无线通信服务

按photo by Yuriy Chemerys

A Killing Program Out of Control

alittle-known US Department of Agriculture(USDA)program is using brutal methods and taxpayer dollars to indiscriminately kill wildlife across the United States。This program,ironically entitled Wildlife Services(WS),kills approximately5million animals each year in the name of“managing problems caused by wildlife.”It operates with notoriously little transparency,refusing the public access to records documenting many of its killing activities.The program engages in myriad cruel practices,ranging from steel-jaw leghold trapping to poisoning and aerial shooting—ata substantial cost to taxpayers。

无线服务

Kills indiscriminately。WS has killed more than50000nontarget animals representing over150species since2000,including endangered species and family pets。1个In addition,the intentional killing of targeted species often is not limited to those animals who have actually depredated livestock or game。

Uses inhumane traps。WS relies on steel-jaw leghold traps,which cause excruciating and prolonged pain to their victims.Leghold traps also endanger nontarget wildlife and domestic pets。

Wastes tax dollars。Avast number of the killings carried out by the program are not only brutal and unnecessary—they are also expensive。The program’s annual budget exceeds$100million,about half of which is drawn from federal funds。2Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that a portion of the funding for WS is drawn from private sources who have far more leverage than taxpayers in dictating the priorities and activities of the program。

Harms the environment。WS indiscriminately kills native carnivores inamisguided attempt to protect game and livestock,ignoring detrimental environmental consequences.Eliminating carnivores can wreak havoc on ecosystems because small mammal density can surge,and these animals may carry disease and compeoth gaspecies for。3Herbivore numbers may also grow unchecked,leading to overbrowsing and overgrazing。

Relies on ineffective methods。Coyotes respond to lethal control by compensatory reproduction;thus,killing merely leads to increased breeding,litter size,and pup survival。4个Livestock predation may actually increase because there are more coyote pups to feed,thus perpetuating an endless cycle of government spending on“damage control”efforts with no measurable benefits。

Ignores humane,nonlethal management options。Although alternatives to WS’inhumane and lethal predator control tools—including fladry,fencing,and light-and sound-generating devices,in addition to shed lambing and night penning practices—are available and have been shown to successfully depredation,WS primarily relies on cruel traction and killing。

Threatens public safety。WS employs dangerous,nonselective poisons that can be lethal to humans.Sodium cyanide devices known asM-44s have poisoned nontarget wildlife,family dogs,and even humans,5while Compound1080—a poison that causes prolonged suffering and death,and to which there is no antidote—is a known homeland security risk。6个

Lacks accountability。WS has been widely condemned as lacking transparency and accountability in its practices and protocols.For example,investigations7have revealed a disturbing trend of“shoot,shovel and shut up“for nontarget animals—including threatened and endangered species—who are killed and not reported.In addition,because WS fails to verify all livestock losses and allows ranchers to self-report such losses, statistics produced by WS regarding livestock depredation are dubious at best and raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the program’s predator control activities。

The myriad problems plaguing WS underscore the need for substantial changes to program culture and procedure.The program’s ineffective,inhumane,and irresponsible practices threaten human health,animal welfare,and the environment.Ask your legislators to stop the use of taxpayer dollars to inscrill minmingilly单击功能区上, and demand transparency and accountability from WS。

1。See,SeeAPHIS Wildlife Services,Program Data Reports for fiscal years2000-2011,可操作的,可操作的http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/prog_data_report.shtml。

2See,for example单击功能区上,APHIS Wildlife Services,2011 Program Data Report A:Fiscal Year2011 Federal and Cooperative Funding,可操作的,可操作的http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/201_prog_data/PDR_A/Basic_Tables_PDR_A/PDR_Table_A.pdf。

3See,for example单击功能区上,Henke,S.E.and F.C.Bryant.2012.Effects of Coyote Removal on the Faunal Community in Western Texas。管道管理63(4):1066-1081。

4See,SeeKnowlton,F.F.1972.Preliminary interpretation of coyote population mechanics with some management implications。管道管理36:369-382;Windberg,L.A.1995.Demography of a high-density coyote population。车辆日记帐74:942-954。

5See,for example单击功能区上,Watson,K.and G.Hanscom.2000.Poison traps kill unintended victims。High Country News,March13

6See,SeeCentral Intelligence Agency.2004.Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD;Federal Bureau of Investigation.201.FBI contacts for suspicious pesticiide/organophosphate nerve gas incidents;Hickman, D.C.1999.A Chemical and Biological Warfare Threat:USAF Water Systems at Risk.U.S.Air Force Counterproliferation Center,Maxwell Air Force Base,AL。

7See,for example单击功能区上,Knudson,T.2012.Suggestions in changing Wildlife Services range from new practices to outright bans。Sacramento Bee,May6单击功能区上,p.1A;Knudson,T.2012.Wildlife Services’deadly force opens Pandora’s box of environmental problems。Sacramento Bee,April30单击功能区上,p.1A;Knudson,T.2012.The killing agency:Wildlife Services’brutal methods leave a trail of animal death。Sacramento Bee,April29,p.1A。