An Alternate Proposal of Managing Carnivores in North America

Non-Lethal Management of Predators in North America: A Recommendation Report

Prepared by:     FMCCastillo

                        Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences Bachelor’s Degree

                        Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Oregon State University

Subject:            Recommendation report on the study about increasing the priority of using non-lethal measures in predator management to prevent carnivore/human conflicts.

November 25, 2017

Grizzly bruin patrolling the Mud Flats in Grand Teton National Park. Photo credit: FMC

Abstract

“Non-Lethal Management of Predators in North America: A Recommendation Report”

Prepared by: Fernando Moreno-Castillo, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences student at Oregon State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (College of Agriculture).

The following is my study of the current model of the traditional predator management model in North America and non-lethal alternatives to it. I began by performing research on the current model of predator control to better understand the methods employed traditionally to mitigate carnivore-human conflict and the alternative methods. Then, I interviewed Dr. Stuart Breck and Dr. Michelle Lute, professionals on both ends of the spectrum of the subject of human-predator conflict and coexistence. I also interviewed other predator biologists such as David Parsons. I then researched data on the ecological benefits of predators on public lands. I was able to conclude that the presence of predators has a controlling effect on herbivores that prevents them from overbrowsing and overgrazing, which allows for proper regeneration of young trees, brush, and grasslands, which in turn allows for other species to populate the ecosystems where predators inhabit, thus increasing biodiversity. Additionally, the presence of larger predators such as wolves keeps the populations of medium to smaller predators like coyotes in check. I also studied the economic benefits to local economies of having predators in the wild for public viewing activities. Unfortunately, the research resulted in insufficient data to make an educated comparison between the revenues that hunting and wildlife viewing bring into local economies. I recommend that predator management implements the non-lethal management tools presented in this study as preventive and mitigative measures as primary tools in predator management. Additionally, I recommend that the general public be included in policy-making regarding wildlife management, in general, to avoid making decisions that not only represent the interests of the hunting and ranching community but other demographics from the general public as well.

Keywords: predators, wolf, coyote, bear, wildlife management, U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, human-predator conflict.

Executive Summary

To determine whether a switch in predator management policies in the United States is feasible, I have studied the current model of predator management, assessed public opinion towards predators, presented the benefits of having predators in the wild, studied the economic benefits of predators to local economies, assessed the non-lethal methods of predators available, compared both lethal and non-lethal methods of control, interviewed professionals in the field of wildlife management and conservation, and presented my finding and recommendations.

Currently, the model of predator conservation favors the lethal removal of large carnivores in areas of human use to prevent conflict. These methods include livestock protection collars, which have pouches of compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate), which are intended to kill the attacking predator, aerial shooting of the targeted wildlife, steel-jawed traps, and neck snares to hold the animals by the neck and often suffocates them in place, and M-44 devices, also known as cyanide ejectors that inject a lethal dose of sodium cyanide. The opinion of the general public is that they favor predators in our natural spaces and that they do not prefer lethal control of predators when applied broadly, but that they approve of it when applied in specific cases if the situation warrants it. Conversely, the hunting and ranching community generally views predators as direct competition and favors very strict control --largely lethal—of predators because they perceive predators as a threat to their lifestyles.

There are many alternatives to the lethal management of predators, which include livestock guarding animals (dogs, donkeys, llamas, and alpacas), fladry, night fencing, repellents (acoustic, chemical, and/or visual), animal armor, and food aversion conditioning. All of these methods have proven preventive effects against the predation of livestock.

When analyzing and contrasting both lethal and non-lethal methods of predator management, my research indicated that contrary to earlier preconceptions in wildlife management, lethal controls are not more economical nor are they more effective when studying the big picture. Only in isolated cases, they have proven to be more effective than their non-lethal counterpart options.

My interviews with professionals strengthened my claims that non-lethal methods are preferable and backed my findings even in the case of Dr. Breck, who works for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an agency that traditionally has favored and promoted lethal control of predators.

To carry out my study, I completed the tasks described in my proposal of October 7, 2017: study the current model of predator management, understand public and private opinion on the subject of predators, present the benefits of predators in the wild, study the economic benefits derived from revenue generated by outdoor activities such as wildlife photography and viewing in areas where predators live, in contrast with the revenue generated from trophy hunting of these predators, current non-lethal alternatives, compare both lethal and non-lethal methods in terms of ecological impact and cost-effectiveness and interview professionals in the field of predator management and conservation.

My main findings are that current predator control management policies favor lethal control of carnivores, which are often cruel and inhumane and can be counterproductive in many cases. The public has developed a much more positive attitude towards predators than during the 20th century and before and wants predators in our public lands. Alternatively, the hunting and ranching community remains opposed to the presence of predators in public lands and favors the lethal control of them primarily. Science has proven repeatedly that predators are essential to the well-functioning of our ecosystems and that because of them, ungulates (hoofed herbivores) and other species are prevented from overpopulating their habitats. Additionally, the scientific data is abundant to prove that they do not decimate their prey populations. There are non-lethal proven methods that work in the prevention and reduction of predation on livestock, such as livestock guarding animals (dogs, donkeys, llamas, and alpacas), fladry, night fencing, repellents (acoustic, chemical, and/or visual), animal armor, and food aversion conditioning and these methods are generally more effective ecologically sound to deal with human-predator conflicts.

I recommend that wildlife managers begin implementing policies that are largely inclined towards non-lethal measures of managing predators in public lands and that they move from the biased favoring of special interest groups such as ranching and hunting industries. 

Introduction

Predator management in the United States has traditionally meant flying helicopters in a sniper fashion, setting cyanide ejectors in public lands, steel-jagged trapping, den hunting, and diverse toxic baits. John A. Shivik reports that every year, thousands of predators in the United States are killed by agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program, which is a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the livestock industry (Shivik 17).

Agencies like Wildlife Services are stuck in a model of predator management that is old, no longer scientifically sound, and, in the past, has led to the near extinction of species like the Gray wolf and the Grizzly bear from the continental United States. Years later, and in an attempt to correct this wrongdoing, the reintroduction projects have cost the U.S. taxpayer millions of dollars that could have been better served on other very important conservation efforts.

Large carnivores and their conservation involve many factors and are a topic of much controversy. It involves polarized opinions and sparks heated discussions. In this study, I determine the feasibility of moving towards a common ground that involves greater protection for both humans and wildlife.

In this proposal. I investigate the current policies of predator control, which are often reactive and implemented once predation has occurred or predators have encroached on urban or rural residential areas. I proposed to present evidence on the benefits of employing preventive, non-lethal ways that avoid predation or the presence of predators in urban or residential areas. Some of these measures include fencing and fladry (Shivik 98) or food aversion conditioning (Ellins 65) and are designed to save taxpayer dollars as well as to ensure that we have a healthy number of predators in our natural spaces.

In my study to determine the best course of action for moving away from the older model into a more non-lethal integrated program of predator management, I have performed the following tasks:

●      Study the current policies and methods of addressing predators and the managing of situations where conflict is involved.

●      Understand both public opinion and hunting and livestock producer communities about coexisting with natural predators.

●      Present the many benefits of predator presence in the diverse habitats and ecosystems they inhabit, as well as their ecological niche and importance.

●      Study the economic benefits derived from revenue generated by outdoor activities such as wildlife photography and viewing in areas where predators live, in contrast with the revenue generated from trophy hunting of these predators.

●      Present the many methods proven to be effective in managing predators in a non-lethal manner such as employment of animal guards, fencing, and fladry, increased human presence around herds, and deterrent technology.

●      Compare both lethal and non-lethal methods mentioned in terms of ecological impact and cost-effectiveness.

●      Interview professionals in the field of predator management and conservation.

I recommend that federal and state agencies involved in the allocation of wildlife and its management consider implementing and prioritizing non-lethal methods of control as their preferred course of initial action and priority.

In the following sections, I provide additional details about my research methods, the results I obtained, the conclusions I drew from those results, and my recommendation.

Research Methods

I began my research by studying the literature on the complex issue of human and carnivore coexistence along with predator management in public lands. After that, I followed up by conducting interviews with professionals in the field of human-predator conflict and coexistence: Dr. Stewart Breck, a researcher for the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Research Center, and Dr. Michelle Lute, the Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner from the conservation organization Wild Earth Guardians. To perform my analysis, I broke the project down into seven tasks:

1. Study the current policies and methods of addressing predators and the managing of situations where conflict is involved.

2. Understand both public opinion and hunting and livestock producer communities about coexisting with natural predators.

3. Present the many benefits of predator presence in the diverse habitats and ecosystems they inhabit, as well as their ecological niche and importance.

4. Study the economic benefits derived from revenue generated by outdoor activities such as wildlife photography and viewing in areas where predators live, in contrast with the revenue generated from trophy hunting of these predators.

5. Present the many methods proven to be effective in managing predators in a non-lethal manner, such as employment of animal guards, fencing, and fladry, increased human presence around herds, and deterrent technology.

6. Compare both lethal and non-lethal methods mentioned in terms of ecological impact and cost-effectiveness.

7. Interview professionals in the field of predator management and conservation.

8. Analyze my data and prepare this recommendation report.

In the following discussion of how I performed each task, I explain the reasoning that guided my research.

Task 1. Acquire a basic understanding of the current management policies.

In my studies to become a wildlife biologist at Oregon State University, and when learning about predator management, I have become familiar with the methodology to be implemented in the field related to predator management. I went back to the coursework and textbooks used in my many classes, and, in addition, I studied the literature presented by Stuart Ellins and John A. Shivik. All the research points towards the same methodology used to mitigate predator presence among agricultural and ranching practices. Among them, the most common ones are:

●      Livestock protection collars are collars usually fitted onto sheep’s necks which have pouches of compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) which are intended to kill the attacking predator.

