where trappers can call if they incidentally capture a lynx during trapping season. When they call, Fish and Game biologists are sent to aid in the release of the trapped lynx, asses the animal’s injuries, transport the animal to a veterinarian if necessary or collar the animal for study. If a staff biologist cannot make it to the capture site, one will guide the trapper through the release process over the phone. This hotline is funded partially through revenue made from selling hunting and trapping licenses and partially through federally matched dollars from the Pittman-Robertson Act (Jakubas and Ritchie, 2008). The latest lynx to be incidentally captured was collared and released safely because the trappers who caught the lynx were able to contact a Fish and Game biologist to aid them on site. This example proves the value of having such a hotline, and IDFG may want to consider a special phone line for lynx and other species that are more often incidentally captured, such as fishers. 

Collecting more information on lynx and incidental capture in general is an important supplementary step for IDFG to better care for its protected species. The state of Idaho cannot truly reduce incidental capture of any animal unless it knows how much is happening and the circumstances in which it’s happening. Current Commission rules state that, “any trapper who captures and kills a non-target species…must notify the Department…within 72 hours…for Department personnel to retrieve the animal” (Idaho, 2004, p. 4). IDFG will pay $10 for each incidentally caught lynx or wolverine (Idaho, 2004; Idaho, 2005; Idaho, 2006; Idaho, 2007; Idaho, 2008; Idaho, 2009; Idaho, 2010; Idaho, 2011).  Trappers are also required to mention any incidental captures in an annual trapping report card. Currently, most data regarding incidental capture of animals comes from these report cards. Besides a desire to abide by the law, however, there is no real incentive for trappers to mention their incidental captures in their reports, if they fill out a report at all. In fact, compliance with this particular law varies widely (Lewis and Stinson, 1998). In the 2003-2004 trapping season, about 20% of licensed trappers did not turn in a report card at all (Idaho, 2004). 

Beside the lack of incentive to abide by Commission rules, there is actually incentive not to report incidental capture of a species protected by the ESA if a trapper mistakenly kills it. The man who incidentally killed a lynx in the 2012-2013 trapping season was honest about his mistake, and was fined in addition to his court costs for his crime (Buley, 2013). If trappers know they can be fined and taken to court for incidentally taking a lynx, they have personal motivation to withhold information about any incidents when they accidentally kill a listed species. The distinction between when a trapper will be rewarded for turning in a lynx and when he will be fined is also presented unclearly to the public, making it more unlikely for a trapper to report an incidentally trapped lynx he finds already dead in a trap as well.

As previously stated, a trapper is legally required to notify IDFG within 72 hours if he incidentally kills a non-target catch. If a trapper incidentally traps and then releases a non-target capture alive, however, then the trapper only has to report this incident on his trapping report card by the end of the season. This presents a problem as the released animal may be injured and likely to die as a result of being incidentally trapped. It’s unlikely that a trapper be able to discern the full extent of an incidentally trapped animal’s injuries, especially when internal injuries have occurred (Lewis and Zielinski, 1996). Whether or not a trapper reports an animal that is released alive, however, similar to whether or not a trapper checks his traps every 3 days as required by law (Idaho Fish and Game, 2013), is a much harder habit to monitor and regulation of the habit would be difficult to enforce. Lewis and Zielinski suggested in 1996 that trappers should be rewarded for specific information regarding incidentally captured animals including photographs. This would include photographs of incidentally caught animals that are released alive. The problem with this is that it would require a reward large enough to incentivize sending in the necessary documentation for the reward without being so large that it become profitable to catch a lynx that is later released alive. Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife uses positive reinforcement to help with this problem. Each time a trapper reports incidentally capturing an animal like a lynx, they are sent a letter appreciating them for their cooperation and their contribution to the good reputation of Maine’s trapping program (Jakubas and Ritchie, 2008). This would be a good start for Idaho’s information incentive problem. 

Conclusion

Only 3 lynx have been incidentally captured in Idaho in the past 12 years, but the rate of incidental capture may increase. Idaho Fish and Game would be smart to write a Habitat Conservation Plan for lynx requiring best trapping practices in order to ensure its population of lynx remains strong. Creating such a plan would benefit the welfare of many animals in Idaho as well as prevent a lawsuit over the fact that Idaho does not currently have an incidental take permit for its trapping program.

