a voice for the voiceless
This is a reminder that if you wanted to write in with your comments, or at least in support of the “No Action Alternative”, Friday is the last day.
Last week Ron emailed me about a Mountain Lion and Bighorn Sheep seminar that was being aired online. It was very long, I watched only the first hour, and at the end of the first hour the second (of three) speakers wasn’t even done speaking yet! I think it was two hours total, and overall what I heard the speakers say added to my overall understanding of the area and these two species. If anyone is interested in watching it, you can find it here: http://www.azgfd.gov/video/MountainLionsBighornSheepSeminarVideo.shtml
There were issues with what the speakers said, of course. The Bighorn Sheep guy had an obvious bias against the Mountain Lions, though he attempted to be neutral. The problem is that he contradicted himself, and what the Mountain Lion speaker said in his attempt to draw a conclusion for us that the Mountain Lions were a real threat to the Bighorn Sheep population.
It was no more than I expected. Actually, there was more unbiased information in the mix than I expected, and for that I was grateful.
A recap of the notes I made that seemed worth mentioning to me, starting with the Mountain Lion talk, by Ron Thompson.
Oh, I should mention that he started out saying, essentially, that Mountain Lions and Bighorn Sheep were considered equally important to the AGFD, and that neither was given preference over the other. I’m really glad I wasn’t in the audience, because my laughter would have been quite rude.
This Draft EA, for example, is worded such that the title is essentially “how many mountain lions should we kill”.
The notes I took on the Bighorn Sheep talk by John Hervert (incomplete, since I did not stay up to watch the entire seminar):
And that’s about all I wrote.
What I found interesting, and what John tried to (in my opinion) gloss over is that in drought conditions, when the Bighorns population is naturally going to be lower, the conditions also mean that the surveys are much more likely to underestimate the number of sheep, simply because the groups will be smaller and harder to spot.
So these low numbers that have the hunters in such a panic and have caused them to campaign for the death of the Mountain Lions could actually be misleading. These numbers are likely to have been underestimated.
John also stated, as if it were fact, that the Bighorn Sheep population has continued to decline. This ignores the fact that the last published survey showed an increase in Sheep numbers. Inconvenient facts?
He also claimed 9 mountain lion kills in a recent year, with that being an implied (and quite large) jump from the earlier years.
This was not accurate. The truth of those numbers is that the cause of death of those Sheep were unknown. He could have accurately stated that 9 sheep were known to have been eaten by mountain lions, but not that they were known to have been killed by mountain lions.
There is that issue of Mountain Lions being scavengers, after all. If they find a dead sheep (or deer, etc), they are going to eat it.
This is incredibly significant, actually, in light of the fact that the AGFD wants to kill any Mountain Lion who has killed more than 1 Bighorn Sheep in a six month period. Yet the AGFD counts “eating” to be the same as “killing”. For a scavenger species, that’s never going to be an accurate assessment.
Seems to me that if the AGFD insists on setting these limits, they should have to have absolute proof that the Mountain Lion killed the Sheep, not just that the Mountain Lion ate the Sheep.
The other point to note is that the Mule Deer population bounces back very quickly from extreme drought situations. And that is the species that the Mountain Lions have specialized in hunting. It becomes more and more ludicrous to see the Mountain Lion as a danger to the Bighorn Sheep population, especially when it is the humans who continue to kill more Bighorn Sheep each year than the Mountain Lions.
I share these thoughts on the seminar in case it helps people to put together a comment on the Draft EA. You can find more information on the Draft EA in this earlier post, including the email address where the comments should be sent.
And for those of you who are hoping for an update on the piglets who arrived at Poplar Spring last weekend, I will hopefully have something tomorrow!
Ron emailed me today with some very sad news. Another radio-collared Mountain Lion living in the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge has been killed. He was deemed “offending” because he killed sheep. For food.
AZGFD: Game and Fish removes sheep-eating lion
You can see in the language in this Arizona Game and Fish Department press release exactly how absurd they are being:
The mountain lion was killed in accordance with the department’s May 2007 “Kofa Mountains Complex Predation Management Plan,” which is in place to monitor and limit predation during recovery efforts of this historic and critically important bighorn sheep population. The plan stipulates that an offending mountain lion—defined as one that kills more than one bighorn sheep within a six-month period—may be lethally removed when bighorn sheep population levels are below a certain threshold.
If a lion kills more than one sheep in six months, they’re killed. And given that this lion was wearing a radio collar, it wasn’t exactly difficult for them to perform this canned hunt, was it?
It is offensive. Especially when you understand that in the middle of the hunter’s hysteria regarding the predation of the lions on the sheep, the sheep numbers have been increasing.
The action was taken in a continuing effort to help restore the struggling Kofa bighorn sheep population, whose numbers declined more than 50 percent from an estimated 815 in 2000 to a low of 391 in 2006. The most recent survey in 2008 indicated an estimated population of 436.
There has never been any analysis done to determine whether the “estimated 815″ of 2000 was a sustainable population. The assumption by the people (who want to kill the sheep themselves) in the AZGFD has always been that since the numbers were once that high, that’s how high they should always be. Never once, despite their proclaimed concern for the Bighorn Sheep (“Mountain lion populations throughout the state are healthy and they are neither rare, threatened or at risk. The same can’t be said for this bighorn sheep population.”), have they considered reducing let along eliminating the hunting licenses they sell to the highest bidder. Hunting licenses for the sheep they claim are “rare, threatened and at risk”. And thus, apparently, more valuable than the Lions, but whose primary value is tied to the hunting licenses and the profits that brings in.
As for the “healthy mountain lion population”, there might be none left on Kofa right now. At the peak, there were 5. Three have been confirmed killed and one had the radio collar “drop off”, which could easily mean the lion was killed and the death was covered up.
Nevertheless, I’m asking you to comment on the Draft EA. Ron has made some good suggestions in the comments on my earlier post on this. Namely that you write in with your support for the “No Action Alternative A” plan, but that ideally you bring up issues with regards to that plan. It is the best of the three, but it is far from a “No Killing Alternative” which should have been included. Here’s (part of) what Ron said:
The very title of the current Plan effectively limits and restricts our comments to how many and where lions are killed. However, that should not prevent people from still commenting in the DEA to save lions from any death by humans within the boundary of Kofa NWR. Simply stipulate—in your own words—that if the Service refuses to consider public comment- based Alternatives that prevent all GPS-collaring that could lead to lion killings, that you—without much choice except through possible litigation—support Alternative A: No Action Alternative.
Furthermore, if you are pressed for time in this hectic life and know that you want to allow for as many mountain lions as possible roaming free and wild on Kofa National *Wildlife Refuge*, e-mail your brief comment simply stating that you support the No Action Alternative A.
E-mail comments to KofaLionComments@fws.gov
There should also be a “No Radio Collar” aspect, since despite the good intentions of the research plan at it’s start, the Radio-collaring has ended up being a death sentence for every single lion who has worn one. (And there go our tax dollars down the drain, too.)
AZGFD gets a lot of money from the hunters, and it shows. Yet they remain publicly accountable. This is our chance to do what we can to speak up for the lions. Though it looks like they have succeeded in killing all the lions on Kofa, this plan will be in place for future lions who migrate to the now open territory.
Edited to add: links to two articles about this killing. There are some important quotes by Dan Patterson as well as Ron Kearns:
I especially want to bring up two points Ron made in the 2nd article:
Both of these points highlight how biased the AZGFD is in their anti-mountain lion and pro-hunter perspective.
Two and a half years ago, I wrote a post about the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge Mountain Lions. I’ve been writing about them periodically ever since. They’re under attack, and there are precious few people speaking up for them.
Ron Kearns is one of those people. I count on him to keep me updated, to help me understand what is going on behind the scenes at Kofa, and what the next steps in this long process are. He left a comment on an earlier Kofa Lion post today, and it really needs to be it’s own post. So, here’s what Ron has to say:
Please consider commenting on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Limiting Mountain Lion Predation on Desert Bighorn Sheep on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.
The Draft EA (DEA) is open until Oct 2, 2009, or 1-month, 8 days from today. The following discussion explains my support for the ‘No Action Alternative A’ as the best option—to date—that allows mountain lions to exist on Kofa NWR.
Once the FWS receives public comments, agency reviewers are supposed to consider all comments fully and modify the 3 Alternatives—or perhaps consider other new Alternatives—to reflect substantive recommendations by the public. However, the FWS replied to a PEER request inquiring about the public’s opportunities to further comment on the changes to the Alternatives recommended by the public. Southwest Arizona NWR Complex Manager Ellis stated that no more open, public comment periods would be available for the next step of the process, the Final EA (FEA) and a most often associated document, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Therefore, whatsoever consideration the FWS might give to modifying the Alternatives—based on the public’s DEA comments—the government’s decision is final with a signed FONSI. The only recourse for the public that I know of at this point is to appeal to the District Court affirming that the FONSI did not sufficiently address the full range of reasonable Alternatives submitted by the public and therefore did not comply fully with NEPA requirements.
On other outcome could be a determination by the agency that the public DEA comments exposed enough concerns that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. If that occurred, the Public Scoping and Public Comment period would begin anew. See a NEPA Decision Making flowchart here:
http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/550FW/550%20FW%202%20Exhibit%201.pdf
There are 3 Alternatives available in the DEA. I suggest that you strongly consider the No Action Alternative A as the best option to save the greatest number of mountain lions for the longest possible time. There may be modifications of Alternative A that you might suggest that could further enhance the longevity of research data from GPS-collared Kofa mountain lions before they are killed once they leave the refugium of Kofa NWR.
