Gunning Coyotes From The Sky
Predator Control Once Again Comes Within The Crosshairs Of Critics
By Todd Wilkinson, 2-13-06
A few weeks ago, aerial marksmen working for the federed agency Wildlife Services climbed into a plane and cut a path across the Sonoran desert to kill coyotes in advance of the cattle calving season.
It's a taxpayer-subsidized event that every spring is repeated across the West. It's been happening for decades. It's resulted in millions of dead coyotes over the years.It's been an annual short-term fix to cut livestock losses set against the backdrop of a long-term trend yielding more coyotes in America today than at any other time in recent history.
Wildlife predators, like coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars, eagles etc., which by legal definition, belong to the public, kill livestock which belong to private operators.
Depending upon your point of view, there are differing opinions about what should hold primacy, native wildlife or domestic livestock. It becomes more complicated when you consider that ranchers often own the vital winter range that big game species need in order to survive.
The question of who should pay for predator eradication gets especially tricky when private operators are grazing their cattle and sheep on public land, such as on tracts administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
I'm not saying the public SHOULDN'T pay—-though a lot of people in the conservation community as well as fiscal conservatives will argue that they are opposed to PREDATOR CONTROL ON PUBLIC LAND—-but the fact is that often the public doesn't realize that it is paying to underwrite the costs of protecting ranchers against probable losses from coyotes and other animals.
At least part of the reason for rationalizing the existence of Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (and its earlier incarnation known as "Animal Damage Control" or ADC), is that killing predators is the way things have always been done in the West. In the days when poisons were more liberally and haphazardly dispensed, millions of animals died, causing a ban to be imposed on some of the deadliest of chemicals and tightened regulations on others.
And then there is aerial gunning. Is it surgical killing or is it a waste?
In a recent piece written by Billie Stanton, a popular columnist for the Tucson Citizen newspaper, the topic of Wildlife Services aerial gunning program was mentioned again, sparked by the recent killing of coyotes in southeastern Arizona.
Ms. Stanton interviewed Bozeman ecologist Robert Crabtree, who had been the subject of a book I had written in the 1990s called "Track of the Coyote" which chronicles the proliferation of coyotes in the West (and North America) over the last 150 years. (Stanton also interviewed me).
The story is a good one that raises excellent questions. Read it at the Tucson Citizen. As someone who has written about Wildlife Services for two decades, I've poured over the research that's been compiled by Dr. Crabtree based upon his work with canids most of his adult life and since the early 1990s he has carried on coyote research in Yellowstone decades after the trailblazing monograph on coyotes in the national park written by Adolph Murie.
Stanton and I had a lengthy chat about coyote control as she was interviewing people for her story and she repeats a reality we discussed at length that must be recognized by those who condemn ranchers for wanting to kill coyotes: "...for the rancher who awakens to find a calf slain overnight, the response is visceral," Stanton writes. "The mauled carcass represents more than a loss of money. It is a threat to the rancher's hard work, to the long and grueling days he endures to pay his mortgage, to feed his family. It is an insult to his very way of life."
Whether indiscriminate killing of coyotes works-—and solves problems—-is another matter. Aerial gunning is costly and controversial. It has flared again in Alaska where the state has enlisted sharpshooters to destroy wolves as a means of reducing predation on moose that are prized by hunters, outfitters and residents who practice a subsistence lifestyle.
Predator control is one of those symbolic issues in the New West that divides the past from the present; the history of the rural hardscrabble frontier from the region as a retirement paradise for Baby Boomers.
One group monitoring aerial gunning is Sinapu, which recently started a grassroots effort called AGRO—A Coalition To End Aerial Gunning Of Wildlife
Another site worth visiting is the Predator Conservation Alliance.
To make sure your perspective is rounded, also visit Wildlife Services
I'm posting this story more to incite a discourse than to jump on a soapbox. Hold forth readers. New West looks forward to what you have to say.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
As usual, great piece.
The answers to your questions need to get out
1. There is no science behind predator control; that is, it's proven impossible to prove scientifically that predator control, either for livestock or wildlife, has any real effect.