Bibliography

Attachments:

“lynx panhandle region” Attachment—sent by IDFG to ICL

“lynx salmon region” Attachment—sent by IDFG to ICL

“Report IDFG sample 2012-R7 hair and scat 2_8_12” Attachment—sent by IDFG to ICL

“Trapper Non-Target By Season and County 5-13-13” Attachment—sent by IDFG to ICL

American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Division. " Welfare Implications of Leghold Trap Use in Conservation and Research." AVMA.org. American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013. Web. 17 July 2013.

Banci, Vivian  1994.  Chapter 5: Wolverine.   In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 99-127. 

"Basic Facts About Canada Lynx." Defenders of Wildlife. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2013. http://www.defenders.org/canada-lynx/basic-facts.

Buley, Bill. "'Threatened' Lynx Trapped, Shot." Coeur D'Alene Press. N.p., 18 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 June 2013.

Byron, Eve. "Groups Say Wolf Traps Theaten Lynx, File Notice They May Sue the State." Missoulian. Missoulian.com, 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 June 2013.

Canada Lynx — Lynx canadensis.  Montana Field Guide.  Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.  Retrieved on August 21, 2013, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJH03010.aspx

Cole, Ken. "State Public Records Request Shows Widespread Capture and Mortality of Non-Target Animals Related to Idaho Wolf Trapping During 2011/2012 Trapping Season." The Wildlife News. N.p., 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 16 Aug. 2013.

Cushman, Samuel, Kevin McKelvey, and Michael Swhwartz. Case Study 6.1: DNA Survey for Fishers in Northern Idaho. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Coulter, Malcolm W. "The status and distribution of fisher in Maine." Journal of Mammalogy 41.1 (1960): 1-9.

Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Bitterroot, and Friends of the Clearwater. Petition for a Rule to Designate Fishers (Martes Pennanti) in the U.S. Norhtern Rocky Mountains a Distinct Population Segment and Add Them to the List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Proposed Rule,” 78 Federal Register 23 (4 February 2013), pp. 7864-7890.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, United States Code § 35-1531. Print.

Filippatos, Tasia. "Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Fact Sheet." Disney. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, May 2009. Web. 5 Sept. 2013. <http://corporate.disney.go.com/news/parks_resorts/Walt%20Disney%20Parks%20and%20Resorts%20Fact%20Sheet%20UPDATED%205-18-09.pdf>.

"First Canada Lynx in 15 Years Found in Idaho." NBC News. NBCNews.com, 21 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. <http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/01/10284202-first-canada-lynx-in-15-years-found-in-idaho?lite>.

"Furbearer Hunting and Trapping Guide." Nd.gov. The State of North Dakota, 2012. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. <http://gf.nd.gov/regulations-hunting-fishing-etc/furbearer-hunting-and-trapping-guide>.

Hatler, David F., Michael Badry, and Alison M.M. Beal. "Fisher." Env.gov.bc.ca. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, May 2003. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.env.gov.bc.ca%2Ffw%2Fwildlife%2Ftrapping%2Fdocs%2Ffisher.pdf&ei=SiEQU6PAFZaxoQSu24GgDw&usg=AFQjCNH_ykpGqyBm2sAtlXNi4V4HoRuZGw&sig2=wjwevCZ1_0UKyzmqWZwRlA>.

Hiller, T. L., and H. B. White. 2013. How to avoid incidental take of wolverine during regulated trapping activities. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, USA.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-28 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Gina Patton and Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2004. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-29 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Gina Patton and Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2005. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-30 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2006. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-31 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2007. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-32 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2008. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-33 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Craig White. Boise, ID: n.p., 2009. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-34 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Craig White. Boise, ID: n.p., 2010. Print.

Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project W-170-R-35 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Craig White. Boise, ID: n.p., 2011. Print.

Idaho Fish and Game. "Furbearer Trapping and Hunting Seasons by Region." Fishandgame.idaho.gov. Idaho Fish and Game, n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2013.

Idaho Fish and Game. "Wolverine: Gulo Gulo." Idaho Fish and Game. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013. <http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/cwcs/pdf/Wolverine.pdf>.

