My name is Keli Hendricks and my husband and I are cattle ranchers. I also serve as the Ranching with Wildlife Coordinator for Project Coyote and I ask that the county terminate its contract with Wildlife Services and a adopt a program that prioritizes the use of non-lethal deterrents and proactive strategies that help prevent conflicts before they occur.
My husband and I have raised thousands of calves in areas with lions, coyotes, and other predators without killing a single predator. In fact, we appreciate predators as they control the populations of rabbits, grounds squirrels and rodents, which keeps our pastures healthier.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Carol Misseldine and I live in Ukiah. I am grateful to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors for considering both a motion to terminate the County’s contract with Wildlife Services and the related motion to vest responsibility for a nonlethal wildlife management program with Animal Care Services. I strongly urge you to adopt both motions.
As has been presented numerous times over the past two years to this Board, the science is in on wildlife management: lethal methods of wildlife control are not only ineffective; they are sometimes even counterproductive.
But the killing methods Wildlife Services uses are not only ineffective; they are also extraordinarily inhumane. Snares capture and kill bobcat, foxes, coyote, and other species, but they are indiscriminate, meaning pets, endangered species and other non-target animals fall victim to them. Family pets have been found immobile but breathing, dying slowly and painfully from being asphyxiated. And Conibear kill traps are inherently inhumane killing devices that can cause prolonged agony to animals, compounded by their violent struggles to escape.
Wildlife Services is a relic of the past, exterminating wildlife as a government subsidy for private ranchers and other special interests, while taxpayers foot the bill. The public preference for non-lethal practices is clear; Mendocino County residents do not want their taxpayer dollars spent on an expensive and ineffective program that cruelly and needlessly kills wild animals.
Many non-lethal methods exist to address human-wildlife conflicts which are more effective in preventing wildlife predation on livestock and in permanently excluding unwanted wild animals from residences. Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue runs a very effective nonlethal program and they have clearly indicated that they are happy to share their expertise with Mendocino County so that we can launch our own nonlethal program here, under the direction of Animal Care Services. Please adopt both motions so that we can move this compassionate and effective program forward. Thank you.
Carol Misseldine
Ukiah, CA
301-892-1185
cmisseldine@humanesociety.org
I find it ironic that the people who favor lethal extermination of native, wild "problem" animals do so to protect their own domestic versions of some of those same species: dogs (not coyotes), cats (not cougars or bobcats). They would kill a bear or deer or cougar because they have destroyed or fenced it out of its habitat, including access to sources of food, water and cover, or they have brought in livestock that competes directly for those same precious resources. And now with the magnitude and frequency of horrendous wildfires and the effects of climate change, leading to the loss of huge numbers of trees and other important habitat in this area, there are bound to be more and more encounters between wild animals and us humans, who have moved into their once rural territory. If you want to protect your livestock and pets, keep them enclosed in a secure enclosure or shelter, especially at night. We who oppose the cruel practice of trapping, shooting or poisoning the native wild animals in this county have learned to live with, even appreciate them, and we take the extra precautions necessary for the privilege of living here. If that's too much to ask, perhaps the people who find the native wildlife in our rural county a problem should move to town and leave what's left of the open land and forests for the wild animals that thrived here long before they, their livestock and the trappers arrived.
From reading comments in support of the proposed action, I have several concerns: !) the vast majority of those in support of the resolution are either from out of county or do not have a residence listed. They are not familiar with our area, the wildlife population and our needs. 2) There already exist laws and policies for the non-lethal exclusion of wildlife and for the control of dangerous or nuisance wildlife - those laws and polices are enforced by several different agencies. Lethal means cannot be used until and unless all other methods have failed AND they must be at the request of the landowner. 3)Trapping, snaring etc can only be used under very specific and controlled circumstances and not just will nilly as the resolution supporters would have you believe. Wildlife exclusion services cannot be done on public lands.4) Landowner education is the primary focus of the current Wildlife Specialist and most calls for destructive wildlife are for feral hogs 5) Animal is in desperate need of an additional officer (or two) but this resolution is not the way to achieve that goal - a better option would be to offer an increase in wages so as to attract a better candidate who is willing to make ACO a career and not use it as a stepping stone into a Law Enforcement Agency. 6) While ACO's are required to attend the Humane Officer training academy, the focus is on the law enforcement aspects of animal care and the associated laws. There is no requirement for an ACO to be trained in animal behavior or wildlife management skills. Asking an officer without a background in animal behavior, wildlife management, animal husbandry, biology, zoology etc to handle a wild animal call will usually not be effective. Our county is already habitually short-staffed when it comes to ACO's and asking them to add wildlife management to their duties is ridiculous. 7) The county only pays a portion of the wages and expenses of the current Wildlife Specialist. Terminating that contract and moving wildlife services to an agency within the county will result in less service and higher costs.
