Tag: Center for Biological Diversity

Bobcat Trapping Banned in California

Posted on by Monte Merrick

bobcat fortuna blogpost - 5

With a 3-2 vote, the California Fish and Game Commission opted for a complete ban on Bobcat (Lynx rufus) trapping in our state as the most sensible way to implement the Bobcat Protection Act of 2013.

(for more information on the Bobcat Protection Act)

With two new members of the Commission, the outcome of today’s meeting was anything but certain.  However, they both came to the meeting well-informed, and prepared with excellent questions. At the end of discussion, it was the new guys who made and seconded the motion to implement a state wide ban on the cruel practice.

bobcat fortuna blogpost - 1

bobcat fortuna blogpost - 2

bobcat fortuna blogpost - 4Assemblymember Richard Bloom of Santa Monica addresses the rally. Bloom was the author of AB1213, the Bobcat Protection Act

bobcat fortuna blogpost - 6Tom O’Key, whose discovery of a Bobcat trap on his property near Joshua Tree National Park led to the ban on trapping, addresses the Commission

bobcat fortuna blogpost - 7Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace (3rd District) addresses the Commission on behalf of a complete ban.

Bird Ally X/Humboldt Wildlife Care Center staff and volunteers were part of the excellent turn out of wildlife advocates.

At BAX we feel proud and privileged to be among the many organizations that worked for this ban, sent letters, circulated petitions, and organized educational events. We are grateful for our colleagues who collaborated to make the vision of real protection of Bobcats a reality, among them Project Bobcat, Center for Biological Diversity, Project Coyote, and Environmental Protection Information Center.

The meeting was held at the Riverwalk Lodge in Fortuna. After last year’s decision to list the Gray wolf (Canis lupus) as endangered in California at the same venue, Humboldt County is gaining a reputation as a place where our responsibilities to our wild neighbors are taken seriously.

 

Your support makes our work possible, both treating injured and orphaned wild animals, and advocating for policies and practices that reduce injury. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.

Want to help? Become a member today!

Thank you for your support and for your love of wildlife.

Bobcat-illustration

Share

Mendocino County Sued Over Wildlife Services Contract Renewal

Posted on by Monte Merrick

MENDOCINO, Calif.— Animal-protection and conservation organizations filed suit today challenging Mendocino County’s contract renewal with Wildlife Services, a notorious federal wildlife-killing program that killed close to 3 million animals in the United States in 2014.

“Mendocino County is using taxpayer money to kill its native wildlife, which is highly valued by many Mendocino residents,” said Elly Pepper, Natural Resources Defense Council wildlife advocate. “Instead, it should put that money towards nonlethal practices, which preserve our native wildlife while effectively deterring predators from livestock.”

According to the complaint, the county’s renewal of the contract violates the California Environmental Quality Act and a previously signedsettlement agreement, in which the county agreed to comply with the Act before renewing its contract with Wildlife Services. The coalition consists of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Project Coyote and a Mendocino Country resident.

“By claiming exemptions from CEQA, Mendocino County is attempting to avoid performing any environmental studies on Wildlife Services’ environmental impacts,” stated Tara Zuardo, wildlife attorney with the Animal Welfare Institute. “Through this lawsuit, we hope to ensure Mendocino County officials follow through on the obligations they agreed to in our settlement agreement.”

Mendocino County’s previous $144,000 contract authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program to kill hundreds of coyotes, as well as bears, bobcats, foxes and other animals in the county every year, without fully assessing the ecological damage or considering alternatives.

Although hundreds of county residents sent postcards and letters to the Board of Supervisors and showed up to make public comment at two meetings, the Board renewed the contract without taking the time to fully investigate the program, learn about the public’s concerns, and consider alternatives, as required by the Act.

”Unfortunately, despite the county’s promise to consider nonlethal alternatives that are better for wildlife and taxpayers, county supervisors decided to do an end run around the law,” said Amy Atwood of the Center for Biological Diversity. “They have misled and disappointed hundreds of their constituents.”

Wildlife Services’ indiscriminate killing of millions of animals annually has many damaging impacts on the environment. Peer-reviewed research shows that such reckless slaughter of animals — particularly predators — results in broad ecological destruction and loss of biodiversity. The program’s controversial and indiscriminate killing methods are employed largely at the behest of ranchers to protect livestock and have come under increased scrutiny from scientists, the public and government officials. In addition the agency has been responsible for the countless deaths of threatened and endangered species, as well as family pets.

“We are encouraging Mendocino County to explore and adopt alternative, nonlethal models (like the Marin County Livestock & Wildlife Protection Program) that are more ecologically, ethically and economically defensible — and more effective at protecting livestock,” said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Marin-based Project Coyote.