Idaho Fish and Game Biologist. Telephone Interview. 25 Feb. 2014.

Idaho Legislature. "TITLE 36 FISH AND GAME CHAPTER 11 PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS." Idaho Legislature. Idaho Legislature, 2013. Web. 04 Sept. 2013. <http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title36/T36CH11SECT36-1101.htm>.

Jakubas, Walter J., and Sandy Ritchie. DRAFT Incidental Take Plan for Maine’s Trapping Program. 13 Aug. 2008. Proposed Incidental Take Plan from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Augusta, ME.

Kucera, Thomas E. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Vol. 254. DIANE Publishing, 1998.

Lewis, Jeffrey C., and William J. Zielinski. "Historical harvest and incidental capture of fishers in California." (1996).

Lewis, Jeffrey C., and Derek W. Stinson. Washington State status report for the fisher. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program, 1998.

Lucid, Michael. "Lynx Captured in West Cabinet Mountains." Idaho Fish and Game. N.p., 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. <https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/post/lynx-captured-west-cabinet-mountains>.

Lucid, Michael. "Summer Trail Cameras Capture Images of Lynx and Other Species." Idaho Fish and Game. Idaho Fish and Game, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 04 Sept. 2013.

--- notice of intent http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/Sixty.Day.FINAL.Scanned.August.21.2012..pdf?docID=6162

Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission. Bureau of Wildlife Management. Status and Management of Fisher (Martes Pennanti) in Pennsylvania 2008-2017. By Dr. Matthew J. Lovallo. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2008. Print.

Proulx, G., et al. "Post-release movements of translocated fishers." Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York (1994): 197-203.

Professional Trapper. Telephone interview. 13 Jan. 2014.

Roady, Laura. "Wolverine Proposed for Listing despite Numbers Increase." Bonners Ferry Herald Online. Bonners Ferry Herald, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 03 July 2013

Schwartz, Michael K. “Ancient DNA Confirms Native Rocky Mountain Fisher (Martes pennanti) Avoided Early 20^th Century Extinction.” Journal of Mammalogy: August 2007, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 921-925.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Bitterroot, Western Watersheds Project, and Friends of the Wild Swan. Petition to List the Northern Rockies Distinct Population Segment of Fisher As Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.

"Trapper Education Class Schedule & Information." Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2013. Web. 05 Sept. 2013. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/classes/trapping.php>.

"Trapping in Lynx Country Jeopardizes Recovery Efforts." WildEarth Guardians. N.p., 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 June 2013. <http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7913&news_iv_ctrl=1194>.

United States. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule. 126th ed. Vol. 76. N.p.: n.p., 2011. Print. Federal Register.

United States. Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Biological Assessment for Wildlife Damage Management Activities in Idaho: Analysis of Potential Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species. Boise: n.p., 2013. Print.

USDA: APHIS. Table G. Animals Taken by Component/Method Type and Fate by Wildlife Services in Idaho - FY2010. Rep. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2013. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2010_prog_data/PDR_G/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/StateTables/Table_G_State_Level-ID.pdf>.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form. 16 Apr. 2012. Form to give Martes pennanti (fisher) priority for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the North American lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Washington: Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia.

Zemlicka, Doris E.; Sahr, D. Pete; Savarie, Peter J.; Knowlton, Frederick F.; Blom, F. Sherman; and Belant, Jerrold L.,"DEVELOPMENT AND REGISTRATION OF A PRACTICAL TRANQUILIZER TRAP DEVICE (TTD) FOR FOOT-HOLDTRAPS" (1997). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 387. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/387

Zuckerman, Laura. "Groups Sue Montana over Trapping of Imperiled Lynx." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 June 2013.

A Summer for Sea Turtles

The summer of 2012 was one of the best summers of my life. I was awarded a Stanford in Government Stipend to conduct independent research for my senior project, and ended up conducting a sea turtle valuation project in cooperation with the Bald Head Island Conservancy (BHIC) on Bald Head Island, NC.

It was amazing to be able to live in paradise, work with kind and passionate people, do work I believed in, and to tag along on Conservancy programs with the BHIC interns.

