Thanks, NPR, for covering this federal program. As many of you know, I started my wildlife conservation career focused on this issue (circa 1991-1999) and it is sad, but not surprising, that “Wildlife Services” – a moniker that epitomizes the concept of greenwashing – carries on as such. It speaks to how the livestock industry still runs roughshod over the open range and politics of the western states.
Back in the day when my group published its own annual report on what was then called Animal Damage Control (we affectionately referred to is as “All the Dead Critters”), we summarized the federal program this way: public money is being spent to kill publicly owned wildlife, often on public lands, for the benefit of a small percentage of private livestock producers who are neither required to change their management practices to reduce livestock/predator conflicts nor directly pay for this government “service.”
Based on the information NPR provided in this story, some things haven’t changed.
One of the things that hasn’t changed about this agency is its use of non-native animal kill figures – mostly birds – to water down the relative percentage of native wildlife it kills. I can understand efforts to control these birds for two reasons: [1] they are mostly non-native and [2] most of these birds are killed at airports to keep we humans safe in the air (a “service” that benefits most Americans).
However, let’s label Wildlife Services referencing its invasive animal kill figures for what it is: a red herring meant to distract us from the agency’s historic and still primary raison d’etre: to kill predators – primarily coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears and cougars – in the western seventeen states for the benefit of a relatively few ranchers.
The recalcitrant nature of Wildlife Services ultimately led me to pursue other strategies for protecting native predators. I was a co-founder of Predator Friendly Inc., a coalition of sheep producers, conservationists, wildlife ecologists, and clothing entrepreneurs attempting to open markets for wool products produced without killing predators. This project was one of the initial efforts that led to what is now a worldwide “wildlife friendly” movement.
Wildlife Services, and the federal government more broadly, would do well to use our tax dollars promoting this type of non-lethal strategy and solution, rather than killing literally tens of thousands of our public wildlife in the west each year.
Finally, thanks to those of you who continue to work on reforming (or ending) the federal predator control program. You are making progress and I (along with many others) appreciate and value your efforts.
That’s a bloodbath: How a federal program kills wildlife for private interests [National public radio – October 10, 2024]
What's This Story About
Why This Story
What You Can Do
More Info
Thanks, NPR, for covering this federal program. As many of you know, I started my wildlife conservation career focused on this issue (circa 1991-1999) and it is sad, but not surprising, that “Wildlife Services” – a moniker that epitomizes the concept of greenwashing – carries on as such. It speaks to how the livestock industry still runs roughshod over the open range and politics of the western states.
Back in the day when my group published its own annual report on what was then called Animal Damage Control (we affectionately referred to is as “All the Dead Critters”), we summarized the federal program this way: public money is being spent to kill publicly owned wildlife, often on public lands, for the benefit of a small percentage of private livestock producers who are neither required to change their management practices to reduce livestock/predator conflicts nor directly pay for this government “service.”
Based on the information NPR provided in this story, some things haven’t changed.
One of the things that hasn’t changed about this agency is its use of non-native animal kill figures – mostly birds – to water down the relative percentage of native wildlife it kills. I can understand efforts to control these birds for two reasons: [1] they are mostly non-native and [2] most of these birds are killed at airports to keep we humans safe in the air (a “service” that benefits most Americans).
However, let’s label Wildlife Services referencing its invasive animal kill figures for what it is: a red herring meant to distract us from the agency’s historic and still primary raison d’etre: to kill predators – primarily coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears and cougars – in the western seventeen states for the benefit of a relatively few ranchers.
The recalcitrant nature of Wildlife Services ultimately led me to pursue other strategies for protecting native predators. I was a co-founder of Predator Friendly Inc., a coalition of sheep producers, conservationists, wildlife ecologists, and clothing entrepreneurs attempting to open markets for wool products produced without killing predators. This project was one of the initial efforts that led to what is now a worldwide “wildlife friendly” movement.
Wildlife Services, and the federal government more broadly, would do well to use our tax dollars promoting this type of non-lethal strategy and solution, rather than killing literally tens of thousands of our public wildlife in the west each year.
Finally, thanks to those of you who continue to work on reforming (or ending) the federal predator control program. You are making progress and I (along with many others) appreciate and value your efforts.
Author