Unfortunately—and by USFWS/AGFD design—all 3 Alternatives in the DEA allow for the killing of Kofa lions, just at different rates and at different geographic locations. Therefore, if the USFWS is not going to allow Kofa lions that are captured and GPS-collared for research on Kofa to live and roam freely throughout the refuge and environs—and without a successful lawsuit to counter this killing—then the No Action Alternative A will at least not permit the State AGFD or anyone else to enter upon Federal refuge lands to kill lions that have preyed upon 2 or more bighorn sheep in 6 months. The ‘offending lions’ would have to leave the protection of the Federal refuge onto the public lands of BLM or other jurisdictions. That situation exists today in the area known as the Kofa Mountains Complex, which includes Kofa NWR and adjacent areas, and would continue to exist under the No Action Alternative A, as it is currently written before the review of DEA public comments.
The current GPS-collared tom lion—KM04—is scheduled to be shot by Arizona Game and Fish Department staff once he leaves the boundary of Kofa NWR. Lion KM04, similar to the previous 2 collared Kofa lions that were killed, will be easily tracked down to a general area by satellite GPS location data. Then the final pinpoint location for the kill is achieved through the collar’s accessory VHF transmitter beacon sending location signals that are picked up by a handheld VHF frequency antenna by the shooters on the ground. Sometimes there is the additional assistance of a VHF antenna affixed to an aircraft that provides the ground crew with updated locations of the lion.
Thank you,
Ron Kearns
Retired Kofa NWR Wildlife Biologist, USFWS
Former Federal Collateral Duty Refuge Law Enforcement Officer, USFWS
The press release and additional information regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment can be found on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge site.
If this is the first Kofa Lion post of mine you’re reading, you might find it helpful to read some of the other posts I’ve written. The most relevant to the Draft EA is “Kofa lions granted reprieve“.
I add my encouragement to Ron’s: please consider writing. This is not an issue that gets attention from the organizations in this movement. We are it. Whatever incredibly small number of us write letters have an enormous impact, because unlike when you get alerts from the movement groups, there is no one else writing the letter if you don’t. This matters. Our actions count. Please write.
It has been a while since I’ve written about the Kofa NWR Mountain Lions. There has been some recent activity in the news with regards to the lions, because a one-year moratorium on killing the lions on the Kofa NWR expired recently, and was extended for an additional 3.5 months while the Environmental Assessment gets closer to making their conclusions.
A recent article in the Yuma Sun does a good job of being pretty balanced about the issue. The Yuma Sun is the local paper for the area that the Kofa NWR is located in. Going to the article and “recommending” it will help the article move up to the front of the paper, which will get the issue in front of more people. You can also register and leave a comment, if you so desire. The comments are remarkably pro-lion so far.
The moratorium was imposed last year by state and federal officials, days after the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) threatened to go to court unless state agents stopped killing radio/GPS-collared mountain lions on the federal lands surrounding the refuge.
“While the short extension is welcome, Arizona Game and Fish still has a short-sighted shoot first, plan later posture, and appears to be demanding a national wildlife refuge be run as a state game farm,” said Southwest PEER Director Daniel Patterson, an ecologist who helped broker last year’s moratorium. “By our reading of the law, state gunners cannot come onto a national refuge and kill wildlife without the permission of the refuge manager – who cannot make that call until the required environmental assessments are completed.”
Despite the urging of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which operates the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, and a joint request from conservation groups, the commission only extended the moratorium for three months.
In addition, the commission added a caveat that one radio-collared lion may be killed before July 31 if it is linked with bighorn predation and leaves the refuge.
A PEER article has more information, and doesn’t pull its punches.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has extended a moratorium on shooting GPS-collared Kofa mountain lions crossing the boundary of Kofa National Wildlife Refuge until July 31, 2009, after which the big cats may be wiped out of this sanctuary. Conservation groups are protesting this too short reprieve and planning legal action.
The official news release from the AZGFD does a bit of sanitizing of the issue (they “self-imposed” a moratorium, but only after they were threatened with lawsuits), and fails to discuss the ethics of using radio collars to track and kill the lions that they arbitrarily decide are “offending.” The radio collars were supposed to be part of a program to learn about the lions, not to kill them. That is our tax dollars being wasted!
— As part of its continued efforts to restore the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge’s (NWR) struggling desert bighorn sheep herd, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted today, at its regularly scheduled meeting, to extend through July 31 the Department’s self-imposed moratorium on lethally removing offending lions captured and collared on the Refuge. As defined by the 2007 Kofa Mountains Predation Management Plan, an offending lion is one that kills at least two bighorn sheep within a 6-month period.
I’ve written many posts on these lions.
Ron Kearns, a former Kofa NWR employee, does a good job of keeping me updated on the latest happenings.
The Kofa Lions have become a special interest of mine, but what is clear when I look at the Kofa Lions’ situation specifically is that the pattern followed is distressingly common. Whether it is lions or deer, ducks, mute swans, wolves, seals, or even wild horses and burros, the state and federal agencies employ weak logic and meager science to justify decimating a population of animals. That’s “management” on “refuges”. Ethics are never considered. From American Herds:
Currently, Arizona is home to almost 7,000 bighorn and 35,000 elk with pronghorn antelope and mule deer populations so numerous, they aren’t even bothering to report them. Meanwhile, Arizona’s wild burro populations, the last outpost in the entire Southwest where herd numbers are still considered remotely viable, have been capped at a measly 1,436. As for wild horses, only 240 are allowed in Arizona before removals are schedules and those numbers include the foals!
