Author Archives: mes227

The beginning of the end of over-suppression of predators in Alaska?

Posted on by

When Jim Stratton, deputy vice president for the National Parks Conservation Association, heard last week that the National Park Service had announced a sweeping new rule banning the manipulation of predators and prey in Alaska’s national preserves, his reaction was — to put it mildly — unfettered joy. “This is totally exciting news,” he says. “I’ve only been working this for ten years. Game on.”

The reaction of the state Division of Wildlife Conservation? A little more tepid. Director Doug Vincent-Lang sees any attempt by the feds to usurp Alaska’s wildlife management authority as overreach, and this new rule — which maintains hunting rights on Alaska’s 22 million acres of national preserves but bans certain controversial practices — is overreach at its worst: “unfounded and unjust,” he told Alaska Dispatch News.

The proposed rule is currently up for public comments, and will likely be implemented next year. It prohibits the baiting of brown bears, the killing of wolves and coyotes when pups are in tow, and the use of artificial light to kill black bears in their dens. It also pre-emptively prohibits any other practice “with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics.” In other words, killing predators to boost ungulate populations will no longer be allowed in Alaska’s national preserves.

To understand just how big this is, it helps to backtrack to 2002, when former Republican governor Frank Murkowski took office. One of Murkowski’s first actions was to remove five of seven members of the Board of Game — the body responsible for most wildlife decisions — and replace them with new appointees more supportive of “intensive management:” reducing predator populations to bolster the moose and caribou that many Alaskans depend on for food. Almost overnight, the state went from non-lethal management to gunning down wolves from the air.

In the dozen years since, Alaska’s predator control efforts have only intensified. In addition to allowing aerial shooting, the board eliminated a 122-square-mile buffer protecting wolves around Denali National Park; allowed the baiting of brown bears, illegal since statehood; extended the wolf and coyote hunting season to months when the animals have pups (and their pelts are worthless); and approved “spotlighting,” or using artificial light to rouse hibernating black bears to shoot them as they emerge.

Many environmentalists dislike such practices, but they accept that Alaska has the right to do what it will on state land. Yet because Alaskan agencies manage wildlife on both state and federal land, the board also tried to implement such practices on Alaska’s national preserves, where hunting is allowed.

The issue drove a wedge between state wildlife agencies and the National Park Service. The Board of Game says it’s only adhering to a 1994 food security law; the Park Service maintains that manipulating the predator and prey dynamic is antithetical to their very existence: “We’re managing parks not as a game farm that produces high numbers of prey species, but as an ecosystem where you see natural gains and losses in predator and prey populations,” says spokesman John Quinley. “That’s based on (federal) law.”

Since 2001, the Park Service has asked the Board of Game roughly 60 times to exclude certain practices from national preserves, to no avail. So each year, the Park Service goes through the complex, costly process of individually overriding each of the state hunting regulations in each national preserve. Each year, public notices and meetings are held around the state. They’ve become so routine hardly anyone bothers to show up any more.

That’s about to change. The new rule will not only replace temporary, inefficient bans with a permanent, statewide ban, it’ll also enable the agency to opt out of any future hunting regulations that could inhibit natural diversity. “We don’t know what (the state) is going to come up with in the future,” says Stratton. “If they decide they want to allow brown bear baiting in some place where they don’t have it now, this gives the Park Service a way to push back.”

Yet though the proposed rule will help the Park Service maintain natural conditions on the land it manages, it won’t help predators that inadvertently wander beyond the agency’s invisible boundaries. In the past several years, the state has responded to feds’ temporary bans by dropping an agreement to spare wolves radio-collared for scientific research. Last year, roughly half of the wolf population of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve were shot from helicopters when they left park boundaries, including the entire Lost Creek pack, which had been studied by Park Service biologists for 20 years.

See full story and links click here.

Steel Jaw Traps

Posted on by

Every year, trappers kill 10 million raccoons, coyotes, wolves, bobcats, opossums, nutria, beavers, otters, and other fur-bearing animals. Trappers use various types of traps, including snares and conibear traps, but the steel-jaw trap is the one that’s most widely used. The American Veterinary Medical Association condemns these traps and has classified them as “inhumane.”  In Nevada, these traps are allowed, trappers are only “required” to check there traps once every 4 days, and 50% of trappers admit to not visiting that often.   There is not one scientific report supporting Nevada’s 4-day visitation rule and there is robust evidence suggesting this is too long, causing needless harm and cruelty.

