Wildlife services: Death from the air (taxpayer funded)

Wildlife Services: Death from the Air
by wolf advocate and author Rick Lamplugh
From his Facebook page

Each of the 58 wolf-paw stickers adorning this Wildlife Services aircraft represents a wolf kill. This photo surfaced in 2011, after the federal agency had stopped using the stickers. But they haven’t stopped aerial gunning. Just last month, their gunners in helicopters slaughtered 19 wolves in the remote Lolo region of Idaho. The killing was kept secret until recently.

While I shake my head in disgust at this agency’s mission and methods, I find another bitter pill to swallow: all of us help fund Wildlife Services with our tax dollars. The amount paid by taxes is reduced by income from what the agency calls “cooperators”—counties, public institutions, private businesses, or special interest groups that want animals removed and will pay the agency’s bargain rate. Idaho’s Department of Fish and Game paid Wildlife Services to deliver death from above the Lolo wolves.

The other four Rocky Mountain wolf states also use the agency. Here’s how much was spent in each state in 2013 (most recent data) and the percentage of that total paid by taxpayers. Idaho—site of the recent slaughter—managed to get us taxpayers to pick up three-quarters of the tab for their wildlife killing.

Wyoming spent $4,254,043, and taxpayers paid 36%
Washington spent $3,832,996, and taxpayers paid 57%
Oregon spent $3,628,846, and taxpayers paid 37%
Montana spent $3,077,910, and taxpayers paid 52%
Idaho spent $2,066,106, and taxpayers paid 75%

While Wildlife Services reports the amount paid for their deadly work, they do not reveal the reasons for removal or exactly what they did. That secrecy is one of critics’ biggest complaints. “Wildlife Services is one of the most opaque and obstinate departments I’ve dealt with,” said U.S. Representative Peter Defazio. “We’re really not sure what they’re doing.” Defazio—then the ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources—questioned the agency about its lethal methods and poisons. He’s still waiting for an answer.

Defazio is not alone in his wondering. In late 2013, the US Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General announced that it would audit Wildlife Services. Tom Knudson, from the Center for Investigative Reporting, reported recently that the audit still hasn’t been released. When it will come out and what it will find is anyone’s guess, he says.

Knudson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning environment reporter, once asked to observe Wildlife Services’ lethal predator control in action on public land in Nevada. Their answer: NO. Knudson says he was shocked because, “Even the military allows reporters into the field on its missions overseas. Here at home, on land owned by all Americans, Wildlife Services does not.”

Wildlife Services has operated under various identities and hidden within different departments for more than 100 years. Some say it helped clear the West for our nation’s expansion. But times have changed and so have public attitudes about protecting wildlife. It’s time for Wildlife Services to stop the senseless carnage, to be open about what they do, and to focus on nonlethal control.

As always, I’d love to read your comments on this issue. I most appreciate comments free of cursing or threats.

To read Tom Knudson’s latest report on Wildlife Services: http://bit.ly/1baAr9k

Rick Lamplugh is a wolf advocate and author of the bestseller In the Temple of Wolves
To order an eBook or paperback: http://amzn.to/Jpea9Q
For a signed copy from the author: http://bit.ly/1gYghB4

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.

Woflandia: the fight over the most polarizing animal in the west

From Outside magazine.

Twenty years after wolves were reintroduced in the Northern Rockies, many politicians would still love to see them eradicated, and hunters and ranchers are allowed to kill them by the hundreds. But the animals are not only surviving—they’re thriving, and expanding their range at a steady clip. For the people who live on the wild edges of wolf country, their presence can be magical and maddening at once.
—————

The switchbacks on the old logging road still held two-foot-deep patches of snow in late March, when we set off on four-wheelers to scout for wolf tracks in the Boise National Forest, north of Garden Valley, Idaho. The riding was easy lower down, where the hardpack traced the course of a snowmelt-swollen stream through a tight canyon. Spiny rock towers rose from the banks, disintegrating into forbidding walls of scree and timber. If you were an elk or a deer, it would be a tempting place to come for a drink, but you’d be taking your life in your hands. Wolves love a terrain trap.

