Cormorants in the Crosshairs, the movie

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Monte Merrick

Documentary filmmaker Judy Irving (Pelican Dreams, Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill) premiered her short film, Cormorants in the Crosshairs, the 19th of August in Portland at a benefit for The Audubon Society of Portland’s legal effort to stop the slaughter of Double-crested Cormorants at East Sand Island in the mouth of the Columbia River.

The short film was done in collaboration with Bird Ally X co-founder/co-director Marie Travers and offered to Portland Audubon as an outreach tool. After its premiere, the film was made available online (see below) to help spread general appreciation of the often maligned Cormorant as well as an introduction to the issue of Cormorant killing. Below the movie are links to more information on the East Sand Island Cormorants.

1)news about the killing

2)issues facing salmon

3)Portland Audubon’s lawsuit

4)Information about USFWS hidden analysis showing Cormorant killing won’t help salmon

Cormorants in the Crosshairs

Posted on August 18, 2015August 19, 2015 by Monte Merrick

[UPDATE: Ticket prices for Seabird double bill lowered $10 per person, $15 for two ]

In May of this year, United States Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) agents began killing nesting Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and oiling their eggs at East Sand Island, near the mouth of the Columbia River. East Sand Island is home to the biggest colony of these large, black seabirds in North America, with approximately 14,000 breeding pairs. The killing is being done by Wildlife Services at the behest of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with the goal of reducing the cormorants’ population at that location by two-thirds.1

What does the Army Corps of Engineers hope to gain by killing cormorants? It is said that the “cull” of these birds is to protect the salmon runs of the Columbia River. Cormorants eat fish. Including the smolt of threatened or endangered species such as the distinct population group of lower Columbia Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

In the 20th century over 60 dams were built in the Columbia river watershed, many by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). There is an average of one dam for every 72 miles of river.

While these dams irrigate and electrify the west, they also are the major threat, along with forestry, to western salmonids – the family of fish that includes salmon and Steelhead.2 Dams, as one can easily imagine, are an impassable barrier to the thousands of small streams these fish require for spawning.

As an example, before European or American colonists arrived in the Pacific Northwest, it is estimated that 3 million Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) entered this watershed through the mouth of the Columbia river each year. In 2014, just over 600,000 Sockeye returned, which was the largest run since 1938, when the Bonneville Dam was built.3

The fourth largest river in North America by volume, the relatively steep gradient and high flow of the Columbia river made it irrestible to harness. The cost to the environment, and especially this watershed’s fish, has been very steep.

The decision to kill Double-crested Cormorants because of their supposed threat to salmonid recovery is hotly contested by environment and wildlife advocates. The Audubon Society of Portland filed a suit right before the shooting began alleging that USACE “is scapegoating cormorants for salmon declines in order to divert attention from the primary cause of salmon decline, the Corps’ ongoing failure to modify the manner in which it operates the Columbia River Hydropower System.”4 (for more on historical scapegoating of Cormorants, please read this excellent article published in Natural History magazine, To Kill a Cormorant.)

Double-crested Cormorant upon release back to the wild after receivng treatment at Humboldt Wildlife Care Center (photo: Laura Corsiglia/BAX)

In early August, Portland Audubon released United States Fish and Wildlife documents that show that at least some government biologists were well aware, long before the so-called cull was approved, that such a slaughter of birds would have no impact on salmonid population.5

In support of Portland Audubon, documentary filmmaker Judy Irving (The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill, Pelican Dreams) has made a short film, Cormorants in the Crosshairs, on this topic, collaborating with Bird Ally X co-founder/co-director Marie Travers. The film will premiere this Wednesday, August 19, in Portland, double billed with Pelican Dreams.

Questions from the audience will follow for Irving, Bob Sallinger of Portland Audubon, and another BAX co-founder/director, Monte Merrick, whose work is featured in Pelican Dreams.