AZGF has also put out a series of videos promoting their big game species and coincidentally, one highlighting the “problems of feral burros”. In their feral burro expose, they describe in great detail how the burros threaten bighorn and mule deer by eating grasses, how the way they consume forage kills plants and how wild burros in Alamo have been found stripping bark off of cottonwood trees – complete with graphic images of exposed trunks and teeth marks to prove their point.
In yet another coincidence, the Alamo area where AZGFD is blaming wild burros for bark stripping, the area also touts a small population of elk, which are well known for their bark stripping tree attacks as well as wallowing in water and destroying riparian areas.
If you were to take the time to watch all AZGFD big game video’s, it’s hard not to notice how they aren’t concerned about the effects of grass consumption to bighorn and mule deer from the 35,000 elk roaming the state, only how much the 1,436 wild burros consume.
Nature is remarkably good at self-regulating. It is human nature that needs to be managed.
I’ve written about Mountain Lions and Kofa NWR in the past – the Arizona Game and Fish Department (which could be renamed to “Arizona Hunting Revenue Department”) periodically kills mountain lions on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge. This is not limited only to Kofa, but I’ve ended up posting specifically about the situation at Kofa several times, and Ron, a former employee from there, keeps me updated with the latest happenings.
There are a lot of prejudices against predators as a general rule, and much of it is due to a lack of understanding of basic biology principles. (To put it simply: kill off all the predators, and you interfere with the checks and balances of entire populations, and this leads to extreme overpopulation by one species, and ultimately the deterioration of individual and group health.) This annoys me to no end, perhaps because Biology was my major for my first degree, and I think I’m justified in expecting that the people managing wildlife refuges would be at least as educated as I am on the topic. Likely they are, and simply rely on general ignorance of the topic to push their agendas with little outrage from the general population. Mostly it is only hunters, to whom they pander, who pay close attention to the decisions being made at the refuges in any case.
There are, however, many hunters who are just as outraged as animal rights activists over the killing of mountain lions, which should tell all of us something.
Underlying the decision making by the refuge managers is the essential view of the AGFD and USGFD towards these wildlife refuges; from their decisions and actions I can only infer that to them, refuges are primarily places to hunt. The refuge management wants to maintain the prey species population so that there is a large enough population of the prey species to justify the “need” for hunting, and thus make the hunters happy. You get one guess as to where a large amount of the refuges’ money comes from. A more accurate name, instead of wildlife refuge, would be hunter refuges.
In addition to ignoring basic population biology principles to justify killing mountain lions and propping up hunting revenues, the AGFD is using radio collars on the mountain lions to track them down to kill them, in what amounts to a canned hunt. Why are they wearing radio collars to begin with? As part of a costly research project which is obviously being made absolutely worthless by the fact that the subjects are killed. That’s our tax money wasted, and while it is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been spent on one day of the Iraq War II, it is still a significant amount of money. At least $142,000 is an amount I would consider significant.
The criteria, by the way, for killing the mountain lions, is if they are known to have killed more than 2 bighorn sheep in a six month period. (Though whether there is any attempt at confirming that the death of a sheep is actually caused by a mountain lion, who would kill by jumping at them from behind and biting through their skulls, making it hard to mistake, is something that the AGFD is not willing to let us know.) At that point, as soon as they wander off refuge land, they’re killed.
Think about that one.
I’m just not sure how we have communicated to them the slimming regime we’ve put them on that we’re making a life or death issue of, let alone communicated the boundaries of the refuge, their relative safe zone.
Of course if they ate only once every 3 months, I’m not sure they’d be surviving in any case. Not that Bighorn Sheep are the only species that a lion will prey on, but since Kofa has helpfully built “big game guzzlers” (artificial ponds) for the sheep, they’ve also built in easy access to a big meal for the lions. And large game is indeed their main meal.
So, the latest Mountain Lion was killed recently. Ron, the former employee of Kofa who keeps me updated on these things, wrote to the AGFD and requested very specific information, such as the exact GPS location of the Bighorn Sheep that was (presumably) killed by the Mountain Lion, and other information that we are all free to request as part of the Arizona Open Records Act.
Here is one of his recent comments about the Mountain Lion who was tracked via radio collar and killed:
What bothers me most Deb, is this old tom had lived many years free and wild living an existence evolution allowed him. Then, with a split second pull of a trigger, his wondrous life was over just for fulfilling his ecological niche. I have lived in the same harsh climate as this old tom did, and for over 31 years I have spent many days and nights afield and I love my life and freedom.
The AGFD took freedom away for that tom and I got a knot in the pit of my stomach when I heard this news. I tried for over 5 weeks to get information from the AGFD that might have saved this lion’s life, but the Department staff just ignored me and there was simply nothing I could do to help the tom. I was powerless for the first time in my life and I have a kind of emptiness I have also never experienced in my life before. I will do everything ethically and legally I can to ensure that the Department does not kill another Kofa lion.
