While I tend to agree with BucTrapper, I do appreciate everyone's comments on this subject, especially with our WWCOA meeting just two days away. I have heard of no WS deer program in Wisconsin and I agree that they can have the one beaver per mile. But I only cover one little part of the state and it's the most populated part, so hearing what you guys from all over have to say is important. Perhaps we need to get a little discussion going on Thursday.

Like I said I don't have a stake in this fight so I'm not trying to harass anyone or get under anyone's skin.

You guys and your families depend on this for your livelihood so I understand the animosity towards WS.

Lastly,

My comments about Wisconsin WS' beaver program were only in regards to the "trout program" link that someone posted in here.

I have no idea if they take on smaller beaver contracts (dikes, culverts, trout ponds, etc. etc.)

usda wildlife services'
cash cow

USDA is using this law to push private companies off of DOd properties.
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/USCODE_2011_title16_chap5C.pdf
Millions of dollars are being taken away from private wco companies and given to wildlife services.

Cody,

Can you point to the part of this USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) document that talks about WS?

How does USDA use a USFWS law?

I think you'd get more mileage out of your anti WS posts if you illustrate for the reader the smoking gun you
believe you've found.

Hows that FOIA for NM coming along? Did you find all the money being stolen from me and the other 3 guys
in the state doing wildlife work?

wildlifeus, if you are losing so much work to Wildlife Services, maybe you should re-evaluate your business model or consider another career. From what I'm told, they have strict policies against competition with the private sector. In fact, if there is a bidding process for the proposed work, they cannot even offer a bid.

Haha thanks for the advice. All this time I thought they were allowed to compete against private companies. Thanks for clearing things up.

You're welcome, and I am glad that I could cheer you up as well.

wildlifeus,

I agree 150% with you that wildlife services should not be competing with private industry, that private industry does a better job on any sized project at a tax saving to the American public. In addition to many of the points made in your posts, not only does ws act unethically/illegally but it is getting national public attention (google wildlife services exposed). Regardless of the source the actions of ws give our whole industry a poor appearance. So when congress does act to correct ws they, as in the past, will likely encompass the whole industry.

To address this problem before hand I believe we, private industry wildlife companies, need to do what we can to separate ourselves from ws. Most of us in the business maintain high standards, we should continue to do so. We should also continue to support private industry, pay taxes, and remain competitive. I am also in support of a stronger state level and congressional lobby.

Thanks for providing your posts,

NV man

Gull work

http://www.berlindailysun.com/index.php?...&Itemid=442

Some more gull work

http://www.htrnews.com/article/20140325/...?nclick_check=1

Wildlifeus,

That is a lot of work the private industry should be doing. I will email the city manager and support that private industry should be doing the work. I encourage others to do the same.

We know how effective USDA has been at eradicating cormorants and the millions they spent on that...... They have been chasing hogs for decades can they point at one success?
Don't forget to pay your taxes before the 15th. They are clearly going to need your $$$

USDA ANNOUNCES $20 MILLION EFFORT TO REDUCE DAMAGE
CAUSED BY FERAL SWINE

WASHINGTON, April 2, 2014 — Undersecretary for USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs Edward Avalos announced today that USDA is kicking off a national effort to reduce the devastating damage caused by feral, or free ranging, swine. The $20 million program aims to help states deal with a rapidly expanding population of invasive wild swine that causes $1.5 billion in annual damage and control costs.

“Feral swine are one of the most destructive invaders a state can have,” said Undersecretary Avalos. “They have expanded their range from 17 to 39 states in the last 30 years and cause damage to crops, kill young livestock, destroy property, harm natural resources, and carry diseases that threaten other animals as well as people and water supplies. It’s critical that we act now to begin appropriate management of this costly problem.”

The Wildlife Services (WS) program of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will lead the effort, tailoring activities to each state’s circumstance and working closely with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local entities. WS will work directly with states to control populations, test animals for diseases, and research better methods of managing feral swine damage. A key part of the national program will include surveillance and disease monitoring to protect the health of our domestic swine.

Feral swine have become a serious problem in 78% of all states in the country, carrying diseases that can affect people, domestic animals, livestock and wildlife, as well as local water supplies. They also cause damage to field and high-value crops of all kinds from Midwestern corn and soybeans to sugar cane, peanuts, spinach and pumpkins. They kill young animals and their characteristic rooting and wallowing damages natural resources, including resources used by native waterfowl, as well as archeological and recreational lands. Feral swine compete for food with native wildlife, such as deer, and consume the eggs of ground-nesting birds and endangered species, such as sea turtles.

“In addition to the costly damage to agricultural and natural resources, the diseases these animals carry present a real threat to our swine populations,” said Avalos. “Feral swine are able to carry and transmit up to 30 diseases and 37 different parasites to livestock, people, pets and wildlife, so surveillance and disease monitoring is another keystone to this program.”

