According to a recent Associated Press report, USDA Wildlife Services and the U.S. National Park Service have a difference of opinion regarding flocks of Canada geese that live around New York City’s busy Kennedy Airport. The geese were the main reason that US Airways flight 1549 crashed in the Hudson River in 2009. Fortunately, no one was killed in that incident, but USDA Wildlife Services wants to control goose numbers in a nearby refuge to keep airline passengers safe, while NPS believes that their mission is to “protect and preserve wildlife.”  This is an interesting conundrum; however, populations of Canada geese are hardly endangered with extinction. In fact their numbers have expanded exponentially in the past few decades.  Like it or not, some balance must be maintained between the number of geese in the area and the risk to airline passengers. Welcome to the complex world of modern wildlife management.

Michael Hutchins Human-wildlife conflict, National Parks, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, wildlife conservation

A new article by Thomas Rooney in Action BioScience details the ecological problems of having too many deer. This should be required reading for anti-hunting, animal rights organizations, like HSUS.  A failure to use both lethal and non-lethal methods of control will further exacerbate the situation. The author suggests that finding solutions will require greater cooperation between hunters, foresters, farmers, property owners, city councils, drivers, naturalists and animal rights advocates. I wonder, however, whether animal rights advocates will ever embrace any practical solution which involves some measure of necessary lethal control?

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Deer Management, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, wildlife conservation

Want to learn more about fish and wildlife species introductions and reintroductions (i.e., carp, wolves, mollusks, leopard frogs) from top experts in the field? Want to hear about managing invasive species and feral cats? Check out today’s free webcast being held by the first joint American Fisheries Society/The Wildlife Society Symposium by going to http://msworkforce.org/WFA/. To learn more about the joint AFS/TWS symposium, please go to http://www.cfr.msstate.edu/wildlife/symposium/.

shannon Amphibians, Environmental toxicants, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, TWS Sponsored Programs, Technology, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, endangered species, invasive species feral cats, invasive species, species introductions, species reintroductions

The feral horse population in Australia’s high country national parks has exploded by 224% in six years to nearly 7,700–the highest number on record.  Projections by the University of Wollongong have that number reaching 13,800 by 2012 if nothing is done to curb population growth. As in the western United States, ecologists are very worried about the impact of feral horses on native ecosystems and the plants and animals they support. 

The island nation’s Invasive Species Council has called for an immediate aerial shooting campaign to stop feral horses from “destroying” Kosciuszko National Park in New South Wales. But, horses, known as “brumbies” in Australia, are linked to the folklore of the country and many animal protectionists and horse lovers believe that feral horses should be protected.  Ecologists and environmentalists, however, believe that feral horse numbers should be controlled or that they should be eradicated from national parks to conserve native fauna and flora. 

Sound familiar?  The same battle over feral horses has been simmering in the U.S. for many decades.  It all comes down to values.  Do we value our native wildlife and their habitats, or should a misdirected sense of history, folklore and emotional concern for individual animals drive our natural resource management decisions?  As a conservationist, I choose native wildlife and their habitats.  One cannot support the maintenance of large populations of destructive feral horses (an introduced species) and be a conservationist simultaneously.  I like horses too; they are magnificent animals.  However, humans cannot avoid their responsibilities to future generations by refusing to make the hard decisions. A failiure to control feral horse populations is a decision too-one that will have many negative consequences for native habitats and species.  Is a damaged landscape filled with invasive species the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren in the U.S. or in Australia?  If not, we must take action now.

Michael Hutchins Wildlife Over-abundance, invasive species, wildlife conservation

Darryl Walter Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, invasive species invasive species

In a recent column in the Washington Post, Courtland Milloy recounted the story of Blaise Higgs, a Maryland deer hunter who generously donates a portion of the venison he obtains each year to a local food bank. According to Higgs, “a lot of people are having a difficult time putting food on the table, so if you can help them, why not?”