One thing that seems clear to me – this isn’t merely the killing of a tom, or the second killing of a tom on Kofa. This is one more killing in what amounts to an extermination program. This program began as soon as it was confirmed that there were 5 resident mountain lions living on Kofa. So far they have killed two of the five for certain. The collar “fell off” a third, which could be any number of things. The first thing that comes to my mind is a cover up of an “unsanctioned” kill. There is one known Lion queen still living on Kofa land. Maybe one more tom.
Kofa is 665,400 acres. You’d think it would be more than enough for a few mountain lions, but that is only true if humans don’t feel that their “entertainment” via hunting is impeded.
And the truth is that Kofa, like almost everywhere in this country, has been in drought conditions for several years. Here’s a shocking biological fact – populations of almost every species (though certainly not humans) decrease when drought limits the amount of food that is available. Who would have thought!
Well, the Kofa Refuge managers are apparently unaware of this. They seem to expect the Bighorn Sheep populations to remain at earlier levels, irregardless of drought conditions. This is likely a myth they maintain to keep hunting permit revenue flowing in, as well as to give them an excuse to eliminate the only known competition (that can actually be fought with a gun) for the Bighorn Sheep.
The refuge managers have also illegally installed additional man-made water sources (which they tellingly call “Big Game Guzzlers”) on protected Kofa land. Hunters often hang out near these water sources to get easy kills.
Daniel Patterson, an Arizona local, has posted more on this topic, including linking to a legal brief filed by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), and some quotes by Ron. Another post of Daniels’ add some insight to the priorities of the refuge managers and the groups that support them.
Okay, so what can we do about this? I haven’t come up with anything especially creative, but here is my current list of ideas:
The people at Kofa and AGFD to send emails to are as follows:
RDTuggle at fws dot gov (Region 2 Director Benjamin Tuggle, Ph.D.)
Chris_Pease at fws dot gov (Chief NWRS Region 2)
Thomas_Harvey at fws dot gov (Region 2 Refuge Supervisor AZ/NM)
directorsoffice at azgfd dot gov
mitch_ellis at fws dot gov (SW Arizona NWR Complex Manager)
BHernbrode1 at azgfd dot gov AGFD Commissioner
JMartin at azgfd dot gov
lvoyles at azgfd dot gov Larry Voyles, Director AGFD (they promoted the guy who is anti-predator and anti-wilderness and who lied about the secret McPhererson Tank project.)
sferrell at azgfd dot gov Steve Ferrell Assistant Director AGFD
mgolightly at azgfd dot gov Mike Golightly AGFD Commissioner
rwoodhouse at azgfd dot gov Robbie Woodhouse AGFD Commissioner
donna_shoemaker@fws.gov; Tuggle’s secretary
The consequences for our inaction are clear. This is the tom that was killed this past fall.
For what it is worth, here is the letter I just sent to the people Ron listed in the comments of my previous Kofa post. The address for Tom Harvey isn’t correct (or he no longer works there) so skip him until you get an update from me or Ron!
I am writing to request that the AGFD Bighorn Sheep 4-17-07 recommendations be halted until there is public review and comments on the agencies’ recommendations.
Recent decisions, such as the construction of the big game guzzlers on sensitive refuge land and the killing of the Mountain Lion, as well as the secrecy in which these actions have been carried out without opportunity for public comment call into question the ethics of the entire group of Kofa managers.
A basic, if tricky to model, biological concept is the fact that predator-prey populations are linked in such a way that the predator does not hunt a species into extinction. Unless the predator is human.
When the predator (by choice, not necessity) is human an entire new set of rules applies, and ethics as well. Humans do not need to eat meat to survive, let alone hunt. Mountain Lions, as obligate carnivores, need to eat meat, and given that there’s no Mountain Lion drive-through for them to get their dinner, they are required to hunt for their very survival.
The human-imposed rules on the Mountain Lions living in the Kofa NWR, such as a Mountain Lion being allowed to prey on only two bighorn sheep in a six month period on pain of death, is absurd and unethical. That is compounded by the hypocrisy behind the decision – kill the Mountain Lions, which are being tracked via radio collar making their death easy to ensure by the hunters, in order that the hunters may kill the same sheep for sport which the Mountain Lions are not allowed to kill for their survival. The hunting permits should be abolished, permanently, and the Mountain Lions allowed to live without interference.
The Kofa NWR appears to have been acting and making decisions purely for the benefit of the extremely small population of hunters. Meanwhile the original guidelines for the Wildlife Reserve prohibited hunting. The reserve should be for the benefit of the wildlife that live there, with humans allowed only limited access, in areas where they will not disturb sensitive ecosystems and the native population in sensitive times. Hunting should be made illegal.
There is simply no justification for the hunting permits. Not from an ethical or scientific standpoint. Furthermore, the National Wildlife Refuges are not private lands of the hunters. Their desire for blood sport should not take precedence.