2. There is no public policy benefit to predator control. If ranchers want predator control, then they should pay for it. Completely. Wildlife Services should receive no public funds.
3. Predators don't count for but a small amount of livestock depredations. It's amazing what livestock die from, either out on public lands or on private lands. Dealing with deaths is part of the cost of doing business for ranchers.
4. One thing you don't mention is the ecological cost of predator control. We already know what the costs of wolf control have been. Only now with the return of the wolf to the Greater Yellowstone are we seeing an improvement in ecological functioning. Now, why shouldn't we expect the livestock industry to pay for the ecological costs of predator control? That is, why shouldn't we expect the industry to pay compensation to the public for the damage done by predator control? That's not my idea; it was Aldo Leopold's.
Robert
"Wildlife Services," that slays me. It sounds so...benign -- helpful, even. "Welcome to Wildlife Services, how may I help you? BLAM! You're dead! Now get outta here!" Typical bureaucratic obfuscation.
I had a classic "aha" moment when I went to the WS website only to learn that it is a program of the USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, otherwise known as APHIS, a party to the bogus Interagency Bison Management Plan. Just goes to show that APHIS doesn't discriminate against just those with fangs and claws -- rest assured that wild ungulates like Yellowstone bison are going down in large numbers, too (wherein APHIS is aided & abetted by the Nat'l. Park Svc., Forest Svc., MT Dept. of Livestock, and MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks).
According to the WS website (Montana state report), aerial gunning for predators takes place in Montana, too: "The number of mule deer has been declining for several years in many western States including Montana. One reason for this decline MAY (emphasis mine) be predation on mule deer fawns. WS is assisting the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in reducing coyote populations in specific deer management districts where the number of deer are below desired levels. To meet objectives identified by the Department, WS uses aerial operations to protect mule deer and antelope fawns."
These are bad days in which to be a coyote. Or (especially) a wild bison. Things ain't looking too hot for wolves and -- pretty soon -- Yellowstone grizzlies, either. What a world.
Thanks for your kind words.
One thing I have been trying to get across to folks is that the problems individual species are facing in the GYE and the West are part of a larger strategy by the right wing to "fence in Yellowstone" and open up the rest of the ecosystem to exploitation a la the days before the 1960s/1970s. This means that if you're a bison, an elk, a wolf, a bear, a coyote, a lynx, a wolverine, etc., you're not welcome. I call this a perverse form of "ecosystem management," because this effort is in fact ecosystem wide. It is a conscious policy. THat's why bison aren't welcome in Montana and why Wyoming has elk feedgrounds.
We should remember that APHIS and its subordinate agency Wildlife Services, formerly Animal Damage Control, formerly Predator and Rodent Control, represent the livestock industry, not the public. We've seen however over the last decade the determination of WS to get in tight with G&F;Departments and hunters and push the claim that whacking coyotes benefits big game population--mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep. This is mainly an effort to boost bureaucratic budgets and keep WS in business. We are now burdened in the area in which I live, the Upper Wind River Valley of northwestern Wyoming, with a coyote control program designed to "benefit" the Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Herd with aerial gunning. It's mostly being paid for by the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, which hates predators. Some state money is involved. To its credit, the Forest Service is not allowing any gunning on Forest land, but most of the area under the gun is owned by the Wyoming G&F;Department and of course G&F;won't withstand pressure for predator control. Over 3 years, they've taken about 30 coyotes and there's been no response to the program by our local wild sheep. No wonder, the problem with them is habitat, not predators.
The entire GYE is under the gun by various industries. I wish people who live here would figure that out.
Robert
This really isn't a scientific issue at all. It's political, depending on your value system. I value ranchers, the crustier the better. I value the culture that's developed around the business. I enjoy seeing fat cows as much as I enjoy seeing fat deer and fat elk. It's nice to be out in the sticks and see that blue light on the horizon and know if you drop a U-Joint or something, you are not completely screwed. And there are times when you realize it helps to have friends around. And that's the crux here...one does not stick it to one's friends.
That's what enemies are for.
