Animal Damage Control

DEFENDING UTAH?S NATIVE WILDLIFE

The Truth about ?Predator Control?

and the Slaughter of Native Wildlife

Wildlife Services (WS) is a branch of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or APHIS. It was started in 1886 as a program to advise people on how to control damaging birds. In 1914, it began expanding its services to predators and has been killing native predator species ever since. The agency?s programs are intended to address problems of livestock loss, property damage and threats to human health and safety. However, its programs consist of licensed killing sprees and nonlethal control continues to be given little attention.

Every year, WS kills tens of thousands of coyotes as well as hundreds to thousands of bears, mountain lions, bobcats, wolves and other predators. The animals are shot, poisoned, gassed, snared and caught in leg hold traps. The agency has survived and prospered despite strong opposition to its control tactics, primarily because of its lap dog relationship to the powerful livestock industry. In 1999, Wildlife Services killed 601 badgers, 349 bears, 2,435 bobcats, 85,938 coyotes, 6,182 foxes, 359 cougars and 173 wolves ? for a grand total of 96,037 predators in one year. Often animals are killed for minor concerns such as eating flowers or pet food, digging in gardens and frightening people ? all of which could be easily addressed by non-lethal methods.

Wildlife Services also wastes millions of taxpayer dollars by spending far more to kill predators than the actual damage those animals cause. It costs over a $100 for each animal that is killed (sometimes this price can be up to $2,000) while the damages incurred by the animal average $22.50. Lethal control is far more expensive and inhumane than other non-lethal alternatives.

Wildlife Services currently utilizes methods condemned by many as non-selective, imprecise, haphazard and brutally inhumane. Many of these methods endanger more than just target predators. People and domestic pets have been hurt or killed by traps and poisoning devices. These reckless and negligent methods include:

Trapping is arguably the most inhumane method employed by Wildlife Services. Traps are not only used by WS but trapping in general is highly unregulated across the country and can be used by ranchers or others for fur or sport. Few restrictions exist on types of traps that can be used or the number of animals that can trapped. Only a few states monitor the number of target animals trapped each year and most do not require trappers to report non-target species trapped at all. Most states don?t require the trapper to check traps for 2-4 days, allowing the animal to suffer for that period. 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. A trapper usually clubs, suffocates or strangles the animal to death because a bullet hole and blood reduce a pelt?s value. Most traps are notoriously indiscriminate, capturing almost any animal that triggers them. Non-target species that have been found in traps include threatened and endangered species, raptors, domestic dogs and cats, and even humans. These animals sustain the same kinds of injuries as a target animal and even if released, they may die 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, fractures, self-mutilation, limb amputation and death. A desperate predator often will try to chew off a limb in an attempt to escape. Snares are primitive wire nooses that, depending on how they are set, are designed to tighten around an animal?s leg or neck. While small victims of neck snares may become unconscious in five to ten minutes from strangulation, larger animals may suffer for days. Conibear traps are kill traps consisting of two metal frames hinged at the center point and powered by two torsion springs to create a scissor-like action. Conibear traps are supposed to kill animals instantly by snapping the spinal column at the base of the neck. However, traditional Conibear traps kill less than 15% of trapped animals quickly, and more than 40% die slow painful deaths as their abdomens, heads or other body parts are crushed. Meager trapping regulations allow traps to be used by irresponsible and inexperienced people, contributing additional suffering through lack of knowledge or concern. All this is done in the name of ?predator control? or for fur and sport.

Shooting predators is the method of choice for Wildlife Services. Each year, more money is poured into aerial gunning than any other program. Aerial gunning employs the use of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft to shoot predators from the air. In 1999, WS killed 34,000 animals through its aerial gunning program. Although they claim that they are shooting only animals that have caused damage, it is often impossible to determine which animal is responsible so they kill any native carnivore unlucky enough to fall within sight of their low-flying aircraft, Once again, this method is imprecise and animals that die from gunning include domestic dogs or endangered wolves. Aerial gunning is also frequently used for ?preventative predator control?, whereby WS agents kill as may predators as they can prior to livestock entering an area. Aerial gunning serves only specific clientele but is very costly. The cost of killing one coyote is between $185-$805 depending on circumstances. This is a huge price to pay especially considering the fact that, according to the National Agriculture Statistics Service, predation contributes only 3% to cattle and sheep deaths

