Predator Control - Take Action!

Please take the time to write to the Forest Service with your comments on a proposed modification of predator control regulations. The Forest Service’s comment period on the proposed modification to the regulations has extended to Sept 5.

Comments can be e-mailed to PDM@fs.fed.us or mailed to:

Forest Service, USDA
Attn: Director, Wilderness and Wild Scenic Rivers Resources
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250

Other helpful links are:

·        Notice of Proposed Rule Change in Federal Register:  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2006/June/Day-07/i8839.htm

·        Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/predator/control/index.html

·        Humane Society: http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/lethal_predator_control_courtesy_of_wildlife_services/ 

The proposed modifications will relax restrictions for killing predators on two of the most protected classifications of FS Land.  Designated Wilderness Areas were created pursuant to the 1964 Wilderness Act and are defined as retaining their primeval character and influence and which appear to be affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of humanity’s work substantially unnoticeable. Research Natural Areas are areas where natural processes are allowed to prevail without human intervention.  Clearly the programmatic killing of animals is inconsistent with the mission of these two land classifications.

The proposed changes to predator control regulation include:

• Adding predator control to Research Natural Areas.
• Making predator control an objective rather than the exception.
• Shifting the general policy from predator protection to more indiscriminate, larger-scale killing of predators.
• Achieving wildlife objectives through other “collaborative processes,” though this phrase is not defined. Could ranchers with an economic interest in killing off predators grab an even stronger hold in shaping federal goals and objectives on public lands?
• Shifting the kill of one offending animal (to be assessed on case-by-case basis) to killing “local populations.”
• Expressly authorizing aircraft, motorized vehicles (e.g. ATVs) and poisons. .Aerial gunning is often done for “preventative predator control” prior to livestock entering an area. Poisons include livestock collars and M44’s, buried devices that when triggered expel lethal sodium cyanide. Poisons are indiscriminate, a danger to humans, pets, and other wild animals. Other methods of predator control include denning, where an animal is tracked to its den and its pups are killed, or trapping.

From a cost-benefit analysis perspective predator control is inefficient. Most predators are killed in response to livestock on public lands. Irresponsible ranching puts the burden of predator control onto taxpayers. Livestock receives $100M in subsidies each year, and Congress allocates $10M per year to kill 100,000 predators. Yet only 3% of cows are grazed on public lands, and predators cause only 3-9% of cattle and sheep deaths. It costs approximately $100-$2,000 to kill each animal, while the average damage done by a predator is $22.50.

From an ecological perspective predator control does not make sense. When the top of the food chain is removed, all lower tiers are negatively affected. For example, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1990’s after extirpation in 1920’s.  With the reintroduction of wolves, there has been a decline in the out-of-control elk population, regeneration of aspen, willow and cottonwood, more beavers, and habitat improvement for other wildlife. Scavenger animals take advantage of left-over meat from wolf kills.  In addition, elk have increased their vigilance and changed browsing patterns and no longer congregate in meadows or riparian areas, destroying the land and water resources. Grazing animals eat native grasses, trample riparian areas and destroy rivers.