Good article but: killing 170,000 geese and 950,000 pigeons is not impressive to me or anyone else who knows about wildlife. Pigeons are non-native germ carriers that if completely annihilated, would be a good thing. Geese, thanks to DNRs in almost every state, seem to be trying to seek pigeon status. A very sad case of a once regal bird now reduced to spreading its filth far and wide. I see ten times as many geese killed on the road than I used to shoot in a season.


In the next article I hope they use some animal or bird that the people get upset about because the government is going to keep overstepping its authority without a public outcry.

I believe it is fair to say that WS is and will be in direct competition for work that we are capable of doing as NWCO's. Some of these jobs NWCO's might not want to do for one reason or the other, but once WS gets their foot in the door people will see them as the authorities and professionals that are qualified to do these jobs and NWCO's will be left doing residential low paying jobs. I have lost two goose jobs and a beaver job to WS in which a municipality choose them because they were Govt. based and felt more comfortable with them. WS does sound like they are highly qualified and would be a safer bet than hiring some private sector guy who may or may not be able to handle the job. This is not free market competition when you are competing against the government.

Anotherone lost to USDA Wildlife Services

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589955515

REEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT REACHED
Terms Will Affect Public Records Requests Nationwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 2, 2013

WEST YELLOWSTONE, MONTANA: Buffalo Field Campaign and the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS") reached a settlement today obligating the agency to undertake sweeping changes in how it processes and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests from citizens nationwide.

The settlement, filed in Montana federal district court, resolves a complaint by Buffalo Field Campaign alleging that APHIS had improperly withheld government documents and had engaged in a "pattern or practice" of failing to timely respond to public information requests. The complaint further alleged that APHIS had repeatedly delayed public disclosure of the documents sought by Buffalo Field Campaign by giving itself extensions of time not permitted by the Freedom of Information Act.

Requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act require federal agencies to respond within twenty business days; in some instances, Buffalo Field Campaign says APHIS had given itself months of improper extensions.

"The Freedom of Information Act is a powerful tool for the public to shed light on what the government is up to," says Daniel Brister, executive director of Buffalo Field Campaign. "We will be watchdogging this settlement to ensure that APHIS complies with the public's Freedom of Information Act requests."

The nonprofit bison advocacy group had submitted many public information requests to shed light on APHIS's bison population control experiments, births and deaths and welfare of bison in quarantine and associated costs, funding agreements with the Montana Dept. of Livestock, and investigative reports tracing sources of brucellosis infection in Montana cattle.

All of the documents received from APHIS have been posted online at the group's web site:
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/legal/aphisfoia.html

As a result of the lawsuit, APHIS will augment its Freedom of Information Act training program so the "unusual circumstances" provision of the FOIA, which allows agencies additional response time under certain specific circumstances, is properly used and followed by APHIS in responding to public information requests.

APHIS has also agreed to implement new procedures including a phone number or Internet link for the public to use to check on the status of their public information requests.

"Prompt public access to government records is a necessary ingredient for a healthy, transparent democracy," says Daniel Snyder, an attorney with the Law Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt, P.C. who represented Buffalo Field Campaign in its lawsuit. "Timely access is even more critical here, where the records sought by Buffalo Field Campaign illuminate the federal government's deplorable treatment of Yellowstone's threatened wild buffalo population. The new procedures APHIS must implement nationwide as a result of this lawsuit should result in the punctual disclosure of records requested by the public."

Attorney John Meyer from the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center in Bozeman, Montana, also represented Buffalo Field Campaign as local counsel.

APHIS will also pay Buffalo Field Campaign's attorneys' fees and costs to settle the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

This case was against USDA APHIS Veterinary Services.

"The nonprofit bison advocacy group had submitted many public information requests to shed light on APHIS's bison population control experiments, births and deaths and welfare of bison in quarantine and associated costs, funding agreements with the Montana Dept. of Livestock, and investigative reports tracing sources of brucellosis infection in Montana cattle."

Nothing to do with USDA WS unless your just stating this sets a precedence of some sort?

Yes just the presedence. For USDA which is the parent "company" of WS
I do not know anything about the reason they did the FOIA.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_nepa_public_notice_FL.shtml

Expanding in FL

We just stumbled across this one. A new way the USDA is trying to circumvent the FAA requirements.

We all know that USDA WS “can’t” bid on FAA funded WHA’s. (The average advertised WHA project gets over 20 bids from the private sector.) Well in this case they didn’t, at least not directly. The Georgia DOT bid on the project and were awarded the contract. Then the DOT subcontracted USDA to do the work. Below is some supporting information;

This is a resolution from the airport board that documents that the DOT was awarded the contract.
• a request from the Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority to approve a resolution authorizing the execution of a contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment Study at the Valdosta Regional Airport, unanimously.

This is a link to the USDA document that proves they are doing the WHA at the airport.
http://valdostadailytimes.com/local/x993486272/Moody-cries-fowl


The down side to this is that I’m not sure if this is a violation. In my mind it is but I need to look into it further.

The upside is that because a state agency is involved, anyone located in Georgia can now contact their State reps and ask them to investigate the issue.

How many private companies do work and pay taxes in the State of GA, only to have the State Stab them in the back. I am interested to hear your feedback.

Thanks Cody more proof USDA is doing its part to undermine our industry and playing their part in destroying our nations economy. More jobs lost to a government with one mission in mind to destroy the very fabric that made this nation great -Private Jobs.

Nothing new. I've known for the longest that the Georgia DOT is a closed shop when comes to wildlife the same as it is with Georgia Power (Energen Corp) and Norfolk Southern.

URGENT!
The NYSDEC is about to sign a contract with USDA Wildlife Services. The contract is for state wide feral hog control.
Please call the NYSDEC and ask why you did not have an opportunity to bid on the contract, and ask for the opportunity to do so.

Here is the person to call;
NYSDEC
Commissioner
Joe Martens
518-402-8545

30 k for hog control...
Why is USDA shooting hogs when they say shooting Dosnt work?

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfn...es_hog_hun.html

wildlife2 - random hunting by the public in unorganized groups versus controlled hunting are two different things as you know.
I've spent a decade preaching about feral hog eradication methods and techniques both as a govt. guy and still as a private consultant
and contractor. Tuesday I'm giving a talk on feral hogs to BLM and other agencies in Roswell, NM.

I still speak the same way as I did before, whether it is a group of ranchers, hunters, or the govt. it must be a controlled scenario, otherwise
you are driving hogs away from your trap sites, moving them onto non hunted land or preserves where hunting might not be allowed or
available as a tool.

I know your whole deal is to see to it that a nwco can get into this scenario and there are some that of course could do that. I guess my
question to anyone reading is are there folks in this part of NY who are nwcos and want this contract but are not getting a chance to bid?

Often these stories are wonderful to read about as a piece of "news" but they don't tell me that there are nwco's sitting at home being displaced
by these folks.

I honestly do my best to avoid these discussions, but some of these projects feral hog being one of them, many folks are not setup for, and what
the county may be able to afford is not going to allow for nearly what a nwco could afford.

I will state this and leave it alone, I am a feral hog specialist, I know how to work feral hogs from the politics to having hogs on the ground through
a massive variety of removal methods, to disease sampling, submission and reporting.

However, to go to the field and offer feral hog control that would be meaningful, I'd be using more than 1/2 of that $30K just to gear up, then add
in labor and mileage and such and in the end this contract isn't near as valuable as sticking to bats, birds and other wildlife readily available.

I have literally had these opportunities since I opened my shop, your average operator isn't going to jump into this realm and be successful without a lot of build up over a multitude of years.

And I am not talking about the one outfit we all know of who offers hog control in the SE. I'm talking your average operator who offers wildlife control to the public.

Just my thoughts, folks can refute all they want, I've passed up contracts several times because there literally was no upside for my business other than exposure.

Additionally, if you take that $30K and don't deliver any better than the govt. would have, the damage to a private biz. is far far worse than what it is to the govt.

Justin

Justin, while I agree wholeheartedly and I think we are both on the same sheet of music when it comes to hog eradication. this issue still remains that these types of jobs are not being let out to bid from the private sector. It's not even an open and fair process when the private sector isn't given the opportunity to grow into that type of specialty.
You make absolute sense (dollar and cents) that the fees for that job would be spent just aquiring the equipment but it is the type of job I want to build off of. Unfortunately at present I'd have to foot the entire bill on the hope that I might someday be allowed to bid on this type of work.

We have not been told the cost of the ny project. But it will be well over 100k

How big of an area Cody? One county or the entire current known range of feral hog in NY?

The entire state but they are only in about 4 counties. Very low numbers.

As you likely know however low numbers actually requires more funding and more effort and time spent because
you can't just bump into a hog behind every bush the way you can in some parts of the country.

If there are low numbers you spend more time finding prime locations to setup equipment or establish bait sites.

So $100K to eradicate would be a low number both as a private guy and as an ex fed. Let alone with the resources
in NY state for hogs to feed on between agriculture and naturally provided (oak and other mast crop).

This aspect reinforces my issue, 4 counties = $25K per county and I would assume a 1 year contract based on fiscal
year, so you have 12 months (minus the months with massive deer hunting and other pressures from the public and
minus heavy winter conditions which may limit access and success), leaves you with about 8 months max of good
conditions, or 2 months per county.

Is the contract to eradicate or just stated as general removal?

If it is eradication, ouch, plus you have to have some method of proving you have been successful, which has only
been documented on channel islands off California where they had high fences, dog teams, trapping, helicopters,
judas pigs and camera systems.

Extremely difficult to quantify success, leaving the end result in question either for a private guy, or for the feds.

Just sayin, this doesn't sound like "easy money" or a contract that every guy wants, though I definitely understand
that some folks want in and I'm included in that bunch, but I want the right shot and the more I hear, the less this
one in NY seems like a positive one to step in...

Sounds more like a cow pie!