Chapter 3
Wildlife

Wildlife are animals that have not been domesticated by humans. This does not mean that wild animals live without human interference. Humans control, manage, manipulate, use, and kill wildlife for various reasons. Humans tend to think of wild animals in terms of the threat they pose to people or the value they hold for them.

Some wildlife threaten human safety, health, property, and/or quality of life. This is true of large carnivores (such as lions, tigers, and alligators), poisonous snakes and spiders, disease-carrying animals, and animals that endanger moving vehicles. In addition, there are carnivores (such as coyotes and bobcats) that prey on livestock and pets, herbivores that eat crops and lawns, beavers that dam up streams, and wild animals that invade or damage human spaces. Many rodents, skunks, rabbits, deer, and birds are considered nuisance animals.

However, many wild animals, even dangerous ones, have value to humans. This value might be economic, educational, or emotional in nature. Valuable wildlife fall into the following categories:

• Wild animals that produce products people want to eat, wear, or use. This category includes deer, buffalo, elk, wildfowl, fur-bearing creatures, many fish and marine mammals, and animals such as tigers and bears with bones and organs that are used in traditional medicines.
• Wild animals that humans kill for sport through hunting or fishing. In the United States people primarily hunt native game, such as deer, bears, rabbits, squirrels, and waterfowl. Exotic (foreign) animals are imported and killed at some hunting ranches (called canned hunts because the hunters pay to participate and are guaranteed to kill the animals). African lions, giraffes, antelopes, gazelles, Cape buffaloes, Corsican sheep, and Angora goats are some of the most popular. Sport fish include a variety of freshwater and saltwater species.
• Wild animals that can be manipulated to do labor or entertain people. For example, elephants are used as beasts of burden in many Asian countries. They also perform in circuses and shows, along with bears, primates, birds, lions, tigers, dolphins, seals, whales, and other trainable animals. Some wild animals even have military uses, particularly dolphins, whales, and sea lions.
• Wild animals that humans enjoy watching, hearing, feeding, or photographing. This category is very diverse and ranges from songbirds in the backyard to whales in the open sea. (See Figure 3.1.) It includes a variety of animals that humans can encounter in the wild and at refuges, sanctuaries, zoos, parks, and entertainment venues.
• Wild animals that are useful in scientific and medical research. These include primates and some strains of rats, mice, and rabbits.
• Wild animals kept as pets. This includes a wide variety of species, some of which are dangerous to humans. Keeping wild animals as pets is highly controversial and, in many states, illegal.

Most animal rights advocates believe that wild animals should not be used at all—not for food, clothing, entertainment, companionship, or any other purpose. They consider wild animals not commodities but free beings with the right to live undisturbed in their natural habitats. Animal welfarists are concerned that wild animals are exploited and mistreated because of human greed and ignorance. They work to publicize the fate of animals in captivity and to save them from mistreatment.

Most people consider wildlife a valuable natural resource, such as water or coal. They may disagree about how wild animals should be used, but they generally agree that humans have the right to use them, especially if the supply is plentiful. Wild species threatened by extinction are a different matter, however, as many people rally to conserve them. Successful conservation ensures that the species will continue to thrive in the future.

Every aspect of wildlife-human interaction raises questions in the animal rights debate. For example:

• The American bison was nearly extinct in the nineteenth century. Thanks to conservationists, the species was saved and is even thriving. By the year 2000, bison burgers were being sold at trendy restaurants. Is it acceptable to save an endangered species and then eat it?
• The government allows people to kill deer to keep the population down. Otherwise, lack of food could lead to starvation among the deer population. Is hunting deer more humane than letting them starve?
• Many people enjoy experiencing wildlife up close for its entertainment and educational value. Should wild animals be kept in captivity to satisfy this desire?

These are just some of the major questions in the animal rights debate.

HISTORY

Prehistoric humans constantly struggled with wildlife. Both sides were sometimes predators and sometimes prey, but humans quickly tipped the balance in their favor with two big advantages: superior intellect and weapons. As humans gained more control over nature, they began using wild animals not just as a food source but as a source of labor and entertainment. Elephants became beasts of burden. Mongooses and birds of prey were trained to be hunting assistants. Some lions, tigers, and bears were kept in cages to entertain or educate humans. Dangerous animals that could not be contained were often eliminated.

Eventually, governments declared their authority over wild animal populations. Some ancient rulers enacted game laws to allow species to multiply. The explorer Marco Polo described a law of the Chinese ruler Kublai Khan that prohibited the killing of deer, rabbits, and large waterfowl during certain months to allow the species time to replenish.

Other rulers restricted the hunting of the most desirable animals to the upper social classes. Under English law, wildlife was the property of royalty. Members of the lower classes were permitted to hunt only low-value animals such as rabbits. Big game were reserved for the upper classes. English royalty had exclusive hunting rights until 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed.

Wildlife in the United States

Problems with wildlife management plagued the first European colonists in North America. Historical records show that the colonists fought off animal predators, including wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, and mountain lions. They also lost domesticated animals to wild predators. Livestock, particularly hogs, sometimes wandered away and lived in the wild. Their offspring were feral animals (animals born and living in the wild that are descendants of domesticated animals). The colonists killed wild and feral animals whenever they could because they were a threat to livestock and crops. The colonists found wolves to be particularly bothersome. Early governing bodies established wolf bounty acts that paid people for killing wolves. Virginia had a wolf bounty act as early as 1632. It paid colonists and Native Americans for every wolf head they presented.

By the early 1700s official hunting seasons for certain species were established in some colonies. Over the next century, state governments set up fish and game departments and enacted hunting restrictions, requiring licenses and setting limits on the number of some species that could be killed during each hunting season.

Colonization severely depleted the ranks of some native wild species through a combination of overhunting and disease. The introduction of livestock brought new animal diseases that were devastating to some native species. Passenger pigeons and heath hens died out altogether. Bison, elk, and beaver stocks were severely diminished, though they did not become extinct.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT

Late in the nineteenth century people began to become aware of the value of natural resources, such as land, water, and wildlife, and worked to conserve wilderness spaces and protect them from development. Some of the most important representatives of the conservation movement include:

• John Muir (see Figure 3.2), who established the Sierra Club in 1892 and worked toward the creation of Yosemite National Park
• President Theodore Roosevelt, who set aside millions of acres of land under federal government control for national refuges, forests, and parks

• Gifford Pinchot, who was a firm believer in conservation and a key adviser to Theodore Roosevelt
• Aldo Leopold, who wrote Game Management in 1933, the first known publication on the science of wildlife management
• Ding Darling, who advocated the restoration of wetlands and waterfowl habitats and was the driving force behind many wildlife protection programs and laws

Early conservationists initiated programs that helped wild animals by preserving natural habitats, but they were not always motivated by the same concerns that drove people involved in the animal welfare movement. Many prominent conservationists were avid hunters. For example, President Roosevelt enjoyed hunting big game. Leopold also hunted and said that it gave him a deep appreciation and respect for wild animals. Many welfarists were (and are) opposed to hunting for sport. The ethical battle over hunting that began between conservationists and welfarists in the nineteenth century continues today.

GOVERNMENT ENACTS REGULATION LAWS

In the twentieth century dozens of federal laws were enacted that regulated wildlife. Table 3.1 lists the most notable ones. The first federal wildlife law was the Lacey Act of 1900, which banned the transportation of illegally taken wildlife across state lines. It also established regulations regarding the importation of wildlife into the country. Many laws were designed to fund conservation efforts through hunting fees. For example, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934 required people to purchase a stamp before they could hunt waterfowl. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 added a special tax on guns and ammunition.

By the early twenty-first century wildlife in the United States was extensively regulated. In "Digest of Federal Resource Laws" (2006, http://www.fws.gov/laws/laws_digest/resource_laws.htm), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 164 federal laws that have been passed dealing with the control, preservation, eradication, and management of wildlife. Some laws pertain directly to particular species, whereas others address preservation of habitat and use of federal lands.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT CONTROL WILDLIFE

Wildlife issues in the United States are overseen by various federal and state agencies. At the federal level, the USFWS is the primary agency. Originally called the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, the USFWS was formed in 1871 to examine problems with declining food-fish stocks and recommend remedies. In 1903 the agency was given oversight of the first national wildlife refuge, Pelican Island, a three-acre bird sanctuary in Sebastian, Florida.

In "Wild Places, Wild Things" (2006, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Horicon/documents/WildPlacesWildThings.pdf), the USFWS states that it manages 95 million acres in 545 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also manages migratory bird conservation, oversees thousands of wetlands and other management areas, and operates dozens of national fish hatcheries, fishery resources offices, and ecological services field stations. The USFWS administers and enforces many federal wildlife laws and issues import and export permits under those laws.

The USFWS works with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to monitor wildlife trade and stop illegal shipments of protected plants and animals. The USFWS also enforces the country's participation in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This international agreement regulates the importing and exporting of thousands of species. Other federal agencies involved in controlling wild populations include the Wildlife Services (WS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Park Service. The WS is the primary federal agency in charge of controlling wildlife that can damage agriculture, property, and natural resources or threaten public health and safety. It operates the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado.

GOALS OF GOVERNMENT WILDLIFE REGULATION

Historically, wildlife control efforts in the United States have focused on protecting human interests and preserving endangered species. Human interests include health, safety, property, and resources—livestock, crops, trees, lawns, structures, water, food supplies, vehicles, pets, and so forth. Wild animals that threaten any of these are subject to removal or elimination. In the past, control was left up to private citizens, who could kill any wild animals they considered a threat. Today, most control efforts are led or managed by government agencies. For example, hunting requires a license and payment of fees. However, private citizens may legally kill some wildlife that are considered pests (such as rodents) in and around their homes or businesses.

Protecting Health and Safety

Violent confrontations between wild animals and people are relatively rare in contemporary times. Of greater concern is the danger from zoonotic diseases—diseases that can be passed from animals to people. Zoonotic diseases associated with wild animals include rabies, West Nile virus, Lyme disease, bovine tuberculosis (a respiratory disease associated with buffalo, bison, and deer), chlamydiosis (a respiratory disease most commonly found in tropical birds, such as parrots), histoplasmosis (a lung disease transmitted through bird and bat droppings), salmonellosis (an intestinal illness transmitted through contaminated feces, particularly from infected reptiles), and granulocytic ehrlichiosis (a tick-borne disease similar to Lyme disease).

One of the most feared zoonotic diseases is rabies. Rabies killed an average of a hundred people annually in the early twentieth century, but a combination of control methods greatly reduced its threat. By the end of the century, only one or two people died each year from the disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducts rabies epidemiology (the study of the distribution and causes of disease in populations). In Rabies: Epidemiology (December 1, 2003, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/Epidemiology/Epidemiology.htm), the latest report available, the CDC reports that there were 7,437 confirmed cases of animal rabies in the United States in 2001. Wild animals, primarily raccoons, skunks, and bats, accounted for 93% of those cases. Figure 3.3 shows the areas of the country most associated with terrestrial (land-dwelling) wild animals that can carry rabies.

The number of rabies cases reported in wild animals greatly increased between the mid-1970s and 2001. This was because of an epidemic of rabies in raccoons in the mid-Atlantic states. This type of epidemic that affects many of the same species of animals is called an epizootic. According to the CDC, in Rabies: Prevention and Control (December 1, 2003, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/prevention&control/ovalvacc.htm), the rabies epizootic in raccoons began in 1977 along the border between Virginia and West Virginia. It spread quickly to neighboring states and reached Canada in 1999. State and federal wildlife officials began using baits laden with oral rabies vaccine (ORV) in the early 1990s. More than 12.3 million ORV doses were distributed during 2006 alone, as shown in Table 3.2. Wildlife authorities hope to create a barrier to prevent the epizootic from spreading westward.

Besides diseases, humans face dangers posed by collisions between moving vehicles and wild animals and birds. In Wildlife Services Program: Information on Activities to Manage Wildlife Damage (November 2001, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/GAOreports.pdf), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO; now the Government Accountability Office), reports that more than one million collisions between deer and automobiles occur each year, injuring approximately twenty-nine thousand people and killing two hundred. Bradley F. Blackwell and Glen E. Bernhardt state in "Efficacy of Aircraft Landing Lights in Stimulating Avoidance Behavior in Birds" (Journal of Wildlife Management, July 2004) that 46,514 collisions between wildlife and civil aircraft were reported to the Federal Aviation Administration from 1990 through 2002. These collisions had associated costs of approximately $489 million annually. Birds were involved in 97% of the collisions. Although multiple species of birds can be involved in a single incident, aircraft collisions were most commonly associated with waterfowl and raptors. Wildlife and aircraft collisions caused 140 human deaths between 1990 and 2000.

Protecting Property and Pleasure

According to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in Managing Wildlife Conflicts: The Mission of the APHIS Wildlife Services Program (October 2005, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/ManageWildlifeDamage2005.pdf), wildlife causes $600 million to $1.6 billion worth of damage annually to agriculture. Each year, farmers and ranchers lose thousands of calves and lambs, worth more than $71 million, to wild predators such as coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions. The GAO estimates in Wildlife Services Program that 273,000 sheep and lambs, 147,000 cattle and calves, and 61,000 goats and kids were lost to wild predators in 1999. Coyotes are blamed for most of the losses. Wild predators are primarily a problem in western states where ranchers graze their livestock on open rangelands. Furthermore, APHIS reports in Wildlife Services: The Facts about Wildlife Damage Management (2004, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/ca/usda_fact_sheets/usda_fact_sheet_wildlife_damage_management.pdf) that wildlife damages more than $50 million worth of corn, sunflowers, and blueberries annually.

The GAO Wildlife Services Program report involved an extensive investigation into wildlife damage across the country. Table 3.3 lists wildlife problems reported by each state. Birds, especially Canada geese, are a problem in thirty-nine states. Coyotes are mentioned as an issue in twenty states. Beavers are considered a problem in eighteen states.

Federal and state wildlife agencies use a variety of direct control methods to deal with so-called nuisance wildlife, including relocation, poisons, sharpshooters, contraceptives, and repellents. The agency dispersed nearly 18.9 million animals during fiscal year (FY) 2004, primarily by chemical methods (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/tables/PDR6,%20FY%202004.pdf). More than 2.7 million animals were killed by the WS during FY 2004. (See Table 3.4.) Birds made up the vast majority of the animals eliminated, accounting for nearly 92% of the total. Among terrestrial species the largest numbers of animals killed by the WS were coyotes (75,674), beavers (32,085), and feral (wild) hogs (11,484). Nearly 34,000 northern pikeminnow, a fish species, were also eliminated.

Government agencies also indirectly control wildlife by issuing hunting permits and allowing recreational hunts to take place. Lethal control methods employed by wildlife agencies are described in government publications as "depopulating" or "harvesting" surplus animals.

Controversies over Government Control of Wildlife

Animal rights and welfare groups maintain that government wildlife agencies rely far too much on killing as a control method. The WS denies this. According to the GAO Wildlife Services Program report, approximately 75% of the program's budget in FY 2000 was devoted to research and development of nonlethal control methods. One example is called the Electronic Guard. This device uses sirens and strobe lights to frighten coyotes away from sheep and lamb herds. The GAO notes that the WS uses lethal methods when nonlethal methods have proven ineffective and that WS "officials strive to select the method that will kill the bird or mammal quickly, effectively, and humanely."

Critics say that overuse of lethal methods actually aggravates problems because predators naturally respond by producing more offspring. The WS counters this argument in Wildlife Services: The Facts about Wildlife Damage Management, in which it cites Robert Crabtree's study, Carnivores in Ecosystems: The Yellowstone Experience (1999), which finds that coyote litter size "appears largely unaffected by levels of human exploitation." Furthermore, the WS states that habitat conditions and abundance of food are the determining factors in predator litter sizes.

PROBLEM HORSES

Wild horse and burro populations on public lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As Table 3.5 shows, in FY 2006 there were more than thirty-one thousand of these animals scattered across the western states. They were maintained on approximately eighty-eight million acres. Table 3.5 also lists the appropriate management level (AML) established by the federal government as the maximum number of wild horses or burros appropriate for a particular area. In 2006 populations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming exceeded their AMLs.

The BLM states in "BLM Strategy to Manage Horses Upheld in Federal Court" (September 24, 2004, http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2004/pr040924_whb.htm) that its policy is to remove wild horses and burros from overpopulated areas to "prevent damage to the rangelands and threats to watershed health." The animals are gathered and held in holding pens. Some are adopted out to private citizens or organizations.

In 2000 the groups Fund for Animals (FFA) and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the BLM challenging the agency's wild horse management policy. The lawsuit claimed that the policy violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. In September 2004 a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the groups had no standing in the case.

