Listening to Cougar

New anthology of cougar stories edited by Marc Bekoff and Cara Blessley Lowe.

Editorial: Tax-free elk reduction

Well worth trying

Those who’ve spent much time watching the elk in Rocky Mountain National Park know that the animals often look more relaxed than elk do in, say, the San Juan Mountains of southwest Colorado.

Under natural conditions, the elk population would be controlled partly by predators. By the time Colorado attained statehood, however, hunters had nearly wiped out the elk and their chief predator, wolves. Elk were reintroduced beginning in 1913. Wolves were not.

Controlled hunting in the park ceased in 1969, and the elk population has since tripled, exceeding the park’s “carrying capacity” of 1,600 to 2,100 elk. Hordes of elk fuel tourism. But they harm the ecosystem.

Some elk within the park’s boundaries no longer migrate between winter and summer ranges. The animals are apparently content to gorge themselves on willow and aspen. That over-grazing puts such plant populations at risk, and could cause concomitant damage to beaver habitat.

An environmental-impact statement on the park’s elk-management plan says elk overpopulation is particularly hard on willows and aspen. “Research consistently indicates that a continuation of the high elk densities in Rocky Mountain National Park would result in the complete loss of aspen trees or, at best, existence in a shrub-like state on core winter range areas,” the environmental-impact statement notes.

The loss of aspen, willows and other species reduces the biodiversity of the park. Wolf reintroduction is a more natural alternative, but it is not a short-term solution. Wolves, long demonized in the West, are still a tough sell politically.

The final draft of the park’s elk-management plan, released Tuesday, calls for the culling (meaning the killing) of up to 200 elk per year over the next 20 years. The plan is not to open the park for hunting, but rather to use “qualified volunteers.”

“This is not people out in the woods in orange vests as we envision hunting going on in Colorado wildernesses,” Vaughn Baker, park superintendent, told the Camera.

The plan is to donate the meat from the slaughtered animals to Native American tribes and others. Meanwhile, rangers would try to herd some elk out of the park and also use “adverse conditioning” to encourage them to move where hunting is legal.

Those who care about the welfare of animals are understandably uncomfortable with “lethal reduction” and justifiably eager to see the elk-culling efforts managed in as humane a manner as possible.

The carnivore-restoration group Sinapu has notified the Interior Department of its intention to sue. Sinapu argues that the park service did not adequately consider the reintroduction of wolves as an elk-management strategy.

“Rocky Mountain National Park should do as Yellowstone did and provide leadership for an entire region that’s in need of rekindling wolf predation,” Rob Edward, Sinapu’s director of carnivore restoration, told the Camera. “It’s very clear that the experiences of Yellowstone National Park are directly transferable to the problems here.”

The suit is welcome. Though wolf reintroduction would take some time to achieve its desired effect, it would have the benefit of restoring some semblance of the natural order of things in an area that, incidentally, has just been designated as federal wilderness. Management by wolf would also have the added benefit of sparing taxpayers the expense of unnaturally culling the herd.

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board of the Daily Camera.

Click here for the original editorial.

Operation Estes Storm

Park Service releases controversial plan to slaughter elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, eschews wolves

For Immediate Release

(Boulder, CO) The National Park Service today released a final plan to use sharpshooters to kill thousands of elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, ignoring important lessons learned in Yellowstone National Park. The plan calls for sharpshooters and other unnatural management activities to be used to reduce and redistribute elk in the Park instead of considering wolf reintroduction.

“Today is a sad day for Rocky Mountain National Park,” said Rob Edward, the Director of Carnivore Restoration for Sinapu. “Today, the Park Service let politics and timidity triumph over science and common sense,” said Edward, referring to the fact that wolves released into Yellowstone National Park had done–in less than a decade–what the Park Service plans to do in Rocky Mountain National Park over many years using sharpshooters.

Edward stated that Sinapu and Forest Guardians intend to sue the Park Service over the plan, and said that other litigation is presently in the works regarding the National Park Service’s refusal to restore wolves as part of the agency’s legal mandate. The two groups filed a notice in November with Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and National Park Service Director Mary Bomar indicating their intent to sue over the National Park Service’s lack of planning for wolf recovery within Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. The notice gives the government 60 days to respond to the claims raised.

“The managers of our federal lands must be good stewards of the wildlife on those lands,” said Edward. He stated the Endangered Species Act makes very clear that federal land management agencies must act to further the conservation of endangered species. “Why the government would choose to spend millions of dollars and turn our national park into a nocturnal shooting range for a problem that should be solved eloquently, by wolves, is puzzling,” said Edward.