If you’re in Portland on the 19th, please come out- all proceeds will benefit The Audubon Society of Portland to support their effort to protect these beautiful and strong birds, who’ve evolved with Salmon and Steelhead over millions of years.

Your generosity makes it possible for us to engage our community and policy makers on ways to protect the lives and livelihoods of our wild neighbors. With your help we can act on the universal knowledge that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Thank you for being a part of this life saving work!

1)http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/05/government_hunters_start_thinn.html

2)http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/salmon.htm

3)http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye/columbia_river.html

4)http://audubonportland.org/news/may27-2015

5)http://audubonportland.org/issues/fws-cormorant-analysis

Mendocino County Sued Over Wildlife Services Contract Renewal

Posted on July 28, 2015July 28, 2015 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.

Mendocino Board of Supervisors – We urge you to cancel the Wildlife Services contract

Posted on June 14, 2015June 14, 2015 by Monte Merrick

This is the letter that we sent to the Mendocino Board of Supervisors, who will be deciding this Tuesday whether or not to sever their contract with USDA Wildlife (Dis)Services. Mendocino County has responded to a suit brought by a colaution of wildlife advocacy groups. Read more about that suit here.

Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Rd Room 1010
Ukiah California 95482

re: Contract with USDA Wildlife Services

Dear Supervisors;

By way of introduction, my name is Monte Merrick. I am one of the co-directors of Bird Ally X and our wildlife hospital in Bayside, Humboldt Wildlife Care Center. Our facility, which treats well over 1000 injured and orphaned wild animals each year, serves Northern Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte and Trinity counties.

We have been closely following the effort to introduce an environmentally responsible and morally acceptable alternative to Mendocino County’s contract with the USDA’s notorious “Killing Agency,” Wildlife Services.

The history of the Wildlife Services, its controversial practices, and the recent attention it has received because of its agents (county trappers, etc) is widely available – the covered-up kills of non-targeted animals, the irresponsible use of poisons and traps, the opacity of its programs. That its agents employ and happily promote a moral code of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” is enough, one would think, to give elected officials pause before entering into any contract with them.

The broad actions of a federal agency may seem remote from the responsibilities of county Supervisors, but the actions of Wildlife Services are at the heart of this issue. The misdeeds of federal trappers occur in real communities. When a family pet is killed, when an endangered species is killed, when a wild family is disrupted and orphans are left to die, it happens somewhere. It happens on the ground in real time, in a real place, with real repercussions and ramifications. Mendocino is one of these places.

I am sure you have been made aware of the notorious cases of wrongdoing on the part of Wildlife Services agents – including the cases of agents who have, in some cases intentionally, killed family dogs. This happens right in Mendocino.

The Wildlife Services employee in Mendocino is known by residents as “Dead Dog” due to the number of dogs he is believed to have killed. Yet people are not willing to challenge him for fear of being targeted as well. Last year, when I was promoting the petition that I’d started to bring accountability and transparency to this agency (so far over 173,000 signatures), I spoke with many Northern Mendocino residents about “Dead Dog.” When I asked if any of them would be willing to make a public statement to their Board of Supervisors, I was told “it would never happen. He knows where we live.” Other residents have said they just try to get along with him, and avoid provocations.

Besides Dead Dog’s personal traits, we know that his contracted actions, which are the same actions as the Wildlife Services trapper in Humboldt or Sacramento or anywhere – are cruel and ineffective.

Trapping so-called nuisance wildlife doesn’t solve the problem. I am sure you have been presented with plenty of evidence that supports this. As a wildlife rehabilitator, I can tell you that trapping and killing raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes, coyotes, bear and more (forgetting for the moment the non-targeted victims), does not eliminate the problem. Unless the cause of the problem is removed, the human behavior that has drawn wildlife into conflict, lethal solutions only provide another animal with the opportunity to exploit a niche – such as a cat food on the porch niche, or an open passageway to crawlspace niche, or unsupervised livestock niche.   Also, trapping and killing wild animals disrupts the stability of their social structures which has been shown to cause more problems with livestock predation, property loss and population balance – certainly this is true in the case of coyotes.