●      Aerial shooting is typically done from airships flown close to the ground from where a shooter snipes off the targeted wildlife.

●      Steel-jawed traps are foothold traps to hold the selected animal in place designed to have very little chance of accidental release of the animal.

●      Neck Snares are a variation of snares with coyotes in mind to hold them by the neck and suffocate them in place.

●      M-44 devices, also known as cyanide ejectors, are tubular devices that inject a lethal dose of sodium cyanide. They are mainly used against foxes, coyotes, and feral dogs.

I found that these techniques are effective, thus their popularity when dealing with predators. However, they are not humane, and I argue scientifically outdated and obsolete, in disposing of problem predators. Additionally, they sometimes become counterproductive, resulting in no visible effects on decreasing or preventing livestock depredations or, worse yet, increasing them.

Task 2. Determine the attitude of the public, hunter community, and livestock producer community towards the increased presence of predators in public lands.

Stuart R. Ellins, in his book Living with Coyote, explains that his experience when dealing with ranchers taught him that the predator problem isn’t scientific but rather a sociological and economic problem. In the case of trappers, Ellins asserts that the main concern is a loss of their livelihood. He explains an interview with an experienced trapper with relative open-mindedness and the intelligence to understand the science behind the food aversion conditioning program, but it all came down to the perceived threat of a loss of income. Certainly, this is a factor to consider, and to ignore it would not serve the purpose well of updating the current predator managing model in the United States.

The public’s attitude is an area that is slightly harder to quantify. The academic articles that I used present a shift in the attitude of the public toward predators. Of the literature found, I analyzed two main academic articles that discussed the attitude of the public toward predators and their management to determine this.

First, Predators and the Public Trust explained the concept of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) as the principle that certain natural and cultural resources are preserved for public use and that the government owns and must protect and maintain these resources for the public's use. The authors explain that this doctrine is an evolving one. PTD is responsive to changing societal needs and whose paramount role was to preserve public, environmental assets for future generations and defend society from undemocratic allocations of environmental assets (Treves et al., Predators and the Public Trust 250). This article gave me an idea of how wildlife management has gradually abandoned this doctrine to favor special interests that have captured the administrative agencies that allocate wildlife as public assets. 

Second, The United States Public Attitudes Regarding Predators and Their Management to Enhance Avian Recruitment. This academic article utilized a mail survey that was conducted in 1996. The questionnaire was developed by Utah State University researchers affiliated with the Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wildlife Damage Management in conjunction with input from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Wildlife Damage Management Committee, state wildlife agencies and the Evaluation System of the United State Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS).

Task 3. Assess the ecological importance of the presence of predators in ecosystems.

I began studying the work of Dr. Cristina Eisenberg about the restorative effect in ecosystems that predators have using concepts like the ecology of fear. In areas where predators inhabit, prey animals become more alert and less complacent, thus spending less time in a single area and over browsing is avoided. Additionally, through the ecology of fear, predators may prevent overbrowsing and overgrazing from herbivores, which results in more habitat for other species and erosion prevention of the soil. I also used an academic article titled “Yellowstone After Wolves” by wolf biologist Douglas Smith about the effects of the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Lastly, I explore how apex predators perform roles of culling unhealthy individuals from herds, preventing their genes from entering the gene pool, thus strengthening the population, what wolf biologist L. David Mech, in the 70s, coined the “sanitation effect of wolf predation”.

Task 4. Assess the economic benefits of having predators in the wild and the costs of the hunting and ranching industry to the public.

Halfway through my research, and at the time of this study, it became apparent that there was a lack of data available (not much in the way of peer-reviewed data) that would be of use to compare the economic benefits of industries like ecotourism and wildlife viewing in contrast with that of hunting and trophy hunting. Because of it, I decided that it would be the topic of a very interesting independent study which I recommend that, when more studies are concluded, it is researched thoroughly.

The information I found is hopeful, but since I could only find and study one report and only in one location, I cannot give a recommendation based solely on this study.

I studied the data collected and published by the Center for Responsible Traveling (CREST) about bears in British Columbia, Canada.

However, my research does indicate that this field of research is worthwhile and that some data begins to indicate the benefits of predators in ecotourism industries. A proven example of this is Yellowstone, where millions of worldwide visitors come to enjoy one of the few places on earth where one can readily enjoy and observe wolves in the wild.

Task 5. Conduct Interviews with professionals in the field.

I reached out to several professionals in the field of predator conservation and management. Dr. Michelle Lute is the Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner at Wild Earth Guardians. Dr. Lute holds a Ph.D. from Michigan State University in Conservation Ethics, Wildlife Management, and Human Dimensions of Natural Resources. Also, Dr. Stewart Breck is a researcher for the USDA-National Wildlife Research Center on carnivore ecology and behavior and minimizing conflict between carnivores and humans.

Both interviewees represent the opposite ends of the spectrum of the issue of predator-human coexistence and offer unique insight on the subject. One advocates for non-lethal predator controls, and the other works for the department that currently favors lethal controls of predators.

Although Dr. Breck works for the controversial agency that is habitually attacked by environmentalists and activists, he has performed valuable research in non-lethal management for predators and worked for John A. Shivik at the Wildlife Research Center. His mentality towards predator management is geared towards implementing non-lethal methods as often as possible and moving away from lethal removals when possible. The insight I gained from him was very valuable, for he offered an objective, scientific perspective grounded in the reality of what can and can’t be done currently by wildlife management agencies, regardless of the best intentions to implement methodologies more appropriate to the 21st Century.

Task 6. Asses and present the available methods of non-lethal predator control.

I studied the published work of John A. Shivik The Predator Paradox: Ending the War with Wolves, Bears Cougars, and Coyotes where he explains his research about the non-lethal methodology to manage and avoid predator attacks on livestock. Additionally, I studied the published work of Stuart R. Ellins titled Living with Coyote where he explores food aversion conditioning with coyotes, a concept in which coyotes are taught that eating sheep’s meat would inevitably cause them to become ill via a substance called emetic lithium chloride, which isn’t deadly but causes nausea.

The proven effective non-lethal methods that were consistent with all the research performed are:

●      Critter Gitter: this is a small plastic box with a lens and red LEDs on either side of the detector. Hidden under opaque plastic is an infrared motion detector. When a warm body moves in front of the Critter Gitter red lights flash and the box wails loudly (Shivik 70).

●       Food aversion conditioning of coyotes is a concept of conditioning coyotes to consume sheep meat that had been laced with emetic lithium chloride, a substance that is not lethal but produces nausea and creates a link that consuming sheep means getting sick (Ellins 7).

●      Fladry is colored flags that are strung around a property where livestock is being kept and is very effective in repelling predators away from it (Shivik 71).

●      Guard animals to protect herds from predators. Dogs, donkeys, and lamas are among the most effective species to employ as herd protectors (Shivik 85).

●      Animal armor is fitted on livestock to assist in repelling an attack from predators (Shivik 138).

Task 7. Compare and contrast the effects of lethal management versus non-lethal management in terms of cost-effectiveness, ecological impact, and overall effectiveness.

John A. Shivik mentions in his book that, while we don’t often think of bears or cougars as being social animals as wolves or coyotes, removing a bear, cougar or wolf pack from an area where livestock is grazing even if they aren’t showing an interest in consuming livestock, can have detrimental consequences. By removing them, a younger, often less experienced individual will occupy the vacant niche and create a conflict that didn’t exist before. Thus, having predators that show no interest in humans or their livestock keeps other potentially dangerous predators out of the area.

Additionally, the academic article” Dead or alive? Comparing Costs and Benefits of Lethal and Non-Lethal Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation on Livestock Farms” explained a study conducted in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, where eleven farms were studied over three years. In September 2007, 2008, and 2009, the researchers conducted interviews with the farmers. The same questionnaire was administered in person by the same researcher each year. The questions focused on farm descriptions, the quantity of livestock, the number of losses and their perceived causes, depredation control methods, expenditure on control methods, and willingness to adopt non-lethal control methods.

The study revealed the effectiveness of non-lethal control methods over lethal ones, as well as their cost-effectiveness. The researcher’s observations indicate that in most cases (82%), after non-lethal methods were introduced, their use is continued, or alternative non-lethal methods are tried, either in isolation or alongside lethal controls. Depredation increased on the two farms where only lethal methods were used and decreased on 50% of the farms where only non-lethal methods were implemented. On the other 50%, there was no change in the level of depredation (McManus et al. 7).

Adrian Treves, Miha Krofel, and Jeannine McManus evaluated the evidence for interventions against carnivore predation on livestock on North American and European farms. They studied twelve published tests –five non-lethal and seven lethal methods—that met the gold standard of scientific interference (random assignment to control and treatment groups with experimental designs that avoid biases in sampling, treatment, measurement, or reporting). In this report, I found that non-lethal methods were more effective than lethal methods in preventing carnivore predation on livestock. Furthermore, in at least two lethal methods, government culling or regulated public hunting were followed by increases in predation on livestock. Zero tests of non-lethal methods had counterproductive effects.

Results

In this section, I present the results of my research. For each of the tasks that I carried out, I present the most important and relevant data I acquired.

Task 1. Acquire a basic understanding of the current management policies.

In my studies on the subject of wildlife management at OSU, one of my textbooks defines it as the management of wildlife population in the context of the ecosystem (Fryxell 2), but perhaps the most important aspect when dealing with wildlife management I learned is to choose the right goal, and to know enough about the species being managed and their habitat that the goal’s success is ensured.

Management of wildlife and natural spaces implies stewardship, meaning looking after a population, whether that is a population of trees or vertebrates.

