Kalahandi: A man was killed while another was injured after being electrocuted after coming in contact with high voltage wire laid by poachers as trap for wild animals at Thuamal Rampur block in Bhawanipatna.
The deceased has been identified as Kabi Nayak.
According to reports, both Kabi and his son had gone to nearby field and while returning both of them came in contact with the electric wire yesterday.
Following the incident, both Kabi and his son were immediately rushed to Thuamul Rampur hospital by local villagers. Later, Kabi died at the hospital while the condition of his son is still critical.
A baby mountain gorilla in the Sabyinyo Mountains of Rwanda. (Ivan Lieman/AFP/Getty Images)
As if we needed another argument against war, here goes: It’s bad for wild animals.
This is true even with low-level conflict, and it’s especially true if the conflict repeats or drags on, according to a new study published in Nature. In a wide-ranging examination of the net effect of such disruptions on African wildlife populations over more than six decades, researchers found the frequency of war — rather than the intensity — to be a key factor in declines of wildlife.
“It takes a relatively little amount of conflict, and a relatively low frequency of conflict, before the average population is declining,” said lead author Joshua Daskin, a conservation ecologist and postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. “All the socioeconomic things that come along with a war are probably making conservation quite difficult.”
The researchers’ conclusion might sound obvious, but there has been little previous examination of the overall impact of armed conflict on animals. The case-study work to date focused on specific conflicts’ consequences and actually found both positive and negative effects.
Those downsides are numerous. Land mines and bombs can kill fauna as well as human targets. Armies sometimes intentionally destroy critical habitat — by dumping herbicides on forests, for example, as the United States did during the Vietnam War — or finance their fight by selling ivory. Collapsed institutions mean less enforcement of laws protecting animals, and economic fallout can force desperate civilians to hunt wild animals for food.
On the other hand, wars can also cause human displacement, and “anything that causes people to vacate can be a beneficial thing for nonhuman wildlife,” said co-author Robert Pringle, an assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University. Poaching and habitat destruction might slow, and mining might stop. This is sometimes called the “refuge effect,” and it can be seen in the demilitarized zone dividing North Korea and South Korea.
Pringle and Daskin, who finished his PhD at Princeton last year, both do research in Mozambique’s Gorongosa National Park, where a 15-year civil war nearly decimated wildlife. They wanted to know more about the big picture — is war generally positive, negative or neutral for wildlife? Among other reasons, they note, the question is important because the vast majority of wars since 1950 have taken place in the world’s most biodiverse regions.
An elephant in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. (Martin Bureau/AFP/Getty Images)
The pair decided to focus on protected areas in Africa between 1946 and 2010. They mapped events there using a standard definition — fights that killed at least one person in a broader battle that caused 25 human deaths in a year — and found conflicts in a depressing 71 percent of the areas during that time period. Then came the hardest part: finding reliable wildlife population data.
Daskin said he used published research as well as “gray literature” such as park management figures, government wildlife agency documents and reports from nongovernmental organizations. He looked only at populations of large herbivores, in part because they “have really outsize roles in maintaining these ecosystems,” but also because they’re counted more easily and therefore more frequently. In the end, Daskin had data for 253 wildlife populations and 36 species, including giraffes, warthogs and wildebeests.
Next, the authors looked at correlations between wildlife populations and variables that can influence them, like drought, human population density and the presence of mining, as well as two factors related to war: conflict frequency and conflict intensity.
When they crunched it all together, the biggest and only statistically significant predictor of wildlife declines was conflict frequency. While wildlife population trajectories stayed stable in peaceful times, they dropped with even a slight increase in conflict and were “almost invariably negative” in high-conflict zones, the authors found.
Pringle said they were somewhat surprised that conflict intensity wasn’t correlated with dips in wild animals. The numbers don’t suggest why, and Pringle said understanding these dynamics will take more research with larger data sets. But he and Daskin have some theories.
“Our interpretation is that conflict destabilizes everything. When people don’t feel secure, institutions start to break down, livelihoods start to be disrupted,” Pringle said. Yet intense conflict may provide a buffer for wildlife because “people evacuate. People don’t hang around and go set snares in the forest.”
Cinereous vultures on a rice paddy in South Korea near the demilitarized zone with North Korea. The area has become a nearly untouched nature refuge. (Jeon Heon-Kyun/European Pressphoto Agency)
The researchers emphasized that their findings were not limited to gloom. The only cases of extinction in the areas they studied took place in the Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve in Uganda, where giraffes and two species of antelope vanished between 1983 and 1995.
“War is awful for people. It’s bad for wildlife. But it’s not so cataclysmically bad that we should be giving up on anything,” Pringle said. “In fact, there are great opportunities for restoration.”
He and Daskin hope their findings can help governments and wildlife organizations better predict and mitigate the influence of conflict on wildlife. Both point to the place where they do work — Gorongosa National Park — as an example. It lost about 90 percent of its wildlife during the war that ended in 1992, but it’s now back to “about 80 percent of the prewar populations,” Daskin said.
“That’s been achieved not just by trucking in large numbers of animals from other protected areas, as has often been highlighted, but by creating the conditions in the local region for conservation to be possible,” Daskin said. “It’s an excellent case study in what can happen after the conflict.”
Two York Region men were fined $1,350 each for turkey hunting offences.
Fabbio Felici of Maple and Robert Quattrociocchi of Woodbridge pleaded guilty at the Ontario Court of Justice in Barrie on Aug. 14.
Felici was fined for $800 for hunting wild turkey within 400 metres of bait and $50 for failing to report harvesting a turkey in spring 2016.
Quattrociocchi was fined $500 for hunting wild turkey within 400 metres of bait.
Ontario hunting laws make it illegal to hunt wild turkeys withing 400 metres of deposited bait unless the area has been free of bait for at least seven days. Harvested turkeys must be reported to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry before noon the following day.
