Letting Nature Take ‘Its’ Course.

Posted on August 29, 2016September 20, 2016 by Monte Merrick

It’s a common expression: let nature takes its course – and we learn it while we ‘re young. It can be used in many ways, but in the end, what it always means is that the best outcome can be achieved by doing nothing – that left alone, the inevitable outcome is the preferred outcome.

As wildlife rehabilitators, we hear this expression every day.

Two months ago, a man called from somewhere out Highway 36 – he’d found a fawn by the side of the road with a dead doe, presumably the fawn’s mother, most likely hit by a vehicle. The caller had already talked to a local government agent to find help. “The ranger said it would be better to let nature take it’s course,” he said, “but I couldn’t just leave the little guy there. Will you take him?”

Of course we would. And we did.

The fawn is doing well, is now being weaned from a bottle to foraging for greens, in the company of other fawns, untamed. If all continues to go well, he will soon be released back into a wild herd.

Two weeks ago we released an Osprey who’d been hit by a vehicle and picked up from the shoulder of a two-lane blacktop that skirts the western edge of Lassen National Park. The woman who found the bird talked to an employee at a park information booth who told her the best thing she could do was put the grounded bird back and, yes, let nature take its course. She said she couldn’t do that, so the employee found her a box and gave her a phone number for a veterinarian in Redding. When she got to Redding, the veterinary clinic wasn’t open (nor were they permitted to treat wildlife).

So she found us on the internet. Since she was already headed to the coast she was able to bring the Osprey to our clinic. It took all day, but eventually we had the bird in care. While in relatively good shape with no external injuries, the Osprey was slow to respond, seeming dazed. Within a couple days, however, in the safety of our clinic, the plunge-diving raptor regained his wits and was flying well and in a very dissatisfied mood.

As soon as he was ready, our staff took him on the 5 hour drive back to Lassen, back to his lake next to the volcano. He needed nothing more than some time in care – a safe haven where food and safety are provided.

If you put the Osprey back on the side of the road and “let nature take its course” – disoriented and grounded by his collision with a vehicle – it’s predictable that the Osprey will die. With no treatment, who knows how long it will take for him to recover his wits, if ever – and with no food or water, his slow decline gathers momentum until he’s too weak to seek shelter, let alone regain his ability to meet his own needs. Another car, another predator, or a slow death by dehydration is as certain as night follows day.

If you provide care – hydration, food, anti-inflammatory medicine, a safe aviary, reduced stress – and let Nature take her course – the bird stands a very good chance of healing and getting a second chance.

Do all of the animals who we treat recover? Of course not. Many animals do not respond to treatment – the antibiotics are too late to prevent the death of a Barn Swallow bitten by a house cat, the neurological trauma that leaves the Raven with paralyzed legs doesn’t resolve. More often, the patient’s injuries are simply too severe. The only course we can take is to humanely end the suffering. Any hunter can tell you that you don’t let an animal wander off to a slow death from the wounds that you’ve caused. You don’t gut-shoot a deer and then “let nature take its course.” Wild animals who’ve been injured by the human-built world at least have the right to a humane death.

The person in uniform, or the biologist, or the front desk clerk, who recommends letting nature take its course may not be able to diagnose the injury, may not be aware that treatment is available, may not be informed at all on this topic. Often the person functioning as the authority is merely parroting a worn phrase we all know so well.

‘Let nature take its course’ is not a fact-based recommendation, it is not science based. Now of course there are many ways to use this phrase in many situations, but to be clear, when we’re talking about injured and orphaned wild animals, letting nature take its course means not taking responsibility for the injury and suffering our society has caused. It is irresponsible even though it parades as the dispassionate, wider-scoped perspective, not the uneducated sentimental feelings of compassion. And in this way, Nature is made out to be the culprit – Nature is cruel, and the compassionate person is a fool. A logging truck full of trees hits a deer and kills her, leaving her young stranded – too small to survive. The local ranger says the fawn should be left alone, that we should let nature take its course, and it is Nature who is cruel.

Meanwhile, who destroys Nature foolishly? Is it the person who blunders in picking up a fledgling sparrow thinking that the bird was in trouble and not simply in an awkward phase of learning to fly? Or a bison calf? Or, is it the builders of pipelines, the levelers of forests, the polluters of the sea? Why is it only fitting for nature to take its course when an individual is suffering an injury caused by industrial society?

And there is this: the heavy line drawn between the human and the natural, between society and the wild is religious, not scientific. It is a belief, not a finding. Who among us has the hubris to say where that line runs, or if it exists at all.

In the end, ‘letting nature take its course’ is a fallacy, an error, a hypocrisy, a lie.

Right now, in Washington state, wolves are slated to be slaughtered for having killed cattle that were put out to graze at the wolves’ den site on public lands. No cries from the biologists, the wardens, or the clerks now to let nature take its course – no cries at all.

We are in the last days of our August fundraiser and we have not yet reached our necessary goal of $7000. We have nearly $2000 to go!! Click here to help us pay our bills and continue to provide our region with its only native wildlife hospital. Without your help, we wouldn’t be here! Thank you!

