WARONWILDLIFE: March 2014

http://stopusdawsabuse.blogspot.com/

USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES

United States Department of Agriculture.

Wildlife Services.

Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage Control) is a program of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Every year, Wildlife Services spends millions of dollars to kill thousands of predators—coyotes, wolves, bears, mountain lions, and many others—as a subsidy for the livestock industry.
The animals are shot, poisoned, gassed, snared, and caught in leghold traps. Wildlife Services programs operate on both private and public lands.
See Wildlife Services program directives:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/ws_directives.shtml

Wildlife Services policies and procedures have been questioned almost since the inception of the program. Although livestock damage is a valid concern, Wildlife Services also kills animals for eating flowers and pet food, digging in gardens, frightening people, and other concerns that could easily be addressed by nonviolent methods. And Wildlife Services runs programs to control bird damage, primarily in the eastern U.S. and at airports, as well as programs to remove damaging non-predatory wildlife.

In addition, Wildlife Services wastes millions of taxpayer dollars by spending far more to kill predators than the actual damage those predators cause. Scientific proof that Wildlife Services practices control livestock damage is markedly lacking.

Despite the opposition of environmentalists and a series of scathing advisory reports over the years, Wildlife Services has survived and prospered, primarily as a pet program of the powerful livestock industry. In recent years, Wildlife Services has been branching out to increase its programs to remove wildlife from urban areas and to promote itself to the public and to schools and other organizations.

Thank you Predator Defense
http://predatordefense.org/USDA.htm#SacBee

Lately we are finding that Wildlife Services is doing quite a bit of wildlife slaughtering.

The USDA's Wildlife Services killed 3,352,378 animals in 2012 alone.
Among the victims: wolves, coyotes, beavers, bobcats, great blue herons, and sandhill cranes. Their lethal methods are varied and indiscriminate. They include aerial gunning, cyanide gas, leg hold traps, poison, and neck snares.

Please learn what you can in the articles, and blog posts below.

Follow Predator Defense @PredatorDefense

http://predatordefense.org/index.htm

Watch their video :

"EXPOSED: USDA's Secret War on Wildlife".

Then please sign and share the petitions below.

Let's put an end to this horrific and shameful era in U.S.A. wildlife management.

Thank you @Wulalowe .

______________________________________

https://secure.nrdconline.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3319&autologin=true&s_src=EMoWSVPETBGDo1142YR&utm_source=link&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=email

______________________________________

FIRE WILDLIFE SERVICES TRAPPER JAMIE OLSEN

FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY

http://www.change.org/petitions/fire-usda-wildlife-services-federal-trapper-jamie-olson-for-animal-cruelty

______________________________________

ADMINISTRATION WANTS MORE MONEY

FOR WILDLIFE SERVICES

BUT STILL WON'T TELL US WHERE IT GOES

RePosted from:
Natural Resources Defense CouncilSwitchboard: Natural Resource Defense Council Blog
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/epepper/administration_wants_more_mone.html
Elly Pepper
Posted March 11, 2014
Tags: biogems, budget, budget2015, coyotes, predators, USDA, wildlife, wildlifeservices, wolves

Accountability is typically critical to getting more money. When you ask for allowance as a kid, your parents want to know what chores you'll do. When you ask for a raise, your boss wants to know what you've done. When you make a donation, you want to know the charitable organization's accomplishments.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to apply to Wildlife Services – the rogue branch of USDA that kills hundreds of thousands of animals each year on behest of the livestock industry.

(C) Fish and Wildlife Service

Indeed, despite the fact that Wildlife Services, for years, has been ignoring requests from NRDC and other groups, congressional representatives, and others for information on how it spends our taxpayer dollars, the Obama Administration keeps on requesting more money for the agency!

For 2014, as you might recall, the Administration requested an ADDITIONAL $13 million for “wildlife damage management”—the program within Wildlife Services that is responsible for killing animals, including endangered species and even pets. Not only did Congress grant this request, it gave them even more than they asked for, increasing their budget by a whopping $15 million – $13 million of which went to species eradication.

For 2015, the Administration is asking Congress to make that massive raise permanent!

Not only should the Administration refuse to increase Wildlife Service’s budget—it should be reducing it! It’s hard to imagine any reason for funding an agency that won’t even tell us how our tax dollars are being used—and the information we do have shows they’re not using the money wisely! For example, a recent leaked audit shows that Wildlife Services has some big accounting problems, including $12 million missing from its coffers that cannot be found. And, as both the audit and NRDC’s 2012 report show, its economic analyses are inconsistent with those done by other federal agencies and often contain fundamental accounting errors.

Especially at a time when agency budgets are being slashed across the board, we shouldn’t be funding an agency that wants our money – but not the accountability and responsibility that comes with it. If Wildlife Services wants funding, it should tell us how it’s using it and start cleaning up its act.

UPDATE: Details as to exactly what animals Wildlife Services will use its funding increase to control are sketchy at this time. If like last time, most of the request is to support feral swine control that’s one thing, but any increase in their budget for predator management is a bad idea. If anything, the money Wildlife Services spends to kill native carnivores should be redirected to nonlethal coexistence practices.

______________________________________

http://sevendogwinter.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-killing-agency-wildlife-services.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450678/the-killing-agency-wildlife-services.html

THE KILLING AGENCY: WILDLIFE SERVICES' BRUTAL METHODS LEAVE A TRAIL OF ANIMAL DEATH

By Tom Knudson

tknudson@sacbee.com

Published: Sunday, Apr. 29, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

Last Modified: Sunday, May. 20, 2012 - 1:11 pm

First of three parts

The day began with a drive across the desert, checking the snares he had placed in the sagebrush to catch coyotes.

Gary Strader, an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, stepped out of his truck near a ravine in Nevada and found something he hadn't intended 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,' " said Strader. "He said, 'Did anybody see it?' I said, 'Geez, I don't think so.'

"He said, 'If you think nobody saw it, go get a shovel and bury it and don't say nothing to anybody.' "

"That bothered me," said Strader, whose job was terminated in 2009. "It wasn't right."

Strader's employer, a branch of the federal Department of Agriculture called Wildlife Services, has long specialized in killing animals that are deemed a threat to agriculture, the public and – more recently – the environment.

Since 2000, its 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.

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

The Bee'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.

• 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.

Sometimes wild animals must be destroyed – from bears that ransack mountain cabins to geese swirling over an airport runway. But because lethal control stirs strong emotions, Wildlife Services prefers to operate in the shadows.

"We pride ourselves on our ability to go in and get the job done quietly without many people knowing about it," said Dennis Orthmeyer, acting state director of Wildlife Services in California.

Basic facts are tightly guarded. "This information is Not intended for indiscriminate distribution!!!" wrote one Wildlife Services manager in an email to a municipal worker in Elk Grove about the number of beavers killed there.

And while even the military allows the media into the field, Wildlife Services does not. "If we accommodated your request, we would have to accommodate all requests," wrote Mark Jensen, director of Wildlife Services in Nevada, turning down a request by The Bee to observe its hunters and trappers in action.

"The public has every right to scrutinize what's going on," said Carter Niemeyer, a former Wildlife Services district manager who worked for the agency for 26 years and now believes much of the bloodletting is excessive, scientifically unsound and a waste of tax dollars.

"If you read the brochures, go on their website, they play down the lethal control, which they are heavily involved in, and show you this benign side," Niemeyer said. "It's smoke and mirrors. It's a killing business. And it ain't pretty.

"If the public knows this and they don't care, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it," Niemeyer said. "But they are entitled to know."

Agency officials say the criticism is misleading. "If we can use nonlethal control first, we usually do it," said William Clay, deputy administrator of Wildlife Services. "The problem is, generally when we get a call, it's because farmers and ranchers are having livestock killed immediately. They are being killed daily. Our first response is to try to stop the killing and then implement nonlethal methods."

In March, two congressmen – Reps. John Campbell, R-Irvine, and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. – introduced a bill that would ban one of Wildlife Services' most controversial killing tools: spring-loaded sodium cyanide cartridges that have killed tens of thousands of animals in recent years, along with Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate), a less-commonly used poison.

"This is an ineffective, wasteful program that is largely unaccountable, lacks transparency and continues to rely on cruel and indiscriminate methods," said Camilla Fox, executive director of Project Coyote, a Bay Area nonprofit.

"If people knew how many animals are being killed at taxpayer expense – often on public lands – they would be shocked and horrified," Fox said.

The program's origins

Wildlife Services' roots reach back to 1915, when Congress – hoping to increase beef production for World War I – allocated $125,000 to exterminate wolves, starting in Nevada.