In December 2004 Congress passed the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which included an amendment allowing some "excess" wild horses and burros to be sold at auction "without limitation." The bill applies to animals greater than ten years old and those that have unsuccessfully been offered for adoption at least three times. The amendment was added by then Montana senator Conrad Burns, who argued that the animals damage valuable grazing land and that maintaining them in holding pens is too expensive for the federal government. Critics explain that the phrase "without limitation" means that the animals can be slaughtered for horse meat. The amendment was condemned by animal protection groups and even drew criticism from mainline media sources not ordinarily sympathetic to animal causes. For example, the editorial "Save the Wild Horses" (Washington Times, December 6, 2004) was harshly critical of the amendment. It argued that wild horses have symbolic prestige in U.S. history and that the federal government should not allow their slaughter as a population control method. The editorial questioned the validity of claims that wild horses damage grazing land, citing a federal government study that found that overgrazing of cattle is a much more serious threat.

According to a BLM fact sheet (January 3, 2007, http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/whb_authority/fact_sheet.htm), there were approximately eighty-four hundred wild horses eligible for sale at the time of passage of the Burns amendment. In March 2005 the BLM conducted the first of several sales of wild horses under the new law. The following month the agency learned that some horses sold to a private individual had been resold to a horse slaughter plant. A BLM spokesperson noted that the agency was "extremely disappointed" but had no control over what happened to the horses once they were sold. Animal protection groups were outraged by the news.

In May 2005 the Ford Motor Company established the Save the Mustangs fund to build public awareness and raise contributions to save wild horses. In January 2007 Ford reported that more than $200,000 had been raised for the fund and that the funds would be distributed to carefully screened horse rescue groups that agree to purchase the horses (http://www.ford.com/en/goodWorks/environment/natureAndWildlife/saveTheMustangs/default.htm).

The BLM fact sheet reports that nearly twenty-two hundred wild horses and burros had been sold through the Burns amendment program as of December 2006. The agency denies that it sells the animals to slaughterhouses or "killer buyers." The BLM spent $36.8 million during FY 2006 on the wild horse and burro program. More than half of the money ($19.6 million) was devoted to short- and long-term holding facilities for the animals.

Protecting Endangered and Threatened Species

The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973. It built on protection measures first laid out in the 1966 Endangered Species Preservation Act. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve the ecosystems on which endangered and threatened species depend and to conserve and recover listed species. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered likely to become endangered in the future. Some species are listed as endangered in some areas of the country and only threatened in other areas.

As of January 1, 2007, there were 567 native species on the federal list of endangered and threatened animals—412 endangered species and 155 threatened species. (See Table 3.6.) Another 565 foreign animal species were listed as endangered or threatened. Animals are placed on the list based on their biological status and the threats to their existence. Some species are put on the list because they closely resemble endangered or threatened species.

The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for administering the Endangered Species Act. They work in partnership with state agencies to enforce the act and develop and maintain conservation programs. The USFWS operates fifty-nine national wildlife refuges around the country that were established specifically to protect endangered species. (See Table 3.7.)

The Endangered Species Act prohibits any person from taking a listed species. Taking includes actions that "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" listed species or attempt to do so. Harm is defined as an action that kills or injures the animal and includes actions that significantly modify or degrade habitats or significantly impair essential behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. These measures are designed to allow endangered and threatened species to repopulate. However, once a species does repopulate, it can be delisted (removed from the list of endangered species), and the taking prohibition no longer applies. Table 3.8 shows the delisting status for specific wildlife species that have been delisted or are expected to be delisted by 2015.

In addition, endangered species that pose a threat to humans and livestock can be killed under certain circumstances. In 1967 gray and red wolves were listed as endangered, because centuries of extermination had severely depleted their numbers. (See Figure 3.4.) In the 1990s wolves were reintroduced to certain areas of the western United States and designated "nonessential experimental populations." This designation allowed government agencies and private citizens flexibility in controlling wolf populations. For example, wolves could be killed, moved, or harassed to protect domestic livestock. By 2002 wolf populations in some western states had reached the government's recovery goals. However, before the species can be delisted the USFWS requires that state and tribal governments have approved wolf management plans in place that will protect both the wolves and human interests.

INTERESTS OF HUMANS VERSUS THOSE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

Protecting endangered and threatened species becomes extremely controversial when it threatens human economic interests. One example is the northern spotted owl. Its primary habitat is among old-growth trees (greater than one hundred years old) in the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, which were heavily logged in the 1960s. John Weier reports in "Spotting the Spotted Owl" (June 15, 1999, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/SpottedOwls/) that in 1972 researchers at Oregon State University estimated that 85% to 90% of the owl's suitable habitat had already been eliminated. The researchers assessed the future harvest plans of major logging companies and learned that most of the remaining old-growth trees in these forests were also to be cut down. The resulting publicity caused a major showdown between environmental conservation groups and the logging industry.

Environmental activists chained themselves to trees and damaged logging equipment to protest removal of the old-growth forests. Protest marches captured national headlines. There was tremendous political pressure to protect the owl's remaining habitat, particularly because approximately half of it was on federal lands. Since the mid-1980s the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has tried to develop plans for managing federal forests in the Pacific Northwest that balance timber harvesting with habitat protection. Neither side has been happy with the proposals. The timber industry complains that protecting owls puts loggers out of work. Environmentalists believe that all old-growth forests can be saved. In 1990 the USFWS added the northern spotted owl to the federal list of threatened species. The decision followed years of study and lawsuits filed by environmental groups and representatives of the timber industry.

The legal battles continued throughout the 1990s. In 1994 the administration of President Bill Clinton formulated the Northwest Forest Plan as an attempt to satisfy both sides. The plan requires completion of biological surveys on dozens of plants and animals before logging is allowed on federal timberlands in the Northwest. It also includes other measures designed to protect owl habitat. Critics contend that this protection has a high human cost. According to Hal Bernton, in "Forest Service Halts Timber Sales in Northwest Spotted Owl Regions" (Oregonian, August 12, 1999), more than ten thousand jobs in the forest products industry were lost in Oregon and Washington between 1991 and 1998, as mills dependent on federal timber closed down.

In 2002 the Western Council of Industrial Workers and the American Resource Forest Council sued the USFWS over its spotted owl management policy. The groups claimed that the agency had undercounted the number of spotted owls in old-growth forests and that limits on timber harvesting in these areas were not needed. In response, the USFWS agreed to conduct a listing status review. All studies performed since 1990 on spotted owl habitats and populations were reviewed

again and summarized. In November 2004 the USFWS announced that the status review had reinforced the necessity of keeping the northern spotted owl listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Similar conflicts between conservation and economic interests have raged in the United States over the protection of other animal species. These include the snail darter (a fish inhabiting the Tennessee River valley), Florida's gopher tortoises, and Coho salmon and sucker fish in Oregon's Klamath River Basin.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

On the international front, endangered wild animals are protected by CITES. Under the Endangered Species Act, the United States participates in CITES to prohibit trade in listed species.

CITES includes three lists:

• Appendix I—Species for which no commercial trade is allowed. Noncommercial trade is permitted if it does not jeopardize species survival in the wild. Importers and exporters of Appendix I species must obtain permits.
• Appendix II—Species for which commercial trade is tightly regulated and managed with permits.
• Appendix III—Species that may be negatively impacted by commercial trade. Permits are used to monitor trade in these species.

Listing of any species in Appendix I or Appendix II requires approval by a two-thirds majority of CITES nations. The CITES appendices list thousands of animals from all over the world.

Animals of major concern internationally include Asian and African elephants and primates. In "Catastrophic Ape Decline in Western Equatorial Africa" (Nature, April 10, 2003), Peter D. Walsh et al. report that gorillas and chimpanzees in western Africa are on the verge of extinction because of poaching (illegal hunting) and the Ebola virus. Walsh et al. estimate that approximately 80% of all wild gorillas and most wild chimpanzees live in western Africa. Their populations had dropped by more than half since the 1980s and are expected to continue to decrease rapidly unless drastic action is taken.

Logging roads associated with deforestation allow poachers easy access to areas that were previously inaccessible. They supply the growing trade in bushmeat (meat from wild animals such as elephants, primates, antelope, and crocodiles). Although ape meat makes up only a tiny percentage of bushmeat, wild chimpanzees are in great danger from the trade. Scientists say that consumption of contaminated bushmeat has passed the Ebola virus from animals to people.

KILLING WILDLIFE

Wildlife all over the world are killed for various reasons, including sport, commerce, and perceived threats to human interests.

Recreational Hunting

Hunting was originally a means of survival for humans. As societies became more dependent on agriculture and livestock, hunting gradually became more an activity of leisure, recreation, and sport than survival (though many hunters do still use the meat they procure to make up varying degrees of their diets). The USFWS conducts a national survey on hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-related activities every five years. The latest survey was conducted in 2001 and published in 2002. According to the survey, more than thirteen million Americans aged sixteen and over hunted wildlife in 2001. The vast majority of hunters surveyed (nearly eleven million) pursued big game, such as deer, elk, bear, and wild turkey. (See Table 3.9.) Other popular game included rabbits, squirrels, pheasants, quail, grouse, doves, ducks, geese, groundhogs, raccoons, foxes, and coyotes.

Hunters use a variety of implements to kill animals, including rifles, shotguns, handguns, and bows and arrows. Animal welfarists argue about which methods they consider the least cruel and which are associated with the smallest number of nonfatal injuries. In general, they consider firearms more humane than bows and arrows.

In January 2004 the FFA released the report A Dying Sport: The State of Hunting in America. The report provides statistics on hunter demographics and expenditures and the number of animals killed by hunting each year. According to the FFA, the number of U.S. hunters declined by 7% between 1991 and 2001, even though expenditures for licenses, permits, and so on increased by 22%. The decline in numbers of hunters is attributed to the decrease in the country's rural population coupled with less availability of land for hunting.

The FFA also notes that in 2001 the vast majority (91%) of all hunters were male, and 97% were white. Nearly half of all hunters were between the ages of thirty-five and fifty-four. Hunters spent just over $642 million in 2001 on licenses, tags, and other fees required by state wildlife agencies. Total hunting expenditures were around $20.6 billion in 2001. Approximately half of this amount goes toward the cost of hunting equipment.

The FFA estimates that 115 million animals were killed by hunters during the 2002–03 hunting season. Table 3.10 provides a breakdown by species of the most hunted animals during the 2001–02 deer and 2002–03 nondeer hunting season. The animal protection group In Defense of Animals (IDA) claims that hunters injure millions of other animals, damage habitats, and disrupt the eating, migration, hibernation, and mating habits of protected animals. For example, the IDA (June 7, 2006, http://www.idausa.org/facts/hunting.html) estimates that for every animal killed instantly by hunters, at least two wounded animals die slow, painful deaths from hunting injuries. Furthermore, it states that careless hunters also kill and wound domestic animals and people each year.

TROPHY HUNTING AND CANNED HUNTS

Trophy hunting is the hunting of animals, particularly exotic (foreign) species, for collection of the carcasses or parts thereof (such as the head or horns) as trophies, or symbols, of the hunter's conquest over the animal. As shown in Figure 3.5, just over one third of all animal import permits issued by the USFWS during FY 2003 were for the purpose of trophy hunting.

One type of trophy hunting conducted by commercial enterprises is called canned hunting. This is a type of hunting in which animals are fenced in or otherwise enclosed in a space for the enjoyment of trophy hunters. Canned hunting dates back to at least the seventh century BC, when the Assyrians captured lions and then released them to be hunted to death.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) estimates that there are hundreds of canned hunt operators in the United States, mostly in Texas. Many offer a "no kill, no pay" policy. The most common animals involved in canned hunting are exotic species of antelope, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, swine, bears, zebra, and big cats. Hunters generally pay a set price for each exotic animal killed. Table 3.11 shows a price list compiled by the HSUS that gives the price range for various animals involved in canned hunts.

In August 2006 the country music singer Troy Lee Gentry was indicted by a federal grand jury for killing a bear named Cubby during a canned hunt in Minnesota and falsifying papers to make it appear that the bear was killed in the wild. According to "Troy Gentry Accused of Killing Tame Bear" (ABCNews.com, August 16, 2006), Gentry paid $4,650 for the bear. The killing was videotaped but edited so it appeared that Gentry killed the bear in a natural hunting situation. The article "Troy Gentry Pleads Guilty to Cubby the Bear Killing" (USA Today, November 27, 2006) states that in November 2006 Gentry pleaded guilty to falsifying records on a game animal and testified against the local hunting guide who had arranged the canned hunt. The guide pleaded guilty to two felony charges of violating wildlife laws. Gentry was assessed a $15,000 fine, was banned from hunting in Minnesota for five years, and had to relinquish the bear's hide, which he had kept as a trophy.

TABLE 3.11

Sample prices for canned hunts, by type of animal hunted, 2003

Antelope

Addax $1,200-$4,000

Antelope, Sable $3,000-$8,000

Blackbuck $750-$2,500

Blesbok $1,500-$3,000

Eland $1,200-$2,500

Gazelle, Grants $800-$2,000

Gazelle, Dama $800-$3,500

Gazelle, Thompsons $800-$2,400

Gemsbok $800-$3,500

Gnu $1,500-$4,000

Impala $1,000-$2,400

Kudu $3,500-$6,000

Nilgai $1,500

Oryx, horned Scimitar $1,500-$3,500

Oryx, Beisa $1,500-$3,500

Sitatunga $1,000-$2,500

Springbuck $800-$1,600

Waterbuck $1,500-$3,500

Cattle

Buffalo, Cape $4,000-$6,000

Buffalo, Water $3,500

Deer

Barsingha (E) $3,500

Deer, Axis $500-$1,500

Deer, Fallow $500-$1,500

Deer, Red $1,500-$6,000

Deer, Sika $700-$1,500

Goats

Goat, Angora $250-$325

Goat, Catalina $250-$325

Goat, Pygmy $350

Ibex $2,000

Tahr $2,500

Sheep

Aoudad $750-$2,000

Mouflon $400-$1,500

Sheep, Barbados $250-$350

Sheep, Corsican $250-$500

Sheep, Four-Horn $850

Swine

Wild Boar $200-$1,000

Miscellaneous

Rhinoceros (E—all except Southern white subspecies) $10,000-$20,000

Zebra, Grants $800-$2,000

Note: List is a composite based upon actual brochures/price lists from canned hunt operators.

E=Federally listed endangered species.

source: "Sample Prices for Canned Hunts," in Canned Hunts: Unfair at Any Price, Humane Society of the United States, 2003, http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/stop_canned_hunts/sample_prices_for_canned_hunts.html (accessed January 3, 2007)

In 2005 the first known canned hunt conducted via the Internet took place. According to the HSUS, in "The Latest Fad in Internet Animal Cruelty: Pay-Per-View Hunting" (April 8, 2005, http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/wildlife_news/pay_per_view_slaughter.html), a canned hunting ranch in Texas arranged for Internet users to fire shots at animals on the ranch via computer-controlled hunting rifles. The HSUS calls it "trophy hunting without the fuss and muss of having to hunt at all." Animal welfare and mainstream hunting groups have criticized the practice as unsportsmanlike. As of July 2006, twenty-three states had banned Internet hunting. (See Figure 3.6.)

The HSUS and other animal welfare groups are opposed to canned hunting. They consider it unsportsmanlike and cruel. Animal welfare groups believe that many relatively tame animals dumped by zoos, circuses, and exhibitors wind up victims of canned hunts. These animals are not afraid of humans and make easy targets for trophy hunters. There are many surplus exotic animals in the United States because of overbreeding. The HSUS believes that canned hunts provide a financial incentive that aggravates the problem. Unwanted and purposely overbred exotic animals are passed on by breeders and dealers to game and hunting preserves specializing in canned hunts.

According to the press release "Congress Shoots Down Taxidermy Tax Scam" (August 4, 2006, http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/congress _shoots_down_taxidermy.html), the HSUS spearheaded passage in 2006 of a provision in the Pension Reform Act that will tighten restrictions on trophy hunters that deduct certain hunting expenses from their taxes. A loophole in the tax code had allowed trophy hunters to deduct the costs of hunting excursions if the killed animal was donated to a museum. According to a two-year HSUS investigation, some trophy hunters were donating their kills to phony museums and writing off all costs for the hunting expedition on their taxes. Under the new provision trophy hunters donating their kills to museums can only deduct the amount that it would have cost to buy a comparable trophy on the open market, not the cost of the hunting trip. The law change is expected to save taxpayers nearly $5 million per year.

Wildlife Control

HUNTING AS A WILDLIFE CONTROL METHOD

Killing is often the control method of choice on federal lands, including national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other areas overseen by the USFWS, USFS, BLM, and the National Park Service. The USFWS notes in the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (October 2002, http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/FHW01.pdf) that 40% of hunters hunted on public lands in 2001.

Most people assume that national wildlife refuges are truly refuges, where animals are protected from hunting; however, federal law allows the government to permit secondary uses, such as hunting, on wildlife refuges if a review of the potential effects indicates that protected wildlife will not be adversely affected. Other allowed secondary uses include fishing, wildlife watching, and environmental education programs.

The USFWS notes in "Where Can I Go Hunting?" (December 2006, http://www.fws.gov/hunting/wherego.html) that hunting was permitted on 317 of the nation's 545 national wildlife refuges. Figure 3.7 shows the number of refuges open to hunting in each state. North Dakota has the most units (nineteen), followed by Alaska and Louisiana (sixteen each), Minnesota (fifteen), and Montana (fourteen).

The USFWS insists that hunting is necessary to manage wildlife populations. Animal rights advocates are opposed to all hunting and bitterly criticize the federal government for allowing hunting in national refuges. Welfare groups are openly skeptical that hunting is an effective solution to overpopulation. The IDA points out that hunters seek out not starving animals but large and healthy ones. It argues that hunting is not about conserving species but about human power, status, and collecting wild animal heads and antlers as trophies.

Deer are the animals most often associated with hunts designed to prevent overpopulation. The deer population has exploded in the latter part of the twentieth century for a variety of reasons, including lack of natural predators. The USFWS and state wildlife agencies commonly justify hunting as a humane method of killing deer that would otherwise starve because of overpopulation. They argue that death by hunting is more humane than allowing deer to slowly starve to death. Animal welfare groups believe that hunting actually aggravates population problems, claiming it upsets the natural ratio between bucks (male deer) and does (female deer) and results in higher reproduction rates. The IDA says that deer make up only a small percentage of the animals killed by hunters and claims that the vast majority of hunted wild species are not considered overpopulated. It believes that sport hunting should be banned and that natural predators, such as wolves and mountain lions, should be reintroduced wherever possible to control deer populations.

Hunters just as vigorously defend their sport and their role in conserving wildlife. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) and the Safari Club International (SCI) are major groups representing the interests of hunters. The USSA operates the Sportsmen's Legal Defense Fund (SLDF). The SLDF and the SCI intervene in lawsuits filed by antihunting groups against government wildlife management and natural resources agencies. The SCI also operates Sportsmen against Hunger, a program that donates wild game meat to hunger-relief agencies.

Hunting proponents note that hunting fees support government conservation programs. According to the "2005–2006 Federal Duck Stamp Fact Sheet" (2006, http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/federal/pdf/2005FactSheet.doc), the USFWS notes that the duck stamp has raised more than $700 million since its inception in 1934 and this money has purchased more than 5.2 million acres of land for the wildlife refuge system. Nearly $239 million in federal excise taxes on hunting equipment was collected for FY 2005. (See Table 3.12.) Most of this money (more than $219 million) was earmarked for distribution to individual states to support their wildlife management programs. Figure 3.8 shows the annual distribution of excise tax receipts from 1996 to 2005.

Critics claim that hunting fees account for only a small portion of the money required to operate the country's conservation programs and that the government uses money obtained from hunting fees to set aside more areas for hunting. They want greater focus on activities such as wildlife watching and environmental education at wildlife refuges.

The USFWS states in the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation that 66.1 million American adults observed, fed, or photographed wildlife in 2001. This is five times the number that hunted wildlife that year. These wildlife recreationists spent $38.4 billion on travel, equipment, and other items. This represents 35% of the total dollars spent on wildlife-related activities in 2001.

WILDLIFE TRAPPING

A killing method that receives much criticism from animal protection groups is the trapping of fur-bearing animals. Welfarists consider traps to be especially cruel because the panicked animals are often trapped for a long period before being discovered and killed; sometimes they chew off their own limbs to escape. Trapping is used as a control method on federal lands, including refuges. It is done by refuge staff, by trappers under contract to the refuges, and by members of the public who obtain special permits.

The Animal Protection Institute (API) examined USFWS data collected in 1997 as part of an investigative study of trapping at wildlife refuges around the country. The API (2007, http://www.bancrueltraps.com/b1_problem.php) claims that many nontarget species were captured in body-gripping traps at refuges, including river otters, feral and domestic cats and dogs, rabbits, geese, alligators, ducks, hawks, owls, eagles, and bears. Some of these animals were killed immediately by the trapping devices or died from injuries sustained during trapping. Others were released unharmed upon their discovery by the trappers.

Table 3.13 lists the states and cities around the country that have banned certain types of traps and snares, particularly old-fashioned leghold traps that use steel jaws to clamp down on the legs of trapped animals.

Fur and Other Products

Many wild animals are killed purely for their fur or parts. The most common wildlife commodities are:

• Fur from mink, beaver, foxes, rabbits, bears, and seals
• Hides from tigers, leopards, and other big cats
• Rhinoceros horns, reindeer antlers, snake blood, shark fins, various organs, and the penises from seals, tigers, and rhinoceros (these items are believed by some people to act as aphrodisiacs—supplements designed to enhance sexual performance)
• Bones, claws, paws, fangs, brains, eyeballs, tails, and internal organs from tigers (all are used in traditional Asian medicines)
• Bile from wild boars, bears, and snakes (used in aphrodisiacs and traditional Asian medicines)
• Elephant tusks (for ivory)
• Bear paws (considered a delicacy in some Asian countries)

SEALS

Most animals used in the fur trade are bred and raised in cages on farms. Some animals, however, are still trapped or killed in the wild, particularly seals. The killing of seals for fur was a high-profile issue of the animal rights movement during the 1970s. Greenpeace activists traveled to hunting areas to splash dye on seals and draw media attention to their slaughter.

The killing of seals caught public attention because seals—usually babies only a few weeks old—on ice floes were usually clubbed in the head, then dragged with hooks across the ice. Animal welfarists who witnessed seal hunts claimed to have seen seals skinned while still alive and conscious. Seal hunters argued that clubbing was humane and killed the seals quickly. Seals swimming in the water were shot instead of clubbed. Critics claimed that many of these seals were injured and drowned after they sank below the surface.

In 1972 the United States banned all imports of seal products. A decade later the European Union put strict importation limits on seal pelts. As a result, Canada's seal fur industry was virtually eliminated. However, Clifford Krauss reports in "New Demand Drives Canada's Baby Seal Hunt" (New York Times, April 5, 2004) that Canada's seal fur industry became larger than ever because of high demand from eastern Europe and China. Krauss notes that baby seals are still clubbed to death on the ice, but new regulations mean that only seals older than two weeks are subject to the hunt. At this age the seals have lost their pure white fur and developed a gray spotted coat. According to Krauss, the renewed hunt has not aroused widespread public protest because "tougher hunting rules, including stiffer regulations to avert skinning the seals alive, have muted the effort to stop the hunt and eased the consciences of Canadians."

TABLE 3.14

Animal organizations worldwide that support the Protect Seals Network, 2006

• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
• Anima (Denmark)
• Animal (Portugal)
• Animalia (Finland)
• Animal Alliance of Canada
• Animal Friends Croatia
• Animal Protection Institute (API) (USA)
• Animal Rights Sweden
• Asociacion Nacional Para la Defensa de los Animales (ANDA, Spain)
• Bont Voor Dieren (Fur for Animals, The Netherlands)
• Born Free Foundation (United Kingdom)
• CETA (Life, Ukraine)
• Compassion in World Farming (CIWF, Ireland)
• Dyrevernalliansen (Norwegian Animal Welfare Alliance)
• Earth Island Institute (USA)
• Environment Voters (Canada)
• Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
• The Franz Weber Foundation (Switzerland)
• Fundación Altarriba (Spain)
• Fondation 30 Millions d'Amis (France)
• GAIA (Belgium)
• Global Action Network (Canada)
• Greenpeace
• The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
• International Wildlife Coalition (IWC)
• Asian, Australian, and United Kingdom branches of Humane Society International (HSI)
• LAV (Lega Anti Vivisezione, Italy)
• The Marine Mammal Center (USA)
• Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USA)
• Marchig Animal Welfare Trust (United Kingdom)
• Nova Scotia Humane Society (Canada)
• Ocean Futures Society (USA)
• One Voice (France)
• Organization International pour la Protection des Animaux (France)
• Respect for Animals (United Kingdom)
• Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA, United Kingdom)
• Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (USA)
• STS/PSA (Schweizer Tierschutz/Protection Suisse des Animaux/Swiss Animal Protection)
• Svoboda Zvirat (Freedom for Animals, Czech Republic)
• Vancouver Humane Society (Canada)
• Vier Pfoten e.V. (Germany)
• VITA (Russia)
• World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)

source: "The Protect Seals Network," in Marine Mammals: The Protect Seals Network, Humane Society of the United States, 2006, http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/protect_seals/the_protect_seals_network.html (accessed December 28, 2006)

In 2004 many animal welfare and rights groups launched new campaigns against Canadian seal hunting. Dozens of groups, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, HSUS, FFA, and Greenpeace, joined together to form the Protect Seals Network. (See Table 3.14.) The network calls for a boycott of Canadian seafood to protest the seal hunt. According to the HSUS, in "A Cruel Hunt That Must Be Stopped" (2007, http://www.hsus.org/protect_seals.html), more than 354,000 seals were killed in the 2006 Canadian seal hunt in the North Atlantic ocean.

BIG CATS

There is a huge market for wild animal parts throughout Asia, particularly in China. Many parts are used in traditional remedies for various illnesses and diseases. In addition, animal penises are sold as aphrodisiacs. The animal most sought after is the tiger. Tiger hides sell for as much $20,000 each, and tiger bones are ground up and used in medicines for rheumatism and arthritis. Tiger penises are used in aphrodisiacs, soups, and various medicines.

Tigers are listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Leopards are classified as either endangered or threatened, depending on the location of the wild population. According to the USFWS, many tigers are worth more dead than alive. The animals breed easily in captivity and have been extremely overbred in the United States. Baby tigers are popular at zoos and animal parks, but they grow up quickly and are expensive to care for as adults. Unwanted and overbred tigers from zoos, refuges, and game parks can wind up in the hands of unscrupulous dealers who kill the animals for their valuable parts. Federal law allows the possession of captive-bred tigers, but only if their use enhances the propagation or survival of the species. It is illegal to kill the animals for profit or sell their parts, meat, or hide in interstate commerce. It is not illegal to donate the animals.

ELEPHANTS

Ivory is a hard, creamy white substance found in the tusks of African elephants and some male Asian elephants. Demand for ivory was so high during the twentieth century that hundreds of thousands of elephants were poached (illegally killed) for it. Conservation groups estimate that more than half the population of African elephants was wiped out during the 1980s alone. In 1990 an international ban on ivory trade was established under CITES. Although the ban helped to severely reduce elephant poaching, it did not eliminate the problem. In "Elephant Poaching and Ivory Seizures" (2007, http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/wildlife_trade/elephant_trade_fact_sheet/elephant_poaching_and_ivory_seizures/), the HSUS reports that during 2001 and early 2002 at least 965 African elephants and 39 Asian elephants were poached and had their ivory tusks removed. It is believed that hundreds of elephants are still killed illegally each year for their ivory.

In 1997 CITES restrictions were loosened to allow some countries to sell surplus quantities of ivory. Hillary Mayell notes in "Enlist Ivory Carvers to Help Save Elephants?" (National Geographic News, June 26, 2003) that approximately two hundred tons of ivory were stockpiled in more than a dozen African and Asian countries by 1998. This ivory accumulated through seizures from poachers and from legitimate sources, such as elephants that died from natural causes or were legally killed by game wardens. Countries with large wild elephant populations are pressing the international community to allow them to sell ivory reserves to finance expensive elephant conservation programs. Animal welfare groups fear that releasing large amounts of ivory into the market will raise demand for ivory and reinvigorate illegal trade and poaching.

A LARGE PROBLEM

International trade in exotic animals and their parts is a multibillion-dollar industry. TRAFFIC is an organization that monitors worldwide wildlife trade. According to TRAFFIC (2006, http://www.traffic.org/wildlife/wild4.htm), the worldwide trade in wildlife products was worth approximately $160 billion per year during the early 1990s.

Whaling and Fishing

WHALING

Whaling has been an industry in northern seas for hundreds of years. The oil and blubber from whales were popular commodities in many markets. By the beginning of the twentieth century whaling had taken a significant toll on whale populations. The United States banned commercial whaling in 1928. In 1946 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was founded by twenty-four member countries (including the United States) as a means of self-regulating the industry and limiting the number and type of whales that could be killed. In 1986 all IWC countries agreed to ban commercial whaling after most whale populations were placed under Appendix I of the CITES agreement. Whaling was still allowed for "scientific purposes," however.

Conservation and animal rights groups have complained for years that some IWC countries, particularly Japan, kill many whales under this loophole. Whalers and some scientists say that some whale species are not endangered and should be subjected to controlled hunts.

In 2002 Iceland rejoined the IWC after dropping out in 1991, but with the reservation that it would not support a ban on commercial whaling. This started an internal battle within the IWC about what the commission's role should be. Some countries believe that the IWC's focus should be entirely on conservation. Others would like to see the IWC become more industry-friendly. In "Iceland Begins Commercial Whaling" (BBC News, October 17, 2006), Richard Black reports that in 2006 Iceland announced that it will resume commercial whaling and plans to take nine fin whales (an endangered species) and thirty minke whales annually. As of January 2007, seventy-two countries were members of the IWC.

RECREATIONAL FISHING

In the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, the USFWS reports that the number of U.S. hunters was down considerably in 2001 from historical levels. However, as shown in Figure 3.9, the number of people participating in recreational/sport fishing (or angling) has risen dramatically since 1955, the year in which the first survey was conducted. In the figure, the 1955 participant estimates are set to an arbitrary index value of one hundred. The number of participants in successive surveys was then calculated relative to the beginning index value. Thus, by 1975 the number of Americans participating in recreational fishing had doubled and continued to climb through the early 1990s, before beginning to decline.

In 1950 the federal government established the Sport Fish Restoration Program following passage of the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. This program funnels excise tax receipts from the sale of certain fishing and boating equipment to various state and federal programs and agencies devoted to furthering sports fishing. As shown in Table 3.15, nearly $461 million was collected for FY 2005. More than half of the money ($273 million) was earmarked for state agency spending on sport fishing programs. Figure 3.10 shows the annual amounts collected through the Sport Fish Restoration Program for FYs 1996 through 2005.

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Commercial fishing of many species is blamed for a host of environmental and conservation problems in the world's oceans. Overfishing and poor management have caused severe declines in some populations. In "Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities" (Nature, May 15, 2003), Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm report that commercial fishing has decreased the world's population of large predatory ocean fishes by 90%. These fish include blue marlin, cod, tuna, and swordfish. Scientists find that the most sought-after species were quickly diminished by overfishing and then replaced by less desirable species. These replacement species were also depleted quickly. Technological advances such as global positioning systems and sonar have allowed commercial fisherman to better find and follow great schools of fish in previously uncharted waters.

Another criticism of commercial fishing is that it endangers marine mammals and other fish besides those the fisherman want to catch. Experts estimate that thousands of nontarget specimens are killed each year after becoming entangled in fishing nets and devices. According to Earthtrust (August 31, 2005, http://www.earthtrust.org/fsa.html), a nonprofit wildlife conservation organization headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, approximately seven million dolphins were killed between 1959 and 1991 because of purse-seining in the eastern tropical Pacific. Purse-seining is a fishing technique in which giant nets are encircled around schools of fish. It is a popular way to capture tuna. Schools of tuna are fre-quently accompanied by pods of dolphins. In fact, some fishermen chase and set their nets around dolphins to capture the nearby tuna. Because dolphins are mammals, they require air to breathe. The dolphins can get caught and drown in the nets. Negative publicity about the problem during the 1980s led consumers to demand changes in tuna fishing and labeling.

In 1990 the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act was passed, establishing an official definition of "dolphin-safe" tuna. Canners must meet certain criteria before they can label their tuna dolphin-safe, and U.S. fishermen modified their fishing techniques to meet the criteria. Purse-seine fishing is still widely practiced by foreign fishing industries, particularly in Mexico and South America.

In 2002 the NMFS (December 31, 2002, http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2002/dec02/noaa02168.html) announced its finding that the tuna purse-seine industry has "no significant adverse impact" on dolphin populations in the eastern tropical Pacific. This finding allows foreign fishermen using the technique to import their fish into the United States as dolphin-safe if an onboard observer certifies that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the catch.

Critics claim that purse-seine fishing is inhumane to dolphins even if they are released from the nets alive because it can separate baby dolphins from their mothers. In January 2003 the Earth Island Institute and eight other environmental, conservation, and animal welfare groups (including the HSUS) filed suit against the NMFS in federal court to halt implementation of the ruling. In August 2004 a federal judge ruled that the "dolphin-safe" label could not be used on any tuna products caught by netting dolphins.

RESCUE AND REHABILITATION OF WILDLIFE

A variety of individuals, groups, and agencies are involved in rescue or rehabilitation of wildlife. Most state wildlife and fish and game agencies operate rehabilitation programs and require private individuals and groups rehabilitating and releasing native wildlife to be licensed. In addition, the USFWS requires federal permits for those rehabilitating migratory bird species.