Two of the most commonly used types of poison utilized by Wildlife Services are M44?s and Compound 1080.The M44 is a spring-loaded, baited device that kills by shooting sodium cyanide into the nose and mouth of whatever disturbs it. WS also supports and encourages the use of Compound 1080-filled Livestock Protection Collars by ranchers. This is a collar that has a bladder attached to it, filled with 1080. Compound 1080 is a deadly poison, so lethal that a single teaspoon can kill up to 100 adult humans. It is odorless, colorless and tasteless and causes symptoms similar to a heart attack or seizure. It not only kills the target animal but any animal that feeds on the carcass. This poison is not only of concern to wildlife but to humanity in general because it is dangerously unregulated and can serve as a powerful terrorist tool. Despite Wildlife Services? claims that the poisoning program only targets depredating animals, these two methods do not discriminate between predators, domestic dogs, people, or any other type of curious animal.

Denning is the practice of tracking predators to their den and then killing the pups hiding inside. This is done through the use of poison gas or digging them out and clubbing them to death. This is another cruel practice used by Wildlife Services to eliminate threat to nearby livestock.

The practice of engaging local citizens in predator control is also a common practice supported by WS. Bounties and contest hunts are relied on heavily in the western states. Most of these hunts focus on coyotes. In contest coyote hunts, hunters compete to kill the largest number of coyotes within a specified time period. In the year 2000, the Utah State Legislature appropriated $100,000 of taxpayer funds to the County Bounty program. These funds were used with matching funds from the county to pay $20 dollars for every pair of coyote ears brought in by hunters. Nine of the 29 counties in Utah used county taxes to pay out bounties. Bounty and contest hunts are brutal and ineffective and foster hatred for predators, degrading them to vermin status. These hunts have produced practices where entire packs are shot, their ears taken and the bodies left to rot. Some contest hunts give the reward to the largest coyote shot and consequently, domestic dogs such as German Shepherds have been shot and used to pass of as a really big coyote. The use of bounties and contest hunts degrade and disgrace the human to wild animal relationship.

It is irresponsible ranchers, not predators, that are causing livestock ?conflicts.? Caring properly for livestock should be one of the costs of doing business but ranchers have successfully ?externalized? this cost and instead have placed the burden on the predators and taxpayers that pay the costs of Wildlife Services. Careless livestock husbandry is the source of increased predation. Predators are bound to give in to the opportunities presented by sloppy practices such as leaving dead animals on the premises or using carcasses laced with poison as a way to control predators.

A lamb is left dead in a field and a wolf finds and feeds on the carcass. It establishes the lamb as a source of food and later attacks and kills a lamb on the same land from a rancher that is not required to herd or protect his animals. For that one lamb, 4 wolves will die, as it is the pack that pays for the attack because they are unable to single out the actual killer. Predators learn from what is presented to them and the negligence of the reckless rancher leads to the unnecessary death of a predator doing only what is born to do ? survive.

Also, research conducted by WS for predator control is almost entirely focused on changing the behavior of the predators, not ranching practices or lethal defense strategies. Shock collars, taste avoidance, and the distribution of birth control to predators are all methods being researched at the moment by WS. While we believe that such strategies are better than death for predators, all techniques manipulate and control wild animals to benefit a narrow interest and make marginal economic gains for a small segment of society who don?t wish to be inconvenienced by the demands of existing alongside a natural, living world. Behavior modification strategies should be researched for BOTH predators AND humans.

Although a fair amount of ?predator control? is conducted on public lands, public citizens have no means of input or involvement in Wildlife Services decisions or practices concerning the management of predators. Unlike other federal agencies, Wildlife Services has no process through which a concerned citizen can file an administrative appeal of its decisions. Environmental Assessments for WS predator control work are authored by Wildlife Services itself, and the public has no ability to challenge decisions based upon faulty analysis, even though they concern public wildlife, often on public land. When Wildlife Services was established in 1931, its founding legislation provided that its authorization for appropriation would not expire. While other acts must survive reevaluation, public hearing and amendments, the Animal Damage Control Act allows Wildlife Services to escape Congressional Reform.