“ALDF and its allies will continue to push for CEQA compliance and wildlife protection in Mendocino County,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of ALDF. “California deserves more than shady dealings from their elected officials.”

###

The Animal Legal Defense Fund is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the lives and advancing the interests of animals through the legal system through litigation, legislation, supporting prosecutors, and advancing the emerging field of animal law. For more information, visit aldf.org.

The Animal Welfare Institute is a nonprofit charitable organization founded in 1951 and dedicated to reducing animal suffering caused by people. AWI engages policymakers, scientists, industry, and the public to achieve better treatment of animals everywhere—in the laboratory, on the farm, in commerce, at home, and in the wild. For more information, visit www.awionline.org.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 900,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places: www.biologicaldiversity.org.

Project Coyote is a North American coalition of wildlife educators, scientists, predator friendly ranchers, and community leaders promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, and compassionate conservation through education, science, and advocacy.
Visit: ProjectCoyote.org

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 2 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

Share

Fire Wildlife Services! Local Organizations’ Letter to Humboldt County

Posted on by Monte Merrick

Bird Ally X; Environmental Protection Information Center
North Group, Redwood Chapter, Sierra Club;
Klamath Forest Alliance; Friends of the Eel River
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
July 18, 2014
Humboldt County Supervisors
825 5th St., Room 111
Eureka, CA 95501

Re: Support for Terminating Humboldt County’s Contract with APHIS-Wildlife Services
Dear Supervisors Bohn, Fennel, Bass, Lovelace, and Sundberg,

The undersigned organizations write to express our support for the June 30, 2014 request from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), the Center for Biological Diversity, and other groups to terminate Humboldt County’s contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s APHIS- Wildlife Services (Wildlife Services) and bring the county’s wildlife control activities into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Wildlife Services program relies on antiquated and cruel methods to kill wildlife, and it operates under a heavy veil of secrecy despite being funded by taxpayer dollars. Non-lethal alternatives are time-tested and prove to cost less while being more effective in protecting livestock, and we urge Humboldt County Supervisors to join Marin County, Sonoma County, and the City of Davis in moving toward an alternate approach.

According to the Washington Post, Wildlife Services killed more than 4 million animals last year alone, including 75,326 coyotes, 866 bobcats, 528 river otters, 3,700 foxes, 973 red-tailed hawks, and 419 black bears.1

The agency uses snares, traps, poisons, and aerial gunning to kill wild animals, often killing pets and other non-target animals by mistake. An investigative series by the Sacramento Bee found that between 2000 and 2012, Wildlife Services “accidentally” killed more than 50,000 non-problem animals, more than 1,100 dogs, and several imperiled species – including bald and golden eagles.2

In addition to endangering outdoor recreationists and their pets, these practices disrupt the natural balance of wildlife populations, degrade habitat, and increase disease, causing the “loss of many ecosystem services that benefit human society directly and indirectly.”3

In spite of these impacts, Wildlife Services operates with a complete lack of transparency or oversight of its actions, and has steadfastly refused requests from the public, lawmakers, and others to disclose details on the lethal methods it employs, the poisons it uses, and how its money is spent.

Bipartisan members of Congress, including Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif. are calling for national reforms and requested a congressional investigation of the program. And due to related questions and controversies, the Office of Inspector General is now conducting an audit of Wildlife Services.

Marin County ended its contract with Wildlife Services in 2000, choosing instead to develop and implement its Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program, which assists ranchers with livestock protection in a nonlethal manner. The Marin County Agricultural Commissioner calls it a “good move” that substantially reduced livestock losses to predators, saying it cost more to operate in the beginning than today, but it now operates at about half the cost as it did under the Wildlife Services contract.4

The City of Davis voted unanimously to end its contract with Wildlife Services in January 2013 after the agency killed five coyotes, including four pups, without consulting City staff, which “did not concur that these animals exhibited behavior that warranted removal.”5

The City of Davis now implements a Coyote Management and Coexistence Plan at an estimated cost of $8,000 a year. Sonoma County also recently elected to forego its contract with Wildlife Services and is now exploring a program similar to the one used in Marin County.

We encourage you to take this opportunity to take the lead of other local governments and help establish a regional model the rest of the nation can emulate. Humboldt County citizens are known for their environmental ethics and forward-thinking ideas. The time has come to end the outdated practices employed by Wildlife Services here, and to come together as a community to realize a better solution that protects our public trust resources and values.