Popular among ranchers, the effort was expanded in 1931 when President Herbert Hoover signed a law authorizing the creation of a government agency – later named the Branch of Predator and Rodent Control – "to promulgate the best methods of eradication, suppression or bringing under control" a wide range of wildlife from mountain lions to prairie dogs.

Federal trappers pursued that mission with zeal. They dropped strychnine out of airplanes, shot eagles from helicopters, laced carcasses of dead animals with Compound 1080 – notorious for killing non-target species – and slaughtered coyotes, wolves, mountain lions and grizzly bears across the West.

Their efforts drew protest and calls for reform.

"The program of animal control … has become an end in itself and no longer is a balanced component of an overall scheme of wildlife husbandry and management," a panel of scientists wrote in a 1964 report to the U.S. secretary of Interior.

The report was followed by hearings, another critical federal review in 1971, unflattering press and an executive order by President Richard Nixon banning poison for federal predator control. "The time has come for man to make his peace with nature," Nixon said in a statement at the time.

President Gerald Ford later amended the order to allow the continued use of sodium cyanide.

The killing has continued on a broad scale. In 1999, the American Society of Mammalogists passed a resolution calling on the agency, renamed Wildlife Services in 1997, "to cease indiscriminate, pre-emptive lethal control programs on federal, state and private lands." Today, the society is considering drafting a new resolution.

"It makes no sense to spend tens of millions of dollars to kill predators, especially in the way that it's done, to the extent that it's done, when it can have cascading effects through the ecosystem, unintended consequences and nontarget consequences," said Bradley Bergstrom, a professor of wildlife biology at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Ga., and chairman of the society's conservation committee.

Clay, though, said his agency is more science-based and environmentally sensitive than ever. "We've increased the professionalism 100 percent," he said. "We've also emphasized research to more specifically take target animals. And we work very closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies."

Elizabeth Copper, a Southern California biologist who has worked with Wildlife Services, agreed. She applauded the agency's work to protect the endangered California least tern from predators in the San Diego area.

"I know the reputation Wildlife Services has and it is particularly inappropriate for the people involved with this program," said Copper. "They work really hard with a focus for something that is in big trouble. And they've made a huge difference."

Unreported killings

But elsewhere, the agency's actions have stirred anger and concern from private citizens, scientists and state and federal fish and game officials.

In 2003, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources received a tip that a golden eagle – one of the largest birds of prey in North America and a species protected by three federal laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act – was struggling to free itself from a leg-hold trap in the remote Henry Mountains.

Roger Kerstetter – an investigator with the state wildlife division – found the trap, but no eagle. Nearby, though, he spotted feathers poking out of the sand.

"They turn out to be the neck feathers of a golden eagle. And one of them comes out with a .22 bullet attached to it," Kerstetter recalled.

On the trap was another clue. It was stamped: Property of the U.S. Government.

"At that point, we started doing our homework," he said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also joined the investigation. In federal court two years later, a Wildlife Services trapper pleaded guilty to killing the eagle and paid a $2,000 fine.

"We never did find the bird," Kerstetter said. "He claimed he just buried it."

Nor did a record of the incident turn up in the agency's files.

"They are required to report the animals they take accidentally," Kerstetter said. "This eagle was never reported."

Strader, the former agency trapper who said he snared and buried an eagle in Nevada, is not surprised.

"That was not the only eagle I snared while working for Wildlife Services," he said. "I will not say how many. But the one (my supervisor) told me to bury was the first one, and I figured that was what was supposed to be done all the time, so that is what I did."

Overall, agency records show that 12 golden and bald eagles have been killed by mistake by agency traps, snares and cyanide poison since 2000 – a figure Strader believes is low.

"I would bet my house against a year-old doughnut there were more than 12 eagles taken, way more," said Strader. "You cannot set a trap, snare or (cyanide poison bait) in habitat occupied by eagles and not catch them on occasion."

Agency policy instructs trappers "to accurately and completely report all control activities." But Niemeyer, the retired Wildlife Services manager, said the policy is often ignored.

"Trappers felt that catching non-targets was a quick way to lose the tools of the trade and put Wildlife Services in a bad light," Niemeyer said.

Asked about the allegations, Deputy Administrator Clay said: "I certainly hope that is not the case. … We track those things so we know what kind of impact we are having on populations and the environment."

In all, more than 150 species have been killed by mistake by Wildlife Services traps, snares and cyanide poison since 2000, records show. A list could fill a field guide. Here are some examples:

Armadillos, badgers, great-horned owls, hog-nosed skunks, javelina, pronghorn antelope, porcupines, great blue herons, ruddy ducks, snapping turtles, turkey vultures, long-tailed weasels, marmots, mourning doves, red-tailed hawks, sandhill cranes and ringtails.

Many are off-limits to hunters and trappers. And some species, including swift foxes, kit foxes and river otter, are the focus of conservation and restoration efforts.

"The irony is state governments and the federal government are spending millions of dollars to preserve species and then … (you have) Wildlife Services out there killing the same animals," said Michael Mares, president of the American Society of Mammalogists. "It boggles the mind."

One critical loss occurred two years ago when a wolverine, one of the rarest mammals in America, stepped into a Wildlife Services leg-hold trap in Payette National Forest in Idaho. It was the third wolverine captured in agency traps since 2004 (the other two were released alive.)

"Shot wolverine due to bad foot," the trapper wrote in his field diary, which The Bee obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

"Oh my God, that is unbelievable," said Wendy Keefover, a carnivore specialist with WildEarth Guardians, an environmental group in Colorado. "Wolverines are a highly endangered mammal. There are very few left. Each individual is important."

Wildlife Services spokesperson Lyndsay Cole said: "We were surprised at this unfortunate incident. As soon as it occurred, we again worked directly with Forest Service officials to take steps that would prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future."

And Clay, the deputy administrator, said traps, snares and cyanide are key tools that nearly always get the right species. "Overall, these methods are at least 95 percent effective," he said.

But environmentalists don't trust the data.

"There is an enormous amount of pressure not to report non-targets because it makes them look bad," said Stephanie Boyles Griffin, a wildlife scientist with the Humane Society of the United States.

Many scientists want the collateral damage to stop. "In times when fiscal constraint is demanded, we believe programs that carelessly kill rare species and indiscriminately kill a great diversity of non-target species should be defunded and discontinued," Mares wrote in a letter to Wildlife Services in March.

The family dog

Raccoons are most often killed by mistake, followed by river otters, porcupines, snapping turtles, javelina, striped skunks and muskrats. But there are other accidental victims that are often more keenly missed: dogs.

One was Maggie, a tail-wagging, toy-fetching border collie-Irish setter mix beloved by Denise and Doug McCurtain and their four children.

Last August, Maggie's spine was crushed when she stepped into a vise-like "body-grip" trap set by Wildlife Services near the family's suburban Oregon home to catch a nonnative rodent called a nutria.

"How in the heck can a government agent put a dangerous trap out in a residential neighborhood?" Denise McCurtain said. "It's absolutely disgusting."

The family has filed a claim for damages.

"Never once did anyone come to us and apologize," she said. "It was like they pretended it didn't happen."

On average, eight dogs a month have been killed by mistake by Wildlife Services since 2000, records show. Some believe that figure is low, including Rex Shaddox, a former agency trapper in Texas.

"We were actually told not to report dogs we killed because it would have a detrimental effect on us getting funded," said Shaddox, who worked for the agency in 1979-80 when it was called Animal Damage Control.

"If we were working on a ranch and killing dogs coming in from town, we didn't report those," said Shaddox, 56. "We buried them and got the collars and threw them away. That's how we were taught to do it."

Clay, the agency deputy administrator, said:

"We've got policies that instruct employees that they need to accurately report everything they take. Anybody that's in violation is dealt with immediately."

Two years ago, a dog wearing a collar with a rabies tag disappeared in West Virginia. Its worried owners, James and Carol Gardner, contacted the state police. Only then did they learn that Charm, their 11-year-old husky, had been killed and buried by a Wildlife Services trapper trying to poison predators with a spring-loaded "M-44" cyanide cartridge.

"We were not notified," said Carol Gardner. "We were very, very, very upset."

"It's terrible," said James, 71. "I think it's a sin. Our tax dollars are paying for this. It should be mandatory that people are notified."

Charm, he added, was not just a pet – she was "a member of the family."

A few days later, he received a letter from Christopher Croson, the agency's state director.