The HSUS operates the five-acre Cape Wildlife Center in West Barnstable, Massachusetts. The center includes a wildlife rehabilitation facility and a veterinary clinic for injured, sick, and orphaned wild animals. Although the center is not open to the public, it operates a hotline to answer questions and offer suggestions about ways in which wildlife and humans can coexist.

The Association of Sanctuaries (TAOS) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1992 to accredit sanctuaries that rescue and care for all kinds of animals, including wild animals. The rescued animals are not used for commercial purposes or allowed to breed in captivity. As of January 2007 twenty-two TAOS-accredited sanctuaries in the United States rehabilitated and released or provided sanctuary for wild animals that could not be returned to their natural habitat (http://www.taosanctuaries.org/sanctuaries/atoz.htm). These include unwanted exotic pets and circus and zoo animals. One example is the Elephant Sanctuary near Hohenwald, Tennessee. It was founded in 1995 as the country's first natural habitat refuge specifically for endangered Asian and African elephants. As of January 2007, the 2,700-acre sanctuary housed twenty-three female elephants.

There are hundreds of other rescue and rehabilitation facilities around the country. Many are nonprofit, taxexempt operations run by individuals or animal groups. The quality of care offered by these facilities depends on the expertise of the staff and the funds available. The HSUS is critical of some of these facilities. In "Neglecting over 90 Tigers, 58 Cubs Found Stuffed into Freezer" (April 22, 2003, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/1275/), Wayne Pacelle, the vice president of HSUS, said, "We call them pseudo-sanctuaries. They're primarily engaged in commercial activities while passing themselves off as a nonprofit."

CHAPTER 3
WILDLIFE

Wildlife are animals that have not been domesticated by humans. This does not mean that wild animals live without human interference. Humans control, manage, manipulate, use, and kill wildlife for various reasons. Humans tend to think of wild animals in terms of the threat they pose to people or the value they hold for them.

Some wildlife threaten human safety, health, property, and/or quality of life. This is true of large carnivores (lions, tigers, alligators, etc.), poisonous snakes and spiders, disease-carrying animals, and animals that endanger moving vehicles. In addition, there are carnivores (like coyotes and bobcats) that prey on livestock and pets, herbivores that eat crops and lawns, beavers that dam up streams, and wild animals that invade or damage human spaces. Many rodents, skunks, rabbits, deer, and birds are considered "nuisance" animals.

But many wild animals, even dangerous ones, have value to humans. This value might be economic, educational, or emotional in nature. Valuable wildlife fall into these categories:

• Wild animals that produce products people want to eat, wear, or use. This category includes deer, buffalo, elk, wildfowl, fur-bearing creatures, many fish and marine mammals, and animals such as tigers and bears with bones and organs that are used in traditional medicines.
• Wild animals that humans kill for sport through hunting or fishing. In the United States people primarily hunt native game, such as deer, bears, rabbits, squirrels, and waterfowl. Exotic (foreign) animals are imported and killed at some hunting ranches (called "canned hunts" because the hunters pay to participate and are guaranteed to kill the animals). African lions and giraffes, antelopes, gazelles, Cape buffaloes, Corsican sheep, and Angora goats are some of the most popular. Sport fish include a variety of freshwater and saltwater species.
• Wild animals that can be manipulated to do labor or entertain people. For example, elephants are used as beasts of burden in many Asian countries. They also perform in circuses and shows, along with bears, primates, birds, lions, tigers, dolphins, seals, whales, and other trainable animals. Some wild animals even have military uses, particularly dolphins, whales, and sea lions.
• Wild animals that humans enjoy watching, hearing, feeding, or photographing. This category is very diverse and ranges from songbirds in the backyard to whales in the open sea. (See Figure 3.1.) It includes a variety of animals that humans can encounter in the wild and at refuges, sanctuaries, zoos, parks, and entertainment venues.
• Wild animals that are useful in scientific and medical research. These include primates and some strains of rats, mice, and rabbits.
• Wild animals kept as pets. This includes a wide variety of species, some of which are dangerous to humans. Keeping wild animals as pets is highly controversial and, in many states, illegal.

Most animal rights advocates believe that wild animals should not be used at all—not for food, clothing, entertainment, companionship, or any other purpose. They consider wild animals not commodities but free beings with the right to live undisturbed in their natural habitats. Animal welfarists are concerned that wild animals are exploited and mistreated because of human greed and ignorance. They work to publicize the fate of animals in captivity and to save them from mistreatment.

Most people consider wildlife a valuable natural resource, like water or coal. They may disagree about how wild animals should be used, but they generally agree that humans have the right to use them, especially if the supply is plentiful. Wild species threatened by extinction are a different matter, however, as many people rally to conserve them. Successful conservation ensures that the species will continue to thrive in the future.

Every aspect of wildlife-human interaction raises questions in the animal rights debate. For example:

• The American bison was nearly extinct in the nineteenth century. Thanks to conservationists, the species was saved and is even thriving. In the early 2000s bison burgers were sold at trendy restaurants. Is it acceptable to save an endangered species and then eat it?
• The government allows people to kill deer to keep the population down. Otherwise, lack of food could lead to starvation among the deer population. Is hunting deer more humane than letting them starve?
• Many people enjoy experiencing wildlife up close for its entertainment and educational value. Should wild animals be kept in captivity to satisfy this desire?

These are just some of the major questions in the animal rights debate.

HISTORY

Prehistoric humans constantly struggled with wild-life. Both sides were sometimes predators and sometimes prey, but humans quickly tipped the balance in their favor with two big advantages—superior intellect and weapons. Many of the large mammals of prehistoric times, such as mammoths, became extinct. Some archeologists, such as Dr. Brian Kooyman of the University of Calgary, believe that overhunting, in combination with climate and environmental factors, may have played a role in those extinctions. When societies became agricultural, some wild species were domesticated. These animals, such as sheep, goats, and cattle, had to be protected from wild animals.

As humans gained more control over nature, they began using wild animals not just as a food source but as a source of labor and entertainment. Elephants became beasts of burden. Mongooses and birds of prey were trained to be hunting assistants. Some lions, tigers, and bears were kept in cages to entertain or educate humans. Dangerous animals that could not be contained were often eliminated.

Eventually, governments declared their authority over wild animal populations. Some ancient rulers enacted game laws to allow species to multiply. The explorer Marco Polo described a law of Chinese ruler Kublai Khan (1215–94) that prohibited the killing of deer, rabbits, and large waterfowl during certain months to allow the species time to replenish.

Other rulers restricted the hunting of the most desirable animals to the upper social classes. Under English law, wildlife was the property of royalty. Members of the lower classes were permitted to hunt only low-value animals like rabbits. Big game were reserved for the upper classes. English royalty had exclusive hunting rights until 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed.

Wildlife in the United States

Problems with wildlife management plagued the first European colonists in the New World. Historical records show that the colonists fought off animal predators, including wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, and mountain lions. They also lost domesticated animals to wild predators. Livestock, particularly hogs, sometimes wandered away and lived in the wild. Their offspring were feral animals (animals born and living in the wild that are descendants of domesticated animals). The colonists killed wild and feral animals whenever they could because they were a threat to livestock and crops. The colonists found wolves to be particularly bothersome. Early governing bodies established wolf bounty acts that paid people for killing wolves. Virginia had a wolf bounty act as early as 1632. It paid colonists and Native Americans for every wolf head they presented.

By the early 1700s official hunting seasons for certain species were established in some colonies. Over the next century, state governments set up fish and game departments and enacted hunting restrictions, requiring licenses and setting limits on the number of some species that could be killed during each hunting season.

ANIMALS DRIVEN TO THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION—OR BEYOND.

Colonization severely depleted the ranks of some native wild species through a combination of over-hunting and disease. The introduction of livestock brought new animal diseases that were devastating to some native species. Passenger pigeons and heath hens died out altogether. Bison, elk, and beaver stocks were severely diminished, though they did not become extinct.

Passenger pigeons were once extremely abundant in North America. Biologists estimate that there were billions of them in the United States in the early 1800s. The migratory birds traveled in enormous flocks, and an individual hunter could shoot thousands of them in one outing. They were extremely popular for food, and their numbers begin to dwindle dramatically. The last known passenger pigeon died in the Cincinnati Zoo on September 1, 1914.

Heath hens were small wild fowl prized for the meat they provided. Although once very common in the eastern United States, heath hens were virtually eliminated by the 1870s. The only surviving colony lived on the tiny island Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. This habitat was made a protected sanctuary, and the birds began to multiply. But during the early 1900s heath hens were decimated by forest fires, harsh winters, diseases contracted from domesticated turkeys, and natural predators. The last known heath hen died in 1932.

Bison once roamed the American West in the millions. Many were killed by colonists and Native Americans during the 1800s. Bison tongue was a highly prized delicacy, and the hides were valued as well. Many bison also died from diseases brought to the United States by domestic cattle. By the end of the nineteenth century, fewer than 1,000 bison were left. Conservation areas established by the U.S. government protected the last remaining herds and allowed them to repopulate. Similar efforts were required for elk and beaver because both species were also nearly hunted to extinction during the 1800s.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT.

Late in the nineteenth century people began to become aware of the value of natural resources, such as land, water, and wildlife, and worked to conserve wilderness spaces and protect them from development. According to Professor Daniel Edge of Oregon State University, the most important representatives of the conservation movement include:

• John Muir (1838–1914) established the Sierra Club in 1892 and worked toward the creation of Yosemite National Park. (See Figure 3.2.)
• President Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) set aside millions of acres of land under federal government control for national refuges, forests, and parks.
• Gifford Pinchot (1865–1946) was a firm believer in conservation and a key adviser to Theodore Roosevelt. (See Figure 3.3.)
• Aldo Leopold (1887–1948) wrote Game Management in 1933, the first known publication on the science of wildlife management.
• Ding Darling (1876–1962) advocated the restoration of wetlands and waterfowl habitats and was the driving force behind many wildlife protection programs and laws.

Early conservationists initiated programs that helped wild animals by preserving natural habitats, but they were not always motivated by the same concerns that drove people involved in the animal welfare movement. Many prominent conservationists were avid hunters. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt enjoyed hunting big game. Aldo Leopold also hunted and said that it gave him a deep appreciation and respect for wild animals. Many welfarists were (and are) opposed to hunting for sport. The ethical battle over hunting that began between conservationists and welfarists in the nineteenth century continues today.

THE GOVERNMENT ENACTS REGULATION LAWS.

In the twentieth century dozens of federal laws were enacted that regulated wildlife. Table 3.1 lists the most notable ones. The first federal wildlife law was the Lacey Act of 1900, which banned the transportation of illegally taken wildlife across state lines. It also established regulations regarding the importation of wildlife into the country. Many laws were designed to fund conservation efforts through hunting fees. For example, the Duck Stamp Act of 1934 required people to purchase a stamp before they could hunt waterfowl. The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 added a special tax on guns and ammunition.

By the early twenty-first century wildlife in the United States was extensively regulated. As of 2005, more than a hundred federal laws had been passed dealing with the control, preservation, eradication, and management of wildlife. Some laws pertain directly to particular species, while others address preservation of habitat and use of federal lands.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT
CONTROL WILDLIFE

In the United States, wildlife issues are overseen by various federal and state agencies. At the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the primary agency. Originally called the U.S. Fish Commission, the USFWS was formed in 1871 to examine problems with declining food-fish stocks and recommend remedies. In 1903 the agency was given oversight of the first national

wildlife refuge, Pelican Island, a three-acre bird sanctuary in Sebastian, Florida.

As of January 2005, the USFWS managed ninety-five million acres in 545 refuges in the National Wild-life Refuge System. It also manages migratory bird conservation, oversees thousands of wetlands and other management areas, and operates dozens of national fish hatcheries, fishery resources offices, and ecological services field stations. The USFWS administers and enforces the following federal wildlife laws:

• The Lacey Act prohibits interstate and international shipment of illegally taken wildlife.
• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act bans the taking, possession, purchase, sale, or barter of any migratory birds and their feathers, eggs, nests, or parts.
• The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act requires all waterfowl hunters aged sixteen and up to possess a Federal Duck Stamp.
• The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act distributes to state fish and wildlife agencies money obtained from federal excise taxes on hunting equipment. The states use these funds to acquire, develop, and manage wildlife habitats; educate hunters; develop and manage shooting ranges; and restore wild birds and animals.
• The Eagle Protection Act prohibits the import, export, taking, sale, purchase, or barter of bald and golden eagles.
• The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act distributes to state fish and wildlife agencies money obtained from federal excise taxes on fishing and boating equipment. The states use these funds to manage sport fishing, boating access, and aquatic education programs.
• The Endangered Species Act lists, protects, and recovers endangered and threatened fish, wildlife, and plants.
• The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits taking and importing marine mammals, including sea otters, walruses, polar bears, dugongs, and manatees.
• The Wild Bird Conservation Act addresses international trade in wild-caught birds.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act establishes wildlife conservation as the primary goal of the refuge system, but recognizes recreational uses, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife watching and photography, and environmental education as priority public uses of the system.

The USFWS works with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to monitor wildlife trade and stop illegal shipments of protected plants and animals. It also enforces the country's participation in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This international agreement regulates the importing and exporting of thousands of species. Other federal agencies involved in controlling wild populations include the Wildlife Services (WS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Land Reclamation (BLR), and the National Park Service. WS is the primary federal agency in charge of controlling wildlife that can damage agriculture, property, and natural resources or threaten public health and safety. WS operates the National Wild-life Research Center (NWRC) in Fort Collins, Colorado.

THE GOALS OF GOVERNMENT
WILDLIFE REGULATION

Wildlife control efforts in the United States have historically focused on protecting human interests and preserving endangered species. Human interests include health and safety and also property and resources—livestock, crops, trees, lawns, structures, water, food supplies, vehicles, pets, and so forth. Wild animals that threaten any of these are subject to removal or elimination. In the past, control was left up to private citizens, who could kill any wild animals that they considered a threat. Today, most control efforts are led or managed by government agencies. For example, hunting requires a license and payment of fees. However, private citizens may legally kill some wildlife that are considered pests (such as rodents) in and around their homes or businesses.

Protecting Health and Safety

Violent confrontations between wild animals and people are relatively rare in contemporary times. Of greater concern is the danger from zoonotic diseases. These are diseases that can be passed from animals to people. Zoonotic diseases associated with wild animals include rabies, West Nile virus, Lyme disease, bovine tuberculosis, chlamydiosis, histoplasmosis, salmonellosis, and granulocytic ehrlichiosis.

One of the most feared diseases is rabies. Rabies killed an average of 100 people annually in the early twentieth century, but a combination of control methods greatly reduced its threat. By the end of the century, only one or two people died each year from the disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducts rabies epidemiology (the study of the distribution and causes of disease in populations). The latest CDC report available includes rabies data from 2001. According to the CDC, there were 7,437 confirmed cases of animal rabies in the United States in 2001. Wild animals accounted for 93% of these cases. (See Figure 3.4.) Raccoons, skunks, and bats were the most common wild animals reported to carry rabies.

The CDC reported that were thirty-six confirmed cases of human fatalities due to rabies in the United States between 1990 and 2002. The vast majority were linked to bat bites. In June 2004 three people died of rabies contracted from organ transplant surgery. The organ donor had died of a brain hemorrhage. Rabies testing was not part of the routine screening conducted prior to organ donation. Laboratory testing performed after the transplant recipients died indicated that the rabies virus present was a type commonly associated with bats.

As shown in Figure 3.4, the number of rabies cases reported in wild animals greatly increased between the mid-1970s and 2001. This was because of an epidemic of rabies in raccoons in the mid-Atlantic states. This type of epidemic that affects many of the same species of animals is called an epizootic. According to the CDC, the rabies epizootic in raccoons began in 1977 along the border between Virginia and West Virginia. It spread quickly to neighboring states and reached Canada in 1999. State and federal wildlife officials began using baits laden with oral rabies vaccine (ORV) in the early 1990s. Between 1997 and 2003, more than thirteen million doses of ORV were placed in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. More than four million ORV doses were distributed during 2003 alone, as shown in Figure 3.5. Wildlife authorities hope to create a barrier to prevent the epizootic from spreading westward.

Scientists have become increasingly concerned about emerging and resurging zoonotic diseases. In May 2003, for example, doctors in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois reported that several patients had contracted monkeypox from infected prairie dogs purchased as pets. Monkeypox is a disease similar to smallpox, though it is far less lethal to humans. Scientists believe that the prairie dogs caught the disease after being exposed to Gambian rats from Africa in an exotic pet store. Monkeypox is found in Africa but previously did not exist in the Western Hemisphere.

