Wildlife Services is one of the most opaque and least accountable agencies I know of. It is not capable of reforming itself. They need a mandate for reform... its going to have to be imposed on them. REP. PETER DEFAZIO, Senior U.S. Congressman (D-OR)

A recent essay in the New York Times by Richard Conniff called Americas Wildlife Body Count is a must read for anyone interested in the ways in which Wildlife Services, AKA Murder, Inc ., conducts business as usual. It is simply amazing how those who work for Wildlife Services get away with killing millions upon millions of nonhuman animals (animals) in the name of coexistence and conservation using brutal and sickening methods including poisoning, trapping, snaring, and shooting, even from airplanes. And, of course, non-target animals, including peoples pets, are also part of the carnage .

You can learn more about Wildlife Services killing ways in a short film called EXPOSED: USDAs Secret War on Wildlife at the website for Predator Defense . Mr. Conniffs essay is a nice, but depressing, follow-up, to a recent essay of mine called The Wars on Wolves, Cats, and Other Animals: Its Time to Forever Close Down the Killing Fields (please also see The Psychology of Killing Wolves, Cats, and other Animals about people who say they love animals and then support killing them). I know many people simply do not believe what they hear about Wildlife Services and their and others unrelenting wars on wildlife, but the facts speak for themselves, and we need to put them all out of business as soon as possible.

Predators are not the leading cause of livestock deaths and killing them doesnt work

Mr. Conniffs essay is available online so below are a few facts and snippets to whet your appetite for more, although the body count for which Wildlife Services is responsible will make you ill. He provides a concise review of a recent peer-reviewed research paper by the University of Wisconsins Dr. Adrian Treves and his colleagues called Predator control should not be a shot in the dark . The abstract for this landmark study that analyses if predator control actually works it clearly does not reads as follows:

Livestock owners traditionally use various non-lethal and lethal methods to protect their domestic animals from wild predators. However, many of these methods are implemented without first considering experimental evidence of their effectiveness in mitigating predation-related threats or avoiding ecological degradation. To inform future policy and research on predators, we systematically evaluated evidence for interventions against carnivore (canid, felid, and ursid) predation on livestock in North American and European farms. We also reviewed a selection of tests from other continents to help assess the global generality of our findings. Twelve published tests representing five non-lethal methods and 7 lethal methods met the accepted standard of scientific inference (random assignment or quasi-experimental case-control) without bias in sampling, treatment, measurement, or reporting. Of those twelve, prevention of livestock predation was demonstrated in six tests (four non-lethal and two lethal), whereas counterintuitive increases in predation were shown in two tests (zero non-lethal and two lethal); the remaining four (one non-lethal and three lethal) showed no effect on predation. Only two non-lethal methods (one associated with livestock-guarding dogs and the other with a visual deterrent termed fladry) assigned treatments randomly, provided reliable inference, and demonstrated preventive effects. We recommend that policy makers suspend predator control efforts that lack evidence for functional effectiveness and that scientists focus on stringent standards of evidence in tests of predator control.

Mr. Conniff begins:

Until recently, I had never had any dealings with Wildlife Services, a century-old agency of the United States Department of Agriculture with a reputation for strong-arm tactics and secrecy. It is beloved by many farmers and ranchers and hated in equal measure by conservationists, for the same basic reason: It routinely kills predators and an astounding assortment of other animals 3.2 million of them last year because ranchers and farmers regard them as pests.

Referring to Dr. Treves study Mr. Conniff notes:

To find out, the researchers reviewed scientific studies of predator control regimens some lethal, some not over the past 40 years. The results were alarming. Of the roughly 100 studies surveyed, only two met the gold standard for scientific evidence. That is, they conducted randomized controlled trials and took precautions to avoid bias. Each found that nonlethal methods (like guard dogs, fences and warning flags) could be effective at deterring predators.

Note that only around 2% of the studies presented solid scientific evidence about the question at hand. Would you get out of bed if you only had a 2% chance of making it through the day?

Wildlife Services pretty much does whatever they want to do as if theyre the only show in town, and a horrific show it is. When Mr. Conniff tried to get Wildlife Services to respond to queries they were not very cooperative. He writes, Ive had better luck getting access at the C.I.A.

Others also have noted that Wildlife Services gets away with doing what they do with no oversight whatsoever. They just continue killing millions of animals in the name of coexistence and conservation, as if the animals were disposable garbage. Indeed, at a talk I heard last year, someone working for Wildlife Services claimed they were heroes for the people they served and was thoroughly unapologetic for the millions of animals they killed each year. Many in the audience were incredulous and sighed deeply, as if asking, Are you kidding?

Some more facts are worth quoting about Wildlife Services unrelenting egregious and lethal war on wildlife. Mr. Conniff asks:

But why were different species killed, or where? Your guess is as good as mine and not just about the predators but about the agencys decision to kill 17 sandhill cranes last year, or 150 blue-winged teal ducks , or 4,927 cattle egrets . Before killing 708,487 red-winged blackbirds that year, did anyone weigh the damage they do to ripening corn and other crops against the benefit they provide by feeding on corn earworms and other harmful insects? Is the scientific support for killing 20,777 prairie dogs (on which the survival of species like the burrowing owl and the black-footed ferret depend), better than that for killing predators?

Mr. Conniff concludes:

In their study, Dr. Treves and his co-authors urge the appointment of an independent panel to conduct a rigorous large-scale scientific experiment on predator control methods. They also recommended that the government put the burden of proof on the killers and suspend predator control programs that are not supported by good science. For Wildlife Services, after a century of unregulated slaughter of Americas native species, this could be the moment to set down the weapons, step out of the way, and let ranchers and scientists together figure out the best way for predators and livestock to coexist.

Please do something to put Wildlife Services out of business once and for all

Poisons banned since the 1970s, that the official record said didnt exist, were being bought from the Wyoming Dept. of Ag. to sell to ranchers and predator boards. REX SHADDOX, Former Wildlife Services trapper & special investigator for Wyoming Sting operation

Please read Mr. Conniffs essay and contact members of Congress and ask them to put Wildlife Services out of business once and for all. Your money is supporting their murderous ways. To wit, Mr. Conniff notes that taxpayers spent $127 million in 2014 to allow Wildlife Services to continue brutally killing other animals with no transparency at all. Thats a lot of money that could be used to foster coexistence in non-lethal and humane ways, an idea that obviously is totally foreign to Wildlife Services. The rapidly growing interdisciplinary field of compassionate conservation (please also see Compassionate Conservation: More than Welfarism Gone Wild , Compassionate Conservation Meets Cecil the Slain Lion , and the website for The Centre for Compassionate Conservation ) could surely come to the rescue of the millions of animals who are wantonly and brutally killed each and every year.

As a reminder of the urgency of putting Wildlife Services out of business, I end with the quote with which I began:

Wildlife Services is one of the most opaque and least accountable agencies I know of. It is not capable of reforming itself. They need a mandate for reform... its going to have to be imposed on them. REP. PETER DEFAZIO, Senior U.S. Congressman (D-OR)