The investigation revealed Felici deposited corn as bait prior to turkey season and he hunted over the bait on two occasions. Quattrociocchi continued to hunt after noticing deposited corn on three separate occasions.
On May 20, a conservation officer observed the two hunting on a property near New Lowell, in Clearview Township. The hunters were in close proximity to the deposited corn.
Up to 130,000 elephants roam the wild lands of Botswana – and that is not counting transient herds moving across country boundaries in the region. As a significant range state, Botswana was the only nation in southern Africa to support a total and permanent ban on the ivory trade at the 2016 CITES conference.
The country made another landmark contribution to the continent’s mission to protect keystone wildlife species in November, when 15 of Botswana’s Department of Wildlife and National Parks rangers graduated from African Wildlife Foundation’s Canines for Conservation program.
Following almost two-and-a-half months of intensive training led by the program’s director, Will Powell, the new canine handlers and 10 ivory detection dogs will supplement anti-poaching efforts on the ground. They will be deployed to strategic airports, roads, and border crossings to stop the trafficking of illegal wildlife products through Botswana.
Botswana tackles wildlife trafficking head on
Previously, the country had lobbied with its neighbors to reintroduce limited ivory sales from countries with sustainably managed herds. After the spike in poaching and smuggling after a one-off sale in 2008, Botswana is now addressing illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade through innovative collaborations with other range states.
The Canines for Conservation graduation ceremony held at the training center in Usa River, Tanzania was graced by senior management from Botswana’s Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Tanzania National Parks, Tanzania Wildlife Authority, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, Manyara Ranch Conservancy, the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, and conservation organization, TRAFFIC.
AWF’s Vice President of Species Conservation, Dr. Philip Muruthi, commended Botswana’s wildlife protection authority for developing the capacity of their rangers and law enforcement officers. He explained that this development is critical in sealing previously existing loopholes that were exploited by criminal networks to traffic ivory from poaching hotspots like Mozambique.
Conservation needs connections across species
For Powell, who has trained robust handler-and-sniffer-dog teams that have intercepted millions of dollars’ worth of rhino horn, ivory, and pangolin scales, stopping the trafficking of wildlife products is not just a numbers game. The effectiveness of this conservation strategy depends on the bond between handler and sniffer dog.
Botswanan ranger and freshly qualified sniffer dog handler, Tebogo Mangombe, knows that anti-trafficking initiatives are needed urgently in her country. She reveals how the training has added an edge to her work as a custodian of Africa’s wildlife — and a special companion in her life.
Why is Canines for Conservation important to you?
We have a lot of wildlife and we must protect them for future generations. Saving wildlife means saving our lives too – our livelihoods depend on how we take care of our flora and fauna. The training on handling the detection dogs was enriching and I hope to apply the expertise gained after the course to fight poaching in my country more effectively.
How was it when you met your dog for the first time?
It was challenging because I did not know how to handle him initially but later I realized he could do a lot more. One of the best moments of training was after the first month when I was able to relate better with my dog. He is loving, energetic and happy. He is my best friend — I love him so much because I have a very special connection with him.
What is the best lesson you learned during training?
Just the overall experience of being a dog handler and using that skill to fight poaching is a big achievement for me. I was previously in the anti-poaching unit — now this canine unit is my life. I cannot imagine myself doing anything else at this point in time. We are going back home with the goal of ending this organized crime.
Bodies of Siberian Weasels, often illegally poached for their fur Photo: CGTN
The bodies of dead animals are strewn around a cold, dark cellar. Disguised as the owner of a hotpot restaurant, animal rights activist Liu Yidan is collecting evidence of illegal wild animal trading in Anhui Province, eastern China.
Unaware of Yidan’s intent, the vendor boasts about her goods and offers to take the activist to a warehouse stocked with live snakes.
As the vendor lets down her guard, Yidan finds an excuse to get away. She calls the situation in, and returns with the forestry police. They later spend three hours counting the confiscated goods: Hundreds of frozen corpses, body parts and organs of endangered wild animals.
Since September 2016, Yidan and her team of volunteers have been engaged in an anti-poaching campaign. They’ve traveled to seven provinces, going undercover into farmers’ markets to collect evidence to help forestry police take action.
A baby Brown Wood Owl rescued by Yidan Photo: CGTN
With the leads from Yidan, the forestry police have also raided illegal warehouses and rescued live wildlife from illegal vendors. They have helped seize more than 10 tons of corpses and organs of endangered wild animals, some of which were Class I and II protected species.
Before the campaign, Yidan mostly lived and worked in Tianjin, a city in north China, to help preservation of wildlife birds. But to her, it wasn’t enough:
“I’ve seen many places where the wildlife population is decimated.”
“I can feel their (wild animals) pain. They never ask for a meal or a night of accommodation from us. They just live by themselves in the deep mountains. We have no reason to kill them.”
Mandarin Duck, Class II protected species in China Photo: CGTN
Environmental decay and illegal poaching have taken a heavy toll on China’s wildlife population. According to the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Living Planet Report, China’s terrestrial vertebrates have declined by half from 1970 to 2015. The report also points out that “habitat loss” and “nature degradation by human activities” are the most significant threats to biodiversity in China, while illegal hunting poses a significant threat to amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
Realizing the grave situation, China has taken steps to prevent further damage. Last year, the country committed to a historic ban of domestic ivory trade and revised its Wildlife Protection Law. Under the new law, wild animal poachers and smugglers face tougher punishments, and consumption of wildlife products is criminalized. Individuals and NGOs are encouraged to assist the authorities in wildlife preservation. Carcass of a wild boar in the cold storage Photo: CGTN
The amended law provides essential legal support to Yidan’s work, but she still faces practical challenges. Working long hours in cold storage units has given her rheumatism. And every day, she’s harassed by poachers threatening to kill her. But Yidan is not intimidated.
