Folks who ain’t got ideas of their own should be mighty careful whose they borrow …
It’s time to question the increase in wildlife-eradication, or to explain it plainly, stop killing America’s Wildlife out of ignorance and fear. Yes, it is a problem! As in right here, right now and in America, over 40% of our Wildlife in America has been killed – or eradicated. Worse yet, is the fact that within the past 15 years this has happened.
Is there anyone paying attention here? We have one animal protection agency who makes in excess of $240 million dollars a year (their 990 IRS Form to the Public). They claim to be a watch-dog group, a legal oversight agency so to speak. Their mission-statement gives people that perception as well. It is also inclusive within their advertising, and gives potential donators the perception their organization is watching over America’s wildlife and animals. One has got to ask, “Then where in the hell were you when wildlife was being unnecessarily killed, and still is?”
We also have a government agency, Wildlife Services, that kills anywhere from 2 million wildlife and animals yearly, up to 5.8 million a few years ago and within a one-year time frame as well. Ironically, this was accomplished within someone’s mind-set of acceptability, both in principle and standard of management ideologies, and (as awkward as this sounds), a conservation tool.
Many government employees, for example, eradication or killing animals, actually to them, a useful and quick way to dispose of problems within their jurisdiction toward a resolution and is used quite often. Indeed, killing wolves and cougars in ranching areas remains a well-accepted practice. But does good science and actual proof, in another words real evidence show clearly this to be true, that wolves and cougars in these situations indeed the problem? Again, where are these non-profits, who take donations, in the millions of dollars’ worth, but apparently have done nothing to save America’s Wildlife, and worse, has not even acknowledged the same.
Truth Reality and Our Government – State and Federal
But once again the truth pops up, reality, and demonstrates through good science that eradication methodology is simply bad-science in disguise, if considered science at all. Most government science today is predicated upon commercial or special interest needs. This, in reality, means there is a lack of science that can be considered good science what so ever and within our government today. The Bureau of Land Management for example, leave cattle out of their rangeland and environmental ecological systems studies, data gathering and research – then blame wild horses for rangeland destruction, as an invasive and non-native species . . . So we can assume that cattle are an indigenous species in someone’s mind; which is based on no science anywhere.
Which leads to yet another problem. If the wild horses are not indigenous, yet BLM admits they existed here 5,000 years ago, were considered (loosely by snobbery science) to be killed off, then a couple thousand years later returned – “Oh Darn, lookie there, more horses just turned up” – then what was the time frame for horses to be taken from indigenous-status, to non-indigenous or invasive-species status? There is a lot wrong with idiotic science, and then explained within official government documents as real. But it is, in reality not science at all.
So we have an acceptable invasive-species, cattle, and to have them the wild horses, basically an indigenous-species when good science involved, has got to be eradicated for the invasive-species to exist on Public lands – actually taking over and destroying Public Lands – but within the BLM — observation, experience, and actual circumstance has no value – when compared to BLM employees having a Howdy-Doody smile while telling a taxpayer a tremendous lie.
Now we can begin to understand the governments’ scientific methodology, both state and federal. Soon we realize there is none. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for another example of bad-science, leaves out Poaching statistics as well as attritional aspects of their eradication programs. The agency they use, Wildlife Services, remains well known for disregarding environmental assessments as well – so who knows, as no data exists. ODFW certainly doesn’t know.
But yes, ODFW uses Wildlife Services, a branch of the USDA. This is basically a situation where trappers, and other government groups/employees, will eradicate by supposedly a scientific choice (but no science would agree with it in reality, and none is ever found, nor an EA) of wildlife from the mountains, woods, or wherever, at the request of, for this example, a cattle rancher – a decision that was emotionally-based out of ignorance and fear, and nothing more.