"I must apologize for my employee's failure to recognize that a pet owner could be identified using a rabies tag number," Croson wrote. "This was a most disturbing lack of judgment."

Today, the Gardners watch for missing-dog notices and call the owners when they see one.

"We notify them that, hey, maybe you'd better call the USDA and see if they buried a dog with your description," Carol Gardner said. And she added: "Some day it's going to be a human being, instead of a dog."

Injuries to people

There have already been close calls. Over the past 25 years, at least 18 employees and several private citizens have been injured by M-44 cyanide cartridges. Here are a few examples from agency records.

From 1987: "We will never know but it is very likely the fact that (the employee) was carrying his antidote kit … may have saved his life.

From 1999: "The cyanide hit the left forearm of the employee, causing (it) to scatter, with some cyanide hitting his face. He started to cough and felt muscle tightness in the back of his neck. The employee used two amyl nitrate antidote capsules. … He used two more amyl nitrate capsules on the way to the clinic. The clinic doctor administered oxygen and two more amyl nitrate capsules. The employee was air-flighted."

From 2007: "The individual kicked or stepped on the M-44 devices and cyanide was ejected into his eyes. Individual reported that his eyes were irritated and burning."

Agency officials downplay the risk. "Although use of M-44 devices has resulted in some human exposure reports, most involved program staff and minor or short-term symptoms," said Carol Bannerman, a Wildlife Services spokeswoman.

"A majority of exposures to members of the public resulted from the involved individual's disregard of warning and trespass signs or intentional tampering with the devices," she added.

In 2003, Dennis Slaugh, 69, was hunting for rocks and fossils in Utah when he spotted what he thought was a surveyor's stake. Curious, he bent down to have a look.

"I just kind of brushed it and it blew up in my face and put cyanide all over me," said Slaugh, a retired county heavy equipment operator. "I was instantly sick. I was so sick I was throwing up."

Later, he recovered the M-44, which is engraved with the words, U.S. Government. Slaugh believes it was set by Wildlife Services. The agency denies responsibility.

"If it is stamped 'U.S. Government,' it is probably the property of Wildlife Services," Bannerman said. But she added, "Wildlife Services did not have any M-44 devices set out in the area. … No information or review suggests the validity of the claim. No device had been set there for more than 10 days. An investigation conducted by EPA in 2008 did not find any wrongdoing by Wildlife Services."

Slaugh said he has not been the same since. "The cyanide hooks to your red blood cells and starves you of oxygen. I can feel that more and more all the time," he said. "I'm getting real short of breath. I went to the hospital the other day, and they are thinking about putting me on oxygen."

"It's awful to put poison out there where people can get it," he added. "Lots of people's pets have got (killed). One woman lost her dog a half-mile from where I was at."

M-44s were banned in California by Proposition 4 in 1998, but Wildlife Services still uses them on American Indian land in Mendocino County.

"Over the past five years, there has been no unintentional take," said Larry Hawkins, the agency's California spokesman.

"I'm deeply shocked," said Fox, who pushed for the M-44 ban as a coordinator with the Animal Protection Institute. "They are a rogue agency that believes they are above the law and can employ their lethal wares wherever they want – regardless of state law."

Poisoning predators with cyanide is not the agency's only risky practice. Killing coyotes from low-flying planes and helicopters is, too.

Since 1989, several employees have been injured in crashes and 10 people have died, including two in Utah in 2007, one of them a good friend of Strader, the former agency trapper.

"I went to the funeral," Strader said. "He was just a real nice guy, funny, joking around all the time. And he got killed for what? To kill a stinking coyote. It don't make sense.

"We ain't threatened by coyotes so much that we've got to lose peoples' lives over it," Strader said.

Concern across California

Other agency records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal for the first time just where the agency kills wildlife, intentionally and accidentally, across California. And in many of those locations, there is conflict and concern.

Inyo County, in the eastern Sierra, is where two Wildlife Services hunters – working under contract with the California Department of Fish and Game – have been tracking and shooting mountain lions to protect an endangered species: the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Becky Pierce, a mountain lion biologist with the state, said the effort has been marred by unnecessary killing, including, in 2009, when a Wildlife Services hunter shot a female mountain lion with kittens.

"They got left to starve, waiting for mom to come back," she said. "I'm not saying we don't sometimes have to remove lions if they are (preying) on sheep. But everything should be done in a humane manner. And that isn't humane."

Tom Stephenson, who directs the sheep recovery effort for Fish and Game, declined to comment. But Andrew Hughan, a department spokesman, said the kittens may have survived.

"To say that a female lion was taken and her cubs left to die is completely subjective. They are resourceful creatures," Hughan said.

Pierce, who has studied lions for two decades, disagreed. "They were relying on the mother for milk. It would be a miracle if any of them survived," she said.

In March 2011, two more mountain lion kittens, just days old, were mauled to death in the Sierra when a Wildlife Services hunter's dogs raced out of control and pounced on them. Their mother was then shot, too.

"We all want to see bighorn sheep protected," said Karen Schambach, California field director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "What gives me the greatest angst is how inhumane some of this stuff is. For Wildlife Services to allow dogs to go tear newborn kittens apart is outrageous."

Hawkins, the agency's California spokesman, called the incident "a regrettable outcome over which our specialist had no control."

No mammal draws more agency lethal force in California and the West than the coyote. Records show that most are killed in rural regions, such as Lassen, Modoc and Kern counties, where they are considered a threat to livestock.

"It's a very valuable program," said Joe Moreo, agricultural commissioner in Modoc County. "We have very good trappers up here, and we're fortunate we have them."

But coyotes are also killed where people like to hear their howls and yips, including Alpine County, south of Lake Tahoe.

Since 2007, Wildlife Services has killed more than 120 coyotes in Alpine County.

"Coyotes are part of our magical landscape," said John Brissenden, a former county supervisor who manages Sorensen's Resort along the west fork of the Carson River. "Our primary motivator for people coming here is the wildlife and the outdoors. That's what our business is built on. It's what Alpine County's commerce is built on. To take that away makes no sense."

Many coyotes were killed in the middle of winter, when they are easier to spot and shoot, including 15 in February 2010. Hawkins, the agency spokesman, said the animals were killed "in the protection of livestock." Asked where – public land or private? – Hawkins said he didn't know.

Brissenden would like some answers.

"We are 97 percent state- and federal-owned," he said. "There is very little grazing here. To have a federal agency eliminate these animals without public review is astonishing and appalling."

• Slideshow: Gallery: Wildlife agency misfires

• Data Center: See California kills by Wildlife Services

• Interactive graphic: Animals killed by Wildlife Services nationwide

• Long struggles in leg-hold device make for gruesome deaths

• Federal agency kills 7,800 animals by mistake in steel body-grip traps

• Documents: Wildlife mysteries revealed

• Videos: Target and non-target animals often suffer

• Chat live replay with reporter Tom Knudson

Editor's note: This story has been updated to clarify the chemical makeup of Compound 1080, and to more accurately indicate the time period of casualties incurred in aerial gunning crashes.

• Read more articles by Tom Knudson

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450678/the-killing-agency-wildlife-services.html#storylink=cpy

______________________________________

RePosted from The Wildlife News

WHITHER THE HUNTER/CONSERVATIONIST?

Via: Michael W. Fox of Project Coyote

RESPECT THE WOLVES

http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/usda-wildlife-killing-services.html

______________________________________

WHITHER THE HUNTER/CONSERVATIONIST?

by George Wuerthner on MARCH 5, 2014

Many hunter organizations like to promote the idea that hunters were the first and most important conservation advocates. They rest on their laurels of early hunter/wildlife activist like Teddy Roosevelt, and George Bird Grinnell who, among other things, were founding members of the Boone and Crocket Club. But in addition to being hunter advocates, these men were also staunch proponents of national parks and other areas off limits to hunting. Teddy Roosevelt help to establish the first wildlife refuges to protect birds from feather hunters, and he was instrumental in the creation of numerous national parks including the Grand Canyon. Grinnell was equally active in promoting the creation of national parks like Glacier as well as a staunch advocate for protection of wildlife in places like Yellowstone. Other later hunter/wildlands advocates like Aldo Leopold and Olaus Murie helped to promote wilderness designation and a land ethic as well as a more enlightened attitude about predators.

Unfortunately, though there are definitely still hunters and anglers who put conservation and wildlands protection ahead of their own recreational pursuits, far more of the hunter/angler community is increasingly hostile to wildlife protection and wildlands advocacy. Perhaps the majority of hunters were always this way, but at least the philosophical leaders in the past were well known advocates of wildlands and wildlife.

