ranching with wildlife - home page | benton county oregon · 2 marin county livestock &...

1

Ranching with Wildlife Lessons Learned from Marin County, CA

Camilla H. Fox

Marin County ~ 1996 Controversy over use of Compound 1080

How are we going to treat wildlife?” and “Who gets to decide”?)

Identified Common Interests & Values:

•  Support for agriculture •  Support for wildlife •  Recognition that lethal predator

control under USDA Wildlife Services program “not working”

•  Commitment to explore alternatives to poison/indiscriminate lethal control

Marin County Livestock & Wildlife Protection Program

2


•  nearly complete participation; •  preference over the USDA Wildlife Service’s traditional

predator management program; •  substantial reduction of livestock losses; •  increase in non-lethal deterrent use; •  reduced the total number of predators killed to protect

livestock; •  fewer species of predator were killed.

~Fox, C. H. 2008. Analysis of the Marin County strategic plan for protection of livestock and wildlife, an alternative to traditional predator control. M.A. thesis, Prescott College, AZ. 120 pp.

•  Ranchers with greater than 200 head are eligible to submit a claim to receive up to $2,000 annually for cost-share.

•  Ranchers with fewer than 200 head are eligible to receive up to $500.

•  Operations with less than 25 head are not considered commercial and are therefore not eligible for participation in this program.

•  Cost-share approved methods include protection/guard animals, fencing, scare devices, and shepherding/husbandry.

.


Fox, C. H. 2008






•  nearly complete participation of commercial sheep ranchers (~7,500 head);

•  preference over the USDA Wildlife Service’s traditional predator management program;

•  substantial reduction of livestock losses; •  increase in non-lethal deterrent use; •  fewer wildlife species were killed.

.


Fox, C. H. 2008

“losses fell from 5.0 to 2.2 percent while program costs fell by over $50,000. For the first couple of years we couldn’t tell if the loss reductions were a trend or a blip. Now, we can say there’s a definite pattern and livestock losses have decreased significantly.” ~Stacy Carlsen, Marin County Agricultural Commissioner, Bay Nature

magazine

County’s Perspective

County’s Perspective: “I know the program has made a difference for the sheep producers out there. In addition to the cost sharing, they are also just being recognized in a way that that they weren’t before.”

~Anita Sauber, former Marin County Dept. of Ag. Administrator, Marin County Non-Lethal Livestock & Wildlife Protection Program, Point Reyes Light

• Coexistence • Coexistence

3






Fox, C. H. 2008

•  Involves cooperation amongst range of stakeholders

•  Provides opportunities for greater stakeholder involvement in decision making

•  Integrates ethics, animal welfare, and best science through an adaptive management approach

•  Allows for continued site-specific monitoring, evaluation, and improvements


Fox, C. H. 2008

“This innovative model sets a precedent for meeting a wider compass of community needs and values where both agriculture and protection of

wildlife are deemed important by the community. The success of our county model has set the trend

for the rest of the nation.”

~Stacy Carlsen, Marin County Ag. Commissioner

QUESTIONS? More info.- ProjectCoyote.org

Benton CountyAnimal Damage Control

Program Review & Non-Lethal Alternatives

Summary

A review of 10 years (2004-2014) of USDA animal damage control data from Benton County shows that indiscriminate lethal methods (snares, traps, and poisons) were used to kill 738 mammals and over 3,000 birds in an attempt to protect livestock, crops, and property. Coyotes (62%) and beavers (13%) were the mammals most frequently killed. An average of 36 reports of actual damage and 11 reports of damage threat were received each year. Reports of livestock damage were the most common (69%) followed by reports of crop (16%) and property damage (14%). Threats to human health and safety were rare (5 incidents). A cost comparison suggests that using non-lethal deterrents may be more cost-effective than killing wildlife. Scientific studies and local examples suggest that non-lethal predator deterrents are a more effective way to protect livestock and coexist with wildlife.