“Although I’m physically tired, I feel delighted,” Yidan says. “When I see these [captured] birds and frogs return to nature, it feels like watching children return home to their mothers.”
Wolf expert Carter Niemeyer trapped, collared, tracked and sometimes shot wolves during a long career with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Eric MortensonCapital Press
Published on November 6, 2017 1:36PM
A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist with 30 years experience said it is unlikely a wolf shot by an Oregon elk hunter was attacking the man.
Carter Niemeyer, who lives in Boise and oversaw or consulted on wolf recovery work throughout the West, also said descriptions of the bullet trajectory — in one shoulder and out the other – raise doubt about the hunter’s account that the wolf was running at him when he fired.
“That’s a broadside shot, not a running-at-you shot,” Niemeyer said. “If the bullet path is through one side and out the other, it indicates to me an animal could have been standing, not moving, and the shot was well placed.”
A bullet that hit the wolf as it was running forward most likely would have exited out the hips or rear end, Niemeyer said. He acknowledge the bullet or fragments could have deflected off bone, but said a forensic exam would have to explain that. Michelle Dennehy, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman, said the agency did not request a necropsy because the cause of death — gunshot — was known.
Niemeyer said the hunter’s account of taking a “snap shot into a ball of fur” is unlikely.
“I have to tell you I doubt the story,” he said.
Niemeyer, 70, said he’s hunted predators for 52 years as a government hunter and a taxidermist, and has dealt with fellow sportsmen and shooters for decades. “I’ve heard every story,” he said. “This story is very suspect to me.”
The elk hunter, Brian Scott, 38, of Clackamas, Ore., told Oregon State Police that the wolf ran straight at him. Scott told police he screamed, took quick aim and fired his 30.06 rifle once. Scott said he saw nothing but fur in the rifle’s scope as the wolf ran at him, according to published reports.
In an interview with outdoor writer Bill Monroe of The Oregonian/Oregon Live, Scott said he was terrified.
“People envision this jerk hunter out to kill anything, but that’s not me,” he told Monroe. “It frustrates me they don’t understand. I’m a meat hunter. I was looking for a spike elk. This wasn’t exciting. It ruined my hunt.”
Scott told Monroe he didn’t think he had time to fire a warning shot. He could not explain the bullet’s path, which entered the wolf’s right shoulder and exited the left, other than perhaps the wolf turned at the last instant or the bullet deflected.
Niemeyer, the retired wildlife biologist, said wolves will “turn around and take off” when they realize they’re near a human. Niemeyer said he had “many, many close encounters with wolves” while doing trapping, collaring and other field work for USFWS in Idaho, Oregon and elsewhere. He said wolves sometimes ran at him and approached within 6 to 8 feet before veering away.
Wolves are potentially dangerous, he said, “but all my experience tells me it would be fearful of a human.”
People in such situations should stand up if they are concealed, show themselves, and yell or throw things, Niemeyer said. Hunters could fire a shot into the ground or into a tree and “scare the hell out of them,” he said.
“That would have been the first logical thing to do,” he said. “The gunshot and a yell from a human would turn every wolf I’ve ever known inside out trying to get away.”
He also suggested people venturing into the woods should carry bear repellent spray, which certainly would also deter wolves, cougars or coyotes.
“If everyone shoots everything they’re afraid of, wow, that’s not a good thing,” he said.
Niemeyer acknowledged his reaction is based on years of experience with wolves.
“People say, ‘That’s easy for you to say, Carter, you worked with wolves for 30 years and you’re familiar with their behavior,’” he said.
The shooting happened Oct. 27 in ODFW’s Starkey Wildlife Management Unit west of La Grande, in Northeast Oregon.
Scott, the hunter, told police he was hunting and had intermittently seen what he thought might be coyotes. At one point, two of them circled off to the side while a third ran at him. Scott said he shot that one and the others ran away.
Scott went back to his hunting camp and told companions what had happened. They returned to the shooting scene and concluded the dead animal was a wolf. The hunter then notified state police and ODFW, which investigated. Police later found a shell casing 27 yards from the wolf carcass. The Union County district attorney’s office reviewed the case and chose not to file charges.
The Portland-based conservation group Oregon Wild raised questions about the incident. Rob Klavins, Oregon Wild’s field representative in Northeast Oregon, said he’s seen wolves in the wild several times and backed away without trouble or harm. Even the late OR-4, the fearsome breeding male of the infamous Imnaha Pack in Wallowa County, retreated and barked when it encountered Klavins and a hiking party.
“This (hunter) may have felt fear, but since wolves returned to Oregon, no one has so much as been licked by a wolf, and that’s still true today,” Klavins said.
“What has changed is we now have wolves on the landscape, 10 years ago we didn’t,” Klavins said. “Especially in the fall (hunting season), armed people are going to be out encountering wolves.”
Oregon Wild believes poachers have killed several Oregon wolves, and USFWS on Nov. 6 offered a $5,000 reward for information about a collared wolf designated OR-25 that was found dead Oct. 29 in South Central Oregon.
Klavins said wolf shooters might now use a “self-defense” claim as a “free pass to poaching.”
OR-7, a popularly tracked male gray wolf, wanders in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. A 38-year-old hunter from Clackamas says he was rushed by several wolves before he shot and killed an 83-pound female on Oct. 27. (AP file photo/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) 6848839
Brian Scott screamed, pointed his .30-06 rifle, saw hair through the scope, and pulled the trigger once.
Scott shot and killed a gray wolf while elk hunting in rural Union County on Oct. 27. The experienced hunter notified state police of the incident and told the responding trooper, Marcus McDowell, a harrowing tale of self-defense.
Authorities agreed and declined to prosecute the wolf killing, the first reported instance of a protected wolf being shot and killed by a hunter who feared for their life.
Scott could not be reached for comment on this story.
The 38-year-old Clackamas resident told McDowell those details on Oct. 27, hours after the shooting. More details emerged Friday one week after the incident.