Nowhere is this change in attitude among hunter organizations and leadership more evident than the deafening silence of hunters when it comes to predator management. Throughout the West, state wildlife agencies are increasing their war on predators with the apparent blessings of hunters, without a discouraging word from any identified hunter organization. Rather the charge for killing predators is being led by groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and others who are not only lobbying for more predator killing, but providing funding for such activities to state wildlife agencies.

For instance, in Nebraska which has a fledging population of cougars (an estimated 20) the state wildlife agency has already embarked on a hunting season to “control” cougar numbers. Similarly in South Dakota, where there are no more than 170 cougars, the state has adopted very aggressive and liberal hunting regulations to reduce the state’s cougar population.

But the worst examples of an almost maniacal persecution of predators are related to wolf policies throughout the country. In Alaska, always known for its Neanderthal predator policies, the state continues to promote killing of wolves adjacent to national parks. Just this week the state wiped out a pack of eleven wolves that were part of a long term research project in the Yukon Charley National Preserve. Alaska also regularly shoots wolves from the air, and also sometimes includes grizzly and black bears in its predator slaughter programs.

In the lower 48 states since wolves were delisted from the federal Endangered Species Act and management was turned over to the state wildlife agencies more than 2700 wolves have been killed.

This does not include the 3435 additional wolves killed in the past ten years by Wildlife Services, a federal predator control agency, in both the Rockies and Midwest. Most of this killing was done while wolves were listed as endangered.

As an example of the persecutory mentality of state wildlife agencies, one need not look any further than Idaho, where hunters/trappers, along with federal and state agencies killed 67 wolves this past year in the Lolo Pass area on the Montana/Idaho border, including some 23 from a Wildlife Service’s helicopter gun ship. The goal of the predator persecution program is to reduce predation on elk. However, even the agency’s own analysis shows that the major factor in elk number decline has been habitat quality declines due to forest recovery after major wildfires which has reduced the availability of shrubs and grasses central to elk diet. In other word, with or without predators the Lolo Pass area would not be supporting the number of elk that the area once supported after the fires. Idaho also hired a trapper to kill wolves in the Frank Church/River of No Return Wilderness to increase elk numbers there.

Idaho hunters are permitted to obtain five hunting and five trapping tags a year, and few parts of the state have any quota or limits. Idaho Governor Butch Otter recently outlined a new state budget allotting $2 million dollars for the killing of wolves—even though the same budget cuts funding for state schools.

Other states are no better than Idaho. Montana has a generous wolf six month long season. Recent legislation in the Montana legislature increased the number of wolves a hunter can kill to five and allows for the use of electronic predator calls and removes any requirement to wear hunter orange outside of the regular elk and deer seasons. And lest you think that only right wing Republican politicians’ support more killing, this legislation was not opposed by one Democratic Montana legislator, and it was signed into law by Democratic Governor Steve Bullock because he said Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks supported the bill.

Wyoming has wolves listed as a predator with no closed season or limit nor even a requirement for a license outside of a “trophy” wolf zone in Northwest Wyoming.

The Rocky Mountain West is known for its backward politics and lack of ethics when it comes to hunting, but even more “progressive” states like Minnesota and Wisconsin have cow-towed to the hunter anti predator hostility. Minnesota allows the use of snares, traps, and other barbaric methods to capture and kill wolves. At the end of the first trapping/hunting season in 2012/2013, the state’s hunters had killed more than 400 wolves.

Though wolves are the target species that gets the most attention, nearly all states have rabid attitudes towards predators in general. So in the eastern United States where wolves are still absent, state wildlife agencies aggressively allow the killing of coyotes, bears and other predators. For instance, Vermont, a state that in my view has undeserved reputation for progressive policies, coyotes can be killed throughout the year without any limits.

These policies are promoted for a very small segment of society. About six percent of Americans hunt, yet state wildlife agencies routinely ignore the desires of the non-hunting public. Hunting is permitted on a majority of US Public lands including 50% of wildlife “refuges as well as nearly all national forests, all Bureau of Land Management lands, and even a few national parks. In other words, the hunting minority dominates public lands wildlife policies.

Most state agencies have a mandate to manage wildlife as a public trust for all citizens, yet they clearly serve only a small minority. Part of this is tradition, hunters and anglers have controlled state wildlife management for decades. Part of it is that most funding for these state agencies comes from the sale of licenses and tags. And part is the worldview that dominates these agencies which sees their role as “managers” of wildlife, and in their view, improving upon nature.

None of these states manage predators for their ecological role in ecosystem health. Despite a growing evidence that top predators are critical to maintaining ecosystem function due to their influence upon prey behavior, distribution and numbers, I know of no state that even recognizes this ecological role, much less expends much effort to educate hunters and the public about it. (I hasten to add that many of the biologists working for these state agencies, particularly those with an expertise about predators, do not necessarily support the predator killing policies and are equally appalled and dismayed as I am by their agency practices.)

Worse yet for predators, there is new research that suggests that killing predators actually can increase conflicts between humans and these species. One cougar study in Washington has documented that as predator populations were declining, complaints rose. There are good reasons for this observation. Hunting and trapping is indiscriminate. These activities remove many animals from the population which are adjusted to the human presence and avoid, for instance, preying on livestock. But hunting and trapping not only opens up productive territories to animals who may not be familiar with the local prey distribution thus more likely to attack livestock, but hunting/trapping tends to skew predator populations to younger age classes. Younger animals are less skillful at capturing prey, and again more likely to attack livestock. A population of young animals can also result in larger litter size and survival requiring more food to feed hungry growing youngsters—and may even lead to an increase in predation on wild prey—having the exact opposite effect that hunters desire.

Yet these findings are routinely ignored by state wildlife agencies. For instance, despite the fact that elk numbers in Montana have risen from 89,000 animals in 1992 several years before wolf reintroductions to an estimated 140,000-150,000 animals today, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks does almost nothing to counter the impression and regular misinformation put forth by hunter advocacy groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or the Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife that wolves are “destroying” Montana’s elk herds.

I have attended public hearings on wolves and other predator issues, and I have yet to see a single hunter group support less carnivore killing. So where are the conservation hunters? Why are they so silent in the face of outrage? Where is the courage to stand up and say current state wildlife agencies policies are a throw-back to the last century and do not represent anything approaching a modern understanding of the important role of predators in our ecosystems?

As I watch state after state adopting archaic policies, I am convinced that state agencies are incapable of managing predators as a legitimate and valued member of the ecological community. Their persecutory policies reflect an unethical and out of date attitude that is not in keeping with modern scientific understanding of the important role that predators play in our world.

It is apparent from evidence across the country that state wildlife agencies are incapable of managing predators for ecosystem health or even with apparent ethical considerations. Bowing to the pressure from many hunter organizations and individual hunters, state wildlife agencies have become killing machines and predator killing advocates.

Most people at least tolerant the killing of animals that eaten for food, though almost everyone believes that unnecessary suffering should be avoided. But few people actually eat the predators they kill, and often the animals are merely killed and left on the killing fields. Yet though many state agencies and some hunter organizations promote the idea that wanton waste of wildlife and unnecessary killing and suffering of animals is ethically wrong, they conveniently ignore such ideas when it comes to predators, allowing them to be wounded and left to die in the field, as well as permitted to suffer in traps. Is this ethical treatment of wildlife? I think not.

Unfortunately unless conservation minded hunters speak up, these state agencies as well as federal agencies like Wildlife Services will continue their killing agenda uninhibited. I’m waiting for the next generation of Teddy Roosevelts, Aldo Leopolds and Olaus Muries to come out of the wood work. Unless they do, I’m afraid that ignorance and intolerant attitudes will prevail and our lands and the predators that are an important part of the evolutionary processes that created our wildlife heritage will continue to be eroded.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology

Visit Authors Website

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

ACTIVISM, CONSERVATION, DELISTING, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, GREAT LAKES WOLVES, IDAHO, IDAHO WOLVES, MONTANA, MONTANA WOLVES, WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE SERVICES, WISCONSIN WOLVES, WOLVES AND PREY, WYOMING, WYOMING WOLVES

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/03/05/whither-the-hunterconservationist/

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/46532

______________________________________

RESPECT THE WOLVES

Michael W. Fox of Project Coyote

From: Michael W. Fox of Project Coyote

Published October 10, 2013 12:03 PM

State wildlife management practices directed to maximize deer numbers for recreational hunters, rural America’s virtual extermination of the wolf over the past two centuries, coupled with forest management practices and agricultural expansion indirectly providing feed for deer and the encroachment of real estate housing developments with deer-attracting gardens and vegetation in municipal parks, have had unforeseen consequences associated with high White tail deer numbers; and elk in western states. Two of these unforeseen consequences concern public health and potential harm to the livestock industry, which a higher population of wolves across the U.S. would do much to rectify.

