Saturday, December 10, 2016

Comment in Favor of Non-Lethal Predator Control


The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking public comments on Predator Damage and Conflict Management in Wyoming. The APHIS is offering 5 different alternatives to consider.  The first is to basically keep things as is and allow Wildlife Services to use full range of lethal and non-lethal control methods.

The other alternatives are:

Alternative 2) discontinue all Wildlife Services-Wyoming involvement Predator Damage Management ("PDM")

Alternative 3) Wildlife Services-Wyoming is restricted to using only nonlethal PDM methods

Alternative 4) restricts Wildlife Services-Wyoming to using or recommending only nonlethal methods

Alternative 5) requires livestock grazing permittees, landowners or resource mangers to: show evidence of sustained and ongoing use of nonlethal techniques aimed at preventing or reducing predation prior to receiving assistance with legal PDM methods from Wildlife Services-Wyoming  page8image25888

View full text here.

Please submit a comment BEFORE FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16. Please re-word 2 to 3 of the talking points below into your own words to avoid duplication. Submit your comment here.

  • I support Alternatives 2 and 4. 
  • In September 2016, a study led by Aidan Treves, found that nonlethal methods were generally more effective than lethal methods for preventing carnivore predation of livestock.
  • The same study found that lethal methods - in particular government culling and regulated public hunting - backfired, leading to increases in livestock predation in some cases. By contrast, none of the nonlethal methods resulted in counterproductive impacts.
  • Native carnivores are important keystone species, impacting the entire ecosystems in which they live. They are a true public trust asset and should not be killed to benefit livestock producers.
  • The best available scientific evidence supports nonlethal methods of predator management instead of lethal methods.
  • Effective use of nonlethal methods preserve both predators and private livestock.
Thank you for your support!

28 comments:

  1. I object to your plan to delist these iconic bears. As apex predators, Grizzly bears help to maintain a healthy balance between predator and prey populations. These bears hunt weak/injured, sick or otherwise compromised animals; in so doing, the healthy/strong animals live another day(s) and go on to produce genetically stronger members of their herd, etc. The reason herd animals such as some species of elk, deer and even buffalo explode to "unmanageable" sizes is because their natural predators (grizzly bears, wolves, etc.) are not not around to control these populations. Similarly, predator species control the size/numbers of their populations by competing for resources such as territory, mates, food, etc. If the Grizzly bears are delisted as endangered species, I fear that over-enthusiastic hunters will kill the most experienced (and thus necessary and valuable) bears as trophies, making cubs orphans and more likely to endanger themselves and people by interacting with humans in their quest for food/natural resources. Furthermore, when these big, impressive bears are slaughtered for trophies the genetic pool will be compromised and potential future generations of these bears are more likely to be weaker (genetically and physically), less experienced and wary of humans to keep safe.
    Please do not delist these bears, but teach humans how to live safely and respectfully in their midst. After all, the natural prey species of these bears are generally able to do that; why can't we?
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  2. It has been proven that nonlethal methods were more effective in preventing livestock predation, yet lethal methods proved to increase livestock predation at times. Therefore, proper use of nonlethal methods preserve both predators and livestock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  3. Science proves that lethal means of controlling predators creates more livestock predation. Please use non lethal means of managing predators. In the end it will save lives and money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  4. If you delist the bears, you are doing serious damage to the tourist business. We come twice a year to see the bears for a total of 5 weeks, and have done so for nearly 15 years. Hotels, restaurants, fuel, activities, and goodness knows what else. I know for the two of us it adds up to more than $10,000 each year, and we try to be conservative with our spending. Multiply that by the 5 million or so people that also came to see the bears. How's that for a financial benefit. We have met so many people in the parks and nearly all of them ask the same question. "Where can we see Bears?" These creatures are more of a gold mine than the gold mines big money would like to have. The biggest difference is the bears don't permanently destroy the habitat. Leave our Bears and their habitat the heck alone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  5. I support Alternatives 2 and 4.
    In September 2016, a study led by Aidan Treves, found that nonlethal methods were generally more effective than lethal methods for preventing carnivore predation of livestock.
    The same study found that lethal methods - in particular government culling and regulated public hunting - backfired, leading to increases in livestock predation in some cases. By contrast, none of the nonlethal methods resulted in counterproductive impacts.
    Native carnivores are important keystone species, impacting the entire ecosystems in which they live. They are a true public trust asset and should not be killed to benefit livestock producers.
    The best available scientific evidence supports nonlethal methods of predator management instead of lethal methods.
    Effective use of nonlethal methods preserve both predators and private livestock.
    So kindly leave the bears to live another day and focus some something more important to conservation in the area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  6. to be clear, people should leave their comments here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=APHIS-2016-0084-0001

    ReplyDelete
  7. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Enough!! Bears do not deserve to be delisted, any more than deadbeat fathers or mothers! The livestock is not a natural habitant of the area in discussion therefore move them out...not the NATURAL habitants....Get out of livestock ranchers pocket and pants! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  9. I don't support lethal methods of killing anything..our WILDLIFE is extremely important to maintain a balance in the chain of all lives.Non- lethal methods Protects both livestock and predators..I think that Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and other states need to know. We the public have paid for WILDLIFE management for years. But there brands of management is to kill.. We have lost over 55% of animals worldwide. I think it's high time to come up with another plan..A plan for all to live in peace.. Especially our apex animals in which have been here for all time.. We as humans and suppositly the note intelligent ones need to actually be humane and prosper all that can be given to the planets safety and health.. Stop the killings.. We need to start a better much needed regiment of protections for our GRIZZLES, WOLVES, and Wildlife.. We need to save as navy add possible for future generations.. Ranching is any kind needs to be limited. Especially on public lands. Why should we not try everything before killing.. Animals don't know boundaries suck as man had lays down they migrate with the food sources.. When we take that habitats they've no where to go.. So ONLY NON LERHAL procedures should be endorsed or considered..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction. Save as many as possible. Swipe.. Hmmm..non lethal only. Point blank period.

      Delete
    2. Please make sure you click on the link above. "Submit your comment" This will forward you to the Federal Register to leave a comment. Thank you!

      Delete
  10. I am strongly oppose grizzly delisting in Yellowstone area. Everybody who has learned a little bit of ecology knows that 700 bears in 8991 km2 that is Yellowstone size is not "overbearing" to that area. 700 individuals is a very narrow "bottleneck" from the genetically point of view, especially that the grizzlies facing more and more challenge in their changing habitat.
    Taking them off from the Endangered Species List is a HUGE MISTAKE.
    Please re-consider it.
    Not only I am thinking this way, please consider Ms Jane Goodall opinion about it as well:
    https://www.facebook.com/wildernesswatch64/videos/1214600525285971/
    Sincerely,

    Zita Fekete
    ABD PhD Ethologist

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am in favour of non lethal methods of predator control and am absolutely opposed to delisting Grizzlies!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've visited Yellowstone mainly to photograph these marvelous creatures. To think of them b being delisted and opened to more hunting makes me beyond angry. We are losing our wildlife at a fast rate now,this would just speed the loss. Hunting for food is one thing trophy hunting is only for bragging rights. Please,please look at non-legal methods.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I support alternatives 2 and 4.
    Please don't delist the grizzlies, which are a vital keystone of the area's ecosystem, along with the wolves. Use non lethal methods, if any curbing has to be done. There are not 'too many bears' in the area and similar culling/hunting ideas before have backfired, resulting in increased livestock predation, and science has proved that non-lethal methods are the most effective. We're losing so much wildlife and species that we should respect the ecosystem . We should ensure that Yellowstone and similar areas remain as wonderful sanctuaries where animals and trees are unaffected by the challenges that humans are creating in other habitats. If not, the problems will be compounded by visitors going elsewhere and taking their tourism dollars with them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In September 2016, a study led by Aidan Treves, found that nonlethal methods were generally more effective than lethal methods for preventing carnivore predation of livestock.
    The same study found that lethal methods - in particular government culling and regulated public hunting - backfired, leading to increases in livestock predation in some cases. By contrast, none of the nonlethal methods resulted in counterproductive impacts. Effective use of nonlethal methods preserve both predators and private livestock.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have a heart. Here is an opportunity to be a wonderful person and help the poor bears!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Have a heart. Here is an opportunity to be a wonderful person and help the poor bears!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Delisting and killing the wildlife is not the answer. Any form of control should be non-lethal.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let us not descend into barbarism. Humans destroy everything. Leave the bears and wolves alone.

    ReplyDelete