ADC Trapper Forum

No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers *** No Politics
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter


Home~Trap Talk~ADC Forum~Trap Shed~Wilderness Trapping~International Trappers~Fur Handling

Auction Forum~Trapper Tips~Links~Gallery~Basic Sets~Convention Calendar~Chat~ Trap Collecting Forum

Trapper's Humor~Strictly Trapping~Fur Buyers Directory~Mugshots~Fur Sale Directory~Wildcrafting

Trapper's Tales~Words From The Past~Legends~Archives~Kids Forum~Lure Formulators Forum


~~~ Dobbins' Products Catalog ~~~


WCS
(Please support Wildlife Control Supplies, our sponsor for the ADC Page)






Print Thread
Hop To
Page 8 of 25 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 24 25
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: ] #3333624
09/21/12 10:01 PM
09/21/12 10:01 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
[quote=rnations]I received the official word from the MS Dept of Wildlife fisheries and Parks Furbearer Manager, after he and the law enforcement divison was adivsed of the 4 state trapping violations that the USDA Beaver Trappers were violating he has advised me that a AGREEMENT exsist to allow this to occur. No state statues exist excempting the USDA from violating 4 state trapping laws, except this unpublished AGREEMENT. And the agreement I susptect a memorandum of understanding between the federal and state agency remains unpublished and unavailable at this time. [/quote/]

If there is novstate law an mou can not except them.
What you need to do is ask your state assembly man or state representive to write a letter to the state game commision asking them to explain and justify why usda is exempt from the state laws.

Last edited by Wildlife2; 09/21/12 10:03 PM.

Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3333880
09/22/12 06:54 AM
09/22/12 06:54 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,785
Georgia
K
Kirk De Offline
trapper
Kirk De  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,785
Georgia
They do the same here.

The state has a way to regulate "whatever-however" (paraphrased) if it is "needed"(interpretation is the way they do it). They want to "protect" the public.

It just depends on whose side the state is on, in my opinion. Makes sense, though, doesn,t it?

When the state tried to stop me from trapping for counties several years ago, I was told by the head of Law Enforcement that I would be arrested and fined if I continued. He said that the only way I could continue was if the Attorney General of the State of Georgia O K'd it.

About 10 days later I got a letter from Head of DNR telling me I could continue.

We got the law changed 6 months later.


The Real Reasons Animals Are Detecting Your Sets And Devices by Kirk Dekalb
https://amzn.to/2Hn1hxv
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3333927
09/22/12 08:06 AM
09/22/12 08:06 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,785
Georgia
K
Kirk De Offline
trapper
Kirk De  Offline
trapper
K

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,785
Georgia
On a different note.

---------------------------------

We sell a very wide variety of cage traps. Many unlike no other. As far as I can tell, USDA personel or the USDA has purchased less than 5 over the years.

Have had two instances when they saw my Hog designs, they said they were going to approach their bosses to try and get 25 or more(on each occasion). Said they were the best they had seen. Even offered a new design that allows multiples, unlike other designs .

The last inquiry was fairly recent.

Maybe it just takes time. Maybe I have ruffled some feathers.

It all boils down to what is best to do your job as a trapper. As for the Government, it "should" be what is best to do the job for the public they work for.

_______________________________________________

I have sold traps to the military.


The Real Reasons Animals Are Detecting Your Sets And Devices by Kirk Dekalb
https://amzn.to/2Hn1hxv
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3335034
09/22/12 11:52 PM
09/22/12 11:52 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
Finally some good news!

Just wanted to let you know that the PESTT (Pest Elimination Services Transparency & Terminology) Act was introduced last Thursday.  Introduced by Congressmen Mulvaney and Schrader, the bill is also cosponsored by Congressmen Duncan (TN), Duncan (SC), Guthrie, and Southerland and Congresswomen Schmidt and Chu.

In a nutshell, the PESTT Act would establish immediate parameters as to the type of work USDA/Wildlife Services can and cannot perform by defining the term “urban rodent control.”  (WS authorizing statute does not authorize WS to engage in “urban rodent control.”)  In addition, the bill directs GAO to conduct a study prioritizing WS’ functions and recommending ways to avoid competition with the private sector.  This bill is a good first step in refocusing WS’ mission and ensuring that the agency does not unnecessarily compete with the private sector in the future.   