According to the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, "After the young (fawns) are born each spring, there are between 900,000 and 1,000,000 (White tail) deer in Minnesota. The hunting season is important to keep the deer population from getting too large. Each year, Minnesota hunters harvest between 150,000 and 200,000 deer".

Hunters seek out the healthiest deer and trophy antler-bearers in particular. A seasonal hunt eliminating almost one quarter of the deer population means starvation for wolf in deer-hunted zones at the start of winter. This probably increases their predation on livestock. Increasing deer hunting quotas to better regulate deer numbers is not a biologically appropriate response even though it is a multibillion-dollar source of revenue for states and equipment suppliers.

Wolves prey on deer year-round, taking the slower ones weakened by injury and disease, and therefore play a significant role in controlling diseases carried by deer, notably prion-causing Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). This disease also affects mule deer, elk and moose and is now spreading across the U.S. and Canada. Wolves are probably immune. But if these prions mutate and cross the species barrier and affect livestock, especially since prions have now been found in plants consumed by deer and also in agricultural crops consumed by livestock and humans, the consequences could have devastating economic consequences for the livestock industry.

Read more at San Diego Loves Green and Project Coyote.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/46532

______________________________________

FEDS SET ASIDE HABITAT IN SOUTHWEST FOR JAGUAR

http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/usda-wildlife-killing-services.html

By Associated Press, Published: March 4

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Federal wildlife officials Tuesday set aside nearly 1,200 square miles along the U.S.-Mexico border as habitat essential for the conservation of the jaguar, a species that hasn’t been spotted in New Mexico in eight years and one that has made only fleeting appearances on wildlife cameras in Arizona’s Santa Rita Mountains.

Jaguars have been on the federal endangered species list for nearly two decades, but it took a series of lawsuits filed by environmentalists to prompt the critical habitat designation. Despite only a handful of male jaguars being spotted in the Southwest over the years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the region’s desert scrub, mesquite grasslands and oak woodlands make for important habitat.

“Critical habitat in the United States contributes to the jaguar’s persistence and recovery across the species’ entire range by providing areas to support individuals that disperse into the United States from the nearest core population in Mexico,” the agency said in a statement.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department and other critics wanted the habitat proposal withdrawn when it was first introduced in 2012. They argued the Southwest isn’t essential to the jaguar’s survival because nearly all of the cat’s historic range is in Central and South America.

“The proposal’s assertion that habitat in Arizona and New Mexico is essential to jaguar recovery ignores basic biological principles of conservation,” the Arizona agency said in a five-page letter to federal officials. “To be effective, jaguar conservation must occur in areas of their range where consistent breeding occurs,” the agency stated.

The Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that no female jaguars or breeding have been documented in the U.S. in more than 50 years. Jaguars were placed on the federal endangered species list in 1997.

Environmentalists praised Tuesday decision, saying partial measures over the years have not gone far enough to protect those jaguars that are returning to the U.S.

“This was a widespread animal and the fact that it has been reduced to very rare sightings in the U.S. today is a testament to how much ground it has lost and has to recover, including in Mexico, where it’s still losing ground,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Biologists rely on an extensive network of remote cameras across southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico for gauging how often the big cats roam between Mexico and the U.S. The images captured so far reveal a lone male has been hanging out in the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of Tucson. Always under the cover of darkness, the cat — with its massive jaw, spotted coat and long black-tipped tail — can been seen walking through tall grass or darting across the camera’s field of view, leaving behind only a blur.

Marit Alanen, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Tucson, acknowledged that many people don’t realize the exotic cats are returning. “When you think about typical jaguar habitat being in the jungle and being tropical, it is pretty exciting that we actually have them in Arizona right now,” she said.

The habitat designation includes parts of Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties in Arizona and Hidalgo County in New Mexico. Federal officials say they considered the availability of native prey, water sources, vegetation, topography and other factors in determining the boundaries.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also said the designation will not affect border security, including routine patrols by law enforcement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/feds-set-aside-habitat-in-southwest-for-jaguar/2014/03/04/cbf4bcc2-a3e1-11e3-b865-38b254d92063_story.html

______________________________________

ARIZONA MAN SPOTS JAGUAR;

FIRST U.S. SIGHTING IN 2 YEARS

November 23, 2011 | 4:34 pm

This adult male is first jaguar seen in the U.S. in two years. An Arizona hunting guide encountered it Nov. 19

More than two years after the demise of the country's only known wild jaguar, wildlife enthusiasts got some good news when a southern Arizona hunting guide saw another one -- an adult male.

It was the first confirmed sighting of the endangered cat in the U.S. since the other jaguar, known as "Macho B," died, according to the Arizona Daily Star.

Donnie Fenn was mountain lion hunting in Cochise County last weekend with his 10-year-old daughter and a friend when Fenn’s hound dogs sped out of the canyon they were searching, he told the paper.

“Then, I was about 200 yards from a tree they were barking under, but I couldn't yet see what was there,” Fenn said. “I pulled my camera out, zoomed in, and I could tell right away it was a jaguar. It was big and spotted.”

Fenn, 32, immediately called state officials to report the sighting. Then the jaguar leaped out of the tree and Fenn’s dogs gave chase.

“I've seen a lot of lions treed up and stuff, and I've been in a lot of pretty hairy situations, but I've never experienced something like this,” Fenn told the Daily Star. “The roaring and growling. It was quite unreal.”

Fenn pulled his wounded dogs away from the snarling jaguar, which clambered into another tree. Fenn took several dozen pictures of the spotted cat, then scurried to safety with his friend and daughter.

Later, state biologists combed the scene for claw marks and hair, which they removed for testing.

As for Macho B, he had been trapped, fitted with a radio collar and released in February 2009. A month later, he was captured again and euthanized due to health problems, enraging wildlife advocates.

An Arizona biologist named Emil McCain pleaded guilty to intentionally trapping the jaguar when he was authorized only to ensnare cougars and bears for research, a misdemeanor. At the time, McCain’s attorney told the Associated Press: “If the cat hadn’t died, there would have been a much different view of what took place here.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/jaguar-spotted-southern-arizona-macho-b.html

- See more at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/jaguar-spotted-southern-arizona-macho-b.html#sthash.XJYNLV3R.dpuf

______________________________________

( NEW MEXICO )

STATE'S WILDLIFE MISMANAGED;

POPULATION NUMBERS FALLING

AND YET USFWS IS HAULING OFF ANOTHER CRITICALLY ENDANGERED MEXICAN GRAY WOLF?

LET'S TAKE ACTION!

http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/usda-wildlife-killing-services.html

Guest Columns Opinion

By Jan Hayes / Sandia Mountain BearWatch

Published: Monday, February 24, 2014 at 12:05 am

Last week Scott Bidegain, chairman of the New Mexico Game Commission, stepped down when it was reported that he participated in an illegal cougar hunt on his ranch. Prior to that, Bidegain and New Mexico Game and Fish Commissioner Paul Espinoza Sr. were roundly criticized for participating in coyote-killing contests in other states.

Several months ago, Jim Lane, director of Game and Fish, was forced to resign with a day’s notice. The reason for the resignation has never been announced. Under Lane’s direction, the elimination of New Mexico’s wildlife, particularly black bears, increased dramatically. Lane was also a proponent for coyote-killing contests and for New Mexico’s children participating in trapping wildlife.

In 2008, Game and Fish Director Bruce Thompson resigned over allegations of an illegal deer hunt.

In the late 1990s, Game and Fish Acting Director R.J. Kirkpatrick and the department were successfully sued by a citizen hunter for harassment and intimidation. Kirkpatrick was found personally liable for compensatory and punitive damages. In spite of this, Kirkpatrick has steadily risen in the department to now occupy the top job.

But the above shenanigans are but a symptom of a much larger problem, namely, the mismanagement of New Mexico’s wildlife.

For example, for the first time in modern history, the bear population in the Sandia Mountains has been virtually eliminated with approximately 140-plus bears being either killed or trapped/relocated in the past three years. Nothing was done to stop this ecological disaster.

Last year alone, 80-plus bears were removed from the Sandias, a number exceeding Game and Fish’s entire bear population estimate. In 2010, under Lane, the statewide bear hunt limit was increased by 103 percent.