Animal rights activists, however, are not impressed with the gesture of Higgs or thousands of other hunters who give to food assistance programs across this country.  Indeed, Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said: “I find it offensive that people would try to justify immoral behavior by claiming something good comes out of it. They can’t defend ruthlessly blowing away animals for fun, so they come up with these ancillary benefits.” 

Since when is eating meat “immoral”?  Indeed, that would make the vast majority of people in this country (and perhaps in the world) immoral too, since most eat meat, at least on occasion. Humans have been hunting and eating meat since time immemorial. We are omnivores afterall.  Hunting is a legal activity, a source of green animal protein,  more humane than factory farming, and it is essential for controlling the numbers of overpopulated deer, as I have pointed out in previous blogs.  And what’s wrong with feeding the hungry, especially during this severe economic downturn? Of course, what would animal activists know of biology, ecology, or human welfare?  In fact, PETA believes that your pet cat–the most carnivorous of all carnivores– should be fed a vegetarian diet. In addition, the PETA spokeman’s comment (above) is analogous to the famous “let them eat cake” quote, often falsely attributed to the French Queen Marie Antoinette.  Feeding hungry people is not an “ancillary benefit”, at least not for those of us who consider the suffering of our fellow human beings an important moral concern.

PETA and other animal rights groups want you to eat a purely vegetarian diet too. I guess they believe that calling you “immoral” (all while bending the truth, stripping off their clothes in public, threatening scientists, or bombing animal laboratories) is an effective way to change your behavior.  This is not particularly surprising, as animal rights extremism is essentially a cult religion, and its fundamentalist proponents would love to legislate morality, including enacting a hunting ban.  As I’ve said many times before, if you don’t want to hunt, then don’t hunt, and if you don’t want to eat meat, then don’t eat meat. Unfortunately, many hungry people in this world don’t have that luxury.

Last, but not least, I guess that Native Americans and other indigenous people are irretrievably “immoral” in PETA’s eyes too, since sustainable hunting and fishing is an integral part of their cultures.  Frankly, if I want advice on the ethics of human-wildlife relations,  I’ll turn to my indigenous brothers and sisters long before I would take advice from PETA and its well-fed missionaries.  In fact, if PETA and other anti-hunting and angling groups had their way, it would mean the destruction of many native cultures.  This is an often neglected aspect of the animal rights movement, but one that deserves considerably more discussion.

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Deer Management, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Native Peoples, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, hunting

According to a report by Anne Pickering in the Journal Register News Service, two animal rights groups (Friends of Animals and CARE) have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. National Park Service to stop a planned deer cull in Valley Forge National Historical Park. The cull is part of the Service’s White-tailed Deer Management Plan intended to prevent deer overpopulation from altering the composition of the forest.  

As noted in previous blogs, deer populations that overshoot their carrying capacity clear out the forest understory and prevent normal plant succession. Intensive foraging activity by deer also reduces habitat for insects, whose populations plument, thus reducing the food supply for migratory birds and small mammals. 

With their exclusive focus on individual animals, animal rights groups do not see the big picture. Too many deer is a growing ecological problem that can affect the lives of many other species of both plants and animals and alter the character of a forest ecosystem.  This is yet another concrete example of the growing gap between conservationists and animal rights proponents.

One example of the ignorance of nature displayed by the animal rights groups was their suggestion that deer populations be controlled by introducing coyotes to the park. Park Service staff had to inform them that coyotes were already present in the park and having little impact on deer populations.

In addition, I wonder if any of the rights proponents have ever seen coyotes or wolves kill a deer?  If these people are so concerned about pain and suffering in individual deer, why would they prefer natural predation to sharpshooters using silencers at night? From the prey’s point of view, the latter is a much quicker and less painful route to death, and therefore more humane.