738 Mammals Killed 2004-2014

Coyotes (456)Beavers (95)Raccoons (50)Bobcats (46)Striped Skunks (37)Nutrias (27)Mountain Lions (18)Opossums (3)Spotted Skunks (2)Black Bears (1)Minks (1)River Otters (1)Black-Tailed Deer (1)

Coyotes62%Beavers

13%

Raccoons 7%

Bobcats 6%

75% of mammals killed in the Benton county animal damage control program are coyotes and beavers. 3,001 Red-winged Blackbirds, Brewer’s Blackbirds, and Barn Swallows killed are excluded from this chart.

2,995 Blackbirds Killed Using Poison

Red-winged Blackbird Brewer’s Blackbird

In two incidents at gathering areas near cattle feedlots, 2,995 Red-winged Blackbirds and Brewer’s Blackbirds were killed using the poison DRC-1339. DRC-1339 is a slow-acting poison which takes 1-3 days to kill birds. DRC-1339 is highly toxic to many bird species and aquatic invertebrates.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Actual Damage (Ave = 36) Damage Threat (Ave = 11)

Annual Reports of Damage 2004-2014

82

48

75

11

58

43

52

42

29 28

10-Year Total = 468Average per Year = 47

The number of reports of damage vary widely from year to year. An average of 36 reports of actual damage and 11 reports of damage threat were received each year. A Damage Threat is recorded when a resource and damage agent are in close proximity but no actual resource damage has occurred.

<1%

<1%

<1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

3%

5%

5%

9%

69%

Aquaculture

Fisheries

Equipment

Other Agriculture

Field Crops

Human Health & Safety

Pets

Landscaping, Turf & Gardens

Other Property

Fruits & Nuts

Structures

Commercial Forestry & Nursery

Livestock

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Coyotes

% of Damage Reports by Resource 2004-2014

Health & Safety – 1%

Agriculture – 84%Property – 14%

Natural Resource – <1%

Resource Category

The majority of damage reports (actual and threat) are for livestock (69%) followed by reports of crop (16%) and property damage (14%). Threats to human health and safety were rare (5 incidents).

Cost per individual mammal killed $293

Cost to protect roads from beaver damage

Funds Spent $42,000

Damage Reports 4

Beavers Killed 4

Reported Losses $4,000

County Cost per Damage Report $10,500

Cost of Killing Wildlife 2004-2014

From 2008-2014, $42,000 from the county Road Fund was allocated specifically to kill beavers and nutria causing or threatening damage to roads. From 2004-2014 only 4 conflicts with beavers involving roads were reported.

Each year $21,933 currently allocated to kill wildlife could pay for the average annual cost of either:

50 miles Portable Electric Net Fencing

26 Livestock Guardian Dogs

90 Beaver Pond Levelers

2,580 Scare Devices

Cost of Non-Lethal Deterrents

Portable Electric Net Fencing ($4,411 initial cost, $441 average annual cost): http://www.premier1supplies.com/fencing.php?mode=detail&fence_id=40 Guarding Dog ($2,500 initial cost, $850 average annual cost – includes training, vet care, food): http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=icwdm_usdanwrc Beaver Pond Leveler ($1,400 initial cost, $245 average annual cost): http://www.martinezbeavers.org/wordpress/wp-content/docs/174%20Simon.pdf Scare Device ($85 initial cost, $8.50 average annual cost): http://www.foxlights.com/

http://www.premier1supplies.com/fencing.php?mode=detail&fence_id=40

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

http://www.martinezbeavers.org/wordpress/wp-content/docs/174%20Simon.pdf

http://www.foxlights.com/

Average Annual Cost of Non-Lethal Deterrents

Resource Category Damage Agent Reports of Damage Deterrents______________________________________________________________________________________________

Livestock Carnivores 27 11,616

Small Animals Carnivores 7 3,041

Plants Herbivores 7 2,957

Property Several 5 2,323

Roads, Bridges, Beavers 1 245Dikes, Dams

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Total 47 20,181County Allocation to Kill Wildlife 2015-2016 21,933