Trapping a mother raccoon and killing her and leaving her babies to starve to death under someone’s house is immoral, inhumane and a potential public health hazard.

Additionally, trapping and killing is immoral because there are proven nonlethal solutions. Mendocino county is already partially served by Humboldt Wildlife Care Center on this score and Southern Mendocino is served by Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue. Both organizations provide nonlethal human solutions that are effective because they strike at the problem not the symptom.

Frankly the reasons to terminate the contract are obvious and easily explored. The contract is not in the interest of the community you were elected to serve. Your constituency is perhaps broader than your predecessors who entered into this contract may have understood. The ecological systems, the people who live and work within them, our wild neighbors all have a right to peaceful co-existence and transparency when, for public safety reasons, lethal options must be used.

Your responsibility to all who call our region home demands that you sever the contract with the agency that Oregon congressman Pete DeFazio has called the most “opaque and obstinate.”

I trust that you will do the right thing and end this contract.

Thank you
Robert ‘Monte’ Merrick

Fire Wildlife Services! Local Organizations’ Letter to Humboldt County

Posted on July 19, 2014 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)

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

Posted on July 17, 2014 by Monte Merrick

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!

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

Posted on July 3, 2014 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

A letter to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors #WildlifeServices

Posted on July 1, 2014 by Monte Merrick

27 June 2014

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Rex Bohn, Chairperson

re: cancel contract with USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services

Dear Supervisor Bohn, et al

I am writing to you regarding the County’s contract with USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services.

I am sure that each of you is aware of the controversial nature of this branch of the Department of Agriculture. The controversy stems, not simply from the use of lethal measures to address human/wildlife conflicts, but from the secretive nature of the program, from the documented cruelty practiced by some of its agents, from the documented instances of endangered species, threatened species and family pets that have been killed unintentionally, from the cases of illegal activity committed by Wildlife Services (WS) agents that have been exposed without repercussion, from the systemic lack of accountability of the program at all levels.

These problems are well known. They have also been documented over the course of many decades, beginning with the early 1930s (Olaus Murie’s internal report, 1931) through the Sacramento Bee’s 2012 series, The Killing Agency.

These practices, which are wholly unbefitting a government agency, are also in direct opposition to moral values, scientific knowledge, principles of adaptive management, and the desires of the American people.

My own experiences with Wildlife Services have forced me to conclude that the agency’s culture is prone toward rogue violence.

While responding to the worst petroleum pipeline spill in the United States – the Kalamazoo Spill in Michigan in 2010 – I worked in the field with WS. US Fish and Wildlife personnel eventually forced WS agents to partner with wildlife caregivers due to their consistently inhumane methods of capturing oiled wildlife. At one point the entire response was jeopardized by WS agents insistence that oiled Canada geese be shot rather than rescued. Fortunately, more intelligent and compassionate arguments prevailed. If they hadn’t this would have been the first time in US history that victims of an oil spill had been killed rather than rehabilitated – a violation of federal laws (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Oil Pollution Act of 1990).

Sadly, we don’t need to leave Humboldt County to find examples of WS’s shadowy cruelty. In May, Humboldt Wildlife Care Center(HWCC) received a call from a member of the public who was angry and distressed about baby raccoons who had been left to die under her mother’s house.

Her mother had called Animal Control of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office to seek assistance with an animal under her home. She was given the number of the county trapper. Identifying himself as Wildlife Services, he told the homeowner that the animal was a male raccoon with no babies. Now, this alone is highly suspicious. Why else would a raccoon be using a crawlspace in Spring?

After he had trapped and killed the raccoon, who of course was a female, and after the babies died and began to rot and smell, the homeowner tried to reach him, but to no avail. Then they called us. We went under the house, removed the dead babies, who were exactly where we would have looked if they had called us first – in the void between the built-in tub and the wall.