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3336939
09/24/12 11:25 AM
09/24/12 11:25 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3337914
09/24/12 09:19 PM
09/24/12 09:19 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3339615
09/25/12 08:35 PM
09/25/12 08:35 PM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 30
south east michigan
P
Peskycritter Offline
trapper
Peskycritter  Offline
trapper
P

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 30
south east michigan
By Miguel Llanos, NBC News
Marksmen are hunting a pack of gray wolves in northeast Washington state this week after officials decided the entire pack — believed to number at least eight wolves — needed to be killed because of repeated attacks on cattle.

Follow @NBCNewsUS
The major conservation group working with Washington to manage its gray wolves agreed that the pack should be culled, but also blamed a rancher in the area for not doing more to protect his cattle.
Gray wolves are listed as endangered under state law because they were nearly wiped out a century ago by settlers.
In the last decade, however, gray wolves have started to re-establish themselves in Washington due to recovery efforts in nearby states and dispersal from Canada. 
Advertise | AdChoices


At least eight packs are now established in the eastern half of Washington, which also has a conservation plan in place — one that aims to restore wolves in the wild without those same wolves preying on livestock. The state compensates ranchers who lose livestock to wolves, but that hasn't ended the tension.
"Wolves are recolonizing our state relatively quickly," Dave Ware, a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman, told NBC News. "Managing conflicts is one of the most important objectives for recovery so that people don’t take things into their own hands."
Officials last July killed one pack member to see if that would have an impact. The decision to kill the entire pack came after the pack's attacks on cattle continued. 
Conservation Northwest, a group working with the state, agreed that killing the pack was best for long-term recovery of gray wolves in the wild.
But director Mitch Friedman told NBC station KING 5 that rancher Bill McIrvine, who lost part of his herd to the pack, "has total responsibility for the problem" for not being as cooperative as other ranchers with programs aimed at keeping cattle and wolves apart.
The wildlife department, for its part, "has not been as firm as it needed to be," Friedman added, especially since McIrvine's cattle graze on public land.
McIrvine, for his part, earlier told KING 5 that he believes groups with "a radical environmental agenda" are conspiring to introduce gray wolves in order "to take our (grazing) lease from us."
LIVE POLL

Q: Should the wolf pack be killed?
Yes, at this point it's the only way to build a sustainable gray wolf population in Washington state.
No, ranchers should be required to take more steps to protect their livestock.

VIEW RESULTS

"We have the right to protect our property," McIrvine said, adding that he considered the wildlife department "a rogue government agency" that was essentially saying "we got to sit back and do nothing while the wolves kill our livestock."
Ware said efforts to get rancher cooperation for "non-lethal methods of preventing conflicts" have improved in recent weeks. Several agreements with ranchers should be in place for next year that will hopefully "avoid a repeat of the Wedge Pack situation," he said.
One obvious question is why not just move the wolves to a wilderness area away from livestock? 
"Experience from other states with recently recovered wolf populations indicates that survival of relocated wolves is not very high, especially if there are other wolf packs in the area where they are moved, which appears to be the case in most of northeast Washington," Ware said.
On top of that, "once a pack becomes habituated to eating livestock, moving them only moves the conflict" since wolf territories are larger than any wilderness area the state could ship them to, he said.
"Lethal removal is being conducted in every" state with gray wolves, Ware added, while acknowledging that since wolf recovery efforts are new in Washington "the concept of killing an endangered species to promote recovery is difficult to understand or accept."
Advertise | AdChoices


"As wolf recovery has progressed across the West, lethal removal has been an important part of that recovery and it has obviously not impacted wolf numbers or expansion of their range," Ware said. "We don’t expect it to be an impediment in Washington’s wolf recovery either."
"The Wedge area is good habitat, so wolves will likely recolonize relatively quickly over the next year or two," Ware said.


htt:// www.critterremovalmi.net
Free Trapper
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3354731
10/05/12 03:34 PM
10/05/12 03:34 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
Finally something to help us

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program was founded in the late 19th Century to control predators and protect America agriculture.  A 1987 law authorized WS to manage nuisance birds and mammals in non-agricultural settings. While the law was expressly intended to permit WS to control birds at airports and engage in rabies prevention activities, it is written very broadly and actually give WS the authority to perform almost any type of nuisance wildlife control work imaginable (regardless of whether it is in competition with the private sector), except “urban rodent control.”  Unfortunately, the law doesn’t define the phrase, so the exception is unclear and toothless.
