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.
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.
My recommendation for the management of the Mountain Lions on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge is: no hunting of mountain lions on Kofa NWR by agencies or hunters. My reasons are as follows:
1. Bighorn Sheep herds on Kofa NWR have increased in size by a significant number (from 390 to 460), around 17%, from 2006-2007. This eliminates the main justification presented for killing the mountain lions. The herd increased in size while a minimum of four of the original five mountain lions were alive, to state it conservatively. The first lion was killed in June of 2007, and it is reasonable to make an assumption that the herd was increasing even in the first six months of 2007, while all five lions were alive. At the very least, the herd increased substantially while four lions were alive. There are now a maximum of three lions on the refuge, since a second mountain lion was killed in April of 2008, so the justification for killing more lions are further weakened.
2. There has been no research done to determine how much a mountain lion can be expected to eat. The limit of “2 sheep in a six month period” are arbitrary and ignorant, and thus unethical as a basis of life or death decisions being made for the animals within the protection of the refuge managers, the AGFD and the USGFD.
3. It is a basic fact of population biology that predator populations are self-limited by the prey population sizes. In other words, the mountain lions are not going to hunt the Sheep into a permanent decline – it is only humans who so completely disregard the natural laws of the world around them. Mountain Lions have strong territorial drives, and that further limits the total number of lions that would reside in any given area. The mountain lions are not endangering the sheep herds.
4. There has been no data gathered to support the theory that the Sheep population size can be expected to maintain a constant size even during decade long droughts. Kofa NWR is situated in an area that has been suffering a severe drought for over a decade. Again, the most basic population biology informs us that the herd size will naturally decrease in conjunction with the decreasing resources expected in a drought situation. Therefore it is is unreasonable both to expect the herd size to maintain pre-drought numbers, as well as to then blame the mountain lions for the decrease in sheep numbers.
5. Research Biologist Ted McKinney questioned statements that lion predation can have significant population level impacts, referring to the top experts on the subject when he said: “Note that Sawyer and Lindzey state that NO studies have clearly demonstrated population-level impacts.” Lindzey is well known to be an expert on Mountain Lion biology, and his research should have been studied exhaustively.
6. No data was gathered by Kofa biologists to determine the actual cause of the Bighorn Sheep decline. Sheep are known to be very sensitive to environmental stresses, which include droughts, habitat pressure, and disturbance of sensitive lambing areas. In the 1980′s, Kofa Sheep herds had a dramatic decline due to respiratory ailments, yet no necropsies were done in response to the current decline. That’s illogical. These types of questions need to be resolved in order for any logical plan to be worked out for recovery, if warranted. As it happens, there were at least two environmental stresses that the sheep had to deal with – the drought, as well as the disturbance of their lambing areas, which hunters were given access to.
7. There has been no research to determine the actual impact of hunters and hikers through the sensitive lambing areas. It is known that they do have access to these areas, and that hunters do disturb gravid ewes during hunting season, which causes some (as yet undetermined amount of) lamb mortality. Their impact should be quantified, since it might justify limiting their access to these areas.
8. We are in the middle of global climate change, a fact that is almost universally agreed upon by the world’s scientists by now. Refuge managers have to be prepared to update their expectations for various populations sizes as the climate changes. This is not a static world, it is illogical to acts as if it is.
9. Biodiversity is incredibly important to maintain the health of the global ecosystems as well as the local ecosystems. It has been understood for half a century or more that removing the predators leads to a decrease in the health of prey populations. Thus any further destruction of the Mountain Lion population could well have a detrimental impact on the Bighorn Sheep and Mule Deer populations. There is no definitive data to support the theory that Mountain Lions are newcomers to the Kofa NWR.
10. A Wildlife Refuge should have the wildlife as the primary concern. Considering that there was no decrease in hunting permits sold to hunters, let alone an elimination of hunting permits, during the panic over the sheep herd decrease, it highlights the fact that the decisions to kill the two mountain lions were absolutely unethical. Correspondence that is now part of the public records clearly shows that the hunting groups demanded the death of the mountain lions in return for their prior financial support, stating:
“Mr. Hovatter, Why haven’t you returned my email? Is this true this lion has made TWO kills now. On bighorn sheep! I need the dates and locations of these kills. Acording (sic) to the usf&w paper we supported ($138080) two strikes in 6 months and the lion goes to the bid (sic) kofa in the sky. When is his date he does have a collar!! Read the following after my info. I do out source for info.”Jim Broschart ADBSS Treasurer
I’ll repeat – this email was obtained as part of the public records search, and clearly shows the lack of ethics in the decisions to kill the mountain lions.
11. There are some artificial water sources that have been added to the Kofa NWR to sustain potentially higher than normal populations of the Bighorn Sheep. An additional water source was added more recently (illegally, as it was done in secrecy, without an environmental assessment and public comment), which potentially had a detrimental impact to any young lambs or gravid ewes in the area. Furthermore, and this is just one reason an environmental assessment absolutely should have been done, increasing the water holes is likely to have a corresponding increase on mountain lion predation ranges.
In conclusion, I recommend a policy to be enacted of no hunting of mountain lions on Kofa NWR by agencies or hunters. The agency biologists should be conducting non-lethal observational research to learn more about the Kofa populations so that in the future any decisions made are informed by accurate science, rather than the biases of local hunting groups. Mountain Lion experts should be consulted to fill in the gaps of knowledge of the agency biologists.
I thought I’d post my letter, sent last night, in case it would help anyone else in their letter writing.
Comments can be sent to:
Email: KofaLionComments@fws.gov
SnailMail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 356 W. 1st St., Yuma, AZ 85364
Comment deadline is Monday, June 23, 2008.
Having submitted comments (it takes only one) to the USGFD, I am now on the FWS mailing list. I receive alerts about things, often about issues that are open for comments. The trend, as far as I can tell, is to kill everything.
That is, they are excited about giving people the opportunity to kill things, and they themselves often want to exterminate entire populations from an area. Biodiversity has got to be a dirty word, if you work for the USGFD. At least, that is my conclusion based on the emails I get. I know that there are some conscientious government biologists out there, but the driving force behind the USGFD’s motivation appears to be various hunting groups, to the detriment of the environment, the refuges, biodiversity.
I find it disturbing. And now there is a chance that guns will be allowed in National Parks. I really do not want the random twitchy strangers to be allowed to carry guns in the National Parks. Some claim that they need it for protection, and that pretty much tells me that they spend little to no time out in the wide open spaces, and that they would therefore be likely to shoot at any rustling of leaves or even a sneeze. Fantastic.
“Mom, I’m going for a hike!”
“Take your bulletproof jacket, dear!”
No thanks.
But 51 senators don’t agree with me (though in my recollection they seem to mistake each other for ducks or something and oops! Shoot each other.), and they are supporting a move to open up national parks to people who are armed, and therefore dangerous. Believe me, I live in Virginia, and you only have to read the most superficial details about the Virginia Tech shooting from last year to realize how ridiculously easy it is for people to get their hands on guns, and lots of them.
Park rangers across the board don’t want to see guns allowed in the national parks – they have dealt with too many instances where a gun in someone’s hand would have escalated things, potentially fatally. That is always the issue with guns, isn’t it? The Huffington Post does a pretty good job of giving an overview of the issue with some of the comments that have already been submitted.
That’s just one issue that is open to public comment right now, comments due at the end of the month. (That’s just 2 weeks.) If you have an opinion and you’d like to share it, go to the regulations site, search in the “comment or submission” for “guns national park” and then click a link to “submit a comment.” You’ll get a form you can fill out and a text area for your comment.
If you’re in the mood to write letters and get your opinion recorded as part of the official record, now’s a good time to get your fingers limbered up.
The other issues that have come up are:
You didn’t think I’d go much longer without nagging you about writing letters about the Kofa Lions, did you?
Please do write letters. I’d bribe you, if only I knew what it would take!