Sincerely,

Monte Merrick
Bird Ally X
PO Box 1020 Arcata, CA 95518
mm@birdallyx.net

Natalynne DeLapp
Environmental Protection Information Center
145 G Street, Suite A Arcata, CA 95521
natalynne@wildcalifornia.org

Diane Fairchild Beck, Conservation Chair
North Group, Redwood Chapter, Sierra Club
PO Box 238 Arcata, CA 95518
dfbeck@northcoast.com

Kimberly Baker
Klamath Forest Alliance
PO Box 21 Orleans, CA 95556
kimberly@wildcalifornia.org

Scott Greacen
Friends of the Eel River
PO Box 4945 Arcata, CA 95518-4945
scott@eelriver.org

 

1) Fears, D., USDA’s Wildlife Services killed 4 million animals in 2013; seen as an overstep by some, Washington Post (June 7, 2014)

2) Knudson, T., The killing agency: Wildlife Services’ brutal methods leave a trail of animal death, Sacramento Bee (Apr. 28, 2012)

3) Bergstrom, J.B., Arias, L.C., Davidson, A.D., Ferguson, A.W., Randa, L.A. & Sheffield, S.R., 2013, License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function, Conservation Letters, v. 6, p. 1-12

4) Scully, S., Sonoma County’s contract for wild animal control under fire, Press Democrat (June 1, 2013)

5) Staff Report from Robert A. Clark, Interim Public Works Director, City of Davis to Davis City Council (Jan. 15, 2013)

Share

Alert! Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to Consider Wildlife Services contract July 22

Posted on by Monte Merrick

50k!!!Your voice is needed!

Humboldt County’s Board of Supervisors, after postponing discussion of the county’s contract with USDA Wildlife Services, also known as “the Killing Agency,” at their July 1 meeting, will re-open the discussion this Tuesday, July 22. (For more information, look here and here)

As regular readers of Bird Ally X know, USDA Wildlife Services has a long and ignoble history, dating back to the late days of the 19th century and westward expansion. From extermination of Gray Wolves to the senseless killing of baby Raccoons, no matter where we look, Wildlife Services is bad news for wild animals.

If you live in Humboldt County, please telephone your District Supervisor and ask that she or he votes to sever the contract with Wildlife Services.

Rex Bohn, District 1 Supervisor and Board Chairperson , 707-476-2391
Estelle Fennel, District 2 Supervisor and Vice Chairperson, 707-476-2392
Mark Lovelace, District 3 Supervisor, 707-476-2393
Virginia Bass, District 4 Supervisor, 707-476-2394
Ryan Sundberg, District 5 Supervisor, 707-476-2395

You can also send an email: (find your Supervisor’s email address here.)

Here is a sample letter that you can use, or write your own:

Subject line: Sever the Contract with Wildlife Services
Sample letter: I write to ask you to sever the Humboldt County contract with Wildlife Services.

I oppose USDA Wildlife Services’ involvement in lethal wildlife management for several reasons. The agency lacks a regulatory framework, and behaves like a rogue agency that is totally out of control and accountable to no one. Members of Congress are demanding accountability from Wildlife Services, which is now being investigated by the USDA Inspector General for mismanagement and is under increasing public scrutiny for killing over two million native animals and pets last year alone, including thousands of coyotes, black bears, foxes, mountain lions, and other animals in California. Wildlife Services cannot be trusted to carry out any lethal wildlife control, period.

Under the county contract, Wildlife Services would also kill raccoons and skunks that den beneath people’s homes. But as a recent incident in Humboldt County revealed, when a federal trapper trapped and killed a mother raccoon and left her babies to starve and die beneath a Humboldt County home, the program conducts these activities in a cruel and inhumane way.

Traps and snares for coyotes and other species jeopardize other wildlife in California including endangered Gray wolves as they return to their native range in northern California – an unacceptable risk that Wildlife Services would simply sweep under the rug.

There are much better ways for Humboldt’s citizens to co-exist with wildlife, without the killing and cruelty. I don’t want Wildlife Services targeting Humboldt County’s wildlife.

The main thing is to let your Supervisor know that it’s unacceptable to use our tax dollars for cruelty and ignorance. We’ve had enough shadowy, unaccountable wildlife killing! Urge your supervisor to seize the moment. Let Humboldt County be among those who leads the way to non-lethal humane resolution for human/wildlife conflicts.

Our wild neighbors on the North Coast deserve much better than USDA Wildlife Services. Thank you for your love of wildlife and thank you for taking action!

 

Your support makes our work caring for injured and orphaned wildlife, and advocating to prevent needless injury to wildlife possible. Please donate what you can. Thank YOU!