In this single situation case — Beavers, where poison-pots, cyanide gas, and traps were set to kill them. One tally of attritional-only wildlife killed within a three-day time period, and kept track of by an observer keeping statistics of the Controlled-Eradication, assimilated: 26 Fox, 14 Beaver, 120 squirrels, two hunting dogs within the proximity of the cyanide, one small house dog/a pet died in a leg-trap, 2 house cats as well and in their own yard poisoned, all for 3 Beaver who damned a stream near a cow pasture near Murderer’s Creek, Oregon.
This particular rancher thinks anything but cattle on Public Lands, where he grazes his over-abundance of cattle per acre, is a waste and should be eradicated anyway. The extremely creepy part to this, most cattle ranchers who graze on or near Federal Lands believe this as fact – and as well, most over-graze on state or federal lands, destroying the ecological system present.
It has also been shown his cattle do create a destructive environmental impact on this area – as shown in Federal Court, and due to his mismanagement of the cattle, as well as too many cattle on that particular grazing area.
Killing of Wildlife Unnecessarily
killing wildlife is not, in truth, useful at all when based upon bad-science, on fear, on hate for particular wildlife, on lies, on profit margins, and quite often in today’s Public Lands situation, in order to place more cattle upon federal or public lands to eventually sell to foreign markets. One has got to ask about the actual sacrifice we make, here in America, in order for an overabundant amount of cattle to graze on Our Lands, America’s Lands! Is it worth swapping out most of our Wildlife for cattle? Insult to injury — we also subsidize ($ billions yearly) these ranchers for their overabundance of cattle, destruction of our environment, killing of our wildlife unnecessarily, and abuse of our supposed Federally Protected Lands – for what? Well, we receive nothing actually “0” . . .
Here reality speaks much louder about controlled-eradication. This mind-set that pointedly favors corporate and commercial entities — over the taxpayers, or the majority that actually owns Public Lands and the Wildlife – which a group our government and a few others have forgotten about – our group is called — Americans.
Currently government managers give significance to the term indigenous species; which is something very significant but conclusive of bad-science deduction (for example cattle are left out of all Range Management science conducted by the BLM for their Range Statistics – uh huh), then they replace indigenous species, actually calling them invaders and then the step-upward to invasive species. When termed Invasive Species, then many things happen almost automatically; suddenly we see indigenous species being eradicated, oddly killed as a matter of written policy. Two months ago this policy did not exist. This is the current nature of not only Federally managed lands and wildlife, but State managed lands and wildlife.
So we have, according to governing agencies, many species including horses, bear, cougar, elk, et al., who are then considered aggressive invaders doing harm through competition. Then along comes money-making opportunities as well, and the band-wagon is fraught with scammers and schemers crawling all over it – Yes, it is called or referred to as Breed-Control, and common today is the use of such not-noteworthy items at all, and created from bad science or incompetent science, such as PZP.
Why would an agency that is tasked with managing wildlife resources for the common good advocate for the controlled-eradication of several species of wild animals?
Perception government and incompetence
Alien invasive species means an alien species which becomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity.
Alien species (non-native, non-indigenous, foreign, exotic) means a species, subspecies, or lower taxon occurring outside of its natural range (past or present) and dispersal potential (i.e. outside the range it occupies naturally or could not occupy without direct or indirect introduction or care by humans) and includes any part, gametes, or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce.”
A viewpoint switch is easy, just a matter of perception because when closely examined, “alien, native, aggressive, competition, invader and harm” are empirically hollow buzzwords that are constantly redefined at the whim of those who use inflammatory, arbitrary jargon to promote the war on weeds and wildlife.
“Science is the systematic enquiry into the nature of phenomena, and it cannot progress without serious dedication to the truth.”
Scientists who propose controlled-eradication should offer their proof, always, along with a well-documented and defined and thorough collection of good data – good science — .honesty – and truth that shows consistency over time the resolution enhances, rather than destroys, an ecological system.
Questions and More Questions
Unquestionably, biodiversity loss is a real problem but its root cause is anthropogenic – human impact – not ‘invasive aliens”. Yet, the constant alarm sounded by government employees for example, selling their “invasive species crisis” is that animals like wild horses, cougars, bears, wolves, burros and others “harm” biodiversity.