Ron sent me an update on his previous timeline, info added here and there, which I am in the process of updating in the original post. I wanted to let anyone interested know that there has been additional information added (especially towards the end, an epilogue has been added, and links to all the Yuma Sun articles).
I’m a pretty cynical person, so the lack of ethics of the managers of the Kofa NWR didn’t surprise me much when I first read the timeline. Disappointed me, sure, and I shook my head at how many times the lack of ethics reared its head, but surprise? It takes more than that to surprise me. And I found out exactly what it takes:
May 31, 2007: On Thursday, just 3 days before an AGFD law enforcement officer shot collared cougar KM01 on a Sunday morning, Mr. Jim Broschart, ADBSS [Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society] Treasurer, sent an e-mail to Gary R. Hovatter with quid pro quo overtones. Such, I gave you this now you give me that implications demonstrate how donated monies might bias and influence the AGFD’s decisions.
Note: In the following exchange, Duane Shroufe was the then-AGFD Director, the highest position in the Department.
- “Mr. Hovatter, Why haven’t you returned my email? Is this true this lion has made TWO kills now. On bighorn sheep! I need the dates and locations of these kills. Acording (sic) to the usf&w paper we supported ($138080) two strikes in 6 months and the lion goes to the bid (sic) kofa in the sky. When is his date he does have a collar!! Read the following after my info. I do out source for info.”
Jim Broschart ADBSS Treasurer
- “Jlm, (sic) I don’t know him. If he gives you grief go over his head to his supervisor. Or try Suzanne Henry at the KOFA office instead of Lindsey Smythe. I talked to Duane Shroufe last night and he assured me that if that the lion leaves the refuge again it will be removed. Supposedly they actually have two confirmed mortalities attributed to that lion. The AGFD did not know it was off the refuge earlier this month. They have since tightened up the sharing of information between the USFWS and AGFD. Now the lion is back on the refuge and they are still dicking (sic) around with the %$#@ white paper. Its supposed to be signed this week but I would expect further stalling tactics by the USFWS before it is. Good luck and keep on this.”
[Note: no author was listed for this section of the e-mail]
So there you have it. It takes outright statements of “I paid x amount of money, now do what I want” to surprise and shock me. These emails are among the updates to the timeline. And I clarified with Ron to make sure – these emails came straight from the public record.
The formal scoping period for the Kofa Mountain Lions Environmental Assessment has been extended from May 24 to June 23, 2008.
The reason for the extension is that some documents had been requested that pertained to the Lions, and were just released. One of these is a Categorical Exclusion that Ron tells me is important because it mentions the Mountain Lions but does not include them in an Action Alternative.
The good news (or bad news, depending on how sick you are of me talking about the lions) is that it gives me more time to nag everyone into writing a letter.
And it gives me more time to do some research. Ron forwarded me a letter that was sent by the Sierra Club’s Outreach Director, and there were several points brought up in that letter that are worth passing on, in her recommended talking points for the letter:
- Develop a preferred alternative that sustains bighorn sheep, mountain lions, and the full complement of native wildlife species on the KOFA. If bighorn populations are increasing, then no lethal lion control should occur. (If the numbers of bighorn sheep are declining, a thorough analysis is needed. The analysis should question assertions about the population-level impact of mountain lions on bighorn sheep. Obviously, mountain lions kill and eat bighorn sheep, but even the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s biologists have questioned some of the assertions made in the Kofa Mountains Complex Predation Management Plan. (See email from Research Biologist Ted McKinney to Chantal O’Brien, Research Branch Chief, dated July 2, 2007, at 5:48 p.m., in which Mr. McKinney questions making assertions that lion predation can have significant population level impacts:
“I just reviewed the Kofa Mtns Complex Predation Management Plan. Statement is made in there that several studies have demonstrated that lion predation can have significant population-level impacts. Concerns me somewhat when I see such comments. Note that Sawyer and Lindzey state that NO studies have clearly demonstrated population-level impacts. Our Monograph is the 1st study to address this in the manner suggested by Ballard (in paper cited in the Predator Mgt Plan), and even it suffers from the difficulty in demonstration such impact. Findings are suggestive for several studies, but lack inferential capabilities, and generally show lion kills (frequencies, numbers, difference among specific lions, etc.” )
- Provide a detailed description of the biology/ecology of mountain lions on the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge and on surrounding lands.
- Provide a detailed description of the past and present management of mountain lions on the KOFA as well as on surrounding lands.
- Describe any past and present scientific studies pertaining to mountain lions on the KOFA and surrounding lands, including disclosure and analysis of all of the data collected to date.
- Describe the relationship between mountain lions and bighorn sheep on the KOFA including, but not limited to, the geographic range of both species, depredation of sheep by lions, criteria used to define a lion depredation, and the justification for past management actions, lethal and non-lethal, taken against lions believed to have depredated sheep.
- Provide a detailed description of the biology/ecology and status of bighorn sheep, mule deer, other ungulates, and other potential prey of lions on the KOFA and surrounding lands.
- Provide a detailed description of the relationship between climate and predator/prey dynamics on the KOFA and on surrounding lands.
- Provide a reasonable range of alternatives and an analysis for lion management in the draft EA as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
- Use the best research that is actually associated with mountain lions and bighorn sheep to determine actions.
- Consider the long-term predator-prey relationship. There is no evidence to suggest that mountain lions are recent arrivals on the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge. Mountain lions and bighorn sheep have co-evolved, and mountain lions play an important role in the ecosystem. This should be recognized in any planning and proposed action.
- Consider that the mere fact that mountain lions kill bighorn sheep does not justify their removal as such predation is entirely natural and other factors play an important role. While the decline in the region’s bighorn sheep population at least temporarily prevents the Arizona Game and Fish Department from using the population as a translocation source, it does not provide reason to engage in a lethal lion control program.
- An EA should consider all of the factors affecting the decline in bighorn sheep and should not merely focus on mountain lion predation. Furthermore, it should consider the recent increase in population. (The 2007 survey indicated an increase to 460 sheep, up from 390 in 2006. See 2007 Sheep Survey.)
- Disclose the best available evidence pertaining to the genetic diversity of lions on the KOFA and on surrounding lands compared to other lions in the state and region.
- Consider the impacts of water catchment construction on the bighorn sheep, mountain lions, and other wildlife species on the Refuge.
Some of these points I’ve brought up in other posts, but I like how the Outreach Director, Sandy Bahr, organized this list, and gave direction on what information would be helpful to provide.
I’m going to be using her list to help focus my own research and link gathering. One of the most interesting parts to me was this, which I think is worth repeating, taken from an email from Research Biologist Ted McKinney to Chantal O’Brien, Research Branch Chief, dated July 2, 2007:
“I just reviewed the Kofa Mtns Complex Predation Management Plan. Statement is made in there that several studies have demonstrated that lion predation can have significant population-level impacts. Concerns me somewhat when I see such comments. Note that Sawyer and Lindzey state that NO studies have clearly demonstrated population-level impacts. Our Monograph is the 1st study to address this in the manner suggested by Ballard (in paper cited in the Predator Mgt Plan), and even it suffers from the difficulty in demonstration such impact. Findings are suggestive for several studies, but lack inferential capabilities, and generally show lion kills (frequencies, numbers, difference among specific lions, etc.” )
I’ve done some preliminary googling on Lindzey, who turns out to be Fred G. Lindzey, who is a puma (aka mountain lion aka cougar) expert, but whose work mostly seems to lurk in science journals that we don’t have easy access to. I did find where he was referenced in a book that I found on google books, “Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation of an Enduring Carnivore.”
I know, you’re all on the edge of your seat wanting to read that one. It does, I believe, have quite a bit of information that backs up the “don’t kill the lions” stance, as well as highlights what appears to be a willful ignorance on the part of the refuge managers when it comes to the actual science they are supposed to be basing their decision on.
I also wanted to take a second to thank Easy Vegan for linking the lion issue in a recent post. Every bit is appreciated!
