County Moves Forward with Wildlife Services - Carefully

Doña Ana County Commission's renewal of the U.S. Wildlife Services contract has been a case history in listening.

Each year we pay the agency to “deal” with “nuisance” wild animals: coyotes eating calves, skunks in your garage, rattlesnakes. No one pays much attention.

This year folks, including Southwest Environmental Center, sensibly said, “Wait a minute!” And started asking questions. Wanton coyote-killing ain't cool. 

So the County passed a resolution getting us out of the coyote-killing business, requiring certain funds go only to non-lethal methods. This resolution sparked a storm of protest from ranchers and Wildlife Services, who made some good points about what's actually happening on the ground. They say the killing isn't wanton or extensive. 

Mike Graves from Wildlife Services said the bulk of his work under the county contract mostly involves non-ranching citizens encountering problematic animals other than coyotes. The program kills relatively few coyotes. (73 last year.) Graves and the ranchers said they weren't out to eradicate coyotes. Ranchers call on Graves rarely, mostly during calving season. Their problem is the occasional coyote that preys on calves, not all coyotes. They said they care about the balance of nature, and recognize that coyotes are an essential part of our local ecology, such that eradicating coyotes would cause even more problems. They also loathe coyote-killing contests. Rancher Steve Wilmeth recounted finding a bunch of carcasses someone hung on his fence, and knowing passersby would “think that rancher did that.” But that rancher hadn't and wouldn't. 

Graves's key point is that “nuisance animals” will be dealt with – if not by Wildlife Services, then by amateurs with far less experience and skill, in far less humane ways.

At Doña Ana Soil and Water Conservation District's request, the Commission reconsidered the resolution, and discussed at its last meeting a new resolution that imposes reporting requirements but removes most limitations. 

Some citizens advocated the original resolution, others opposed it. Commission Chair Lynn Ellins will discuss with Wildlife Services M-44 poisoning and leg-traps. (People disagree on how inhumane these are and whether or not hikers' dogs are endangered.)

I hope Ellins will get more stringent reporting requirements and revive certain rules, even if they require things Graves already does, such as warning signs and an electronic device to alert him when a trap has been sprung. We've improved the situation some, and can review it next year. I'm particularly interested in the process.

Good for SWEC, which raised the questions. Good for DASWCD, which made some good practical points in seeking reconsideration. Good for the Commission, for listening to everyone. We should be able to sharpen our focus to accomplish the goal without collateral damage.

As for us “general public,” there was too much demonizing of each other. Some folks attacked SWEC's Kevin Bixby, while others assumed the “coyote-killers” must be liars. I never think attacking people helps a whole lot, which may be my advanced age showing. 

We have a diverse community. Vegan friends point out that raising herds of cattle is a massive ecological evil, and that it takes vast amounts of water to get beef to your table. 

Ranchers point out that some of what they do actually helps wildlife, and that the disappearance of their way of life would be sad for all of us. 

Meanwhile, with the contract lapsed, some old guy with a skunk in his garage is probably giving Graves hell for not helping him. 

[NOTE: The County Commission meeting will be at 9 a.m. Tuesday, 9 July -- just two days away!]

                                                      -30- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 7 July 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio (streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org).and is available at the KRWG website.]

[New Mexico conservation groups have launched a People’s Contract for Coexistence with Wildlife in response to the above.  They alleged that the resolution now on the table doesn't “reflect publicly-held values," adding, "We believe that it is not necessary to exterminate animals because they pose an inconvenience to someone, that traps and poisons have no place on our public lands, and that coexistence with local wildlife is possible.”  I agree.

They urge transparency and accountability, and strengthened reporting requirements should help meet that goal.

They call Wildlife Services an "opaque, rogue, killing agency." (A group called Predator Defense has a very negative view of the agency.)  I know the agency has a bad reputation for its past conduct toward wolves; and I lack sufficient knowledge to judge the agency as a whole; but I've been impressed so far by what I've heard from the local representative.  

"The People’s Contract would prohibit Wildlife Services from using leghold traps, snares, and dangerous M-44 sodium cyanide bombs. It would also preclude expensive and wasteful aerial gunning of wildlife. Instead, the contract emphasizes the need for coexistence with native wildlife through long-term, proven non-lethal deterrence methods and husbandry practices that would save public funds and benefit ecosystem function." 

I share a commitment to coexistence with native wildlife.  Coyotes were here first.  Therefore I sure hope our killings of coyotes are minimal.  Hell, up toward the mountains for several years, I killed rattlesnakes only when I had to, and normally relocated them.  I know that's also not a great thing for the rattlesnake, but it seemed better than killing 'em.  Same thin, mostly, with scores of pack rats. But not everyone lives as I do.  Mr. Graves's point that others' "self-help" efforts might do a lot worse damage than Wildlife Services' more focused work. 

Should we completely forbid the M-44 sodium cyanide poisons?  Or is limited use of them a necessary evil, far from areas people's pets wander through? Aerial gunning of wildlife is appalling; but if it's accurate that that's happened just once in our county in the past five years, forbidding it sounds a bit less urgent.  I will say that my instinct is that the leghold traps are more dangerous than Wildlife Services lets on; but if it's true that those traps were used by Wildlife Services to trap wolves that were intended to survive and breed additional wolves for reintroduction to the wilds, maybe they're not so thoroughly dangerous. So I don't claim to know the answer.  (By the way, you can, if  you wish, sign the People's Contract or get the names of your commissioner to advocate one side or the other here)]

[At the same time, conservationists stress that the April resolution would not have affected the Wildlife Services work so long as the agency spent half its budget on non-lethal animal control. The resolution passed in April mandated that “Farm and Ranch Improvement Funds” (or FRIF) used for predator and rodent control must be used only on non-lethal methods going forward.  However, the agency's annual budget under the contract has typically been $17,000 plus an equal amount of general county funds.]

[So I remain grateful to those who've raised these issues, and to the County Commission for working toward a way forward that's fair both to residents and to animals -- and I never forget that we are the interlopers, while the animals belong here.]