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Deer Management, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, hunting

The Diner’s Journal, the New York Time’s blog on dining out, recently ran an article on hunting as a source of “green” animal protein.  The author, Sean Patrick Ferrell, is absolutely right–both hunting and angling are vastly greener sources of animal protein than driving to the local grocery store and picking up a pound of hamburger, a dozen sausages, a few farmed trout or salmon, and a package of chicken breasts.  Think of the amount of green house gases produced when animals or their parts are trucked half way across the country.  And think of the pollution and waste products that are created when the meat is packaged for sale in small cellophane and styrofoam containers, all of which end up in landfills. 

Animal rights proponents have argued that environmental issues are one reason, along with concern about the suffering of farm animals–especially those raised on factory farms–that you should stop eating meat altogether.  They also bring up human health issues, such as the high cholesterol and heart disease that can come from eating too much red meat.  Exposure to  antibiotics that are frequently used on farm animals is also an issue.  I can’t say I disagree with them.  There are some serious problems with the system by which we produce food today–and that includes both livestock and plants.

Of course, all this does not necessarily argue for vegetarianism, or its more extreme expression, veganism.  Humans are omnivores afterall.  What it does argue for is immediate and rapid growth in public hunting and angling.  Not only are free-ranging deer, turkey, fish, and other game animals highly abundant, they are also a healthier, greener, and more humane source of animal protein than that offered by your local supermarket.  In fact, hunted animals are the natural equivalent of locally grown food.  In addition, the meat is lean (not laced with fat like grain-fed beef or chicken), and does not contain antibiotics. It is therefore  much healthier for human consumption.  Hunting and angling also gets people outdoors and makes them more active, something sorely needed in our sedentary modern society. Add to that the fact that wild game animals can live freely and behave normally in their natural habitats before being killed quickly and humanely.  From an animal welfare perspective, hunting and angling are thus preferable to raising animals on factory farms.

There are spiritual aspects to hunting too. As the author points out, for many people, hunting or angling forges “a stronger connection with one’s food.”  For many, this means “killing it, butchering and cooking it oneself.”  One wildlife graduate student I know recently hunted for the first time. After having shot, butchered, cooked, and eaten her first duck, she commented that this was the very first time that she had truely felt like she was part of the “circle of life.” 

That is not to say that animal rights proponents would be happy about a resurgence of hunting and angling in America. They believe that hunting and angling are cruel and barbaric practices that have no part in modern society.  But I disagree. The recent decline in hunting and angling in our culture is reflective of our society’s growing disconnection from nature. 

A resurgence of regulated hunting and angling in our culture would be good for people, good for wildlife, and good for nature. Indeed, it would represent a return to our hunting and gathering roots.  Perhaps it would also give us a stronger incentive to set aside and conserve wildlife habitat.  It would also help us better control populations of native and non-native species that have become artificially overpopulated to the point that they are having deleterious impacts on our environment and human health. And, last but not least, it would generate more funds for conservation through license fees and excise taxes from equipment sales.

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, climate change, hunting, invasive species, wildlife conservation

The Catalina Island “Conservancy” has decided to use contraception to control a herd of 150-200 free-roaming, non-native bison on the California island, a fragile ecosystem home to more than 50 plants found nowhere else in the world.  The Conservancy intends to use Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) vaccine, an immuno-contraceptive method that prevents conception.

Ann Muscat, President and CEO of the Catalina Island Conservatory, characterized the contraceptive plan as “the next evolution of a management strategy” for the island’s bison herd.  Julie King, senior wildlife biologist for the Conservancy said: “We were impressed with PZP’s efficacy and safety in the animals treated…and were hopeful that it would be a cost-effective, socially acceptable method to humanely control the increasing Catalina bison herd.” 

I’m sure that my response to this will be characterized by some as politically incorrect or heartless. However, I find it problematic for a “conservancy”–an organization whose primary goal should be to conserve the region’s natural heritage–to be actively maintaining a large herd of non-native herbivores on an island that is home to many species of rare, endemic plants. 