Ron Kearns emailed me today with a timeline that he wrote up last night regarding the Mountain Lions at the Kofa NWR. This is important, because it outlines the history of the lions on the refuge, or more specifically where the confirmed knowledge starts, and it also gives a sense of the overall situation. The actions that have been taken by the agencies, the unethical and perhaps illegal things that the agencies have done. The process by which the agencies are bound tends to be very confusing, which is part of Ron’s motivation in writing up this timeline. That confusion is what the refuge managers have depended on, I believe, to make sure that average people who don’t deal with the process day in and day out won’t catch on to the many questionable decisions made and actions taken.
Ron has given me permission to post his timeline here. (*updated on 5/28/2008*)
Kofa NWR Timeline of Cougar Research, Collaring, Plans, and Depredations
1) October 2003: An AGFD biologist observed 3 cougars, a queen and her 2 cubs, on the Kofa NWR bighorn sheep helicopter survey
2) January 2004: Kofa Refuge Wildlife Biologist Ron Kearns began a cougar natural history research project consisting of installing TrailMaster™ cameras at Kofa NWR watering holes.
The AGFD biologist he borrowed the 1st TM camera from said he would probably not “get anything” (That might have been a reference to the AGFD’s belief that lions were only transient on Kofa NWR or, just passing through, as they have always believed).
3) Fall of 2005: Biologist Kearns purchases a satellite GPS radio collar for $4500.00 as a research tool to learn the life history of Kofa cougars. Increased efforts of the TM camera study occurred with coverage of additional watering holes. Cougars are camera-captured at these sites.
4) January 2006: Biologist Kearns and SCEP Student Ms. Lindsay Smythe work with a government cougar trapper in an unsuccessful capture/collar attempt. Biologist Kearns retires and Ms. Smythe replaces him as the Kofa refuge wildlife biologist and as the lead FWS Kofa cougar researcher. The AGFD is not involved in the Kofa NWR cougar research during the January 2004 to January 2006 period.
5) February 2006: At some point after Mr. Kearns’ early retirement and after June 2006, the AGFD becomes involved extensively with the Kofa cougar research. Mr. Kearns volunteers with lion research until June 5, 2006.
6) April 2006: ‘Black Mountains Predation Management Plan, AZGFD, April 2006’
The Arizona Black Mountains area is experiencing similar problems affecting Kofa wildlife. However, the AGFD plan received public review that included an extension to the original comment period. The 2007 Report was not open whatsoever for review, although review was promised and even referenced in 1 of the CatEx documents prepared my Ms. Susanna Henry.http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/bhsheep/Black%20MountainsPredationMgmntPlan14APR06.pdf
7) July 18, 2006: Then-Kofa NWR Manager J. Paul Cornes abruptly and angrily rescinded Mr. Kearns’ Volunteer Services Agreement vowing that he will never again volunteer for Kofa NWR, notwithstanding his 25+years of federal service at Kofa.
8 ) September 2006: Mr. Kearns accidentally learned that Kofa Biologist Smythe had given a Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club (YVRGC) presentation wherein the AGFD and USFWS proposed a Kofa mountain lion hunt. Mr. Kearns had opposed such a hunt for 15+ years and he presented evidence against such lion hunts during joint annual AGFD/Kofa/USFWS hunt coordination meetings in Yuma.
9) November 20, 2006: Kofa NWR Update. I receive this lion update on November 29 at the same time as a I received the September 14, 2006 Update. Ms. Smythe states this :
“I set snares on October 22nd on a reported sheep kill near High Tank 7, but the lion never returned. We removed the head from that sheep and had Bob Henry and Lowell Whittaker of AGFD take a look at it. We determined that sheep was at least 8 years old and it had chronic sinusitus – when we removed the sheath off of the broken horn it was full of holes. That sheep was probably blind in one eye and not long for this world. We did not see any lions during the helicopter survey”.
Throughout the lion “research” after I retired, I have requested such detailed photo and written documentation of the age and the prior health condition of assumed lion-killed bighorn. Lions that kill sick, old, or weakened bighorn must not have those kills count towards the arbitrary “offending lion” quota.
10) November 22, 2006: ‘Kofa Mountain Lion Hunting Plan’ Draft Released
Voluminous opposition to a Kofa NWR lion hunt from the public11) January 4 2007: ‘Federal Court Decision Triggers Cancellation of Wildlife Refuge Mountain Lion Hunt‘.
A pending HSUS lawsuit regarding the undocumented possible detrimental effects of hunting to many national wildlife refuges’ wildlife populations prompted the USFWS to rescind the lion hunt plan proposal.
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/mountain_lion_hunt_cancelled.html
12) February 2007: Preliminary work is documented regarding the variously named Kofa NWR bighorn management “action plan” “white paper” “sheep plan” which later became the April 17, 2007 Investigative Report and Recommendations for the Kofa Bighorn Sheep Herd (2007 Report, Report)The secretive nature of the plan is illustrated in this e-mail exchange between Kofa NWR Biologist Smythe and AGFD Game Specialist Henry. I requested information from Biologist Smythe and then she wrote the following to AGFD Game Specialist Bob Henry on February 06, 2007:
“Maybe you could fax me the data sheets and I could at least give him the basic information for now. Just don’t tell him we’ve been working on a sheep plan or he’s going to want that too.”
The “sheep plan” Ms. Smythe referred to, that she did not want me to read and that Mr. Henry did not tell me about following Smythe’s admonition, was in fact the “white paper” or the 2007 Report. The public never got a chance to review that Report before the 1st lion was killed and the wilderness waters were built in violation of the Wilderness Act and NEPA. All members of the AGFD and Kofa staffs hid this information from others and me until after the fact. If the public had received the courteous opportunity to review the Kofa/AGFD plans, similar to the AGFD ‘Draft Black Mountains Bighorn Sheep Management Plan’, the current problems could have been avoided.
13) February 28 2007: The capture/collaring of the young tom lion (lion, KM01, collared cougar) KM = Kofa Mountains and 01 is the first cougar collared.
14) April 12, 2007: “HCM 2008 – A Concurrent Memorial urging the United States Congress to take immediate action to recover the Kofa NWR desert bighorn sheep population, passed April 12, 2007”
“That the United States Congress take immediate action to reaffirm the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s position as the leading agency in the management of nonmigratory and nonendangered state wildlife.”
‘That the Arizona Game and Fish Commission employ, without any 2 unnecessary delays, burdens or obstacles, all management tools and measures 3 necessary to recover the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge desert bighorn sheep 4 population, including the management of predators, water developments, human 5 intervention and the potential for disease epizootics.”
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/bhsheep/hcm2008h.pdfThe AGFD Commission Vote regarding HCM 2008 was unanimous.
House Concurrent Memorial (HCM) 2008, Urge protection, KOFA herd : The Commission was provided with a copy of this legislation; however, it is being amended and the Commission will be provided a copy of the amended legislation as soon as it is available . Motion: Martin moved and Hernbrode seconded THAT THE COMMISSION VOTE TOSUPPORT THIS BILL AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. Vote: Unanimous
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/inside_azgfd/minutes/2007/020907CommMtgMin.pdf See page 2 of 24.
The hubris of the AGFD and the YVRGC (hunting club) is evident when you consider that they were working side-by-side with the Kofa staff when the HCM 2008 was unanimously passed by the Department’s Commission following the Arizona State Legislatures’ bicameral decision by an overall combined total House and Senate vote of: 56 for and 29 against.
I think the HCM action instigated the rushed and secretive actions in the 2007 Report; otherwise, NEPA and full public review and scrutiny might have occurred as promised. The AGFD took over Kofa NWR management and that still occurs today even with the new Complex Manager.
15) April 13, 2007: The large sums of money donated by groups such as the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society (ADBSS) may prejudice wildlife management decisions on Kofa NWR regarding lions and artificial water developments. On April 13, the ADBSS donated $138,080.00 to the AGFD with the memo “SAVE KOFA SHEEP”. The sum supports many Kofa NWR projects, some that are very important and worthwhile; however, a correspondence presented on May 31 illustrates that donations might carry a payback requirement in lost Kofa wildlife, albeit just the death of natural top-level predators.
16) April 17, 2007: Date on the final 2007 Investigative Report and Recommendations for the Kofa Bighorn Sheep Herd although not officially signed until Monday, June 4, 2007.
17) April 20, 2007: (From Kofa/AGFD pers. comm.) or (“April 17 or 18” from Contact Lion Trapper Mr. Ron Thompson’s field notes) First confirmed young ram bighorn killed by KM01 at a location “less than one mile from the Kofa NWR boundary”, but definitely not within the KNWR boundary.
18 ) May 24, 2007: 2nd confirmed bighorn preyed on by KM01 and the first and only Kofa bighorn killed by this lion within the Kofa NWR boundary.
19) May 25, 2007: The AGFD Director Mr. Duane Shroufe (Director Shroufe) signed the Kofa Mtns Complex Predation Management Plan (Plan)
The signing happened although internal review by an important AGFD lion researcher, Wildlife Specialist II Dr. Ted McKinney (Dr. McKinney), who expressed concerns with a main concept of the Plan, had not occurred nor was there any coordination with BLM.
Since the Plan did not receive proper review, I formally request of Director Shroufe to halt all the actions therein and I ask for an open, full public review and comment period similar to the comment period for the Black Mountains Plan.
Note: I do not know when this AGFD plan, with only a Department signatory and not a joint FWS/AGFD signatory began or how much the USFWS was involved.
20) May 31, 2007: On Thursday, just 3 days before an AGFD law enforcement officer shot collared cougar KM01 on a Sunday morning, Mr. Jim Broschart, ADBSS Treasurer, sent an e-mail to Gary R. Hovatter with quid pro quo overtones. Such, I gave you this now you give me that implications demonstrate how donated monies might bias and influence the AGFD’s decisions.
Note: In the following exchange, Duane Shroufe was the then-AGFD Director, the highest position in the Department.
“Mr. Hovatter, Why haven’t you returned my email? Is this true this lion has made TWO kills now. On bighorn sheep! I need the dates and locations of these kills. Acording (sic) to the usf&w paper we supported ($138080) two strikes in 6 months and the lion goes to the bid (sic) kofa in the sky. When is his date he does have a collar!! Read the following after my info. I do out source for info.”
Jim Broschart ADBSS Treasurer
“Jlm, (sic) I don’t know him. If he gives you grief go over his head to his supervisor. Or try Suzanne Henry at the KOFA office instead of Lindsey Smythe. I talked to Duane Shroufe last night and he assured me that if that the lion leaves the refuge again it will be removed. Supposedly they actually have two confirmed mortalities attributed to that lion. The AGFD did not know it was off the refuge earlier this month. They have since tightened up the sharing of information between the USFWS and AGFD. Now the lion is back on the refuge and they are still dicking (sic) around with the %$#@ white paper. Its supposed to be signed this week but I would expect further stalling tactics by the USFWS before it is. Good luck and keep on this.” [Note: no author was listed for this section of the e-mail]
21) June 03, 2007: On a Sunday morning at about 06:30, AGFD Field Supervisor Mr. Dave Conrad (Field Supervisor Conrad) shot cougar KM01 at Dripping Springs, outside the Kofa NWR boundary.
Interestingly, Director Shroufe signed the Plan on May 25, the day after the second lion-killed bighorn’s confirmation on May 24, and then the day after killing lion KM01 on June 3, Dr. Tuggle signed the 2007 Report on June 4. This pattern appears to be more than coincidental and suggests deliberate reactions to threshold triggers set to determine lethal lion removal and expedited attempts to make the killing appear official.
Lion KM02 was captured at Adams Well, Kofa NWR during this timeframe, but his collar’s release mechanism malfunctioned causing the collar to “fall off” somewhere in the area. The agencies will not give us the location of that dropped collar.
22) June 04, 2007: Dr. Tuggle signed the 2007 Report, the day following the cougar KM01’s death.
23) June 05, 2007: Two days after KM01’s extermination, Asst. Manager Susanna Henry e-mailed Refuge Biologist Smythe, the FWS Kofa lion research lead and the Project Manager for the current $71,300.00+ lion and bobcat scat study. Notwithstanding the research value of a FWS-owned satellite GPS-collared lion, the 1-year, plus effort to capture a lion, and at great expense of fieldwork and travel per diem costs for her and other employees, this was Ms. Smythe’s curious reply:
“BAD lion! Did we get the carcass? Good to know Ron (Thompson) got another one collared—although I hate to think of what he’s eating at Adams Well.”Ms. Smythe’s insensitive comment is hardly an expression of “mixed feeling” regarding killing a costly research subject and instead reveals her actual biased position by implying that the next lion will soon succumb to the same fate. This lion was KM02, the one animal with the collar that later “fell off”. Any researcher must put personal biases aside or their scientific conclusions cannot be trusted.
24) June 11, 2007: The public still did not have access to the “white paper” or the official USFWS position on defining the “offending lion” concept.
The information occurred after the offending lion was dead, after the full completion of the Yaqui Tank redevelopment, and after the McPherson Tank redevelopment construction was underway. Below is Manager Cornes’ June 11, 2007 e-mail reply following my initial request:
“Mr. Cornes, Last winter when you and I were discussing bighorn/lion issues you stated the FWS was working on a White Paper. May I receive a copy of that document? Thank you,
Ron Kearns”“Ron, The “white paper” will be available to the public very soon. I will ensure that you recieve (sic) a copy as soon as it is available. Paul” (The “white paper” quote was Cornes’ original emphasis).
The next excerpts are from a correspondence on January 31, 2007 between Biologist Smythe and Game Specialist Henry involving the changing the name of the “Action Plan” to the current 2007 Report per a request by Manager Paul Cornes. This is important because others and I were always told it was an investigatory white paper, not a management/action plan, and that we would be given a chance to comment on the paper (I have corroborating evidence) but we were never given that opportunity. Posting of the Report on the Kofa NWR website occurred after the collared KM01’s death and after both artificial water developments in wilderness were completed.
Biologist Smythe wrote, “Latest attempt. Paul asked me this morning if we would consider changing the title to something that sounded a little less like an action plan and more like a white paper. (I can see your eyes rolling. I saw that.). He’s concered (sic) about the first impression our folks will receive from the document. I made a suggestion. Harpoon it if you so desire.”
Game Specialist Henry replied, “Yep, I rolled my eyes. But I don’t really care what it’s called. Your suggestion is fine with me.”
Kofa Biologist Smythe and AGFD Game Specialist Henry are the 2 lead Kofa NWR lion researchers who share all the satellite GPS collar location data for all lions that can be depredated in the Kofa Mountains Complex whether they are trapped on Kofa NWR or not (but only trapping occurs within the refuge boundary, to anyone’s current knowledge). Therefore, the USFWS is complicit with all lion depredation orders. However, lions cannot be killed within the refuge through some AGFD/Kofa NWR agreement and requests have been made for any official written documents confirming a legal agreement versus a simple verbal or website posted agreement.
A reference to “offending lion” was presented in a Kofa NWR Action Matrix entitled: “Needed and Existing Environmental Documentation for Desert Bighorn Sheep Recovery Action on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge”. Two excerpts from the table:
Offending Mountain Lion Removal2 Action: EA MRA 30-Day Public Review
Redevelopments at Yaqui and CatEX MRA
McPherson Tanks22Provide information to interest groups early and often to smooth implementation.
No such information regarding lion removal to “smooth implementation” was provided, in fact, the removal of lion KM01 and the Yaqui and McPherson Tank redevelopments were secretively conducted. A 30-day public review period definitely did not occur. This action matrix was not part of the 2007 Report.25) June 18, 2007: The “White Paper” aka 2007 Report in .pdf format appeared for the first time on the Kofa NWR website for the public to access. Promised public participation never occurred although Ms. Henry’s written statement of “contacting stakeholders, such as the Sierra Club… as part of a larger outreach strategy for the Investigative Report and Recommendations for the Kofa Bighorn Sheep Herd” occurred a month earlier in the CatEx documents.
