Ban Wildlife Killing Contests.

After 9 months of deliberation, on December 3 in Van Nuys, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) will decide on new regulations banning killing contests. If adopted, these regulations will apply to nongame animals and furbearing animals. Coyotes will be covered under these rules. Your voice is needed.

Below is our letter to the FGC on behalf of Coyote.

California Fish and Game Commission
Michael Sutton, President,
Richard B. Rogers, vice-President
Jim Kellogg, Jack Baylis, Jacque Hostler-Carmesin

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for engaging in the hard work of bringing the will of Californians as expressed in Assembly Bill 2402 to bear on the California Fish and Game Code.

BIrd Ally X fully supports the advances being made in our state’s relationship with, and regard for, our wild neighbors. The change in Californians’ appreciation for wildlife, wild lands, and wild systems over the decades is very encouraging. As advocates for our patients – injured and orphaned wild animals – we also support the Commission’s commitment to employ ecosystem-based management and use credible science in decisions regarding the wildlife with whom we share our beautiful state.

coyote pup 3 June 13 - 03
Coyote pup in care at Bird Ally X/Humboldt Wildlife Care Center (photo: Laura Corsiglia/BAX)


Coyote killing contests are one example of an activity that serves no scientific purpose. They are contrary to the best available science regarding coyote management. We stand with Project Coyote, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and others in calling for an end to these contests. We recommend that you give serious consideration to the credible, peer-reviewed science these groups have presented that demonstrates the need for a management plan for coyotes and all predators that takes a rational, effective approach which promotes co-existence.

Natural systems depend on this advance, as do individual animals who are orphaned by the careless disregard for life exemplified in these killing contests.

Non-lethal methods of coyote control (e.g gaurd dogs, lambing sheds, predator lights, etc.) have been shown to be more effective at protecting livestock. Eradication efforts and lethal measures to control coyote populations have been shown repeatedly over decades to fail. Poisons, leg-hold traps, guns, explosives, fire and flood have all been used in gruesome and barbaric attempts to extirpate this animal, iconic and revered in North America for millenia. Adaptable and resilient, coyotes’ population has exploded. As Wyoming folk-wisdom has it, “kill one coyote, two appear.”

Lethal means have been known to be cruel and productive of the opposite of their intended results for nearly as long as they’ve been employed. Still, there are virtually no limitations placed on coyote killing in California. Coyote hunting has rightfully earned a reputation as an irrational blood sport.

There is no legal, scientific or moral justification for killing contests. What constitutes a proper relationship with the natural world is poorly represented in such a contest. The posture of respect that is the hallmark of a true hunter is absent. Now that the spotlight is shining on these gruesome contests we urge the Commission to ban them. To not do so now would be to sanction wanton, senseless killing and set California back in its commitment to science and good stewardship.

California’s wildlife rehabilitators work hard on behalf of our state’s wild animals, supported almost solely by our communities. Our patients are almost exclusively victims of our modern world. Our neighbors largely share our concerns, as do thousands and thousands of others, from all walks of life – it’s commonly perceived that wildlife killing contests are repugnant and must, in the face of true understanding and scientific knowledge, be seen as outdated, outmoded and an out and out travesty.
Coyotes and all wild animals deserve respect. As wildlife care providers, it is our duty and our mission to work to modify those aspects of our lives that cause unnecessary injury and are unnecessarily cruel.

Co-existence is the only humane future, especially since so much has been lost through negligence, cruelty and inaction. The eras of wild animal killing contests are past. That previous generations have decimated or extinguished so many other populations – bisons of the great plains, eskimo curlews, passenger pigeons – in similarly wanton displays is a shame and disgrace yet to be lived down. 

The natural world needs people who are compassionate, who are kind, who prefer life over cruelty. Killing contests foster none of these qualities.

We urge you to carry through and help California lead the way into a more rational, civil and humane world. Please end these wanton wastes of real lives. Ban killing contests. 

Thank you again for taking up this issue and for the hard work that each of you do.

Project Coyote has started an online petition to put an end to this wantonly cruel, environmentally stupid bloodsport. Read it, sign it, share it here.

Resources and Literature

Fox, C.H. (2006) Coyotes and Humans: Can We Coexist? Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, California

on the success of non-lethal management that promotes co-existence:
Fox, C.H. (2008) Analysis of The Marin County Strategic Plan for Protection of Livestock & Wildlife: An Alternative to Traditional Predator Control. Master’s thesis. Prescott College, Prescott, AZ. 112 p.

on the importance of keystone predators such as coyote in an ecosystem:
Henke, S.E., and Bryant, F.C. (1999) Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community in Western Texas, Journal of Wildlife Management 63, 1066–1081.

on the failure of indiscriminate coyote killing to protect livestock:
Berger, K.M. (2006) Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts: Affects of Subsidized Predator Control and Economic Correlates on the Sheep Industry. Conservation Biology 20:751-761.