Stewardship can become inadequate or simply fail, as was the case in the early times of Yellowstone National Park, and how the initial mandates dictated the protection of certain animals but the decimation of others, namely predators. Thus, it can be argued that the conceptual vision of such an icon in worldwide conservation (Yellowstone National Park) started as a big failure because of choosing the wrong goal in wildlife management. I lived there from mid-summer 2013 to November 2014, and while living and working in the Grand Teton National Park, I talked extensively to park rangers and other wildlife managers who all agreed that the stewards of the land back then didn’t know enough about biodiversity and thus decided that the elimination of all predators from the park boundaries to protect game species was the right goal in management at the time. This has proven to be disastrous.

When stewardship fails, conservation then becomes imperative. Under these circumstances, wildlife management shifts to remedial or restorative activities (Fryxell 3). There are two classifications, according to Fryxell and the other authors of my textbook in wildlife ecology, under which to categorize wildlife management: custodial or manipulative. Custodial management can be thought of as preventive or protective and it aims to minimize external influences on the wildlife populations and their habitat. Manipulative management, on the other hand, does something to a population, either by changing population numbers by direct or indirect means.

Regardless of which method is decided upon, it is imperative to consider carefully that the management problem is identified correctly, and that the management goal explicitly addresses the solution of the problem. Population control by itself is an objective, simply an action, and “very often the original reason for the management is forgotten and the control itself (lowering density) becomes the objective. The means become the end” (Fryxell 348).

The important point to remember after establishing the meaning of wildlife management and the different ways to approach conservation is that an animal has an intrinsic right to be treated humanely. Whether it is protected or controlled, animal welfare is a very important consideration in any control operation, one that seems to fall into the backburner often (Fryxell 351).

Some methods that could be argued as cruel, inhumane, or both continue to be employed today in wildlife management in the United States. In the research conducted for this proposal, steel-jawed traps, neck snares, cyanide ejectors, compound 1080 in livestock protection collars, and aerial gunning are some of the methods that come up consistently in the research performed.

As recently as the 1990s formal bounty systems were in place for most of the terrestrial mammal species that were perceived to cause conflict with commercial agriculture, and lethal control is still common on livestock farms (McManus et al. 1).

The main lethal methods currently used by wildlife agencies are:

•      Livestock protection collars

•      Aerial shooting

•      Steel-jawed traps

•      Neck snares

•      Poisoning

Before enrolling in my Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Sciences Bachelor Degree at OSU, I earned a career diploma in forestry and wildlife management, where I learned the basics about some of the toxin delivery systems such as the M-44 devices and livestock protection collars (LPC). In the study unit dedicated to predator management written by James Nelson, I learned some of the basic functions of these control methods. M-44 devices are tubular cases anchored into the ground, which hold a sodium cyanide pellet, a case holder wrapped in cloth or fur, an ejector unit that fires the pellet, and a bait holder that goes on top. The bait holder is doused with an odor attractant aimed to attract coyotes, foxes, and feral dogs. The device is designed with the curious nature of canids in mind since they tend to test objects with their mouth. Once the canid bites on the bait holder, the device shoots the pellet into the animal, causing its death. Wildlife managers who use these devices tend to do so in areas where human and pet presence is uncommon, and in most states, they must post signs warning the public that M-44 devices have been planted in any given area (Nelson 36). This control method is very effective. However, there is the drawback that untargeted species, mainly domestic pets, can be killed because the device can’t decide between domestic animals or predators and between individual predators that don’t predate on livestock but happen to come by one of these devices. It is not unreasonable to think that avoiding untargeted species is extremely difficult using this methodology. Hikers or humans transversing the areas being treated may miss the posted signs and animals, of course, can’t be aware of the meaning of such signs.

Livestock protection collars are collars that are fitted around the neck of a potential prey animal. The collar contains bags filled with liquid solutions of the toxin 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate). If a coyote attacks an animal wearing one of these collars, it punctures the bag, gets a dose of the toxin and usually dies within five hours. This method is selective about killer animals (Nelson 36).

In aerial shooting, a shooter fires a gun at a target from an aircraft that flies at speeds of 60-85 mph at heights of about 60 feet. This is an expensive method of predator control (Nelson 36).

Steel-jawed traps are foothold traps designed to catch the animal by the foot. Although they aren’t lethal, foot traps cause injuries to the animal caught, and require periodic checking (Nelson 37). This method can catch non-targeted species and, provided they are caught before injuries or death from starvation, nontargeted species can be released (37).

Snares are inexpensive noose-shaped trapping devices made of heavy gauge wire and are designed to grab the animals by the foot when they step on the targeted area. Additionally, there are body snares, but a common snare is the neck snare, which is lethal because it catches the animal by the neck and suffocates it. Neck snares are designed specifically for coyotes (Nelson 37).

In his book Living with Coyotes: Managing Predators Humanely Using Food Aversion Conditioning, author Stuart Ellins describes a study of three types of neck snares in which 374 coyotes were captured. Of the 374 coyotes, 301 were captured by the neck, 25 by the body, 12 by the foot, and 36 escaped. Additionally, 91 deer and 6 cows and calves were caught in the snares. Of the 91 deer, 47 died, 40 escaped, and 4 were released. The cows and calves survived. Thus, although snares are designed with coyotes in mind, larger mammals are easily caught in them.

From 1971-1976, the Animal Damage Control Program—the United States Department of Agriculture department that currently operates under the Wildlife Services name—killed 429,437 coyotes in the United States, of which 122,389 were killed from an aircraft. In 1976, 33,600 coyotes were killed from an aircraft, and in 1985, 15,900. In more recent years, 86,955 coyotes were killed in 2000, and in 2002 86,360 were killed; 46,509 were shot (from the air and the ground), 15,021 were poisoned, and 3,357 were killed by other means (Ellins 122).

This agency killed 84,584 wolves, coyotes, bears, and mountain lions in 2011. If we include ungulate birds and all other species, that number added up to 3,779,024 animals killed by the agency. In 2008, that number was close to 4,900,000, and in 2009, 4,100,000 (Shivik 12). Even if we want to argue that this shows a downward trend, I contend that our natural spaces can’t afford the rate of speed at which we are operating and emphasize more celerity in shifting to a different predator management paradigm.

After all the money spent and all the efforts to reduce populations of coyotes, their populations remain healthy. One could argue, again, that often the reason for wildlife management becomes forgotten and the method of control becomes the objective.

Task 2. Determine the attitude of the public, hunter community, and livestock producer community towards the increased presence of predators in public lands.

Despite a long history of recognizing a public trust doctrine (PTD) that includes wildlife as assets, U.S. federal and state governments have allowed or actively pursued the eradication of terrestrial, mammalian, large-bodied carnivores such as grizzly bears, mountain lions, gray wolves, and red wolves (Treves et al., Predators and the Public 249). Public trust principles have ancient roots in many cultures and define environmental public trust as an evolving doctrine that was responsive to changing social needs and whose paramount role was to preserve public, and environmental assets for future generations and defend society from undemocratic allocations of environmental assets (Treves et al., Predators and the Public 250). In his article, Treves defines those that reflect the tyranny of a minority or majority or are otherwise illegal as undemocratic allocations (249).

My research also revealed the issue of agency capture (sometimes I even think taking hostage is a more accurate way to describe this). I fear that managing agencies are at a real danger of being prone to become one-sided. As such, making recommendations on natural asset allocation based on special interest groups can only leave a large sector of the public unable to hear, participate, or otherwise comment or demand a certain course of action regarding their wildlife. Treves explains that in the U.S., accusations of agency capture have focused on the North American Model (NAM), which arose in the 1990s as promoting hunting, trapping, and angling as the purpose of wildlife management. He further asserts that problems of agency capture are particularly important for predator conservation under the NAM because, at various times and places, the NAM has been used to justify the extermination of large carnivores for purposes such as increasing populations of ungulate game species for the benefit of a few (Treves et al., Predators and the Public 254). It is important to understand that the alternative mindset of wildlife management in which wildlife is viewed as assets held in trust for current or future generations should lead managers down a more prudent path of studying and examining alternatives to depleting said assets. Treves then concludes, and I generally agree, that the pro-hunting view of the PTD and its over-arching NAM has failed to guide trust managers in adopting a broad public interest view of the PTD (Treves et al., Predators and the Public 256).

Despite the public trust doctrine and its explicit obligations for wildlife, federal and state agencies have, and continue to, enact policies that jeopardize entire species and their populations. Nationwide extirpation and eradication of predators came as a product of cultural antagonism, political scapegoating, and special interest pressure that can only be described as a sort of “zoological racism” against any animal bearing fangs and claws. As a consequence, and much to the dismay of our North American natural heritage, numerous populations of predators were eradicated across the U.S. in the 20th century.

Dr. Michelle Lute also views agency capture as a huge barrier to effective predator conservation. She believes in reforming wildlife decision-making, which is currently at the hands of state Fish and Game Commissions managers who are often appointed because of personal ties to state governors or have business interests with ranching and hunting industries. These are, according to Dr. Lute, mostly older white men who have already made their fortunes off ranching or hunting. Therefore, they make it difficult for the public to be involved in the decision-making, and there is abundant backroom deal-making when it comes to predator policy. Thus, there needs to be more diversity in the body of these commissions, “we need more women, Hispanic people, Native Americans, we need minorities who are more likely to represent what the American public wants with regards to wildlife and predator management (Interview with Dr. Lute)."

Sportsmen favor the current system, which places a high priority on their own interests through the favorable composition of wildlife commissions and continue the emphasis on prey species (Dr. Lute) that the hunting community harvests for their consumption. Consequently, non-human predators (wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, bears, and others) are disfavored by wildlife managers at all levels as competition for hunters and other sportsmen (Smith 1).