I urge you to reconsider and reevaluate recent decisions, to stop all hunting, and to allow public review and comments.
I hope that if enough of us write, we really will make a difference. They are presumably answerable to us, the taxpayers, after all. But even if you are not a US Citizen, please do write. After all, tourism is money, and money is king.
I also wrote a quick note to the two reporters who covered the issue recently, thanking them for their attention to this issue. Expressing our appreciation to the reporters who are covering animal issues is one way to help ensure they will continue to do so. And we need all the help we can get.
Please, if you have a few minutes, write to the Kofa and AGFD managers whose email addresses Ron provided earlier. Even if it is as short as simply requesting that the 4-17-07 AGFD Bighorn Sheep recommendations be halted and a chance for public review be allowed, it would help.
If we were naive, we would think that a National Wildlife Refuge would provide a refuge for wildlife.
This isn’t how it works. The Refuges end up acting like protected breeding ground for specific species, so that the hunters have a good hunting season down the road. When things, such as nature and natural predators, get in the way of this plan, action is taken, and those actions are far from ethical.
There has been an ongoing struggle to prevent the hunting of mountain lions on Kofa NWR. The reasons the NWR officials give to justify killing mountain lions is absurd. If a mountain lion kills two bighorn sheep in a six month period, he is to be executed. The fact that they put radio collars on the mountain lions they are tracking makes hunting them down easy. The fact that the radio collars are presumably put on the mountain lions for scientific data is ignored in the face of a mountain lion competing with hunting permits.
The bighorn sheep have been under some environmental pressure this year. Humans are dumping billions of tons of carbon in the atmosphere every year, billions more than the earth can adjust to. As this imbalance builds up, we reach tipping points. The ice caps are melting, and melting fast. Parts of the Amazon are dying in droughts. The carbon sinks on the earth are releasing some of their stores, and this creates what is known as positive feedback, which will only encourage this, and more, to continue.
What this means is that the bighorn sheep are not just under environmental pressure this year. They will continue to be under this same, and worse, pressure for the upcoming future. The Earth’s climate is unstable in the best of times. We’ve had an unprecedented run of good luck, we humans have, with a stable climate we’ve come to take for granted. Except that, in the earth’s history, this is not normal, and we can’t expect it to continue. Not even if we weren’t dumping these billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, forcing the process along.
The changes are here, and we should expect to continue to need to deal with them.
This isn’t just about Kofa, it isn’t just about bighorn sheep and mountain lions. This is what we are going to have continue to face, in our fight to protect all species.
Taking humans and their obsession for hunting out of the equation, we would find that the mountain lions and bighorn sheep, that all predator and prey species in fact, would find the equilibrium that current ecological factors force them to reach. There can’t be more predators than prey to support them, after all. That’s just how nature works.
But humans aren’t content with that. In the name of sport, they insist on disturbing this balance. The impacts are far reaching, and end up layering on each other.
Despite the environmental pressure humans have put the bighorn sheep under, the hunters, with the backing of the refuge’s officials, insist that their sport comes before the survival of other species. Humans do not need to hunt to survive. Humans do not need meat to survive. Mountain lions, however, are obligate carnivores. They need to hunt to survive, they need meat to survive.
The conclusion should be obvious to the officials whose duty is supposed to be creating a place of refuge for wildlife. They ignore science and ethics, and kill the mountain lions they are tracking, all because the mountain lions are doing what they need to do to survive. Hunt.
It is not just the specific ethics around nature, equilibrium, and the right to live free from human interference that we should grant to these animals that is in question. It is the ethics that comes from telling the truth and being honest to the public that these refuge officials are lacking.
The officials are going out of their way to hide from the public what they are doing on public land. They secretly request from hunting clubs assistance in changing the ecology of sensitive areas on the refuge, making sure the general public can not be aware of what has happened until it is too late. They try to avoid getting public opinion on decisions they are making about public land.
We can write letters. To the newspaper, to the refuge officials. Technically the refuge officials have to be responsive, on some level, to public concern. Realistically they are not constrained from misleading and lying to the public. Expressing our opinion is the best way I know at the moment on how to influence recent events.
A more encompassing strategy would be good, because I guarantee this, everything that has been going haywire in the past few years, is just the start. Climate change is upon us, and natural systems continue to be stressed. This, in addition to the many other stresses humans have been loading on the environment, means that the most basic survival of species is going to be competing against hunters on the very land that is meant to be their refuge.
Leaving aside edge cases for now, hunting is not ethical on its own. The lying and misleading of government officials in conjunction with special interest groups is nothing new, I suppose, but this is still a fight I feel is worth a few hours of my time in letter writing. I hope you feel the same.
Ron, who has been working hard to keep me in the loop with the goings on at Kofa, offered me this advice with regards to letters:
Hi Deb,
Letter writing is a good means to counter the agencies actions, but they are good at perpetuating false statements. Unfortunately, it is not against the law for government officials to make false statements to members of the public or to be deceptive. I will keep you and your readers apprised of letters I send and mention how you might be able to help. Your ideas are always welcome. To me, this is all a matter of fairness and ethics in government.