In truth, it is rancher’s, corporations and mining that destroy environments and ecological systems, then out of some type of psycho-pathetic moronic behavior, most often to cover up their mess of the environment, demand controlled-eradication’s of wildlife as well as many plants which pose some idiotic threat. The truth is, good science shows us most plant and animal “invasions” are nature trying to heal herself by restoring biodiversity to systems unbalanced by man. This healing of biodiversity is necessary for wildlife to recover.
If you are using subjective definitions for the terms “native,” “alien,” “harm,” “invader,” and “competition,” how will these concepts be adequate to formulate a scientific discipline of ecological principles, management decisions and public policy?
What are your criteria for ecological “harm?” The criteria needs to be measurable and objective, not just subjective speculation (e.g. ODFW on the delisting of Wolves). They should apply to all species, irrespective of whether they are theoretically “native” or “alien.” In the absence of these criteria, on what basis are you determining which species to control or exterminate?
What are your objectives, ecological criteria of “alien” species? Of “invaders?” These need to be precise so any biologist or landowner can identify “non-native” or “invader” in any ecosystem by evaluating the criteria without being told in advance what the designation is for a specific plant or animal.
It must be possible to confirm this through double-blind experiments, which do not give away in advance the definition of the plant or animal tested. For example, how does the BLM distinguish between “native” and “alien” plant monocultures, between expanding “native” and “alien” populations, and the effects of “natives” and “aliens” on the ranges?
If government science can’t give these definitions, or develop them, then its conclusions about the effects of these plants and animals are entirely subjective and its procedures are not scientific. Without such objective criteria how do government employees justify actions against species they may call “alien?”
How can one distinguish harmless or helpful characteristics of a new species from “invasion” particularly at the early stages? The example that comes to mind is when BLM wiped out 100 burros that ranged on 500,000 acres of state and national parks with 100 miles of river frontage because the burros supposedly threatened water sources for bighorn sheep.
What protocol does government employees have, to determine the conservation value of new populations that have moved outside of historical ranges? Are all such population moves “invasions?” And if so will they be exterminated without regard to possible conservation value?
Who will make these decisions? Under what authority are those decisions made? If there is disagreement as to whether a species is harmful how will these be adjudicated? What measures have government agencies put in place to ensure that harmless species or species that serve useful conservation purposes are not the object of harmful control or eradication measures? We can look at both the wolf and the wild horses, and state without a doubt no measures exist currently.
If we abandon native/alien criteria in favor of invasive/non-invasive criteria or aggressive/non-aggressive criteria how will these terms be defined? Considering that population numbers of native animals swing widely, how do we justify any efforts to impose stability on these “exotic” populations?
How is the cause of “invasion” to be determined? If human impact is the only reason will the extermination of the species spreading as a result of this solve the “problem” or will this create a downward spiral of inappropriate interventions? Shouldn’t we be treating causes instead of symptoms?
How has government employees of all levels attempted to ensure against potential conflict of interest inherent in accepting money for research from sources that may have their own agendas?
Clearly Change is Required
Wild animal ‘management’ according to financial self-interest, authoritarian ignorance and superstitious pseudoscience is the worst thing ever to happen to wildlife, and what is being done to plants by the government invading biologists using little to no science, is even worse.
Big government and big business are two faces of one coin, which seeks subsidies, protection from competition, favorable regulations, support for (and from) politicians, agencies, universities and regulators. The larger the conglomerate grows the more ineffective its individual parts become. Eventually, as can be seen in industry-after-industry, agencies in these aggregations do things contrary to the purposes for which they were established
Take wildlife: conservation began in order to protect wild animals and plants from reckless destruction. Ironically, the truth here was changed to something of an abstract and destructible form of ignorance, with Apex Predators especially, and mostly built on fear.
