ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The practice of killing predators such as wolves, coyotes and bears to protect livestock has little scientific validity, according to a new study. The article, called Predator Control Should Not Be a Shot in the Dark just came out in a journal called Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment.

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin and two other schools evaluated two dozen prior studies to determine whether they followed the scientific method and found half the studies weren't sufficiently rigorous.

Michael Robinson, conservation advocate with the center for Biological Diversity in Silver City, said the results of the remaining studies are somewhat counter-intuitive.

"There's either no effect on protecting livestock because there's other predators that can move in, and if livestock protection practices don't change, that makes sense," he explained. "Or it actually would increase the number of livestock that would be killed."

The study found that when the leader of a predator group is killed, it sows chaos in the pack and multiple, less-experienced members may end up targeting the livestock. Robinson said this study undercuts the reasoning behind the actions of a federal program, Wildlife Services, and many state game agencies, that kill tens of thousands of coyotes, bears, bobcats, cougars, even the highly endangered Mexican gray wolf every year.

He added that there are now only 97 known Mexican gray wolves left in Arizona and New Mexico.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service, this year, still trapped and removed the alpha male, the papa of a litter of pups in the Luna pack in New Mexico because of conflicts with livestock," he said.

Robinson is calling on Wildlife Services to stop using aerial snipers, poisons and steel leg-hold traps to eliminate members of predator species.

A preview of the study can be found here.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia's Marine Resources Commission is ending the winter blue crab harvest prohibition.

Crabbing is permitted from March to the middle of December. Extending the harvesting season targets adult female crabs which can harm this species' future. Environmental groups argued the Blue Crab Stock Assessment Committee's research does not support increasing the harvest.

Chris Moore, Virginia executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said recent winter dredge survey results showed it is an ill-timed decision.

"For the last 8 or 9 years or so, we had actually seen higher numbers of adult females every year going back to 2016 except for 2022," Moore outlined. "That was the year where we actually saw the lowest number of crabs total in that winter dredge survey."

The most recent winter dredge survey showed a continued decline of about 20 million blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. Moore noted the committee's decision is preliminary and depends on several previous determinations, ranging from the season's duration, number of participants, allowable catch and harvest location. A final decision is set for September.

Reopening the winter harvest will not endanger or eliminate blue crabs from Virginia waterways due to thresholds for the population. Moore thinks the committee should wait for a stock assessment with Maryland and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to be completed. Since the last one was done in 2011, he argued more is known about blue crabs.

"We continue to learn more about the population dynamics of the blue crab," Moore emphasized. "We continue to learn more about some of the predators of the blue crab, like catfish, and so we really need to be thinking about what is the state of the resource now when it comes to managing the species."

Moore added the stock assessment's results can better determine how to manage blue crab populations. Studies show around a quarter of the female blue crab population was removed from Chesapeake Bay by fishing in 2023, below both the threshold to pause the harvest and the target for sustainable blue crab fishing.


get more stories like this via email

The Bureau of Land Management says it will start a wild horse roundup in Wyoming's White Mountain area, but wildlife advocates say the plan exceeds the agency's authority.

The BLM aims to gather nearly 600 wild horses starting August 15, in an area northwest of Rock Springs - to prevent what it calls 'further deterioration' of the land health due to impacts from the animals.

The group Wild American Horse Conservation says the agency used incorrect data to reach that number, improperly including foal counts.

Suzanne Roy, executive director of the group, said bad numbers are a problem for the local eco-tourism business the horses support, through a Wild Horse Scenic Loop drive.

"We're very concerned that the BLM is playing with numbers to remove more horses than they're legally allowed to," said Roy. "And if they are allowed to proceed, it will reduce the herd to such a low number, you'll never be able to view the horses."

Roundups involve gathering horses into holding pens until they're adopted.

But Roy said there are more horses being held than the adoption market can absorb, and that difference costs taxpayers about $70 million a year.

Roundups are an alternate population control method to sterilization. But Roy said her group advocates instead for fertility control.

"Basically, it's called immunocontraception," said Roy, "and it's a vaccine that creates an immune response in the animals and it prevents fertilization."

Roy said this method is also reversible, which is important in case of unexpected population die-offs.

The BLM is a multiple-use agency charged with balancing numerous interests - including those of the public, grazing rights and multiple wildlife species.

James "Micky" Fisher - lead public affairs specialist with the BLM Wyoming field office - said the agency isn't opposed to fertility treatments, but they're more difficult to implement.

"Unfortunately, with herd management areas of this size and even larger ones," said Fisher, "the sheer number of horses that we're required to gather to get down to the appropriate management level, fertility treatments and darting practices, they're just - they're insufficient."

A larger roundup is currently underway across four Herd Management Areas in central Wyoming.

Fisher said the BLM started the roundup on July 1, to gather over 2,700 animals.




get more stories like this via email

Wildlife experts are warning people not to get too close to the animals in national parks as the summer travel season heats up. Overeager tourists can not only put themselves in danger, but threaten the animals.

Three million people visit Montana's Yellowstone national Park each year, and many want photos with the iconic Bison that are threatened and being reintroduced to the wild.

Chamois Anderson, senior representative for the Rockies and Plains program with Defenders of Wildlife, said while interaction with animals is part of the national park experience, it's important to give the bison their space - so tourists need to keep their distance.

"You know, they pull off the roadway to view bison, or maybe bears if they see one," said Anderson, "and they just want to get that selfie or that photo with their cellphone, and they approach these animals as if they're at a zoo. These are not zoos. These animals are very wild, and we need to keep them wild."

Anderson said she tells park visitors to stay at least 25 yards away from bison, and 200 yards from bears and wolves.

Defenders of Wildlife has released a video on YouTube describing what to consider when interacting with animals in Montana's Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks.

In North Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife's Senior Southeast Field Representative Tracy Davids said the group is going beyond educating tourists, and is also asking professional photographers to back off the remaining 20 or so Red Wolves in the eastern wetlands of the state.

"Particularly now during puppy season, we've had reports of photographers getting a little too close," said Davids. "Not so much putting themselves in jeopardy, but in a way that's harassing the wolves."

An 83-year-old woman from South Carolina sustained serious injuries when she was gored by a bison at Yellowstone in June.

The National Park Service says the bison was defending its space, came within a few feet of the woman and lifted her about a foot off the ground with its horns.

The Park Service says bison injure more people in Yellowstone than any other animal, typically one or two a year.