Here is the .pdf of the recommended actions for Kofa (lions, water developments, bighorn sheep, etc.) on the website: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/kofa/kofa.html
You and your readers could request that the AGFD Bighorn Sheep 4-17-07 recommendations be halted until there is public review and comments on the agencies’ recommendations. The water developments were constructed in wilderness and the lion was killed without giving the public a chance to comment on the agency document. Other Arizona Regions ask for and allow public review of such documents before implementation.
Contact
RDTuggle at fws dot gov (Region 2 Director Dr. Benjamin Tuggle)
Chris_Pease at fws dot gov (Chief NWRS Region 2)
Tom_Harvey at fws dot gov (Refuge Supervisor AZ/NM)
Paul_Cornes at fws dot gov (Kofa Refuge Manager)
Lvoyles at azgfd dot gov (AGFD Region IV Supervisor Larry Voyles)
Duane Shroufe (AGFD Director) directorsoffice at azgfd dot gov
AGFD Commission directorsoffice at azgfd dot gov
So that should give some basic ideas of where to start and who to send the letters to, if you are so inclined. Some recent articles in the Yuma Sun, the paper local to where Kofa NWR is located:
http://www.yumasun.com/news/sheep_34458___article.html/refuge_kofa.html
http://www.yumasun.com/news/population_34903___article.html/herd_sheep.html
http://www.yumasun.com/news/wilderness_34942___article.html/wildlife_release.html
http://www.yumasun.com/news/sheep_35132___article.html/mountain_lion.html
I received an email today from Ron, who worked for many years at Kofa as a biologist. Looks like the Kofa managers are at it again, trying to open the refuge up for mountain lion hunting. Some of you may remember that they tried to do this earlier and it was cancelled because of a court ruling – the Kofa managers hadn’t done an environmental review. This time they’re trying to blame the declining bighorn sheep population on the mountain lions as an excuse to hunt the predators.
There are two really obvious problems with this argument. First of all, there is no evidence of any sheep kills by mountain lions this year. Second of all, they have 10 hunting permits for humans to kill sheep for December 2007.
Let’s think about this – we have a declining bighorn sheep population, there have been no kills by mountain lions; is the obvious solution going to be opening a hunt on mountain lions, or canceling the hunt by humans?
For years at least some scientists have been trying to educate the public on the importance of the large carnivores in the overall ecosystem’s health.
Aldo Leopold, the father of modern wildlife management and author of A Sand County Almanac, admonished wildlife managers to retain all the pieces of our ecosystems(1953). Using modern analysis, present day ecologists are finding Leopold’s directive to be right on the mark. Predation and particularly predation by large carnivores is a necessary component of all healthy ecosystems. Study after study has shown that predator loss leads to biodiversity loss (Diamond 1992). Large predator presence is so important, in fact, that conservation biologist John Terborgh (1988) wrote that “Disrupting the balance by persecuting top carnivores, by hunting out peccaries, pacas, and agoutis, or by fragmenting the landscape into patches too small to maintain the whole interlocking system, could lead to a gradual and perhaps irreversible erosion of diversity at all levels – both plant and animal.” Recognition of this importance has prompted leading wildlife professional organizations such as The Wildlife Society and The Society for Conservation Biology, to dedicate special issues of their journals expressly to predator ecology and conservation. Moreover, these scientific societies have placed the restoration of predators high on their list of conservation priorities.
…
Likewise, other predators hunt differently and take different animals at different times and under different circumstances. Predator-prey relationships are very complex and have evolved over thousands and thousands of years. As our understanding of the interplay between predators and prey has increased, so has our acknowledgment these relationships should be maintained intact.
The science simply backs up my ethical stance on hunting. Leave the predation to the carnivores, and let humans practice compassion and good health instead. I hope you take the time to write a letter to the Arizona Game and Fishing Department’s Commission. They are meeting this Saturday, April 21, 2007, so now is your chance to let your voice be heard. To speak for the mountain lions as well as the bighorn sheep. The managers of the refuge don’t seem to care about the animals in their refuge nearly as much as they care about the money they would make from selling hunting permits. Hopefully together our voices will be loud enough to make a difference.
Contact information:
State that the e-mail should go to the Commission in the Subject Line and the body of the e-mail. DirectorsOffice at azgfd dot gov.
Seriously, we have a lot of ground and a lot of topics to cover. We need more of us to get it done.
I got a letter from Rod Coronado the other day. Happily he’s about to be released from prison. Unhappily he’ll be facing another trial in June. We’ve been talking a lot about Kofa NWR and the hunts that happen there. He’s had a lot of experience there, hiking as well as doing activism to try to prevent hunts. He’s gone to AZGFD and USGFD meetings as the only non-hunter. He’s helped with some of the clean-up work that relies on volunteers, again something that ends up being mostly hunters.