26) June ??, 2007: Categorical Exclusion, Capturing and Monitoring Wildlife and Transporting Water and Equipment, and the Installation of Evaporative Covers and Measuring Devices on Water Sources in Wilderness
This CatEx referenced collared mountain lion monitoring, evaluation and possible control but not enough detail to justify or authorize depredation.
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/bhsheep/CapturesHelicoptersEvapBarriers-catex%20MRA.pdf
Note: This CatEx was not released until the week of May 19, 2008 or 11-months after it was written.
27) July 02, 2007: Over 1-month following the Plan’s signatory and just short of a month since the depredation of the lion and the Report’s signatory, AGFD lion researcher Dr. McKinney expressed concerns to the AGFD Chief of Research Ms. Chasa O’Brien regarding the concept stated in the Plan that “that lion predation can have significant population-level impacts”. Dr. McKinney should have had input into the Plan before the predation document was signed.
“I just reviewed the Kofa Mtns Complex Predation Management Plan. Statement is made in there that several studies have demonstrated that lion predation can have significant population-level impacts. Concerns me somewhat when I see such comments. Note that Sawyer and Lindzey state that NO studies have clearly demonstrated population-level impacts. Our Monograph is the 1st study to address this in the manner suggested by Ballard (in paper cited in the Predator Mgt Plan), and even it suffers from the difficulty in demonstration such impact. Findings are suggestive for several studies, but lack inferential capabilities, and generally show lion kills (frequencies, numbers, differences among specific lions, etc.” (Dr. McKinney wrote the NO emphasis).
28 ) July 26, 2007: Lion KM02’s GPS-collar release mechanism malfunctions and the collar “drops-off”
29) August 13, 2007: J. Paul Cornes leaves Kofa NWR for Region 6 where he is a Refuge Supervisor over many refuge managers in the 3-state area of ND, SD, and Nebraska.
Cornes’ first and only refuge manager position was at Kofa NWR and endured for 2.7 years. He departed Kofa about 2 months after he, Ms. Henry, and several regional office staff acknowledged a secret artificial water development in Kofa NWR wilderness, which engendered the current lawsuit.30) October 21, 2007: Lion KM03 captured and GPS-collared on Kofa NWR. The public can only assume that KM02 is still alive.
31) October 28, 2007: Southwest Arizona National Wildlife Refuge Complex Manager Mitch Ellis enters on duty to manage Kofa, Imperial, and Cibola NWRs.
Mr. Ellis was given the job without OPM competitive status where his knowledge, skills, and abilities would be compared against other applicants. He did not have the necessary bighorn sheep or mountain lion management experience compared to other possible applicants if they received the fair chance to compete for the position.
32 ) February 2008: KM03 has been an “offending lion” since his second bighorn sheep kill in February.
33) February 21, 2008: In an attempt to help prevent KM03’s death, Mr. Kearns requested information, because of questionable and unprofessional field biological protocols, to confirm that KM03, in fact, had preyed on 2 bighorn. However, no USFWS or AGFD staff replied to his many requests for 5 weeks and 5 days. The AGFD killed cougar KM03 while Kearns repeatedly requested information and Mr. Hovatter finally acknowledged the receipt of Kearns’ request 4 days after KM03’s death.
34) March 18 2008: “One additional kill has been confirmed for KM03, a desert bighorn sheep ram killed near Yaqui Tank in mid-March and confirmed by biologists in the field on March 18.”
35) March 29 2008: “The lion (KM03) left the refuge on March 28 and was taken by Department staff on the evening of March 29 in the vicinity of White Tanks in the Tank Mountains east of the refuge”.
36) April 01, 2008: Kearns sent an e-mail to Complex Manager Mitch Ellis et al. (26 people) to stop the unethical of killing collared research animals. Ellis never responded to this e-mail:
Mitch et al.Please stop this nonsense. Do Not allow the AGFD to collar more lions while they are within the boundary of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge boundary.
Mr. Charles Ault: you are wasting taxpayer dollars with this “scat research”.
Melanie Culver Ph.D.: I think scientific ethics (not to mention horse sense) dictates that you do not kill your research subjects.
This is the second Kofa collared lion that has been killed once he left the Kofa refuge boundary. A 3rd lion ‘lost‘ his collar and he perhaps also lost his life, given the irrational behavior the AGFD displays against cougars. I have asked for the last 5+ weeks for documentation to confirm that these were lion-killed bighorn and not scavenged animals, but the AGFD has ignored me. I knew this lion was subject to a depredation order and at least you could have given me the evidence I requested. Why are you so afraid to give information to me? Is it because you are lying, you do not have the evidence to support your cougar killings, is it innate professional cowardice, what are the reasons?
Typical of AGFD/FWS/Kofa NWR agency foolishness, on 1 hand you are spending big bucks to capture; collar; track; and then kill these lions while on the other hand you are spending $71,000.00 to conduct a scat study.
Agency staffers, please try to comprehend this profound paradigm:
Live mountain lion = eats = defecates mountain lion scat = scat available for $71,000.00 study
However:
Dead mountain lion = no eating = no mountain lion scat defecated = no mountain lion scat to pick through and study = wasted $71,000.00 = Fleecing-of-America-type research = a congressional.
I am sending this e-mail as an individual and not as part of any group. I have tried to be fair and patient; however, most of you have not even bothered to answer my e-mail requests.
Ron Kearns
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
21:5237) April 02 2008: Mr. Hovatter finally responded to Mr. Kearns’ requests for information regarding KM03, 4 days after the cougar was shot.
Mr. Kearns,
“I was unavailable almost all of last month and was informed last week that a there is a string of e-mails from you that includes requests for information and/or records. I was in Monday preparatory to being out of the office again for the rest of the week and attempted to call you twice, but (assuming the number I have . . . (XXX) XXX-XXX . . . is correct) all I got was a message saying the person at that number is unavailable. At that point the system would not go to voice mail and the calls ended.”
Every person understands that phone numbers are easily mistyped or misplaced, although cell phone technology makes this less common. However, sometime in 40 days Mr. Hovatter or the others I included in my e-mail requests could have sent me an e-mail or called the Kofa NWR office for my correct cell phone number.
38 ) April 07, 2008: Complex Manager Ellis responds to my questions regarding halting future AGFD collaring of Kofa cougars (which have resulted in 2 deaths) in another attempt to get an answer from him since he ignored my April 01, 2008 e-mail.
“You ask below if the FWS will discontinue the collaring of lions on the refuge as a result of the latest incident. The answer is no. At least not at this moment. I have listened to the concerns expressed by you and others, and am contemplating what our next actions should be regarding the lion studies. When we spoke last over the phone, I believe I told you the FWS will begin the NEPA process for a lion managememt plan on Kofa very soon. The proposed project is for lethal control of lions under certain circumstances to meet objectives related to the sheep population.”
39) April 10, 2008: The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) sends a cease and desist letter to Complex Manager Ellis, ‘Re: Request for Immediate Halt to Mountain Lion Trapping and Collaring’. A brief excerpt from the letter follows:
Given the already drastic impacts to the tiny lion population at Kofa, it is essential that no further capture and collaring take place, and that any currently collared lions are not tracked for extermination purposes, without the required NEPA review. We could go straight to court, but PEER makes this request out of respect for you and your position at Kofa. We are confident of success if legal action proves necessary, but that should be an unnecessary last resort. It is up to you.
Please respond with your written grant or denial of PEER’s request by April 17
http://www.peer.org/docs/nwr/08_21_4_kofa_ltr.pdf
40) April 18 2008: Partners in Kofa National Wildlife Refuge bighorn sheep restoration effort announce moratorium on mountain lion control
“On April 18, the Department announced it was, for up to one year, suspending the lethal removal of offending lions captured and collared on the Kofa NWR while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed the environmental assessment for its mountain lion management plan. Capturing, collaring and monitoring of lions on the refuge continues. The suspension does not affect wholly Department-resourced lethal removal of any offending lions captured and collared outside the refuge.”