My research project was inspired by the knowledge that development was threatening the nearly pristine beaches and nesting habitat of Bald Head. I hoped that my research would be able to make a difference, give the Conservancy a fighting point when advocating against development...I'm not sure what will come of my research, but I can say that I learned a lot from my project and that conservation can be the economically sound choice.

The abstract of my paper reads:

Sea turtles produce value for Bald Head Island (BHI), NC that is difficult to quantify because sea turtles are a non-market good. It is important to find an estimate for this value, however, so that it may be included in any cost-benefit analysis conducted when making development decisions for the area. In this study, I administered a survey to residents and visitors of BHI to gather data for contingent valuation, travel-cost analysis, as well as an estimate of possible ecotourism revenue for a year in order to arrive at an estimate of the total value of having sea turtles nest on BHI beaches in 2012.  The resulting total value of sea turtles on BHI including both use and non-use values was over $49 million. This is no small sum of money, and suggests that there are strong economic incentives to conserve sea turtles. 

 The best part of my time on the island, however, was not conducting my research but aiding in excavations!! Below is a journal entry from my personal journal:

"Yesterday was excavation day. Three days after a sea turtle nest hatches, the staff of the Bald Head Island Conservancy will dig up the nest to see what the success of the nest was. How many eggs hatched? How many didn't? Are there sea turtles who died on the way out? Are there little hatchlings who are still alive?

They found 19 live hatchlings. 19 hatchlings who just weren't quite strong enough to make it out of the nest. 19 hatchlings who needed an extra push to find their way. They were so little...and so cute.
I looked at Alyssa, the sea turtle coordinator, with a look that said it all. Please let me hold one!!! She picked up a little sea turtle, made her way to me, and placed the little guy into my anxious hands. How incredible to hold something so small and so full of life. I looked into the little sea turtle's eyes. I had one of those moments...where everything feels connected. This little sea turtle was speaking to me. Screaming with all the passion I had forgotten along the way.

I marveled at how strong he was. My little guy was a fighter. He tried so hard to escape from my hands, and every next 30 seconds I was sure that he would succeed and the world would hate me for dropping something so precious and so delicate. For a straggler, he was so filled with life!!! So much energy...such an incredible will to live. Like seeing the sun for the first time had given him all the assurance he ever needed. I felt so much pride, feeling him wiggle in my hand. This guy was a fighter. He would make it. I had to hold him tighter to ensure he didn't fly out of my hands, and even then he only fought back harder. I didn't want to squeeze too hard and hurt him so I just looked at him and prayed. I prayed that he would go out there...make it through the whole beautiful circle of life...one day find his way back to these waters (if 'he' turned out to be a 'she')...

I got to take him around to all the people who had come to watch the excavation. Show them this little turtle, answer all their questions. I let people take pictures. I held the little turtle close to the pure and curious faces of children whose eyes spoke only wonder. Genuine wonder. And I heard them whisper to the turtle. Little girls saying, "You can do it!!" "Good luck little guy!" ...saying little prayers for this little turtle. So many people filled with so much love...these kids looked at this little turtle and bestowed upon it all their greatest wishes. And it was so beautiful.

And then. I got to release this little sea turtle to the ocean. Walk to the tide line. Set him in the sand. And watch him alternate his flippers until his little head felt the water for the first time in his life. Amidst all the prayers and wishes and flipper tracks...I watched this little creature begin his life journey.

And in these precious hours. It all made sense to me. Why I do, what I do. Nothing could make me doubt in that moment that what I did mattered. I had been struggling with too many existential questions about the purpose of life...my life, trying to find meaning in my every day...get past the simple evolutionary reasons for my birth. But that morning, watching the sea turtle make it's way into the endless ocean...hearing the prayers of little children...the importance of what I was doing was unmistakeable. That little sea turtle wanted to live. No one can tell me otherwise. And those hearts around me. Young and old. They wanted, with so much more of them than I could ever have imagined, for him to live too. And I was able to help give this little sea turtle that chance...the chance for life that we all deserve. Suddenly, everything I've done to get to that moment was irrefutably worthwhile.

So that's why I'm here. And this is what I'm going to do."

Needless to say, I will carry the summer of 2012 with me for the rest of my life.