America’s Wildlife needs protection not only from our government, but bad-science, and from those who assume all science is bad, which it is not, and we can see for ourselves, what is and what is not – experience and observation tells us also, what is and what is not good science. What is not good science is the mass genocide of America’s Wildlife – and there is no science, or common sense that backs up so much killing of wildlife that favors a type of positive resolution.
There is no resolution to be gained what so ever! The Wildlife loses – Americans lose – America loses . . .
Gerstell, Richard. 1985. The Steel Trap in North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 352 pp.
Decker, D. J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57.
Deblinger, R. D., D. W. Rimmer, J. J. Vaske, G. M. Vecellio, and M. P. Donnelly. 1993. Ecological benefits and hunter acceptance of a controlled deer hunt in coastal Massachusetts. Northeast Wildlife 50:11-21.
Ellingwood, M. R. and J. V. Spignesi. 1986. Management of an urban deer herd and the concept of cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer Tech. Comm., Vt. Fish Wildl. Dep. 22:42-45.
Organ, J. F. and M. R. Ellingwood. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black bears, beavers, and other beasts in the east. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 5:63-75.
Strickland, M. D., H. J. Harju, K. R. McCaffery, H. W. Miller, L. M. Smith, and R. J. Stoll. 1994. Harvest Management.
Pages 445-473 in T. A. Bookhout, ed., Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.(5th ed.) The Wildlife Society. 740 pps.
Organ, J. F., R. F. Gotie, T. A. Decker, and G. R. Batcheller. 1998. A case study in the sustained use of wildlife: the management of beaver in the northeastern United States. Pages 125-139 in H.A. van der Linde and M.H. Danskin, eds., Enhancing sustainability – resources for our future. SUI Technical Series, Vol. I, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 178pp.
Kallman, Harmon., ed., Restoring America’s Wildlife 1937-1987. 1987. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 394 pp.
Hamilton, D.A., B. Roberts, G. Linscombe, N.R. Jotham, A. Noseworthy, and J.L. Stone. 1998. The European
Union’s wild fur regulation: a battle of politics, cultures, animal rights, international trade and North America’s wildlife policy. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:572-588.
Smith, H. R., R. J. Sloan, and G. S. Walton. 1981. Some management implications between harvest rate and
population resiliency of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Pages 425-442 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds., Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.
Brooks, R. P. 1980. A model of habitat selection and population estimation for muskrats (Ondatrazibethicus) in riverine environments in Massachusetts. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. 113 pp.
Linscombe, G. R. 1995. U.S. fur harvest and fur value: statistics by state and region. International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
Boggess, E. K., S. B. Linhart, G. R. Batcheller, D. W. Erickson, G. R. Linscombe, A. W. Todd, J. W. Greer, D. C. Juve, M. Novak, D. A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 90-1. 31 pp.
MacInnes, C. D. 1987. Rabies. Pages 910-928 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.
Todd, A.W., J.R. Gunson, and W.M. Samuel. 1981. Sarcoptic mange: An important disease of coyotes and wolves of Alberta, Canada. Pages 706-729 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.
Voight, P. R. and R. L. Tinline. 1982. Fox rabies and trapping: a study of disease and fur harvest interaction. Pages 139-156 in G. C. Sanderson, ed., Midwest Furbearer Management. Proc. 43rd midwest Fish & Wildlife Conf., Wichita, Kans. 195 pp.
Rosatte, R. C., M. J. Pybus, and J. R. Gunson. 1986. Population reduction as a factor in the control of skunk rabies in Alberta. J. Wildl. Dis. 22:459-467.
Payne, N. F. 1980. Furbearer management and trapping. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:345-348.
Mammal Trapping within the National Wildlife Refuge System 1992-1996. USFWS, Division of Refuges, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. June 1997 0
Todd, A. W. and E. K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, acitivities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.
Wolfe, R. J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska communities with mixed subsistence-cash economies. Tech. Paper No. 217. Juneau, AK: Alaska Dept. Fish & Game.
Baker, O. E. South Carolina Dept. Natural Resources. Personal communication.