I have tried to reach the “county trapper” but he has not returned my calls. I have also asked the county for any reports that APHIS-WS submits regarding their contractual activity in Humboldt County. I have received no response.

HWCC, every day of the year, counsels members of the public who have wildlife conflicts. These problems are easy to resolve without resorting to lethal measures. We do this without charge! Our phone number is widely available. Our information is made public on the internet, through print journalism, through radio public service announcements and through word of mouth. This is our area of expertise – an expertise earned the old-fashioned way: on the front lines.

We maintain a Humane Solutions team that is available for everything from consultation to doing the physical work of humanely convincing a wild animal to leave an area and then making the necessary adjustments to ensure the problem is solved.

Of course it is true that most human wildlife conflicts are caused by poor human practices. Given this, resorting to lethal means, except in the cases of immediate threats to public safety (e.g, confrontations with Bears and Mountain Lions) is unjustifiably immoral.

On June 19, I started a petition on Change.org to the administrators of the Department of Agriculture responsible for APHIS-WS. The petition demands standards of transparency and accountability be applied to APHIS such as every other government agency is legally required to meet. After 11 days the petition has received over 70,000 signatures. It is safe to say that citizens of every stripe do not want wildlife assassins working without accountability, out of public view, free to use whatever lethal means they wish, and with no repercussions. I can certainly say that I don’t.

I encourage this Board, and its individual members, to dig deeper into what this agency does, what it reports, what it covers up. The agency’s culture of “shoot, shovel and shut up” is well documented if not well known. This is not an issue of right versus left or conservative versus liberal. The actions of WS, when they become known, are horrible to hunter and vegan alike. The repugnant actions of Wildlife Services do not fill a void, they create one. They create a void where our values would be.

Thank you for considering eliminating the $67,000 portion of our county’s budget that is set aside for cruelty and ignorance. I hope unreservedly that the amount spent in 2013-14 is the last time that Humboldt County spends taxpayer money on something so reprehensible. Humboldt Wildlife Care Center/Bird Ally X are available to help build a more humane future for human/willdife co-existence.

Sincerely,
Monte Merrick

For more information and for a list of some sources to look further please visit the Bird Ally X site and look at this post. http://birdallyx.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/opaque-and-obstinate/

To view the Change.org petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/wildlife-services-stop-slaughtering-millions-of-wild-animals

To view the petition to initiate rule-making that was brought by Center for Biological Diversity, Project Coyote, and others: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/pdfs/Wildlife_Services_Rulemaking_Petition_Dec_2_2013.pdf

USDA Wildlife Services responds directly to BAX co-director over Change.org petition

Posted on June 27, 2014 by Monte Merrick

by Monte Merrick

Last week, I initiated a petition on Change.org, as an individual, to the three people responsible for the Department of Agriculture’s ‘wildlife damage control’ program, known as Wildlife Services. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack; USDA-APHIS, administrator Kevin Shea; and APHIS Wildlife Services deputy administrator, William (Bill) H. Clay. (read the petition, read more about Wildlife Services)

Within a day, the petition had gathered 500 signatures. At about the time that it passed that number, 500, I received an email from Bill Clay, deputy administrator for USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services. While it’s odd that he has replied directly to me, rather than to Change.org, which also didn’t share my email address, I am glad that USDA staff are aware that public light is being cast on Wildlife Services.

In any case, Bill Clay wrote to me, and I wrote him back. Here’s what we had to say to each other:

On 20 Jun 2014, , at 12:39, Clay, Bill H – APHIS wrote:
Mr. Merrick,

In regards to your Change.Org petition expressing concerns over our program, let me address some of your concerns by clarifying the misinformation that you have heard or read about the Wildlife Services (WS). First, WS works closely with State and Federal wildlife agencies which regulate resident and migratory birds and threatened and endangered species and which set management goals for various wildlife populations. The professional wildlife agencies strongly support our program and recognize the need to manage wildlife damage as part of responsible wildlife management and the North America model of wildlife management. Lethal take is an important component of wildlife management.

