In the United States, the federal Wildlife Services (WS) agency administers the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (ADC) in order to control wildlife when it conflicts with human activities. The ADC authorizes WS to determine the best methods and practices to eradicate, suppress, and control a variety of wildlife species that may injure industries such as agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and animal husbandry on state, federal, public, and private lands. In addition, under the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, WS may, if requested, enter into an agreement with any entity or individual in the United States to control injurious and/or nuisance mammals and birds. In other words, WS has broad discretion to act as it deems appropriate in response to conflicts with wildlife.
The general mission of WS is to serve as a leader in wildlife conflict management. WS’ philosophy attempts to balance several competing interests, including the interest in human tolerance and coexistence with wildlife versus the interest in minimizing damage—especially property damage—that may be caused by wildlife. When managing wildlife conflicts, WS may employ technical assistance, direct control assistance, or a combination thereof. Technical assistance means recommendations and informational materials that are shared to assist others in managing wildlife damage issues. On the other hand, direct control assistance means activities in the field that are conducted or supervised by WS employees.
WS uses a variety of nonlethal wildlife control methods, including several practices that allow WS employees to either physically move the harmful or injurious animal(s) away from the site of the conflict or to prompt the animal(s) to leave the site. However, WS also employs a troubling practice called “denning.” Denning occurs when gas cartridges are used to fumigate animals within their den or burrow, or when an animal’s den or burrow is physically excavated. In addition to the species that are targeted by denning, non-target burrowing species are also susceptible to unintentional fumigation or excavation. Furthermore, if any individual animal manages to survive the initial fumigation or excavation of its den or burrow, it will be retrieved and euthanized pursuant to WS’ program directives.
Unfortunately, WS also uses several lethal wildlife control methods, which may be categorized as “killing” or “euthanasia.” In 2018, over 2.6 million animals were killed or euthanized by WS. This number includes nearly 70,000 coyotes and several thousand unintentional deaths among a variety of predator and agricultural-nuisance species. When euthanizing an animal, WS employees are instructed to use methods described in the most current available euthanasia guidelines issued by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). However, the WS program directive outlining this policy does not actually contain these AVMA guidelines and does not specify how they should be applied. In addition, pursuant to WS’ decision model, the agency and its employees are not required to document or record the decision-making process when they choose to euthanize an animal.
One of the most troubling lethal control methods employed by WS is the use of M-44 cyanide capsules. M-44s are spring-activated devices that are scented with bait and eject a lethal dose of sodium cyanide once the device has been triggered by an animal. There a number of legal restrictions on how WS may use these devices, including the range of species that WS may target: coyotes, red and gray foxes, and wild dogs. From 2016 to 2018, a combined total of over 32,000 animals from these four species were targeted and killed by WS using M-44s, while another 400 animals among these species were unintentional victims of capsules that had been placed to control other species or populations. Even more startling, WS’ placement of M-44s unintentionally killed a combined total of 311 animals belonging to species that the agency is not authorized to control through the use of such devices. Moreover, as reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, in 2017 M-44s placed by WS temporarily blinded a child and killed a family dog in Idaho, killed two family dogs in Wyoming, and killed a wolf in Oregon.
Many wildlife and animal welfare organizations have voiced general concerns over WS’ practices and the agency’s overall lack of accountability. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, WS’ activities have contributed to the decline of numerous imperiled species and continue to impede those species’ recovery. Moreover, they claim, WS has created lasting negative impacts on the health of ecosystems across the country by targeting predators at the top of the food chain. The Center has also raised a number of criticisms regarding the operational nature of WS, pointing specifically to a lack of public disclosure to explain where, how, and why the agency conducts its wildlife control activities. Similarly, the nonprofit organization Predator Defense has highlighted concerns about WS’ lack of transparency, including the agency’s refusal to comply with Congressional requests for transparency and spending accounting.
In an effort to overcome these challenges, in recent years the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has made progress communicating and collaborating with WS in certain states. In 2017, NRDC reported the successful completion of over a dozen collaborative nonlethal predator control projects using electric fencing in states including Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wyoming. In 2018, NRDC collaborated with Wildlife Services and other entities to install an electric fence around a California orchard, adopting a preventative strategy to keep black bears away from the crops before conflicts could occur. Ultimately, NRDC hopes that the success of these projects will “continue to pave the way for additional partnerships.”
In California, several counties have cancelled, suspended, or modified their contracts with Wildlife Services over concerns about the agency’s practices. Leading the way in 2000, Marin County ceased contracting with WS following public outcry over the agency’s use of lethal methods including poisons, snares, and denning. The approved alternative, known as the Marin County Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program, is designed around community collaboration, multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, and a cost-sharing system. Most recently, in 2020 Humboldt County approved a new contract with WS under modified terms following a warning from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which told the County that it could face legal challenges to its contract under California state law. The terms of Humboldt County’s new contract restrict the use of lethal control methods, prohibit WS from using lethal control on beavers, and generally restrict the use of certain lethal control methods such as pesticides, lead ammunition, and body-gripping traps.