When an animal steps on the steel-jaw trap spring, the trap’s jaws slam shut, clamping down on the animal’s limb or paw. As the animal struggles in excruciating pain to get free, the steel vise cuts into his or her flesh—often down to the bone—mutilating the leg or paw. Some animals, especially mothers desperate to return to their young, will even attempt to chew or twist off their trapped limbs.

Animals often struggle for days before they finally succumb to exhaustion, exposure, frostbite, shock, and death.

Because steel-jaw traps have been banned in 88 countries. Their use is banned or restricted in several U.S. states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington. The European Union has banned the use of steel-jaw traps in Europe and banned the importation of pelts from countries that use these cruel devices to trap and kill fur-bearing animals.

Trapping Myth No. 9: Trapping is necessary to protect livestock

Posted on by

The money spent on efforts to eradicate predators, mostly coyotes, is taxpayer money; these eradication programs are not paid for by the ranchers. And despite endless annihilation programs, coyotes’ ranges have vastly increased. The government would save precious taxpayer money by simply paying ranchers for lost livestock.  Guard dogs, llamas and donkeys; birthing sheds; electric fencing have all proven to protect livestock while allowing predators to continue their important roles in the ecosystem, and at a lower cost to both the ranchers and the taxpayers.

World has lost more than half its wildlife in last 40 years

Posted on by

London (CNN) — The world’s animal population has halved in 40 years as humans put unsustainable demands on Earth, a new report warns.

The World Wide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Index, released Tuesday, revealed the dramatic decline in animal species, and said the trend could cost the world billions in economic losses.

Humans need one and a half earths to sustain their current demands, it said.
The index, which draws on research around WWF’s database of 3,000 animal species, is released every two years. This year’s has the starkest warning yet of the risks associated with the decline of wildlife.

The index showed shows a 52% decline in wildlife between 1970 and 2010, far more than earlier estimates of 30%. It is due to people killing too many animals for food and destroying their habitats.
“We are eating into our natural capital, making it more difficult to sustain the needs of future generations,” the report said.  Researchers from the Zoological Society of London looked at changes in populations of more than 3,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, tracking over 10,000 different populations.

The decline in animals living in rivers, lakes and wetlands is the worst — 76% of freshwater wildlife disappeared in just 40 years. Marine species and animals living on land suffered 39% decline in their populations.

Animals living in tropics are the worst hit by what WWF calls “the biggest recorded threats to our planet’s wildlife” as 63% of wildlife living in tropics has vanished. Central and South America shows the most dramatic regional decline, with a fall of 83%.
And while the animals are suffering now, the long-term impact will be on people, the report said.

Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International, said “protecting nature is not a luxury….it is quite the opposite. For many of the world’s poorest people, it is a lifeline.”
According to Lambertini, the threat to oceans could create economic losses of up to $428 billion by 2050. The global fishing sector employs more than 660 million people, and fish provide more than 15% of protein in people’s diet.

Global food security is under threat as the demands of growing population drain the resources. Forests provide water, fuel and food for more than billion people, including 350 million of the world’s poorest people.

See complete article with graphics here.

Myth: Trapping is humane and selective

Posted on by

Despite what trappers would have you believe, animals frequently sustain severe injuries from being trapped. When not killed outright by the trap, animals can suffer physiological trauma, dehydration, exposure to severe weather, and predation by other animals until the trapper returns – which can be days or even weeks between trap checks. When the trapper returns he usually clubs, suffocates or strangles the animal to death. Fur trappers rarely shoot trapped animals because bullet holes and blood reduce a pelt’s value.

Traps set in or near water are designed to drown aquatic mammals, which can take up to 20 minutes for some species. The American Veterinary Medical Association deems drowning to be inhumane and a 1999 study concluded “drowning cannot be considered euthanasia.”

Most traps are notoriously indiscriminate, capturing almost any animal that triggers them. Sometimes called “trash” animals by trappers, non-target species that have been found in traps include threatened and endangered species, raptors, DOMESTIC DOGS and CATS, and even HUMANS. These animals can sustain the same injuries as target species. Even if released, they may perish later from internal injuries or reduced ability to hunt or forage for food.