Assumptions/Notes: All conflict resolutions require the purchase of a deterrent vs. simple changes in husbandry (e.g. night penning) Each damage report originates from a unique resource owner Each type of deterrent is used equally within each resource category Reports includes threats of damage as well as actual damage Calculated based on average cost over 10 years – initial year cost is higher Average cost over 10 years per: Trained Livestock Guardian Dog $850 Mile of Portable Electric Net Fencing $441 Beaver Pond Leveler $245 Scare Device $8.50 References: Portable Electric Net Fencing ($4,411 initial cost): http://www.premier1supplies.com/fencing.php?mode=detail&fence_id=40 E’ Guarding Dog ($2,500 initial cost): http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=icwdm_usdanwrc Beaver Pond Leveler ($1,400 initial cost): http://www.martinezbeavers.org/wordpress/wp-content/docs/174%20Simon.pdf Scare Device ($85 initial cost): http://www.foxlights.com/

http://www.premier1supplies.com/fencing.php?mode=detail&fence_id=40%20E%E2%80%99

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

http://www.martinezbeavers.org/wordpress/wp-content/docs/174%20Simon.pdf

http://www.foxlights.com/

Effectiveness of Traps, Snares, and Poisons

Indiscriminate methods are ineffective & scientifically unsound

Result in no lasting reduction in livestock loss

Researchers have repeatedly found that greater than 70% of the coyote population must be killed every year – forever – to achieve a lasting reduction in population size. This has rarely, if ever, been achieved (Connolly & Longhurst 1975; Bekoff 1978; Connolly 1995). Non-selective removal of coyotes in and around one farm did not reduce sheep losses in subsequent years (Conner, 1998).

Effectiveness of Non-Lethal Deterrents

Guarding Dogs – 22% sheep farms no predation, 63% reduced, 15% no change or increase

Llamas – 80% of producers rated effective for protecting sheep, 15% somewhat effective, 5% not effective

Livestock Guarding Dogs – Coppinger, et al., 1988. A decade of use of livestock guarding dogs. Livestock Guarding Llamas – Franklin and Powell, 1994. Guard llamas: a part of integrated sheep protection.


Electric Fencing – 91% reduction in sheep loss after installation

Electric Fencing – Nass and Theade, 1988. Electric fences for reducing sheep losses to predators.


Scare Devices – Foxlights currently being evaluated by agriculture and wildlife professionals in Oregon, Idaho, and California

Personal communication with OSU professor Bill Ripple and Camilla Fox, Executive Director, Project Coyote.


Flow Devices – “flow devices were more cost-effective than trapping and clearing culverts.”

From a 2014 review paper by OSU-Wildlife Services animal damage control researcher Jimmy Taylor. Taylor and Singleton, 2014. The Evolution of Flow Devices Used to Reduce Flooding by Beavers: A Review. Boyles and Savitzky, 2008. An analysis of the efficacy and comparative costs of flow devices to resolve conflicts with North American beavers along roadways in the coastal plain of Virginia.

Effectiveness - Local Examples

Greenbelt Land Trust Bald Hill Farm Portable Electric Fencing

Bald Hill Farm, LLC Livestock Guarding Dogs

Conservation and Commercial Sheep operations.

Greenbelt Land TrustBald Hill Farm

Bald Hill Farm, LLC

Greenbelt Land Trust Bald Hill Farm – 600 acres Bald Hill Farm, LLC – 150 acres

Greenbelt Land Trust Bald Hill Farm

portable electric net fencing

zero sheep losses

600-acre Bald Hill Farm has successfully protected 50 sheep (no losses) with 3-foot portable electric net fencing. In the Bald Hill Farm Management Plan, Greenbelt Land Trust has prioritized the use of non-lethal predator deterrents to protect both livestock and wildlife.

Bald Hill Farm, LLC

2 livestock guardian dogs

zero sheep losses

Two Great Pyrenees livestock guardian dogs (Rambo I & II) have successfully protected 60 sheep and 90 lambs on 150 acres at Bald Hill Farm, LLC this year.

