Predator control: the problem of thinking linearly in a multi-dimensional world

By Bod Ferris, 5 Feb. 2015

“These results should serve as a cautionary tale for those wishing to increase ungulate numbers via predator control without regard to other ecological factors, such as the proximity of the prey population to ecological carrying capacity (K).” in Abstract of “Population density of Dall’s sheep in Alaska: effects of predator harvest” from Mitchell et al. (2015) in Mammal Research Vol. 60 pp. 21-28

If there is one thing that we are learning of late in regards to lethal predator control, it is that the myth of its broad efficacy and appropriateness has been whittled away to nearly nothing and the shavings are still coming off. Unfortunately the transmission of the news of that happenstance and its acceptance by some in the population seem to be working about as well as trickle-down economics is for 99% percent of Americans.

I have written about this topic a lot over the last 20 years and the conclusions seem to be about the same: Predators generally do not drive down prey populations in the absence of other—usually more important—habitat issues. An exception seems to be when depressed populations are low and not hampered by habitat constraints then predators can slow recovery. But even this example is problematic as one has to ask why, if habitat was not an issue, did the populations become depressed in the first place? Mismanagement? Disease?

The study quoted above coming out of Alaska and looking at Dall’s sheep is one more indication that the lethal control of predators—while appealing to those who think linearly (i.e., simply in terms of prey versus predator numbers)—can be tricky when you throw in other factors (dimensions) such as availability of escape habitat, severity of winters and the prey population’s closeness to carrying capacity.

This Alaska study looked at areas where lethal control was employed and those where it was not. And while populations climbed quicker in those areas where predators were killed, some of those gains were erased (and then some) when those populations hit the carrying capacity wall and starved during winter.

Most wildlife biologists understand and embrace the above. The problems come when these professionals try to explain the complexities and the need for caution to a sector of the public that has been allowed and even encouraged to think that dead wolves, coyotes, and lions always mean more deer, elk and sheep. This situation is not helped when fish and wildlife commissions are too heavily influenced by livestock interests mistakenly echoing the same call for control. And the climb out of this pit of predator prejudice is further hampered because it is all happening within regulatory settings and agency cultures—particularly in the West—that have historically treated predators as unwanted and undeserving of much in the way of consideration and thought.
“As trained scientists, Idaho Fish and Game stands by our data and our wildlife management plans. We manage wolves to ensure we keep state management authority and address conflicts with people, livestock, and other big game populations.” Statement by Virgil Moore, Director, Idaho Fish and Game January 29, 2015

Unfortunately while the solutions to much of the above are obvious —follow science and sound management prescriptions —the path forward is not and the mountain left to climb is very steep. Evidence of the extent of this challenge is clear when we read items like the recent statement by Mr. Moore above. In this release he talks about maintaining management authority, people, livestock and big game populations but nowhere in that statement is a clear or even implied commitment to continued recovery of wolves or any hint of this keystone species’ ecological value. While it is great to have truckloads of wildlife scientists, if the voices of ranchers and trophy hunters are treated as trump cards the quality and volume of science has little value. And the above from Idaho is by no means unusual or the worst. The rhetoric around the discharge of respected wildlife biologist Ken Mayer in Nevada took this rancher-influenced, pro-lethal control ethos and ecological ignorance to an art form (please see 1,2).

“I’m sure most of the people being considered for his [Mayer’s] job graduated from a college,” he said. “These people are the cause of the destruction of wildlife.” Cliff Gardner, 74, a rancher in Nevada’s remote Ruby Valley. In “Ouster Sharpens Debate on Sage Grouse”

All sea change takes time particularly when there are economic interests standing in strong opposition to knowledge and progress. But I and many other biologists long for the day when wildlife agencies in the West and elsewhere are run by folks who stand up for what current science says and are overseen by those who embrace and understand science as well as set aside their self-interests in favor of those of the wildlife and habitats under their care.

Click here for the original article.

Lawsuit challenges Wildlife Service’s killing of wolves

Indian Country Today Media Network

The second lawsuit in three weeks has been filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Wildlife Services program over the federally sanctioned killing of wolves and other wildlife.

Most recently the Western Environmental Law Center filed suit in U.S. District Court in Seattle on March 3 on behalf of five conservation groups, alleging that Wildlife Services has overstepped its authority in killing wolves to protect livestock. The agency’s efforts are based on outdated analysis of how to deal with wildlife, the complaint states, and more often than not the job is bungled—as with the shooting last year of the female leader of a wolf pack instead of another wolf that had been seen attacking livestock, Reuters reported.

“Wildlife Services’ activities related to wolves in Washington have been extremely harmful,” said Western Environmental Law Center attorney John Mellgren in a statement. “The science tells us that killing wolves does not actually reduce wolf-livestock conflicts, but Wildlife Services is continuing its brutal assault on this iconic animal, and it needs to stop.”

In mid-February, five conservation groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Idaho over what they called the indiscriminate killing of wolves, coyotes and other wildlife, the Associated Press reported on February 13.