 
Professional pest and wildlife management companies have complained to National Pest Management Association staff for many years about competition from WS for various nuisance wildlife work.  Moreover, WS receives much of its work through sole source contracts from state and local governments, so most pest and wildlife management professionals aren’t even aware that they’ve lost work to the federal government that they are fully capable of performing.  NPMA has strived just as long to try to address those concerns.  Most recently, NPMA helped Congressmen Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and their staffs develop legislation entitled “Pest Elimination Services Transparency & Terminology (PESTT) Act” (H.R. 6470). 
 
In a nutshell, the PESTT Act defines the phrase “urban rodent control,” thereby establishing some clear parameters as to the work in which WS can and cannot engage.  The bill further directs the General Accountability Office to write a report to Congress identifying services WS performs that the private sector has the capability and capacity to provide and ways to avoid competition for nuisance wildlife work in the future. 
 
Other House members that have signed on as cosponsors of the legislation include Congresswomen Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Judy Chu (D-CA) and Congressmen Jeff Duncan (R-SC), John Duncan (R-TN), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Steve Southerland (R-FL). 

Click here to read the bill and use the link below to send a pre-written message to your House member asking he or she to cosponsor the PESTT Act when Congress reconvenes for the “lame-duck” session after the November 6 election.   Thanks in advance for helping build support in Congress for this important, much needed legislation.
 

Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/npma/izEqGGrb.aspx


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3358658
10/08/12 09:45 AM
10/08/12 09:45 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3362066
10/10/12 07:13 AM
10/10/12 07:13 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
5.4 Million dollars that could have gone to Private NWCOs in GA alone.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/state_report_pdfs/2010/10-georgia_report.pdf


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3362073
10/10/12 07:18 AM
10/10/12 07:18 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
From the GA Report;

" WS applies wildlife
damage management to reduce damage associated with various wildlife species including
pigeons, blackbirds, starlings, sparrows, crows, vultures, geese, bats, and gulls"

Take note pigeons and bats

Still think they don't hurt you compnay?


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3362103
10/10/12 07:46 AM
10/10/12 07:46 AM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,875
Gainesville, Alachua, Florida,...
Robb Russell Offline
trapper
Robb Russell  Offline
trapper

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,875
Gainesville, Alachua, Florida,...
Correction Pigeons, Starlings , Sparrows & yes bats.

Of special note is the worthless memorandum for record with the NPMA.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/08/0204.xml

This line from the MOU is total BS "WS will not actively seek to become involved in the control of nuisance birds in areas where pest management companies have the established capacity to meet consumers' needs."


Find Our Podcasts @ http://www.thewildlifepro.net
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3366870
10/13/12 11:19 AM
10/13/12 11:19 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,907
Louisiana
N
N-R Trapper Offline
trapper
N-R Trapper  Offline
trapper
N

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,907
Louisiana
Here,in Louisiana,LDWF instituted NWCO regulations,a few years ago,with the help of USDA-APHIS-WS and USFWS,they have an unwritten MOU,that includes anything concerning trapping in Louisiana,a relationship,that has become very cozy for all concerned parties,thanks,in a great deal to the ESA Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Program.There is a convenient regulation which excludes any governmental agency,municipal,parish (county),state or federal animal control agency,from all regulations,that licensed NWCO's are subject to,in the state of Louisiana.That is how easy it is to give them "carte blanche" from any state trapping regulations.Once,they are put in place,it becomes accepted as the status quo and no one seems to have a problem,with this arrangement,not even some NWCO trappers,who may be willing,silent participants,in this conflict of interest.

Last edited by N-R Trapper; 10/13/12 11:22 AM.
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3397274
10/31/12 10:39 AM
10/31/12 10:39 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3409878
11/07/12 10:24 AM
11/07/12 10:24 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
Crow work.
USDA kicked out a private company and is charging more.
http://m.postbulletin.com/postbulletin/pm_105557/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=o8CVdoxo


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3419336
11/12/12 10:50 AM
11/12/12 10:50 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3430264
11/18/12 11:12 AM
11/18/12 11:12 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
Finally some media coverage for our cause.