Share

Killing Contests Soon to Go

Sign Project Coyote’s ONLINE PETITION HERE

Predator Killing Contests in California

Did you know that killing contests are common in California and the rest of the country? Hard to believe, isn’t it? Here we are in the second decade of the 21st century, a march of civilization toward greater understanding of the world, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond, back all the way to the bang that began it all. And still there is debate if it makes sense (for men and boys, mostly, although certainly women and girls aren’t excluded) to attempt to kill the most, the biggest, the most rare – by whatever metric – to kill for competition; – to slaughter for a reward.

A short list of the species targeted by killing contests includes, pigeons, raccoons, doves, bobcat, prairie dog, woodchuck, deer, turkey, crow, wolf and of course, the least protected or respected mammal native to North America, coyote.


Killing Coyote

Coyote ‘calling’ contests, in which teams of hunters often using battery powered coyote callers attract coyotes so that they can be shot, are held nearly everywhere. At the time of this writing there is a contest underway in Washington state. There is also an online predator killing contest open to hunters across all of the United States and Canada currently being held that is sponsored by Foxpro, a maker of coyote and other wildlife callers. (Contestants are encouraged to post “tasteful” photos of the predators they’ve killed. Raccoons, badgers and wolverines are worth 1 point, coyotes, bobcats and lynx are worth 2, wolves, 3 and cougars are the big prize, worth 5 points.)


Coyote killed after being called in to range. These kids were taught this.

Even highly urbanized New Jersey holds coyote killing contests. In some the one who has shot the most pounds of coyotes wins. In others it is the quantity of individual animals, in other contests other criteria may obtain.

Just a month ago in February, 40 Coyotes were killed in the annual Big Valley Coyote Drive sponsored by Adin Supply Co. in Modoc County, California. Tens of thousands of people, led by Project Coyote, petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission in 2013 to stop that year’s drive to no avail. Wildlife advocates continued to press for reform, by petition as well as by expert testimony to persuade the Commission to prohibit these contests.

On the eve of this year’s Modoc contest, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to put consideration of prohibition of such contests on their agenda. Speaking in favor of this review, Commission President, Mike Sutton is reported to have said he’s “been concerned about these killing contests for some time. They seem inconsistent both with ethical standards of hunting and our current understanding of the important role predators play in ecosystems.”

Though small, this is an historic movement toward co-existence with coyotes. Reviled by the ranchers and sporthunters who’ve been re-shaping North America for over 400 years, coyote’s eradication has been at the heart of nearly indiscriminate state-conducted and state-sanctioned trapping, shooting and poisoning wherever coyotes may live.


AB2402 and Congressman Jared Huffman

What’s driving this change? A remarkable California law known as AB2402. Before his election to congress representing the North Coast in November 2012, Jared Huffman was a member of California’s State Assembly, where he chaired the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. February 2012, he introduced AB2402, a bill that would make a few minor adjustments to California’s Department of Fish and Game(DFG), that when carried out, would make for sweeping change.

Seemingly superficial, AB2402 changes DFG’s name to the Department of Fish and Wildlife – a change intended to reflect the conservationist mission of the agency. In keeping with this, AB2402 also requires the Department and the Commission to:

use ecosystem-based management informed by credible science in all resource management decisions to the extent feasible. It is further the policy of the state that scientific professionals at the department and commission, and all resource management decisions of the department and commission, be governed by a scientific quality assurance and integrity policy, and follow well-established standard protocols of the scientific profession, including, but not limited to, the use of peer review, publication,and science review panels where appropriate. Resource management decisions of the department and commission should also incorporate adaptive management to the extent possible.

Science-based ecosystem management is not exactly the language of respect for Mother Earth. Still, this law now demands that predator management policy must at least follow the basic precept of making sure that methods actually achieve goals. Definitions of the terms ‘adaptive-management,’ ‘credible science’ and ‘ecosystem-based management’ are also supplied in the text of AB2402 (see below).

