a voice for the voiceless
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.
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!
*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