|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fact Sheets: How Many Animals Does the Wildlife Services Program Kill? Wildlife Services: Dangerous to More Than Just Predators The Environmental Problems With Wildlife Services A History of Wildlife Services The Wildlife Services Program is Inhumane Non-Lethal Alternatives to Wildlife Services
|
Non-lethal Alternatives to Wildlife Services' Livestock Protection Program: Non-lethal methods of predator control have proven to be effective for ranchers across the country. Wildlife Services' field personnel are directed to use non-lethal methods when practical and effective. The Wildlife Services program could educate livestock operators of these livestock management practices at a fraction of the cost of its current livestock protection program. Non-lethal alternatives include: · Guarding animals including dogs, donkeys, llamas and mules. A study from 1976-1991 led by Ray Coppinger, Professor of Biology at Hampshire College, found that coyote kills dropped sharply when guard dogs were used. · Fencing - Net wire fences can be used. Barbed wire at the ground level will discourage digging under fences. Operators can prevent predators climbing over fences by adding a charged wire at the top of the fence. · Electric fences -Wildlife Services advises that electric fencing can be used to concentrate predator activity at specific places, such as gateways, ravines or other areas where predators may try to gain access. · Penning animals in at night · Sound and sight repellants such as "electronic guard" which provides a combination of flashing strobe lights and a siren with light and sound varied by an electric timer. · Timing calving and lambing so that they don't coincide with the season when coyote pups are born. It is in order to feed hungry pups that coyotes are most likely to be prey on vulnerable animals such as calves and lambs. Non-lethal alternatives have been shown to work: · Until 1995, Kansas operated its wildlife services program independent of federal funding. The state stationed one extension agent at Kansas State University to assist farmers with animal damage problems, educate youth and study alternative methods of control. According to Robert Henderson, the Kansas extension specialist, from 1968-1995, as a result of educational efforts helping livestock producers prevent predatory damage, the number of coyote complaints dropped from more than 200 in 1968 to 12 in the early 1980s. He noted that ranchers in Kansas employed alternative control methods such as penning of lambs and sheep at night and using guard dogs.(1) ·
From 1968 to 1995, the livestock protection program in Kansas
cost less than $75,000 annually. In Oklahoma, a state comparable
to Kansas in size and agriculture, the federal program spent
$1.3 million annually. Yet the number of reported problems in
that state was 20 times higher than in Kansas.
|
|