 
 
Federal Wildlife Services makes a killing in animal-control business
By Tom Knudson
tknudson@sacbee.com
By Tom Knudson The Sacramento Bee
Last modified: 2012-11-18T08:03:33Z
Published: Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
 
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994110/federal-wildlife-services-makes.html

As founder of one of the nation's largest urban wildlife damage control companies, Kevin Clark is no stranger to competition.
But one competitor costs him more business than any other: the federal government.
"Government is not supposed to compete, head to head, with the private sector when the private sector is already fulfilling the need," said Clark, chief executive officer of Critter Control, a franchise with branches in California. "Nuisance wildlife control operators are more than capable of handling these problems."
His concern is directed at an agency called Wildlife Services, which is already under scrutiny for its lethal control of predators and other animals in the rural West. A Bee investigative series earlier this year found the agency targets wildlife in ways that have killed thousands of non-target animals, including family pets, and can trigger unintended, negative ecological consequences.
Now the agency's killing of other species in more populated settings is drawing fire from entrepreneurs who say it siphons jobs away from private companies, lacks transparency and overlooks nonlethal alternatives.
"It's been such an uphill struggle," said Erick Wolf, CEO of a California firm called Innolytics, which developed a form of birth control for Canada geese and pigeons with help from Wildlife Services' scientists in Colorado.
Wildlife Services – which has killed 170,000 geese and more than 950,000 pigeons since 2000 – does not use it.
"All they want to do is shoot, trap and poison," said Wolf. "They don't want to consider anything else."
Wildlife Services spokeswoman Carol Bannerman defended the agency's contracting practices.
"Congress has provided Wildlife Services with the legislative authority to conduct wildlife damage activities, except for urban rodent control, wherever there is a need expressed by the public," she wrote in an email. "Wildlife Services advises all requestors of the existence of other service providers."
Interest is growing in Congress. A bill was introduced this fall to direct the U.S. Government Accountability Office to detail agency activities in conflict with private business.
"Where is the room for business to breathe?" said Gene Harrington, director of government affairs for the National Pest Management Association. "If you are going to suck the air out of the animal control business, what's next? Why not get into roofing? I'm sure OSHA could come up with a good roofing division."
Clientele to die for
Wildlife Services has broadened its reach in recent decades, thanks to an expansion of its mandate to "nuisance mammals and birds" in nonagricultural settings in 1987 by Congress. It also authorized the agency to continue to contract with clients and charge fees.
The agency has long shielded the names of its clients from disclosure. But recently it provided a partial list to The Bee in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
The information shows Wildlife Services does business with more than 2,500 customers, from Fortune 500 companies to ranchers, prisons to zoos, country clubs to cemeteries, landfills to airports to other agencies.
Collectively, those clients paid $72 million in fees to the agency in 2011, up from $52 million in 2006.
Corporate clients include American Airlines, Au Bon Pain, BP, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Mills, PG&E, Princess Tours, Pfizer, Toyota, Union Pacific, US Bank, Walt Disney World, Wells Fargo and Verizon Wireless.
Government agencies are even more abundant. They include Amtrak, NASA, the Army, Navy and Air Force, Sacramento County and San Quentin State Prison. The agency also works for hundreds of private individuals whose names were redacted for privacy reasons.
"This list reads like the who's who of potential customers," said Wolf, the nonlethal pigeon control executive. "They are taking the cream of the crop, the biggest and best customers. We don't have a chance."
Entrepreneurs say they face barriers competing with the agency – none larger than its hefty public funding: $89 million for 2011, an average of $243,000 per day.
"The deck is stacked against the private guys because Wildlife Services is operating as a subsidized source," said Dixon Herman, vice president of the National Wildlife Control Operators Association. "They are not responsible for any profit margin."
The agency describes its urban and nuisance wildlife services on its Web page. These include shooting and dispersing waterfowl around airports and on golf courses, trapping beavers, skunks and raccoons in suburbs and killing pigeons and other birds in towns and cities.
"Geese, deer and feral pigs can destroy golf course greens, fruiting plants (and) lawns," the agency says. "The excrement and noise from a roost of vultures or crows can be so severe that backyard swing sets, grills (and) lawn furniture become useless."
That's work private operators say they can do, too.
