Since its inception, a federal government agency has sparked frequent outrage due to its program that focuses on killing wild animals that are considered to be pests or threats, or perhaps may be competitors with a commercial enterprise. Over the years, due to criticism and public outcry, the federal agency has strategically reduced its transparency. The agency has changed its name to be more ambiguous -- from “Division of Predator and Rodent Control” to “Animal Damage Control” and then to “Wildlife Services.”
That current name for the agency was obviously selected because few people will be opposed to a government agency that provides a “service” to wildlife. Despite the nice-sounding name, the actual work of Wildlife Services is to “remove” or kill unwanted animals. The “service” is to benefit those who want wildlife killed or driven away.
Concerned citizens have discovered that it can be challenging to find out exactly what Wildlife Services does in a specific area. Two decades ago, the agency released statistical reports that the public could easily review. In more recent years, as CSERC staff has learned from experience, Wildlife Services consistently ignores requests for information until a formal Freedom of Information Act Request legally obligates the agency to respond. Even then, it can take months to get a simple answer to a question.
After finally getting requested information from the agency, CSERC was able to find the following information. In 2016, (the most recent year data was available), 35,193 animals were killed by the agency in California. This includes common species such as bears, coyotes, raccoons, and bobcats, as well as less common species such as badgers, beavers, porcupines, weasels, red foxes, and river otters.
Wildlife Services killed 103 different species of wildlife in California in 2016, both intentionally and unintentionally. Former employees of the organization suggest that the numbers of unintentional kills are massively under-reported. In 2012, the Sacramento Bee launched an exposé that found, “With steel traps, wire snares and poison, agency employees have accidentally killed more than 50,000 animals nationally 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.”
In Tuolumne and Calaveras counties, 228 animals were killed by the agency’s employees in 2016. This number includes mostly native species, like black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, mule deer, skunks, and cottontails. Although CSERC requested information about the killing methods used in the local counties, the Wildlife Services response was vague, listing methods such as, “Hand-caught/Gathered” and “Drug Delivery Devices (Other)”. However, some information was specific, such as acknowledgment that neck snares were used to target coyotes. When neck snares are used, the coyote sticks its head into the wire loop snare to get at the bait. The wire tightens around its neck, and the coyote then thrashes helplessly in a vain attempt to escape – choking slowly.
One key problem with many of the methods used by Wildlife Services is their lack of specificity for which animals are targeted. There’s no way to know whether a coyote trapped in the neck snare has ever bothered livestock or damaged human property or is simply attracted to the bait.
Practices that many may call inhumane
Wildlife Services claims to be selective in the use of lethal methods to “remove” animals causing damage. However, the agency’s killing methods are often far from selective and can be extremely inhumane. Leg snares and other traps sometimes have gone months without being checked, causing the trapped animals to starve slowly before dying. Lethal cyanide-expelling devices (M44s) have been known to be triggered (shooting out their highly toxic poison) affecting pet dogs and people, in addition to poisoning countless wild animals that may not have caused any damage. Such methods of killing are non-specific – so any animal drawn to the bait ends up being killed.
Even when a particular wildlife species is more narrowly targeted, they have often been killed in drawn-out or painful ways. Commonly, coyotes are targeted by being shot at from fixed-wing aircraft. The practice of shooting coyotes from an airplane is a technique that has been used in Calaveras County. In 2016 in our state, 205 coyotes were reportedly killed in this manner. Sometimes the coyotes may die immediately, but they can also just be severely injured and left to die slowly. Former employees of Wildlife Services have claimed that another “regular practice” is to allow hunting dogs to kill helpless coyotes trapped in leg snares. Dens of coyote pups are often gassed or bombed, and mountain lion cubs have been savagely killed by hunting dogs. A former Wildlife Services district supervisor wrote in his memoir that his colleagues sometimes hauled coyote pups from dens with lengths of barbed wire, then strangled or clubbed them. Sometimes they set the animals on fire in their dens.
The impact of depredation services
A recent meta-study published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment found little scientific evidence that killing predators actually accomplishes the goal of protecting livestock and human property. Research published in 2013 from studies in Washington State concluded that killing mountain lions actually increased the number of lion attacks on livestock. The data showed that hunting older males—be they mountain lions, wolves, or black bears—tended to lead to more predation because those males kept out younger lions or bears, which are often more aggressive towards livestock.
In another study, researchers from several universities, USDA’s National Wildlife Research Center, and Defenders of Wildlife analyzed wolf predation rates for sheep producers on public grazing lands in Idaho. Predation was actually 3.5 times higher in study areas where lethal control was used than in adjacent areas where non-lethal control methods were established.
In some cases, killing animals like coyotes has led to a rodent population increase, which then resulted in substantial damage to ranching or farming products. In other cases, years of lethal control of a species like the porcupine (to prevent porcupines from nibbling on the growing buds of young conifers in tree plantations) has contributed to a significant population decline in California from which porcupines may never recover.
The future of depredation techniques
There are a number of possible steps that can be done to reduce the use of inhumane and ineffective practices by this government agency. Former Wildlife Service District Supervisor Niemeyer wrote in his memoir: "I would phase in college-trained wildlife personnel. Many (trappers) have a basic high school education, and only district supervisors like myself receive some specialized training, while trappers were seldom considered." Better training and education in wildlife management, ethics, and the humane treatment of animals would likely lead to a better organization culture.
Looking for alternatives to killing animals would be another approach. An example of experimental non-lethal programs comes from the Marin County Department of Agriculture, which reimburses ranchers for fencing, for utilizing guard dogs and llamas, and for other non-lethal alternative approaches to protect livestock. This county program also reimburses ranchers for losses to coyotes and does not forbid the killing of coyotes that threaten sheep. An assessment of the program after 5 years showed a 62 percent reduction in sheep depredation and showed that a majority of ranchers were satisfied with the program. Program costs also fell by $50,000.
A lawsuit in June 2017 -- by Project Coyote and others -- against USDA’s Wildlife Services, called for a supplemental NEPA analysis for the Wildlife Damage Management Program. The lawsuit focuses on activities in the Northern District of California, but may have farther-reaching effects. A previous NEPA analysis occurred about 20 years ago, but since then, scientists have completed extensive research on predator control effectiveness and its environmental impacts. A federal judge approved an agreement last November stipulating that Wildlife Services is to complete an extensive study of its activities in Northern California by 2023, including its use of M-44s. M-44s are baited devices that explode, shooting out a poison that kills the animal tugging at the bait. Until that 2023 study is completed, the Department will halt its controversial wildlife killing methods.
A similar lawsuit, filed April 2017 by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reached a settlement that will affect Wildlife Services’ use of M-44s and Compound 1080. Compound 1080 is so toxic, it can often result in secondary poisoning when a predator scavenges on the initial poisoned animal. Like dominos falling, the poison can ripple through the environment.
In 2011 the EPA started, but never finished, a collaborative study with the Fish and Wildlife Service to assess how frequently-used poisons may affect threatened and endangered species. The lawsuit settlement requires there to be completion of that study by the end of 2021. That analysis is intended to direct Wildlife Services to implement mitigation measures that will protect “at risk” wildlife species.
Due to those legal victories by wildlife protection organizations and the proven success of non-lethal predator control methods, there is at least some momentum for Wildlife Services to shift towards more humane practices.
A key question is whether Wildlife Services actually aims to implement its mission statement that asserts that people and wildlife can coexist, instead of continuing what the agency’s critics see as indiscriminate killing of wildlife that often have never caused any harm.