McDowell determined the bullet entered the animal’s front right side and exited through the left.
In a Thursday press release, the agency said “based upon the available evidence” the hunter acted in self-defense.
According to the three-page police report obtained through a public record request, Scott was hunting last week in the Starkey hunting unit of Union County near La Grande off of a forest service road where he was camping with several other hunters. At about 7:15 a.m., he left to hunt, and a little after leaving camp he saw animals moving around him.
“I could not identify what was moving around me,” he told McDowell. “There are a lot of coyotes out here.”
Scott hiked into a nearby timber stand and sat for 20 or 30 minutes. After leaving the trees and heading into a meadow, he saw to his left what he assumed was a coyote.
“He was running at me, which is very odd,” Scott told the trooper.
A second animal was behind the first.
A third animal “was running directly at me,” Scott said.
“I definitely felt like she had targeted me,” he said, “and was running at me to make contact.”
He told the trooper he feared for his life. “It was unnerving.”
Scott shot the third animal from roughly 27 yards away and watched the other two run into the timber near a forest road.
The other wolves howled, according to the police account.
An Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife official, Leonard Erickson, later arrived to the scene and helped recover the animal. One of four additional hunters at the camp transported the wolf, an 83-pound female connected to OR-30.
The pictures and police report paint a different picture, according to wolf advocacy group Oregon Wild.
The animal’s death also comes on the heels of five recent approved wolf shootings in eastern Oregon. It is illegal to kill a wolf unless it’s caught red-handed killing livestock — a rare occurrence that has happened just once in 2016 — or in the event of self-defense. Legally, animals can be killed if they are confirmed to have repeatedly attacked livestock.
Steve Pedery, the nonprofit’s conservation director, said in an email that he’d like to see further investigation of the hunting incident. He’s not convinced the animal was running at the hunter, and questioned why the wounds are on the animal’s side.
“How can a wolf that is moving away from someone be a threat?” Pedery asked, “and why would ODFW sign off on a report that is directly contradicted by the evidence?”
A Big Sky businessman seeking the Republican nomination to run against U.S. Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in 2018 is facing seven misdemeanor charges accusing him of trying to buy Montana resident hunting or fishing licenses as an out-of-state resident.
Troy Downing was cited July 21 seven times for unlawful purchase of or apply for resident license by nonresident. He was cited an eighth time for transferring a hunting license to another person and a ninth time for assisting an unqualified applicant in obtaining a hunting license.
Downing pleaded not guilty to the charges at an Aug. 23 appearance in Gallatin County Justice Court. The dates of the violations range from Nov. 11, 2011, to June 16, 2016. The citations did not include a court affidavit, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials would not release the residential license requirements Downing is accused of violating.
Christopher Williams, a Bozeman attorney representing Downing, said the Republican candidate would not comment because of the pending charges.
“He’s confident that these violations are an administrative oversight that will be resolved in his favor once he’s had an opportunity to make his case,” Williams said.
Andrea Jones, FWP spokeswoman, confirmed the case against Downing and the ongoing investigation.
Downing’s citations accuse him of illegally buying licenses in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The citation for transferring a license accuses him of loaning a 2011 Montana elk license to another for killing a bull elk. And the citation for assisting an unqualified applicant accuses him of helping his nonresident adult son obtain a 2015 Montana resident conservation, deer and elk licenses.
Kathryn QannaYahu, who writes an environmental newsletter called Enhancing Montana’s Wildlife and Habitat, first reported the case against Downing on a blog after receiving court documents from an open records request.
A person must live in Montana for 180 days prior to buying a resident hunting and fishing license. The person also must register a vehicle in Montana, file state income tax returns as a resident, and not possess or apply for any resident hunting, fishing or trapping privileges in another state.
Downing is scheduled to appear in Gallatin County Justice Court on Nov. 15 at 1:30 p.m. for a status hearing.
Downing is seeking the Republican nomination along with State Auditor Matt Rosendale, state Sen. Albert Olszewski of Kalispell and Belgrade businessman Ron Murray. Downing’s campaign chair is Lola Zinke, wife of U.S. Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke.
POACHING – Three men are accused of trying to poison wolves and leading illegal sheep and bear hunts at the hunting lodge built by Fairbanks hunting guide and aviator Urban Rahoi.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Anchorage announced a 15-count federal indictment on Tuesday against three employees of Rahoi’s Ptarmigan Lake Lodge, which is an inholding on the north side of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.
The indictment alleges that Casey Richardson of Huson, Montana, Dale Lackner of Haines, Alaska, and Jeffrey Harris of Poulsbo, Washington, conspired to violate the Lacey Act, a 1900 law that governs interstate traffic of animal parts.
Harris and Richardson are charged with “conspiracy to use substance to incapacitate game” in the indictment for allegedly making plans to buy the sweetener xylitol in fall 2015 to poison wolves in the area they guide.
Poison is not a legal way to kill wolves under Alaska or federal law.
Harris, Richardson and Lackner also face false statement and false record claims. Harris faces an additional charge of “unlawful baiting of game” for allegedly establishing bear baiting stations in the national preserve that were not permitted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game or the National Park Service.
In the Lacey Act charges, the three defendants are accused of guiding out-of-state clients on sheep and bear hunts in 2014 and 2015 and transporting animal parts across state lines while not being registered guides.
The crimes alleged in the indictment could be punished by a jail term of as much as five years or a $250,000 fine, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Harris was arrested Tuesday in Washington and has an initial court date on Friday in Anchorage.
Longview hunters related to 100 illegal kills
POACHING – Seven suspects involved in a massive poaching ring in southwestern Washington and north central Oregon were officially charged this week for combined violations involved in killing roughly 100 animals illegally, including bear, elk, deer, bobcat, and squirrel.
Officers were alerted to the poaching ring after receiving tips about dead wildlife found without their heads or other trophy body parts.