John Horning, Executive Director of Forest Guardians in Santa Fe, underscored the need for the Park Service to be proactive on wolf recovery. “The vegetation of Rocky Mountain National Park is being rapidly depleted by scores of elk, and the Park Service’s plan is to have sharpshooters kill thousands of these elk under the cover of darkness,” said Horning. “Yet, as we’ve seen in Yellowstone, reintroducing wolves to the park can quickly and permanently restore the balance of nature and bring the entire ecosystem back to life.” Horning pointed to published scientific information from Yellowstone that shows that native plants regenerate more quickly if elk are kept on the move by wolves, and that culling elk is not necessary if wolves are present.

Edward indicated that the plan to cull elk in the park would cost millions of dollars and stands little chance of long-term success.

The Endangered Species Act’s Section 7 requires federal agencies to conserve federally protected species, including taking all measures possible to achieve species recovery. Horning and Edward agreed that the National Park Service is missing a perfect opportunity to meet two conservation objectives under the present plan: restoring wolves and protecting the park’s plants from sedentary elk.

###

Action Opportunity: Help Ban the Two Deadliest Predator Poisons!

ACTION OPPORTUNITY: The Environmental Protection Agency is taking comments—whether to ban two highly lethal predator poisons, sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 – these poisons are used to kill an average of 1.6 animals every hour.

PLEASE SEND A LETTER BY MARCH 5th 2008 to the EPA supporting the petition to ban. (Sample comment letter and submission instructions below.)

WHAT: A branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture called Wildlife Services uses sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 to kill predators. But the risks associated with these poisons are great and vastly outweigh any benefits.

Both chemicals are biological warfare agents. The Nazis commonly used sodium cyanide, and Compound 1080, a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and water-soluble poison, is banned in several countries. Lethal doses are very small, and the EPA labels both toxicants as Category 1, the highest level. For instance, the amount of toxic material found in one livestock “protection collar” could kill between two and six 150-pound people.

In January 2007, Sinapu and several conservation and health organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban M-44 sodium cyanide capsules and Compound 1080 livestock protection collars under federal law because they threaten wildlife (including threatened or endangered species), people, and pets, and pose a bioterrorism hazard.

Sodium Cyanide M-44s:
M-44s are spring-loaded devices topped with bait lures. When an animal tugs on the bait, a spring sprays sodium cyanide powder into the animal’s mouth. The cyanide turns into gas once it mixes with moisture from the mouth that is readily absorbed into the lungs. After less than two minutes, a victim of an M-44 device dies.

* Animals typically killed by M-44s include badgers, bears, birds, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, dogs, opossums, marmots, raccoons, ravens, ringtails, and skunks.

* According to EPA records, five Wildlife Services employees and at least five unsuspecting citizens people have been accidentally exposed to sodium cyanide after triggering devices or coming into contact with pets that had been exposed.

* M-44s have also killed endangered species, such as California condors and wolves.

Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars:
Compound 1080, banned in 1972 by President Richard Nixon, was returned to use under the Reagan Administration for use in livestock protection collars, which are rubber bladders that are strapped onto the head of sheep or goats:

* Compound 1080 is highly toxic to both birds and mammals. Scavengers that feed on the head or neck area of dead sheep wearing livestock protection collars are poisoned. Carcasses contaminated by 1080 must be handled as hazardous waste.

* Death by 1080 is horrific, painful, and lengthy (usually between 3 to 15 hours).

* Livestock protection collars are problem-plagued. They are often lost and they are easily punctured by trees, cacti, fences, or rocks.

These Poisons May Endanger All of Us:
Several audits by the Office of Inspector General found Wildlife Services maintained sloppy inventory control of these highly lethal agents and could not properly account for stockpiles. In November 2007, Wildlife Services itself admitted it had endured a “wake of accidents” that involved “hazardous chemicals”.

These poisons are not needed:
Predators kill a tiny fraction of the nation’s livestock – many more livestock die unintentionally from weather, birthing complications or rustlers. Mammalian carnivores killed 0.18% of the total U.S. cattle production in 2005, and 3% of the total sheep production in 2004. By comparison nearly 4% of cattle and 5% of sheep died from non-predator causes. Because these figures are so small, Wildlife Services cannot justify the existence of these two poisons given the risks they pose.

There are a host of non-lethal controls such as fences, pens, sheds, bells, guard animals, and electronic devices that are far more practical and sustainable over the long term.

*************************************************************************
Sample Letter & Submission Instructions. Please individualize so your letter will be counted!