Even when presented with scientific data about non-lethal success in the management of predators, most ranchers were unmoved. Ellins explains the reason why some woolgrowers grew skeptical of the food aversion conditioning program as simple: “A trapped coyote is a dead coyote, and a dead coyote cannot kill again” (Ellins 18). The wool growers could see a coyote’s carcass, and they could hang it on a post or fence, but they could not see a coyote’s aversion to the taste of sheep. Therefore here we trench into intangible solutions that the growers have a harder time quantifying. If only they could understand that, biologically speaking, the harder we try to exterminate coyotes, the harder they come back.

Messmer et al. conducted a mail survey in 1996 that they believe is representative of the U.S. public. The respondents were interested enough in the topic to complete a lengthy questionnaire but were not aligned with either end of the wildlife-conflict spectrum. There were some hunters and trappers in the sample, as well as outdoor enthusiasts, and more importantly, there was a low level of participation of environmental or animal rights groups in the sample.

Additionally, there is an important misconception that Smith and Molde rebutted when investigating the source of funding for wildlife conservation. Traditionally, it has been understood and accepted that hunters and anglers have contributed to the conservation efforts and land acquirement for similar conservation efforts through their activities through the Pittman-Robertson Act. However, based on their study and analysis, they report that approximately 95% of federal, 88% of non-profit, and 94% of total funding for wildlife conservation and management comes from the non-hunting public.  Their data shows that, of the eight largest federally funded wildlife programs listed, a total of $18.7 billion is spent annually on wildlife, land management, and related programs (including hunter education). Approximately only 5.3% of the combined operating budgets and 4.9% of the land acquisition costs are funded by hunters or through hunting-related activities. The ten largest non-profit conservation organizations contribute $2.5 billion annually to habitat and wildlife conservation; of this, 12.3% comes from hunters and 87.7% from the non-hunting public (Smith and Molde 2).

According to Treves, decades of research since the 1970s show that majorities of residents, both within and without predator range, care about predators and how they are managed. The view and attitudes towards predators in society today accept predators more than in most of the 20th century. This changing attitude has allowed for predator reintroduction in many parts of the country. It is hard to examine and compare exactly just how the attitudes have changed before the 1970s due to the lack of empirical data. Treves insists that “One alternative hypothesis is that powerful but narrow interest groups have long pushed for predator eradication, independent of individual attitudes in the broader public” (Treves et al., Predators and the Public 261). However, recent reviews confirm that attitudes toward wolves were more positive outside of the wolf range than inside it.

As explained above, in the last decades, the public has shown an increasingly positive attitude towards predators and how they are managed, and the study presented by Messmer et al. shows that the public will accept lethal management more readily when it’s used surgically rather than applied broadly (Messmer et al. 75). Although their study focuses more on medium-sized predators as a way to enhance or protect populations of prey species, the results still show that the respondents viewed predators as key elements in a balanced system in which they control prey species from overpopulating their environment, but do not kill more species that they can eat or eliminate prey species. Respondents generally appreciated predators and believed in the predator’s right to exist. Most respondents believed predator populations should be preserved and reintroduced in areas where they were extirpated. Furthermore, they support the idea that maintaining predator populations is more important than earning a living from the land (Messmer 80).

Based on my research, I conclude that wildlife management agencies should move swiftly toward seeking public opinion to make policy. The research indicates that a large sector of the public wants predators in their public lands and believes that human interest should not come above wildlife and predators’ interests.

Task 3. Assess the ecological importance of the presence of predators in ecosystems.

In conservation ecology, the term trophic cascade has become increasingly popular athough some scientists remain skeptical like L David Mech who in his recent book "Island Wolves" concludes the book with a clear questioning of the concept overall. I first learned about trophic cascades while living in Grand Teton National Park, which lies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem area (GYE). I lived and worked in the Jackson Lake Lodge, about fifteen miles south of the southern entrance to Yellowstone National Park. Though Grand Teton National Park itself remained open all year round, few visitors came to the park during the winter. Therefore, the staff at the lodge was reduced in numbers from about a thousand, during peak season, to roughly thirty-five in the heart of the winter. We lived forty miles from the nearest town of Jackson, therefore given the harsh winter weather, we spent most of the time within the boundaries of the park. Park rangers visited us bi-weekly to give us updates about the park and check on us. It was during one of those visits that one of the park rangers, upon learning my fascination with wolves, told me about the beneficial effects of habitat restoration wolves had had in the park since their reintroduction, and an ecology conservation term called trophic cascades.

Dr. Cristina Eisenberg is an ecologist with a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Forestry from Oregon State University, and she is among the scientists who have extensively studied and written about trophic cascades. She defines trophic cascades as anything related to the food web, while the poetic term trophic cascade refers to the movement of energy through the community food web when predators are removed (or when they return) (Dr. Eisenberg 4). Dr. Eisenberg further explains that removing a top predator such as the wolf tends to deer growing more abundant and bold, thereby damaging their habitat by consuming vegetation (called herbivory) unsustainably. Elk favor eating the smooth white bark of aspen trunks as high as they can reach, which can stress the aspen and allow cankers and fungi to attack mature stems. Elk also heavily browse new aspen sprouts emerging from the clonal root system, inhibiting stem growth of young trees into maturity.

That unsustainability, in turn, results in the loss of overall biodiversity because when ungulates grow less wary of potential predators, they browse continuously until they either decimate or near decimate an area of their preferred palatable plants before moving on to the next area, thus exerting greater stress and not allowing young plants to grow into adult trees. Dr. Eisenberg adds that when top predators are missing from an ecosystem, the system supports fewer species because the trees and shrubs that create habitat for these species have been overbrowsed. With top predators in them, they tend to contain richer and more diverse habitats, thus can support a greater number of species such as songbirds and butterflies (Dr. Eisenberg 4). Therefore, trophic cascades are used to explain the ecological relationships between the members of a community, namely predators, prey, and vegetation.

The concept of the ecology of fear is further studied in Dr. Eisenberg’s study of Johnson Meadow in northwestern Montana. She concluded that Johnson Meadow provided a good show of how the presence of wolves might not necessarily stop ungulates from using an area but does affect how those ungulates use the resources in it. When she inspected the patterns of ungulates eating in the area, Dr. Eisenberg deduced that elk in the area had not just stood around eating aspen sprouts, but rather exercised restraint and possibly taken a few bites, looked up to scan for wolves, and then moved on to eat some more (Dr. Eisenberg 17).

Erik McDonald, a National Park ranger I met while volunteering for the NPS and later became a friend, introduced me to the concept of keystone species when we were working on our interpretive programs for visitors at the Everglades National Park, where I spent the winter of 2015-2016 season volunteering. Interpretive programs are not lectures but rather talks that National Park staff give to park visitors to enrich their experience while visiting any National Park through tangible and intangible concepts. We are both fascinated with predator species and at the top of the list of animals that park visitors wanted to see and learn about while in the Everglades were alligators. In my interpretive talks, I would focus on the endangered Florida panther, but Erik loved to tell visitors about alligators. Erik, an incredibly eloquent public speaker and communicator, often drew on his Irish heritage to explain the architectural simile of the wedge-shaped stone that supports and holds together an arch and the function alligator holes played in the entire biocommunity of the Everglades during the dry season. Remove the keystone, and like the arch, the entire ecosystem collapses.

An example of this are the American alligators that dwell in the Everglades. Alligators make depressions in wetland areas by digging up vegetation and soil, piling up the materials on the edges, and creating ponds, which are called alligator holes. The holes can be as much as three feet deeper than the surrounding marsh elevation. During the dry season in the Everglades, when the water level in vast areas rescinds, gator holes become a refuge for aquatic life. Fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other wildlife inhabit the alligator holes and even use alligator trails to access them. While it is true that some become food for the resident alligator, others also become a food source for wading birds such as herons, egrets, and anhinga (Lodge 169). It is fascinating to witness first-hand how the single creation of a natural structure from this one predator, the alligator, in its self-survival attempt, ensures that hundreds of species can survive the challenges of the dry season in the Everglades ecosystems. Therefore, a keystone species is classified as such because the entire ecosystem they are a part of depends on them for healthy functioning and because when removed, it can have a myriad of state-altering consequences to the point of even collapsing such as an arch would if the keystone was removed. It is also worth noting that animals that through their constructions alter their physical habitat in this way are also considered ecosystem engineers, a term also used to describe similar activity such as that of beavers.

According to Dr. Eisenberg, the effects of keystone species, also referred to as strongly interactive species, include habitat enrichment, symbiosis, and competition --the sort of dynamics at the heart of trophic cascades (Lodge 23), thus, trophic cascades are directly related to the keystone species approach in conservation. Although the term has suffered from a bit of an overuse, it conveys the unexpected consequences of species removal from ecosystems. Additionally, keystone species are so important because the strong influence they have in their systems is disproportionate to their abundance.

Resilient ecosystems have built-in mechanisms that enable them to recover from stress. Dr. Eisenberg explains that these ecosystems have sufficient diversity of species and ecological processes that most stresses and disturbances do not cause long-term transformations in them. Conversely, non-resilient ecosystems have been pushed too far beyond their ability to recover naturally and lack long-term stability (Dr. Eisenberg 167). A degraded ecosystem that has reached an alternative state, one usually reversible if given enough an effective physical and biotic manipulation which tends to be expensive and complicated. By restoring keystone predators, we can tip many of these systems back to a healthier state with minimal manipulation of physical structure (Eisenberg 166). Therefore, restoring collapsed ecosystems may often be as simple as reintroducing native predators into them and letting them perform their ecological roles in their trophic niche. It is also worth noting that there is much we don't know about this subject yet and that the clearer cases in which we do observe it happening are cases like Yellowstone, where the conditions are peculiar in that, for one, there is no hunting allowed, and the predators are easier to observe and document. Ecology is subjected to many variables and when one variable is altered, many changes result from it, and in nature, there are usually many variables being changed at once. Nonetheless, that is where the focus should be focused in terms of effort and research in my opinion.

