OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYROCTOBER 1993 PAGE 18 a The The Bloody History of ADC Control Animal destruction of wildlife for private industry by Damage By Clarke Abbey ADCbeginning Animal Damage Control (ADO tradition in America readies back to the 1800's during the settling of the west when wild predators held little value for the settlers and threatened goals of economic expansion. Before the turn of the century the federal government began allocating money to ADC (known then as Bureau of Biological Survey) and then, in 1915, appropriated 5125,000 in predator control assistance to western stockmen. In 1931, the federal war on predators was made into law with passage of the Animal Damage Control Ad. This Act; still in force today, authorizes the ADC to 'promulgate the best methods of eradication, suppression, or bringing under control on national forests and other areas of public domain or privately owned lands, of mountain Hons, wolves, coyotes, bobcats ground squirrels, rabbits and other animals injurious to agriculture and to conduct campaigns for the destruction of such animals.. And they do just that Historically, the assault on wildlife by ADC forms a grim and sorry chapter. The ADC is greatly responsible for the virtual extmcnon of the grizzly and the wolf in the lower 48 states. d d It also played a major role in putting the ferret, jaguar, prairie dog, ocelot, jaguarundi, condor, and other wild animals on the endangered list. The killing continues comprising more today in relative secrecy. In 1992, the ADC killed 2,197,424 'target animals t' animals were and 8,569 than a hundred speaes from alligators to wolves, and relocated. killed. were Another 7,040 accidentally trapped blade-taile- black-foote- - - 'non-targe- undisturbed populations of coyotes tend to live in packs and forage cooperatively for food. When extensive culling throws their social equilibrium out of whack, younger, restless leaders much more likely to go after emerge who do not know how to forage efficiently, and who are livestock." The irony, says biologist Mollie Matteson, is painfully obvious: "Most ADC programs treat the symptoms, not the problems. Ultimately, they exacerbate the problems they seek to solve." The ADC repeatedly states that ADC staff consists of professional biologists protecting livestock as well as wildlife. They have even changed their name just recently to "Wildlife Services." However, a dose scrutiny of the ADC program shows very little that resembles professional solutions to problems. Rifles and poisons are used instead of habitat recovery and control as solutions to protect Threatened and Endangered spedes from predation. n Bear and mountain lion (and other wild animals) are killed in large numbers with no idea of effects on their population and gene pool ... without even knowing how many of these predators still exist The public certainly has every right to question the biologic and professional integrity of ADC. on-leth- al Wildlife Damage Revieworigins With the help of a start-u- p grant from Patagonia, Inc four friends (myself induded) started a group in Tucson called Wildlife Damage Review (WDR). Our goal, and the goal of several A Coyote at the Millville Facility The ADC at work The funded ADC spent 544,365,217 of the public's money last year to kill our wildlife on public and private land, primarily as a subsidy to a handful of ranchers and In Las aquaculturists. Are such expenditures of public funds justified, or even Cruces, New Mexico, ADC responded to one rancher's loss of a single lamb ... an estimated $83 loss. Over 650 hours of ADC employee time was required. 33 "target" animals (coyotes) were animals (gray fox, kit fox, deer and porcupine included) trapped and snared, and 23 total killed. of A wild 56 were animals on our public land were killed by ADC trappers in response to one lamb allegedly killed by a coyote. This information is available to the public only through a lengthy Freedom of Information Act process. Nonlethal methods of control, such as guard animals, scare devices, exclusion and responsible husbandry are available and practiced successfully in many countries. Despite this availability, a 1990 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report indicates that, although the ADC policy manual dearly states that nonlethal methods be given first consideration. Tittle evidence exists of state ADC program personnel employing such methods. Rather ... killing offending animals is used predominantly to control predation on livestock." Lethal methods of control have of little the that since new early days ADC, except changed poisons and technologies have been added. Today the methods indude aerial gunning (shooting from helicopters or fixed wing planes), ground shooting, trapping and snaring, denning, and various poisons induding (spring loaded devices that inject cyanide when an animal pulls on a scented bait). Despite pressure from conservation groups, despite mounting concern about the widespread use of poisons, despite a growing aversion to ADCs methods, the war against predators perpetrated by both ADC and private interests remains as nasty as ever. During a 1991 sting operation in Wyoming, for example, federal offidals bought and seized enough Compound 1080, strychnine, and cyanide and thallium sulfate - toxicants banned in 1972 - "to kill every man, child and predatory mammal in the Western US, according to Galen Butcrbaugh, regional director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1990 near Folsom, New Mexico, a coyote died after eating a chunk of meat injected with Furadan. A gulden eagle feeding off the coyote's carcass also died. Several magpies feeding off the eagle then died. Another golden eagle died after eating one of the magpies. When Fish and Wildlife personnel inspected this scene of "secondary poisoning, they found four more dead golden eagles and a bald eagle lying within 250 yards of the coyote. And now the Strychnine Consortium in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture are of above ground use of strychnine, a poison banned in 1988 because of pursuing Old traditions die hard. its devastating effects as a secondary-poisoneit Biologist Bob Crabtree, who has studied coyotes in regions of Washington state that are to trappers believes that "predator control programs actually foster livestock attacks. Stable tax-pay- er cost-efficien- t? "non-targe- t" M-4- other groups as well, is to see the ADC dismantled. When a randier runs his livestock on public lands, on our lands, as most cattle and sheep growers do out here in the West, we fed he has to take his chances where predation is concerned. Why should the livestock industry be subsidized by in the form of low grazing fees; free predator control, and in some states, a reimbursement from the government for every sheep or cow killed? Other private businesses are not afforded this luxury. And why should he be allowed to kill our wildlife? Hie majority of Americans, in the face of spedes extinction and dwindling habitat, now recognize that wildlife and wildplaces have intrinsic value. We know that predators play an integral part in the plant and animal web that constitutes biological diversity. We also recognize the folly of dominion over nature for the convenience of a market society. WDR believes that it's time for our wildlife to be "managed" by people and agencies whose vested interest is wildlife, not livestock and cash. As Jim Baca, our new BLM chief in Washington said of the ADC, "It has become apparent that ADC has outlived its usefulness as a federal agency. This agency, which uses public funds to destroy wildlife for private industry, has shown it is nothing more than an anachronism in this day and age." . i . anti-AD- C tax-paye- rs 4s r. off-lim- What's happening in Utah with ADC? 1 know that Scott Croene keeps you updated on what's happening with ADC in Utah, and here are some additional facts ... In a September 16th article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Tom Wharton reports that in 1994 "Utah will spend more tax money on killing wild predators titan it will on taking care of wildlife. But that did not keep the Legislature's Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture Interim Committee from voting to continue the state's ADC program." During fiscal 1993, Utah ranchers year claimed a little more than $1 million in predator damage to livestock, while $1.7 million was spent in the state on predator control by ADC In April of this year, the BLM Washington office instructed the ADC to cease and desist all ADC activities on districts where no current Environmental Assessment (EA) exists. This includes most of the BLM lands in the west. Despite this directive from DC, the BLM districts in Utah were allowing ADC to respond to "emergency" situations. Utah State BLM Director James Parker instructed that, "in the event that emergency livestock situations develop in these Districts, you should follow the procedures for emergency Animal Damage Management found in BLM Manual 6831. The provisions of course, do not define "emergency, but give approval |