The seven individuals being charged are from Longview and Morton, Washington, and include two juveniles.
“This was really shocking, especially that it was going on in broad daylight right in front of us,” said Washington Fish and Wildlife Police Cpt. Jeff Wickerhsam. “The correspondence among these individuals showed a wanton disregard for our wildlife resources and the rules meant to protect them.”
For Wickersham and others, the graphic videos and other evidence was disturbing. Officers served search warrants in March, April, and May. It was like peeling back an onion, Wickersham said.
The father and son pair, Eddy “Alvin” Dills and Joe Dills, are well-known in hunting circles, KING 5 reports:
“Joe Dills was investigated in 2007 and charged in 2008 for his participation in the prolific poaching group, the self-avowed ‘Kill ’Em All Boyz.’ According to his case file, Dills hunted beside Micky Gordon, a man who bragged about illegally killing bears among other wildlife and even lethally punished one his hound dogs by wrapping an electrical collar to his testicles, shocking him so severely the dog later died of his injuries.
“Eddy Dills, Joe Dills’ dad, hunted on nearly two-dozen state issued permits in 2011 to kill bears on timber farms, as part of the state’s Bear Timber Depredation Management program, which depends on hunter ethics, entrusted behind locked gates on private land to follow the rules.”
A bear hunt is going on, even though voters outlawed the hunting practice two decades ago.
Alison Morrow, KING2:29 AM. PDT May 25, 2017
A hunting practice banned by Washington voters two decades ago continues to this day. Hound hunters are used to protect stands of commercial timber from the destructive habits of black bears. But a year-long KING 5 investigation shows the bears, killed for tree damage, may not be causing any problems whatsoever.
Hunting bears with dogs, outlawed in 1996 by the voter-approved Initiative 655, happens every spring in Washington. Animal rights advocates who backed I-655 decried the practice as cruel and unsportsmanlike. Hounds chase bears over long distances, exhausting them and allowing hunters to zero in for a final kill. Dogs are then rewarded by chewing on the bear. Bears are typically already dead or near dying.
Hunting bears with dogs is perfectly legal under an exception built into I-655. The provision in the law allows hound hunting to continue for the protection of property, but critics and experts say the legal loophole is being abused by the state and timber farmers against the letter and spirit of the law.
The official codification of I-655 – RCW 77.15.245 – includes the following allowance: “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the killing of black bear, cougar, bobcat, or lynx with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety. A dog or dogs may be used by the owner or tenant of real property consistent with a permit issued and conditioned by the director.”
The controversy centers on an interpretation of what it means to to protect private property. It’s pitting the Washington Department of Wildlife against its own staff and the backers of I-655.
“I think it’s disgusting and it’s frankly quite surprising to me that the Department of Fish and Wildlife would be so open violating a state initiative that the people of this state resoundingly approved,” said Lisa Wathne, who spearheaded the I-655 campaign 20 years ago while working for PAWS. Today, she is the Captive Wildlife Specialist for The Humane Society. Her group’s efforts to ban recreational hound hunting in Washington won with 63 percent of the vote.
Wathne was comfortable with the loophole in I-655 that allowed hound hunting to protect property by removing problem animals.
“They were to be very specific and for specific animals, not for a wholesale thinning of a population by any means,” she said.
In the case of bears, the allowance is used every spring on timber farms. Bears are hungry when they come out of hibernation, and trees offer a quick, high-calorie snack thanks to syrup underneath the bark. When the bears peel the bark, though, they can damage or even kill trees. Trees between the age of 12 and 25 years old are the most vulnerable. The Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA) blames bears for millions of dollars in damage every year.
Timber farmers argue they need to protect their trees from bears that are damaging their product. But KING 5 found the springtime bear hunts on timber farms are not focused on targeting problem bears. Hundreds of internal staff emails and documents obtained by KING 5 show that the program centers on reducing the overall number of bears in vulnerable tree stands, not – as state law requires – removing specific bears known to be damaging trees.
A man who has hunted for the Bear Timber Depredation Management Program (BTDM) for decades said the program is being abused, at the expense of non-offending bears. He describes a system that has evolved into an elite hunting club rather than a damage-control program. It didn’t start that way, he says. He’s noticed a trend that’s taken the program away from its original intent.
“The idea was to take the problem bear and there was no pressure on you to get out there and kill as much as they are now,” the man said. He asked us not to disclose his identity for fear of retaliation against his family and his dogs.
For decades the man has used his dogs to hunt bears, helping kill hundreds of them. But he said he’s concerned that both large industrial timber foresters and small forest landowners are no longer concerned with targeting problem bears. They just want to kill bears, he says, and WDFW enables it while clouding the hunts in secrecy.
In recent years, declared kills on timber farms have resulted in the reported death of about 100 bears. Other years, the number of bears removed has hovered around 200. But a year-long KING 5 investigation concludes those official tallies could be considerably inaccurate, as the bear hunts on private lands have historically occurred with little oversight. Even the state’s wildlife enforcement officers say the system is so broken that there’s little they can do to enforce hunting rules.
This hunter says he’s never once crossed paths with wildlife police while hunting bears on timber land.
“The old saying is, if you don’t see it, you don’t have to think about it,” he said. “It’s just like, OK, it’s all-out war guys.”
When foresters find one damaged tree, WDFW grants a permit to kill two bears. Permits are also granted on what’s called “historical damage” from the previous year. That means a forester can get a renewed permit to kill bears the year after they find fresh damage. They do not have to prove bears are causing any new issues. It doesn’t matter if several bears were already killed for the damage in the year prior.
Stacks of emails KING 5 obtained through public disclosure show state employees are also alarmed about the program. In a late 2016 internal email, a WDFW biologist wrote about timber giant Weyerhaeuser, “They are viewing the bear damage program as a means to suppress the overall bear population and therefore, reduce damage. I get why, as a timber company, they would want to do that but that is not the way this program was designed.”
