With the House set to consider agriculture appropriations later this week, federal taxpayers should be outraged to learn that the outdated Animal Damage Control (ADC) program could receive tens of millions of dollars next year.

First begun in 1931 to control predators and other wildlife deemed harmful to human activity, ADC is an anachronistic example of inappropriate federal intervention into a state and local problem.

The Appropriations Subcommittee has recommended $26.8 million for ADC operations in FY97. More than half of those funds will be used to control predators such as coyotes that threaten western livestock, especially sheep. While these ranchers represent but a fraction of the nation’s livestock industry, federal taxpayers subsidize the protection of their livestock to the tune of more than $10 million per year.

Common sense economics dictates that taxpayers should not subsidize predator control, as this leaves little incentive for ranchers to improve their own control methods. Why would any rancher make the effort to prevent predators – a standard risk of the livestock business – if they know the federal taxpayer will bail them out year after year? Worse still, ADC’s own figures show that the program has had little success with long-term predator control. But instead of taking this as an indication of a flawed program, western ranchers seek increased funding every year. Between 1983 and 1993, ADC received a 71 percent inflation-adjusted increase in appropriated funds.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is expected to offer an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill which would cut funding for ADC operations by one-half, or $13.4 million. This amendment would shift more of the costs of predator prevention to an industry that can and should pay for its own protection.

A 1994 independent audit by economist Randal O’Toole found “little legal or economic justification for continuing” ADC. The audit concluded that “Congress finds it easier to maintain wasteful programs than to cut any of them, no matter how tiny the constituency.”