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

Wildlife Services Contract Renewed

Posted on July 29, 2014 by Monte Merrick

Wild places and wild things constitute a treasure to be cherished and protected for all time. The pleasure and refreshment which they give man confirm their value to society. More importantly perhaps, the wonder, beauty, and elemental force in which the least of them share suggest a higher right to exist–not granted them by man and not his to take away. – Richard M. Nixon, 1972

67 Coyotes, 9 Mountain Lions, 38 Black Bears, 235 Striped Skunks, 218 Raccoons, 57 Opossums, 17 Gray Fox – animals reported killed by Wildlife Services in Humboldt County between 2010 and 2013.

We are deeply disappointed with the Humboldt County Board of Supervisor’s decision to renew our County’s contract with one of the US Government’s least accountable agencies, Wildlife Services, whose illegal activities, cover-ups, opacity, and lack of regulatory framework have been as well-documented as possible given that very opacity. Still, we are glad for the opportunity to have much needed discussion regarding this agency’s activities in our own backyard. Past contract renewals have slipped by without notice. With an approach to human/wildlife conflicts as outdated and entrenched as Humboldt County’s it certainly must be true that it will take more than a couple of hours of 3-5 minute public comments to undo decades of poor practices.

Humboldt Wildlife Care Center operates in every district of Humboldt County as well as Northern Mendocino, Del Norte, Trinity, parts of Siskiyou and even Curry County in Oregon across the state line. We respond to calls regarding injured, orphaned, and so-called nuisance wildlife every day of the year. We run on the proverbial shoestring budget, utilizing volunteer labor and relying on the generosity of our community. We assist with any problem, and when something is beyond our local capacity, we have resources around the State and the Nation on which we can rely.

The decision to renew the contract is disappointing, not only because it legitimizes past unnecessary wildlife kills, and not only because of the future unnecessary wildlife kills it will allow, but also because it undermines the public education and outreach work on which HWCC/BAX spends a significant amount of resources.

Incredibly, it was even suggested by the Supervisors that HWCC/BAX could collaborate with Wildlife Services. With our commitment to co-existence, to the intrinsic value of wild animals, to non-lethal measures, transparency, and accountability to our community, obviously we find little in common with the branch the Sacramento Bee calls the “Killing Agency.” Our work in this county, to promote co-existence between people and our wild neighbors, to educate on the laws regarding how wild animals may be treated, competes with the County’s diametrically opposed message.

Trapping wildlife does not solve human/wildlife conflicts. Trapping doesn’t address or control rabies. The circumstances that bring a wild animal into conflict with people are most often, if not always, sources for food, water or shelter that are provided, intentionally or not, by people – often by the same people experiencing the problem. Removing these provisions usually results in the wild animal moving on – trapping and killing the animal changes nothing, leaves the attractant in place for other animals, risks orphaning any young of the trapped animal, and needlessly applies a capital penalty on the wild animal for a human transgression. In short, trapping is lazy, cruel and ineffective. Humane solutions are not only ethically superior, humane solutions last.

The Board’s statement, that there is no problem that needs to be addressed, displays a callous disregard for the lives of countless wild animals who have been killed without cause, their disrupted families, and also the values and concerns of a majority of people everywhere. According to Humboldt County Agricultural Commissioner Jeff Dolf, since 1921, Humboldt County has contracted with Wildlife Services. The number of animals senselessly killed over the last 9 decades would be astonishing if it were calculable.

The Board of Supervisors has neither the the knowledge or experience to make decisions on these matters. Presented with legitimate concerns regarding a controversial program, it is our view that the Supervisors did not perform due diligence in seeking alternative perspectives from knowledgeable sources. Rather than research the issue, members of the Board stood by childhood playmates, gross misapprehensions of disease vectors and a poor understanding of the successes of more advanced programs in other counties. The decision to continue contracting with Wildlife Services does a disservice to the County, to the citizens of this County who deserve better leadership, and to the wild animals who have as much right to their existence as we have to ours.

We of course will carry forward with our mission. We will continue to provide quality care for injured and orphaned wildlife, to partner with trustee agencies to provide non-lethal solutions for human/wildlife conflicts and embrace and support the progress our culture has shown in our ability and willingness to share in the bounty of Mother Nature.

While we wish to find a way forward toward a more humane future for Humboldt County and California, it would be negligent of us, as citizens of this county and as one of the many voices for this county’s wild residents, if we did not express our sorrow and disappointment with the Board’s decision and the deeply flawed reasoning that produced it.

Meanwhile, please take a look at this online petition to bring transparency and accountability to Wildlife Services. If you’ve already signed it, please share it with your circle of friends and colleagues. https://www.change.org/petitions/wildlife-services-stop-slaughtering-millions-of-wild-animals

P.S. This kind of advocacy work may not cost us much in food, medicine or other resources, but it does take time. Please contribute what you can. Help us supply the ounce of prevention… Thank you for your support and for your love of wildlife

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)