Bald Hill Farm, LLC

After decades of snaring, trapping, and shooting coyotes, the Bald Hill Farm, LLC ranch manager tried livestock guardian dogs this year saying “snares just don’t work” and “not all coyotes kill sheep”.

Bald Hill Farm, LLC

Rambo I & II after a hard night’s work. Cost: $300 each, from Idaho. Current value of lambs: $200 each.

Benton County Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program

A Strategic Plan for Protecting Livestock, Crops, and Other Property While Coexisting With Wildlife

RECOMMENDED PLAN Approve a five-year action plan to develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate a community-based and administered livestock, crop, property and wildlife protection program. Approve the USDA-APHIS Cooperative Service Agreement (CSA or Contract) to respond to wildlife conflicts during the first 6 months of Year 1 as a bridge to full implementation of the plan in Year 2. Do not renew portions of the CSA supported by the Road Fund which (1) kill beavers causing or threatening damage to county roads (only 4 conflicts in 10 years) and (2) remove large wildlife species from county roads that are killed by vehicles ($90 per animal). Re-direct funds to (1) a 50% cost-share grant program where ranchers, farmers, and households apply for merit-based grants for purchasing non-lethal wildlife deterrents to protect livestock, crops, and other property and to (2) cooperators such as Chintimini Wildlife Center and/or OSU Cooperative Extension to conduct livestock, crop, property and wildlife protection educational outreach and consultation services. Establish an Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program Advisory Committee to review grant applications and advise the county commissioners on matters related to the program. Consider designating the Public Works Department to remove large vehicle-killed wildlife from county roadways as a possible cost-savings measure. KEY FEATURES OF PROGRAM

Recognizes the value of agriculture and wildlife in Benton County

Fosters the use of non-lethal animal damage control while allowing the use of lethal methods (as per state laws and regulations) as a last resort to remove individual problem animals

Uses a cost-share grant program to provide financial assistance in purchasing non-lethal deterrents

Provides educational outreach and consultation services to resource owners experiencing conflicts with wildlife

Allows threats to human health and safety involving wildlife to continue to be addressed by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

BENEFITS OF PROGRAM

Less Resource Damage/Loss - more effective animal damage control over the long term using science-based preventative non-lethal approach

Cost-Effective – though annual cost-sharing will vary dependent upon the number of conflicts with wildlife each year, the average cost of the county program should be similar to the amount currently allocated for lethal animal damage control

Local Control – allows County Commissioners, rather than the federal government, to set animal damage control policy in Benton County

Choice of Solutions – allows local farms and homeowners to select the appropriate deterrent to prevent wildlife conflicts

Wildlife Friendly – recognizes the value of native wildlife in maintaining ecosystem health and integrity; fosters the production of valuable wildlife friendly products by local ranchers and farmers

PLAN SUMMARY The following is a summary of the five-year action plan: Year 1: 2016-2017 Fiscal Year Proposed Activities

Renew animal damage control portion of USDA contract with a 6-month sunset provision- $7,500 (½ annual cost of $15,000)

Fund a 50% cost-share grant program for purchasing non-lethal deterrents using remainder of USDA animal damage control funds ($7,500)

Lethal (USDA) and non-lethal (cost-share) programs operate concurrently for 6 months as a bridge to full implementation of the non-lethal cost-share program in year 2.

Establish an Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program Advisory Committee which would meet via conference call bi-annually and in person annually to review grant applications and advise county commissioners on other matters related to the program

Designate Public Works Department to remove vehicle-killed wildlife from roadways ($5,000)

Funds previously used to target beaver causing or threatening damage to roads (only 4 conflicts in 10 years) shift to fund Chintimini Wildlife Center and/or OSU Extension educational outreach and consultation services ($7,000)

Send memo and brochures and update relevant websites describing the action plan and cost-share program to previous users of USDA lethal control in Benton County

Program monitoring, analysis, and year-end evaluation report Years 2-4: 2017-2020 Proposed Activities For Each Fiscal Year

All funds previously used for USDA lethal animal damage control shift entirely to county cost-share grant program ($15,000)

