Thank you Chair Gjerde and Supervisors,

My name is Michelle Lute. I am the National Carnivore Conservation Manager for Project Coyote, writing to you on behalf of over 250 Mendocino County members who support science-based, modern wildlife management, including and especially ending Wildlife Services’ lethal program and replacing it with a nonlethal program. I also write as a PhD in wildlife management, former state wildlife biologist, and daughter of three generations of farmers.

Wildlife Services claims that its goal is to allow people and wildlife to coexist, but nothing could be further from the truth. Wildlife Services wasn’t created to serve wildlife, it was created to serve agricultural interests at all costs. And it’s costs are high: tens of thousands of animals in California every year, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, untold numbers of non-target kills, intentional negligence that kills our family dogs and even poisoned a child, prolonged FOIA requests that they ignore or circumvent, and the list goes on.

All these costs and yet no benefits to be seen in nearly a century of WS and its predecessors. Just piles of dead animals and continuous killing that ensures more killing will happen year after year if we allow them to continue.

Why do they hold tightly to their lethal arsenal? Job security. Lethal control does nothing to address the root cause of conflict. So Wildlife Services guns down more coyotes, coyotes respond with even more pups, which increases the chance of conflicts, and Wildlife Services gets to go out again on the taxpayer dime. It’s a conflict feedback loop that never ends until we end the contract with Wildlife Services.

It’s time to put Wildlife Services out of the cruelty business, not just because carnivores and their ecosystem services belong in California, but also because we as a society stand for science-based democratic decision-making.

Wildlife Services has had many years and chances to update their policies to align with modern scientific evidence. Way back in 2016, Project Coyote Science Advisor Dr. Adrian Treves reviewed over a 100 studies of predator control programs—the same studies that Wildlife Services depends on to justify their policies. None of them held up to scrutiny. The only studies meeting an acceptable level of scientific rigor found that nonlethal methods (like fences and guard dogs) were the most effective at protecting livestock.

The best available science points to localized, nonlethal methods to prevent conflict because they are preventative, targeted and address the root causes of potential conflicts. Predator populations don’t need controlling—they have self-regulated based on compensatory mechanisms, competitors, and native prey availability for millennia.

Non-lethal tools protect humans, domestic and wild animals, biodiversity and ecosystem health and function.

Wildlife Services disrespects California’s natural legacy. Please support this commonsense move out of the deadly feedback loop to an effective nonlethal program. I have included links to further reading and references below.

Thank you,

/s Michelle L. Lute, PhD
National Carnivore Conservation Manager

A report on Wildlife Services I authored from 2017 with relevant references:
http://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/WoW_report17_Hi_but_lo.pdf

A film I co-produced on Wildlife Services reform:
https://youtu.be/fXcxfg-9DN4

Additional select references:
Bergstrom, B.J. (2017) Carnivore conservation: Shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence. Journal of Mammalogy, 98, 1–6.
Treves, A., Krofel, M. & Mcmanus, J. (2016) Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 380–388.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., Ohrens, O. & van Eeden, L.M. (2019) Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 13881.
van Eeden, L.M., Eklund, A., Miller, J.R.B., López-Bao, J.V., Chapron, G., Cejtin, M.R., et al. (2018) Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLoS Biology, 16, 1-e2005577.

I am fully in support of termination of the Lethal Wildlife Management contract (also known as IWDM). The contract fully puts the county at legal and financial risk owing to the fact that the most recent CEQA report completed for the contract is incomplete and does not examine "trophic cascade" risks to local ecosystems. In other words, not having enough predators (such as coyotes and mountain lions) to maintain a healthy and reduced population of prey species (such as deer) leads to unintended consequences within the county. These unintended consequences include greater risk of transmission of animal-borne diseases such as chronic wasting disease and erosion into streams and rivers from over grazing by deer.

Are you not convinced yet? Just look at our beautiful coast and the almost complete destruction of the kelp forest by the overpopulation of sea urchins. There are no sea otters locally to hunt them due to human pelt over-hunting, and there are no sea stars to hunt the urchin either due to sea star wasting disease. And because there's no kelp, there's no food for abalone, and thus no more abalone season in Mendocino County.

We need to take a hard look at our relationships with predators and acknowledge their absolute necessity in our local way of life. We shouldn't be killing them just because a few farmers complain that some of their animals were eaten that they were too lazy to protect with simple measures.

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

I am supporting termination, as the current state of Animal Services doesn't allow for proper reaction of many cases, resulting in unnecessary killing of animals that play an important role in the health of our environment. It is unfair to kill any animal who had no conscious effort of maliciousness. The current program is costly and ineffective.

I am in favor of the termination of the CSA with USDA Wildlife Services and an implementation of the Mendocino County Non-Lethal Wildlife Damage Management Program with Mendocino with Mendocino Animal Care Services.
From 1991 to 1998 I lived on a remote farm in Jackson State Forest, and we called Fish & Game several times since mountain lions killed our goats. However, neither the USDA Wildlife Services trapper nor Fish & Game wardens suggested we try non-lethal methods first like corralling our animals, using lights, and having a large guard dog on duty to protect the animals. I am not against ever killing wildlife, but we need to have a system in place where non-lethal methods are thoroughly employed first.

Dear Board of Supervisors, I ask you to stop the inhumane USDA Wildlife Services lethal management program and establish a non-lethal wildlife management program administered by the County's Animal Care Services Department. Non-lethal methods have proven effective. We must stop the cruel methods employed by the USDA program. We can do better, and we can be good stewards of the creatures we share our habitat with.

We must remember that others occupied this land before us, plants and animals being the first. Many incidents where humans and wildlife clash can be traced back to imbalances in the ecosystem, oftentimes due to our own actions and behaviors. We should be utilizing preventative measures rather than reactive, deadly ones. I am in support of ending the partnership with Wildlife Services in favor for a humane, nonviolent program that will allow us to work with nature rather than fight against it.

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

I fully support the resolutions to Terminate Cooperative Services Agreement (CSA) with USDA Wildlife Services and to Vest Administrative Responsibility for Implementation of the Mendocino County Non-Lethal Wildlife Damage Management Program with the Mendocino County Animal Care Services . Thank you, Supervisor Haschak. It is past time to turn to a humane and conscious approach to managing our intersection with our wildlife.

I support the termination of USDA Wildlife Services. This program is cruel, inefficient, and costly. I support a program that emphasizes non-lethal methods.

I support co-existence without killing if at all possible

See attached correspondence

I strongly support the termination of Mendocino County's contract with the USDA Wildlife Services and its lethal Integrated Wildlife Damage Management Program and the establishment of a Non-lethal Wildlife Damage Management (NWDM) Program to be administered locally. This alternative would prevent the needless killing of animals that are ecologically vital to our area. As humans, we are blest to live with bears, coyotes, mountain lions and many other wildlife species in close proximity. We should be learning how to live together safely and to appreciate our shared existence.

I strongly support a move away from the current inhumane system. It is ineffective, and inhumane, harming domestic and wild animals. Please do the right thing and terminate the current agreement.

I strongly support the resolution to terminate the agreement with the USDA Wildlife Services and to implement a non-lethal wildlife management program in our county. The non-lethal program has been shown to be a humane and effective way to protect land, livestock and the wild animals. It is our job not to inflict pain and suffering on the animals who live on the land. Gowan Batiste at Fortunate Farm has shown very well how this program can work to protect her livestock and the local wild animals. Thank you. Please vote in favor of this resolution. Thank you supervisor Haschak for sponsoring.