The science of coyote management has already demonstrated that lethal measures, intended to reduce populations, presumably because of actual or potential damages to ‘livestock’ or ‘game herds,’ don’t work. Coyotes’ reproduction increases when they are stressed. Shooting a member of their family group is an obvious cause of such stress, as any member of any family group ought to be able to understand. Coyotes fight back and their most formidable weapons are adaptation and renewal. Or, as apparent although unheeded folk-wisdom among ranchers in Wyoming states it, “kill one coyote, two appear.”

Still the barbarism of the past persists. The coyote enjoys absolutely no protection whatsoever in the current California mammal hunting regulations. In fact, they are expressly mentioned in this regard in Chapter 6, Section 472(a):

The following nongame birds and mammals may be taken at any time of the year and in any number except as prohibited in Chapter 6: English sparrow, starling, coyote, weasels, skunks, opossum, moles and rodents (excluding tree and flying squirrels, and those listed as furbearers, endangered or threatened species).

There are no limits imposed by the state on killing coyotes.

AB2402 may have a much wider revolutionary effect than the Assembly and Senate even knew. Or perhaps the change in perspective over the last hundred years in Western science that has agreed in some respects with a more holistic apporach to life and the web of life is finally beginning to stick.

Whatever the cause for this change, the mandate for peer-reviewed, science- and ecosystem-based management has led to the creation of the Wildlife Resources Committee within California’s Fish and Game Commission to review predator management policy. This has the potential to go a long way toward peaceful co-existence and proper respect for coyotes and other maligned predators.


Wildlife Agencies Need Your Input

Now the Commission will formally decide on the regulations regarding killing contests as well as predator management overall. In a few days, 19 March, the Commission will meet via teleconference with key locations across the state hosting gathering places for public participation. On 16 April in Ventura, coyote contests will be on the Commission’s agenda for discussion. A vote is expected at either the June meeting in Fortuna or in August when the Commission meets in San Diego. (click here for FGC meeting schedule)

Meanwhile, predator management review has been taken up by the Wildlife Resources Committee, co-chaired by commissioners Jack Bayliss and Jim Kellogg. Their next meeting will be in San Francisco, 7 May. Public participation in these meetings is important.

Right now, you can help the Commission understand that these wanton, violent wastes of wild lives interfere with the will of the people to modernize the Department and strive to meet the actual science-based goals of wildlife conservation. To support the Commission in finding that Californians want these contests prohibited please sign Project Coyote’s online petition here – also, use their well-crafted letter to send a stronger message to the Fish and Game Commission as well as the director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife urging these agencies to carry forward the good work begun in 2012 with AB2402. (see below for a brief explanation of the roles of the Commission and the Department)


Killing Contests Must End

Killing contests, for any species, are outmoded, outdated, and an out and out shameful vestige of a more ignorant time. Let’s return to our right relationship with Mother Earth. Let’s show Coyote we’ve learned a few things.

Let’s show Coyote and all that is wild the respect they deserve.

coyote pup 3 June 13 - 03Coyote pup at Humboldt Wildlife Care Center June 2013 – this orphaned pup’s mother was shot and killed. He was released 3 months later. photo Laura Corsiglia/BAX

visit Project Coyote

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Fish and Game Commission

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

new definition of terms for California Fish and Game Code

Adaptive management means management that improves the management of biological resources over time by using new information gathered through monitoring, evaluation, and other credible sources as they become available, and adjusts management strategies and practices to assist in meeting conservation and management goals. Under adaptive management, program actions are viewed as tools for learning to inform future actions.

Credible science means the best available scientific information that is not overly prescriptive due to the dynamic nature of science, and includes the evaluation principles of relevance, inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency, timeliness, verification, validation, and peer review of information as appropriate. Credible science also recognizes the need for adaptive management (preceding) as scientific knowledge evolves.

Ecosystem-based management means an environmental management approach relying on credible science, as defined above, that recognizes the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including humans, rather than considering single issues, species, or ecosystem services in isolation.

How the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Game interact, briefly and oversimplified:

For those unfamiliar with how these agencies interact, the legislature introduces bills that might eventually become law. The Fish and Game Commission is tasked with turning that legislative mandate into regulations and policy which will be executed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, through law enforcement and scientific observation. As an example, say it became law to protect crows. First, after the governor signs the bill, the Fish and Game Commission may review existing regulations, determiming that a crow season with a daily bag limit of 24 and a possession limit of 48 doesn’t meet the new code stating that crows may not be taken except as permitted in the case of human health risks, livestock depradation or crop damage amounting to more than $25,000. So, the Fish and Game Commission now writes a new regulation that eliminates crow season. Wildlife Officers begin citing violators and biologists continue to study crows and crow populations, monitoring for effectiveness of the regulations as well as their necessity.

Share