Fund Chintimini Wildlife Center and/or OSU Extension educational outreach and consultation services ($7,000 )

Partner with organizations like Project Coyote to provide training and workshops on innovative wildlife-human-livestock conflict mitigation


Program monitoring, analysis, and year-end evaluation report

Adjust elements of the action plan based on year-end evaluation Year 5: 2020-2021 Fiscal Year Proposed Activities

Renew cost-share grant program for purchasing non-lethal deterrents ($15,000 )

Fund Chintimini Wildlife Center and/or OSU Extension educational outreach and consultation services ($7,000)

Partner with organizations like Project Coyote to provide training and workshops on innovative wildlife-human-livestock conflict mitigation


Program monitoring, analysis, and year-end evaluation report

Continue, adjust, or terminate program based on evaluation of annual reports FISCAL PLAN 1. Breakdown of county funds for current 2015-2016 USDA-Benton County contract $15,000 Kill predatory and nuisance wildlife $7,000 Kill beavers and nutria threatening to damage county roads $5,000 Remove large vehicle-killed animals from roadways

$27,000 Total annual cost of USDA-Benton County contract 2. Estimated annual cost of non-lethal deterrents Minimum (11 conflicts) $12,000 Maximum (82 conflicts) $42,000 Average (47 conflicts) $20,000 Estimates are based on the number of work task occurrences (conflicts) found in 2004-2014 USDA Benton County resource loss summaries and published values of average annual costs of non-lethal deterrents. Assumes that conflicts are addressed using guarding dogs, portable electric fencing, and scare devices equally (1/3 of conflicts) across 4 resource categories: (1) livestock, (2) trees, shrubs, and grasses, (3) small animals, and (4) all other resources. Assumes conflicts with beavers involving roads, bridges, dikes, dams, and impoundments are addressed using flow devices (pond levelers, etc.). Note that initial year costs for deterrents such as guarding dogs and electric fencing will be substantially higher than the average annual costs. 3. Breakdown of county funds for non-lethal Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program $15,000 Cost-share (50%) grant program $7,000 Educational outreach and consultation services $5,000 Benton County Public Works remove vehicle-killed animals from roadways

$27,000 Total annual cost of county Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 1. USDA/Benton County Cooperative Program (Existing Program) Program costs: $50,000 PROS:

Program cost to county is locked in at $27,000

Federal and State government matching funds pay 46% of costs

Maintain publicly-available records of activities CONS:

Experts question effectiveness of indiscriminate lethal control methods

Concern for wildlife losses through unintentional killing

Concern for safety of pets and children

Concern for ecological effects of removal of native carnivores

No choice of non-lethal deterrents 2. County Operated Non-Lethal Cost Share Program (Recommended Plan) Estimated cost: $27,000 PROS:

More effective animal damage control according to USDA research

Prevent rather than react to resource damage/loss

Commissioners set animal damage control policy, not federal government

Cost sharing to assist implementation of program

Consultation and educational outreach services provided

Resource owners select the appropriate deterrent to prevent wildlife conflicts

Allows the use of lethal methods as a last resort to remove individual problem animals

Resource owners and Benton County residents benefit from ecosystem health and integrity maintained by native carnivores and other native wildlife

Use of non-lethal deterrents fosters the production of valuable wildlife friendly products CONS:

Ranches, farms, and households would have to share cost of animal damage control

County responsible for gathering and maintaining records of activities

3. No Wildlife Services Program – No Alternative Program Estimated cost: Unknown PROS:

No county cost for USDA Wildlife Services program or county operated program

No program controversy CONS:

Privatization of predator control

No county oversight of animal damage control policy

Potentially greater impacts on non-target wildlife through increased use of poisons

Loss of ecosystem services provided by native wildlife when indiscriminately removed

Livestock owners contract directly with USDA through Predator Control Cooperatives