The most commonly used trap in the U.S. is the steel-jaw leghold trap, a restraining trap with spring-loaded steel jaws that clamp on an animal’s foot or leg when triggered. Leghold traps can cause severe swelling, lacerations, joint dislocations, fractures, damage to teeth and gums, self-mutilation, limb amputation, and often a slow, painful death. The steel-jaw leghold trap has been declared inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and the National Animal Control Association, and has been banned or severely restricted by more than 80 countries and 8 U.S. states.

Dick Randall, a former federal trapper, told Congress, “My trapping records show that for each target animal I trapped, about two unwanted individuals were caught. Because of trap injuries, these nontarget animals had to be destroyed.” Nontarget animals – including pets – comprised 76% of all animals captured in leghold traps in a 1981 study.

Historically, poorly regulated trapping almost wiped out beaver, sea otter, lynx, wolverine, cougar and other species in many areas of the U.S. Today, some state wildlife management agencies continue to allow the trapping of highly sensitive species, including wolverine, fisher, marten, kit fox, and lynx. For example, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) considered listing the Canada lynx under the Endangered Species Act, Montana continued to allow lynx to be commercially trapped — even when a 1999 U.S. Forest Service report concluded, “Lynx appear to be extremely susceptible to trapping, and where trapping is permitted it can be (and has been) a significant source of mortality.” Unfortunately, because population modeling and furbearer data collection are so poor in many states, we do not know the impact trapping has on sensitive species — often until it is too late.

Bears and wolves find a voice in the wilderness

Posted on by

By Kathleen Parker Opinion writer for the Washington Post:

If politicians preying upon your attentions this season fail to inspire, you might seek common cause with the beasts — the four-legged variety rather than those running for office.

Ballot initiatives aimed at protecting bears and wolves from hounding, trapping and other inhumane hunting practices are up for a vote in two states — Maine and Michigan.

Oh, be still thy twitching trigger finger. This isn’t an anti-hunting column; it’s a pro-humanity column. Ours. And the referendums, driven by the Humane Society of the United States, are aimed only at minimizing animal suffering and restoring a measure of decency and fair play in our dealings with creatures.

First the bears. Maine is the only state that still allows bear baiting, hounding and trapping. More than half of the 32 states with legal bear hunting allow hounding, a dozen allow baiting, and only Maine allows trapping for sport.

For clarification, hounding refers to the use of dogs that have been trained to chase bears relentlessly and then to corner or fight the poor beast. The bears have no choice but to turn to face a murderous pack or, exhausted, escape up a tree.

That’s when the hunter, who, thanks to electronic tracking equipment, has been able to follow at a leisurely pace and safe distance, points his rifle and shoots the bear from a tree limb. Frances Macomber, the cowardly hunter of Hemingway’s short, unhappy story, looks like a Maasai warrior by comparison.

Baiting means that a hunting guide strews rotting food in the woods and places a 55-gallon drum filled with jelly doughnuts, pizza, grease, fish guts and rotting beaver carcasses in a target spot. The “hunter,” who likely has paid a fee to the “guide” for a “guaranteed kill,” is provided a comfy seat to wait for the bear. Bam!

It’s ironic — or something — that the same state fish and wildlife agency folks who post signs warning tourists not to feed the bears will allow other tourists to feed them for about $2,000 to $4,000 a pop. New signage might read: Kill what you feed.

More…..click HERE for full story.

Body-gripping traps: cruel & indiscriminate

Posted on by

Body-gripping traps are indiscriminate. Many companion dogs and cats have been caught, maimed or killed in these dreadful devices, and even with the help of frantic humans, they have died in shock and pain because these traps are nearly impossible to open without the correct key device to release the locking mechanism. These traps can and often do catch non-target wildlife species of no value to fur trappers, including birds and even rare and endangered animals. In Nevada, trappers are allowed to set such traps next to and even on trails used by hikers and hunters….and their dogs!   And there is no set-back distance from communities (see our Testimonials section and you’ll see a recent example of a dog trapped just 50 yards from a housing development in the Reno city limits.)