Hunter and depredation deaths total a whopping 2,200-plus bears in the past three years out of an uncounted, unknown population variously guesstimated to be 5,000 to 7,000. The slow reproduction of this species cannot keep pace with the reckless elimination that has been occurring.

The yearly cougar hunt has also been drastically increased by 51 percent from 490 to 742 from an uncounted, unknown population. Like the bears, it appears that the goal is to eliminate this species.

Present regulations place no limits on the number of animals that a trapper can kill per year on New Mexico’s state and federal land, lands that belong to all New Mexicans. In 2012 and 2013, 23,628 small beneficial carnivores like bobcats, fox, coyotes, ringtails, raccoons, etc., were reported to be killed, with 70 percent from trapping. Most surrounding states do not allow trapping on their public lands, so their trappers come to New Mexico.

The list of Game and Fish’s inferior stewardship of the state’s wildlife goes on, but I have limited space. Suffice it to say those interested in conservation of New Mexico’s wildlife are thoroughly disgusted and many of the conservation-oriented professionals at the department have either left, are completely demoralized or waiting for retirement.

This buck stops at Gov. Susana Martinez’s desk. She has complete control over what happens at Game and Fish and to this state’s wildlife. Unfortunately, she has been complacent and unwilling to set things right in this mess of a department.

The only solution is for the Legislature to take Martinez and future governors out of the picture in overseeing this state’s wildlife.

It’s time for a complete reorganization of New Mexico’s game and fish management structure, starting with the dissolution of the governor’s hand-picked Game Commission. The Legislature should configure a committee that balances the interests of not only ranchers, hunters and outfitters which is presently the case, but would also include wildlife conservation groups who represent the much larger majority of this state’s residents who value wildlife and seek to preserve it.

Unless drastic changes are made, New Mexico’s wildlife populations will continue to decline.

SUGGESTED READING:

http://www.abqjournal.com/358145

CASE IN POINT:

IN THE NEWS: A MEXICAN GRAY WOLF WILL BE CAPTURED ALIVE FROM THE GILA NATIONAL FOREST

Uncollared wolf to be removed from the Gila National Forest. Silver City Sun News, 2/26/14

By Susan Dunlap

SILVER CITY - The Department of Fish and Wildlife Services put out an order on Feb. 12 to capture an uncollared Mexican gray wolf in the area where the Fox Mountain Pack roams, south of Quemodo near Fox Mountain in the Gila National Forest. The reason for the live capture of this endangered species is because of five reported livestock deaths within the past year.

"They're not likely to catch the animal that did the killing," said Michael Robinson, conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. "This is an imprecise way of addressing livestock [depredation]."

The U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services disagree.

"Because wolves feed and kill as a pack, it is often difficult to distinguish which individual wolves are involved in the depredation," Maggie Dwire, assistant Mexican wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said through an email. "Given the background of the Fox Mountain Pack, we assume that all wolves within the pack may have been involved in depredations in the past."

Dwire insisted that though it is difficult to determine the individual wolf involved, the Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to protecting the Mexican gray wolf species.

"The removal effort combined with continued use of non-removal tools is designed to prevent or limit additional depredations," Dwire said. "We conduct a stepwise approach and first attempt to reduce depredations by non-removal tools, followed by removal of individuals most likely to be involved in the depredations. Following the removal of an individual, we monitor the pack and continue non-removal tools in an effort to prevent additional depredations. If additional depredations occur, we will reassess our strategies, not because we removed the wrong animal, but rather because we have not solved the depredation problem and have not yet achieved the right combination of actions to limit additional depredations by the pack."

The Mexican gray wolf is a sensitive issue involving tradition, economics and the fate of a species. Ranchers are allowed to let their cattle roam in forested areas owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the state of New Mexico, according to Cliff resident Brandi McCauley, whose family has been ranching in the Cliff area for 104 years. According to BLM's website, ranchers must pay a fee to allow their livestock to roam BLM land, though the fee fluctuates depending on market conditions for beef and other factors.

Any livestock deprivation has an economic impact on ranchers, first because they pay to let their cattle graze public land and then they experience a financial loss if they lose their livestock. But Robinson pointed out, ranchers are compensated for livestock deprivation if a wolf is the cause. …

"Cattle have been roaming this country for a long time," McCauley said.

This makes livestock vulnerable to attacks by wildlife predators.

The Mexican gray wolf's population has been brought to record lows. They were successfully poisoned, trapped, clubbed and shot until they were almost completely annihilated by the mid-1900s according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' website. Their natural habitat encompasses southern New Mexico, among other areas of the western United States.

The Mexican gray wolf was listed under the endangered species list in 1976, according to the Fish and Wildlife Services Department. But recovery of this particular animal has been slow.

The only other wildlife to have hit such low numbers and recovered in the wild with at least a moderate level of success are the black-footed ferret and the California condor, according to Robinson. There are only 83 reported Mexican gray wolves in the wild, according to a recent survey conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That means that every single wolf in the wild is important for breeding purposes if the animal is to recover, according to Robinson.

"There is a genetic crisis in the Mexican gray wolf," Robinson said. "Because there are so few of them, their breeding has been slowed down and is near cessation."

Dwire said the Fish and Wildlife Service won't know how genetically important the uncollared Mexican gray wolf will be until the wolf is captured and tested, but she said that if the captured wolf contains lineage of one of the three founding lineages, that lineage is represented by the captured wolf's siblings, sires, and other members of the wolf population.

Dwire also said the department will evaluate the potential for whether the animal will be re-released in the U.S. or Mexico some time in the future or if the animal will become part of what she described as a captive breeding program.

"It's a tough balancing point," Dwire admitted.

Susan Dunlap can be reached at 575-538-5893 ext. 5803.

To read the full article, published in the Silver City Sun-News, click here.

Please act today to keep the young Mexican wolf the government is targeting for removal in the wild where he belongs!

Calls and emails to decision-makers are needed. Talking points and contact information are here.

You can also help by writing a letter to the editor thanking the Silver City Sun-News for the article and supporting Mexican wolf recovery.

Tips and talking points for writing your letter are below, but please write in your own words, from your own experience.

Letter Writing Tips & Talking Points

Mexican gray wolves are beautiful, intelligent, native animals. We have a responsibility to them and to future generations to ensure their recovery.

At last count, just 83 wolves including 5 breeding pairs survived in the wild.

The government should not be targeting critically endangered wolves, who may be very valuable genetically, for permanent removal.

Removing a wolf at random may break up a potential breeding pair and will place him/her and all of the wolves nearby at risk, since capture carries a high risk of accidental death or injury.

This perpetuates a failed policy of scapegoating wolves who occasionally prey on livestock -- even when the stock-owner is reimbursed.

If the US Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned about the growth of the population and its genetic health, the answer is more releases of captive wolves, not subjecting more wild wolves to risky trapping operations and permanent captivity.

Moving Mexican gray wolves closer to extinction is not the solution to livestock conflicts.

Livestock businesses on public lands are reimbursed for losses and can receive government and non-profit assistance for non-lethal proactive measures to avoid depredation. They have a responsibility to implement such measures.

Make sure you:

Thank the paper for publishing the article.

Do not repeat any negative messages from the article, such as “cows may have been killed by wolves, but…” Remember that those reading your letter will not be looking at the article it responds to, so this is an opportunity to get out positive messages about wolf recovery rather than to argue with the original article.

Keep your letter brief, between 150-300 words.

Include something about who you are and why you care: E.g. “I am a mother, outdoors person, teacher, business owner, scientific, religious, etc.”

Provide your name, address, phone number and address. The paper won’t publish these, but they want to know you are who you say you are.

Submit your letter here: editor@scsun-news.com

Click here to join our email list for Mexican gray wolf updates and action alerts.

Visit us on Facebook here.

http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1203/51/In-the-News-A-Mexican-gray-wolf-will-be-captured-alive-from-the-Gila-National-Forest

http://tinyurl.com/p3n3pxt

_________________________________________________

SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS:

TAKE ACTION!

EMAILS & PETITIONS TO PROTEST POISONING OF OUR PRAIRE DOGS:

http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/usda-wildlife-killing-services.html

Yes, Uncle Sam Is Really Planning to Kill 16,000 Prairie Dogs

Eagles and owls will also likely die in the pointless poisoning, biologists say.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/01/10/slaughter-innocents-yes-uncle-sam-really-planning-kill-16000-prairie-dogs

STOP THE POISONING OF THOUSANDS OF PRAIRIE DOGS ON PUBLIC LANDS

https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2677

STOP THE POISONING OF THOUSANDS OF PRAIRIE DOGS

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/513/085/624/stop-the-poisoning-of-thousands-of-prairie-dogs/

Thank you @AnimalsHaveValu

______________________________________________________

Reposted from :

Wolf Conservation Center

Posted on February 20, 2014

by Maggie ~

WHO OWNS THE WILDLIFE?