1.  Go to http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp,
2.  Paste in  “hq-opp-2007-0944″ under the blue “Comment or Submission” tab and  click “go”.
3.  A page will open that shows a series of “comment submitted by . . . ”
4.  Under each of these comments, you will see a line that says “send a comment or submission” followed by a yellow bubble. Click on this line or bubble. You will then see a screen that will allow you to either enter or upload your comment.
5.  You may also mail to the address below — the comment must be received by March 5th.

************************************************************************
Date

Office of Pesticide Programs, Regulatory Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001
http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp

Re: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944

To Whom it May Concern:

M-44s (sodium cyanide) and Compound 1080 should be banned. These highly toxic substances pose an imminent hazard to people, wildlife (including those species that are considered threatened and endangered), and pets.

Despite the biological terror risks from Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, the agency charged with maintaining their inventories and placing them in the field has had numerous documented problems with their inventory control.  In November 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services admitted that it had a “wake of accidents” involving “hazardous chemicals”, and the agency failed several audits by the USDA Office of Inspector General.

Given that few predators actually even kill livestock each year and that livestock growers have access to more effective, non-lethal methods such as guard animals, sheds, pens, fences and electronic devices to protect livestock, these poisons should be banned. Chemical warfare is unneeded to protect livestock, and the risks they pose are far too great.

Because these toxicants pose unreasonable hazards and risks, they should be banned as predator poisons in the United States.

Sincerely,

Name
Address
Address
Email

EPA TAKES FIRST STEP TO BAN WILDLIFE POISONS!

Federal Register Notice Asks for Public Comments on Revoking Registration

Washington, DC — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is calling for public comment on banning two of the most deadly poisons used to kill wild mammals. The Federal Register notice comes as a result of a petition filed earlier this year by a coalition of conservation and public health organizations coordinated by Sinapu and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

The two poisons are sodium cyanide (used in M-44 ejectors) and sodium fluoroacetate, commonly called Compound 1080, a toxicant used in “livestock protection collars” strapped onto the heads of sheep and goats. Both agents are classified by EPA as having the highest degree of “acute toxicity.” The poisons are distributed by Wildlife Services, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which used these two agents during 2006 to kill an average of 1.6 animals every hour.

Even as EPA moves forward, legislation is being prepared in Congress to ban the two chemicals from production and use. That emerging legislation is being spearheaded by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

“While I am happy that EPA has acted on our petition, the threat to people, pets and wildlife will remain until these poisons are outlawed,” said Wendy Keefover-Ring of Sinapu, citing persistent reports of accidental poisonings of what Wildlife Services calls “non-target” animals. “These toxicants are outmoded, dangerous and inhumane means of wildlife management.”

Each year, M-44s account for the deaths of approximately 13,000 mammalian carnivores, out of a total of more than 1.6 million birds, coyotes and other wildlife killed last year by Wildlife Services, at an annual cost to taxpayers of $108.6 million.

Compound 1080, a colorless, odorless, tasteless, water soluble toxin, is classified as a chemical weapon by several countries for its potential threat to water supplies. Government audits have repeatedly faulted sloppy inventory control by Wildlife Services that could lead to theft or black market sales. Adding to the dangers, Wildlife Services’ own records show that livestock protection collars routinely go missing and that their poison-containing pouches easily get punctured on sharp objects like brush, rocks, or barbed wire, creating an uncontrolled biohazard.

The groups note that relatively few livestock are killed by predators, making the use of these highly toxic agents unwarranted. USDA figures show that in 2005, more than 20 times as many cattle were killed by weather, rustlers and other causes than by predators, which accounted for an infinitesimal 0.18% of losses.

Compound 1080 is already banned in California and Oregon and is explicitly allowed for use in only eleven states. EPA had also previously banned Compound 1080, but during the Reagan administration, the agency reversed itself and allowed re-introduction of the poison in livestock protection collars.

Via a Federal Register notice dated November 16, 2007, EPA is soliciting public comment over the next 30 days on whether the pesticide registration for these two agents should be revoked, thus removing them from use.

“EPA is supposed to weigh the risks to public health and the environment against the commercial benefit of these products, a balance that we feel is heavily weighted toward a ban” commented PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein. “In all likelihood, the final decision on whether to take these commercial poisons off the market will be made by the next administration.”

Contacts:
Wendy Keefover-Ring ||Sinapu|| (303) 447.8655, Ext. 1#
Carol Goldberg || PEER|| (202) 265-7337

###

See the Federal Register notice

 

Read the petition

 

Look at the growing bio-terrorist peril from poor inventory control of these poisons

 

View the annual breakdown of mortalities caused by M-44

 

See the latest figures on federal wildlife eradication by state, species and method of dispatch

 

Compare the small impact that wildlife has on livestock losses

 

Learn more about the petitioner groups