Evidence indicates that the predator control program is unsafe, biologically and ecologically unsound, unethical and an enormous waste of public funds. Public money is being spent to kill publicly owned wildlife, on public lands, for the benefit of a small percentage of livestock owners who aren?t required to change livestock management practices or pay for government services. The cost of predator control compared to the costs incurred from livestock losses is nearly 3:1. A 1994 audit of WS livestock protection program found that when state and local contributions are added, the cost to kill a predator ranges from well over $100 up to $2,000.

Congress allocates approximately $10 million dollars each year to Wildlife Services for livestock protection to kill 100,000 predators. Of the overall budget of Wildlife Services, only 7% goes to protecting natural resources such as endangered species while more than two thirds (69%) goes to livestock protection work in the west. Of the 10 million dollars paid by the government, ranchers contribute a meager 1% to the overall cost. The high cost of lethal predator control also serves to dispel the myth that if the WS agency were greatly limited or eliminated, ranchers would take matters into their own hands and make the problem worse. Ranchers could not continue at the current killing rate because it would never pay for itself. Aerial gunning is far too expensive. Other cheaper, non-lethal methods would need to be utilized. Also, even if there was some backlash against predators by using illegal poisons and other methods, if just a fraction of the budget that now goes to killing predators went to stronger law enforcement, these actions would be short lived.

Modern ecological research has shown that lethal predator control is not effective in the long run, and often achieves the opposite of what is intended. This is especially true of the coyote. When undisturbed by humans, coyotes regulate their own numbers based on food supply. This self-regulation results from a strong social hierarchy within packs where only the alpha pair or pack leaders breed. However, when packs are subjected to lethal control, the survival instinct kicks in and many more females in the packs begin to breed. Their litter numbers increase dramatically and often pups live to adult-hood because of decreased competition for food. Coyotes in neighboring areas move in to fill in the gaps left by lethal control. Thus coyotes are able to rapidly replenish their numbers, effectively negating efforts to control them. Science has also shown that large predators are necessary for a healthy ecosystem as they provide a vital link in the food chain, containing prey populations and preserving species diversity.

There are many non-lethal control solutions that are not only less expensive but proven more effective. Livestock owners who have invested in guard dogs, herder dogs such as collies, or llamas have professed lower or no predation problems. Nighttime penning has also been shown to decrease predator attacks. Taste aversion is one of the easiest, cheapest and effective tools used to decrease predation. Lithium chloride, a natural salt, is inserted into bait, and when a predator ingests the bait, it becomes violently ill; much like we experience when we have food poisoning. Generally after such an episode, the predator learns to avoid that food. This method makes far more economic sense than lethal methods as it can cost up to $2,000 to kill a predator threatening a herd, while the cost for Lithium Chloride is about $25-35 per herd per year.

The money allocated for lethal control could be used in more productive ways. If the government compensated ranchers for losses instead of spending the $10 million on killing predators, the ?predator control? budget would be reduced by at least 1/3. Also, this money could be used to educate and aid ranchers and others affected by predation to upstep their fencing or non-lethal defense techniques. The ultimate solution to this problem does exist, but it will take a willingness on the part of us all to challenge the attitudes and assumptions of livestock production. The elimination of livestock grazing on public lands would greatly increase the survival rate of all predators. Considering public land grazers are less than ? of 1% of employment in the Western states, the practice of public land grazing should be eliminated.

Educate yourself on predators and raise awareness for a group of species that are so necessary to a healthy ecosystem. Don?t buy fur and do not support businesses that sell fur products. Voice your support for policy efforts that restrict or prohibit trapping. Contact your local representatives and ask them to introduce legislation that bans all manner of lethal control and trapping on public lands. Insist on legislation that encourages research and development of non-lethal methods as well as policies that require ranchers to pay the costs to do business and accept responsibility for poor husbandry practices that lead to predation.

Our predators have suffered long enough. It is time we demand protection as well as a reverence and respect for a group of species that serve not only as beautiful reminders of the wild world, but also play a vital role in ecosystem balance.