Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota

In 1975, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in Minnesota was protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (USA). At that time, there were 500-750 wolves. By 2004, the population had grown to an estimated 3,020 wolves. Over time, conflicts between wolves and livestock increased. Wolf depredation control programs have been conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1975-1986) and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program (1986 to present). In 1978, Minnesota’s wolves were reclassified from endangered to threatened which allowed authorized federal agents to lethally remove wolves that had depredated on livestock or pets. A State funded wolf compensation program was also established in 1978. Wildlife Services’ wolf damage management approach utilizes both nonlethal and lethal methods of control. Currently, wolf depredations are verified at 60-85 farms annually and 125-175 wolves are taken each year. Wolf compensation payments to livestock producers have averaged $67,111 per year during the past five years. Most livestock losses occur during spring and summer. Selective removal of depredating wolves, coupled with improvements in animal husbandry practices, has potential for reducing wolf-livestock conflicts. Minnesota’s wolf population is currently considered to be fully recovered and federal delisting is expected to occur in the near future.

Perceptions of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September l1th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Much has been written about the Fund, both pro and con, in both popular media and scholarly literature. Perhaps the most widely used term in referring to the Fund is "unprecedented." The Fund is intriguing for many reasons, particularly for its public policy implications and its impact on the claimants themselves. The federal government has never before provided compensation to victims of terrorism through a special master who had virtually unlimited discretion in determining awards. Consequently, this formal allocation of money by a representative of the federal government to its citizens has provided an opportunity to test theories of procedural and distributive justice in a novel context. This article tests these theories by analyzing the results of a study of the Fund's claimants. Part I provides general background, summarizes existing commentary on the Fund, and discusses prior research on social justice that is relevant to the 9/11 claimants' experiences with the Fund. Part II of this article describes the methodology behind the study, in which seventy-one individuals who filed claims with the Fund completed surveys about their experiences with and perceptions of the Fund. Part III discusses the survey results. We found that participants were reasonably satisfied with the procedural aspects of the Fund, such as representatives' impartiality and respectful treatment. Participants were less satisfied, however, with the distributive aspects of the Fund, such as the unequal distribution of compensation and the reduction in compensation if claimants received compensation from other sources (e.g., life insurance). Part IV of this article addresses the implications of the study results for public policy and for theories of social justice.