We define “body-gripping traps” as leghold traps; neck snares; leg or foot snares; and Conibear and other traps designed to instantly kill by crushing the neck or torso of the animal. Some such devices may kill instantly but more often the victims suffer severe physical injury, psychological trauma, thirst, hypothermia, frost bite and predation.

Trappers have designed a class of “quick-kill” traps that supposedly kill instantly by slamming shut on an animal’s body, crushing vital organs. Like all traps, they don’t always work as planned, often with horrific results. The animal may enter a “quick-kill” trap the wrong way, and is partly crushed, and dies slowly. Snow and ice conditions can prevent proper closure. Aquatic mammals, like beavers, reflexively close off their air passages when submerged, and slowly suffocate while frantically trying to reach the surface, dying in terror without actually drowning.  A beaver can take 20 minutes to die in such a “quick kill” trap.

Hunting: Choose fair chase, not trapping

Posted on by

Hunting season is approaching, and, although I no longer hunt, I still feel the stirrings of the primordial urge to go out and bring wild game back to my cave. Through the years, most of my friends have also been hunters. Barring a very few bad apples, they all share with me the dedication to “fair chase” when it comes to bagging a deer or elk.

Central to the fair chase is being sure that one makes a clean, humane kill. Ideally, the animal “didn’t know what hit him.“ Wounding an animal and having to track it down to finish it off is deeply regretted, not just because of the extra time and effort it takes, but because of the hunter’s remorse that he has caused the animal unnecessary pain and suffering. I believe Fish, Wildlife and Parks even has regulations requiring a hunter to make every effort to not allow a wounded animal to escape and die a slow, painful death.

And yet, there is a “sport” in which an integral part of the activity involves causing an animal great physical pain and emotional trauma, even under the most ideal conditions. This sport is called trapping and, far from being condemned by the FWP as one would expect of such a cruel, inhumane activity, it is condoned, licensed, and they are now offering classes.

Any hunter who believes in fair chase should denounce the whole idea of trapping, and should demand that it be prohibited. It not only is unnecessary (fur bearers for the most part do not need to have their numbers held in check as herds of deer or elk do) but, by association, it gives a black eye to legitimate hunting.

John Ohrmann, Drummond

(published in the Missoulian, Oct. 2012)

[ed note: NRWM is not arguing for the abolishment of trapping, but reasonable and human regulation.]

Wildlife Conservation & Management Funding in the U.S.

Posted on by

Wildlife Conservation & Management Funding in the U.S.

By Mark E. Smith and Donald A. Molde

October 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The authors present a novel approach to help answer the question “Who really pays for wildlife in the U.S?” Using public information about budgets of various conservation, wildlife advocacy, and land management agencies and non-profit organizations, published studies and educated assumptions regarding sources of Pittman-Robertson Act and Dingle-Johnson Act federal excise monies from the sale of sporting equipment, the authors contend that approximately 95% of federal, 88% of non-profit, and 94% of total funding for wildlife conservation and management come from the non-hunting public. The authors further contend that a proper understanding and accurate public perception of this funding question is a necessary next step in furthering the current debate as to whether and how much influence the general public should have at the wildlife policy-making level, particularly within state wildlife agencies.

Read the full paper here.

Who supports better regulation of trapping?

Posted on by

In supporting better regulation of trapping we are in good company. A 1978 national survey conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Yale University showed that 78% of respondents opposed the use of steel-jawed leghold traps.  A 1996 poll by the Animal Welfare Institute had similar results, with 74% of Americans opposed to leghold traps.  The American Veterinarian Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association, and the National Animal Control Association all agree that leghold traps are inhumane.   Nevada has the 3rd longest visitation period in the nation, at 96 hours, and 50% of Nevada trappers admit to not visiting their traps this often.   That makes the paid and suffering by leg hold traps far worse than it needs to be.

Trapping apologists will often try to suggest that fears expressed about the cruelty of trapping are exaggerated and unfounded, and generally expressed only by a fringe group of fanatical animal-rights extremists. It can be important to counter that argument by citing diverse critics of such traps – including many hunters and other traditional outdoor enthusiasts as well as professional wildlife managers.  In seeking better regulation of trapping, for example, being able to demonstrate a wide range of opinion from various sources in overall general agreement that these traps are inhumane can be helpful as a tactic in rebutting the contention that only a few extremists are concerned about the traps being cruel.