“The lawsuit notes that the federal agency in 2013 killed more than 200,000 animals, much of that number representing the killing of birds that can pose problems on cattle feedlots or dairies,” AP said of the Idaho lawsuit. “The agency in 2013 also killed 2,739 coyotes and 79 wolves.”

Both suits allege that Wildlife Services’ actions are antithetical to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates that federal agencies conduct thorough environmental analyses of the effects of their activities. The Idaho lawsuit also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as defendants because the groups allege that it is inadequately enforcing the Endangered Species Act by not challenging Wildlife Services, AP said.

The Endangered Species Act protects wolves in the western two-thirds of Washington State, according to Reuters, but in eastern Washington, protection is up to the state. The same is true in both Idaho and Montana, Reuters said.

In western Washington, the Wildlife Service’s activities constitute negligence under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an in-depth environmental impact statement, said the Washington plaintiffs—Cascadia Wildlands, WildEarth Guardians, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Predator Defense and The Lands Council.

“The agency completed a less-detailed environmental assessment, but the document contains significant gaps and does not address specific issues that will significantly impact wolves and the human environment,” the groups’ statement said. “The EA prepared by Wildlife Services fails to provide data to support several of its core assertions. For example, Wildlife Services claims that killing wolves reduces wolf-caused losses of livestock, yet recent peer-reviewed research from Washington State University directly contradicts this conclusion, finding that killing wolves actually leads to an increase in wolf-livestock conflicts. The EA also fails to address the ecological effects of killing wolves in Washington, including impacts on wolf populations in neighboring states and on non-target animals, including federally protected grizzly bears and Canada lynx.”

Wolf culling is causing controversy in several states and at least one Canadian province.

Click HERE for the original article.

Animal torture called “a regular practice” within federal Wildlife Services

“This agency as become an outlet for people to abuse animals for no particular reason [and at taxpayer expense]” ~Rep. John Campbell, R-CA

It was a productive day for Gary Strader when he pulled his vehicle up to a remote site in northeast Nevada and found nine coyotes caught in leg hold snares set by the federal government. As was routine, Strader, a former trapper with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, signaled his dogs to attack.

His supervisor, who had accompanied him that day, watched and laughed as the dogs circled the coyotes and ripped into them, Strader recalled.

“That was regular practice,” said Strader, who in 2009 left Wildlife Services, a little-known program within the USDA. The program is tasked with humanely killing wildlife seen as a threat to the environment and livestock, as well as protecting the public from wildlife hazards to commercial planes at airports.

“You let your dogs fight with them. That was part of the job,” said Strader. “There’s not a person in Wildlife Services who is not aware of it.”

The brutal approach by Wildlife Services is part of a culture of animal cruelty that has long persisted within an agency that uses taxpayer money to wage an unnecessary war on wildlife, according to two U.S. congressmen who have repeatedly called for a thorough investigation.

“It is completely out of control,” Rep. Campbell (R-CA) said. “They need to be brought into the 21st century.”

Campbell and Rep. Peter Defazio, D-Ore., penned a letter last November to Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack calling for a complete audit of the “culture” within Wildlife Services – in particular its lethal Predator Control program – by the USDA Office of Inspector General. Vilsack responded in a letter dated Feb. 1, saying an investigation into animal cruelty allegations was under way by the Administrative Investigations and Compliance Branch of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“USDA does not condone any form of animal cruelty and holds all employees responsible for adhering to Departmental and Agency standards and directives,” Vilsack wrote. “WS personnel are expected to use approved and humane methods to euthanize captured or restrained animals whenever practicable, and in accordance with American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines.”

But the lawmakers say several serious questions remain unanswered.

“I don’t understand why it should be the responsibility of the federal government to attempt to – very ineffectively and, in fact, probably detrimentally – remove wildlife that has not been implicated in attacks on people and cattle,” said Defazio, who for two decades has championed the defunding of Wildlife Services.

Evidence showing animal cruelty has not been difficult to uncover.

In October, photos were discovered on the personal Facebook account of Wildlife Services employee Jamie P. Olson. The images showed dogs snarling at and biting into live coyotes trapped in steel foot-holds, as well as pictures of coyote carcasses. The photos were allegedly posted in an album titled “work,” but it remains unclear whether they were taken while Olson was on the job or not.

Olson, who works for Wyoming Wildlife Services, is still employed, but the matter is being investigated, according to Carol Bannerman, a spokeswoman for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees Wildlife Services.

Wildlife Services declined to make Olson available for comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

When asked whether it was acceptable practice to have dogs attack trapped animals, Bannerman responded: “In terms of a trapped animal, that would be considered unacceptable.”

Bannerman explained that Wildlife Services regularly educates ranchers on various non-lethal methods that can be used to protect livestock – including better fencing, guard dogs and night patrols.

But, she said, “Sometimes ranchers will come to us at a point and say, ‘Okay, we’re trying all these things and we’re still experiencing a loss.”

To the farm industry, predator control is a critical factor in maintaining the success of the nation’s agriculture.