As part of the national program, APHIS will test feral swine for diseases of concern for U.S. pork producers, such as classical swine fever, which does not exist in the United States, as well as swine brucellosis, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, swine influenza, and pseudorabies. Ensuring that domestic swine are not threatened by disease from feral swine helps ensure that U.S. export markets remain open.

APHIS aims to have the program operating within 6 months and funding for the comprehensive project includes, among other things:
• $9.5 million for state projects
• $1.4 million for establishing procedures for disease monitoring, including the development of new surveillance and vaccination methods
• $1.5 million for WS’ National Wildlife Research Center to conduct research and economic analyses to improve control practices
• $1.6 million for the centralization of control operations, and for making them safer and more cost-effective
Initial state funding levels will be based on current feral swine populations and associated damage to resources. Because feral swine populations, like most wildlife, cross international borders, APHIS will also coordinate with Canada and Mexico on feral swine damage management.

“We’ve already begun this type of work through a pilot program in New Mexico,” said Avalos. “Through this pilot program, we have successfully removed feral swine from 1.4 million acres of land. By applying the techniques such as trap monitors and surveillance cameras we have developed through this pilot project, we aim to eliminate feral swine from two States every three to five years and stabilize feral swine damage within 10 years.”

I will have to save this quote. My understanding as to properties in different states, access, capability, and present technology is quite different to come up with such a statement. Especially in Texas, La., Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolina,s.

I forgot one of the hardest to access. FLORIDA

Kirk, it sounds an awful lot like the same old bull from them. Bold claims of development when truth be told they are stealing credit for what private industry developed. In this case Rod Pinkston of Jagerpro was the developer.

David,

We were using trap monitors from telonics and trail cameras long before rod started hitting conferences and talking about his methods. Telonics trap monitors and ATS trap monitors have been available for at least 10 years now and were developed for wolf and grizzly trapping for remote locations where flying in would be costly to check empty gear.

The trail cams obviously you know have been around a long time as well, with new added cellular benefit that can expand even greater what is happening.

When I got to NM in 2008 we were using trap monitors and trail cams in conjunction to allow a trapper to check a valley full of traps in about 5 minutes worth of dialing in the signals, this made things more efficient, more cost effective and more humane in terms of ability to trap check and remove quicker.
(Used cams and monitors in OR as well around 2005 onward...)

I saw him show his gear at one of many national feral swine conferences in a subsequent year, however most of it was focused on using the high tech infrared that the public can't actually mount on their rifles, though he did show as well the remote fired trap door (car door remote) and using a cam to see how many hogs were coming.

This was being used far earlier in the agency for a variety of wildlife species from pelicans on a beach to canon net to deer, hogs, coyotes and others...

Now, stating we can eliminate X hogs from X states in X years, to me is a very bold statement indeed, however the NM program I know well and they are indeed eliminating hogs on a system wide basis with amazing landowner support because folks don't want the hogs once they understand the damages.

I would agree and so should the undersecretary, that states like TX, CA, LA, FL and a few others who have had hogs since first settlements shouldn't be part of that equation.

He should have clarified in my opinion that states that have emerging hog issues but aren't completely covered up are the type of states where eradication can have the greatest impact and chance of success.

***

To be clear this wasn't a pro WS retort, just clarification that techniques that Rod and others use widely may be tweaked and slightly different, but in NM the those he mentions were developed on the ground by myself and another field employee who is still out there using them to great success. I say this not to toot a horn, but simply that no one poached this idea, it was organic due to available technology and a need.

We needed to know when we had the maximum amount of hogs coming so we could set pre-baited traps to take the entire sounder rather than running guillotine doors and catching singles and doubles, we always used large corral traps wherever physically possible to take the group thereby leaving the other hogs naive to the equipment, which as you know well is sound practice with any wildlife.

The other thing that we did indeed poach, was we talked to the New Zealand folks and I bought some transmitters that we ultimately got into the field on hogs to act as Judas pigs, one of the best eradication techniques in low density populations. This technique they are still using and it leads you to new populations, gives you a way to remove more hogs quicker and so forth.

Happy to admit I didn't invent that, but a great tool!

Again, not pro WS statement, just stating the facts in this case don't lead back to jager, though I do find his business model an awesome one
that I bet everyone wishes they could copy from a private industry standpoint. Great money maker!



Justin

I guess my reflex response would be: "Don't let anything get out of control in your area." And except for coyotes, I haven't!

I am ashamed to admit that coyotes are not something I have time for. A well-known friend of mine put it this way: "If you want a challenge, trap coyotes. If you want to make money, trap squirrels."

And to be honest, coyotes in our area must have taken some kind of a hit. ( Mange, perhaps ) I had really felt that by now we would have been inundated with calls. Maybe a handful a year and then nothing earth shaking. No pets killed. Too full of venison, I suppose.