Is a TAC on harbor porpoises a better solution to harbor porpoise bycatch than a Pingers requirement?

Introduction

Most marine mammal bycatch is collected in the Gulf of Maine, where over 500 harbor porpoises are killed a year.[1] The number one anthropogenic cause of harbor porpoise mortality in the North Atlantic is a result of harbor porpoises becoming entangled in “sink” gillnets meant to catch ground fish and drowning.[2] These lost harbor porpoises create no value for fishermen, but instead create lost passive use value for all those who value harbor porpoises, lost use value for those who might visit an area to see harbor porpoises, and lost ecological value inherent in removing a species from its natural environment.[3] This bycatch represents a negative externality[4] as it’s a cost that’s unaccounted for by fishers in the Gulf of Maine.

This paper will explore two possible methods of reducing harbor porpoise bycatch: imposing a TAC of harbor porpoises on relevant fishing firms or requiring that each fishing vessel in harbor porpoise habitat use “Pingers.” After examining the costs and benefits of each bycatch reduction method, I conclude that a TAC on harbor porpoises is a better solution for society than a mandatory “Pingers” requirement.

Benefits of Total Allowable Bycatch

            One method for reducing bycatch is to set a limit on the total amount of bycatch that may be caught in a certain period of time. Once the total amount of bycatch has been caught, the fishing industry responsible for the bycatch is shut down immediately to prevent further bycatch.[5]

            This method allows bycatch to be reduced by a specific quantity scientists and economists can determine, and if well-enforced, can ensure bycatch remains at the socially optimal quantity. To see how this works, take a look at Figure 1. Without any regulation, bycatch is caught at the Open Access quantity where the total cost of bycatch is equal to the total benefit of bycatch. The total private cost of bycatch is low because the only private cost of bycatch to the fishers is the cost fishers must incur to get rid of the bycatch they gather. The total benefit of the bycatch is also low. Dead harbor porpoises, themselves, are worthless to fishers but they’re caught in the process of catching fish which do provide fishers benefit. The social cost of bycatch is much higher as it includes the lost passive use, direct use, and ecological values of harbor porpoises mentioned earlier. To find the level of bycatch that is the most profitable for society, the marginal benefit of bycatch should be set equal to the marginal social cost of bycatch. The resulting level of bycatch is much lower than the quantity of bycatch caught under open access. If a fishing industry can be monitored and forced to never catch a quantity of bycatch above the socially optimal level, than the bycatch externality has been effectively internalized. In 1992, for example, this method was employed to limit dolphin mortality in La Jolla. Every year since then, the ceiling on dolphin mortality was lowered and this method has successfully shown a reduction in dolphin mortality over time.[6]

In addition, if total allowable bycatch is divided into tradable catch shares among fishers, then the total allowable bycatch system creates financial incentive for fishers to personally reduce their own bycatch in innovative ways. If fishers can manage to catch less harbor porpoises, they can make money by selling their shares to someone else.[7] This opportunity fosters the creation of innovative new methods of bycatch reduction including gear alteration and even reduced effort, which are beneficial to society.  

Costs of Total Allowable Bycatch

            It is expensive for fisheries to reduce their bycatch. A fishery may reduce their effort in order to reduce their bycatch, but doing so results in catching less fish and making less revenue. A fishery may also alter their gear and methods in order to reduce the percentage of bycatch they catch, but that increases the fishery’s costs. If a fishery is unable to reduce its catch, it must purchase catch shares for the bycatch it’s catching. If a fishery is unable to both reduce its bycatch and purchase enough dolphin porpoise catch shares, that fishery will go out of business and the fishers employed in that fishery will lose their jobs.