Another emerging disease associated with wild animals is severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). SARS is a deadly flu-like virus believed to have originated in China. In April 2003 researchers reported that the virus had been found in six palm civet cats purchased at a live animal market in southern China. Palm civets are not really cats but are related to mongooses. They are considered a delicacy in Chinese cuisine. Scientists fear that SARS may have originated in these or other wild animals and then jumped to humans. According to the CDC, the SARS virus infected just over 8,000 people during 2003, killing 774. Most of the deaths were in Asia and Canada. Only eight people in the United States contracted the disease. All had recently traveled to countries affected by the SARS outbreak. In April 2004 Chinese authorities reported four additional cases of the disease. All of the infected people were reportedly scientists or laboratory workers who had been conducting research on the disease.

Besides diseases, humans face dangers posed by collisions between moving vehicles and wild animals and birds. Wildlife Services reported in 2001 that more than one million collisions between deer and automobiles occur each year, injuring approximately 29,000 people and killing 200. The Journal of Wildlife Management noted in its July 2004 issue that 46,514 collisions between wildlife and civil aircraft were reported to the Federal Aviation Administration from 1990 through 2002. These collisions had associated costs of approximately $489 million annually. Birds were involved in 97% of the collisions. Although multiple species of birds can be involved in a single incident, aircraft collisions were most commonly associated with waterfowl and raptors. Wildlife and aircraft collisions caused 140 human deaths between 1990 and 2000.

Protecting Property and Pleasure

Wildlife Services estimated in 2001 that wildlife cause $600 million to $1.6 billion worth of damage annually to agriculture. Each year, farmers and ranchers lose thousands of calves and lambs, worth more than $71 million, to wild predators such as coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimated in November 2001 that 273,000 sheep and lambs, 147,000 cattle and calves, and 61,000 goats and kids were lost to wild predators in 1999. Coyotes are blamed for the majority of the losses. Wild predators are primarily a problem in western states where ranchers graze their livestock on open rangelands. According to a 2002 report from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (Wildlife Services: The Facts about Wildlife Damage Management), wildlife also eat and damage more than $110 million worth of commercially grown berries and flowers annually.

The same APHIS report noted that collisions between deer and automobiles cause more than $1 billion worth of damage to vehicles each year. According to the Journal of Wildlife Management, collisions between wildlife and civil aircraft had associated costs of approximately $489 million annually from 1990 through 2002.

In 2001 the GAO did an extensive investigation into wildlife damage across the country. Table 3.2 lists wild-life problems reported by each state. Birds, especially Canada geese, are a problem in thirty-nine states. Coyotes are mentioned as an issue in twenty states. Beavers are considered a problem in seventeen states.

Federal and state wildlife agencies use a variety of direct control methods to deal with so-called nuisance wildlife, including relocation, poisons, sharpshooters, contraceptives, and repellents. Table 3.3 summarizes the methods used by the WS during fiscal year 2003 for dispersing or killing animals. The agency dispersed 68.5 million animals, primarily by chemical methods. Nearly 1.7 million animals were killed. Table 3.4 lists the types of animals killed by species.

Government agencies also indirectly control wildlife by issuing hunting permits and allowing recreational hunts to take place. Lethal control methods employed by wildlife agencies are described in government publications as "depopulating" or "harvesting" surplus animals.

Controversies over Government Control of Wildlife

Animal rights and welfare groups maintain that government wildlife agencies rely far too much on killing as a control method. The WS denies this and claims that 75% of the NWRC's 2001 budget was spent on developing or improving nonlethal controls. One example is called the Electronic Guard. This device uses sirens and strobe lights to frighten coyotes away from sheep and lamb herds. The WS says that it successfully dispersed nearly four million birds during fiscal year 2000 using nonlethal methods. According to a fiscal year 2002 fact sheet, "USDA Wildlife Services Protects Wildlife," the agency claims that it only uses lethal methods when nonlethal methods have proved ineffective and that it "strives to select the method that will kill the predator in the quickest and most humane way possible."

Critics say that overuse of lethal methods actually aggravates problems because predators naturally respond by producing more offspring. The WS denies that this is the case. In a 2002 bulletin titled "Wildlife Services: The Facts about Wildlife Damage Management," the WS cited a study published in Carnivores in Ecosystems: The Yellowstone Experience (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), which found that coyote litter size "appears largely unaffected by levels of human exploitation." According to studies cited by the WS, habitat conditions and abundance of food are the determining factors in predator litter sizes.

PROBLEM BIRDS.

Animal protection groups are growing increasingly concerned about the eradication efforts being waged against wild birds. A prime example involves mute swan populations in Maryland. In May 2003 the group Fund for Animals (FFA) filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the state of Maryland from killing thousands of mute swans in Chesapeake Bay. Officials believed that relocation and repellents were not good options in this case. They hoped to donate the swan meat to food programs for the poor. The swans were blamed for eating aquatic vegetation essential to natural habitats in Chesapeake Bay. According to the FFA, the mute swans are being unfairly blamed for vegetation damage. The organization claims that waste discharges from chicken farms and sewage treatment plants located around the bay kill more vegetation than the swans.

The FFA suit alleged that killing the swans violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the International Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds. The suit also claimed that the department did not allow the public to review and comment on the plan. The state agreed to postpone the swan

kill until an environmental review could be conducted. As of January 2005 the review had not been performed.

Mute swans are not native to the United States but were introduced in the nineteenth century from Europe and Asia. In December 2004 the U.S. Congress passed a

massive omnibus spending bill that included a rider directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue regulations designating wild birds as native or non-native. Non-native birds would then be excluded from protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Animal protection groups fear that thousands of mute swans across the Atlantic seaboard will be subject to elimination once that happens.

Wildlife agencies in many northern states are dealing with problems caused by large Canada geese populations. The geese are fond of manicured grassy areas located near water, making city parks and golf courses favored habitats. The problem is that each goose can deposit up to three pounds of droppings per day. The resulting mess has resulted in massive control efforts in some areas. In 2000 the City of Seattle launched a controversial program in which geese in city parks were captured and gassed by wildlife officers.

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, more than 5,600 geese were killed in the Seattle area between 2000 and 2003 (Matthew Craft, Moratorium on Goose Kill Is Possible—Next Year, June 12, 2003). In addition, thousands of geese eggs were addled (rubbed with oil to suffocate the embryos or shaken vigorously). City officials credited the program with decreasing the geese population by 75%.

The program to gas the geese was strongly opposed by animal protection groups. Activists from the group Give Geese a Chance harassed wildlife officers and erected a large banner listing the home phone number of the Seattle Park Director. In June 2003 representatives from the Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) met with city officials to discuss more humane alternatives for controlling the geese. During 2004 volunteers using dogs and laser pointing devices

patrolled the city's parks chasing geese away from manicured grassy areas. No geese were gassed during 2004. Animal protection groups insisted that humane methods could have been employed all along instead of gassing. However, city officials said that humane control methods were only effective once the geese population was reduced to a manageable level by gassing.

PROBLEM HORSES.

Wild horse and burro populations on public lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As Table 3.5 shows, there were more than 37,000 of these animals scattered across the western states as of February 2004. They were maintained on approximately eighty-eight million acres. Table 3.5 also lists the Appropriate Management Level (AML) established by the federal government as the maximum number of wild horses or burros appropriate for a particular area. In 2004 populations in Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming exceeded their AMLs.

BLM policy is to remove wild horses and burros from overpopulated areas to "prevent damage to the rangelands and threats to watershed health." The animals are gathered and held in holding pens. Some are adopted out to private citizens or organizations.

In 2000 the groups Fund for Animals and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the BLM challenging the agency's wild horse management policy. The lawsuit claimed that the policy violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. In September 2004 a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the groups had no standing in the case.

In December 2004 Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which included an amendment allowing some "excess" wild horses and burros to be sold at auction "without limitation." The bill applies to animals greater than ten years old and those that have unsuccessfully been offered for adoption at least three times. The amendment was added by a Montana senator who argued that the animals damage valuable grazing land and that maintaining them in holding pens is too expensive for the federal government. The amendment was condemned by animal protection groups and even drew criticism from mainline media sources not ordinarily sympathetic to animal causes. Critics say that the wording "without limitation" means that the animals will be slaughtered for horse meat for the lucrative European market.

In May 2005 ninety-three wild horses were sold according to the conditions of the Burns Amendment to the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, ending up at a slaughterhouse in Illinois. Forty-one of them were slaughtered. Concerned with this practice, Ford Motor

Company stepped in, pledging $19,000 to cover the transport and care of the remaining fifty-two horses.

A December 6, 2004, editorial entitled "Save the Wild Horses," in the conservative newspaper the Washington Times was harshly critical of the amendment. The editorial argued that wild horses have symbolic prestige in American history and the federal government should not allow their slaughter as a population control method. The editorial questioned the validity of claims that wild horses damage grazing land, citing a federal government study that found that overgrazing of cattle is a much more serious threat. The editor noted that the newspaper normally does not side with animal-rights groups, but was making an exception in this case.

Protecting Endangered and Threatened Species

The federal Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973. It built upon protection measures first laid out in the 1966 Endangered Species Preservation Act. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and to conserve and recover listed species. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Some species are listed as endangered in some areas of the country and only threatened in other areas.

As of February 1, 2005, there were 518 native species on the federal list of endangered and threatened animals—389 endangered species and 129 threatened species. (See Table 3.6.) Another 556 foreign animal species were listed as endangered or threatened. Animals are placed on the list based on their biological status and the threats to their existence. Some species are put on the list because they closely resemble endangered or threatened species.

The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for administering the Endangered Species Act. They work in partnership with state agencies to enforce the act and develop and maintain conservation programs. The USFWS operates fifty-nine National Wildlife Refuges around the country that were established specifically to protect endangered species. (See Table 3.7.)

The Endangered Species Act prohibits any person from "taking" a listed species. Taking includes actions that "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" listed species or attempt to do so. Harm is defined as an action that kills or injures the animal and includes actions that significantly modify or degrade habitats or significantly impair essential behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. These measures are designed to allow endangered and threatened species to repopulate. However, once a species does repopulate, it can be removed from the list of endangered species, and the "taking" prohibition no longer applies. In addition, endangered species that pose a threat to humans and livestock can be killed under certain circumstances. Both of these provisions apply to populations of wolves.

WOLVES.

Some historians believe that the decline in bison and other large game during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries put wolf populations in grave danger. Wolves that began preying on livestock instead of wild game were subjected to massive kill-offs. These campaigns were encouraged by the federal government well into the twentieth century. The last known wild gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park was killed in the 1920s. (See Figure 3.6.) By the 1930s virtually the entire wolf population had been eliminated in the western continental United States. In 1967 gray and red wolves were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Protection continued under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

In the 1990s wolves were "reintroduced" to Yellowstone National Park and parts of Idaho. They were designated "nonessential experimental populations." This designation allowed government agencies and private citizens flexibility in controlling wolf populations. For example, wolves could be killed, moved, or harassed to protect domestic livestock and guard dogs. The killing of wolves by private citizens on public lands required a written take authorization from the USFWS.

By 2002 wolf populations in some western states had reached the government's recovery goals. However, before the species can be "delisted" from the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS requires that the state and tribal governments involved have approved wolf management plans in place. In March 2004 the USFWS published a proposed rule, known as a 10(j) rule under the Endangered Species Act for wolf management in the Northern Rockies. The agency received more than 23,000 comments on the proposed rule. In January 2005 the final 10(j) rule was published. It lays out the conditions under which wolves can be controlled in states with approved wolf management plans. At that time, only Montana and Idaho had approved plans in place. The 10(j) rule includes the following provisions:

• Wolves attacking livestock, dogs, or other herding and guarding animals on private land can be taken by landowners without prior written authorization.
• Wolves attacking livestock, dogs, or other herding and guarding animals on public grazing land can be taken by grazing permittees, guides and outfitters, and Native American tribal members without written authorization.
• Wolves determined by scientific process to be causing unacceptable impacts to other wildlife populations (like deer and elk) can be taken by state or tribal agencies.

In 2003 gray wolves in the eastern United States were removed from the Endangered Species list. As of February 2005 the official status of red and gray wolves (endangered, threatened, or nonessential experimental population) in the western United States varied by area.

MANATEES.

West Indian manatees were originally listed as endangered in 1967 and were still listed as of January 2005. These large gray mammals inhabit shallow calm waters along the southeastern coast, mainly in Florida. Manatees are gentle creatures that swim slowly just beneath the water surface and eat mostly aquatic vegetation. They can grow to nearly ten feet long and weigh up to 1,000 pounds. Although their natural life span is about sixty years, manatees are endangered by their close proximity to humans. Many are killed by collisions with speedboats, by ingesting fish hooks and trash, and by crushing or drowning in flood-control structures.

Manatees are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978. Each year the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Agency conducts an aerial count of the state's manatee population. In February 2004 the agency estimated the population to be about 2,548. In January 2005 the agency announced that sixty-nine manatees were killed by boat collisions in 2004. Another seven manatees died from other human-related causes.

THE AMERICAN BISON.

The American bison (commonly called buffalo) is not presently listed as endangered or threatened, but was nearly extinct a century ago. In the early 1800s there were more than fifty million bison in the United States. By the end of the century, fewer than 1,000 remained. The animals had been hunted to the verge of extinction. In 1894 President Grover Cleveland outlawed the killing of bison. The remaining herds were moved to protected habitats and slowly repopulated.

In February 2003 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated that there were approximately 250,000 bison in the United States. Most were in private hands. At that time the USDA estimated that 20,000 bison were slaughtered annually by ranchers to provide approximately twelve million tons of meat per year to American consumers.

Dozens of bison ranches have sprung up across the West due to growing demand for bison meat. Conservationists and environmentalists are also excited about the potentials of this market, in large part because bison graze much differently than cattle. Cattle tend to eat all the good grass in an area and then move on to another area, whereas bison graze lightly and move around more. This is less harmful to natural vegetation and naturally reseeds grazed areas.

As of January 2005 there were approximately 4,000 bison under government control on Yellowstone National Park. Their management has proven to be an enormous problem for federal and state officials. Some of the bison are known to be infected with the bacteria Brucella abortus, which causes the disease brucellosis. Although brucellosis is a mild disease in bison, it is a very serious illness in cattle. Brucellosis can cause miscarriage in pregnant cows. Ranchers grazing cattle near Yellowstone fear the disease will be transmitted to their animals from bison that wander off of park property. The federal government's response has been to round up bison that leave the park and kill those testing positive for brucellosis. The bison herd has harbored brucellosis for decades. The result has been many years of conflict among ranchers, animal protection groups, park officials, and state and federal agencies.

In the 1990s numerous lawsuits were filed by and among all of these parties. The State of Montana insisted that the brucellosis threat to cattle must be completely eliminated. Animal protection groups criticized the use of killing as a control measure and pointed out that there was no documented case of brucellosis being passed from a wild bison to domestic cattle. Conservationists argued that park officials should not allow humans to conduct winter activities in the heart of the park. These activities created roads and trails that made it easier for the bison to leave their usual winter feeding grounds and make their way to the park boundaries.

After years of legal battles a final plan was worked out in 2000 called the Interagency Bison Management Plan. Under the plan, bison that wander from the park property are "hazed" (chased) back into Yellowstone. Those that cannot be hazed are rounded up (if possible) and tested for brucellosis. Animals that test positive are destroyed. Healthy animals are released back into the park. Wayward bison that cannot be hazed can be killed. In addition, animals that have been hazed several times but still try to leave the park can be killed. According to the Montana Department of Livestock, 1,843 bison were hazed in 2004, and 280 were slaughtered for meat. Two bison were shot and left for scavengers.

In January 2005 newly elected Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana announced a plan he believes will completely eradicate brucellosis in the Yellowstone herd (Jennifer McKee, "Schweitzer Plans to End Brucellosis in Park Herd," Billings Gazette, January 18, 2005). The new plan involves capturing and testing every single bison in the herd at a new quarantine facility. Infected animals would be killed. Healthy animals would be temporarily placed off-site with Native American tribes or private landowners. These bison would have to be closely monitored during their detention to maintain their health and prevent interbreeding outside the herd. Once the entire herd had been tested, the bison would be returned to Yellowstone. The Park herd would be certified brucellosis-free.

THE INTERESTS OF HUMANS VERSUS THOSE OF ENDAN
GERED SPECIES.

Protecting endangered and threatened species becomes extremely controversial when it threatens human economic interests. One example is the northern spotted owl. Its primary habitat is among old-growth trees (100–200 years old) in the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. These forests were heavily logged in the 1960s. In 1972 researchers at Oregon State University estimated that 85 to 90% of the owl's suitable habitat had already been eliminated (John Weier, Spotting the Spotted Owl, NASA Earth Observatory, June 15, 1999). They assessed the future harvest plans of major logging companies and learned that most of the remaining old-growth trees in these forests were also to be cut down. The resulting publicity caused a major showdown between environmental conservation groups and the logging industry.

