By SCOTT SONNER
Associated Press
5/2/2012

RENO, Nev. — The Great Depression-era program the Department of Agriculture uses to kill coyotes, mountain lions and other predators that threaten livestock is outdated, illegal and a waste of federal money, conservationists say in a new lawsuit.

Wildlife Services, an agency under USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has refused for nearly two decades to conduct the environmental reviews necessary to justify the mass killings with traps, snares, poisons and aerial gunning, according to lawyers for WildEarth Guardians based in Sante Fe, N.M.

They are asking in a lawsuit filed Monday that a federal judge in Nevada shut down the agency that spent $127 million in 2010 to exterminate more than 5 million animals.

"We want the court to ban its poisons, silence its guns, and pull up its traps because it's a horrendous misuse of our tax dollars to slaughter the nation's bears, wolves, coyotes, and myriad other species," said Wendy Keefover, the group's director of carnivore protection.

APHIS spokeswoman Carol Bannerman said Tuesday agency officials had not yet reviewed the suit and she had no immediate comment directly on pending litigation, but added that the conservation group had misrepresented the agency's overall mission.

"Wildlife Services conducts its programs, at local request, and seeks to manage local damage, not to eradicate any native species," she said Tuesday.

About 38 percent of the agency's 2010 budget was spent to protect agricultural resources, she said in an email, and the service also chased away more than 20 million animals from areas where they were "causing damage or conflicts."

"That included making airports safer from wildlife strikes, collecting almost 90,000 samples of 47 diseases carried by wildlife, and protecting 131 different types of threatened or endangered species," Bannerman said.

The suit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas said the program primarily benefits a small number of larger agribusiness operations in the West. It says the agency ignores modern science about critical roles of native carnivores in the ecosystem.

"Wildlife Services continues to rely on their environmental analysis from the early 1990s because they want to avoid public scrutiny of their expensive and ineffective program," Ashley Wilmes, the group's staff attorney based in Boulder, Colo., said on Tuesday.

Wildlife Services conducted its last programmatic environmental impact statement on the "wildlife-killing" program in 1994, based largely on outdated studies from the 1980s, the lawsuit said. It argues a new EIS is required under the National Environmental Act.

From 2004-10, the agency spent $1 billion to kill nearly 23 million animals, along with thousands of "non-target" species that were killed accidentally, mostly by traps and poisons, the lawsuit said.

The Sacramento Bee reported in a series that began April 28 that the agency had accidentally killed more than 50,000 animals since 2000 that were not causing problems, including federally protected golden and bald eagles and more than 1,000 dogs, including family pets.

The service's roots date to 1915 when Congress spent $125,000 to kill wolves in hope of boosting beef production for World War II, beginning in Nevada. The government initiated "massive poisoning and trapping campaigns that greatly diminished America's wildlife" after Congress passed the Animal Damage Control Act in 1931, the lawsuit said.

About half of Wildlife Services' budget is funded from federal tax dollars and the other half from states, local governments and industry groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, American Sheep Industry Alliance, and American Farm Bureau Federation.

They were among more than 150 organizations that wrote to the chairman of the House and Senate appropriations committees in March urging continued support for Wildlife Services. They said wildlife damage to U.S. livestock, aquaculture, small grains, fruits, vegetables and other agricultural products has been estimated to reach nearly $1 billion annually. That includes $619 million crop losses and $126 million in livestock deaths, they said.

"As a result, WS is an essential program in agriculture production in the United States," the groups said in the March 27 letters to Sen. Daniel Inoue, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

The lawsuit argues most modern livestock producers lose few sheep or cattle to carnivores when compared to unintended losses due to illness, disease, birthing problems and weather.

"All this killing has no real benefit-even to the massive agricultural industry it purports to support," Keefover said.

The lawsuit said killing coyotes does not work as a long-term strategy to benefit livestock because new migrants move into the unoccupied territory. It said coyotes benefit populations of sage grouse and other game hens because the coyotes help control populations of foxes, badgers and ravens, which are more likely to prey on sage-grouse eggs and their young.

No mention of exterminating human babies.

Thats Cold Phil.

Unfortunately this looks like it could be a lawsuit on the ADC industry, but filed against the USDA's WS. I see more harm that good coming from this if the suit is won.

There can't be a suit against an industry. We are hundreds of independent companies. No danger. We are already under attack each year with all the new requlations proposed and thats why we need to be members of a national association. This can help our industry more then hurt it. I don't think we should support this but I also don't think we get involved at all. Just let the chips lay where they may. With no involment from us we can't be the bad guys. Win win is how I see it. We need to fight our battles at state level and fight bad regulations. So I think you should not fear something that can't happen.
Don LaFountain

Yeah Mike, I am out of line with this comment.

Don, I don't disaggree with that to a point. To me it reads as much a lawsuit againt the methods of dealing with yotes as it is against WS. A decision against WS that sets a precedent that can be applied to anyone of us.