And, obviously, this is something we should change if we could. As activists we are out there doing what we can – educating, protesting, representing – but I’m guessing that when it comes to representing the AR movement where the hunters are – at the GFD meetings, at the refuge clean-ups – we’re not doing enough. And they notice, and comment on it, according to Rod.
The problem is that we don’t all live close enough to help out at a NWR, maybe not even at a state park. And if we do, we might not have enough time, quite literally. Activists tend to face a high degree of burnout, because we have a hard time saying no when we feel like we could make a difference.
But…maybe there are things we can do anyway. I know that Poplar Spring has “adopted” a portion of the road near where they are located, and a crew of their volunteers routinely works on it. I’m sure this is something that other groups have done as well. When I lived in Denver I helped with a replanting in a marsh. I wasn’t there as a vegan representative that day, at least I don’t think I was. Chances are it came up, at least once. Probably around lunch. So maybe I did represent.
Veganism is about more than the food, obviously. But it is also about more than just the animals themselves. It has to be about the environment as well, because there is no point in saving animals only to destroy the only home they (and we) have. So we do need to represent there. I’ve mentioned some of the things that come to mind, but I’m sure there are many more ways we can help and represent at the same time when it comes to the environment.
Really, we need more vegans to cover all of the issues. So go out, find some more, make some more, whatever you can do! And if an environmental clean-up project comes to your attention, consider spending a few hours to help out. It will help the environment, as well as the movement.
I became aware of issues on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge when I got an alert from an Arizona group about the mountain lion hunting. Since then I’ve had the opportunity to discuss various Kofa issues with a retired wildlife biologist who spent a significant portion of his career at Kofa. He’s brought other issues to my attention, issues which should concern us both from an animal rights perspective as well as a biodiversity/environmental perspective.
I’ll post more about this, but for now I’m going to quote Ron’s letter that he requested I post, and strongly encourage that we all send emails to Kofa’s manager and others. This letter is in response to the US Fish & Wildlife’s news release on 2/9/2007 about the streaming video they are adding to a remote location in Kofa (with more to follow). This video is being presented as a way to allow the general public to observe the wildlife without disturbing them. A side effect, as Ron will point out, that is ignored in the USFWD’s news release is that this will give the hunters an easy way to make note of the habits of the animals they plan to kill. If hunting was disallowed in the refuges, the streaming video would indeed be a way to bring the public to the remote areas of the refuge with minimal impact to the wildlife. However, with hunting allowed, the video will have a large negative impact on the wildlife.
Good Afternoon,
The placement of these cameras will be in wilderness. I adamantly oppose the camera on Signal Peak , the highest point on the refuge at 4,877 feet. This remote, pristine area is the one of the last remaining prime bighorn lambing grounds on Kofa. I have stated for many years, and again recently in my opposition to the Kofa Mountain Lion Hunting Plan, that Signal Peak should be closed to human use, at least during the lambing season. I prefer to see the peak closed yearlong to human encroachment that causes detrimental disturbance to bighorn.
I also oppose the camera location at Adams Well unless there are severe restrictions, especially during hunting seasons, that would likely not make the project worthwhile anyway. Archery deer hunters set up hunting blinds around the well and drinker for the month of January. Having a streaming internet video do the hunter’s scouting of deer while they drink is highly unethical and certainly is not fair chase by most hunting standards. Bighorn also use this drinker and hunters will have an unfair advantage when hunting both ungulate species. I will send an e-mail letter in a few days with my reasoning why cameras should not be allowed at Adams Well and why they must not be allowed on Signal Peak for the public to view wildlife 24 hours a day, throughout the year.
I do not know if the Kofa NWR staff completed a Minimum Requirements Analysis(MRA)/Minimum Tool Analysis(MTA) for this project in wilderness. I am also unaware of the opportunity for public input regarding the cameras. The Kofa NWR staff did not post information of the streaming video project on the Kofa NWR website. I chanced on the information at the less-known FWS Virtual News Room.
If you oppose the placement of streaming video around a heavily used watering hole, where mule deer and bighorn hunting is also allowed, and a camera in remote sensitive lambing grounds, please send an e-mail expressing your concerns to, at least, the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials. Your reasons for not allowing the cameras may be different from mine and the diverse reasoning is valuable in decision-making.
Paul_cornes at fws dot gov — Kofa Refuge Manager/Region 2 Wilderness Coordinator
Thomas_harvey at fws dot gov — AZ/NM Refuge Supervisor (RM Cornes’ supervisor)
Nancy_roeper at fws dot gov — National Wilderness Coordinator
Respectfully,
Ron
Retired Kofa NWR Wildlife Biologist
Former Federal Collateral Duty Refuge Law Enforcement Officer
Viet Nam Era Veteran
Ron tells me that he has emailed Cornes regarding the Minimum Requirements Analysis, and has not yet heard back. Recently an article showed up in the Yuma, Arizona paper (near where Kofa NWR is), which opens the floor for us to send letters to the editor, in addition to letters to Kofa’s manager.
All proceeds will be donated to the sanctuary.
Coupons: http://www.lulu.com/current_specials?cid=eng_advent_specials_112210
Recent Comments