In another 2016 staff report, a wildlife specialist argues Weyerhaeuser is creating a large hunting area. Several complaints KING 5 uncovered show that timber companies stack permits beside each other to maximize land areas for the hunt. The wildlife specialist who wrote the report says it goes against the program’s intent “to avoid killing more bears than necessary.”
AWDFWbiologist wrote in one email dated November 7, 2016: “It seems like the system in place is just being manipulated by those who want to be able to run their dogs and to some extent by timber owners/individual foresters who are facilitating it…it seems like they don’t even want the bears, just the chance to pursue them.”
Another WDFW biologist wrote in a 2014 email, “Only one-quarter of bears killed have bark in their stomach.” An additional 2016 internal report to WDFW management says the system is “purposely being abused,” but staff are discouraged from revoking privileges.
The hunter we interviewed believes the program has turned into a secret fraternity where power and politics provide an exclusive bear hunting season – the only one left in Washington for hunters who want to use dogs. Timber farms benefit by reducing the potential for damaged trees, he says, while hunters get to run their hounds. They’re chosen by the timber companies and approved by Georg Ziegltrum, the longtime head of WFPA’s Animal Damage Control Program.
“If given opportunity they all girdle trees and they all are ‘problem’ bears in damage areas,” Ziegltrum said.
For Ziegltrum, every bear has the potential to peel.
“Intraspecific stress (too many bears in one given area) may have more to do with timber damage than one ‘guilty’ ingenious bark peeler,” he said. “I-655 is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The WDFW understands our problem and is closely and effectively working with our industry. Regulations for bear removal are plentiful and heavy. All damage is witnessed and approved by WDFW. I have a 100 percent compliance record with the agency for years and I’m proud of it.”
KING 5 learned that foresters often tell hunters not to discuss the hunt, for fear of public outrage.
“Some of the foresters want you to kill, kill, kill – no matter what. Even the foresters have kind of a game between ‘em to who gets the trophy every year for the most bear killed,” the hunter said. “Just like one forester said, ‘All I want to know is about the first bear and the last bear. In between, I don’t care.’”
Internal WDFW emails and reports reveal that kill permits are given to timber farms before wildlife specialists verify damage. A program administrator wrote in a 2014 email, “Timber companies have put pressure on the program to issue first, then verify.” Another staffer wrote in 2015, “Often times the permit has been filled before the Conflict Specialist has gone out to the site to even verify.” In another 2015 email, a wildlife specialist said, “I have not been able to verify the preliminary damage prior to them taking two bear.”
Sources told KING 5 that procedures like this, aimed at speeding up the permitting process, are unique to the bear damage program even though elk damage, for instance, is far more common statewide. Reports also show that, sometimes, staff arrive to alleged damage sites only to find “no significant damage at all.” But it’s too late, as bears authorized for kill might already be dead.
One state biologist wrote in a 2016 email, “This is not the way this program was designed.”
WHY BEARS ARE TARGETED
For Ken Miller, the damage is anything but insignificant.
“Brown spots all over the hillside and those were dead trees,” he said while pointing toward a ridgeline in Oakville, southwest of Olympia.
Miller is a small forest landowner, which means he farms far less land than an industrial company like Weyerhaeuser. His tree farm borders the Capitol State Forest near Olympia, which is prime bear habitat. He took us on a long and bumpy drive to see his trees, though land he says foresters protect from development. He thinks his profession is often the object of unfair negativity, criticized for killing trees and sometimes the wildlife that hurts profit. He argues, more often than not, bears benefit from tree farming.
“It really is cool to be a tree farm,” he said. “We’re doing great stuff for the environment.”
Miller and his wife saw their farm as an investment in their retirement or grandchildren’s education. The couple and their son planted 18,000 trees by hand in three months. They each planted 500 a day.
“I made bags we wore around our waist,” said Ken’s wife, Bonnie. “We were really proud of ourselves. We had some nice trees. Then all of a sudden, we found something.”
What they found alarmed them – dozens of trees damaged by bears.
“I was desperate, in a panic, because our financial wherewithal for our retirement years was on the line,” Ken said. “That’s big money. That’s like someone stealing money out of your 401(k).”
Ken admitted that he was so desperate that he asked a hunter to kill bears in secret. He says that was 15 years ago, and he hasn’t broken any rules since.
“Maybe I’m not totally proud of it, but I would do it again if I was in that same situation and that was the only option I had to protect my property,” Ken said.
He said there are too many bears for available habitat, and he believes he is drowning in a permitting process that prevents him from killing bears fast enough to protect his trees. For Miller, small forest landowners suffer unduly from bear damage and need more help from the state, given that a few damaged trees represent a much greater percentage of lost investment compared to industrial farms.
If the program is about population control as critics argue it is, he says, WDFW is failing.
If there were fewer bears, and the state eased the path toward removing them, Miller believes he would have fewer problems.
Ninety-percent of the damage is typically reported in Regions 5 and 6, which includes Pierce, Cowlitz, Lewis, Wahkiakum and Clark Counties. The bear harvest during timber hunts tends to be about 35 percent of the bears harvested in those regions during the general season. WDFW does not include the timber hunt harvests in the information shared with the public on its website.
“I think we under harvest bears, probably, in this state as a whole,” said WDFW Game Division Manger Anis Aoude.
In an interview that lasted two hours, KING 5 asked Aoude and his WDFW colleague, Stephanie Simek, about the Bear Timber Depredation Management Program. A couple years ago, the program’s oversight was handed from Enforcement to the Wildlife Program. Aoude and Simek created a subcommittee comprised of biologists, conflict specialists, enforcement officers, and foresters in order to forge new paths toward better management.