 

 

 

Share

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Puts Contract Renewal With Wildlife Services on Hold

Posted on by Monte Merrick

EUREKA, Calif.— One day after a broad coalition of national animal and conservation groups urged the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to terminate its contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services, the board assented to a citizen request to delay consideration of contract renewal for at least a month in order to reevaluate the issues.

At its meeting on Tuesday, the board had scheduled a vote on the county’s annual renewal of its contract with Wildlife Services, a federal program that kills tens of thousands of native wild animals in California every year. But on a citizens’ request submitted by local wildlife rehabilitator Monte Merrick, the board decided to remove the renewal item from its consent calendar, delaying it at least another month as the county considers the issues raised by Merrick and the coalition.

“I am elated that the board has agreed to consider whether to renew its contract with Wildlife Services,” said Merrick. “Wildlife Services is increasingly controversial and there are better options to address wildlife conflicts.”

The coalition groups sent a formal letter asking the county to undertake an environmental review and ensure proper protections — as required under California state law — prior to hiring Wildlife Services to kill any additional wildlife. Last year, in response to a similar letter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Sonoma County’s Board of Supervisors opted not to renew the county’s contract with Wildlife Services and is now conducting a review of its wildlife policies. Marin County cancelled its contract with Wildlife Services 14 years ago and implemented a nonlethal predator-control program. As a result the county has seen a 62 percent decrease in livestock predation at one-third of the former cost.

Since 2000 Wildlife Services has spent a billion taxpayer dollars to kill a million coyotes and other predators across the nation. The excessive killing continues unchecked despite extensive peer-reviewed science showing that reckless destruction of native predators leads to broad ecological devastation. The indiscriminate methods used by Wildlife Services have killed more than 50,000 “nontarget” animals in the past decade, including endangered condors and bald eagles. The program recently released data showing that it killed over 4 million animals during fiscal year 2013 using a variety of methods, including steel-jaw leghold and body-crushing traps and wire snares. These devices maim and trap animals, who then may take several days to die. In 1998 California voters banned several of these methods, including leghold traps.

“Humboldt County has a chance to be a leader in California wildlife management by eliminating their contract with Wildlife Services,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. “Nonlethal predator control has proven to be more humane, more cost-efficient, and more effective — it’s simply the right thing to do for the county.”

“We are glad to see that Humboldt County is pushing the ‘pause’ button on its relationship with Wildlife Services,” said Tim Ream of the Center for Biological Diversity. “We hope that the county will do the wise thing and terminate its relationship with Wildlife Services altogether.”

“Humboldt County has an opportunity to do what’s right here by reviewing their contract with Wildlife Services and shifting towards a nonlethal program that is ecologically, economically and ethically justifiable,” said Camilla Fox, Project Coyote founder and executive director, who helped develop Marin’s nonlethal program. “We pledge our assistance to the county toward this end and urge the Board of Supervisors to emulate the successful Marin County Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program that provides non-lethal assistance to ranchers.”

“The last thing the county that is home to such special places as the Lost Coast and Redwood National Park should be doing is allowing Wildlife Services to trap and kill its native wildlife,” said Elly Pepper, an NRDC wildlife advocate. “Using nonlethal methods to balance its incomparable natural beauty with its critters is a much better use of county residents’ money.”

“It is time to put aside the unchecked assumption that wildlife conflicts can only be solved via Wildlife Services’ draconian, outdated killing methods,” said Tara Zuardo, wildlife attorney at the Animal Welfare Institute. “We salute Humboldt County for stepping back to reevaluate its options — a move that will hopefully lead to more humane, less costly and more effective methods of wildlife management.”

Contact: Megan Backus, Animal Legal Defense Fund, (707) 795-2533 x 1010 (office); (707) 479-7872 (mobile); mbackus@aldf.org
Tim Ream, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 632-5315; tream@biologicaldiversity.org
Camilla Fox, Project Coyote, (415) 690-0338 (mobile), cfox@projectcoyote.org
Josh Mogerman, Natural Resources Defense Council, (312) 651-7909; jmogerman@nrdc.org
Tara Zuardo, Animal Welfare Institute, (202) 446-2148; carson@awionline.org
Tim Dunbar, Mountain Lion Foundation, (916) 442-2666 x 105; tdunbar@mountainlion.org
Monte Merrick, BAX/Humbodlt Wildlife Care Center, (707) 832-8385; mm@birdallyx.net
Share

Protect Gray Wolves under California Endangered Species Act

Posted on by Monte Merrick

In 2011, something very dramatic happened in California, something that hadn’t occurred since 1924. A wild wolf tread on our land. OR-7, perhaps as famous now as any other wolf ever has been, traveled into Northeast California that year and stayed through most of 2012. OR-7, or Journey, as he was named by school children to help protect him from poachers, dispersed from his birth area of Northeast Oregon eventually traveling over 1000 miles to the northern counties of California

Wolf-OR7-DFG-Shinn
The only known photograph of OR-7 in California (source California Dept of Fish and Wildlife)

The presence of OR-7 in California sparked the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Big Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), and the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center to petition the California Fish and Game Commission to include the Gray Wolf as an endangered species in California under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as they make their anticipated recovery.