In addition, although I am sympathetic to animal welfare concerns, what’s wrong with euthanasia as a method to curtail and eradicate the population?  The animals can be anesthetized and then chemical euthanasia compounds can be administered.  Little or no pain would be experienced. Such humane methods are endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and can effectively accomplish the immediate goal of population reduction and eradication.  Bison are long-lived animals, and using contraceptives, it will take many years for the population to decrease due to natural attrition.  In the meantime, damage to the island’s precious and irreplacable endemic plants will continue.

Pressure from animal rights groups seems to be prompting conservation organizations to take the easy way out and avoid any potential controversy. Yet, what they don’t seem to realize is that the goals of animal rights and conservation are very different. The conservation ethic seeks to manitain natural biological diversity and sees the value in having stable, functional ecosystems of interdependent organisms.  Animal rights proponents are focused exclusively on the “rights” of individual animals to life and liberty.  Unlike conservationists, they give equal moral consideration to individuals of native and non-native species and to individuals of common and rare species.  In fact, the concept of species means nothing to them because species cannot suffer–their primary criterion for moral consideration.  Indeed, animal rights philosophy sees species as nothing more than ”theoretical constructs” that have little relevance. In contrast, conservationists consider the species concept essential, as these are the evolutionary significant units of conservation. Furthermore, populations and species are necessary for individuals to exist and perpetuate themselves!

In my opinion, it is high time for conservation of populations, species and ecosystems to take precidence over the “rights” of individual animals.  Are individual animals deserving of our moral concern?  Of course, and that means we should reduce wildlife populations in the most humane manner possible, when necessary and appropriate.  In the case of bison, however, we are talking about a common animal that is raised domestically and sold in restaurants for its meat. From a conservation perspective, I fail to see any other goal of using contraception as a means to reduce this non-native bison population, other than to placate the anti-conservationist animal rights lobby and avoid controversy.   This is misplaced compassion. Bison do not belong on Catalina Island and they have the potential to negatively impact many rare plant species found nowhere else in the world.

I fully realize that our contemporary world is often run by illogic and emotion and that anti-intellectualism appears to be rampant.  We’re so disconnected from nature, we care more about our pets than we do about our native wildlife and plants. However, a failure to act rationally and responsibly in the management of our natural resources is going to result in many species extinctions.  The situation is dire. We must be able to make the hard decisions, or everyone is going to lose.

Michael Hutchins Animal Welfare, Animal rights, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, invasive species

The Humane Society of Erie County, like many municipalities, has adopted Trap, Neuter and Release as a method for managing feral cats, even though science tells us that TNR is ineffective in reducing feral cat populations and that such programs take a tremendous toll on native wildlife, including migratory birds and small mammals (see Longcore, T., Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.M. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23: 887-894).  When are municipalities and their local humane societies going to get a clue? When will they have the courage to make the hard decisions?

When are state and federal wildlife agencies responsible for conserving our native wildlife going to take municipalities to court under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Act and other federal legislation protecting native wildlife?  Predation by managed feral cat colonies on protected species should be considered a “take” under the ESA and other legislation.  From this perspective, what cat colony mangers are doing is illegal and should not be tolerated.  When are conservationists going to take action against this ill-advised practice, which has shown to be ineffective in reducing the numbers of feral cats? 

The Human Society of Erie County and the Humane Society of the United States (that also supports TNR) should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a failed policy which, although it may make them feel good about themselves (and helps them raise money from unsuspecting donors who also want to feel good about themselves), is an unmitigated disaster for our native wildlife.  TNR is a policy that helps people avoid the hard decisions regarding feral cats, but in the end, is actually less compassionate and less humane than the alternative. 

Conservation organizations and individuals who truely care about the future of life on this planet must come together to oppose TNR as anti-conservation and inhumane.  Feral cats are non-native predators which exact a tremendous toll on native wildlife. Combined with other factors, such as habitat loss and pollution, they have the potential to push many species to the brink of extinction.

Michael Hutchins Animal Welfare, Animal rights, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Human-wildlife conflict, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, endangered species, invasive species, wildlife conservation