Animal kills by Wildlife Services more than double in ’08

Animal kills by federal agency more than double

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN
Associated Press Writer

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The number of animals poisoned, shot or snared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture more than doubled last year, and environmentalists who are critical of the killings renewed their effort Tuesday to limit the agency’s funding for such activities.

7 Responses to “Animal kills by Wildlife Services more than double in ’08”

  1. ProWolf in WY Says:

    When it comes to managing problem species, Wildlife Services said it will try to use non-lethal tactics such as getting local officials to enact no feeding policies at parks or encouraging airport managers to make their facilities less attractive to wildlife.

    I’ll believe that when I see it.

  2. Virginia Says:

    The method that Mayor Bloomberg of New York is going to use to “manage” 2,000 Canadian geese that nest around the airport will be to gas them all. Now, there is some wildlife management for you. Could they even try to relocate the geese?

  3. JimT Says:

    Given the general attitude of the Obama administration and its appointments, I doubt if cutting the budget of this wildlife killing agency is doable politically. There were a couple of articles that our local newspaper picked up on the environment this morning…one has to do with the disconnect between the rhetoric of the Obama folks on protecting the environment, and their actions, especially by Justice, on taking postures in cases on mountain top removal, the roadless rule, etc. that is just a continuation of the Bush policies. Frankly, I have had just about enough of the Dem’s “trust us” on the environment, especially when it comes to animals and land issues. I will probably work on the Colorado Bennett’s reelection campaign, and I won’t be shy about making my opinions heard about the fence sitting Interior is doing, and fact that without environmentalists, he won’t win reelection, and neither will Udall when he runs again. Like others have said here, we need to hold these folks accountable regardless of party.

  4. JimT Says:

    The other article is on wolves in the Methow Valley and the str0ng fears the presence of three or 4 wolves are causing. I swear, ranchers are the biggest whiners and worryworts. You have Defenders with their reimbursement fund..at full market value, mind you..for any forensically proven wolf kills; gnawing away on a carcass that died from disease or from neglectful husbandry practices are not covered, nor should they be. So, the economic impacts argument is just a sham. What else is there that justifies these actions (in this same article, there is mention of confiscation of a bloody wolf pelt that was mail bound for Canada from this area by some folks who thought they could kill a wolf without consequence..gee, wonder how they got that idea?….Just comes down to sheer, irrational hatred.

  5. Linda Hunter Says:

    I had a dream the other night that I was in a crowded room and a panel of experts were telling the ranchers there that they must learn to ranch with predators because a large majority of people who live in America want the natural lands to be natural. . then one rancher stood up and said “OK if that’s what they want they are going to pay big time for their next hamburger.” Everyone said yeah . . that’s what we’ll do is raise prices sky high. Then a doctor of cardiology stood up and said “well, that would be a good thing for Americans because at the rate they currently eat beef they are spending much more on open heart surgery.” Dreams are weird sometimes in that you wonder where some of the content comes from.. .maybe from reading this blog huh?

  6. JimT Says:

    At this point in time, our household eats more bison meat if we eat red meat than anything else, or we eat local grass fed beef from folks within 30 or so miles of Boulder, CO. I haven’t seen the latest stats..maybe someone here has them, but I do remember reading that if all public land ranching stopped tomorrow, it would impact less than 3% of the available beef on the market. So, you tell me how much impact it would have on the average consumer vs. how much benefit the public lands would enjoy if cattle were no longer beating up the resource. But, so long as folks like Salazar are continually put into the most important Federal lands post, public land ranchers will continue to enjoy disproportionate influence on the management of the resources.

    Maybe your dreams will become a reality some day…VBG…

  7. Alan Gregory Says:

    Here’s a good LTE on “managing” white-tailed deer and coyotes in Maine. Note the word “wolves” in this fine letter.
    http://www.flyrodreel.com/node/12465


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: