A new study by Harvard University  scientists (including TWS’ Wildlife Phenology Program Coordinator Abe Miller-Rushing) suggests that climate change will exasperate our current battle with invasive species.  As I’ve pointed out in many recent blogs, this will make it even more important that effective control and/or eradication programs be implemented as soon as possible for the more destructive of these ecological interloppers. In addition, stricter regulations must be put into place to prevent further introductions from occurring.

In the future, conservation will require more, not less, intensive management of non-native animal and plant poulations. This will include the development of new technologies for control and eradication, both lethal and non-lethal. Animal rights proponents are unlikely to be happy about this rapidly approaching future, but stark reality is upon us and a failure to act will mean that many native species will be relegated to the dustbin of extinction.  We cannot afford to let that happen.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Wildlife management, invasive species, wildlife conservation

A new article in the Washington Post emphasizes that tough choices are ahead when it comes to managing destructive invasive species.  As I have mentioned in many previous blogs, our government is finally getting serious about invasive species prevention and control, a growing problem that is costing this country billions of dollars annually to combat.  For example, the U.S. Government is spending $55 million in efforts to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. It will likely spend millions more in its attempt to eradicate or control Burmese pythons and other large constrictors in Everglades National Park. 

Nationwide, invasive species are causing an estimated $120 billion dollars of environmental damage annually.  Sam Hamilton, current director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, called invasive species “probably the single greatest threat in our country to our native wildlife.” 

Why then, do radical animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States and their allies continue to fight efforts to control populations of feral cats, pythons, mute swans, nutria, feral horses, cattle  and goats, and other invasive species nation-wide?  Its either invasive species or our native wildlife and their habitats. We can’t have both.  In addition, the deleterious effects of invasive animals, when combined with other environmental stressors, including pollution, climate change, and habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation, will surely push many native species over the brink.   

The 40th anniversary of Earth Day is approaching. Is there a better time to redouble our efforts to control or eradicate selected existing exotics, and most importantly, prevent any further introductions from occurring? Some invasive species must be managed intensively; otherwise, we will lose the conservation battle. Comments welcome.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Animal rights organizations, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, invasive species, wildlife conservation

A recent report  in the High Country News describes efforts by Colorado ranchers to reduce numbers of invasive plants, such as Tamarisk, by renting camels to forage upon them.  Tamarisk, introduced from Eurasia in the 1800s, is very difficult to kill using traditional methods, such as burning, cutting or herbicides.  But the hardy camels have a liking for the salty bush and it has been suggested that 10 camels could destroy half an acre of this invasive plant in a single day. However,  it may take an army of camels to address the problem on a large scale, and unfortunately camels are not native to North America either.  In fact, non-native camels have become a serious and destructure invasive themselves in Australia, where the government has recently gotten very serious about controlling camel populations (see previous blog). We don’t need to add feral camels to feral horses in the western United States, so despite all the hoopla, let’s hope the contractors keep a tight rein on their animals.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, invasive species

The New York Daily News reports that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to ban the importation of a nine species of constrictor snakes imported from other countries.

This is good news as these invasive species reek havoc on the ecosystem.

Read the entire story here.

Share/Save

Darryl Walter US Fish and Wildlife Service, invasive species, snakes habitat protection, invasive species

The Los Angeles Times reported on the increasingly heated rhetoric between animals rights/cat advocates and conservationists over how to deal with feral cats.  One of the former even quoted Ghandi in making her case.  But, as I have blogged about previously, Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR) is likely illegal under a host of federal laws intended to protect our native wildlife, including the Migratory Bird Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. When feral cats from these subzidized colonies kill protected wildlife, it is a “take” as defined by this legislation, and therefore illegal. Ennvironmental groups won this court battle in Los Angeles and animal rights advocates are afraid that this decision is going to spread throughout the U.S.  I say its about time. Every year we wait, millions of native birds and small animals are being lost.  There’s nothing wrong with humane methods of population control, such as live trapping and euthanasia to help solve the growing problem of feral cats, especially since TNR has been shown to be ineffective in reducing their numbers. Responsible pet owners should also keep their cats indoors where they cannot kill native wildlife. It is time to face reality with feral cats. This is a serious environmental problem, not an animal welfare issue.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Animal rights organizations, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Policy, endangered species, invasive species

So, well-know entertainment celebrities such as Cheryl Crow, Ed Harris, Bill Maher and others are coming out against Secretary Salazar’s recent attempt to solve the feral horse dilemma. My immediate reaction is so what?  Don’t animal loving celebrities care about our native wildlife and their habitats?  But, I guess there are no bandwagons to jump on for bighorn sheep and other native species being impacted by this introduced herbivore. You can’t ride bighorn sheep and they didn’t help us “conquer” the west, so I guess they must not be as important.  

Like it or not feral horse populations must be controlled.  For now, control is being restricted to non-lethal means, so as not to ruffle the feathers of celebrities and animal rights advocates.  However, many opponents are still not satisfied. In fact, some have argued for no control at all–they just want the horses to be left alone.  But, of course, that all changes, when the over-populated horses become ill or begin starving as a direct result of their own over-abundance. Then horse advocates want federal agencies to intervene. However, this is basic biology at work and I would recommend that Malthus needs to be required reading in our universities (and music and acting schools).  Resource limitations and their impact on animal populations cannot be controverted by good intentions, only by responsible management. 

The federal government has an obligation to protect native wildlife and their habitats.  If the Secretary’s bold compromise  fails to control feral horse populations or reduce their impact on rangelands and native wildlife, then more drastic action may have to be taken.  Comments welcome.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, invasive species

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar explained his plans for the control of feral horse populations in the American west in an LA Times op ed. I had an opportunity to meet the Secretary today at a meeting for DOI’s conservation partners, and believe that he is sincerely trying to address some of our country’s most difficult conservation issues. Feral horses rank among the most controversial.  One one hand, horse advocates, who view the horse as a western icon, and animal rights groups, who are opposed to virtually any kind of population control,  are now arguing that horses should be considered part of North America’s native fauna.  They also vehemently oppose any lethal control of feral horse populations. In contrast, conservationists are very concerned about the impact of over-populated feral horses and burros on rangeland habitats and native species, such as bighorn sheep.  The current situation is not sustainable.

Fully recognizing the need to control feral horse populations for conservation purposes,  Secretary Salazar has a new plan, which would bring more horses into captivity, continue the current adoption program,  and utilize contraception for long-term control.  Yet, the plan would also sustain a large population of this exotic species and promote them for ecotourism. 

Certainly any effort to control burgeoning feral horse populations is better than nothing at all.  However, I wonder whether this plan will ultimately be successful in maintaining feral horses at numbers that will minimize their impact on fragile habitats and other species?   The cost to taxpayers for maintaining tens of thousands of horses in captivity will also be massive.  In addition, this cost is likely to grow substantially before contraception efforts will have any impact.   Indeed, contraception itself, has many drawbacks and should not be considered a panacea for population control.

I have great sympathy for the Department of the Interior as they are most definately between a rock and a hard place.  However, my question is what is going to happen if this approach fails to decrease horse popualtions or reduce their impact on native species and their habitats?  What should be our highest priority: introduced horses or our native species and their habitats? Given our nation’s other needs (particularly in endangered species conservation), what if the cost of this extremely expensive operation cannot be sustained over time?  These are key questions that must be answered, if not now, then certainly later. 

DOI appears to be looking for a win-win situation here, but as we all know it is virtually impossible to please all of the people all of the time. At some point, resource managers might be forced to make hard decisions.  For now, however, feral horses seem to be immune to methods used to manage over-abundant populations of white-tailed deer, elk, snow geese, feral pigs, and a variety of other similar mammals that require population control. For now, they remain the only introduced species protected by federal law.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife management, invasive species, wildlife conservation

One benefit of the organized hunting of giant snakes going on in the Everglades and surrounding areas is that we are learning more about the extent of the problem. The three-day state coordinated hunt that began recently has turned up at least five African rock pythons, generating fears that another large contrictor has established itself in South Florida.  The catch included one 14-foot long female. 

This is yet another argument for eliminating or restricting the ownership of potentially invasive reptiles, particularly in areas where there is great risk of purposeful or accidental release.  The rock python can eat a wide range of native willdife and is apparently even more aggressive than the Burmese python.  Eradication or control of these destructive invasive species could cost U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins invasive species, wildlife conservation

UPI. com reports that the state of Florida is wisely taking advantage of the recent cold snap in an effort to rid the state of destructive exotic reptiles, including green iguanas and Burmese pythons. State wildlife officials told licensed hunters that the unusual cold weather  is likely to bring the pythons out in the open to bask, and where they can be more easily dispatched.  As far as the iguanas are concerned the state is letting nature take its course.  Hopefully the cold snap will cut their populations way back as well, although some native endangered species may also be suffering from the cold. Hundreds of sea turtles have had to be given shelter recently due to the cold conditions.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins invasive species

A recent article in the Greenville and the Upstate News exposes some of the many warts of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Unfortunately, little is said about the anti-conservation policies of this gigantic organization.  However, the authors are right on in their assessment of HSUS as an animal rights, as opposed to a mainstream animal welfare organization.  Indeed, HSUS policy has been getting increasingly radical over the past few years, even putting them out of step with some of the more radical rights organizations, such as PETA. For example PETA favors live capture and euthanasia to manage feral cats, whereas HSUS still favors Trap, Neuter, and Release (TNR). TNR has been shown to be an abject failure in controlling feral cat numbers to the detriment of native wildlife, such as small mammals and migratory birds.  Perhaps this article will begin educating donors about the many problems with this privately funded “multi-national corporation” –one that promotes itself as both an animal protection and wildlife conservation organization.  Its policies have shown that it is most definately not the latter.

Share/Save

Michael Hutchins Animal rights, Animal rights organizations, invasive species, wildlife conservation