Environmental activists chained themselves to trees and damaged logging equipment to protest removal of the old-growth forests. Protest marches captured national headlines. There was tremendous political pressure to protect the owl's remaining habitat, particularly since approximately half of it was on federal lands. In the mid-1980s the USDA Forest Service (USFS) tried to develop plans for managing federal forests in the Pacific Northwest that balanced timber harvesting with habitat protection. Neither side was happy with the proposals. The timber industry complained that protecting owls would put loggers out of work. Environmentalists insisted that all old-growth forest be saved. In 1990 the USFWS added the northern spotted owl to the federal list of threatened species. The decision followed years of study and lawsuits filed by environmental groups and representatives of the timber industry.

The legal battles continued throughout the 1990s. In 1994 the Clinton administration formulated the Northwest Forest Plan as an attempt to satisfy both sides. The plan requires completion of biological surveys on dozens of plants and animals before logging is allowed on federal timberlands in the Northwest. It also includes other measures designed to protect owl habitat. Critics contend that this protection has a high human cost. According to the Oregonian, more than 10,000 jobs in the forest products industry were lost in Oregon and Washington between 1991 and 1998, as mills dependent on federal timber closed down (Hal Bernton, "Forest Service Halts Timber Sales in Northwest Spotted Owl Regions," August 12, 1999).

In 2002 the Western Council of Industrial Workers and the American Resource Forest Council sued the USFWS over its spotted owl management policy. The groups claimed that the agency had undercounted the number of spotted owls in old growth forests and that limits on timber harvesting in these areas were not needed. In response the USFWS agreed to conduct a listing status review. All studies performed since 1990 on spotted owl habitats and populations were reviewed again and summarized. In November 2004 the USFWS announced that the status review had reinforced the necessity of keeping northern spotted owls listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Similar conflicts between conservation and economic interests have raged in the United States over the protection of other animal species. These include the snail darter (a fish inhabiting the Tennessee River valley), Florida's gopher tortoises, and Coho salmon and sucker fish in Oregon's Klamath River Basin.

A tragedy that killed four young firefighters in 2001 has also raised controversy over the protection of endangered species. The four died in a forest fire raging near the Chewuch River in the state of Washington. The Chewuch River is home to populations of endangered salmon and trout. According to news reports, government officials delayed firefighting helicopters from scooping up water from the river to fight the fire because of concerns over violating the Endangered Species Act (Robin Wallace, "Investigation into Fire-Fighting Deaths Yields Disturbing Results," August 4, 2001). Although the USFS downplayed the delay as a major cause of the deaths, the incident is often cited by critics who believe the Endangered Species Act places animal interests above human interests.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS.

On the international front, endangered wild animals are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under the Endangered Species Act, the United States participates in CITES to prohibit

trade in listed species. As of January 2005, 167 nations adhered to CITES. (See Table 3.8.)

The convention includes three lists:

• Appendix I—Species for which no commercial trade is allowed. Noncommercial trade is permitted if it does not jeopardize species survival in the wild. Importers and exporters of Appendix I species must obtain permits.
• Appendix II—Species for which commercial trade is tightly regulated and managed with permits.
• Appendix III—Species that may be negatively impacted by commercial trade. Permits are used to monitor trade in these species.

Listing of any species in Appendix I or Appendix II requires approval by a two-thirds majority of CITES nations. The CITES appendices list thousands of animals from all over the world.

Animals of major concern internationally include Asian and African elephants and primates. In April 2003 the journal Nature reported that gorillas and chimpanzees in western Africa were on the verge of extinction because of poaching (illegal hunting) and the Ebola virus. Researchers estimated that approximately 80% of all wild gorillas and the majority of wild chimpanzees lived in the area. Their populations had dropped by more than half since the 1980s and are expected to continue to decrease rapidly unless drastic action is taken.

Logging roads associated with deforestation allow poachers easy access to areas that were previously inaccessible. They supply the growing trade in bushmeat (meat from wild animals such as elephants, primates,

antelope, and crocodiles). Although ape meat makes up only a tiny percentage of bushmeat, wild chimpanzees are in great danger from the trade. Scientists say that consumption of contaminated bushmeat has passed the Ebola virus from animals to people.

KILLING WILDLIFE

Wildlife all over the world are killed for various reasons, including sport, commerce, and perceived threats to human interests.

Recreational Hunting

Hunting was originally a means of survival for humans. As societies became more dependent on agriculture and livestock, hunting gradually became more an activity of leisure, recreation, and sport than survival (though many hunters do still use the meat they procure to makeup varying degrees of their diets). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a national survey on hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-related activities every five years. The latest survey was conducted in 2001. According to the survey, thirteen million Americans aged sixteen and over hunted wildlife in 2001. This represents about 13% of the population, but the number of hunters was down 7% from 1991 levels. The vast majority of hunters surveyed (eleven million) pursued big game, such as deer, elk, bear, and wild turkey. (See Table 3.9.) Other popular game included rabbits, squirrels, pheasants, quail, grouse, doves, ducks, geese, groundhogs, raccoons, foxes, and coyotes.

Hunters use a variety of implements to kill animals, including rifles, shotguns, handguns, and bows and arrows. Animal welfarists argue about which methods they consider the least cruel and which are associated with the smallest number of nonfatal injuries. In general, they consider firearms more humane than bows and arrows.

In January 2004 the animal protection group Fund for Animals released a report entitled A Dying Sport: The State of Hunting in America. The report provides statistics on hunter demographics and expenditures and the number of animals killed by hunting each year. According to the report, the number of U.S. hunters declined by 7% between 1991 and 2001, even though expenditures for licenses, permits, etc., increased by 22%. The decline in numbers of hunters is attributed to the decrease in the country's rural population coupled with less availability of land for hunting.

Demographic data show that in 2001 the vast majority (91%) of all hunters were male, and 97% were white. Nearly half of all hunters were between the ages of thirty-five and fifty-four years old. Hunters spent just over $642 million in 2001 on licenses, tags, and other fees required by state wildlife agencies. Total hunting expenditures were around $20.6 billion in 2001. Approximately half of this amount goes toward the cost of hunting equipment.

The FFA estimates that 115 million animals were killed by hunters during the 2002–03 hunting season. Table 3.10 provides a breakdown by species of the most hunted animals. The animal protection group In Defense of Animals claims that hunters also injure millions of other animals, damage habitats, and disrupt the eating, migration, hibernation, and mating habits of protected animals. For example, the group estimates that for every animal killed instantly by hunters, at least two wounded animals die slow painful deaths from hunting injuries. Careless hunters also kill and wound domestic animals and people each year. According to the International Hunter Education Association, there were eighty-nine human fatalities and 761 injuries related to hunting in the United States in 2002.

CANNED HUNTS.

One type of hunting conducted for commercial purposes is called canned hunting. This is a type of hunting in which animals are fenced in or otherwise enclosed in a space for the enjoyment of trophy hunters. Canned hunting dates back to at least the seventh century b.c., when the Assyrians captured lions and then released them to be hunted to death.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) estimates that there are hundreds of canned hunt operators in the United States, mostly in Texas. Many offer a "no kill, no pay" policy. The most common animals involved in canned hunting are exotic (foreign) species of antelope, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, swine, bears, zebra, and big cats. Hunters generally pay a set price for each exotic animal killed. Table 3.11 shows a price list compiled by the HSUS that gives the price range for various animals involved in canned hunts.

The HSUS and most other animal welfare groups are opposed to canned hunting. They consider it unsportsmanlike and cruel. The HSUS calls it "abuse for the sake of entertainment." Animal welfare groups

believe that many relatively tame animals dumped by zoos, circuses, and exhibitors wind up victims of canned hunts. These animals are not afraid of humans and make easy targets for trophy hunters.

There are many surplus exotic animals in the United States because of overbreeding. The HSUS believes that canned hunts provide a financial incentive that aggravates the problem. Unwanted and purposely overbred exotic animals are passed on by breeders and dealers to game and hunting preserves specializing in canned hunts.

According to the FFA, as of March 2004 canned hunting of mammals had been completely banned in twelve states. (See Table 3.12.) Partial bans existed in seven other states. In early 2005 Congress was debating passage of two bills (S-304 and HR-1688), which together would make up the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act. This act would ban the transport of exotic animals across state lines for the purpose of being hunted in enclosures smaller than 1,000 acres, thus curbing the practice of canned hunting.

In January 2005 the Indianapolis Star reported on the case of two Indiana men accused of operating canned hunts on a 1,500-acre game ranch ("Trial Set in Hunting of Drugged Deer," January 2, 2005). According to the indictment, the ranch offered hunts of white-tailed deer that were drugged and kept in fenced enclosures. Advertisements for the ranch guaranteed each hunter a "trophy buck." The article noted that the ranch charged hunters from $4,000 to $20,000 per buck, depending on size. The ranch owner and his property manger were charged with more than thirty felony violations of the federal Lacey Act. The Lacey Act prohibits trafficking of wildlife transported or sold in violation of state law. Authorities alleged that the men also violated several Indiana laws, including one that prohibits selling specific deer for hunting purposes.

Wildlife Control

HUNTING AS A WILDLIFE CONTROL METHOD.

Killing is often the control method of choice on federal lands, including national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other areas overseen by the USFWS, USFS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS). According to the USFWS, 40% of hunters hunted on public lands in 2001.

Most people assume that national wildlife refuges are truly refuges, where animals are protected from hunting; however, federal law allows the government to permit secondary uses, such as hunting, on wildlife refuges if a review of the potential effects indicates that protected wildlife will not be adversely affected. Other allowed secondary uses include fishing, wildlife watching, and environmental education programs.

In 2005 hunting was permitted on 319 of the nation's 545 national wildlife refuges. Figure 3.7 shows the number of refuges open to hunting in each state. North Dakota has the most units (nineteen), followed by Alaska and Louisiana (sixteen each), Minnesota (fifteen) and Montana (fourteen).

The USFWS insists that hunting is necessary to manage wildlife populations. An agency Web site in 2005 described the role of hunting at wildlife refuges as follows: "Carefully managed hunts maintain wildlife populations at a level compatible with the environment, provide recreational opportunities, and permit the use of a valuable renewable resource."

Animal rights advocates are opposed to all hunting and bitterly criticize the federal government for allowing hunting in national refuges. On its Website in 2005, the HSUS claimed that "the sport is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just, and caring society." Welfare groups are openly skeptical that hunting is an effective solution to overpopulation. In Defense of Animals points out that hunters seek out not starving animals but large and healthy ones. The group argues that hunting is not about conserving species but about human power, status, and collecting wild animal heads and antlers as trophies.

Deer are the animals most often associated with hunts designed to prevent overpopulation. The deer population has exploded in recent years for a variety of reasons, including lack of natural predators. The USFWS and state wildlife agencies commonly justify hunting as a humane method of killing deer that would otherwise starve because of overpopulation. They argue that death by hunting is more humane than allowing deer to slowly starve to death. Animal welfare groups believe that hunting actually aggravates population problems, claiming it upsets the natural ratio between bucks (male deer) and does (female deer) and results in higher reproduction rates. In Defense of Animals says that deer make up only a small percentage of the animals killed by hunters and claims that the vast majority of hunted wild species are not considered overpopulated. The group believes that sport hunting should be banned and that natural predators, such as wolves and mountain lions, should be reintroduced wherever possible to control deer populations.

Hunters just as vigorously defend their sport and their role in conserving wildlife. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) and Safari Club International (SCI) are major groups representing the interests of hunters. The USSA operates the Sportsmen's Legal Defense Fund (SLDF). The SLDF and the SCI intervene in lawsuits filed by antihunting groups against government wildlife management and natural resources agencies. SCI also operates Sportsmen Against Hunger, a program that donates wild game meat to hunger-relief agencies. The group says that it served more than 250 million meals in 2004; the program has been operating since 1984.

Hunting proponents note that hunting fees support government conservation programs. According to the USFWS, the duck stamp raised $622 million between its inception in 1934 and 2001, and that money purchased more than five million acres of land for the wildlife refuge system. Federal excise taxes on hunting equipment have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to conservation programs around the country. Nearly $200 million in hunters' federal excise taxes collected annually are distributed to state agencies to support wildlife management programs, the purchase of lands open to hunters, and hunter education and safety classes.

Critics claim that hunting fees account for only a small portion of the money required to operate the country's conservation programs and that the government uses money obtained from hunting fees to set aside more areas for hunting. They want greater focus on activities such as wildlife watching and environmental education at wild-life refuges.

The USFWS says that 66.1 million American adults observed, fed, or photographed wildlife in 2001. This is five times the number that hunted wildlife that year. These wildlife recreationists spent $38.4 billion on travel, equipment, and other items. This represents 35% of the total dollars spent on wildlife-related activities in 2001.

WILDLIFE TRAPPING.

A killing method that receives a lot of criticism from animal protection groups is the trapping of fur-bearing animals. Welfarists consider traps to be especially cruel because the panicked animals are often trapped for a lengthy period of time before being discovered and killed, sometimes chewing off their own limbs to escape. Trapping is used as a control method on federal lands, including refuges. It is done by refuge staff, by trappers under contract to the refuges, and by members of the public who obtain special permits.

The Animal Protection Institute (API) examined USFWS data collected in 1997 as part of an investigative study of trapping at wildlife refuges around the country. The API claims that many nontarget species were captured in body-gripping traps at refuges, including river otters, feral and domestic cats and dogs, rabbits, geese, alligators, ducks, hawks, owls, eagles, and bears. Some of these animals were killed immediately by the trapping devices or died from injuries sustained during trapping. Others were released unharmed upon their discovery by the trappers.

Fur and Other Products

Many wild animals are killed purely for their fur or parts. The most common wildlife commodities are:

• Fur from mink, beaver, foxes, rabbits, bears, and seals
• Hides from tigers, leopards, and other big cats
• Rhinoceros horns, reindeer antlers, snake blood, shark fins, various organs, and the penises from seals, tigers, and rhinoceros (These items are believed by some people to act as aphrodisiacs—supplements designed to enhance sexual performance.)
• Bones, claws, paws, fangs, brains, eyeballs, tails, and internal organs from tigers (All are used in traditional Asian medicines.)
• Bile from wild boars, bears, and snakes (used in aphrodisiacs and traditional Asian medicines)
• Elephant tusks (for ivory)
• Bear paws (considered a delicacy in some Asian countries)

SEALS.

Most animals used in the fur trade are bred and raised in cages on farms. Some animals, however, are still trapped or killed in the wild, particularly seals. The killing of seals for fur was a high-profile issue of the animal rights movement during the 1970s. Greenpeace activists traveled to hunting areas to splash dye on seals and draw media attention to their slaughter.

The killing of seals caught public attention because seals—usually babies only a few weeks old—on ice floes were usually clubbed in the head, then dragged with hooks across the ice. Animal welfarists who witnessed seal hunts claimed to have seen seals skinned while still alive and conscious. Seal hunters argued that clubbing was humane and killed the seals quickly. Seals swimming in the water were shot instead of clubbed. Critics claimed that many of these seals were injured and drowned after they sank below the surface.

In 1972 the United States banned all imports of seal products. A decade later the European Union put strict importation limits on seal pelts. As a result, Canada's seal fur industry was virtually eliminated. In May 2002 U.S. News and World Report published a story on the comeback of the sealing industry (Stacey Schultz and Julian Barnes, "Red Tide Rising," May 6, 2002). According to the report, the Canadian government has been quietly paying subsidies to seal hunters to boost the economy in Newfoundland. As a result, more seals were killed annually in the early 2000s than were killed three decades earlier.

Officials complained that seals were eating large numbers of northern codfish. The codfishing industry collapsed in Canada in the early 1990s after the government imposed strict catch limits in response to declining fish counts. Thousands of fishermen were put out of work. U.S. News and World Report suggested that the Canadian government ignored scientific warnings for years that cod populations were too low and then blamed seals when the industry collapsed. Seal quotas were raised substantially, and seal subsidies were begun. The number of seals killed increased from 65,400 in 1995 to 275,000 in 1997. At the same time, pelt prices more than doubled to $20 per pelt.

According to the May 6, 2002, issue of U.S. News and World Report, the fisheries minister of Newfoundland insisted that sealers no longer receive government subsidies. However, U.S. News and World Report claimed that government agencies had provided nearly $1 million in grants and loans since 2000 to businesses involved in the seal industry. Some biologists believe that the industry would collapse without these funds.

In March 2003 the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans announced a new harp seal quota of 975,000 seals over the following three years. The New York Times reported in April 2004 that Canada's seal fur industry was larger than it had ever been due to high demand from eastern Europe and China (Clifford Krauss, "New Demand Drives Canada's Baby Seal Hunt," April 5, 2004). The article noted that baby seals are still clubbed to death on the ice, but new regulations mean that only seals older than two weeks are subject to the hunt. At this age the seals have lost their pure white fur and developed a gray spotted coat. According to the article, the renewed hunt has not aroused widespread public protest because "tougher hunting rules, including stiffer regulations to avert skinning the seals alive, have muted the effort to stop the hunt and eased the consciences of Canadians."