This county was already without a Wildlife Specialist ('county trapper') for several years when a small, vocal and misguided minority complained about 'the trapper killing all the animals'. What happened then was an explosion of incidents and complaints regarding racoons, skunks, feral hogs, venomous snakes etc. Because there was not a wildlife specialist and because the other agencies are not trained or permitted to engage in wildlife services (lethal or non-lethal), people were unable to get help. The current program is working. The current wildlife specialist is required to perform community outreach and public education/presentations (once covid is over) and works with landowners to solve their wildlife problems. I strongly urge you to vote NO on this resolution or, at a minimum, table the vote until you have allowed sufficient time for public input and have been able to educate yourselves as to the wildlife situation in Mendocino County instead of relying on vague, misleading and untruthful statements. Thank you - Kelly Boesel
As a longtime California resident, I completely support the plan to terminate Mendocino County’s contract with the USDA Wildlife Services and its lethal Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) Program. Please then establish a Non-lethal Wildlife Damage Management (NWDM) Program to be administered locally. Mountain lions, bears, coyotes, bobcats, and other species targeted by Wildlife Services are ecologically vital species. The site-specific and cumulative impacts of their removal on ecosystem health can be profound. The best available scientific research shows that killing wildlife to reduce predation on livestock or damage to crops is rarely necessary and sometimes counterproductive. Lets learn from our past mistakes and move into an era that learns to coexist with wildlife, not subscribes to more killing.
To all those who hold positions of responsibility to serve the people of Mendocino County, who employ them to make sound decisions that promote the good health and well-being of all county residents:
I support the permanent termination of the contract between the County and USDA Wildlife Services.
It is imperative to not only terminate the County contract with USDA Wildlife Services, but also to support cooperative and diverse efforts among county residents to holistically manage the at-risk wildlife with whom we share Land, Water, and Sky for our very survival. Our Earth is in the throws of Her Sixth Mass-Extinction event, - it is visible to everyone. If we don't make the necessary shift from a culture of colonization and genocide to a cooperative culture of self-determination and reciprocity, we will be stealing the Life from future generations of all species, human and more than human.
As we are facing existential crises, and localization is central to every response, "Tending the Wild" as described by M. Kat Anderson in her both of the same title, Community Conservation efforts can and should be incorporated into the overall collaborations among local working groups... such as local food producers, habitat restoration, wildlife rescue, and there are other opportunities that lend to a return to balance, such as Goat Managed Forestry, Equine Permaculture and Therapy, and Nature Connection skill learning.
I believe that every human being must hold a sense of purpose and belonging in order to thrive. This can only be provided by the communities where people live. It is given by the People, the Land, and the Life of a Place that is shared and tended to by all.
Please vote to TERMINATE the inhumane USDA Wildlife Services lethal wildlife management program and establish non-lethal wildlife management programs.
Science, practice and experience have proven non-lethal wildlife management is FAR SUPERIOR, MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND THE ONLY HUMANE approach to wildlife management. Local experts at Fortunate Farm of Caspar, have years of experience with non-lethal wildlife management with their herds of sheep on the edge of Jughandle, a wildlife and forest preserve where mountain lions and coyotes are abundant.
THE COST OF LETHAL METHODS
-lethal methods are Reactive — generally used after livestock is killedRarely target offending animal
-lethal methods Disrupt predator social structures, which can lead to increased conflicts with livestock
-lethal methods Can lead to an increase in rodent/rabbit populations
-lethal methods are inhumane, causing pain and suffering
-lethal methods are Labor intensive — requires ongoing killing as predator populations rebound
- Snares, poisons and body-gripping traps can injure or kill non target animals, including pets and livestock
-lethal methods Negatively impact ecosystems
THE VALUE OF NONLETHAL METHODS
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is Proactive — prevent losses before they occur
NON-LETHAL wildlife management Offers long term cost effectiveness
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is Not harmful to ecosystems
NON-LETHAL wildlife management Allows predators to control rodent/rabbit populations
NON-LETHAL wildlife management Can provide long term 24/7 protection
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is more cost-effective
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is More humane
My name is Keli Hendricks and my husband and I are cattle ranchers. I also serve as the Ranching with Wildlife Coordinator for Project Coyote and I ask that the county terminate its contract with Wildlife Services and a adopt a program that prioritizes the use of non-lethal deterrents and proactive strategies that help prevent conflicts before they occur.
