M-44 for yotes, you guys familiar with this?

[John White]

I know in the early 50's they used them in some places out west to eradicate coyotes. Pretty well did the job.

 

[FatTire]

USDA's Wildlife Services kills over 10,000 coyotes per year with these devices in the West. Unfortunately nobody knows how many other birds and animals are killed each year, eagles, domestic dogs, bears, foxes, you name it. The trappers who work for W.S. have a lot of incentive not to report any incidental deaths since the collateral damage looks bad for both the agency and the trapper. When these things are set around where you live, good luck trying to find out exactly where they are and how many. The agency is secretive and would prefer to keep doing what it does without much notice. Pretty much a disgrace, IMHO.

 

[crackerjack222]

In the early '60's I accidentally set off one of the earlier models, a "coyote getter" that used a .38 cartridge. I was walking through some short grass and weeds and hit it with the toe of my boot. The blast went up just in front of my face. I was only a few feet from a stock tank so I washed off with large amounts of water. No lasting effects, but it scared the crxp out of me.

 

[oosik]

FatTire - Your post brings a question to mind. If the USDA Wildlife Service is so secretive about this practice of coyote elimination - how is it that you have knowledge of the activity and annual kill rate. Is there an article that you can link to for reference.

I'm not questioning your statement - I would like to become more informed regarding this situation.

 

[oosik]

OK - so a wildlife officer from Turnbull NWR just called me back, after reading the email I had sent them. He was pretty upset that I would even ask if they used such devices.

His statement, and he said it could be quoted or published - "Turnbull NWR is NOT IN THE BUSINESS of killing any form of wildlife". He said he was familiar with the M-44 devices and that they would NEVER be used on any National Wildlife Refuge. The use of such devices is totally contrary to their stated objectives.

 

[FatTire]

FatTire - Your post brings a question to mind. If the USDA Wildlife Service is so secretive about this practice of coyote elimination - how is it that you have knowledge of the activity and annual kill rate. Is there an article that you can link to for reference.

I'm not questioning your statement - I would like to become more informed regarding this situation.

I'd rather not say here why I'm familiar with W.S., but I can point you to more information. Similar to the BLM, Wildlife Services is a federal agency (they're part of APHIS under USDA) which is organized by state. Each state office operates pretty much on its own and reports its kills by species. One might guess that their kill of target species is a little over-inflated (trying to appear more effective and efficient) and reports of collateral damage are minimized. Reports concerning "take" of Endangered Species are especially bad for the agency, so it would be naive to think they don't bury some of those (literally).

One current controversy involving W.S. is that some of the State offices appear to be out of compliance with NEPA in that they don't have updated operating plans and/or current EIS analysis of their impacts. I think the enviros are going after them on this state-by-state, but I haven't kept up on what lawsuits are currently underway.

You can some basic background by Googling, or for some stats there is always Wiki. The Sacramento Bee did a 3 part article a few years ago which I think made the agency squirm, but apparently not for long, as they've been immune to scrutiny for much of their history. (Their former name was "Animal Damage Control"). Keep in mind the stated purpose of the agency is help the public deal with problems caused by wildlife, so the mission actually does sound pretty good. The devil is in the details.
The killing agency: Wildlife Services' brutal methods leave a trail of animal death | The Sacramento Bee

EDIT: I just re-read Part 1 of the article. Pretty good, not familiar with that newspaper but apparently they do some real reporting.

 

[FatTire]

Crackerjack222 -- that was a close call. Glad you are still with us. You're correct, that version was the old type, the M44 was developed as a safer alternative. Back then the sheep and cattle producers had a lot of the public land to themselves prior to hunting season. Today there is a lot more recreation and also more awareness of the value of all sorts of wildlife species.

 

[ovrszd]

I'd rather not say here why I'm familiar with W.S., but I can point you to more information. Similar to the BLM, Wildlife Services is a federal agency (they're part of APHIS under USDA) which is organized by state. Each state office operates pretty much on its own and reports its kills by species. One might guess that their kill of target species is a little over-inflated (trying to appear more effective and efficient) and reports of collateral damage are minimized. Reports concerning "take" of Endangered Species are especially bad for the agency, so it would be naive to think they don't bury some of those (literally).

One current controversy involving W.S. is that some of the State offices appear to be out of compliance with NEPA in that they don't have updated operating plans and/or current EIS analysis of their impacts. I think the enviros are going after them on this state-by-state, but I haven't kept up on what lawsuits are currently underway.

You can some basic background by Googling, or for some stats there is always Wiki. The Sacramento Bee did a 3 part article a few years ago which I think made the agency squirm, but apparently not for long, as they've been immune to scrutiny for much of their history. (Their former name was "Animal Damage Control"). Keep in mind the stated purpose of the agency is help the public deal with problems caused by wildlife, so the mission actually does sound pretty good. The devil is in the details.
The killing agency: Wildlife Services' brutal methods leave a trail of animal death | The Sacramento Bee

EDIT: I just re-read Part 1 of the article. Pretty good, not familiar with that newspaper but apparently they do some real reporting.

First, I'm turned off when someone claims facts and then says they'd rather not say why they are facts.

Second, the bold line above is why any and all wildlife control practices are enacted, whether they be to build up the numbers of decline the numbers of any species.

We, all of us collectively, "want" governmental agencies to control wildlife. If we didn't, they wouldn't.

 

[FatTire]

First, I'm turned off when someone claims facts and then says they'd rather not say why they are facts.

Second, the bold line above is why any and all wildlife control practices are enacted, whether they be to build up the numbers of decline the numbers of any species.

We, all of us collectively, "want" governmental agencies to control wildlife. If we didn't, they wouldn't.

Huh? Do you share all of your personal details on the internet? That would be kinda stupid, wouldn't it? Probably better to apply some filters...
And no, I don't expect anyone take my word for it, that's why I provided some ideas and link for people to read more. The topic is M-44's, the vast majority of people have never even heard of them, so "all of us collectively" in this case really just means "a small portion of sheep and cattle producers".

 

[ovrszd]

Huh? Do you share all of your personal details on the internet? That would be kinda stupid, wouldn't it? Probably better to apply some filters...
And no, I don't expect anyone take my word for it, that's why I provided some ideas and link for people to read more. The topic is M-44's, the vast majority of people have never even heard of them, so "all of us collectively" in this case really just means "a small portion of sheep and cattle producers".

The fact that you believe a small portion of sheep and cattle producers is why we have wildlife controls amuses me.