We can also look at the case of Yellowstone, where native predators were reintroduced. Dr. Douglas Smith published an academic article in 2003 where he reported the data from a study of the restoring effects of wolves in the park after their reintroduction. What we can take from this report is that upon the return of the wolf, after a seventy-year absence, the population of herbivores began to stabilize. Along with the population decrease, the ecology of fear began to take place and the behavior of the ungulates changed: they started to avoid areas like valleys and gorges where they would feel less protected from wolves. Immediately after wolves established their territories in the park, these areas experienced spurs of growth of aspens, willows, and cottonwoods. In turn, this increased the habitat for songbirds and other migratory avian species, many of which would return to make Yellowstone their home again. This is one of many studies that have begun to suggest the cascading effect of large carnivores, but once again, Yellowstone could be an exceptional case and other studies need to be analyzed. However, more and more biologists are coallescing behind this theory.

Beavers also returned to the park after a long absence since the early 1900s. Bioengineers that they are, or as I mentioned earlier, ecological engineers, they created niches for many other species, and the long-gone dams they built created habitats for muskrats, ducks, otters, fish, amphibians, and reptilians.Dr. Smith and his team conducted systematic ground surveys, which began in 1988 and have continued in five-year intervals since. Aerial surveys began in 1996 and have continued in alternate years. In 1996, just months after the wolf reintroduction to the park, there were no documented beaver colonies in the northern boundaries of the park, although areas of the Yellowstone River delta (south of Yellowstone Lake) saw some beaver activity. In the 2001 aerial survey, 77 colonies of beavers were spotted across the park (Smith et al. 338). 

Upon the return of the wolf, populations of coyotes also began being checked, with wolves accounting for up to fifty percent of their population reduction (Dr. Smith et al. 335). As an immediate result of this, coyotes’ habitual prey, rabbits, hares, voles, and prairie dogs, became more abundant, which consequently triggered an apparent increase of mesopredators (medium-sized predators in the middle of the trophic level) such as raptors, weasels, and badgers (Dr. Smith et al. 336).

This flow of life from top to bottom could be interpreted as a clear biotic effect from a keystone species. However, there are also abiotic changes that have baffled biologists and ecologists that have studied the park.  Because of the regenerating vegetation in the banks of the rivers, the banks became more stabilized and the rivers course more fixed, with deeper channels allowing for less erosion and silt entering the streams of the Lamar River.

This shows that predators, or rather their presence, can shape their ecosystems not just actively, but also passively through depredation and the ecology of fear. The active effect of predators, the killing of their prey, serves them directly, but it also begins a series of ecological and biological processes that serve hundreds of species along the way and below their trophic level in the food pyramid, from mesopredators like coyotes, badgers, and eagles to scavengers such as ravens, magpies, and vultures and finally through decomposer species such as worms, beetles and bacteria. Furthermore, sometimes, even species in the same trophic level benefit such is the case of grizzly bears who have become notorious for stealing the hard effort of wolves packs by overtaking their kills. Thus, when a predator like a wolf kills their prey, it isn’t the end of the trophic cascade but rather the beginning for many species. The passive effect by which predators shape their ecosystems transcends metabolic processes within the food web and extends to physical and geological restoration events such as riverbanks and streams due to the passive effect of the ecology of fear in their prey. Both effects combined make the presence of predators not just beneficial but essential for a well-balanced biological community.

Task 4. Assess the economic benefits of having predators in the wild and the costs of the hunting and ranching industry to the public.

The nature documentary The Grizzly Truth released earlier this year (March of 2017) mentions a commissioned study in the Great Bear Rainforest area of British Columbia in Canada, where it was concluded that wildlife viewing industries such as bear viewing have grown exponentially over the past 30 years and are particularly active on the Coast. The economic impact of the commercial bear-viewing industry is substantial and has been well documented. The most widely cited is the aforementioned Great Bear Rainforest study that showed bear viewing generated 12 times more visitor spending and 11 times more government revenue than grizzly hunting.  In addition, the documentary argued that the cost of managing trophy hunting in that area ended up costing them more money than it brought in.

I reached out to the director of the film requesting the sources of these commissioned studies as well as any other studies that would shed light on this subject, but Mr. Reissmann has responded informing me that the government isn’t very forthcoming on these numbers yet. He provided me with the 130-page long report, which reports the following conclusions:

1. The overwhelming conclusion is that bear viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest (GBF) generates far more value to the economy, both in terms of total visitor expenditures and gross domestic product (GDP), and provides greater employment opportunities and returns to the government than does bear hunting. In 2012, bear-viewing companies in the GBF generated more than 12 times more visitor spending than bear hunting: viewing expenditures were $15.1 million, while guided non-resident and resident hunters combined generated $1.2 million. The study also found that organized bear-viewing activities are generating over 11 times more direct revenue for the BC government than bear hunting carried out by guide outfitters. Additionally, bear-viewing companies are estimated to employ directly 510 people per year, while guide outfitters generate only 11 jobs per year in the GBF.

   
   

2. The study identified 53 bear-viewing companies currently operating in the GBF study area and of those the great majority reported that their business has grown in the last five years (only one reported a decline in business).

   
   

3. Bear viewing is a key factor in bringing international visitors to the Great Bear Rainforest. CREST surveyed guests who had visited GBF in 2012 through 25 companies. Of the 71 visitors who completed the survey, 79% said that bear viewing was the main reason they visited the BGF. These visitors spend, on average, 3.8 days in the GBF. Overall, those surveyed spend about one-quarter (26%) of their total vacation time in BC and 89% of their time in GBF in bear viewing.

   
   

4. The relatively low economic contribution of bear hunting and the declining hunter numbers in the Province as a whole come at a time when bear hunting is losing popular support as well, both in Canada and abroad. In September 2013, a poll by McAlister Opinion Research found that 87% of British Columbia supported a ban on trophy hunting for bears in the GBF, up from 73% similar survey in 2008.

   
   

5. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO), the BC government’s administrative apparatus that oversees bear hunting, is complex, cumbersome, and costly. The MFLNRO technical team that provided data for this study said that they had no information on the cost of managing bear hunting, but several officials indicated that the government is spending more money on bear hunting management than it is receiving from bear hunting.

   
   

6. Mark Robinson reported in his article that the Nevada Department of Wildlife reported in an excerpt from a letter to the editor published in the Reno Gazette-Journal by Fred Voltz of Carson City that “Nevada’s Department of Wildlife collected $55,000 of hunt fees over two years but spent $200,000 in the first year. An open-records request to NDOW for second-year hunt expenses indicates “no records are kept tracking costs of operating and administering the bear hunt” and additionally he said in his article that to kill 25 bears, Nevadans subsidized each dead bear at $8,000 each (Robinson).

Task 5. Conduct Interviews with professionals in the field.

I’ve reached out to several professionals in the field of predator conservation and management.

Dr. Michelle Lute is the Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner at WildErth Guardians. We conducted our interview on Friday, October 13, 2017. Dr. Lute holds a Ph.D. from Michigan State University in Conservation Ethics, Wildlife Management, and Human Dimensions of Natural Resources and grew up in Indiana. Her first few jobs in Indiana as a seasonal NPS employee got her thinking about this interface between humans and wildlife. She has always been interested in wildlife and when she got into her Master’s program on primates in Singapore, she was thinking about studying birds in the Chicago area or natural resources. Studying primates, she was confronted with the human/wildlife conflict. The idea of coexisting with wildlife kept developing, and that caused her to switch to social science and through the topic of human/carnivore coexistence, her vocation and career path began.

One of the challenges Dr. Lute revealed was the slow pace at which bureaucracy moves. It is hard to find legislators who will get behind a particular piece of legislation, and when they do, one must then convince everybody else. The same occurs with ranchers. Some are very progressive and favor having carnivores around but the challenge comes when trying to get them to speak to their fellow ranchers. Some have even been effective in employing non-lethal predator management in their properties. However, they tend to fear that if they go to their fellow ranchers and suggest trying those same methods, they will get laughed out of the room, or worse, they will lose the support of their community (Dr. Lute).

For example, she was involved in a piece of legislation looking to ban traps in public lands in New Mexico. This legislation has been introduced multiple times, but it moves slowly, and then, when champions in the legislation are found, the task stalls since everybody else must be convinced which requires wading through multiple committees. Additionally, when dealing with a state like New Mexico, which is economically poor, legislating for penalties on trapping raise the question of who is going to enforce them. But it is also the way these issues are presented in an us-vs-them way: the ranchers vs. us wacko tree huggers, and people tend to see in blanket generalizations, and them position themselves based on absolutes, thus, it becomes very hard to talk to the people in the middle. Therefore, the optics are that there are only these two extreme groups that are happing fighting each other, so speaking to a broader audience, beyond the choir, and reaching the more average supporters is something that fellow environmentalists need to learn to do better.

Dr. Lute is working with a private citizen whose name was requested to be kept anonymous, who is based in Santa Fe and regularly goes down to Gila Forest. She grew up with horses and goes riding with these ranchers, learning about the costs of ranching, and discussing grazing permit buyouts. WildEarth Guardians has money to buy ranchers who want to retire from their allotments, and she is making a lot of headway in this direction. The challenge is that these same ranchers often say, “Yes, I will work with you, but I don’t want to go back to the Cattleman’s Association and tell them to do this because I will lose my whole community and respect” (Dr. Lute). So, there is a real need to be able to do more of this work. Dr. Lute has worked for years to get these few ranchers to buy into this programs and wants to be able to use the rancher connections that she’s built for her work, which focuses on getting programs like USDA Wildlife Services to stop killing carnivores or native wildlife of all sorts from public lands. The key objective would be to be able to get ranchers, who are fundamentally being treated like clients by WS even though they are using taxpayer dollars, to not request these lethal methods to protect their livestock, and opt instead for prioritizing fladry and guard dogs, range drivers, donkeys, etc as the main tools to prevent damages. But the ranchers aren’t asking for that, so when WS comes in, even if they wanted to suggest non-lethal, Dr. Lute thinks WS feel this pressure to maintain the status quo.

It seems to me that when we talk about the stigma suffered by the wolf, it feels as if they fall victim to a sort of “zoological racism” applied to a seemingly obsolete system of carnivore management in North America. All carnivores are targeted but the repulsion to the wolf seems disproportionate. I asked Dr. Lute this question and to suggest solutions to shift this perspective of intolerance toward wolves and other large carnivores and to share her thoughts on tools to aid in this, as well as other methods to help move the conservation of apex predators in a better direction. “That is a great question, and I just want to add that education is very important but is going to be most effective with younger demographics since once adults have very strong opinions formed, it is very hard to sway them through education” (Dr. Lute). Additionally, education is limited, and can start to yield diminishing returns at least when dealing with the older demographics of adults.

Building strong grassroots networks is one of the tools Dr. Lute suggest we also prioritize. Wildlife Guardians employ lawsuits to force the government to do its job and to build such strong grassroots power. As an academic, Dr. Lute has studied what the average American feels about carnivores, and what she has found is that by and large, they want wildlife, and they support it even if they don’t live near large carnivores. They also recognize that animals have intrinsic value that gives them the right to exist beyond anybody’s use of them. Here, Dr. Lute is referring to the traditional utilitarian approach in the North American Conservation Model, which is based on what species we use and which species we want to hunt. This mentality dominates within those groups still making the decisions, but they are not at all fully related to their constituency, and so they are not supporting the majority of the American public.

Therefore, Dr. Lute thinks that one of the most important tools is grassroots tools to empower people to make sure that their voice is heard to be able to shift the balance away from hunters who have the ear of wildlife managers and the decision-makers upon wildlife as it has been until now. And, since most of the public isn’t supportive of the decisions that are often being made, matching what the public wants with the decision-making is very important, thereby making the process more democratic. Here, I want to add that while I believe that making the decision-making more democratic is essential, the discourse must ultimately stemmed from a purely scientific framework. Once groups being involved can be exempt from half-truths, anecdotal evidences, and various fake news and biases that infect the public discourse currently can be reduced, then and from that starting point only, it will be far easier for stakeholders to engage in a debate to be able to make an informed decision when making their voices heard.

Some of the work must also include hand-holding the public to ensure they talk to their legislators when there is relevant legislation being considered, as well as ensuring the public talks to the wildlife manager who is considering a certain new proposal. Another important strategy is to reform wildlife decision-making that currently is largely being made by the State Fish and Game Commission and how the decision-makers are appointed. These officials are often connected and politically "friendly" with the Governor, often with business or hunting interest, and mostly white old men that have already made their wealth off ranching or hunting. So even when meetings are held open to the public, most people don’t know about them and don’t attend. Therefore, these people make decisions about our native wildlife that don’t reflect what the public wants. In short, Dr. Lute’s opinion is that the actual body that composes those commissions needs to shift to include more diversity, such as women, Native Americans, African Americans, and, essentially groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in this field, because if mainly older white men often with blatant conflicts of interest, they are not willingly going to reflect what the American public wants.

Dr. Lute thinks that is the role of identity politics, and her dissertation was focused on understanding the role of social identity plays in wolf management. Thus, it’s a reflection of how a state agency can showcase a downside of that identity, therefore, if you are an outsider with fresh ideas, it will be very hard to get a job there since this role is often occupied by apologists. She states, “Those cultures in state and federal agencies change very slowly because they keep hiring the same type of people that think the way they do."

The other aspect that needs to change is the way we fund wildlife management. Funding for management also needs to be diversified. Currently, federal revenue from hunting and fishing licenses from the Pinkman-Robertson taxes, which are the taxes sourced from thec namesake Act signed in 1937 on hunting equipment such as guns and ammo is part of the funding and, when originally conceived, this was a huge step towards ecological restoration and wildlife conservation. But we now could and must expand those taxes to other items such as cameras and outdoor equipment. By diversifying the funding, we can then ensure that state agencies are less likely to be captured, and hold the argument that the hunters and ranchers are their only constituency. Therefore, they are going to have to include these other groups we mentioned when passing their ruling. However, this isn’t at all easy because there are a lot of hunters and ranchers with a lot of lobbying power that fight hard to not lose that power and privilege.

Dr. Stewart Breck is a researcher for the USDA-National Wildlife Research Center on carnivore ecology and behavior and minimizing conflict between carnivores. He agreed to speak with me, and we conducted a phone interview on Tuesday, October 24th, 2017. We focused on some general questions asked to all interviewees as well as getting the perspective of someone who works for the USDA and is often in the crosshairs of wildlife advocating organizations. It was very interesting to learn his views on predators, which were not at all what I would have expected from someone who works within the USDA APHIS, the same agency that his old boss, John Shivik, has criticized in his book as overzealous and one-sided. He was supportive of predator conservation, and his attitude was that lethal management should be used, but not solely and in conjunction with other non-lethal approaches. One extremely successful program, that Dr. Breck even recommended that I looked into as a personal goal for future work, is the range rider program, where cowboys are hired to ride horses alongside cattle and help protect them from nearby predators. They utilize camera traps to monitor wolf packs and track their movement with the use of telemetry to understand when a pack may be operating near the ranging herds of cattle or sheep.

Kevin Holladay, who is the coordinator for Project WILD for the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, and I had an in-person interview on Wednesday, October 25, 2017. We talked about the pressure from hunting and ranching industries on wildlife management and possible alternatives to funding for wildlife management agencies so that they can represent a wider range of public interest. The perspective from the NW Fish and Game Agency and the impression that I got from the interview was that the agency is very interested in wildlife protection and conservation to the extent that it ensures the approval of the constituency that funds their existence, that is, and at this point largely hunting and angling community in the state of New Mexico.

David Parsons, who is retired now but worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, led the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program from 1990 to 1999 in the Blue Range Mountains in southern Arizona and New Mexico. Mr. Parsons earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology from Iowa State University and his Master of Science degree in Wildlife Ecology from Oregon State University. He drove up from Albuquerque on Saturday, October 28, 2017. Our interview was focused on politics and the difficulty of predator conservation because of special interests. We discussed approaches to predator conservation. The scope of our interview, while exciting and informational, went outside of the purpose of this research. Therefore, I decided not to include it in my recommendation. One thing I will say is that David Parson was adamant in admitting that the political roadblocks he encountered during his time working to reintroduce wolves to the Southwest were often frustrating and unnecessary, clearly driven by special interests to appease the influential political power from the livestock industry. Ultimately, disagreements within the Department of the Interior led him to become disillusioned and resign from the project.

Task 6. Asses and present the available methods of non-lethal predator control.

Stuart R. Ellins conducted research in Antelope Valley when he was contracted with the Commissioner of Agriculture of Los Angeles County to apply food aversion conditioning to the local population of coyotes to reduce their predation on sheep in the area. Ellins asserts in his book that in numerous experiments, John Garcia, a research psychologist at the Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues found that if nausea followed the consumption of a type of food by an animal, subsequent eating of that food would be avoided because the now tasted bad to the animal. Carl Gustavson, one of Garcia’s’ students at the University of Utah, further demonstrated that this taste aversion would extend to other qualities of food, such as odor (Ellins 6). Ellins insists that after eating sheep carcasses that had been dosed with the non-toxic but nausea-producing emetic lithium chloride, a coyote would avoid eating sheep in the future because of the disgusting taste of the meat and should avoid killing sheep because of their offensive odor. Because coyotes are omnivorous scavengers, a food-averted coyote would be likely to abandon sheep as a food source altogether in favor of available tastier meals (7).

Doctor Jon A. Shivik has spent most of his career researching non-lethal ways to mitigate and deal with carnivore predation and human conflict. In his book The Predator Paradox: Ending the War with Wolves, Bears, Cougars, and Coyotes, I found much of the research he has done, and below is a description of some of the most effective proven methods.

Disruptive Stimuli

Predators have to detect, approach, evaluate, pursue, attack, and kill their prey to eat. A minor disruption in this chain of events and the attack can be easily sabotaged. That’s what disruptive stimuli are all about. Shivik has found that we can use the phenomena of disruptive stimuli, sight, smells, sounds, or anything that causes a predator to abort an attack (Shivik 70).

Fladry is colored flags that are strung around a property where livestock is being kept and are very effective in repelling predators away from it. It is very inexpensive, but unfortunately, it is not perfect. More stubborn animals can eventually become habituated to it and eventually pass through them. However, if used in addition to other nonlethal methods, it can be very effective (Shivik 71). This is going to be a common theme when discussing these methods in that there is really not one single method that by itself will guarantee a prevention of losses.

Critter Gitter: this is a small plastic box with a lens and red LEDs on either side of the detector. Hidden under opaque plastic is an infrared motion detector. When a warm body moves in front of the Critter Gitter, red lights flash, and the box wails loudly. In addition, the noises in the box are randomized to change each time they’re triggered to avoid habituation. The Critter Gitter goes for about $70 and can be bought on Amazon. Again, by itself, it isn’t the answer to all the rancher’s woes, but it’s another example of inexpensive technology as an alternative to grabbing a gun first (Shivik 71). Shivik also asserts that when animals are lethally removed from an area of conflict, social structures, and interactions are also impacted. New predators almost immediately replace the previous, and if they are young, less experienced individuals who haven’t learned to stay away from human livestock, the conflict will almost certainly become exacerbated (73).

Guard Animals

Many breeds of dogs can be used as guard dogs. They smell, make noise and they patrol. Pyrenean Mountain dog is the most popular breed. They are big and white and stand out. Colorado has a high approval rate for guard dogs. 91% of sheep producers rate their dogs' performance at reducing predation as good or excellent. According to Doctor Shivik, statistics reported in various studies from the 1980s and 1990s indicated that dogs saved thousands of dollars in sheep annually at an average of $3216 per producer (Shivik 85).

Of course, not all dogs are the same; some are better than others. They must be imprinted on the sheep and raised as pups with the animals they will grow to protect. If mastiff breeds are chosen, as they have shown to be effective, it is also crucial to distinguish between those bred for shows and the ones with the ability to work the field.

The initial cost per dog can be around $1,000 and to that, one must add vaccinations, vet bills, feeding, etc. However, after the first year, that initial cost is reduced by about two-thirds per year. Social hunters, such as canids (wolves and coyotes) can be very clever and can devise diversion plans in which one animal lures the dog away from the herd while another goes in for the kill. Therefore, there is a higher success rate if a producer keeps at least two dogs. While dogs are very effective against bobcats and coyotes, they are no match for bears and wolves (Shivik 85).

Another animal that can be used as a guard dog is the donkey. They work very well against coyotes. Donkeys have an innate hate for canids, and they will repel, kick, bite, and stomp attacking coyotes. They are also slightly cheaper than dogs, and being herbivores, they don’t require different food as dogs do. It’s important to use only one jenny or a gelded jack, Shivik insists, because two of the same species will form a bond and wander off away from the herd. Llamas are very similar in their benefits as guard animals. Sheep producers have a very high success rate with them (about 90%). If a sheep producer used them one year, they used it the next year.

Animal armor

Different species have different ways of administering the coup the grace (killing blow). Bears swat and chase, breaking a bone in the back of animals before clamping down their jaws. Cougars stalk and jump on the back of their prey, biting the base of their skulls, often breaking the neck. Coyotes work the underside, attacking livestock around their throat. King Collar is a plastic collard that prevents canids from grabbing the throat. A variation of this collar is the Vichos anti-predator collar, which incorporates a chemical repellent when punctured. The device dispenses a chemical that is like hot sauce, which is designed to condition the predator not to attack sheep (Shivik 138).

Because of the way that lethal techniques disrupt social structures, there is sufficient research that suggests that lethal management possibly increases human-predator conflict. A pack of wolves that aren’t killing livestock in an area means that their dominance prevents younger, more desperate animals with the proclivity to cause conflict can’t intruding on that area. Social canids do this, as well as bears and male adult cougars. Leaving predators in their territory avoids these vacuums of power, and they can repel other, often worse predators (Shivik 123).

Ultimately, one must be cognizant that livestock growers should not think that any one measure alone will keep their livestock safe and often, a combination of them is the best approach to prevent losses. An integrated and comprehensive plan should be constructed in collaboration with the expertise of wildlife management agents.

Task 7. Compare and contrast the effects of lethal management versus non-lethal management in terms of cost-effectiveness, ecological impact, and overall effectiveness.

Depredation of livestock is a principal cause of human-wildlife conflict. It incurs high costs of livestock and provokes retaliatory and preventive killings of carnivores which put their existence (carnivores) in danger both nationally and globally.

I have explained the methods employed to deal with these depredations traditionally and their non-lethal alternatives. In this section, I will present the results of my research about the effectiveness of non-lethal control and management of predators in comparison to its counterpart, the lethal control of carnivores.

McManus et al. conducted a study of comparison of both lethal and non-lethal with the criteria of persistent efficacy, minimal unintended environmental consequences, selectivity towards problematic individuals, lower cost than that of depredation prevented, and social acceptability.

Lethal controls are often considered the cheapest and most effective method of reducing depredation, but it is not without problems: It might miss problem individuals, it often fails to eradicate depredation, and it involves ongoing commitment and expense. It is unselective, and there is little evidence of cost-effective diminution of livestock losses as predators learn to avoid control efforts (McManus 2). As discussed earlier, methods such as leg-hold traps, neck snares, and poisoning are largely indiscriminate and often kill non-targeted species.

McManus reinforces the notion presented by Shivik that unintended outcomes of removing territorial predators can include an influx of replacement individuals, potentially increasing the local predator population and the risk of depredation (2). One advantage of using non-lethal control for territorial species, such as bears or wolves, is that it does not cause social disturbance in the way that lethal controls do and, instead, the individual is allowed to remain in the area, and though its behavior may be altered --as in the cases presented by Ellins with food aversion conditioning—other ecological relationships remain intact.

McManus states in her study that animals, particularly livestock guardian dogs, are another popular method and have been found to decrease population by up to 100% in ranches in the U.S. McManus continues “They have also proven effective in southern Africa in Namibia, 73% of farmers who used guardian dogs reported a significant decline in livestock depredation. McManus reinforces the methods discussed on task 6, such as corralling livestock during periods of vulnerability, predator-proof fencing, increased human presence, fladry, conditioned taste aversion, chemical, visual or acoustic repellents, etc.

McManus warns that there is evidence that non-lethal intervention can reduce depredation, with the added benefits of favorable public perception, improved animal welfare, and reduced non-target casualties. Additionally, McManus assures, that non-lethal methods may be more compatible with conservation objectives and less likely to trigger perturbation effects, including counter-productive ecological cascades such as mesopredators release (McManus 2). Mesopredator release is the increase of predators that are below apex predators in the food chain. An example of this occurred in the early 1900s when wolves were removed from the newly founded Yellowstone National Park, which resulted in an explosion of coyote population.

There can also be some detrimental effects to non-lethal management if not employed properly, such as restriction of wildlife movement due to over fencing, or guard dogs attacking wildlife if not managed properly (McManus et al. 2).

The study analyzed by McManus et al. concluded that lethal controls resulted in a cost in U.S. dollars (USD), of 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 2011 per head of stock, with a mean cost of USD 23.41 per head of stock. When implementing lethal control farmer lost 4-45% of their stock to depredation which equated to a mean cost of USD 25,306 per farm.

The mean cost of non-lethal techniques was USD 2.91 per head of stock. During the first year of non-lethal control, the mean running cost was USD 0.17 per head of stock or USD 336.76 per farm. The mean implementation and running cost during the first year was USD 3.08 per head, similar to the running cost of lethal control. However, during that year, depredation was significantly lower: the mean decline in depredation was 63% with depredation accounting for 4.4% of stock (McManus et al. 4).

The second year of non-lethal control involved no implementation cost and the mean running cost was USD 0.43 per head of stock. This was significantly lower than both the running cost of lethal control and the combined running and implementation cost during the first year of non-lethal control. Based on stock holdings of the different farms studied, during the second year of non-lethal control depredation declined by 73.9% compared to the lethal control year. All farms reported lower costs than during the lethal-control year, with a mean saving of 74.6% and overall costs were also significantly lower than during the first year of non-lethal control on all farms (McManus et al. 4). Overall, farmers saved a mean of just under USD 20,000 during the first year of switching to non-lethal measures, which was equivalent to the value of 138 livestock. Initiating and operating non-lethal control during the first year was cheaper on the majority of the study farms, and depredation rates were invariably lower (McManus et al. 6).

As Dr. Lute mentioned in our interview, the results of non-lethal management have long been proven. However, the challenge lies in working through the cultural notion among farmers and ranchers that humans and predators cannot coexist. It is more often a sociological issue of the human dimension rather than a scientific one or a lack of technology.

Of the seven tests that were analyzed by Treves, only two were shown to reduce livestock losses from predation. In the remaining five, predation was unaffected in three, and two showed increased losses from predation after a lethal control (Treves et al., Predator Control Should 383). Treves et al. report in their study that a quasi-experimental test inferred that a combination of at least five livestock guarding dogs (LGD) and night enclosures (but neither in isolation) would prevent virtually all wolf depredation on sheep.

Among the twelve North American and European tests that met the “gold” or “silver” standard for reliable inference, they found that a greater proportion of non-lethal methods were effective in preventing carnivore depredation on livestock than lethal methods.  They add that culling and hunting appear risky for livestock owners because effects were slight or uncertain and five of seven tests produced no effect or a counterproductive effect (Treves et al. 385). They concluded that without including four studies that found counterproductive effects of killing wolves, bears, or cougars. Additionally, and similarly to the study concluded by McManus in South Africa, after implementing non-lethal methods –LGSs and livestock protective steel collars—livestock losses and related costs declined for two consecutive years (Treves et al. 385).

I conclude that these findings warrant a recommendation to wildlife managers that lethal predator control methods be further scientifically analyzed until they prove rigorous evidence of functional effectiveness in preventing livestock losses. Further, since it has been demonstrated that non-lethal control methods are effective and cost-effective, and public opinion favors them, wildlife managers should include these in their toolkits as priority measures and only consider the implementation of lethal controls when no other recourse has worked.

Conclusions

In this section, I present my conclusions based on my research related to the seven questions I was asked to answer.

Study the current policies and methods of addressing predators and the managing of situations where conflict is involved.

I concluded that the current model of predator management by wildlife managing agencies in the U.S. is mainly the use of the following.

●      Livestock protection collars are collars usually fitted onto sheep’s necks which have pouches of compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) which are intended to kill the attacking predator.

●      Aerial shooting is typically done from airships flown close to the ground from where a shooter snipes off the targeted wildlife.

●      Steel-jawed traps are foothold traps to hold the selected animal in place designed to have very little chance of accidental release of the animal

●      Neck Snares are a variation of snares with coyotes in mind to hold them by the neck and suffocate them in place

●      M-44 devices, also known as cyanide ejectors, are tubular devices that inject a lethal dose of sodium cyanide. They are mainly used against foxes, coyotes and feral dogs.

These methods stem from centuries-old predator antagonism mostly brought by European settlers into the American continent and have failed to keep up with modern views about wildlife and its humane treatment regardless of the goal chosen to manage it.

Understanding both public opinion and hunting and livestock producer communities about coexisting with natural predators.

On the basis of my research of public attitudes towards predators in the U.S., I conclude that the opinion of the ranching and hunting communities is that they view predators as competition to either of their activities and continue to favor the elimination of predators from public lands or very limited populations. They view their interests above the rights to existing of predators.

I also conclude that the general public, regardless of proximity to predators, has shown a positive response and indicated that they value predators for the role they perform in balanced ecosystems. Additionally, they don’t consider human interest and profiting from public lands above the right of predators to exist. Because of this research, I conclude that the public would welcome changes to federal and state policy for management of predators to increment the non-lethal control methods versus lethal methods.

Present the many benefits of predator presence in the diverse habitats and ecosystems they inhabit, as well as their ecological niche and importance.

Based on my research about predators’ beneficial influence in their habitats and balanced ecosystems, I am now confident that the evidence is strong as to the benefits and necessity of keeping healthy populations of predators in our public wild spaces. They act as overpopulation controllers of undulates and other herbivores, which in turn promotes biodiversity by ensuring numerous other species have the habitats they need to thrive. Ecosystems where predators have historically existed and later been removed have consequently deteriorated in functionality and biodiversity. When predators have been reintroduced in these systems, swift restoration has taken place due to the presence of apex predators.

I conclude that the presence of predators in the wild is not only beneficial but essential for a well-balanced system to thrive.

Study the economic benefits derived from revenue generated by outdoor activities such as wildlife photography and viewing in areas where predators live, in contrast with the revenue generated from trophy hunting of these predators.

Based on my research, I present the facts that I have found, which are encouraging, but I am not able to conclude the benefits of predators for local communities because I have not found enough consistent scientific articles with data on the subject to allow for a conclusive recommendation.

My recommendation is that a future separate study be conducted specifically for this purpose in the following years.

Interview professionals in the field of predator management and conservation.

Based on my interviews with professionals in the field, I conclude that scientists agree unanimously that predators are important and that non-lethal methods should be prioritized by wildlife agencies and managers. Even in the case of Dr. Breck, who works for the USDA APHIS, has researched and offered recommendations on the implementation of non-lethal ways to control predators. He agrees that human-carnivore conflict needs improvement.

As for the rest of the interviewees, the consensus is that special interest needs to be removed from wildlife policy-making and that the bodies of the commissions that make decisions regarding wildlife need to be revitalized by the inclusion of more diversity in their members. Additionally, they need to include the general public in the decision-making far more than thus far.

Present the many methods proven to be effective in managing predators in a non-lethal manner such as employment of animal guards, fencing, and fladry, increased human presence around herds and deterrent technology.

Based on my research about effective non-lethal methods of predator control, I have found the following methods to work extremely well, especially when used in combination: livestock guarding animals (dogs, donkeys, llamas, and alpacas), fladry, night fencing, repellents (acoustic, chemical and/or visual), animal armor, and food aversion conditioning.

Compare both lethal and non-lethal methods mentioned in terms of ecological impact and cost-effectiveness.

Based on comparing lethal methods of predator control versus non-lethal methods, I conclude that the evidence is strong that non-lethal methods are cost-effective and present less social disruption on predator populations as well as less ecological impacts. Because of this research, I recommend that wildlife management tends to favor these methods as primary methodology as opposed to lethal methods in every case where human-carnivore conflict arises until strong evidence infers that they are no longer effective, and, on an individual basis, problem individual predators be removed and relocated, or as a last resort, euthanized to protect human interest.

Recommendation

My recommendation is that federal and state agencies involved in the allocation of wildlife and its management need to consider a shift toward implementing non-lethal methods of control as their preferred course of initial action and prioritize this. That is not to say that on rare occasions, the lethal removal of an individual predator may be necessary, but this should only be considered as a last resort measure after employing sound preventive methods and always on a case-by-case basis.

Some of the non-lethal control methods presented in this report show good evidence of success in working effectively as predation preventions, avoiding a large percentage of conflict before it happens. Therefore, I conclude that wildlife managers need to work with livestock growers and hunters to increase the acceptance of predators and to educate them to coexist with carnivores as essential parts of the ecosystems where they perform their activities. This may require a restructuring of funding allocation and moving from a system that rewards losses in the form of predation subsidies toward one that rewards prevention. Often, and because it is difficult and cumbersome to collect compensation, a rancher may be tempted to blame their loss on wolf attacks. If the animal killing livestock is, for example a feral large dog, and because forensics are difficult, admitting the loss was caused by a non-wolf individual will put the rancher at a loss. Thus, often, wolves are blamed for depredations that were not caused by them. I have recently learned that in Romania, for example, reporting a loss to wolves is socially considered a show of poor livestock ownership, and some livestock owners would even feel ostracizing for it, and I think this type of mentality from the community could help shift the priorities in a direction where livestock growers would be better motivated to employ non-lethal, preventive measures of keeping their stock safe. Hence, switching from a system that rewards losses toward one that rewards wins, where winning is considered a peaceful coexistence with all the species that co-inhabit the ecosystem where humans operate and taking pride in this.

Dr. Douglas Smith, when talking about the wolf managing discourse, often says, and here I am paraphrasing, that the discussion-making in wolf conservation is highly polarized; on one side, you have the advocates who think the wolf can do no wrong, on the other side is the ranchers and hunters which see the wolf as a varmint to be exterminated. In the middle, there is the wolf, concerned only with the hard job of being a wolf and trying to survive in a hostile environment.

It has been my experience that this is a crucial point to consider when approaching carnivore management, and it’s a place where, when strictly looking at the science, I struggle to draw the line. What is the appropriate compromise? As a scientist, it is very hard to find a compromise between groups that speak only in absolutes: one group that wants no killing of wolves and one who that is all they want. But there are certain circumstances where ethics have to come in to help us decide what is appropriate, whereas science may not be equipped to decide solely by itself.

The moral, right thing to do is to then ask under what circumstances will it be appropriate to take the life of a predator like a wolf? Then, on the ethical side, you have to agree that wolves and other large carnivores have intrinsic value and admit that they belong inside the moral community. If we can collectively get there, perhaps then we agree that we can’t just kill them without good reason. If most people can agree that all wildlife has value, can we be trivial when deciding when to end that life?

Just as if cattle or sheep were to trip and fall in a river and drown, we wouldn’t expect forestry or wildlife managers to drain that river or divert its course, we shouldn’t expect wildlife managers to eliminate predators from the landscape strictly because of livestock losses. They should instead work with ranchers to implement more responsible ranching and sheepherding practices that don’t compromise native wild predators. I believe there is a dire need to move towards a new paradigm that prioritizes coexistence with all native fauna as a necessity to maintain healthy and functional ecosystems, which in turn will provide us with the ecosystem services our species has benefited from for thousands of years. To ignore this will prove to be disastrous.

Works Cited

Economic Impact of Bear Viewing and Bear Hunting in The Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia. Produced by the Center for Responsible Travel (CREST), 2014.

Eisenberg, Cristina. The Wolf’s Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity. Island Press, 2010.

Ellins, Stuart R. Living with Coyotes: Managing Predators Humanely Using Food Aversion Conditioning. University of Texas Press, 2005.

Fryxell, J., Sinclair, A. and Caughley, G. Wildlife Ecology, Conservation, and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Interview Dr. Michelle Lute, In person, Friday, October 13, 2017.

Interview Dr. Stewart Breck, Phone interview, Tuesday, October 24, 2017.

Interview Kevin Holladay, In person, Wednesday, October 25, 2017.

Interview David Parson, In person Saturday, October 28, 2017.

McIntyre, Rick. War Against the Wolf: Americas Campaign to Exterminate the Wolf: over 100 Historical Documents and Modern Articles Documenting the Evolving Attitudes Toward Wolves in America from 1630 to 1995. Voyageur Press, 1995.

Mcmanus, J. S., et al. “Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human – wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms.” Oryx, vol. 49, no. 04, 2014, pp. 687–695.,       doi:10.1017/s0030605313001610.

Mech, L. David. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

Mesmer, Terry A. et al. “United States Public Attitudes Regarding Predators and Their Management to Enhance Avian Recruitment”. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), Vol 27. No.1 (Spring 1999), pp. 75-85, Willey on behalf of the Wildlife Society.

Nelson, James. “Wildlife Management: Predators”. Wildlife and Forestry Study Unit, Penn Foster Career School.

Reissmann, Thomas The Grizzly Truth. Travel Sensations, February 2017.

Robinson, Mark. Do Taxpayers Pay for Bear Hunt? Nevada department of Wildlife, July, 2013,             http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Public_Meetings/Committees/RGJ.

Shivik, John A. The Predator Paradox: Ending the War with Wolves, Bears, Cougars, and Coyotes. Beacon Press, 2014.

Smith, Douglas et al. “Yellowstone after wolves.” BioScience, Vol. 53 (No. 4), April 2003.

Smith, Mark E. and Molde, Donald A. Wildlife Conservation and Management Funding in the U.S.”

October, 2014, Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management, http://www.nrwm.org/

Treves, Adrian, et al. “Predator control should not be a shot in the dark.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 14, no. 7, 2016, pp. 380–388., doi:10.1002/fee.1312.

Treves, Adrian, et al. “Predators and the public trust.” Biological Reviews, vol. 92, no. 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 248–270., doi:10.1111/brv.12227.