The benefit of tradable catch shares is that they allow the fishery with the smallest marginal costs of bycatch reduction to reduce their bycatch the most.  This ability should make reducing bycatch under a total allowable bycatch rule more economically feasible for fisheries. Figure 2 provides a helpful illustration. It shows two fisheries: Fishery I and Fishery II. Fishery I has a marginal cost curve that is less steep than Fishery II’s marginal cost curve, indicating that it is cheaper for Fishery I to reduce their bycatch. A total allowable bycatch requires that a total amount, or in this case, percentage, of bycatch is reduced but does not specify how it has to be done. If both fisheries reduced total bycatch by 20%, then Fishery I would incur the costs shown by the trapezoid on the bottom left (from 100% to 80% on the bottom left, up to the “MC^I” curve) and Fishery II would incur the costs shown by the larger trapezoid on the right (from 100% to 80% on the bottom right up to the “MC^II” curve). If Fishery I does all the bycatch reduction, the same amount of harbor porpoises are saved but society wins the triangle highlighted in green (the cost Fishery II didn’t have to pay because Fishery I also reduced Fishery II’s share of bycatch).

            If a local fishing industry exceeds its total allowable bycatch and is forced to shut down, even temporarily, however, it will create large economic burdens on the fisheries in that industry. This is exactly what happened last year when NOAA closed an area in the Gulf of Maine to gillnet fishing from October through November, the months that have historically had the highest harbor porpoise by-catch rates. In 2011, gillnet vessels made 721 fishing trips during October and November in this area. The revenue gained from those fishing trips last year either had to be made up or was taken as a loss. The economic burden created by this temporary closure ended up being dependent on the ability of fisheries to find and move to other areas.[8]

            In addition to the costs to fishers of reducing bycatch, a total allowable bycatch system also has the cost of monitoring and enforcement. If fishers are not held accountable to the total allowable bycatch quantity, then the entire system is ineffective. Fortunately, fishers have an incentive to keep each other accountable in a catch share system[9] as sellers of bycatch permits want to profit and buyers don’t want their competition to have an unfair advantage.

Benefits of Pingers

            The NOAA Fisheries Service implemented the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan to reduce the amount of harbor porpoises accidently dying as a result of gillnets. Part of their plan required the use of Pingers;[10] a device that produces a high frequency sound every four seconds to warn porpoises that something is in the area. NOAA reports that pingers are 90% effective in preventing porpoises from ending up as bycatch.[11] Fourteen studies in North America and Europe show that pingers significantly reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoises by causing the porpoises to avoid areas ensonified by pingers. Two of these studies show a 50-60% reduction in dolphin and porpoise bycatch in two gillnet fisheries over time. Their results show no indication that habituation to pingers will cause bycatch to rise again in the future.[12] Pingers have been proven to work without lowering the catch rate of target fish.[13]

Costs of Pingers

            Having to use pingers raises the cost of fishing for fishers. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service regulations state that pingers are required every 150 feet of gillnet along both the top and bottom lines to work effectively. For one swordfish gillnet, this regulation would require the fishery to use 40 pingers. Commercially produced pingers cost between $50 and $80.[14] This results in an estimated cost of about $2600 in pingers for the individual swordfish gillnet.

Pingers, however, are not one-time purchase objects. They need to be maintained in good condition and their batteries need to be replaced. Pingers, themselves, need to be replaced if they get lost; and fishers say pingers fall off gillnets very easily during fishing.[15] It is reasonable to believe that a fisher will have to buy new pingers and batteries every year. For some subsistence fisheries, the cost of pingers may end up being too much.[16]

Monitoring the usage of Pingers represents a very important cost. Unlike the situation with the total allowable bycatch rule, fishers have no monetary incentive to monitor each other. In fact, they each have incentive to not use pingers when possible and not draw attention to anyone doing the same thing, to reduce costs. That leaves the government responsible for monitoring, and in fact, NOAA has been in charge of monitoring pinger usage in the past. Effective monitoring is expensive and the money to cover the costs, if monitoring is a government endeavor, rests on taxpayers. 

Discussion on Net Benefits of Each Method & Conclusion

Creating a total allowable bycatch amount forces fisheries to either change their methods and behaviors in order to reduce their bycatch or invest lots of purchase power in buying bycatch permits. Tradable bycatch permits or catch shares allow the majority of the economic burden a total allowable bycatch law creates to be taken on by the fisheries who are most able to handle it.

Mandating that all fishers use pingers does not require substantial changes to fishing behavior or gear.[17] However, pingers are not free and as the economic burden of using pingers isn’t placed on fishers proportionate to their ability to deal with this cost, society misses out on the gain a more efficient bycatch reduction method could produce. While enforcement of total allowable bycatch is left to the fishers, taxpayers must pay for the monitoring of pinger usage.  