Across the West, state game and fish agencies have trended towards killing predators (coyotes, mountain lions, and bears) to "bolster" ungulates' populations, such as pronghorn, mule deer, big horn sheep.
In Colorado, a hunting group got the State to consider killing coyotes as part of a "study" to see if more mule deer would be recruited. Meanwhile, Division of Wildlife biologists had already been studying the issue and determined that the habitat in western Colorado had been so degraded by lack of fire that there was sufficient browse for deer. So a happy ending: the DOW and the BLM are working on habitat manipulation to make more deer food.
In Arizona, WS aerial guns coyotes to make more pronghorn. Their own biologists produced a study published in WSB in 2005 that showed that pronghorn suffered from drought, not predation.
Utah and the BLM wanted to conduct blanket predator controls on the Escalante to benefit pronghorn and desert big horn. But the trouble with those species was: drought and competition with domestic livestock.
In Idaho, the game agency wanted to blast bears and mountain lions to create more elk; and in Oregon, to kill coyotes to make more pronghorn . . . the list goes on and on.
A bevy of studies suggest that predator-prey relationships are not simplistic: Killing predators does not necessarily result in more "desirable" prey species coming back.
Studies suggest that weather (too much snow, drought, etc.) can greatly influence the ability of native ungulates to get forage; one new study from Idaho suggests overhunting by human hunters has caused the deer herd to decline, etc.
So we combat the mythology of "ravenous" predators with good science, but that does not necessarily translate into good management practices because of the politics in the West. It's frustrating business.
We shouldn't however expect that predator control has the full support of all people in rural areas. I grew up in a rural area and now live in one. Attitudes toward predators aren't at all monolithic, in reality. The push for predator control comes from the livestock industry, the Stockgrowers, the Farm Bureau, etc. Control of wildlife management by the livestock industry is one aspect of the overall political power that the industry wields over land use and wildlife policy in the West. Predator control is more about staying in power than anything else, aside from maintaining the economic subsidies.
Missed your comment. I did some work on wolf control in northern Canada a decade ago and am pretty familiar with the literature of predator prey ecology. You're absolutely correct that these various so-called "studies" on the impact of predator control on ungulate populations don't tell us much, except one thing--no one wants to admit that problems with big game animals stems from habitat and climate problems, problems that are mostly human caused. In northern Canada and central Alaska, it is clear that the long term impacts of the Alaska Highway on ungulates has been immense, not only for itself, but for the spiderweb of roads and tracks that go into the wilderness off the Highway, mostly for mining exploration. Migratory caribou herds are now largely non-migratory because their habitat has been severely fragmented. Unfortunately, no one wants to admit it.
In essence, predator control, wherever it is undertaken, is undertaken to mitigate human impacts on ungulates and habitat without specifically saying so. Ungulate problems are always the wolves' fault.
Trouble is, predator control doesn't work well. Habitat improvement and protection does work, but that conflicts with development. So instead, we shoot coyotes and wolves and G&F;departments congratulate themselves on what a good job of wildlife management they're doing. Horse manure. And I say that as a hunter.
Robert
The issue is ecosystem health and until we realize that we humans cannot "manage" our ecosystem we are doomed to be the rapers and pillagers that we are. We are NOT stewards of this earth. We are part and parcel of this ecosystem. When we destroy any part of it to feed our economic engines, we destroy our selves and our future.
It's time to be good stewards of our planet--as humans, we certainly have that capacity.
In the case of the federal government's aerial gunning program, and poisoning and trapping program, it's time for the people to tell their elected and appointed officials to stop funding this practice.
In 2004, the USDA-APHIS-WS killed 2.7 million animals, and they spent millions of tax dollars doing it. The money is given to them at the federal, state, and in some cases, county level.
Go to the AGRO website (at the end of Todd Wilkinson's article) for a quick link to our letter-writing campaign. The link is at the bottom of the home page for AGRO.