While the concern expressed regarding the lethal removal of over 4 million animals during an entire year over the entire United States is noble, it indicates a lack of understanding of overall wildlife populations, mortality, recruitment and population dynamics. Quoting raw numbers, taken out of context, without indicating the overall wildlife population or other sources of species mortality is irresponsible. Although it generates an emotional response it does not indicate the overall impact to wildlife populations. For example, cats kill from 1.3 to 4.0 billion birds each year in the United States. Hunters harvest over 50 million mourning dove each year out of a population estimated to be well over 300 million birds. More than one million deer-vehicles collisions occur annually, often deadly to deer, which have a population of over 30 million deer. Disease, predation, age, and many factors all contribute to wildlife mortality.

Our lethal take last year involved the removal of approximately 3.5 million birds, nearly 80% of which were invasive species. A Presidential Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species (Section 2) clearly directs Federal agencies to control invasive species and prevent their spread. I understand that many people object to the use of lethal control; however, regulated hunting and trapping is an important tool to manage overabundant wildlife populations and is supported by professional wildlife biologists and wildlife agencies that are mandated to manage them.

In responsible [sic] to the allegations of being a secretive and unaccountable program, anyone who has ever reviewed our website knows that Wildlife Services annually provides the Program Data Reports and other information, including budget information, (which your petition requests) and has provided this information for over 20 years. Through the website we seek to inform the public of actions as a responsible and accountable federal program. The recent Washington Post article criticizes our program because of the numbers of animals killed each year. It’s ironic that we make this information available each year regarding how many animals are killed, species, methods used, nontarget take, etc., and then are criticized for not being accountable to the public.

During the past 5 years, WS has invested more than $50 million to identify and develop new nonlethal methods of control. Most of the effective nonlethal methods currently used by farmers, ranchers, and the public has either been developed or tested by our program.
The implication that WS is mainly funded by Federal dollars is also incorrect. Over $100 million non-Federal dollars is provided to WS each year from the people that request our services. In fact, WS is one of the very few Federal agencies where the recipients of our services pay at least half, and in some cases 100 percent, of the cost of the project.

Articles about WS often fail to indicate that over 80 percent, or 18 million animals, are moved or dispersed each year by WS using nonlethal methods, or that we work at most airports across the country to protect airplanes and people; that we protect over 150 threatened and endangered species for other wildlife threats; or that we conduct one of the largest programs in the world to stop the spread of the Mid-Atlantic strain of rabies commonly carried by raccoons in the Eastern United States. The article also failed to document that the WS program is managed by professional wildlife biologists. To obtain accurate information on the WS program, please visit our website.

William H. Clay
Wildlife Services

Here is my reply:

Mr. Clay,

Thank you for taking the time to respond directly to me in regard to the petition I initiated on Change.org.

As you know, the 50,000 people who have signed this petition so far are not the only critics of the opacity of USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services.

In December 2013 Wildlife Services was petitioned by Center for Biological Diversity, Project Coyote, Animal Welfare Institute, and Animal Legal Defense Fund to begin the rule-making process for the same reasons I started the Change.org petition; that is, to bring transparency and accountability to WS, to ensure humane treatment of animals, and to protect public safety and interests. (read legal petition)

I am sure that you are aware of the highly regarded series published in the Sacramento Bee in 2012 that sheds light on a governmental branch that operates outside of the values of most Americans. Covering up unintentional kills, shooting animals from helicopters, irresponsible use of poisons, suffocating and burning young mammals in their dens – these are revolting, unnecessary and cowardly acts. Citizens have a right to know how their contribution through taxes (whether federal, state, county or municipal) are spent, and a right to object to these repugnant practices. Suggesting that such well-documented and long criticized practices are either necessary or insignificant is a failure to address our petition. We are petitioning for information regarding these kills, not excuses or rationalizations.