The moratorium would not have occurred without PEER’s cease and desist efforts.
Once again there are requests from the public to the agencies to ensure that there are legally binding written agreements in place that consider all of the moratorium contingencies to prevent misunderstandings that might result in any collared cougar’s death.
To date, no replies for those requests for a written agreement have occurred. Handshakes and verbal agreements are untrustworthy with today’s public officials.
41) April 21, 2008: ‘ARIZONA’S KOFA REFUGE COUGARS GET ONE-YEAR REPRIEVE — Government Halts “Lethal Removal” of Refuge Puma after PEER Intervention’
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1031
There are some informative links below the PEER article.
42) April 22, 2008: ‘Partners in Kofa National Wildlife Refuge bighorn sheep restoration effort announce moratorium on mountain lion control (As corrected April 22, 2008)’
“Note: A typographical error occurred in paragraph four of this release when it was originally distributed. In the final pre-release draft, the correctly worded sentence reads: “As announced in November 2006, that year’s population survey indicated that the estimated population had dropped to an historic low of 390 animals.” In the released version it had been changed to read: “However, since 2006 the estimated population has dropped to an historic low of 390 animals.” While those familiar with other documents on the Department web site (e.g., the November 16, 2006, news release on the results of the 2006 survey and the population estimate tables in the April 2007 joint “Investigative Report”) will have immediately recognized the inaccuracy, we regret any confusion this typographical error may have caused.”
http://www.azgfd.gov/artman/publish/article_797.shtml
43) April 22, 2008: Regarding the April 21 Yuma Sun article, ‘Officials halt mountain lion killings at Kofa Refuge.’ Ron Kearns entered a comment refuting Complex Manager Ellis’ incorrect and misleading statement that his decision to suspend the killing was not a result of the April 10, 2008 PEER letter.
Remember that Kearns asked Ellis to please stop the AGFD collaring on April 07 and he stated, “The answer is no.” In addition, Kearns had opposed killing any lions resulting from the research he initiated in 2004, had pleaded with the agencies after the surprise killing of KM01 on June 03, 2007 and tried to prevent the death of KM03 for 5+ weeks but all agencies’ staffs ignored his requests for information. The AGFD snared and collared cougar KM03 on October 21, 2008 and Mr. Ellis officially entered on duty as Complex Manager 7 days later on October 28, 2007. Mr. Ellis clearly could have prevent the AGFD’s killing of this lion over the 5 months he was in charge and knew NEPA was a requirement as Assistant Manager Henry, Refuge Biologist Smythe, and the Region 2 Region Office staff knew by this entry in the Action Matrix sometime in the winter/Spring of 2007, about a full year before KM03 was killed and before KM01 was killed:
Offending Mountain Lion Removal2 Action: EA MRA 30-Day Public ReviewFrom the Yuma Sun article and this is a quote from Mr. Ellis:
“Ellis said the suspension of the killings was not a result of the PEER letter, adding that the refuge has been discussing developing a mountain lion management plan for the refuge and having an environmental assessment done since December 2007.”
Mr. Ellis was clearly responsible for KM03’s death. I can only assume that after the patriarch of the Kofa lions was killed, Ellis and his AGFD cohorts, that in the face of a lawsuit, guessed that they had already done such great damage to the breeding population of Kofa lions that having 2 concurrent lawsuits was not worth the bother. The AGFD can still GPS-collar and track under the auspices of “research” and Mr. Hovatter made this statement, “And Game and Fish said it will still continue to kill offending lions off the refuge if necessary”.
Ron Kearns’ reply to Ellis’ statement:
Southwest Arizona NWR Complex Manager Mitch Ellis is a decent man with whom I first worked with when he was a wildlife biologist at Havasu National Wildlife Refuge in the late 1980s. Mr. Ellis was “given” the GS-14 job as complex manager without having to compete for the position. The previous Kofa NWR Manager, J. Paul Cornes, who managed at Kofa for less than 3 years, also did not have to compete for his Kofa manager’s job. Both employees were “put in place”, “preselected”, or “appointed” without OPM competition that helps ensure the best person for any government position. Mr. Cornes left Kofa NWR about 2 months after the killing of the first Kofa collared lion KM01 and the installation of the illegal, secretive artificial wilderness water in McPherson Pass. Following this trend, Acting Kofa Refuge Manager Susanna Henry will apparently not have to compete through fair, open OPM rules to receive the Kofa manager’s position and she is a principal cause of many of the past and current Kofa NWR problems involving mountain lions and wilderness waters. Non-competitive status is not the proper procedure to get the most qualified individuals for a position. When “given a job” the employee is beholden to the “givers” of that position for a debt of favors owed.
Mr. Ellis was likely sent to Kofa to fix some of the problems. Others and I complained because the high paying job was not advertised. Qualified applicants, several of whom I knew and who I wanted to have a chance to apply for the complex manager’s job, especially those with bighorn management experience, were not allowed to apply. However, others and I gave Mr. Ellis the benefit of the doubt. Now I am losing that benefit following his comment quoted above.
Members of the public asked Mr. Ellis to discontinue the capture/collaring/depredation of Kofa collared lions and he said he would not stop the killing. However, the next week after receiving the PEER letter, he and the Department agreed to a moratorium the next day of an extended period PEER granted Mr. Ellis to comply with the request. Without insulting anyone’s intelligence or reasoning abilities, I will let you decide for yourselves if the PEER letter was an impetus to the moratorium or not.
When Mr. Ellis arrived on Kofa in November 2007, he knew NEPA compliances were required for cougar depredation orders resulting in their death. However, he allowed the killing to continue, by following the same ill-conceived methods of Mr. Paul Cornes, while admittedly stating that an EA and an associated lion plan were required. Mr. Ellis simply would not have acted to stop the cougar killings without PEER’s influence and for him to state otherwise is extremely disingenuous and such dishonesty has characterized the agencies’ actions for several years.
Complex Manager Mitch Ellis is a good man with the professional experience, abilities, and the opportunity to change past unethical, secretive, and illegal actions by members of his staff and in concert with the AGFD staffs. If he does not follow the sound practices and principles of wildlife science to manage, with transparency, all the biodiversity on Kofa NWR and if he assumes the illogical, unethical biases of the AGFD Region IV staff and Ms. Henry, then he will fail miserably just as Mr. Cornes did. Acting Kofa Manager Susanna Henry must not be “given” the Kofa job and her unethical past and present decisions must not be allowed to stand. Her position at Kofa NWR is a conflict of interest because of her biased, unreflective agreement with the anti-predator and anti-wilderness policies of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, especially since the 2 agencies have different missions.
Southwest Arizona NWR Complex Manager Mitch Ellis acknowledges that he has complete control over the 3 complex refuges composed of Imperial, Cibola, and Kofa NWRs. All successes or failures of the complex will rest on his wildlife management abilities that he must conduct in an open, honest, ethical, and transparent manner.
4/22/2008 8:07:27 PM
44) April 23, 2008: “On April 23, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released its “ Public Scoping Letter for Environmental Assessment for Management of Mountain Lions on Kofa NWR” in order to garner public input for the plan. The Service’s intent to pursue such a plan was first mentioned in the December 2007 update.”
45) May 24, 2008: Scoping comment period extended to June 23, 2008 because of public requests.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/kofa/docs/KNWR-LionEA-FinalScopingExtensionLetter.pdf
Many of the relevant documents I refer to and news releases, etc. are posted on the azgfd.gov website: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/bhsheep/reference.shtml
I presented this timeline because the Kofa cougar issue has been long, contentious, and an often-confusing array of what action occurred when. My recounting of the events will help you comment during this important EA scoping process to assist the agency staff to determine the Preferred/Proposed Action Alternatives. The staffs must consider and record for the official record the public’s concerns and possible impacts to the environment and then incorporate those subjects in the upcoming draft EA with the fullest suite of Alternatives possible.