Guest Commentary by John W. Laundré, Cougar Biologist State University of New York at Oswego. Originally published for the Mountain Lion Foundation

A cougar biologist takes a strong stand on the real value of wildlife. In this important opinion piece, John Laundré considers the public cost of wildlife mismanagement, and the consequences of bureaucratic decisions that fail to consider the public good and the intrinsic value of wild predators.

More and more we as a society are facing problems with how wildlife of all types are managed in the United States. We see increasing conflicts and polarization between hunting and anti-hunting groups. On the one side, invoking the pioneer tradition of our ancestors, hunting groups contend that the right to hunt is undeniable and is essential to the sound management of our wildlife resources. On the other hand, anti-hunting groups contend that the need to kill wildlife animals is no longer justified and hunting represents a next to barbaric act against living, feeling animals.

Long line of hunters walk a mountain trail. Hunters contend that they are the only ones who should have a say in how wildlife are managed.

On one side, hunters contend that because they pay the bills for the management of wildlife resources through their licenses and a federal excise tax on their hunting equipment, they are the only ones who should have a say in how wildlife are managed. On the other side, anti-hunters argue that moral objections to the slaying of innocent animals overrides any priority as to who has a say in these matters.

And the arguments go on and on. Both sides have their army of lawyers and donating members to support the lawyers. Each spends millions of dollars for their causes and sometimes hunters win and other times anti-hunters win battles but the war goes on, seemingly without end. Should it be that way? Should we manage or mismanage our wildlife resources though the press, through the courts? Who should have the say over wildlife management and what should that say be?

Given that hunters only comprise 5% of Americans of hunting age and approximately 16% of Americans disapprove of hunting, anti-hunters outnumber hunters by three to one. In the land of majority rule, should not the majority hold sway over the minority? But 16% is far from a majority of the American people. What about the other 79% of America? Should they also have a say? And if they do, what would it be? Of that 79%, 74% approve of hunting but do not hunt. Thus, the majority would seem to fall squarely on the side of hunters.

But do non-hunters (the 79% who don’t hunt but are not anti-hunting) approve of how hunting is used in wildlife management and if they do or do not, is their voice heard? Are they allowed to express an opinion? Who then has the say over how wildlife are managed in America, the hunters, the anti-hunters, or the rest of the American people? Again, in all this, majority or not, hunters fall back on their base preposition, they pay for wildlife and so they should have the say, the only say. In doing so, they are denying this right to even the 73% of Americans who favor hunting and 95% of the American people are left out of these decisions.

One has to ask how such a system differs from the European one our Founding Fathers tried to avoid: wildlife being owned and managed by a small fraction of landowners verses a small fraction of the population who feel they own the “right” to wildlife and how they are managed. In both cases, the majority of the public is left out of the decision process.

Central to the answers to all these questions are two more fundamental questions of first, who owns the wildlife in America and second who is paying for their management/conservation? If we can answer these questions, then we at least define the “rights” of the different sides in the overall argument.

So, first, who owns the wildlife in America? As mentioned above, our founding fathers abhorred the European system where large landowners also owned the wildlife on those lands. To avoid these problems in the new more egalitarian society they were forming, the formers of our government declared that each state claimed ownership of wildlife on behalf of its people. This state ownership was reinforced by the Greer v Connecticut Supreme Court decision that forbid interstate transport of wildlife killed within a state and “to confine the use of such game to those who own it, the people of the state”. So clearly, from the beginning to today, we the people, ALL of us own the wildlife within our respective states.

And not only do we own the wildlife, imbedded in that ownership is the right to regulate it by all of us. Further, IF that wildlife is migratory or lives on Federal lands in a state, not only do state residents have the right to regulate it but so does the rest of the nation. As stated in the Constitution, “Congress (all of us) shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV). This puts most wildlife in the National public trust and this right has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. So clearly stated, all wildlife belongs to all the people and all the people should have a say in how it is managed.

What about the argument that those who pay should have the most, if not all, the say in how wildlife is managed? This brings us to the more fundamental question of who actually does pay for wildlife management in the U.S.? Is it just the hunters? And what wildlife are they paying to manage?

There is no doubt that hunters pay a large amount of money to manage wildlife. For many states, game agencies are strictly funded by hunting license fees, to the tune of millions of dollars. Figures range around 600-700 million dollars nationwide. In addition to the hunting license and fees, the Pittman-Robertson act in 1937 dedicated a 10% excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be spent on wildlife restoration. This fund generates around 150 million dollars a year to be distributed to the states. If we add to this figure an estimated 10 BILLON dollars hunters spend when they go hunting, it all comes up to an impressive amount of money they spend on wildlife. So, maybe they should get the say?

But wait a minute, let’s look at the possible contributions from non-hunters. Regretfully, non-hunters who use and enjoy the outdoors do not pay an excise tax on sporting equipment. They had a chance to do so but did not follow through, but that is another story. Though they do not contribute to wildlife by an excise tax, do they contribute in other ways?

Let me count the ways. First fees. It is true we don’t have a wildlife watching fee or license, though that might be a good idea! But non-hunter, when they use the great outdoors do pay fees, camping fees, entrance fees. How much? On the state level, it varies from state to state with a state like California generating 81 million dollars in park fees and more modest 3-10 million dollars in other states.

If we use a modest 10 million dollars a year average by state, nationwide, park users pay 500 million dollars a year toward the maintenance of the lands AND by default wildlife on those lands. Add to that, the fact that general tax revenues are also used to make up any difference in expenditures probably in an equal amount. This means general taxpayers, 95% of which do not hunt, pay several hundred million dollars in state taxes to support parks AND the wildlife on these lands. Add to that the average 1 million dollars per state taxpayers check off on their tax forms for nongame species and the total state contributions come up to around 1.5 billion dollars a year.

What about the Federal level? For National Parks, entrance fees generate around 25 million dollars a year. But the National Park budget, is around 3 billion dollars a year, again, paid for in grand part by the 95% non-hunters. We have to add to that the annual budget of the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife of 2.5 billion dollars. Also, the U.S. BLM (960 million dollars) and the Forest Service (5.1 billion dollars), which maintain large tracts of land for wildlife, add another 6 billion taxpayer dollars to the pot. I am sure I missed some other state and federal agencies whose goal it is to maintain lands and thus the wildlife on them but this should do for now.

Adding up the state revenues and the various Federal sources, we see that recreation users and general taxpayers support wildlife to the tune of around 12 BILLON dollars annually. This compares to the annual 800-900 MILLION dollars generated by sportsmen. But how about that 10 billion dollars generated by sportsmen spending? If we compare the number of people participating in hunting versus other outdoor activities, the latest figures are: 24 million hunters vs. 317 million outdoor enthusiasts. Of those, more people go birdwatching (67 million) than hunting. If we assume a similar per person spending as hunters, then these non-hunters are spending over 130 billion dollars! So, I leave it up to you to decide, are hunters the only ones paying for wildlife?

One last important note. Although hunters do pay hundreds of millions of dollars for wildlife management, that money is normally earmarked for specific wildlife, the ones they hunt. Though some money is spent on nongame species, it is done grudgingly or is listed as a side benefit. Most game agencies are not paid to nor really care to manage non-game species. They know where the money comes from and cater to hunters to “put more game in the bag”.

State game commissions are the same in that they know who they are paid by and as the name indicates only deal with game species. What this does is produce single species management where wildlife in general, the supposed great benefactor of the hunters largess, are ignored or worse yet, like predators, treated as vermin to be hunted without control because they interfere with game species. This also leaves the other 95% of the population, who is really paying the lion’s share for wildlife habitat, with little or no say on how the other 99% of the wildlife are managed. This is wrong and needs to be changed.

If game agencies cannot, will not, manage the rest of the wildlife resources in a proper manner, then they should only be allowed to manage the ones they are being paid for, game species. This excludes predators which they only “manage” (kill) in response to hunters’ cries for more game. All nongame species should be wrenched from game agencies’ grasps and given to new standalone state wildlife agencies who cater to the 95% of the people who REALLY pay the bill for wildlife habitat.