"If we're talking dengue fever, avian flu, massive crop damage or depredation problems, those things on a big scale, they certainly have a right and a need to be involved," said Clark, the Critter Control CEO. "But they have no business trapping a squirrel or doing a small bird job in cities where they are competing directly with small-business people who are struggling in this economy."
Often, competing for agency work is not possible because many of its clients don't ask for bids.
"In pretty much every case, they are getting work from public entities through sole source contracts," said Harrington. "So operators don't even have an idea that they've lost a contract, because it's never put out for bid."
One of those no-bid contracts is with the County of Sacramento. It pays Wildlife Services $113,300 a year to control raccoons, pigeons, skunks, coyotes, wild turkeys and other animals.
"Why are they not hiring local businesses that could easily do that work?" Harrington said. "That's just nuts."
County Agricultural Commissioner Juli Jensen defended the no-bid contract, saying the county has been working with the agency since the 1920s.
"We feel that private contractors do not have the experience and expertise needed to properly handle our more rural wildlife issues such as coyotes. Many private companies do not handle all wildlife – most do urban trapping," she said in a statement.
She also said Wildlife Services chips in an additional $69,000 to support the work of two agency trappers in the county, something no private company can offer.
"I don't believe any of them are willing to pay for 40 percent of the program," Jensen said. "I believe our taxpayers are getting the best value going this route."
But Carter Niemeyer, a retired Wildlife Services trapper and district supervisor, said such arrangements have hidden costs that hurt taxpayers.
"Behind the trappers, you've got district supervisors. Behind district supervisors, you've got state directors. You have trucks, retirement programs – a whole government infrastructure. Private guys don't have to maintain a government infrastructure," Niemeyer said.
Wildlife Services' Bannerman defended its sole-source work, pointing out in an email that an agency directive forbids it from bidding. "When agencies conduct an open bid process, WS may not participate," she said.
The federal brand
Earlier this year, one agency sales pitch turned up in an email to a New York golf course seeking a federal migratory bird permit to trap and relocate Canada geese.
"In case you do not yet have a wildlife management firm, I have attached the price sheet of Wildlife Services costs," the email reads. "If you do desire Wildlife Services, you would no longer need to obtain a permit as the work would be conducted under our permit."
Instead, the work went to Cody Baciuska, founder of Loomacres Wildlife Management, who said the agency should not be part of the permitting process.
"Wildlife Services' role is a clear conflict of interest and gives WS an unfair advantage," he said in an email.
But Bannerman disagreed. "The letter is a first attempt by WS to gather additional information to complete the required forms," she said.
"Every time we market our services to clients, it seems like they are in the background undermining our efforts," Baciuska said. "It's a continual fight to get work."
To land the job, Baciuska had to drop his bid to compete with the Wildlife Services price of $6 per goose, plus mileage. Others have been less fortunate.
"Everything was all set," said Dave Cheaney, vice president of National Bird Control in Seattle, who was looking forward to a job protecting salmon fry from seagulls at a federal dam on the Columbia River two years ago.
"It was a $200,000 to $300,000 contract," Cheaney said. "At the last moment, we were told USDA (Wildlife Services) was taking charge. Come to find out, they did it for $40,000 or something."
"That started my blood to boil," said Cheaney, whose clients include Lowe's and Costco. "They are taking money right out of my pocket."
Bannerman explained the agency's low prices: "WS is a not-for-profit, service organization. It does not collect funds above the total cost of providing the service."
The agency's client revenue has climbed 80 percent over the past decade, from $39.4 million in 2001 to $71.7 million in 2011. Other figures are on the upswing, too.
Since 2000, the number of Canada geese killed by Wildlife Services has more than tripled from 7,500 to 23,700 last year. Over the same period, its lethal control of seagulls has risen 55 percent, raccoons 58 percent, pigeons 62 percent and mallards more than 200 percent.
One deadly encounter played out early this year at Clear Lake in Northern California where 70 to 80 semi-domestic geese were shot and killed in nighttime Wildlife Services hunting operations.
"I don't agree with how it was handled. It was not humane at all," said Lake County Supervisor Anthony Farrington. "They went straight to the lethal approach without exploring other options. To me, that was unnecessary and a disservice to the public."
Alternatives
Wolf believes there is a better way: birth control.
A decade ago, he began working with a product that prevents the eggs of geese and pigeons from hatching. "It's just remarkable," he said. "The effect is like night and day."
He also turned to Wildlife Services' state-of-the-art National Wildlife Research Center in Colorado. The results were so impressive the agency co-developed the product, called OvoControl, with him and promotes its use for geese and pigeons in brochures and on its website.
"It serves little purpose to just continue to shoot them," said Wolf. "Whatever is left just backfills the population so quickly you never get ahead of the curve.
"It takes about a year to lose 50 percent of the population. It's a very safe, humane, efficient way of managing a pigeon population," he added. "This product is not a toxicant. Nothing ever dies. Nothing is ever in jeopardy."
In recent years, Wolf has sold the product to Hill Air Force Base in Utah, Shell Oil in Martinez and other major clients – but not Wildlife Services.
"They won't even try it," Wolf said. "They take credit for it but don't want to use it. It doesn't add up."
Bannerman disagreed. "The product is an available option," she said. "Typically, the time needed to conduct OvoControl baiting and treatment make it more appropriate for the property owner to apply rather than for federal personnel."
Wolf is skeptical.
"If they can trap, shoot and poison, what would prevent them from using a contraceptive? That's just silliness. It doesn't make any sense," he said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994110/federal-wildlife-services-makes.html#storylink=cpy
 
 
Reform urged for Wildlife Services

By Tom Knudson
tknudson@sacbee.com
By Tom Knudson
Last modified: 2012-11-18T08:03:33Z
Published: Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012 - 12:00 am
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994107/reform-urged-for-wildlife-services.html
 
It's not everyday that trappers and animal lovers share the same view about federal wildlife management.
But it's happening now with both sides calling for reform of a government agency called Wildlife Services. "It's time to sit down, roll up the sleeves and take a look at how it can be reformed," said Gene Harrington, director of government affairs for the National Pest Management Association.
"They are chasing a lot of pigeons in a lot of city halls across the country and I just don't think that's a priority for the federal government," Harrington said.
"There is a good function the federal government can serve in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts but this program is so heavily weighted toward lethal approaches it just needs to be overhauled," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest animal protection organization.
Their voices join those of Congressmen John Campbell, R-Irvine, and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who earlier this year asked Darrell Issa, R-Vista, chairman of the House Oversight Committee to investigate the agency following a three-part Bee investigative series.
But Issa was busy with other investigations. "We're going to keep pushing," said DeFazio. "We're talking an ineffective, indiscriminate, expensive, taxpayer-subsidized program. Who wants to stand up and say they're for that?"
Carter Niemeyer, a retired Wildlife Services trapper and district supervisor, said an oversight hearing is overdue.
"The momentum is here," said Niemeyer, author of "Wolfer," a book critical of the agency. "There is a lot of room for reform. Do we want to keep up this sustained killing of wildlife or are we willing to pay more and look at other methodologies?"
Private animal control specialists also say the agency kills too much wildlife. "They use lethal means any time they can," said Dave Cheaney, vice president of National Bird Control in Seattle. "It's quick, it's easy and they don't have do answer to anybody."
But their biggest complaint is losing work to the agency. "It's taking a lot of money out of a lot of peoples' pockets and it's hurting the industry," said Cheaney.
"Quite a bit of what they do is not an inherently governmental service. It's very easily provided by the private sector," said Dixon Herman, vice president of the National Wildlife Control Operators Association.
"We don't believe there is going to be any change until something changes at the administrative level from Congressional action," Herman added. "We don't believe that they are going to do it internally."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/18/4994107/reform-urged-for-wildlife-services.html#storylink=cpy


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3434780
11/20/12 06:39 PM
11/20/12 06:39 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3434798
11/20/12 06:48 PM
11/20/12 06:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA
W
Wildlife2 Offline OP
trapper
Wildlife2  Offline OP
trapper
W

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
USA


Working everyday to protect the private sector NWCO's by decreasing the size of the federal government.

www.facebook.com/defundusdawildlifeservices
Re: USDA Wildlife Services ITN [Re: Wildlife2] #3434906
11/20/12 07:28 PM
11/20/12 07:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 51
Western New York
C
Critterman Offline
trapper
Critterman  Offline
trapper
C

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 51
Western New York
I live and work in WNY and have lost several different goose round up jobs to the USDA... (6 I can think of) I dont even bother now ..I give my customer advice


it is as it is... nothing more... nothing less
Page 8 of 25 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 24 25
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread




Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1