If the antis win the suit it will be the model for going after the various state nwco programs. Just one more reason for us to have strong state associations.

WildEarth Guardians based in Sante Fe, N.M. Yet they filed suit in Las Vegas, NV. Nearest federal court or a case of judge shopping? Not surprised by this with the recent articles from a former(disgruntled) WS employee regarding the killing of eagles by WS.

Trapper Don don't forget to look for the forest through those trees.............................

Thinking your from Mass should telll you what the anti's are capable of.

I read it as nothing more than the group sueing them for using "taxpayer money" to remove coyotes and other predators. If they win and these agricultural companies need predator control they will have no choice but to call us and pay for it.

To me it sounds like they are taking the fight for us.

If you check out WildEarth Guardians you'll see that their agenda has nothing to do with saving taxpayers money or helping wco's.

There are species protected on a national level, but management tools and the use of them are controled by each state. A strong state assn is the most important one to belong to.

This suit is brought by folks who bring them on usfws, blm, usfs, state and fed agencies of all kinds when they don't like the point of view or what is currently being done with various species and their management.

Know your enemy!

Whether anyone on this forum supports or doesn't the agency being sued, this is more for me about who is suing them and who keeps suing to take trapping out of areas with wolves, jaguar etc.. in my neck of the woods. These folks sue over everything and tie up millions of dollars and man power to fight them in court.

These are the folks everyone in this or any industry that deals with wildlife and is often killing that wildlife to solve problems.

Whether you or I care one way or the other about this suit won't matter much, what will matter is when they eventually do succeed in knocking off WS and then look around to see who to get next.

As David and others said, make sure you've got a strong state association because without that and your national association not much will stop people like this.

If you think that NWCO's aren't on their hit list, check linked in and look at the discussion from folks like wildlife rehabbers and non profit groups who are looking still for ways to regulate folks in this industry right out of work.

The agenda out there is don't use animals, don't kill animals and if your on the other side as most nwco's are, you should know what is on the wind.

The day WS is knocked off leaves a massive vacuum for these non profits to fill and who do we think is the next logical target?

hunters, trappers, nwco's????

Not scare tactics, just truth, these people make their living by developing programs to sue and raise money for that purpose, we don't have the funds or ability to fight this without serious preparation!

Since many people are fur and adc trappers on this forum, ask yourselves how trapping will be protected from these folks and their agenda.

They are very able at taking the lack of science on furbearers and using that to stop seasons and take, along with their other colleagues and non profits.

This is what they do and they do it well!

The other article posted by Wildlife 2 listed defazio against chemical tools like 1080 and m-44's, but guess what, defazio also sponsors all kinds of foothold legislation!

Just saying, while the short term look might be glossy for folks, don't forget whats behind the big picture!!!!

Justin

I am going to have to agree with much of this, BUT. I think WS needs to be upgraded to a more modern level. They serve a purpose in some areas that may either be remote and have a shortage of professional trappers or in a situation where a speices that needs to be controlled that maybe endangered or at secure sites. The biggest change that needs to be made is If there is a private Tax paying company that is willing, properly trained and able to do the work, then WS should be required to stay out of the way. I have not seen much that they can do that any private company can't do. Our company does bio, sampling(blood, fecal, and hair for DNA) and all the weights and measures need. As for animals that mey not be on most state ADC lists like deer, etc. There are many companies that are trained or for matter could get the training to handle these. I have said security might be an issue but I have better clearance the one of the people I know who works for WS but he took an airport job from me a couple years ago for just that reason.
I think Justin makes an excellent point about the people filing this legal crap and that we need to band together and be one.

That said, as a former board member of NWCOA and former NE Regional Director I can say this.
"After all is said and done, there will be more said then done".
Members need to be active, willing to do more then send in the dues and complain about not getting a patch or decal. They ALL need to give time and effort or the BS about a strong association is nothing more then just talk, and that will get you squat. So now that I opened that can of worms I can't wait to see the BS that will come down now.
Have a wonderful day
Don LaFountain

Don, anyone who has met you will probably not say a word, so here's a chance for me to see who you haven't met.

Well said Don

I have no arguement that WS needs to be changed, but I see this as an attack against any type of wildlife mgt.

"We want the court to ban its poisons, silence its guns, and pull up its traps because it's a horrendous misuse of our tax dollars to slaughter the nation's bears, wolves, coyotes, and myriad other species," said Wendy Keefover, the group's director of carnivore protection.

They aren't worried about tax dollars being spent. They are using charismatic species to make their case and ignoring geese getting sucked into jet engines or nutria destroying marshes.

Matt

Precisely, They are but another group of bleeding heart, liberal vegetarians who want to eliminate any killing of animals for food, sport or control. They are in the same class as HSUS and PETA.

I may be wrong but isn't there something in the constitution stating the government will not compete with private sector in business. maybe there isn't I never saw it but was told something like this way back in High school, maybe I should have paid more attention LOL