My husband and I have raised thousands of calves in areas with lions, coyotes, and other predators without killing a single predator. In fact, we appreciate predators as they control the populations of rabbits, grounds squirrels and rodents, which keeps our pastures healthier.
Thank you,
Keli Hendricks
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Carol Misseldine and I live in Ukiah. I am grateful to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors for considering both a motion to terminate the County’s contract with Wildlife Services and the related motion to vest responsibility for a nonlethal wildlife management program with Animal Care Services. I strongly urge you to adopt both motions.
As has been presented numerous times over the past two years to this Board, the science is in on wildlife management: lethal methods of wildlife control are not only ineffective; they are sometimes even counterproductive.
But the killing methods Wildlife Services uses are not only ineffective; they are also extraordinarily inhumane. Snares capture and kill bobcat, foxes, coyote, and other species, but they are indiscriminate, meaning pets, endangered species and other non-target animals fall victim to them. Family pets have been found immobile but breathing, dying slowly and painfully from being asphyxiated. And Conibear kill traps are inherently inhumane killing devices that can cause prolonged agony to animals, compounded by their violent struggles to escape.
Wildlife Services is a relic of the past, exterminating wildlife as a government subsidy for private ranchers and other special interests, while taxpayers foot the bill. The public preference for non-lethal practices is clear; Mendocino County residents do not want their taxpayer dollars spent on an expensive and ineffective program that cruelly and needlessly kills wild animals.
Many non-lethal methods exist to address human-wildlife conflicts which are more effective in preventing wildlife predation on livestock and in permanently excluding unwanted wild animals from residences. Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue runs a very effective nonlethal program and they have clearly indicated that they are happy to share their expertise with Mendocino County so that we can launch our own nonlethal program here, under the direction of Animal Care Services. Please adopt both motions so that we can move this compassionate and effective program forward. Thank you.
Carol Misseldine
Ukiah, CA
301-892-1185
cmisseldine@humanesociety.org
I find it ironic that the people who favor lethal extermination of native, wild "problem" animals do so to protect their own domestic versions of some of those same species: dogs (not coyotes), cats (not cougars or bobcats). They would kill a bear or deer or cougar because they have destroyed or fenced it out of its habitat, including access to sources of food, water and cover, or they have brought in livestock that competes directly for those same precious resources. And now with the magnitude and frequency of horrendous wildfires and the effects of climate change, leading to the loss of huge numbers of trees and other important habitat in this area, there are bound to be more and more encounters between wild animals and us humans, who have moved into their once rural territory. If you want to protect your livestock and pets, keep them enclosed in a secure enclosure or shelter, especially at night. We who oppose the cruel practice of trapping, shooting or poisoning the native wild animals in this county have learned to live with, even appreciate them, and we take the extra precautions necessary for the privilege of living here. If that's too much to ask, perhaps the people who find the native wildlife in our rural county a problem should move to town and leave what's left of the open land and forests for the wild animals that thrived here long before they, their livestock and the trappers arrived.
From reading comments in support of the proposed action, I have several concerns: !) the vast majority of those in support of the resolution are either from out of county or do not have a residence listed. They are not familiar with our area, the wildlife population and our needs. 2) There already exist laws and policies for the non-lethal exclusion of wildlife and for the control of dangerous or nuisance wildlife - those laws and polices are enforced by several different agencies. Lethal means cannot be used until and unless all other methods have failed AND they must be at the request of the landowner. 3)Trapping, snaring etc can only be used under very specific and controlled circumstances and not just will nilly as the resolution supporters would have you believe. Wildlife exclusion services cannot be done on public lands.4) Landowner education is the primary focus of the current Wildlife Specialist and most calls for destructive wildlife are for feral hogs 5) Animal is in desperate need of an additional officer (or two) but this resolution is not the way to achieve that goal - a better option would be to offer an increase in wages so as to attract a better candidate who is willing to make ACO a career and not use it as a stepping stone into a Law Enforcement Agency. 6) While ACO's are required to attend the Humane Officer training academy, the focus is on the law enforcement aspects of animal care and the associated laws. There is no requirement for an ACO to be trained in animal behavior or wildlife management skills. Asking an officer without a background in animal behavior, wildlife management, animal husbandry, biology, zoology etc to handle a wild animal call will usually not be effective. Our county is already habitually short-staffed when it comes to ACO's and asking them to add wildlife management to their duties is ridiculous. 7) The county only pays a portion of the wages and expenses of the current Wildlife Specialist. Terminating that contract and moving wildlife services to an agency within the county will result in less service and higher costs.
This county was already without a Wildlife Specialist ('county trapper') for several years when a small, vocal and misguided minority complained about 'the trapper killing all the animals'. What happened then was an explosion of incidents and complaints regarding racoons, skunks, feral hogs, venomous snakes etc. Because there was not a wildlife specialist and because the other agencies are not trained or permitted to engage in wildlife services (lethal or non-lethal), people were unable to get help. The current program is working. The current wildlife specialist is required to perform community outreach and public education/presentations (once covid is over) and works with landowners to solve their wildlife problems. I strongly urge you to vote NO on this resolution or, at a minimum, table the vote until you have allowed sufficient time for public input and have been able to educate yourselves as to the wildlife situation in Mendocino County instead of relying on vague, misleading and untruthful statements. Thank you - Kelly Boesel
As a longtime California resident, I completely support the plan to terminate Mendocino County’s contract with the USDA Wildlife Services and its lethal Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) Program. Please then establish a Non-lethal Wildlife Damage Management (NWDM) Program to be administered locally. Mountain lions, bears, coyotes, bobcats, and other species targeted by Wildlife Services are ecologically vital species. The site-specific and cumulative impacts of their removal on ecosystem health can be profound. The best available scientific research shows that killing wildlife to reduce predation on livestock or damage to crops is rarely necessary and sometimes counterproductive. Lets learn from our past mistakes and move into an era that learns to coexist with wildlife, not subscribes to more killing.
To all those who hold positions of responsibility to serve the people of Mendocino County, who employ them to make sound decisions that promote the good health and well-being of all county residents:
I support the permanent termination of the contract between the County and USDA Wildlife Services.
It is imperative to not only terminate the County contract with USDA Wildlife Services, but also to support cooperative and diverse efforts among county residents to holistically manage the at-risk wildlife with whom we share Land, Water, and Sky for our very survival. Our Earth is in the throws of Her Sixth Mass-Extinction event, - it is visible to everyone. If we don't make the necessary shift from a culture of colonization and genocide to a cooperative culture of self-determination and reciprocity, we will be stealing the Life from future generations of all species, human and more than human.
As we are facing existential crises, and localization is central to every response, "Tending the Wild" as described by M. Kat Anderson in her both of the same title, Community Conservation efforts can and should be incorporated into the overall collaborations among local working groups... such as local food producers, habitat restoration, wildlife rescue, and there are other opportunities that lend to a return to balance, such as Goat Managed Forestry, Equine Permaculture and Therapy, and Nature Connection skill learning.
I believe that every human being must hold a sense of purpose and belonging in order to thrive. This can only be provided by the communities where people live. It is given by the People, the Land, and the Life of a Place that is shared and tended to by all.
In Peace & Gratitude,
Tammy Wala'li Antonia-Grey
Please vote to TERMINATE the inhumane USDA Wildlife Services lethal wildlife management program and establish non-lethal wildlife management programs.
Science, practice and experience have proven non-lethal wildlife management is FAR SUPERIOR, MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND THE ONLY HUMANE approach to wildlife management. Local experts at Fortunate Farm of Caspar, have years of experience with non-lethal wildlife management with their herds of sheep on the edge of Jughandle, a wildlife and forest preserve where mountain lions and coyotes are abundant.
THE COST OF LETHAL METHODS
-lethal methods are Reactive — generally used after livestock is killedRarely target offending animal
-lethal methods Disrupt predator social structures, which can lead to increased conflicts with livestock
-lethal methods Can lead to an increase in rodent/rabbit populations
-lethal methods are inhumane, causing pain and suffering
-lethal methods are Labor intensive — requires ongoing killing as predator populations rebound
- Snares, poisons and body-gripping traps can injure or kill non target animals, including pets and livestock
-lethal methods Negatively impact ecosystems
THE VALUE OF NONLETHAL METHODS
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is Proactive — prevent losses before they occur
NON-LETHAL wildlife management Offers long term cost effectiveness
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is Not harmful to ecosystems
NON-LETHAL wildlife management Allows predators to control rodent/rabbit populations
NON-LETHAL wildlife management Can provide long term 24/7 protection
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is more cost-effective
NON-LETHAL wildlife management is More humane
thank you,
Kyra Rice