We need a dramatic change in how wildlife are managed in this country and the separation of “game” management and wildlife management is the first critical step. Let the game agencies with their millions of hunter dollars manage the deer and the ducks but let the new wildlife agencies manage the rest of the wildlife the way they should be managed, based on sound ecological science, not hunter demands. It is time we stop sacrificing the many for the few in the wildlife world and start managing our wildlife as the integral part of the ecosystems they are.

John W. Laundré is a cougar biologist who has studied cougars for over 20 years both in the U.S. and Mexico. He has published extensively on their ecology and behavior and is the author of the upcoming book: Prairie Phantoms the Return of Cougars to the Midwest to be published by the University of Wisconsin Press. He currently is an adjunct professor at the State University of New York at Oswego where he teaches and as Vice President of the Cougar Rewilding Foundation advocates the return of cougars to their former range.

This entry was posted in Guest Blog and tagged Cougar Rewilding Foundation, John W. Laundré.

http://nywolf.org/home?p=9303

_________________________________________

USDA : WILDLIFE KILLING SERVICES

Pretty nasty stuff.

Please join NRDC and sign this petition letter. Tell the USDA we need to end the mass killing of wildlife.

https://secure.nrdconline.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3319&autologin=true&s_src=EM0WSVPETBGD01142YR&utm_source=link&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=email

A little-known government agency called Wildlife Services spends tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to kill more than 100,000 native carnivores, including wolves, bobcats, foxes and black bears. Call on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to follow through on its plan to investigate this rogue operation — and then end its deadly assault on wildlife.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

Your message will be sent to:

Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

Support a thorough investigation of Wildlife Services

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

I was pleased to learn that your Inspector General has initiated a long overdue audit of your department's Wildlife Services division, particularly its controversial "predator control program," which spends tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to kill more than 100,000 native carnivores with poisons, traps and aerial gunning, among other methods.

I urge you to support this investigation of Wildlife Services in every way you can. Please assure that Inspector General Phyllis Fong and her staff have all the resources they need to conduct a thorough and unflinching review of Wildlife Services' disturbing practices.

Wildlife Services has consistently wasted the tax dollars of hardworking Americans, refused to resolve predator-livestock conflicts with non-lethal methods, killed tens of thousands of non-target animals (including pets and endangered species) and failed to provide taxpayers with any information about its outrageous actions. This inhumane program must be held accountable.

When this audit is concluded and its results made public, I urge you to exercise your authority by transforming Wildlife Services into a more humane, responsible and transparent agency. Thank you.

________________________________________

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS

SUES FEDERAL WILDLIFE KILLING AGENCY

USDA-Wildlife Services

Improperly withholds Public Records

Friday, September 20, 2013

Contact: Wendy Keefover 303 819-5229

Albuquerque, NM.

WildEarth Guardians this week sued Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that kills millions of animals annually, after it failed to produce records in response to three separate Guardians’ requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Guardians seeks records that deal with criminal activity by agency employees as well as records that address the program’s non-compliance with environmental laws.

“The singular purpose of FOIA is to give citizens the ability to watch dog our government and hold it accountable,” stated Wendy Keefover, Director of Carnivore Protection for WildEarth Guardians.

Guardians sought Wildlife Services’ records concerning:

The program’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), after documents posted by Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee indicated that Wildlife Services was concerned it was “vulnerable” to NEPA suits that Guardians might bring against it.

Documents relative to criminal investigations of its employees, including investigations conducted under the Endangered Species Act, after Guardians learned that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had investigated at least four employees.

Records involving a government agent who shot an endangered Mexican gray wolf in January 2013 and claimed he thought it was a coyote.

Guardians’ record request could reveal information that Wildlife Services particularly wants to keep secret as records may show that the USDA’s Wildlife Services program, and some of its employees may be out of step with environmental and criminal statutes. If true, agents who commit crimes against animals, for instance, still enjoy paychecks that largely come from tax dollars.

“Wildlife Services withholds documents it decides are sensitive or embarrassing, and groups like ours are forced to litigate in order to shine the light of day on governmental problems and to get the feds to obey the law.”

VIEW THE COMPLAINT:

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/WSComplaint_9.16.13.pdf?docID=10582

Article source:

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8889

UPDATED:

September 23.2013

"We are writing to request a thorough audit of Wildlife Services ( WS ), especially

its lethal predator control program,

by the USDA Office of the Inspector General ( OIG ) "

http://docs.google.com/file/d/0B69WClhg0m5XQ21odV9uWTJMdDA/edit

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY

AND TRANSPARENCY

FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO MISTREAT WILDLIFE

FROM WILD EARTH GUARDIANS

Dear Guardian,

The feds tried to cover up wildlife abuse and torture. Now it’s time to demand change.

Tell Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that you expect the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement clear guidelines that prohibit mistreatment of wildlife by federal employees, and to implement a new system that prevents future scandals.

The USDA oversees the activities of Wildlife Services, including trapper Jamie P. Olson, who likely posted photos on Facebook of his dogs killing trapped coyotes. The USDA conducted an investigation, but disclosed its findings to no one, not even to the members of Congress who requested it.

Newly-leaked documents show that the USDA’s investigation into these horrific acts resulted in no action against Olson, not even a reprimand. A Tweet from Congressman Campbell and the leaked documents seem to indicate that the agency attempted to cover up the matter.

Ironically, the USDA is the federal agency charged with enforcing the nation’s animal welfare laws. Without its own clear guidelines prohibiting its own employees from torturing and abusing wildlife, USDA holds no credibility.

To prevent future scandals, demand that the USDA create an easy way for the public to register complaints that involve USDA activities. Investigations into conduct like Olson’s must be conducted efficiently and transparently. Also, the results of those investigations should be made public.

Tell Secretary Vilsack that torture of wildlife by federal employees is unacceptable and investigations into complaints need to be completed in a timely and transparent manner.

Join WildEarth Guardians to ask Secretary Vilsack to immediately implement clear codes of conduct for USDA employees that prohibit abuse and torture of wild animals, a system for registering complaints against USDA , and a policy of transparency for timely investigation and publication of results of such investigations.

For the Wild.....

Wildlife Services trapper Jamie P. Olson posing with a dead coyote.

READ NEWLY LEAKED DOCUMENTS

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B69WClhgOm5XUGhybVpFQmdKTTA/edit

VIEW JAMIE P. OLSON'S GRAPHIC PHOTOS

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/PageServer?pagename=priorities_wildlife_war_wildlife_kill_methods_trapping_abuse

READ TOM KNUDSON'S STORY ABOUT OLSON

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/15/5499260/documents-show-questions-about.html

Congressman Campbell’s June 20th Tweet:

“Appears we can add lying to Congress & cover-up to animal abuse & torture as the list of misdeeds by #WildlifeServices & @USDA_APHIS grows.”

TAKE ACTION !!!!

https://secure3.convio.net/wg/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=609#.UhJ_zGSDRz8

________________________________________

Photo by Brooks Fahy/Predator Defense
A male coyote is caught in a leg-hold trap in Oregon. Although this is not one of the photos by trapper Jamie Olson that sparked the new furor, the trap is typical of those used.

DOCUMENTS SHOW QUESTIONS ABOUT WILDLIFE SERVICES PROBE IN ANIMAL CRUELTY

The Sacramento Bee

By Tom Knudson

tknudson@sacbee.com

Published: Saturday, Jun. 15, 2013 - 11:38 am

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/15/5499260/documents-show-questions-about.html

We want to advise you of two news stories that came out recently covering the status of the investigation of federal trapper Jamie Olson and his continued employment by USDA Wildlife Services (WS). Incredibly, according to documents obtained from two-time Pulitzer Prize winning Sacramento Bee reporter, Tom Knudson, the initial determination of the federal investigation into charges of animal cruelty by Olson cleared him of any wrongdoing. As you know, the pictures of Olson’s dogs ripping apart coyotes and other wildlife speak for themselves and such a conclusion is utterly shameful and unacceptable. Despite this initial conclusion, however, FoxNews.com is reporting that the investigation of Olson is ongoing. Please be assured that we will not give up pressing for the termination of Jamie Olson and exposing the culture of cruelty that exists within the Wildlife Services program.

Article from The Sacramento Bee – Documents Show Questions about Wildlife Services Probe in Animal Cruelty

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/15/5499260/documents-show-questions-about.html

Article from FoxNews.com – Federal Agency Gives Few Answers on Months-Long Probe of Alleged Animal Cruelty

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/8-months-after-federal-agency-investigates-animal-cruelty-questions-remain/

WARONWILDLIFE

Monday, March 31, 2014

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Thursday, March 13, 2014