In 2004 many animal welfare and rights groups launched new campaigns against Canadian seal hunting. Dozens of groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, Fund for Animals, and Greenpeace, joined together to form the Protect Seals Network. The Network called for a boycott of Canadian seafood to protest the seal hunt. In March 2005 protest marches were held in major cities around the world at Canadian consulates and embassy offices. The Network hopes to reinvigorate public opposition to the seal hunts and pressure the Canadian government to put an end to them.

BIG CATS.

There is a huge market for wild animal parts throughout Asia, particularly in China. Many parts are used in traditional remedies for various illnesses and diseases. In addition, animal penises are sold as aphrodisiacs. The animal most sought after is the tiger. Tiger hides sell for as much $20,000 each, and tiger bones are ground up and used in medicines for rheumatism and arthritis. Tiger penises are used in aphrodisiacs, soups, and various medicines.

Tigers are listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Leopards are classified as either endangered or threatened, depending on the location of the wild population. According to the USFWS, many tigers are worth more dead than alive. The animals breed easily in captivity and have been extremely overbred in the United States. Baby tigers are popular at zoos and animal parks, but they grow up quickly and are expensive to care for as adults. Unwanted and overbred tigers from zoos, refuges, and game parks can wind up in the hands of unscrupulous dealers who kill the animals for their valuable parts. Federal law allows the possession of captive-bred tigers, but only if their use enhances the propagation or survival of the species. It is illegal to kill the animals for profit or sell their parts, meat, or hide in interstate commerce. It is not illegal to donate the animals.

In the late 1990s federal and state wildlife officials conducted a massive undercover investigation into the trade of endangered tigers and leopards in the Midwest. In 2001 charges were brought against seventeen people. Several dealers, owners, and employees of exotic animal ranches in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas were charged with illegally purchasing, transporting, and selling four tigers. The animals were allegedly purchased from the Wild Wilderness Drive-through Safari in Gentry, Arkansas, and taken to the 5H Ranch in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, where they were killed. The suit alleges that the conspirators prepared false federal forms stating that the animals were donated from one ranch to another, when in fact they were purchased with the knowledge that the animals would be killed for their parts. In February 2002 three of the people involved pleaded guilty. Additional suits were filed against several people from the Chicago area (including the owner of an exotic meat market) for killing leopards and tigers and selling their parts. Three men from Detroit were charged with buying the hides of protected tigers.

ELEPHANTS.

Ivory is a hard creamy white substance found in the tusks of African elephants and some male Asian elephants. Demand for ivory was so high during the 1900s that hundreds of thousands of elephants were poached (illegally killed) for it. Conservation groups estimate that more than half the population of African elephants was wiped out during the 1980s alone. In 1990 an international ban on ivory trade was established under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Although the ban helped to severely reduce elephant poaching, it did not eliminate the problem. The Humane Society of the United States estimated in 2005 that hundreds of elephants are still killed illegally each year for their ivory (http://www.hsus.org).

In 1997 the CITES restrictions were loosened to allow some countries to sell surplus quantities of ivory. According to a 2003 article in National Geographic, approximately 200 tons of ivory were stockpiled in more than a dozen African and Asian countries by 1998 (Hillary Mayell, "Enlist Ivory Carvers to Help Save Elephants?" June 26, 2003). This ivory accumulated through seizures from poachers and from legitimate sources, such as elephants that died from natural causes or were legally killed by game wardens. Countries with large wild elephant populations are pressing the international community to allow them to sell ivory reserves to finance expensive elephant conservation programs. Animal welfare groups fear that releasing large amounts of ivory into the market will raise demand for ivory and reinvigorate illegal trade and poaching.

A LARGE PROBLEM.

International trade in exotic animals and their parts is a multibillion-dollar industry. Donald J. Barry, the acting assistant secretary of the USFWS, noted in 1997 that such trade ranks right below drug and gun trafficking in terms of the money involved. TRAFFIC is an organization that monitors worldwide wildlife trade. According to an organization spokesperson in 2002, U.S. consumers account for approximately 30% of global trade in illegal wildlife.

Whaling and Commercial Fishing

WHALING.

Whaling has been an industry in northern seas for hundreds of years. The oil and blubber from whales were popular commodities in many markets. In the mid-1800s nearly 70,000 people were employed in the industry, but the number of whales declined dramatically through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The United States banned commercial whaling in 1928. In 1946 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was founded by twenty-four member countries (including the United States) as a means of self-regulating the industry and limiting the number and type of whales that could be killed. In 1986 all IWC countries agreed to ban commercial whaling after virtually all whale populations were placed under Appendix I of the CITES agreement. Whaling was still allowed for "scientific purposes," however.

Conservation and animal rights groups have complained for years that some IWC countries, particularly Japan, kill a large number of whales under this loophole. Japan reportedly kills 700–800 minke whales annually in Antarctic expeditions. The worldwide minke population is estimated to be more than one million. Whalers and some scientists say that minkes and a few other species (mainly pilot, gray, and sperm whales) are not endangered and should be subjected to controlled hunts. In 2002 Japan proposed downlisting many populations of minke and Bryde's whales from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II, making them available for commercial whaling. The proposal was voted down by CITES member nations.

In 2002 Norway asked to rejoin the IWC after dropping out ten years earlier. Norway rejoined, but with the reservation that it would not support a ban on commercial whaling. This started an internal battle within the IWC about what its role should be. Some countries believe that the IWC's focus should be entirely on conservation. Others would like to see the IWC become more industry-friendly. In 2003 Iceland announced that it would begin killing whales for research purposes. According to the Web site of the activist conservation group Greenpeace International, Iceland killed thirty-six whales in 2003 and planned to kill twenty-five more in 2004.

At the IWC's 2003 meeting, eighteen of the member countries (including the United States) sponsored a resolution called the Berlin Initiative, which clarified the primary goal of the IWC to be whale conservation. The resolution passed, and the IWC established a committee to set up a conservation agenda for the organization. Many conservation and animal organizations supported the resolution. An HSUS spokesperson noted that the IWC should not "conserve whale populations so that certain countries can then turn around and kill them." Despite these efforts, some IWC member countries pushed to overturn the ban on commercial whaling at the organization's 2004 annual meeting. A resolution was passed calling for development of a management plan by the IWC in the event that commercial whaling resumes at some point in the future. As of 2005, fifty-nine countries were members of the IWC.

COMMERCIAL FISHING.

Commercial fishing of many species is blamed for a host of environmental and conservation problems in the world's oceans. Overfishing and poor management have caused severe declines in some populations. In May 2003 researchers from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, reported in the journal Nature that commercial fishing has decreased the world's population of large predatory ocean fishes by 90% (Ransom Myers and Boris Worm, "Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities," May 15, 2003). These fish include blue marlin, cod, tuna, and swordfish. Scientists found that the most sought-after species were quickly diminished by overfishing and then replaced by less desirable species. These replacement species were also depleted quickly. Technological advances such as global positioning systems and sonar have allowed commercial fisherman to better find and follow great schools of fish in previously uncharted waters.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium issues a seafood guide for consumers, Seafood Watch, that lists which fish and shellfish are being harvested in a sustainable and responsible manner and which are being depleted because of overfishing and poor management. The latest guide was released in December 2004. It included items such as sardines, farmed oysters, and wild-caught Alaskan salmon as "best choices"; mahi-mahi, Alaskan king crab, and bay/sea scallops under "good alternatives"; and Chilean sea bass, imported shrimp, and farmed salmon under "avoid."

Another criticism of commercial fishing is that it endangers marine mammals and other fish besides those the fisherman want to catch. Even nontarget fish and mammals are endangered by commercial fishing. Experts estimate that thousands of nontarget specimens are killed each year after becoming entangled in fishing nets and devices. According to Earthtrust, a nonprofit wildlife conservation organization headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, approximately seven million dolphins were killed between 1959 and 1991 due to purse-seining in the eastern tropical Pacific. Purse-seining is a fishing technique in which giant nets are encircled around schools of fish. It is a popular way to capture tuna. Schools of tuna are frequently accompanied by pods of dolphins. In fact, some fishermen chase and set their nets around dolphins to capture the nearby tuna. Since dolphins are mammals, they require air to breathe. The dolphins can get caught and drown in the nets. Negative publicity about the problem during the 1980s led consumers to demand changes in tuna fishing and labeling.

In 1991 the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act was passed, establishing an official definition of "dolphin-safe" tuna. Canners must meet certain criteria before they can label their tuna dolphin-safe, and U.S. fishermen modified their fishing techniques to meet the criteria. Purse-seine fishing is still widely practiced by foreign fishing industries, particularly in Mexico and South America.

On December 31, 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced its finding that the tuna purse-seine industry has "no significant adverse impact" on dolphin populations in the eastern tropical Pacific. This finding allows foreign fishermen using the technique to import their fish into the United States as dolphin-safe if an onboard observer certifies that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the catch.

Critics claim that purse-seine fishing is inhumane to dolphins even if they are released from the nets alive because it can separate baby dolphins from their mothers. In January 2003 Earth Island Institute and eight other environmental, conservation, and animal welfare groups (including the HSUS) filed suit against the NMFS in federal court to halt implementation of the ruling. In August 2004 a federal judge ruled that the "dolphin-safe" label could not be used on any tuna products caught by netting dolphins.

RESCUE AND REHABILITATION OF WILDLIFE

A variety of individuals, groups, and agencies are involved in rescue or rehabilitation of wildlife. Most state wildlife and fish and game agencies operate rehabilitation programs and require private individuals and groups rehabilitating and releasing native wildlife to be licensed. In addition, the USFWS requires federal permits for those rehabilitating migratory bird species.

The HSUS operates the five-acre Cape Wildlife Center in West Barnstable, Massachusetts. The center includes a wildlife rehabilitation facility and a veterinary clinic for injured, sick, and orphaned wild animals. Nearly 1,400 animals received care there in 2004. Although the center is not open to the public, it operates a hotline to answer questions and offer suggestions about ways in which wildlife and humans can coexist.

The Association of Sanctuaries (AOS) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1992 to accredit sanctuaries that rescue and care for all kinds of animals, including wild animals. The rescued animals are not used for commercial purposes or allowed to breed in captivity. As of January 2005, forty-four AOS-accredited facilities in the United States rehabilitated and released or provided sanctuary for wild animals that cannot be returned to their natural habitat. These include unwanted exotic pets and circus and zoo animals. One example is the Elephant Sanctuary near Hohenwald, Tennessee. It was founded in 1995 as the country's first natural habitat refuge specifically for endangered Asian and African elephants. The 800-acre sanctuary is surrounded by a 3,000-acre natural buffer. As of January 2005 the sanctuary housed fourteen female elephants.

There are hundreds of other rescue and rehabilitation facilities around the country. Many are nonprofit tax-exempt operations run by individuals or animal groups. The quality of care offered by these facilities depends on the expertise of the staff and the funds available. The HSUS is critical of some of these facilities. In April 2003 HSUS vice president Wayne Pacelle said, "We call them pseudo-sanctuaries. They're primarily engaged in commercial activities while passing themselves off as a nonprofit."

These comments followed a raid on the home of a California couple, Marla Smith and John Weinhart, operating Tiger Rescue, a nonprofit sanctuary for big cats. State and county wildlife authorities found the corpses of thirty adult tigers and sixty-one cubs when they raided the couple's property on April 22, 2003. Thirteen cubs found alive were turned over to the Fund for Animals Wildlife Rehabilitation Center near San Diego. The California Department of Fish and Game had removed ten tiger cubs from Tiger Rescue in November 2002, citing concerns about the animals' welfare. The couple operated a popular roadside zoo in Colton, California, that featured dozens of exotic animals, a petting zoo, and a big cat exhibit.

At a preliminary hearing held in July 2003, a veterinarian testified that some of the dead cubs had starved to death. Authorities said the property was littered with decaying animal corpses. Weinhart and Smith were charged with dozens of crimes, including seventeen felony counts related to allegations of animal cruelty and child endangerment. (The couple's eight-year-old son lived in the house with them.) After numerous postponements the trial got underway in January 2005. Smith pleaded guilty to all felony counts and forty-six misdemeanors involving the mistreatment of animals; Weinhart was convicted in February 2005 of fifty-six of the sixty-one counts of animal and child cruelty that had been brought against him.

WILDLIFE.

Prehistory makes clear that our ancestors continuously conceptualized their relations with the myriad forms of plants and animals with whom their existence was interwoven. These ancient musings, more mythological than scientific, were the first sustained efforts to comprehend the order of nature. The noun wildlife has been in use no more than 125 years. But the swirl of ideas around wildlife, however inchoate, is nearly as old as the human species.

Reconstructions of the conceptual dimensions of wildlife prior to the advent of agriculture are based on carvings, paintings, burial, and other material artifacts as well as the study of contemporaneous indigenous cultures living outside the cocoon of industrial civilization. While generalization remains provisional, the Paleolithic era of hunting and gathering was marked by notions of plants and especially animals as totems and dual presences. As totems the other species taught their two-legged kin the ways of the world: survival more than anything else. As dual presences the others encouraged the notion that all creatures were shape-shifters, bound up in the ongoing cyclical process of life in relationships based on reciprocity rather than dominion. The "economy of nature" (itself a modern term) was conceptualized as sacramental, based on the myth of the eternal return.

The New Stone Age (c. 15,000–10,000 b.p.) slowly but inexorably overturned the established notion of one creation binding all creatures together. The cultivation of cereal grasses and domestication of animals led to a binary categorization of the wild and tame. The wild encompassed the plants and animals not under human control. Unwanted plants intruding upon fields became weeds. Population blooms of insects that ravaged the fields became plagues. Animals that preyed on livestock became predators.

The tame included the lands and domesticated species under the control of civilization. Domestication entails selection for characteristics that, however desirable for human purposes, would in many cases be lethal in a natural environment. Cereal grasses were valued because their seeds were retained in the head so that they could be harvested. Domesticated cattle were valued because they were docile and amenable to herding.

As permanent settlement spread, lingering memories of a time before agriculture when humans were intimately entwined with the others were expressed in sources such as the Gilgamesh epic and the Old Testament. Psalm 104 praises the glory of a creator god and the intricacy of the living creation. Even as the psalmist sang, there was a dawning realization that humankind was not a good steward: "I brought you into a fruitful land, to enjoy its fruit and the goodness of it; but when you entered upon it you defiled my land, and made the home I gave you an abomination" (Jeremiah 2:7).

Changing Conceptions of Wildlife in Darwin's Century

Nineteenth-century evolutionary theory and the discovery of Paleolithic archeological materials established three fundamental ideas. First, that biophysical evolution existed on a temporal scale far beyond conventional schemes of history and culture. Second, the human species itself had a natural history that, however poorly understood, clearly linked the "Descent of Man," as Charles Darwin put it, with an ancient and continuing evolutionary stream. And third, evolutionary theory made clear that the domestication of plants and animals was little more than tinkering with natural history for human purposes, especially economic ones.

While the nineteenth century did not overturn the modern notion that humankind was the master and possessor of nature, a somewhat chastened estimate of our place in nature emerged. Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) observed in 1838 that hunting and trapping had eliminated the mountain lion and black bear from most of New England. He challenged his coevals to reconsider the fate of a culture that was losing connection with wild places and creatures. Near the end of the century, John Muir (1838–1914) argued for the creation of national parks as refugia for wildlife and as places to nourish the human spirit. While protective legislation dates to the early 1600s (e.g., Bermuda's protection of the cahow and the green turtle), the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries marked the beginnings of systematic approach to the conservation of wildlife. Yellowstone (1872) was the first national park in America. Created primarily to protect unique geological features, Yellowstone's value for wildlife preservation soon became apparent. President Theodore Roosevelt's (1858–1919) and Gifford Pinchot's (1865–1946) efforts around the turn of the century were instrumental in legislative efforts to create a system of public lands that offered protection for wildlife. Progressive resource conservation found many allies, such as sport hunters, who reacted vigorously to the depredations of market hunting on wildlife. (Predators did not enjoy legislative protection until passage of the Endangered Species Act near the end of the twentieth century).

Wildlife in the Twentieth Century

The early-to mid-twentieth century was marked by an increased scientific understanding of wildlife and an increased willingness on the part of nations to protect it. The International Union for the Protection of Nature (now the World Conservation Union) was established in 1948 and gave birth shortly thereafter to the World Wildlife Fund. These and other global organizations, such as the United Nations, and conventions, such as the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), were dedicated to protecting wildlife through a variety of strategies. These included moratoriums on trade in endangered species and the creation of reserves, such as those designated as World Natural Heritage Sites.