A total allowable bycatch rule fosters innovation of new bycatch reduction techniques in a way that mandating pingers does not. The first method offers fishers monetary gains for finding ways to reduce their bycatch while fishers can be compliant with the second rule by simply installing and maintaining their pingers and never giving the purpose of the pingers (bycatch reduction) a second thought. Innovative ways to reduce bycatch are valuable to society and the future of the planet. 

As far as actually reducing bycatch, a total allowable bycatch rule allows the rule maker to decide exactly how much bycatch will be reduced at any given time. Pingers can reduce bycatch from the status quo, but they provide no guarantee that they will help reduce bycatch to a socially or ecologically optimal level and the amount bycatch is reduced can vary in different situations.

While it seems that the cost to fishermen of the total allowable bycatch rule may be more expensive than a requirement to use pingers, it also seems that the benefits to society of a total allowable bycatch rule are much greater than the benefits of its alternative. If the goal is to build more sustainable fisheries, and a future that is more environmentally minded, then it seems that a total allowable bycatch rule should be the preferred method of bycatch reduction. Some may not view the distributional effects of this decision as ethically justifiable. Society as a whole benefits, as do future generations, but current fishermen bear the brunt of the cost. Since, however, I have a rather low discount rate for the future and I perceive the future benefits of this decision to be so widespread, I find that the decision makes economic sense as well as ethical sense from a utilitarian point of view. Of course, fishers can theoretically be compensated for their costs by members of society who benefit from a total allowable bycatch rule but do not assume any private costs. And fisheries that can reach the socially optimal level of bycatch solely by using pingers will be free to do so, and incentivized to do so with a total allowable catch program.

While a total allowable bycatch limit may not be politically pleasing, it appears that it is preferred over a pingers requirement when taking into consideration the utility of society as a whole.

---

[1] Lynham, John. "Bycatch." Stanford, CA. 2 May 2013. Lecture.

[2] "Harbor Porpoise." Project Global. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 May 2013. <http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/species/harbor-porpoise>.

[3] Lynham, John. “Indirect Valuation.” Stanford, CA. 23 May 2013. Lecture.

[4] Lynham, John. “Bycatch.” Stanford, CA. 2 May 2013. Lecture.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] "Annual Fall Fishing Closure Announced to Protect Harbor Porpoises in Gulf of Maine." Saving Seafood. N.p., 19 Apr. 2012. Web. 31 May 2013. <http://www.savingseafood.org/regulations/annual-fall-fishing-closure-announced-to-protect-harbor-porpoises-in-gulf-of-4.html>.

[9] Lynham, John. “Bycatch.” Stanford, CA. 2 May 2013. Lecture.

[10] "HARBOR PORPOISE TAKE REDUCTION PLAN." NOAA FIsheries. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 May 2013.

[11] Hanselman, Sarah, and John Cooke. "Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Closure: Fishermen Raise Questions about Communication, Data, Goals and Policies." Saving SeaFood. N.p., 24 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2013.

[12] Dawson, Stephen M., Simon Northridge, Danielle Waples, and Andrew J. Read. "To Ping or Not to Ping: The Use of Active Acoustic Devices in Mitigating Interactions between Small Cetaceans and Gillnet Fisheries." Endangered Species Research 19 (2013): 201-21. Print.

[13] "NOAA's New Northeast Chief's First Official Act- Undermining the Marine Mammal Protection Act?" WindCheck. Whale and Dolphin Conservation, n.d. Web. 31 May 2013. <http://windcheckmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1569:noaas-new-northeast-chiefs-first-official-act-undermining-the-marine-mammal-protection-act&catid=87:environment&Itemid=418>.

[14] "Mechanism: How Do Pingers Work?" Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 May 2013.

[15] Hanselman, Sarah, and John Cooke. “Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Closure…

[16] "Mechanism: How Do Pingers Work?" Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center.

[17] Dawson, Stephen M., Simon Northridge, Danielle Waples, and Andrew J. Read… 

------
This paper was written for 'Marine Resource Economics and Conservation,' a course I completed at Stanford University.