As we climbed, our engines strained against the grade, mud, and snow. We were headed to a vantage point above a place called Granite Basin, where we could scan hundreds of acres of forest with spotting scopes. Zeb Redden, a 35-year-old soldier based in Fort Carson, Colorado, carried his girlfriend, Joni, on the back of his ATV. Zeb had paid Deadwood Outfitters, owned by Tom and Dawn Carter, $3,500 for the weeklong wolf hunt. I was along as an unarmed observer.

Zeb’s tricked-out, AR-15-style rifle was tucked into a scabbard built into his backpack. A couple of days before, I’d watched him drop to the prone position, press his cheek onto the stock behind his scope, and put a 7.62-millimeter round on a bull’s-eye-painted rock 600 yards away. He was deadly at long range, but he said he probably wouldn’t take a first shot at anything farther out than about 500 yards.

“I’m shooting jacketed hollow-point boat-tails, and at that distance they’ll just go right through. They won’t open up like they’re supposed to,” he’d explained. “If he’s wounded and beyond 500, I’ll keep putting lead on him. But if it’s a first shot, I’d rather get in closer.” I wondered if adrenaline would change his mind if we actually saw a wolf…..

……….
“Some people find it ironic that U.S. taxpayers paid tens of millions to restore Northern Rocky Mountain wolves under the Endangered Species Act, only to have hunters tart blowing them away as soon as they were delisted.”
……….

For the entire article please click here.

Idaho hunter: wildlife killing contest is a mistake

Idaho Mountain Express
By George Wuerthner
17 December 2014

Recently, the BLM canceled a permit for a proposed coyote/wolf killing “derby” on public lands scheduled for January near Salmon, Idaho. The three-day event is a contest to see who can kill the most and largest wolves, coyotes, jackrabbits and other wildlife.
DO NOT ERASE Placeholder ad
The BLM revoked its permit after conservationists questioned the agency’s conclusion that the contest would have no real impacts on wildlife or other uses of the public lands. It was a wise call on the part of the BLM, but the U.S. Forest Service and the Idaho Fish and Game have failed to do the same.
The Forest Service insists that such a contest doesn’t even require a permit, and is allowing it to occur on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, despite requiring permits for many types of less destructive activities—even cutting a Christmas tree. For its part, Idaho Department of Fish and Game has said nothing, even though it has a policy stating that it will not support contests “involving the taking of predators which may portray hunting in an unethical fashion, devalue the predator, and which may be offensive to the general public.”
Even a loose interpretation of that policy would find the proposed derby to be a violation, yet Fish and Game has failed to regulate or restrict these contests. Fish and Game implies its support with its silence and failure to act.
As a hunter, I despise gratuitous killing. Hunters owe it to both the animals they kill and the public who supports wildlife to ensure that no animals suffer or die gratuitously.
But a killing contest, by its very nature, is gratuitous killing. This type of contest treats animals like trash. This is not only ethically wrong but hurts hunting everywhere by portraying hunters in an unethical manner. Hunting, to be accepted by the general public, must be perceived as principled. The public usually supports killing of wildlife for food, but contests are not about obtaining food. Hunters and their organizations risk damaging public support for hunting by not opposing such contests.
The killing contest is also ecologically wrong. Ironically, fragmentation of wolf and coyote packs through indiscriminate killing often leads to greater livestock losses and greater killing of the very big game animals that the derby sponsor claims it is trying to protect.
This is because disruption and loss of pack members reduces hunting effectiveness of the remaining animals. With fewer pack members to pull down difficult prey like elk, wolves and coyotes often turn to livestock as food.
Smaller packs also cannot guard the animals they have killed, and often before they can come back from the den or other locations, ravens and other scavengers will consume a kill, forcing the wolves and/or coyotes to kill yet another elk or deer.
Morally and ecologically, the Salmon [coyote/wolf] killing derby is a mistake.

Can we coexist with predators?

For those who feel they cannot coexist with coyotes, bears, wolves and other predators, here’s an excellent educational resource showing not only how easy coexistence is, but also how ESSENTIAL it is. Every authoritative study has concluded that killing predators creates ecological imbalances which exacerbates human/predator conflicts and causes vast effects throughout the food change, hurting farmers, ranchers, hunters and non-consumptive “users” of wildlife. When on choses to ignore science in favor of killing, we all pay the price.

For Project Coyote, click HERE.