Now OR-7 is possibly mated and raising pups in the Rogue River National Forest. If so, another layer of criticality is added to our concerns. Pups that eventually disperse from Southern Oregon will surely enter California. The need for protection of this obviously endangered species will be even more apparent.

Bird Ally X/Humboldt Wildlife Care Center (BAX) stands with CBD, EPIC and the other petitioners in their call for CESA protection using the science of ecosystem-based management; that is, that wolves and other apex predators are a necessary and desirable component of healthy watersheds, forests, and range, and warrant state-specific legal protection in California. We agree with the petitioners that all things point to listing the Gray Wolf as endangered in California.

The only thing that stands in the way of wolf recovery in our state is the space that we provide them. That space has a name: endangered species protection.

It is an easy observation that habitat must be given to wolves if they are to have a place in our shared world. It may be less easy to see that a similar space must be provided within the public mind. California’s returning Gray Wolves must be invited, if they are to be welcome.

We respectfully disagree with the assertion that adequate protection for wolves is achievable through a variety of obscure regulatory codes. Public ignorance was the key factor in the extirpation of California Gray Wolves. A critical feature of the wolf’s recovery must be public education.

However important regulation, enforcement, and administration are in protecting endangered species, CESA is more than this – it is also a tool for public awareness, public education and the expression of the values of the citizens of California.

As wildlife rehabilitators, BAX strongly supports and promotes co-existence with our wild neighbors. Our commitment to our patients requires our allegiance to the health and well-being of all wildlife. If we are to effectively advocate for California’s natural heritage, we need the cooperation of the state. Listing the Gray Wolf as endangered will provide not only the legal protection wolves need, but also the framework for a better understanding of the contributions predators, and all wild animals, make toward the health and beauty of our lives and our world.

As wildlife rehabilitators, each day we talk with members of the public resolving conflicts between people and wildlife. A sparrow nest in the chimney, a raccoon in the backyard, a shopping plaza that destroys a colony of nesting herons – these and myriad other scenarios await us every time the phone rings. Each time, we must advocate for wild animals, for the laws that protect them, and for the best possible outcome, which includes greater understanding and appreciation for the natural world that sustains us. The best possible outcome includes greater respect for wildlife and wild space.

These experiences on the front line of wildlife protection teach us that rescuing endangered species is much more easily accomplished using tools that speak to each of us. The language of endangerment cuts across all cultures and perspectives. When we say that a species requires special protection, we either mean it or we don’t. We are either welcoming the wolf home to California, or we are not. If we are, then we must provide the welcome that will make a real difference, not just in the Fish and Game Code, but in the understanding of the people who must yield something so that the wolf might live. Only listing Gray Wolves as endangered can do that.

As do most Californians, from enthusiastic open space lovers, such as those of us who call Humboldt home, to the urbane citizens of the world class cities to our South, we look forward with excitement to the restoration and recovery of the Gray Wolf to their historic home in our state.

Share

Speak up for Wolves!

Posted on by Monte Merrick

It is reasonable to conclude California may host a functioning pack of Wolves within ten years.*

Listing of Wolves in California is absolutely inevitable.**

wolf-event-flyer-final-opt

 

* Chuck Bonham, Director, California Department of Fish And Wildlife

** Richard Rogers, Commissioner, California Fish and Game Commission

Share

California’s first wolf in 90 years may have pups in Oregon!

Posted on by Monte Merrick

Wolf-OR7-DFG-Shinn
OR-7, in one of the only photos taken while he was in California (photo: CDFW)

Exciting news! OR-7, or Journey, the most famous wolf in the world, first wild wolf in western Oregon since the 1940s as well as the first wild wolf in California since 1924, may have finally found what he was looking for: a mate!

As reported today, biologists tracking Journey since he was a pup in Northeast Oregon have strong evidence that the wandering male has met up with a black female wolf in the Rogue River/Siskiyou National Forest in Southwest Oregon. While it isn’t confirmed that they are denning or have pups, their movements, still being captured by Journey’s radio-collar, indicate the strong possibility. It will be mid-summer before biologists will approach the pair to see if they have pups.

Share