Continued use of indiscriminate lethal control methods

1

BENTON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS JOSH WHEELER

DIRECTOR

Non-Lethal Deterrents Grant Application

Benton County Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program

The Benton County Board of Commissioners recently approved and adopted a five-year action plan to develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate a sustainable Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program. The plan provides funding for the use of non-lethal methods to protect livestock, crops, and other property while coexisting with wildlife. Livestock producers, crop growers, and households may submit this application for non-lethal deterrent grants. Grant applications will be accepted until January 31, 2016. All grant applications will be reviewed by county officials and the Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program Advisory Committee during February 2016. Grants will be awarded by March 2016 based on merit and funding availability. All grants issued require a 50% cost share from the applicant. All applicants will be asked for their estimation of the effectiveness of the project in December 2016. This information will be used by the advisory committee to help them identify effective projects in the future. Targeted lethal removal of an offending individual wild animal shall be reserved for cases where alternative non-lethal methods do not bring resource damage/loss to a sustainable level, or if a wild animal is caught in the act of damaging resources. A grantee may choose to collaborate with wildlife control operators permitted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to selectively remove individual problem animals. Threats to human health and safety involving wildlife should be directed to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. Below is a list of recognized non-lethal methods that could qualify a rancher, farmer, or household for a non-lethal deterrents grant. There are four main categories: Protection Animals, Fencing, Scare Devices, and Husbandry and Shepherding. Please fill out the following:

The project will attempt to reduce wildlife-caused damage/loss of livestock, crops, or other property and the applicant authorizes county staff or advisory committee members to enter property where damage/loss prevention activities are being conducted.

The applicant will provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the grant request.

The applicant agrees that targeted lethal removal of an offending individual problem animal shall be reserved for cases where alternative methods do not bring resource damage/loss to a sustainable level, or if a wild animal is caught in the act of damaging resources.

The applicant agrees to provide a final report describing the effectiveness of the loss prevention methods used by the applicant. Date: Name: Mailing address: Location address: Telephone: Fax: ____ Email:

2

Project Description (Identify the need or opportunity that exists): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ I. PROTECTION ANIMALS Animals used to protect livestock: guard dogs, llamas, donkeys, etc.

Type of Animal Name Id or Markings Animal Cost Yearly upkeep (Vet, food, etc.)

Date(s) of implementation:________________________________________________________ Total costs:____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Remarks:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ II. FENCING New Fencing – electric, woven wire, barb wire, cross fencing, other. Type of new fencing: Cost of materials: Receipts submitted yes no: Number of linear fence feet: Labor/number of hours to install___________________________________________________ Remarks: Existing Fences/Patch Fencing Type of fencing:________________________________________________________________ Cost of materials:_______________________________________________________________ Number of feet improved:_________________________________________________________ Labor/number of hours to install:___________________________________________________

3

Date(s) of implementation:________________________________________________________ Total costs:____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Remarks:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ III. SCARE TACTICS Horns, lights, radios, bells, noisemakers, behavioral disrupters, etc. Name/type of scare tactic Where it’s used Upkeep cost(s)

Date(s) of implementation:________________________________________________________ Total costs:____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Remarks:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IV. HUSBANDRY AND SHEPHERDING Rotating pastures, night pastures (bring animals to a protected area), barn/protective-housing improvements, shed lambing, shed herding/herders. Describe type of husbandry/shepherding:_____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Number of labor hours on a weekly, monthly, and year:_________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date(s) of implementation:________________________________________________________ Total costs: ____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Remarks:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

PROPOSED BUDGET TOTAL Grant Funds Requested: _________________________ Total Matching Funds: _________________________ ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIABILITY The Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program Advisory Committee and Program are not responsible for any injuries, taxes, etc… resulting from this grant. The Applicant assumes all liabilities for actions implemented by this grant. DISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY “I understand that any information provided to the Agriculture and Wildlife Protection Program Advisory Committee in this application or other correspondence becomes public information. I waive any right to confidentiality and affirm that the information provided in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.” Applicant Signature____________________________________ Date____________________ Print Name____________________________________________________________________ Public Works administrator signature Date____________________ Notes/Comments________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

ranching with wildlife - home page | benton county oregon · 2 marin county livestock &...

Documents