It was the moment when many staffers hoped chronic abuses of the program would finally see change, internal sources told KING 5. Today, that hope has turned into increased frustration. As one employee wrote in a November 2016 email, “Wow, I am blown away that the same issues keep occurring over and over with absolutely no consequences. It seems absolutely crazy that we have taken the time to careful (sic) develop all of these rules and they aren’t being followed.”
“We’re trying to find a way where folks can still grow timber and harvest it and bears can still be on the landscape,” Aoude said. “We hear the criticism. We take it to heart. We are working to improve things.”
For Aoude, any bear that lives near vulnerable trees is a potential problem.
“You’re never going to know what bears are peeling and what bears are not,” he said.
He pointed to efforts at tightening restrictions like reducing the hunt zone from a 5-mile radius to a 3-mile radius. That way, he and Simek said, hunters don’t kill bears far away from damage.
In an email Simek sent on April 15, 2015, she told several foresters, “Remember that the presence of a bear on your property does not mean it has or will cause any damage.”
And yet, Simek and Aoude support allowing hunters to use hounds for killing bears before damage ever occurs. When trees are between 15 and 30 years old, they are most susceptible to bear peeling. Aoude says it makes for efficient property protection to reduce the number of bears in timber stands of that age class.
“Once the damage has occurred, you’re almost too late,” he said. “So if you had damage the year before, you can almost guarantee you’ll have damage the year after. Because not only are those trees peeled and could be peeled further, there are trees next to them that are the same age.”
The hound hunting ban allowed bear populations to grow problematically and hurt the state’s ability to manage the carnivores, Aoude said.
“It’s unfortunate that the tool was removed by legislation, because it is one of the most effective ways to pursue and harvest bears,” he said.
Aoude defended the practice of killing two bears per permit as well, even if no fresh damage was found, by calling it an efficient way to give good customer service.
“And at this point, bears are doing fine in the state. Their populations are doing just fine and there’s really no need for us to be concerned with individual woodlots,” he said.
As for allegations the system is abused by foresters, Simek says, it’s an unfair characterization.
“I think it’s an overgeneralization. People say what they want to say and what they want to believe,” Simek said.
Still, people like Wathne and others are concerned WDFW’s approach violates the law. That’s because they believe the spirit of I-655 only allowed for hound hunting when animals are actively causing damage. They believe voters wanted to ban the practice for population control, and allow for it only when an animal proves it’s a problem.
About 40 hunters participate in the program annually, but the vast majority of bears are taken by a few dozen. By comparison in the same regions, the recreational bear season sees about 3,500 hunters buying licenses to harvest bears later in the year. Their success rate is far lower than the hound hunters.
If someone wants to know how many bears are killed on tree farms, though, it’s not so easy to find. WDFW does not include the data on its website with other bears harvested in general seasons.
That’s why KING 5 filed a request for the number of bears killed each year since 2004. Our research shows, in some years, the state’s authorized the killing of as many as 334 bears for timber damage alone. That was in 2011. It was the highest number of permits granted in the records we obtained. The total amount of bears harvested on the 2011 permits was 182, with 66 females and 116 males killed. The lowest year for permits written was 2016, with 162 bears authorized for removal. Of the total allowed, 86 were reported killed; 27 were females and 59 were males.
Without exception, male bears are killed far more often than females. Typically, hunters kill nearly double the amount of male bears as female bears. For WDFW bear expert, Rich Beausoleil, that’s concerning since data shows the offending bears are more often hungry females, many with new cubs. Male bears, however, may be targeted for their size.
“What we’re finding from the removal statistics that are coming in is that males are being targeted. Females are dying too, but more males than females. That makes us wonder, are we targeting the right bear?” he said.
Beausoleil said the state has used hunter data to estimate the bear population until recently. Hunters are supposed to turn in a tooth from the bear for research, but they only do that 20 percent of the time. That’s why Beausoleil’s recent research project is showing that the long-held belief Washington has 35,000 bears is wrong. He estimates the number is much closer to 20,000. The average bear has an annual survival rate of about 80-90 percent, but on timber farms, that number drops to 60 percent.
Though the number of bears killed for causing timber damage typically totals only 10 percent of the bears killed every year statewide, Beausoleil says the number is much higher when considered from a more localized perspective.
“We could see harvest rates at 40 percent, and that’s higher than we’d like to see. That can cause a population decline, if that’s not what we want to do as an agency,” he said. “So, it’s really important not to look at it on a washed-out statewide view or even on a regional view, but to zoom and see what’s going on, because this could be your backyard, and you might have an interest in knowing the bears are OK where you live.”
Timber farms are invaluable assets for protecting wildlife in the state, Beausoleil says. That’s why he hopes collaboration with foresters and better program management will provide opportunity for change.
“These lands that private timber provide, provide habitat in a big way. There’s a lot of land out there that’s helping wildlife,” he said.
KING 5 told former state legislator Hans Dunshee about its investigation of the bear depredation program. Dunshee, a Democrat from Snohomish, served as the 44th District state representative for two decades and was a fierce supporter of I-655 and opposed several attempts to repeal it.
“You’re not authorized by the will of the people to just exterminate all bears in an area, because they might be a problem,” he said. “This program violates the initiative because it focuses on population. It assumes population is a problem not a problem animal.”
Dunshee believes the state’s abusing its power and violating voter trust, all while setting a bad example.
“We’re all supposed to follow the law. If government doesn’t follow the law, then citizens say, ‘We don’t have to,’” he said. “The department is destroying the trust of everybody, and it’s creating lawlessness.”
And that’s exactly what we found WDFW staff are concerned about, as well.
“I’ve had more than one officer tell me, ‘I’m not going to work these anymore,’” said retired WDFW Captain Murray Schlenker.
Schlenker retired from WDFW police last year. He calls the rules confusing and inconsistent.
“You can go out and knock yourself out as a law enforcement officer, but cases aren’t going to get anywhere,” he said.