Some correspondences came from a public records request pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Act/Law/Statute.
Respectfully,
Ron Kearns
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
18:20 AZ (-07:00)Update: Wednesday, May 28, 2008
10:20 AZ (-07:00)—Epilogue—
Through the Arizona Public Records Act/Law, others and I have requested the mortality photos of cougar KM03. The AGFD’s Mr. Gary Hovatter stated the staffers responsible for killing the cougar did not take photos! To have not taken photos is a breach of scientific ethics, protocol, basic field biology, and evidentiary and documentation procedures. The Department took photos of KM01’s death and staffers prominently post on the agfd.gov website the mortality photos of the mule deer and the bighorn that KM01 and KM03 allegedly preyed on. The photos, along with field post-mortem examinations, field journals, biological/DNA samples, and morphological measurements taken, are SOP for competent field biology. I requested the AGFD/USFWS’ field protocol for lion investigations and Mr. Hovatter stated that they did not have their own protocol and used other established protocols. Surely, any logical and reasonable protocol would include photos of the dead lion to include the animal’s dentition, body size/conformation, any dissections, and most simply as evidence that the cougar was, in fact, dead. If for some reason the photos could not have been taken while afield, then the lion’s carcass was likely carried out and perhaps stored in a freezer so photos could have easily been taken off-site at any time. Did they just leave the lion in the field after they removed the expensive GPS collar? These are contingencies and procedures that must be covered in a field investigatory protocol so there is consistency and trust in the information collected by all field investigators. Melanie Culver Ph.D. is doing a $71,000.00+ scat study on Kofa NWR and all of the DNA evidence possible from the 2 dead Kofa cougars could help answer important biological and genetics related questions by further investigating the credibility of a Yuma Puma subspecies. I am assuming that DNA samples were taken from these cougars.
Finally, my criticisms of former colleagues and others may appear vindictive and sometimes overwrought. The AGFD and the USFWS have abrogated scientific ethics and governmental transparency because of hubristic and biased philosophies. I have tried to expose what I could in the fairest, although very direct, manner possible. Public servants must be held accountable for their actions. This is not occurring with the Department and the Service staffs involved in wildlife management of Kofa NWR. Instead of facing accountability and possible censure, some of the people who have erred through deceitful practices have instead been promoted in job status through an end justifies the biased means fashion at the denigration of scientific codes of ethics. As a member of the public, I am limited with my options to achieve redress of the agencies’ misdeeds; however, I will endeavor to continue seeking fairness and transparency in ethical biodiversity management of Kofa NWR. I request that others do what they can to ensure the agencies’ adherence to oaths of office, ethical codes, and the use of sound scientific practices and principles.
The following page has chronological links to important newspaper articles (and the readers’ comments for 2008 ) associated with Kofa NWR cougar issues. Along with links in the timeline, this should provide the background needed to make reasoned and informed comments during the scoping process.
Newspaper Articles Associated with the Kofa NWR Timeline of Cougar Research, Collaring, Plans, Depredations, and the Moratorium
www.yumasun.com/news/kofa_41270___article.html/lions_mountain.html
www.yumasun.com/news/officials_41191___article.html/kofa_refuge.html
www.yumasun.com/sports/sportsmen_40807___article.html/management_alliance.html
www.yumasun.com/news/killing_40802___article.html/officials_lion.html
www.yumasun.com/articles/wildlife_39575___article.html/ellis_refuge.html
www.yumasun.com/sports/sheep_38738___article.html/bighorn_yuma.html
www.yumasun.com/news/arizona_36882___article_news.html/power_line.html
www.3310online.com/articles/season_45___article.html/one_year.html
www.yumasun.com/news/sheep_35132___article.html/mountain_lion.html
www.yumasun.com/opinion/animals_35148___article.html/ewes_bighorn.html
www.yumasun.com/news/wilderness_34942___article.html/wildlife_release.html
www.yumasun.com/news/population_34903___article.html/herd_sheep.html
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17092
www.yumasun.com/sports/sheep_34672___article.html/bighorn_kofa.html
www.yumasun.com/news/bighorn_34666___article.html/herd_sheep.html
www.yumasun.com/news/sheep_34458___article.html/refuge_kofa.html
www.yumasun.com/news/fish_33352___article.html/bighorn_game.html
www.yumasun.com/news/mountain_25085___article.html/lions_refuge.html
www.yumasun.com/sports/bighorn_24876___article.html/call_area.html
www.yumasun.com/news/refuge_17406___article.html/wildlife_sheep.html
Apologies for starting off with a gruesome photo. Sometimes it is necessary to know what the stakes are. That is a picture of the first Kofa Mountain Lion, killed in September 2007. Picture provided to me by Ron Kearns, who received it from the government through a public records request. This mountain lion (aka cougar aka puma) had killed more than one Bighorn Sheep in a six month period, and that is how the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge managers justified killing him.
I’ve been writing about the Kofa Mountain Lions for almost a year and a half. I stumbled on the first bit of information sort of by chance. I can’t actually remember how I came across the information. At the time, it was during a public comment period about the Mountain Lion proposed hunt. I wrote in, got some friends to write in, and in the end it was HSUS (believe it or not) that saved the day, at least temporarily, for those mountain lions, via a lawsuit against the US Game and Fishing Department.
Since then, two of the five Kofa Mountain Lions have been hunted via radio collar and killed in government sanctioned canned hunts.
The reason given for the killing was that the Bighorn Sheep population was at the lowest level since the 1980′s. Potential causes for population decline would include: drought, disease and sickness, and disturbance and/or destruction of habitat, especially sensitive areas, in addition to whatever impact the mountain lions have on the population. Hunters, who all along have been sold hunting permits for the Bighorn Sheep despite the low sheep population, are never included in the “official” lists of possible causes of lowering sheep numbers. For that, among other reasons, the list I mentioned is not exhaustive. It is safe to say that no one has bothered to find out, yet, exactly why the sheep population has dropped. They simply used it as an excuse to kill mountain lions in radio collar canned hunts.
The government agencies also neglected to mention that the sheep population rose by close to 20% between 2006 and 2007. While all five mountain lions were alive. (The first was killed in September of 2007, so in the interests of accuracy, all five lions were only impacting the populations for 3/4 of 2007, and only four lions for the remaining quarter of 2007.)
So the government mislead the public. The government used partial information to justify killing mountain lions that had killed two sheep in a six month period. The government, however, refused to even limit the number of sheep hunting permits they were selling, even while they claimed the sheep population was in danger due to the predation of the lions.
PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) stepped up to the plate this time, and again the mountain lion hunting has been halted, this time for a year. In this next year the government is going to go through the formal analysis process, including a “formal scoping period”, to start research into the impact the mountain lions are having on the sheep populations.
We all know that the government is already biased towards the hunters, against the mountain lions, against biodiversity, against letting animals live their lives for themselves, rather than as entertainment revenue. The hunting permits for the Bighorn Sheep are the refuge’s biggest source of income. We know this, and yet the government is actually obligated to go through this formal process to justify what they are doing.
And this is where we come in. You, and me, and everyone else can write in and give our arguments against the mountain lion hunting.
From now until May 24, 2008 it is what they call the “formal scoping period” and we can send letters, electronically or via snail mail, with our thoughts, and have them entered formally and officially in public record. And, especially importantly, we should include our suggestions for alternatives. For instance, no hunting of mountain lions on Kofa NWR by agencies or hunters.
That would be a really fantastic alternative to propose.
And since this is the government, it isn’t just the logic, the science, and the information that will count, but the number of people who register with that opinion.
It is “just” three mountain lions that we’re fighting for, but it is more than that too. It is the right for animals to live their own lives. We argue for this all the time when we try to convince people to go vegan, and I think most of us sort of assume that the wild animals already have this freedom…freedom to live. Yet, that is far from the truth. The government likes to manage the wildlife just as much as they like to manage everything else. (This should be no surprise: deer, wolves, mute swans, pigeons, canadian geese, coyote, bear, seals, squirrels…just about every animal exists on the sufferance of people in power who make decisions about their lives.)