The Rise of the Mesopredator

Apex predators have experienced catastrophic declines throughout the world as a result of human persecution and habitat loss. These collapses in top predator populations are commonly associated with dramatic increases in the abundance of smaller predators. Known as “mesopredator release,” this trophic interaction has been recorded across a range of communities and ecosystems. Mesopredator outbreaks often lead to declining prey populations, sometimes destabilizing communities and driving local extinctions. We present an overview of mesopredator release and illustrate how its underlying concepts can be used to improve predator management in an increasingly fragmented world.

The loss of apex predators, wolves and other large carnivores, as a result of persecution and habitat conversion has created outbreaks of mesopredator populations throughout the world. An example of this is the strong suppression of wolves, mountain lions and black bears, whereby their range has decreased by 42.3%, 36.6%, and 39.5% respectively. On the other hand, the range of coyotes has increased by almost exactly the same amount, 40.2%. Throughout North America, 60% of mesopredator ranges has increased over the past 200 years. In short, when one predator is eradicated another rises to take its place.

The ecological release of mesopredators has negatively affected our oceans, rivers, forests, and grasslands, placing added strains on prey species that in many cases are already struggling. As songbird populations precipitously decline and other prey populations collapse as a result of, in part, elevation predation rates, the full ecological, social, and economic implications of mesopredator release are beginning to emerge. Restoration of apex predators to areas where thy have been extirpated could do much to stem the tide of undesirable consequences of mesopredator release. However, the daunting task of apex predator conservation will require substantial habitat restoration, greater public acceptance of large carnivores, and compromises among the people most directly affected by these predators. Careful application of trophic theory and strategies to balance the trade-offs inherent to the management of apex and meso- predators are urgently needed; reversing and preventing mesopredator release is becoming increasingly difficult and costly as the world’s top predators continue to edge toward obliteration.

See the complete article here:

Bears and wolves find a voice in the wilderness

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.

The economics of wolf killing, part 1: Idaho

Idaho lawmakers are debating the one-time allocation of $2 million in state funds plus $200,000 annually to be paid by ranchers to supplement the $2.1 million annual budget of the US Wildife Services’ Idaho operations to increase wolf suppression. Their goal is to reduce the wolf population by 54%, from the currently estimated 650 animals to about 300, and thereby reduce wolf-related livestock mortality from current levels (78 cattle, 565 sheep in 2013) by 25%. The $2 million in state funds is planned as a one-time cost, though wildlife experts in Idaho suggest that the plan is unlikely to succeed at that level of funding. According to US Wildlife Services Idaho Director Todd Grimm, “I don’t think we can do it with $2 million.” In other words, the State will likely allocate more taxpayer funds in the future.

If they are successful in reducing livestock mortalities by 25%, that means that annual kills will go down by 19 cows and 141 sheep, or 160 animals combined. If we look at the 5-year budget of $2 million in one-time tax monies and another $200,000 per year ($1 million total) in rancher funding, the total program will cost $3,750 per head saved.

According to Farm and Ranch Guide, breeding cows produce an average net income of $2,582 over 5.7 years (the average age of breeding stock).  The average value of each calf, based on sales prices after weaning, is $948.  If we assume that the lost head are one-third breeding age and two-thirds young stock, the average per head value is $1,492.   That compares favorable to a March, 2014 report by Magic Valley news (Twin Falls, Idaho), which cited $1,000 as the average value per cow killed by wolves. Averaging the Magic Valley and FRG values produces $1,246 per head. According to a University of Wisconsin-Madison paper, the per ewe farm price is $178. The USDA published sheep values as of Sept. 2014 range from $144 to $225. Thus, the UW-Madison price is a good mid-range value.

Thus, the total value of the projected reduction in losses due to wolf kills is $988,790 over a 5-year period.  The cost would be $2 million in tax payer funds and $1 million in rancher funding.  In other words, Idaho lawmakers are considering spending $3 for every $1 they might save. This assuming that their program is successful and they do not need to increase the suppression budget.  Even if the program is twice as successful as expected (how often does this happen with government programs?), this project would still spend $1.50 for every dollar saves.  And this doesn’t consider the $2.1 million annually in federal taxpayer monies spent by US Wildlife Services.

To most people without a vested interest in the outcome, this will likely seem absurd. Unfortunately, this is pretty representative of the economics of predator suppression across these United States.

Read more about this here.    An in-depth look at the social and ecological value of wolves, as well as public opinion regarding their reintroduction can be found here.