Decker, T. A. 1991. Trapping and furbearer management in Massachusetts. Mass. Wildl. 41:18-27.
Muth, R. M., J.J. Daigle, R.R.Zwick and R.J. Glass. 1996. Trappers and Trapping in Advanced Industrial Society: Economic and Sociocultural Values of Furbearer Utilization in the Northeastern United States. Sociological Spectrum 16:421-436.
Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker and J.W. Enck. 1995. Preliminary Insights about the Sociocultural Importance of Hunting and Trapping. HDRU Series No. 95-2. Ithaca, NY: Human Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell University. 90 pp.
Organ, J.F., R.M. Muth, J.E. Dizard, S.J. Williamson, and T.A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: Balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:528-543.
Wolfe, R.J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska Communities with Mixed, Subsistence-Cash Economies. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper Number 217.
Todd, A.W., and E.K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, activities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.
Mason, D. A. 1990. Vermont’s other economy: the economic and socio-cultural values of hunting, fishing, and trapping for rural households. M.S. Thesis. Burlington VT: Univ. of Vermont. 98 pp.
Kellert, S. R. 1981. Trappers and trapping in American society. Pages 1971-2003 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.
Batcheller, G. R., T.A. Decker, D.A. Hamilton and J. F. Organ. 2000. A vision for the future of furbearer management in the United States. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (4):833-840.
Bishop, P. G. 1991. Unpublished report. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons.
Bishop, P. G. 1990. Traps, trapping and furbearer management in New York State. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons. 12pp.
Slate, D., R. Owens, G. Connolly, G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage management. Trans. N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:51-62.
Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestock guarding dogs protect sheep from predators. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588.
Green, J. S., ed., 1987. Protecting livestock from coyotes: a synopsis of the research of the Agricultural Research Service. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. PB 88 133590/AS. 105 pp.
Meadows, L. E. and F. F. Knowlton. 2000. Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce canine predation on domestic sheep. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (3): 614-622.
D’Eon, R. G., R. LaPointe, N. Bosnick, J. C. Davies, B. MacLean, W. R. Watt and R. G. Wilson. 1995. The Beaver Handbook: A guide to understanding and coping with beaver activity. OMAR Northeast Science & Technology. FG-006. 76 pp.
Miller, J. E., 1983. Control of beaver damage. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf. 1:177-183.
Langlois, S.A. and T.A. Decker. 2001. The use of water flow devices in addressing flooding problems caused by beaver in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Div. Fisheries & Wildlife. 16pp.
Green, J. S., F. R. Henderson, and M. D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes. Pages C-51 to C-76 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.
Muller, L.I., R.J. Warren, and D.L. Evans. 1997. Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild animals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(2):504-515.
Rosatte, R., D. Donovan, M. Allan, L. Howes, A. Silver, K. Bennett, C. MacInnes, C. Davies, A. Wandeler, and B.
Radford. 2001. Emergency response to raccoon rabies introduction in Ontario. J. Wildl. Dis. 37(2):265-279.
Jacobs, W. W. 1994. Pesticides federally registered for control of terrestrial vertebrate pests. Pages G-1 to G-22 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.
Siemer, W. F. and D. J. Decker. 1991. Human tolerance of wildlife damage: synthesis of research an management implications. Human Dimensions Res. Unit Publ. 91-7, Dep. Nat. Resources, N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 24pp.
Melquist, W. E., and M. G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho. Wild. Monogr. 83. 60pp.
Decker, T. A. Vermont Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Personal communication.
Hamilton, D. 1999. Controversy in times of plenty. Missouri Cons. 8pp.
Herscovici, A. 1985. Second nature: the animal-rights controversy. CBC Enterprises, Toronto. 254 pp.
Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain without thunder:the ideology of the animal rights movement. Temple Univ. Press,Philadelphia. 269pp.
Kellert, S. R. 1984. Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology. 8:209-228.
Thompson, T. R. and G. D. Lapointe. 1995. Learning from animal activists: a workshop approach. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:588-593.