God's Dog: The North American Coyote
Hope Ryden, 1989
As for the coyotes, I support the hunting of coyotes for the coyotes sake as well as the prey animals. Several years ago there were several folks that would trap or hunt coyotes for a living, now very few people can afford to do this as fur market has disappeared because of the out cry against wearing fur. As a result the coyotes numbers have exploded to exceed the range carrying capacity, like the lemmings the numbers will be controlled naturally. For the coyotes in Montana this "natural" control has been mange. Mange is a skin disease that causes hair loss and large lessions on the skin. Believe me this will controll the population, anybody that has seen a coyote with mange in the winter curled up against a haystack (which incidently agriculture provided) trying to keep from freezing to death will feel sorry for this animal. With the usual total loss of hair, they will literally freeze to the ground, this is a terrible way to die for any creature. Hunting may not be a "natural" way to control the numbers, but it is certainly a far more humane way. As I said before, unfortunatly agriculture has become the whipping boy. Please think about it, I for one am going to thank American agriculture for providing us the cheapest and largest variety of food found in this world.
Rod Cole
I would say that whatever's happening to agriculture in the West is what agriculture has done to itself. Agriculture, particularly the livestock industry, has lived on subsidies for so long, and controlled the political processes that dole out the subsidies for so long, that it has forgotten that there is a larger community out there that has a vital interest in where the money goes and what is done with the money. I myself grew up in the Southern tobacco industry, and I thought those guys were selfish. I have never seen any segment of society that has such an extreme sense of entitlement as the Western livestock industry. That needs to change.
Predator control is a good place to start bringing the livestock industry back into the larger community for which it currently has nothing but contempt. As far as coyotes are concerned, we have a good ecological and biological understanding these days of the impact of predator control on coyote populations. To paraphrase an old saying, what doesn't kill coyotes makes them stronger. It is fundamentally irrational. If ranchers want to kill coyotes, nothing's stoopping them, but I as a taxpayer object to seeing my tax dollars being wasted on an irrational, ineffective program. Predator control is a subsidy that benefits no one--not even ranchers. I urge readers, as they pick their issues, to consider working to put an end to subsidized predator control. If individuals had to pay for their predator control, I guarantee they'd find better, non-lethal methods to protect their livestock.
As far as natural controls are concerned, wolves do a much better job of controlling coyotes than can humans. Further, disease is a natural control on coyote populations; coyotes had manage long before humans showed up and they'll still have manage long after humans go extinct. That's how it is in nature. Quite frankly, I find the claim that predator control is more humane than shooting them out of airplanes or poisoning them a little disingenuous and irrelevant to the argument.
Robert Hoskins
Thank you for your comments, I agree with you that subsidies should come to an end. This ranch has been operating for about 124 years, during this time I don't think one dollar has been received as a subsidie, and I'm proud of that. When I look at the tobacco, and grain industry I see many farmers who are so heavily subsidized they will let the highest subsidized crop decide what they will plant that year, this is wrong.
I don't agree that the western livestock industry feels an extreme sense of entitlement, I certainly don't feel it. What I do feel ( I believe the western livestock industry feels this as well) is privileged to care for the land and the resources while my time on earth lasts. I believe this feeling is one cause of so much resentment towards the industry. I see this all the time and I suspect you do as well; it appears to me that human nature tendacies are to look down on a person if they appear to have something you want but don't have. Seldom do we read or hear "i'm so glad they have this, they really deserve it" generally we read or hear "can you believe they got that, I guess all that butt kissing really helped". This I believe is the primary reason towards the resentment of this industry, there is a large population out there who's families moved away from agriculture several generations ago that would much rather be outside and have a beautiful open landscape to look at than a office and pavement, I can't blame them at all for wanting that. I'm getting off the subject, but I do believe that there are several "entitlement" programs which should be ended, they all started out with the hope of helping only those trully in need, now look at the welfare, and medicare systems (to name a few) which are trully broke. I believe New Zealand has the right idea when it comes to farm subsidies.
As for coyotes, the livestock producers in this county pay a per-capita tax for predator control, when I request aerial control I get it because I've paid my taxes. I agree that wolves can do a good job of controlling coyotes, but just because the other predators may not be as an efficient hunter, should we deny them the chance to hunt?
I'm sorry that you feel resentment towards the livestock industry, however folks like you have helped make this a stronger industry.