Our investigation found hunters caught breaking the rules aren’t held accountable. They’re almost always allowed to keep on hunting. In a 2014 case involving one of the program’s most prolific hunters, an enforcement officer recommended the state ban an offending hunter from killing bears on timber farms.
Here’s what happened: Hunters get one yellow tag per bear they’re allowed to kill. That tag is supposed to be immediately clipped onto the bear’s ear so that it cannot be reused, a policy aimed at preventing hunters from taking more bears than allowed. This particular hunter was located nearly four miles from the kill site, the bear gutted and packed in a box used to transport dogs. But the hunter had the tags in his pocket.
Though the officer who filed the case told management the hunter should not be allowed to hunt on timber permits any longer, WDFW management did nothing. That hunter continues to be one of the most active in the program
KING 5 obtained an email written by the enforcement officer at the time. He complained, “My frustration level is at an extreme,” because hunters “pick and choose” what rules to follow.
“That level of frustration is there for them and they don’t want to try good faith, conscientious effort and have it thrown back at them. That’s very demoralizing from an employee standpoint,” Schelnker said.
“It’s becoming harder to get good people out there, but we still have the good people: the good hound hunters, the ethical hound hunters, the people who play by the rules. We still have them working for us,” Ziegltrum said.
Ziegltrum, director of WFPA’s Animal Damage Control Program, is the one who gives final approval or denial of all hunters allowed on the BTDM permits. Aoude said that if hunters are legally allowed to harvest bears in Washington, WDFW has no power to deny their participation in the program. Ziegltrum does that.
“There is a very strong incentive for these people to stay in line,” he said. “They recognize we are the only game in town.”
As for the hunter caught with tags in his pockets, Ziegltrum says it was an honest mistake.
“This guy is still hunting, because we explained the situation to the state agency, and this young gentleman did not get himself into trouble,” he said.
Last year, WDFW Wildlife Program Manager Sandra Jonker wrote a letter of commendation to honor a hound hunter for exceptional efforts. “In particular I want to thank you and your hunting party for your help over the years…for ethically responsible hunting behavior,” she wrote.
It belongs to the same hunter who said the timber hunts are so mismanaged that ethical hunters are being forced out, leaving behind those willing to bend the rules.
“And, the way the foresters think, is that they will have to do it our way because we’re the biggest employers in the state,” he said.
He’s not against hound hunting. He thinks dogs, with their keen sense of smell, are the best way to target problem bears. But dogs only do what their handler wants, and he says too often, foresters and hunters just want blood.
“These guys don’t have no respect for wildlife. The more they get, they think the better hunter they are,” he said.
Dunshee believes WDFW’s management of the BTDM program could set the agency back in its efforts to unite culturally and politically disparate groups in Washington, often divided over wildlife.
“I think it destroys the trust in the agency. The agency is doing good things on wolves and cougars. I think this destroys the good will that’s been built between rural communities and animal welfare advocates,” Dunshee said. “I think the legislature should do an investigation. The evidence you have should be laid out for the public to see. I think it ought to be dealt with and if there are people in the upper management who have been burying this story, I think they ought to be held accountable.”
For Wathne, it’s criminal. She believes WDFW has turned a problem bear into a hunting season. She calls that poaching.
“And the department is enabling it. They are putting their stamp of approval on it apparently. You bet it’s poaching. It’s a violation of the law,” she said. “The initiative itself is very clear. So, perhaps it’s time to go to the Governor.”
In a staff report filed by a WDFW animal conflict specialist concern is voiced over the long-term effects of the timber farm hunts. In some Game Management Units, between a quarter and a third of the bears are killed because of tree damage. The report said, “During a conference call it was brought up that conflict staff in Region 5 does not support killing 2 bears per permit because we do not know the population effects. That statement was countered with the argument that if we don’t know the populations (sic) effects then why not allows (sic) two bears per permit? Is this consistent with this agency’s mission?”
In other documents KING 5 obtained, employees expressed concern that the bear hunts on timber farms reduce the available bears for harvest during recreational seasons, when hunters are paying for licenses that support the budget of WDFW.
“I think that as an agency we should be concerned with the fact that in the south Cascades in 2015 we had a recreational bear harvest of 99, but in 2016 we had a depredation harvest of 37. That is 27 percent of the recreational harvest, and we are talking about 3,600 recreational bear hunters versus a handful of hound hunters. The success rate for recreational hunters was 2.7 percent. I can’t help but wonder if taking these bears through the depredation hunt it isn’t taking away an opportunity from thousands of other recreational hunters who are purchasing a bear tag,” a WDFW biologist wrote in 2016.
Another staffer wrote in the same thread, “the system in place is just being manipulated.”
“We are not providing people with recreational opportunity,” Ziegltrum said.
Wathne met with Ziegltrum in the 1990s to discuss I-655. She met with many stakeholders as they molded the allowance for hound hunting to reduce tree damage. She believes the intention of the law was clear, not just for her but for WDFW and the timber industry. There should be no misunderstanding, she says, the loophole was never meant to cull bear populations.
“And what does it say to the people of Washington state?” Wathne said. “The Department of Fish and Wildlife doesn’t give a damn about what you voted for or about the bears of this state.”
Since KING 5 initially broadcast the investigation, Conservation Northwest has made a public appeal to WDFW for transparency on the issue, voicing concern that the use of the hunts violate I-655.
CLARIFICATION: The original script said hunters do not have to buy a bear license like recreational hunters to participate. We’ve since learned they do have to buy a bear tag but they do not use it for this hunt.
Watch the TV version of this story with closed captioning: Part 1 | Part 2
Bodies of Siberian Weasels, often illegally poached for their fur Photo: CGTN
A baby Brown Wood Owl rescued by Yidan Photo: CGTN
Mandarin Duck, Class II protected species in China Photo: CGTN
Carcass of a wild boar in the cold storage Photo: CGTN
Exposing the Big Game 