Aerial gunning, that is, shooting animals from aircraft, occurs on a mix of
private and public lands -- including national forests, deserts, sage steppes,
canyonlands, and prairies. The federal government, some states (i.e., Wyoming
and South Dakota), and private individuals conduct this practice.
Federal taxpayers and others pay hundreds of dollars per animal. According to
one study by federal researchers, the cost of killing a coyote is between $185
and $805 per individual (Wagner and Conover 1999). Think of the overhead
involved for the USDA and for states: maintaining a fleet of aircraft, wages
and other employee compensations, and fuel and ammunition costs -- for
starters. The ecological damage: priceless.
Citizens and industry groups have funneled $1.6 billion dollars into
predator-killing programs between 1939 and 1998 (Berger, 2006). Yet that
investment did not benefit sheep ranchers. The decline of the sheep industry
had more to do with hay, labor, and lanb prices than livestock predation
(Berger, 2006).
Do lethal predator controls such as poisons, traps, and aerial gunning keep
agri-business from failing? No. In fact, few livestock are lost to predators
each year. According to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service,
most livestock losses come from disease, weather, birthing problems,
starvation, or lightening. Less than 1% of cattle and 3% of sheep produced in
the U.S. each year are killed by predators (more
information).
Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program
kills tens of thousands of native wildlife annually for the benefit of
livestock growers and farmers. In 2006, Wildlife Services killed 1.6 million
animals, including 117,113 mammalian carnivores, of which 34,056 were shot from
aircraft in Western states. The regional aerial gunning toll included 25,349
coyotes, 449 bobcats, 56 wolves, and 81 red foxes.
Incredibly adaptable and resilient, does it matter if thousands of coyotes are
"disappeared"?
Yes, because coyotes assist ecological function. By preying on other smaller
carnivores such as foxes, raccoons, skunks, and yes, the occasional tabby, they
indirectly benefit bird and rodent populations (Mezquida et al. 2006,
Crooks and Soule, 1999, Henke and Bryant, 1999). Without coyotes, kiss some of
your favorite feathered friends such as Greater Sage Grouse adieu.
In other words, coyotes, like other top carnivores, promote richness in
biological diversity.
The ironically named "Wildlife Services" provide pain, mutilation, and death to
wild animals. Such tricksters, their name closely mirrors that of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, whose mandate is to protect endangered species, not
exterminate them.
Aerial gunning hinders excellent wildlife management. Consider this:
-
Because Wildlife Services usually aerial guns native wildlife in early spring,
they kill females, leaving orphaned young.
-
Low flying aircraft, punctuated by loud gunshots, stress wild creatures.
Studies indicate that aircraft noise and vibrations can even damage hearing of
birds, deer, big horn sheep, pronghorn, and a whole host of other species (C.M.
Pepper et al. 2003).
-
The visual appearance of aircraft cause flight responsesa: animals expend
energy to escape perceived threats. If food is in short supply, as it is in
months following winter, it may alter an animal’s chance for survival or affect
reproduction (Ibid.).
Since 1979, Wildlife Services experienced at least 51 aircraft accidents. The
result: 38 injuries or fatalities to federal agents (more
information). Non-federal entities have crashed in even more abundant
numbers (more information). Obviously,
flying close to the ground while chasing coyotes, foxes, or wolves can lead to
trouble, such as flying into powerlines, trees, or land formations. Flying low
leaves little maneuvering room when pilots experience unexpected gusts of wind.
Aerial gunning fosters dependence on the government, because it’s highly
subsidized. Instead, it’s time for agribusiness to take common sense
precautions to protect their livestock and use a whole host of non-lethal
predator control measures. It’s good for business, good the for the
environment, and good for the taxpayer.
To get involved, contact me at wendy@wildearthguardians.org.
Sincerely,
Wendy Keefover-Ring
Carnivore Protection Director, WildEarth Guardians
Coordinator, AGRO: A National Coalition to End Aerial Gunning of Wildlife
303.447.8655, Ext. 1#
http://www.goagro.org/
http://www.wildearthguardians.org/
Bibliography:
Berger, Kim Murray. 2006. Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts: Effects of Subsidized
Predator Control and Economic Correlates on the Sheep Industry. Conservation
Biology 20 (3):751-761.
Crooks, Kevin, and Michael Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal
extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature, 400: 563-566.
Henke, Scott E., and Fred C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of Coyote Removal on the
Faunal Community in Western Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 63
(4): 1066-1081.
Mezquida, Eduardo, Steven Slater, and Craig Benkman. 2006. Sage-Grouse and
indirect interactions: Potential Implications of Coyote Control on Sage-Grouse
Populations. The Condor. 108:747-759.
Pepper, Christopher, Marc Nascarella, and Ronald Kendall. 2003. A Review of the
Effects of Aircraft noise on wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms,
and the need for further study. Environmental Management 32 (4):
418-432.
Wagner, Kimberly, and Michael Conover. 1999. Effect of Preventive Coyote
Hunting on Sheep Losses to Coyote Predation. 63 Journal of Wildlife Management
2: 606-612. [This study had several methodological problems. See discussion in
Brian Mitchell et al. 2004. Coyote Depredation Management: Current Methods and
Research Needs. 32 Wildlife Society Bulletin 4: 1209-1218.]
|