Thanks, Rod
I do believe that I've heard it ALL now -- Killing IN ADVANCE?!?!
I like coyotes. I like ALL animals. And Im sick of my tax money going towards their destruction on behalf of livestock owners.
Coyotes (and other predators) have been used as scapegoats too long for ranchers irresponsibility in taking care of their animals.
If you leave a STEAK DINNER out for months on end, what do these livestock owners expect? They need to get real!
I could not agree with the above statement more~!
Not to get political, but most Western ranchers, I would bet, are Conservatives. I thought they hated handouts and entitlements?
If you say anything to them, they'll respond, "Where do you think your beef comes from?"
Well, 1. I hardly ever eat beef. And it's becoming less and less every day now....
2. A small percentage of beef actually is produced in the Western states.
Anyone have any figures on which states produce the most beef?
They are frantically trying to maintain their outdated lifestyles when it is becoming clear to them that raising cattle in the West is on its way out -- with any luck and a prayer....
I am hopeful that when "hobby ranchers" buy out the "real ranches," they will only use them on weekends :) to actually enjoy the wilderness and the animals that come with it and not have any livestock roaming around at all, (if so it's protected as it should be ).
Natural predators are the ones who are truly entitled to anything, and that should be the ability to roam free in their natural habitats, free from human harrassment.
Which senators voted it down?
Their offices need to be flooded with letters!
Posted on March 12, 2007 by Wendy Keefover-Ring
Groups Demand Transparency
Washington, DC — A federal agency which spent $101,500,000 to kill a record 2.7 million animals in 2004, has refused to release its 2005 and 2006 records which show, among other things, how many animals they killed and the methods they used. By declining to post its records in its electronic reading room as mandated by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services has not only violated federal transparency laws, it is in contempt of a federal court’s order, argued Sinapu and Forest Guardians in their demand letter, which they sent today to the agency.
According to 2004 figures, APHIS-Wildlife Services killed a record 2.7 million wildlife at taxpayer expense. Birds constituted the overwhelming majority of animals exterminated, with starlings registering the greatest single species death total at 2.3 million. Mammalian carnivore deaths exceeded 101,000 and included 445 badgers, 1,918 bobcats, 397 black bears, 359 cougars, 75,674 coyotes, 3,907 foxes, and 191 wolves.
Formerly known as Animal Damage Control, the USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services responds to requests from ranchers, farmers, and municipalities to remove problem wildlife.
· FOIA requires that agencies make public records—especially ones repeatedly requested—available for public inspection and readily available.
· Wildlife Services has failed to disclose public information in the past, and was held accountable in federal district court. In July 2000, Wildlife Services’ attorneys signed a consent decree agreeing to post “repeat record requests” on it website annually. In August 2000, the decree became a federal District Court order.
· Under the court order, Wildlife Services agreed to annually post tables, which among other things show the numbers and kinds of species killed, methods used (including leg-hold traps, snares, aerial gunning, hounding, and poisons such as sodium cyanide and strychnine, etc.), and the expenses involved.
“Wildlife Services’ controversial wildlife-killing program, cannot hide from scrutiny, even though it is clearly unpleasant for the agency,” said Wendy Keefover-Ring of Sinapu.
“The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to maintain a level of public transparency,” said Melissa Hailey, attorney for Forest Guardians. “It is gravely unfortunate that taxpayers are forced to fund an agency that slaughters our nation’s wildlife, and especially one that refuses to come into compliance with federal disclosure laws.”
Contacts:
Wendy Keefover-Ring, Sinapu: 303.447.8655, Ext. 1#
Melissa Hailey, Forest Guardians: 505.988.9126, Ext. 159
Too many are stubbornly clinging to the past -- viewing predatory animals as "bad" and others as "good...." .... where the countryside is "sanitized" of predatory animals.... where someone else steps in (Wildlife Services) using taxpayer money to kill "nuisance animals" (native predators) that are "interfering."
That is criminal.
If they can't deal with natural predatory animals in a non-lethal way, they deserve to go out of business -- and I, for one, sincerely hope they do.
As in business and life, adapt with changing times or die.