USDA’s Wildlife Services Has Killed Hundreds of Idaho Wolves

BOISE, Idaho— Five conservation groups filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services’ killing of gray wolves in Idaho.

The agency killed at least 72 wolves in Idaho last year, using methods including foothold traps, wire snares that strangle wolves, and aerial gunning from helicopters. The agency has used aerial gunning in central Idaho’s “Lolo zone” for several years in a row — using planes or helicopters to run wolves to exhaustion before shooting them from the air, often leaving them wounded to die slow, painful deaths.

The agency’s environmental analysis from 2011 is woefully outdated due to changing circumstances, including new recreational hunting and trapping that kills hundreds of wolves in Idaho each year, and significant changes in scientific understanding of wolves and ecosystem functions.

Wildlife Services does most of its wolf-killing at the behest of the livestock industry, following reports of livestock depredation. For example, five wolves were killed outside of Hailey, Idaho in July 2015 for allegedly attacking sheep. Documents indicate that Wildlife Services has even attempted to kill wolves in the newly-designated Boulder-White Clouds Wildernesses. But Wildlife Services does not consider whether livestock owners took common-sense precautionary measures to avoid conflicts with wolves such as lambing indoors.

“Wildlife Service’s wolf-killing program is senseless, cruel, and impoverishes our wild country,” said Travis Bruner of Western Watersheds Project. “Killing wolves for private livestock interests is wrong, especially on public lands, where wildlife deserves to come first. In addition, new science shows that it does not reduce conflicts long-term.”

“Wildlife Services has never even bothered to consider how much mortality a healthy wolf population can handle,” said Andrea Santarsiere of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Recent research indicates the state may be overestimating wolf populations — something Wildlife Services must consider before killing more wolves.”

“It is long past time that we base wildlife management decisions on the best available science, not on antiquated, disproven anti-wolf rhetoric,” said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Wildlife Services needs to come out of the shadows, update its analyses and adopt practices in keeping with modern science and values about the ethical treatment of animals.”

The agency also kills wolves for the purported benefit of elk herds, including in the Lolo zone.

“The campaign waged against the Lolo’s native wolves in the name of elk is reprehensible. Science shows that the elk decline there is due to long-term, natural-habitat changes, not impacts from wolves,” said Gary Macfarlane of Friends of the Clearwater. “It is particularly galling that Wildlife Services is targeting wolves that mostly live in Wildernesses or large roadless areas. These, especially, are places where wolves should be left alone.”

“Wildlife Services, formerly called Animal Damage Control, has been criticized for over fifty years by some of our nation’s leading predator biologists. It has a long, documented history of violating state and federal laws, and even its own directives,” said Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense. “Idahoans and the American public deserve a guarantee that federal programs like Wildlife Services are using the most up-to-date scientific information available.”

The five conservation organizations are asking the court to order Wildlife Services to cease wolf-killing activities until it prepares an up-to-date environmental analysis of its wolf-killing program. The groups — Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Clearwater, WildEarth Guardians and Predator Defense — are represented by Advocates for the West and Western Watersheds Project attorneys.

Read the complaint here. 

 

 
avatar
About The Author

Press Releases

Press releases are written by the organizations that publish them.

6 Responses to Conservation Groups Challenge Idaho Wolf-killing 

  1. avatar Joanne Favazza says:

    If the gutless and corrupt politicians in Congress were really serious about reducing government spending, they would have long ago abolished Wildlife “Services.” I’m sick and tired of my tax dollars supporting the cruel and needless killing of wildlife on our public lands. WS needs to go–permanently and forever.

    • avatar BOB says:

      What is the reality. Wildlife Services budget is around 121 million of which only 47.8% comes from the federal funds and 52.2% from ranchers and cooperators. With there being 122 million taxpayers in the US if you paid an average amount of taxes your share would be less than 50 cents. 50 cents that pays for airport security and crop protection.

  2. Big thanks to the great attorneys with Advocates for the West, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity and any others that I am leaving out.

  3. avatar rork says:

    Reality check. Science mentioned several times, but not really in evidence in the press release. “new science shows that it does not reduce conflicts long-term” is stretching it – might be true but evidence is weak, and it probably depends on the details of just which wolves you are killing. Wielgus paper – quit using it like it really proves much, please, cause citing it actually proves that your scientific credentials are suspect. Nevertheless people are doing it all the time.

  4. avatar Nancy says:

    For those who want to really dive into to an old timer’s thoughts on a “reality check” 🙂

    http://www.salon.com/2006/10/22/abbey/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Calendar

June 2016
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: