--------UPDATED 3/22/99-------
Don't forget to hit "Reload" if you've visited before!
1. Cyanide
traps blasted after family dog dies
By
Nancy Lofholm
Denver Post Staff Writer
Thursday, 03-18-99
"Paul Wright was finishing up ditch cleaning work on his family's property last week when he called his dog, Bob, and inadvertently set off a deadly trap that is having wide repercussions among government agencies, environmental groups and the small ranching community of Crawford.
When Bob responded to Wright's
call, his path took him close to an
irresistible
scent on the end of a buried stake. He sniffed it, gave it a tug, and the
spring-loaded ejector in the hollowed stake blew a lethal dose of
cyanide into his mouth.
Within seconds, while Wright
and his 3 year old daughter watched in
horror, Bob had stiffened
and died, unable to draw a breath because the
cyanide prevented his
lungs from absorbing oxygen.
The 7-year-old boxer-retriever mix had been killed by a trap called an M-44 that is designed to kill coyotes. The neighboring landowner has asked the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Division of Wildlife Services to place the traps on his land because coyotes had been after his calves.
But Wright had not
authorized any traps on his land and had not
been
notified that any of the
highly poisonous devices had been placed along the fence line on his property
by a government trapper. He said he did not
see any markers for the traps until he went out the day after Bob's death
and found a 3-inch-by-4-inch notice stuck on a willow branch about 40 feet
from the trap that killed Bob.
The incident left Wright brokenhearted about the loss of his dog, fearful for the safety of his three children and looking for an apology from the agency that placed the traps on his land without authorization.
'I wouldn't have let them
put them on my propety. I know coyotes are a
problem, but there needs
to be a better way to deal with this problem that
is safe for everyone.'
Wright said.
Tom
Hoffman, assistant regional director of the wildlife services division,
said his agency did make
a mistake.
'We're extremely concerned
about this. We take this very seriusly. It
shouldn't have happened,'
Hoffman said. He said his agency is conducting an internal investigation
of the incident.
Michelle Jensen, the landowner who requested the traps, said her husband, Larry, had warned Wright that cyanide traps had been put out.
'We have a severe predator
problem,' Jensen said, adding that her hired
hand recently had a tug-of-war
with a coyote over a calf and that a
neighbor's dog was killed
by a coyote.
A Boulder-based wildlife
and wildlands conservation group called Sinapu
and Tucson-based group
called Wildlife Damage Reveiw have jumped on
the issue and demanded
an accounting.
Sinapu spokeswoman Wendy
Keefover-Ring said the groups have filed
formal requests for release
of all reports relating to use of the traps on the
Wright property and have
also appealed to several members of Colorado's congressional delegation
to force release of the information. Sinapu, named after the the Ute word
for wolf, filed a lawsuit to obtain information in a similar case in 1997.
Ring said there have been
a number of other cases where dogs have been
killed by M-44 traps placed
on private land without authorization.
Hoffman admitted there have been other mistakes as his agency follows 26 restrictions set out by the Environmental Protection Agency for the use of M-44 traps.
The traps can be placed
within 7 miles of a ranch that is having problems
with coyotes, and they
cannot be used on private propety without approval of the landowner. They
must not be located closer than 200 feet to water or closer than 50 feet
to public roadways or paths.
Warning signs are to be placed
within 25 feet of each trap.
No more than 10 traps can be
placed in a 100 acre pasture.
Trappers must be trained
and licensed to use the devices and must carry
six capsules of amyl nitrate
in case they are exposed to the cyanide. They
are supposed to notify
local health-care providers in areas where they are
placing the cyanide traps.
'This device is very effective when used properly,' Hoffman said.
That doesn't make Paul
Wright feel any better about it. He said it's tough to battle a government
agency that is helping farmers and ranchers in the
Crawford area with predator
problems. He said it's tougher to keep quiet
about it when he knows
there are other people in the area who could
lose
pets or children to the
traps.
'We're going to keep pressure on the department of ag to do this differently,' he said."
______________
2. Cyanide
cartridge kills farmer's dog
By Deborah Frazier
News Staff Writer
Rocky Mtn. News, March
18th, 1999
"Second explosive device
found nearby; both had been intended to kill
coyotes on adjacent land."
"When Paul Wright's dog, Bob, died from biting into a .44-caliber cartridge of cyanide this month, the western Colorado garlic farmer was relieved the explosive device hadn't hit him or his 3-year-old daughter.
'I watched him bite into
it. I saw the puff of dust,' said Wright, who was
walking with his daughter
on the family's 80 acre farm near Crawford. 'He started running toward
me, then he fell over dead.'
The next day Wright's wife
found another cartridge, poised to fire.
'We were 30 feet from
Bob. And there was another cartridge there.' Wright said.
The cyanide cartridges
were intended for a coyote's mouth. They were left
by a federal employee
in response to a request by the rancher next door,
Larry Jensen.
Wildlife Services, a branch
of the U.S. Agriculture Department,
acknowledged placing the
devices, but said it was inadvertent.
'This was not a blatant
misplacement of the device on Wright's property,'
said David Moreno, district
supervisor. 'It was misinterpretation of the
placement of the property
line.'
The agency kills coyotes,
prairie dogs and other varmint species for
ranchers and farmers.
However, the Wrights say
they were not notified that the toxic shells
had
been placed on their property,
as required by law.
'When you are dealing with
something as extreme as a cyanide explosive
trap, then your precautions
have to be just as extreme,' he said."
________________
3. Freedom
of Information Act Lawsuit Filed Against
Federal Agency That
Kills Wildlife for Ranchers
A lawsuit was filed today
in U.S. District Court in Santa Fe, NM against the federal government’s
predator control program for violations of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).
The federal program, which now
goes by the bogus name of “Wildlife Services,”
has been sued several times by environmental organizations around the West
for its flagrant violations of FOIA.
Today’s lawsuit stems from
the government’s failure to respond to a Jan.
20th FOIA request for
copies of all signed agreements showing the names
and addresses of all New
Mexico ranchers and other private agri-business
interests which have current
agreements with the government allowing
agents to go onto their
deeded land or leased land for the purpose of
poisoning, trapping, shooting,
aerial gunning, denning, or otherwise killing or controlling wildlife.
“The
feds are using our tax dollars to kill our wildlife. The public has a right
to know who is requesting this wasteful slaughter,”
said Patricia Wolff, who filed
today’s lawsuit on behalf of the
Zuni Mountain Coalition, an
environmental education organization
based in San Rafael.
Wolff successfully sued the
agency in 1997 after it withheld
information about wildlife killing
services it provides to
millionaire welfare rancher
Sam Donaldson.
“It’s time to end welfare
benefits for rich ranchers,” said Mary Lou Jones, the president of the
Zuni Mountain Coalition.
“Why should we be forced to
subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and powerful?”
In FY 1997 federal “Wildlife
Services” agents killed an estimated 10,500
wild animals in New Mexico,
primarily on behalf of the livestock industry, at a cost of $2,256,486.
This same agency was responsible for the poisoning
deaths of thousands of birds that fell onto Albuquerque streets and parks
in late December, 1998.
For more information, contact
Patricia Wolff at NewWest@aol.com.
__________________________
3. Feds
Use Extortion and Delay Tactics To
Block Release of Ranchers¹
Names: We need your help!
On
March 8, we let you know that the Zuni Mountain Coalition filed a
lawsuit against the federal
government¹s predator control program for
violations of the Freedom
of Information Act. The government program,
known as Animal Damage
Control (ADC) or Wildlife Services (WS),
operates under the auspices
of USDA¹s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
The lawsuit was filed because APHIS failed to respond to our Jan. 20 FOIA request for copies of agreements showing the names and addresses of all New Mexico ranchers and other private agri-business interests who have requested that govt. agents to go onto their deeded land or leased land for the purpose of poisoning, trapping, shooting, aerial gunning, denning, or otherwise killing or controlling wildlife.
After the lawsuit was filed,
we received a letter from APHIS¹ FOIA officer
Michael Marquis which
stated: ³The total estimated cost to
process this
request is $2,060 which
includes 80 hours of professional search at $20.00
per hour and the duplication
of approximately 2300 pages at $.20 per page.²
(Note: even if we could
afford the $2,060 there would be no guarantee that we would get the names
and addresses requested.)
Even though our Jan. 20
FOIA request clearly stated that ZMC is a
nonprofit 501(c)(3) environmental
education organization and even though we spelled out the public purposes
for which the information was being sought, Marquis wrote:
³It is my determination
that your have not provided enough justification for a waiver of fees.
Nonetheless, I will further consider your fee waiver request if you provide
additional information. The Code of Federal Regulations outlines the requirements
that must be met to justify a waiver of fees. You will need to provide
justification for each of the six criteria under 7 CFR Subtitle A, Part
1, Subpart A, Appendix A, Section 6 (a)(1).²
In determining when fees shall be waived or reduced, the USDA's regs says agencies should consider the following six factors:
1. The subject of the request,
i.e. whether the subject of the requested
records concerns ³the
operations or activities of the government.²
2. The informative value
of the information to be disclosed, i.e. whether the disclosure is ³likely
to contribute² to an understanding of government
operations or activities.
3. The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the general public likely to result from disclosure, i.e. whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to ³public understanding.²
4. The significance of the contribution to public understanding, i.e. whether the disclosure is likely to contribute ³significantly² to public understanding of government operations or activities.
5. The existence and magnitude
of a commercial interest, i.e. whether the
requester has a commercial
interest that would be furthered by the
requested disclosure;
and if so,
6. The primary interest in disclosure,
i.e. whether the magnitude of the
identified commercial
interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in
comparison with the public
interest in disclosure.
Clearly, APHIS¹ aim is to intimidate us by demanding grossly exaggerated fees up front which only well-to-do organizations can afford; wear us down by forcing us to spend hours on paperwork to justify our request; and ultimately, APHIS hopes it can delay the release of information or deny it all together and prevent public disclosure of embarrassing information.
How you can help:
1. Send a tax-deductible
contribution to help with legal costs to:
Zuni Mountain Coalition
P.O. Box 9125
Santa Fe, NM 87504.
2. Send an email to NewWest@aol.com
stating why you believe it is
important for members
of the public to know on whose behalf ADC is killing our wildlife and why
such information outweighs the ranchers¹ right to privacy.
Thank you!
Patricia Wolff
----------------------
A note from Lady Skye: While
some (read VERY little) information has been released, using the FOIA,
in the very recent past, a cover letter was included with the information
which stated :
"Our fee for duplicating these
documents is $35.36 (372 pages @ .13 per
page - first 100 pages at no
charge). Please send a check....")
There was never a mention of
manpower costs until now, even with the same amount of information being
requested.
Quite a contrast in fees!!!
What are they trying to hide, and why?
_________________________
4. Predator control killed more than 8,100 animals, conservationists report
GREEN RIVER, Wyo. (AP)
- More than 8,100 animals were killed within a year as a result of predator
control efforts in Wyoming,
according to an opposition group.
Predator Project of Bozeman,
Mont. recently issued its annual report on
the costs and animal deaths
that result from predator control programs
funded by the U.S. Department
of Agricultures Wildlife Services.
The group seeks to replace
the programs with nonlethal methods,
such as increased monitoring
of cattle.
Of the animals killed
in fiscal year 1997,
about 90 percent were coyotes,
the report said.
Predator control also killed
839 foxes, 27 badgers,
15 bobcats and a mountain lion.
Meanwhile, the agency
spent about $970,000 on predator control,
the report said.
Nationally, Wildlife Services
spent $27 million on predator control and
killed about 100,000 predators.
Seventy percent of the money
was spent in 17 western states.
Group spokesman David
Gaillard said the public's money is being
wasted.
"All
the expenditures thus far on predator control has gotten us nowhere,
the predator conflicts
are as many as ever and livestock losses are as high
as ever," he said. "So
clearly the programs are not working."
About 80 percent of the
predators were coyotes, the report said. Most of
the animals were shot
or poisoned with spring-loaded devices.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/
- 2/22/99
________________________