They make us all look bad. Time to shut them
down.

http://komonews.com/news/nation-world/fe...-dog-03-17-2017

Role debated

http://www.agweek.com/news/nation-and-world/4234950-role-usda-wildlife-services-debated

Effective hog control? Or a waist of tax payers money? This method even contradicts their own recommendations!!!

http://www.swoknews.com/local/feral-hog-control-operation-close-parts-wildlife-refuge-today

I've seen results of aerial gunning hogs firsthand, and I can tell you the shoot the heck out of hogs. I think it's a good way to manage them in certain locations.

Aerial gunning is very effective.

When trying to remove a massively reproductive invasive species you look at all the tools on the table.

Where habitat and terrain allows, aerial operations are without a doubt the quickest way to achieve the greatest
drop in invasive feral swine numbers.

When I was still with the agency we utilized judas hogs, in conjunction with corral trapping, making aerial hunting even
more effective in our state where density and distance between populations was greater than it is in many states that
are currently overrun by this top notch invader.

Factually the best example of a successful operation that removed feral hogs rapidly utilizing multiple methods in a coordinated
campaign was done by "pro hunt" now going by "native range." These folks are out of NZ and perform large scale projects on a
variety of levels. I remember seeing this talk at a national hog conference back then, very impressive work, not cheap, but they
were basically agreeing to a price up front and thus if they finished early, they kept more income.

Since I know "wildlifeus" (cody) is interested in talking about private versus govt. work and removing WS from the equation, here
is an example of feral hog control done by a private entity for more funds than I've seen spent on any single project in the continental
United States for them.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709004935

I had the pleasure of pursuing this invasive species in multiple states and most of my time here in NM when still a fed was coordinating
a program that is now close to achieving their complete eradication utilizing some of the most innovative methods available for detection
of remaining populations currently.

Have seen folks try to shoot their way out using hunters and dogs (takes hogs but scatters hogs all over and onto property without access
leaving refuges along the way for them to hold up and repopulate before returning.

Trapping with corral traps and repeating doors takes large numbers, and when used with remote monitoring systems is a great way to extend
funds though initial investment is high.

Flying into a valley or over a drainage and being able to remove an entire sounder of 30-40+ hogs in moments is by far the most efficient way
if you have the numbers to not have you covering too much ground to find them, or have judas hogs to track on to enable detection.

I get that you argue for the private industry that I'm a part of and that WS (my former shop) isn't needed, but with hogs and aerial hunting I'd probably
avoid talking about a waste of funds when it is absolutely effective and against an invader that is one of the worst ecological disasters ever released by
humans on the landscape.

Well said HD. Delivered is such a way that any reasonable, thinking person can understand...

Thank you for the post wildlifeus. Sounds like the state of North Carolina has a handle on what it will take to eradicate these horribly damaging swine. I commend you for bringing this cold hard fact to our attention.

$28,000 for pigeon control. This contract violates USDA WS memorandum with NPMA

http://www.wxow.com/story/37094363/2017/...geon-population

I don’t remember the Memorandum saying they couldn’t
perform pigeon control, just that they were supposed to ask
clients if they’ve called private companies to try to resolve first.

Also didn’t the MOU expire quite some time ago?

I’ve physically listened to supervisors in my old office telling
people emphatically they had to go with private first including
large contracts.

I’ve also seen them be told they did go with private, 2-3 companies
and they were not satisfied with results.

Is there a link showing the MOU is still in force? Don’t you have
to be a member of NPMA for the MOU to work for you? (so nwcos
who don’t belong to NPMA wouldn’t be covered)?

20k for rodent work.

http://theprowersjournal.com/2017/12/troy-manor-motel-eyed-for-demolition/

They haven't signed yet so there may still be time for a local NWCO to get their hat in the game.

Either way here is clear evidence that USDA is competing against all of us.

Yep it is against me for sure...we did a small netting job in la crosse back in earlybaugust

WS out of beaver game in Oregon SStatesman Journal

Sam, did you read that article in the Statesman Journal which you included in your post?
Do you know that salmon require cool, flowing water for their eggs to hatch? Does that sound like something that a beaver pond would provide?
Do you know that spawning salmon do not feed, therefore making the "providing food for fish" a moot point?
In your wildest dreams, would you expect placing a culvert pipe under a beaver dam would solve a beaver nuisance problem?
How many trees would need to be protected by tree guards to solve a beaver problem?
With the suspension of Wildlife Services activities, and with all of these "inciteful alternative" suggestions by an organization which has shown little in the way of evidence that any of them have ever been outside, let alone ever spent any time in a beaver swamp, do you think that you now have a shot at some nuisance beaver work for the state of Oregon?

That has long been one of the arguments against beaver trapping in Oregon(and other places, presumably), that without ponds created by beaver, young salmon and steelhead have no rearing ponds and calm waters to grow up in. It may have some validity in the coastal mountain streams draining to the Pacific Ocean. I dont know all the places WS does beaver trapping in Oregon, but I do know a lot of it is done in the Willamette Valley on farms, private ponds and lakes, and "Urban Waterways", i.e. sloughy creeks that run through a lot of towns around here.

Salmon and steelhead face many problems on the West Coast, I am not sure if this is in the top ten. But is is an angle that various anti trapping orgs have been trying to use for a long time. I already get quite a bit of beaver work here and I'm not sure how this will affect guys like me int the future, but I will be watching it for sure. In the short term it might help private guys get more work. Long term? Who knows. I know this thread is about keeping ADC work private, but a govt. agency that does trapping can be an ally in the fight to keep trapping rights. Oregon has by far the most "liberal" trapping laws on the West Coast, so we are a target for sure. We will see how it plays out.
Maybe Justin could weigh in, this area is his old stomping grounds, I believe.

Question. Why does the article state that M44's are used? I've never heard of that for beavers?

Lol. Bad info in a newspaper article. Who'd a think it? Assuming they meant WS uses m44 for coyotes.

More beaver work for USDA

https://www.greenecountyheraldonline.com/2018/02/08/new-contract-aimed-at-lessening-beaver-problem/

Wonder why this work wasn't bid out. My understanding is that USDA cannot participate in a bidding situation.