“We do not condone inhumane or cruel treatment of any animals,” said Paul Schlegel, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation. “At the same, our farmers and ranchers recognize the important role played by USDA’s Wildlife Services office.”

“Livestock producers and row crop farmers all have significant investments in the land and in producing the food and fiber upon which millions of Americans depend,” Schlegel said. “We support effective predator control programs that assist farmers in bringing their products to market and recognize the important role those programs play in helping to feed and clothe America.”

But Campbell and Defazio, as well as various environmental groups, claim the government’s mission is excessive and cruel – and argue it should not be the taxpayers’ responsibility to protect private land and livestock.

Strader’s statements, for example, illustrate a particularly dark side of the agency’s killing methods.

“They wanted every single coyote killed,” he said.

Strader said he was often tasked with hunting for coyote dens while working for the government in remote areas of Utah and Nevada. He described how he would lower his stethoscope into the hole and listen for breathing or whining from the coyote puppies. Then he would drop a phosphorus bomb into the den and cover its opening with dirt.

“The bombs burn so fast and so hot that it sucks all the oxygen out of the hole,” he said. “They suffocate.”

“I had to kill hundreds of coyote pups and pregnant females,” Strader continued. “If you found a coyote den, you just bombed it.”

Strader, as well as several others, including a management source within the USDA, also charged that Wildlife Services employees often do not abide by trap-check laws — meaning animals can be left for days in traps where they die from starvation or the elements.

Strader claims his job was terminated in 2009 after he alerted supervisors to alleged wrongdoing within the agency. He said his views on trapping animals have changed since he left.

Coyotes primarily feed on small mammals, like rabbits, rodents and squirrels, but they can also prey on larger animals like deer and livestock. Biologists say natural predators, like coyotes, are vital to a healthy ecosystem because they keep other species’ populations down. And the more coyotes that are killed, the more coyotes will reproduce. If a member of the pack is killed, for instance, the alpha female responds by producing more litters.

“Not only is this ethically indefensible, it’s ecologically insane,” Camilla Fox, executive director of Project Coyote, said of the killings each year by the predator control program.

A culture of cruelty has existed within the agency for decades, according to critics.

Rex Shaddox, a Texas law enforcement officer who worked for Wildlife Services in the 1980’s, said he left the agency – which at the time was called Animal Damage Control – after a particularly disturbing occurrence.

Shaddox said he and other workers were ordered to report to a city dump in Uvalde, Texas, to witness agency officials experiment with M-44 sodium cyanide on dogs from a local pound that were supposed to be euthanized.

“We were told to watch as they held the dogs down and shot cyanide into their mouths, one by one,” he said. “I went home and cried that day. And then I quit.”

See original story at FoxNews.

US Wildlife Services: The Killing Agency

This is a powerful, well researched and well written piece on our taxpayer-funded federal Wildlife Services.   Here are a few excepts:

Since 2000, its (Wildlife Services) employees have killed nearly a million coyotes, mostly in the West.  They have destroyed millions of birds, from nonnative starlings to migratory shorebirds, along with a colorful menagerie of more than 300 other species, including black bears, beavers, porcupines, river otters, mountain lions and wolves. [Click here to see statistics.]

In most cases, they have officially revealed little or no detail about where the creatures where killed, or why.  But a Bee investigation has found the agency’s practices to be indiscriminate, at odds with science, inhumane and sometimes illegal.

…..

Gary Strader, an employee of the US Dept of Agriculture [Wildlife Services], stepped out of his truck near a ravine in Nevada and found something he hadn’t intense to kill.   There, strangled in a neck snare, was one of the most majestic birds in America, a federally protected golden eagle.

“I called my supervisor and said, ‘I just caught a golden eagle and it’s dead.’  He said ‘Did anybody see it…if you think nobody saw it, go get a shovel and bury it and don’t say nothing to anybody.”

…..

A dog owner’s anguish

Sharyn Aguiar writes about the death of her German Shepherd Max, who poisoned by a government M-44 sodium cyanide cartridge in Utah in 2006.

“I kneeled at the top of his head, bending over him, crying and trying to figure out what happened to him. I remember crying out ‘I don’t understand, I don’t understand’ as I looked at his mouth. His mouth had a pinkish/salmonish colored foam coming from it.”

[Click here to see more Wildlife Mysteries Revealed.]

…..

This investigation’s findings include:

• With steel traps, wire snares and poison, agency employees have accidentally killed more than 50,000 animals since 2000 that were not problems, including federally protected golden and bald eagles; more than 1,100 dogs, including family PETS; and several species considered rare or imperiled by wildlife biologists. [For more on trapping problems, click here.]

• Since 1987, at least 18 employees and several members of the public have been exposed to cyanide when they triggered spring-loaded cartridges laced with poison meant to kill coyotes. They survived – but 10 people have died and many others have been injured in crashes during agency aerial gunning operations since 1979.

• A growing body of science has found the agency’s war against predators, waged to protect livestock and big game, is altering ecosystems in ways that diminish biodiversity, degrade habitat and invite disease.

See the full story and the many interesting attachments at: Sac Bee