Despite such efforts, the continuing humanization of the planet made the long-term survival prospects for wildlife increasingly uncertain. As the twentieth century ended, the biological sciences conclusively established the reality of an anthropogenic mass extinction of terrestrial flora and fauna. Estimates of human-caused extinction rates ranged from a low of one hundred to a high of one thousand times greater than natural rates. Humankind's increasing population and subsequent levels of economic demand led to rapid development of the few remaining areas, such as Amazonia, that were primary habitats for wildlife. Patterns of human settlement in developed nations, including sprawl, urbanization, and the fragmentation of habitat, increasingly impacted remnant populations of wild plants and animals. Less direct impacts on wildlife were the consequence of the increase in global temperature, predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to increase by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the twenty-first century. Given such dramatic increase, the possibility of retreat by heat sensitive species appeared doubtful.

Progress in scientific understanding was paralleled by ethical advance. The pioneering work of Thoreau and Muir was followed in the twentieth century by a variety of ecological ethics that charged humanity with obligations to conserve wild places and things, and to restore those species, such as the wolf, that had been thoughtlessly endangered. These ranged from the secular, such Aldo Leopold's (1887–1948) land ethic, A Sand County Almanac (1949), to the religious caring for creation movement that followed Lynn White, Jr.'s charge in a 1967 issue of Science magazine that Jews and Christians were to blame for ecological crisis.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1961), which focused on the consequences for avian species of the toxic chemicals used in a war against nature, marked the point where the environmental movement became a mass phenomenon. Membership in organizations dedicated to the conservation, preservation, and restoration of wildlife soared. As public interest increased in America, legislative action, such as the passage of the Wilderness Act (1964), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the Endangered Species Act (1973), followed. Such laws, and similar ones passed in other nations, are the cornerstone of wildlife protection.

Wildlife in the New Millennium

As the twenty-first century begins, our ideas of wildlife are being transformed through the advance of the natural and human sciences. Humankind has engendered a mass extinction event and caused "the death of birth" (i.e., disrupted the processes of speciation), thus creating uncertain prospects for plants and animals, and ourselves, over the millennium. Three pivotal themes stand out.

Economically considered, the value of nature, including the plant and animal species (the total number of which are unknown to the nearest order of magnitude), has been calculated to exceed the value of the artifice of the human economy by two to one. Potential uses of great significance in medicine and agriculture alone give ample reason to work toward international solutions for the biodiversity crisis.

Humanistically considered, interdisciplinary inquiry has established a close connection between the extinction of experience and the extinction of wildlife. Cultural diversity goes hand in hand with biodiversity. The almost unchecked processes of globalization, legitimated under the banner of progress, and euphemistically termed cultural homogenization and assimilation, are rushing literally thousands of indigenous cultures, their languages, and the associated wild places and things to extinction.

Finally, humankind vitally needs the others in ways that we barely comprehend. Our natural history reveals that continual close interactions with the plants and animals are the norm. The small interval of time beginning with the Neolithic revolution and continuing to the present is a mere moment in that long history. There is increasing agreement across a variety of scientific communities that we ignore our continued need for and value of the others at great peril.

See also Biology ; Ecology ; Environment ; Nature .

bibliography

Ackerman, Diane. The Rarest of the Rare: Vanishing Animals, Timeless Worlds. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

Crosby, Alfred W. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Grumbine, Edward. Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1992.

Maffi, Luisa, ed. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, D.C., and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001.

Matthiessen, Peter. Wildlife in America. 2nd ed. New York: Viking, 1987.

Mighetto, Lisa. Wild Animals and American Environmental Ethics. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1991.

Oelschlaeger, Max. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991.

Shepard, Paul. The Others: How Animals Made Us Human. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1995.

White, Lynn, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Science 155 (1967): 1203–1207.

Max Oelschlaeger

Wildlife

It was once customary to consider all undomesticated species of vertebrate animals as wildlife. Birds and mammals still receive the greatest public interest and concern, consistently higher than those expressed for reptiles and amphibians. Most concern over fishes results from interest in sport and commercial value. The tendency in recent years has been to include more life-forms under the category of wildlife. Thus, mollusks, insects, and plants are all now represented on national and international lists of threatened and endangered species .

People find many reasons to value wildlife. Virtually everyone appreciates the aesthetic value of natural beauty or artistic appeal present in animal life. Giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca ), bald eagles (Haliaetus leucocephalus ), and infant harp seals (Phoca groenlandica ) are familiar examples of wildlife with outstanding aesthetic value. Wild species offer recreational value, the most common examples of which are sport hunting and bird watching.

Less obvious, perhaps, is ecological value, resulting from the role an individual species plays within an ecosystem. Alligators (genus Alligator ), for example, create depressions in swamps and marshes. During periods of droughts, these "alligator holes" offer critical refuge to water-dependent life forms. Educational and scientific values are those that serve in teaching and learning about biology and scientific principles.

Wildlife also has a utilitarian value that results from its practical uses. Examples of utilitarian value range from genetic reservoirs for crop and livestock improvement to diverse biomedical and pharmaceutical uses. A related category, commercial value, includes such familiar examples as the sale of furs and hunting leases.

Shifts in human lifestyle have been accompanied by changes in attitudes toward wildlife. Societies of hunter-gatherers depend directly on wild species for food, as many plains Indian tribes did on the bison . But as people shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture, wildlife comes to be viewed as more of a threat because of potential crop or livestock damage. In modern developed nations, people's lives are based less on rural ways of life and more on business and industry in cities. Urbanites rarely if ever feel threatened economically by wild animals. They have the leisure time and mobility to visit wildlife refuges or parks, where they appreciate seeing native wildlife as a unique, aesthetic experience. They also sense that wildlife is in decline and therefore favor greater protection.

The most obvious threat to wildlife is that of direct exploitation, often related to commercial use. Exploitation helped bring about the extinction of the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius ), the great auk (Pinguinus impennis ), Stellar's sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas ), and the sea mink (Mustela macrodon ), as well as the near extinction of the American bison (Bison bison ). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, state and federal laws were passed to help curb exploitation. These were successful for the most part, and they continue to play a crucial role in wildlife management .

Introductions of exotic species represent another threat to wildlife. Insular or island-dwelling species of wildlife are especially vulnerable to the impacts of exotic plants and animals. Beginning in the seventeenth century, sailors deliberately placed goats and pigs on ocean islands, intending to use their descendants as food on future voyages. As the exotic populations grew, the native vegetation proved unable to cope, creating drastic habitat changes. Other species, such as rats, mice, and cats, jumped ship and devastated island-dwelling birds, which had evolved in the absence of mammalian predators and had few or no defenses.

Pollution is yet another threat to wildlife. Bald eagles, ospreys (Pandion haliaetus ), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus ), and brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis ) experienced serious and sudden population declines in the 1950s and 1960s. Studies showed that these fish eaters were ingesting heavy doses of pesticides, including DDT. The pesticides left the shells of their eggs so thin that they cracked under the weight of incubating parents, and numbers declined due to reproductive failure. Populations of these birds in the United States rebounded after regulatory laws curbed the use of these pesticides. However, thousands of other chemicals still enter the air, water, and soil every year, and the effects of most of them on wildlife are unknown.

By far the most critical threat to wildlife is habitat alteration. Unfortunately, it is also more subtle than direct exploitation, and thus often escapes public attention. Human activities are altering some of the most biologically rich habitats in the world on a scale unprecedented in history. Tropical rain forests, for example, originally covered only about 7% of the earth's land surface, yet they are thought to contain half the planet's wild species. Other rich habitats undergoing rapid changes include tropical dry forests and coral reefs. As extensive areas of natural habitat are irrevocably changed, many of the native species that once occurred there will become extinct, even those with no commercial value.

Any species of wild animal has a set of habitat requirements. These begin with food requirements, adequate amounts of available food for each season. Cover requirements are structural components that are used for nesting, roosting, or watching, or that offer protection from severe weather or predators. Water is habitat requirement that affects wildlife directly, by providing drinking water, and indirectly, by influencing local vegetation. The final habitat requirement is space. Biologists can now calculate a minimum area requirement to sustain a particular species of a given size.

Even in the absence of human activities, populations of wild animals change as a result of variations in birth and death rates. When a population is sparse relative to the number that can be supported by local habitat conditions, birth rates tend to be high. In such circumstances, natural mortality , including predation, disease, and starvation, tends to be low. As populations increase, birth rates decline and death rates rise. These trends continue until the population reaches carrying capacity , the number of animals of a particular species that can be sustained within a given area.

Carrying capacity, though, is difficult to define in practice. Variations in winter severity or in summer rainfall can, between years, alter the carrying capacity for a particular area. In addition, carrying capacity changes as forests grows older, grasslands mature, or wetlands fill in through natural siltation . Despite these limitations, the concept of carrying capacity illustrates an important biological principle: living wild animals cannot be stockpiled beyond the practical limits that local habitat conditions can support.

While all populations vary, some undergo extreme fluctuations. When they occur regularly, such fluctuations are called cycles. Cyclical populations fall into two categories, the three- to four-year cycle typical of lemmings and voles, and the eight- to 11-year cycle known in snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus ) and lynx of the Western Hemisphere (Lynx canadensis ). The mechanisms that keep cycles going are complex and not completely understood, but the existence of cycles is widely accepted. Extreme populations fluctuations that occur at irregular intervals are called population irruptions. Local populations of deer tend to be irruptive, suddenly showing substantial changes at unpredictable intervals.

There are more species of wild plants and animals in tropical rain forests than on arctic tundras. Such patterns illustrate variations in the complexities of life-forms due to climatic conditions. Measurement of biodiversity usually focuses on a particular group of organisms such as trees or birds. The most basic indication of species richness is the total number of species in a certain area or habitat. A measure of species evenness is more valuable because it indicates the relative abundance of each species. As diversity includes richness and evenness, an area with many species uniformly distributed would have a high overall diversity.

Biodiversity is important to wildlife conservation as well as to basic ecology . Comparisons of species diversity patterns indicate the extent to which natural conditions have been affected by human activities. They also help establish priorities for acquiring new protected areas.

See also Predator-prey interactions; Wildlife refuge; Wildlife rehabilitation

[James H. Shaw ]

RESOURCES

BOOKS

Caughley, G. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977.

Kellert, S. Trends in Animal Use and Perception in 20th Century America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981.

Matthiessen, P. Wildlife in America. 2nd ed. New York: Viking Books, 1987.

McCullough, D. The George Reserve Deer Herd. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1979.

Wildlife

It was once customary to consider all undomesticated species of vertebrate animals as wildlife. Birds and mammals still receive the greatest public interest and concern, consistently higher than those expressed for reptiles and amphibians . Most concern over fishes results from interest in sport and commercial value. The tendency in recent years has been to include more life-forms under the category of wildlife. Thus, mollusks , insects , and plants are all now represented on national and international lists of threatened and endangered species .

People find many reasons to value wildlife. Virtually everyone appreciates the aesthetic value of natural beauty or artistic appeal present in animal life. Giant pandas , bald eagles , and infant harp seals are familiar examples of wildlife with outstanding aesthetic value. Wild species offer recreational value, the most common examples of which are sport hunting and bird watching.

Less obvious, perhaps, is ecological value, resulting from the role an individual species plays within an ecosystem . Alligators, for example, create depressions in swamps and marshes. During periods of droughts, these "alligator holes" offer critical refuge to water-dependent life-forms. Educational and scientific values are those that serve in teaching and learning about biology and scientific principles.

Wildlife also has utilitarian value which results from its practical uses. Examples of utilitarian value range from genetic reservoirs for crop and livestock improvement to diverse biomedical and pharmaceutical uses. A related category, commercial value, includes such familiar examples as the sale of furs and hunting leases.

Shifts in human lifestyle have been accompanied by changes in attitudes toward wildlife. Societies of hunter-gatherers depend directly on wild species for food, as many plains Indian tribes did on the bison . But as people shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture, wildlife comes to be viewed as more of a threat because of potential crop or livestock damage. In modern developed nations, people's lives are based less on rural ways of life and more on business and industry in cities. Urbanites rarely if ever feel threatened economically by wild animals. They have the leisure time and mobility to visit wildlife refuges or parks, where they appreciate seeing native wildlife as a unique, aesthetic experience. They also sense that wildlife is in decline and therefore favor greater protection.

The most obvious threat to wildlife is that of direct exploitation, often related to commercial use. Exploitation helped bring about the extinction of the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), the great auk, Stellar's sea cow, and the sea mink , as well as the near extinction of the American bison. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, state and federal laws were passed to help curb exploitation. These were successful for the most part, and they continue to play a crucial role in wildlife management.

Introductions of exotic species represent another threat to wildlife. Insular or island-dwelling species of wildlife are especially vulnerable to the impacts of exotic plants and animals. Beginning in the seventeenth century, sailors deliberately placed goats and pigs on ocean islands, intending to use their descendants as food on future voyages. As the exotic populations grew, the native vegetation proved unable to cope, creating drastic habitat changes. Other species, such as rats , mice , and cats , jumped ship and devastated island-dwelling birds, which had evolved in the absence of mammalian predators and had few or no defenses.

Pollution is yet another threat to wildlife. Bald eagles, ospreys, peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), and brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) experienced serious and sudden population declines in the 1950s and 60s. Studies showed that these fish eaters were ingesting heavy doses of pesticides , including DDT. The pesticides left the shells of their eggs so thin that they cracked under the weight of incubating parents, and numbers declined due to reproductive failure. Populations of these birds in the United States rebounded after regulatory laws curbed the use of these pesticides. However, thousands of other chemicals still enter the air, water , and soil every year, and the effects of most of them on wildlife are unknown.

By far the most critical threat to wildlife is habitat alteration. Unfortunately, it is also more subtle than direct exploitation, and thus often escapes public attention. As the twenty-first century approaches, human activities are altering some of the most biologically rich habitats in the world on a scale unprecedented in history. Tropical rainforests, for example, originally covered only about 7% of the earth's land surface, yet they are thought to contain half the planet's wild species. Other rich habitats undergoing rapid changes include tropical dry forests and coral reefs. As extensive areas of natural habitat are irrevocably changed, many of the native species that once occurred there will become extinct, even those with no commercial value.

Any species of wild animal has a set of habitat requirements. These begin with food requirements, adequate amounts of available food for each season. Cover requirements are structural components that are used for nesting, roosting, or watching, or that offer protection from severe weather or predators. Water is habitat requirement that affects wildlife directly, by providing drinking water, and indirectly, by influencing local vegetation. The final habitat requirement is space. Biologists can now calculate a minimum area requirement to sustain a particular species of a given size.

Even in the absence of human activities, populations of wild animals change as a result of variations in birth and death rates. When a population is sparse relative to the number that can be supported by local habitat conditions, birth rates tend to be high. In such circumstances, natural mortality, including predation, disease , and starvation, tends to be low. As populations increase, birth rates decline and death rates rise. These trends continue until the population reaches carrying capacity , the number of animals of a particular species that can be sustained within a given area.

Carrying capacity, though, is difficult to define in practice. Variations in winter severity or in summer rainfall can, between years, alter the carrying capacity for a particular area. In addition, carrying capacity changes as forests grows older, grasslands mature, or wetlands fill in through natural siltation. Despite these limitations, the concept of carrying capacity illustrates an important biological principle: living wild animals cannot be stockpiled beyond the practical limits that local habitat conditions can support.

While all populations vary, some undergo extreme fluctuations. When they occur regularly, such fluctuation are called cycles. Cyclical populations fall into two categories, the three- to four-year cycle typical of lemmings and voles , and the eight- to 11-year cycle known in snowshoe hares and lynx of the Western Hemisphere. The mechanisms that keep cycles going are complex and not completely understood, but the existence of cycles is widely accepted. Extreme populations fluctuations that occur at irregular intervals are called population irruptions. Local populations of deer tend to be irruptive, suddenly showing substantial changes at unpredictable intervals.

There are more species of wild plants and animals in tropical rain forests than on arctic tundras. Such patterns illustrate variations in the complexities of life-forms due to climatic conditions. Measurement of biodiversity usually focuses on a particular group of organisms such as trees or birds. The most basic indication of species richness is the total number of species in a certain area or habitat. A measure of species evenness is more valuable because it indicates the relative abundance of each species. As diversity includes richness and evenness, an area with many species uniformly distributed would have a high overall diversity.

Biodiversity is important to wildlife conservation as well as to basic ecology . Comparisons of species diversity patterns indicate the extent to which natural conditions have been affected by human activities. They also help establish priorities for acquiring new protected areas.

Resources

books

Caughley, G. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977.

Kellert, S. Trends in Animal Use and Perception in 20th Century America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981.

Matthiessen, P. Wildlife in America. 2nd ed. New York: Viking Books, 1987.

McCullough, D. The George Reserve Deer Herd. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1979.

James H. Shaw