So it isn’t just mountain lions we’re fighting for, but all animals. How can we argue for “domestic” animals to have freedom if we can’t even guarantee it for wild animals?
Well, we clearly can and need to do both. It isn’t mutually exclusive.
Ron Kearns is the main reason I’ve kept up with everything going on with the Kofa Lions. He worked there for most of his career, he has a lot of contacts in the area, and one of those contacts supplied him with a great chart that shows the process, and the impact that this formal scoping period can have.
It isn’t often that they are required to listen to us. Of course there is a danger as well – our silence, if we stay silent, makes the voices of those who want the death of the mountain lions that much louder. To my mind, the letter writing for the scoping period is both an opportunity and an obligation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has (finally) posted the pdf explaining the formal scoping period for the Mountain Lions on their website. The press release is also available, and there are additional links on that page that might be helpful to read.
If you want to write but aren’t sure where to start, or have any question on either the process or the science or whatever, please let me know and I’ll do whatever I can to help. You can read other things I’ve written about the Kofa Mountain Lions.
It doesn’t have to be elaborate, but the more letters that the government receives on behalf of the mountain lions, the more impact that point of view will have overall. It is just three mountain lions, you might be thinking, but it is more than that too. It is a chance to make a stand for wildlife, to make a statement that wildlife is no more there for our purposes than any other animal is.
You can visit http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/kofa/ for additional background information.
Comments must be submitted in writing by May 24, 2008.
Email: KofaLionComments@fws.gov
SnailMail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 356 W. 1st St., Yuma, AZ 85364
Some websites to look at for information on cougars (aka mountain lions aka pumas):
http://www.cougarnet.org/ (“Using Science To Understand Cougar Ecology”)
http://www.mountainlion.org/index1.asp
http://www.cougarfund.org
An article that discusses the importance of predators in maintaining biodiversity, written in readable science: Predator-Prey Relationships
Some issues I think are important to bring up:
Please also mention that you want an alternative to be considered…such as no hunting of mountain lions on Kofa NWR by agencies or hunters.
When it comes time for the other parts of this process, only alternatives presented during this formal scoping period will be considered. If we don’t suggest no hunting of mountain lions, who will?
Thanks to anyone who will write. Thanks to Mary for posting about this a couple days ago, and Ron for making sure I have been kept up to date on everything going on.
Picture of “K03″, killed earlier this month, picture given by the refuge officials to Daniel Patterson.
*updated to add the picture of the last Kofa lion that was killed, obviously before his death. picture courtesy of Daniel Patterson, who received the photo from USFWS Southwest Arizona NWR Complex Manager Mitch Ellis. They would not release the “mortality” photo, which has some implications that do not reflect well on them.*
The state and federal groups have announced that the Kofa NWR lions have a one year reprieve from being hunted via radio collars. PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) put pressure on Kofa and the AGFD, which appears to have resulted in the Kofa NWR and AGFD’s announcement of the reprieve, though of course the refuge managers themselves deny that PEER had any influence at all on the decision. I find that hard to imagine.
From PEER’s article:
Arizona Game & Fish derives significant revenue from selling bighorn hunting tags and is concerned that cougar predation may be costing it potential revenue. The federal refuge also expends significant funds to kill cougars in the name of bighorn protection, yet refuge management still allows the annual hunting of more than ten bighorn rams on the Kofa NWR itself.
What a mass of contradictions that is! And it looks like it tells most of the $tory of the motivation of the AGFD.
What does this reprieve mean? It means that the AGFD and Kofa NWR will not kill the mountain lions on Kofa land for the next year, though they “might” continue to trap and collar them. Hunters are not supposed to use GPS to track and kill the lions, but they are still allowed to kill them off refuge land. I can’t help but to wonder whether there is some back room winking and nudging going on, since the Kofa management has been consistantly anti-predator in every document they produce and action they’ve taken. Not to mention in their concern for their revenue stream.
In the next year, Kofa will research to determine (to the best of their ability) what has been causing the decline in herd size of the Kofa Bighorn Sheep. In the most recent Yuma Sun article, they’re making it clear what outcome they expect. For anyone trained in science, you know that such bias going into a research project generally means you do a piss poor job of analyzing the data, and that the research procedure itself has a tendency to be flawed when you make no attempt to be unbiased. Why do I think that the AGFD and the Kofa management is biased? Because in the article, they are quoted as saying that they will spend the next year to determine what role the lions have played in the sheep herds.
They are broadcasting what they expect to find. I didn’t see any mention of the many other factors that will almost certainly have played a contributing role:
One other tidbit is that sheep populations are going up. And that, folks, was between ’06 and ’07. Before 2 lions were killed.
Given the ever increasing amounts of poisons in the world, given the connection that environmental scientists have found between pollen amounts and carbon dioxide, given that ecology and population biology is never a simple equation with two variables, it seems to me that the answer to what is causing the herd decline is a complicated question that doesn’t lead itself to an easy answer. What exactly are the Kofa managers doing to examine the entire ecology, rather than just counting heads?
It isn’t that Kofa managers aren’t aware…at least, information taken from their website would lead me to believe that someone at Kofa was knowledgeable about this at one point:
Disease in bighorn sheep is most prevalent when animals are stressed and during severe drought. Multiple diseases may also combine to increase mortality. Bighorns seem particularly susceptible to respiratory problems like bacterial pneumonia. Pasturella, for example, can be carried by healthy domestic sheep and goats, but is deadly when transmitted to wild sheep. Scabies is another common disease easily transmitted to bighorns; it was responsible for a significant decline on San Andres NWR in 1978. Disease transmission from burros or horses to bighorn sheep has not been substantiated; however, isolated cases of transmission from cattle to bighorn sheep have been documented. Since the late 1800s, diseases transmitted by domestic sheep and goats have caused large, recurrent population-level declines in bighorn sheep throughout the western US. These declines have been well documented, and subsequent regulations restricting contact between domesticated and wild sheep have been enacted. It is imperative to keep any domestic sheep or goats well away from bighorn sheep range.
Chronic sinusitis is prevalent in bighorn sheep throughout Arizona. In severe cases, necrosis of the frontal bone and thinning of the braincase creates holes and abscessing in the brain, which is fatal. The leading theory for cause of this condition is bacterial infection secondary to necrotic bot fly larvae (Oestrus ovis), which are deposited in the nostrils of bighorn sheep. Evidence of chronic sinusitis has been common in the Kofa bighorn sheep herd, though it appears to be less prevalent now than during the 1980s and 1990s.
We already know how many sheep the hunters kill, as well as generally how many the lions have killed. The sheep herd dropped by almost 400 in the space of 2 years. We are to believe that the lions were killing 40 sheep per year, each? Let’s account for the hunters and make wild guesses as to the possible impacts of predation on the birth rate, and assume 20 sheep per year, by each of the 5 lions that had originally lived at Kofa, before two were killed in this past year. That still leaves us well below the 400 by which the herd dropped. If 20 per year is a normal amount for each lion, why are lions considered to be “offending” if they have killed two within six months?
Either four sheep per year is a more typical amount for each lion, in which case it is ludicrous to assign them blame for the reduction of the sheep herd size by 400, or Kofa management came up with a ridiculously low “allowed” meals on the part of the lions so that they could give a superficial appearance of not being anti-predator, and yet stacking the deck in favor of death to every lion on Kofa.
Ron has requested that we comment on the Yuma sun article and mark it as “recommended” to help keep this issue in people’s minds. You have to register in order to be able to comment, but anyone can “recommend” an article. Daniel Patterson has a quick blog post about this as well, with instructions on getting onto the mailing list to comment as part of the public process that will soon be started.
All proceeds will be donated to the sanctuary.
Coupons: http://www.lulu.com/current_specials?cid=eng_advent_specials_112210
Recent Comments