Transparency and accountability demand more than the assertion that critics are misinformed. As a wildlife professional, I am well aware of the numbers of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians that are killed or injured by various anthropogenic causes, such as feral and free-roaming domestic cats, vehicle traffic, windows, wind farms, toxic pollution and so on.

You reference the large number of birds killed by cats and imply that such a high mortality somehow absolves WS of wrongdoing for the lesser number of animals reported to be killed WS agents. These are unrelated issues. Mass fatalites are not judged against each other but against what is right. Besides this point, in regard to the numbers of animals reported to be killed by WS agents, the figures provided by your agency are not trustworthy, especially in light of former agents who have consistently described the culture of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” that permeates WS.

And none of these issues that plague WS are new. Multiple reviews and reports, from as early as Olaus Murie’s 1931 internal report, through the Cain Report from early 1972 (formally titled Predator Control 1971: Report to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality by the Advisory Committee on Predator Control, S.A. Cain, et al) have clearly indicated that Wildlife Services practices are out of step with science, decency and democratic values. While critics have consistently identified these key areas for reform, this agency, under various names, has consistently failed to enact these reforms in a meaningful fashion.

The history of Wildlife Services is not a noble one, nor has it met its purported mission. Even the federally mandated task of invasive species control that you reference (which is the reason for the existence of Wildlife Services, from its inception as the Division of Economic Ornithology in 1885) has been a failure. As an example, House Sparrows, which your agency’s first administrator sought to “attack and destroy*,” launching Wildlife Services’ official methodology, have been neither eradicated nor controlled.

Frankly, your response to this petition appears to be further stonewalling. It is easy to understand why Congress member Pete DeFazio has referred to WS as the “one of the most opaque and obstinate” agencies he’s encountered. Moreover, for the administrator of the WS program, with its history of wolf eradication, well-documented cruelty, and broadcast use of highly toxic poisons across our natural heritage, among other reprehensible actions both large and small, to accuse one who questions these practices of being “irresponsible” neither addresses the concerns nor is befitting your role as a public servant.

Sincerely,
Monte Merrick

(*) C. Hart Merriam, MD was the first director of the Division of Economic Ornithology, established inside the Department of Agriculture July 1, 1885. After a year, the division was expanded to include Mammology and soon after that the word Economic was dropped. In his first annual report Merriam discussed areas for USDA work, for legislative action, and for general recommendations. While regarded by his own Department as an impediment to its mission to eradicate avian and mammal economic threats to agriculture, here’s what Merriam had to say about House Sparrows: “The English Sparrow is a curse of such virulence that it ought to be systematically attacked and destroyed before it becomes necessary to deplete the public treasury for the purpose, as has been done in other countries.” https://ia601206.us.archive.org/33/items/reportofchiefofb1886unit/reportofchiefofb1886unit.pdf

Petition to USDA-Wildlife Services Receiving Broad Support!

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Monte Merrick

Click here to see Change.org petition

Petitioning USDA Deputy Administrator William Clay, Administrator Kevin Shea, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: Take immediate steps to make USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, Wildlife Services program transparent and accountable.

This petition was initiated by Bird Ally X co-founder/co-director Monte Merrick due to shockingly high numbers (4.4 million reported in 2013!) of wild animals killed each year by Wildlife Serives, the well-documented culture of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” that permeate the agency, the repeated instances of shocking cruelty to wild and domestic animals on the part of Wildlife Services agents, including irresponsible trapping in BAX’ own community on California’s North Coast.

As of this post, the petition has gathered nearly 45,000 signatures in only 5 days, easily demonstrating that Wildlife Services practices are out of step with not only science, the laws that protect endangered species, migratory birds, and all animals from unnnecessary suffering at human hands, but also the core values of Americans from all walks of life, from hunters to vegans.

Bird Ally X supports this petition. We ask you to do the same. Help demand that USDA brings accountability and transparency to USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services program. Or shut it down.