As A Federal Agent, Carter Niemeyer Killed Wolves For A Living
Niemeyer's Memoir 'Wolfer' Addresses The Societal Hatred Of Lobos
Carter Niemeyer has had a hand in killing more American wolves in the Lower 48 states than any wildlife manager in modern history. As I wrote in a recent column that appeared in the Jackson Hole News & Guide newspaper : "I don't mention this as an indictment—it's a fact. A fact that gives him credibility, though the credibility comes from doing methodical detective work on the ground and deciding when wolves should—and shouldn't—die."
For decades, Niemeyer worked as a U.S. civil servant in the employ of Wildlife Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a bureau within the U.S. Interior Department. His primary job was killing predators that menaced domestic livestock. Some environmentalists castigated him as a 'hit man" advancing the interests of cattle and sheep while ranchers on the other side of the barbed-wire fence said he was aligned with greens. After retiring, Niemeyer wrote a book about it, Wolfer, that has met with critical praise. We highly recommend that you read it.
With about 1,600 wolves in the northern Rockies, about one wolf has died for every one that still lives.
Since gray wolves were reintroduced to the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and central Idaho in the mid 1990s—in the wake of humans exterminating original lobo popultions—some 1,500 of the candid predators have been destroyed, largedly in appeasement of the livestock industry. It means that today, with about 1,600 wolves in the northern Rockies, about one wolf has died for every one that still lives. Nieymeyer is a giant, straight-shooter of a man—he stands 6'5". He has nothing to hide, little to apologize for, and he carries no hidden agendas. His bias is that he grew up in the great outdoors, loves wildlife and savors wildlife places.
Recently, I interviewed him about the ongoing wolf controversy in the West.
TODD WILKINSON: You've mentioned in interviews since Wolfer was published that you want to present an honest, unvarnished perspective on what has become known as the wolf saga. Looking back, what were the tactical mistakes that wolf advocates made that led to the political backlash and could the backlash have been avoided?
CARTER NIEMEYER: The backlash that you refer to was precipitated first, by the state of Wyoming by not providing a wolf conservation and management plan that was acceptable by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Secondly, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, according to a judge's ruling, did not follow the letter of the law by delisting wolves according to requirements in the Endangered Species Act - separating the state of Wyoming from Idaho and Montana. I think that wolf advocacy groups had no choice but to challenge delisting through litigation initially so that procedure was followed. Judges rulings indicate that wolf advocacy groups were correct in challenging delisting.
Where things get murky is the question of having enough wolves to delist- the Final Environmental Impact Statement for gray wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho calling for a minimum of 30 breeding pairs totaling 300 wolves equitably distributed over the three wolf recovery areas in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. That's 10 breeding pairs comprising 10 animals roughly in each pack. Those conditions were met in 2002; however, the state of Wyoming did not produce an acceptable wolf conservation and management plan by that time.
Mary Roberson's painting Alpha, Alpha, Beta, Omega
Wolves kept breeding and numbers grew to over 1,600 wolves in over 100 packs by 2010. Some wolf advocacy groups were still not content that the NRM wolf recovery area had enough wolves in 2010 to guarantee viability and that wolf recovery was incomplete because wolves could occupy many more areas of the West.
While litigation by wolf advocacy groups continued, sportsmen, ranchers and rural resident in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming became frustrated, angry and fearful of the growing wolf population and felt that wolf advocates were trying to move the goal posts, so to speak, and the whole issue went political.
WILKINSON: In 2011, two U.S. senators, Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana, and Mike Simpson, from Idaho, attached an amendement to a federal budget bill legislatively stripping away federal protection for wolves. They knew that because it was in a budget bill, it would skirt debate, pass and be signed into law by President Obama. It was the first time that Congress has removed an endangered species from protection instead of going through the scientific process. What do you make of that?
NIEMEYER: Indeed, wolves were delisted by a rider attached to the national budget bill which had never been done before. I know that it appears to have been wolf advocates who prolonged the delisting process but I think that the state of Wyoming and the US Fish and Wildlife Services contributed greatly to the outcome. I think it was time that the delisting process came to an end, but it was unfortunate that it happened the way it did. Just one more indication of the polarization of attitudes and values going on in this country today.
WILKINSON: You and I both know the scientists involved with wolf reintroduction. Part of the brand bargain, as they knew it, was that wolf harvest—hunting, trapping, intervention—was always central to the deal that cleared the way for wolves to be brought back after an absence of half a century. In fact, you and guys like Mike Jimenez, another depredation specialist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, would aggressively act to stop a minor problem with livestock producers before it became major. In some cases, entire packs were removed when only a few calves had been killed but it looked like depredation could become chronic.
So I have two questions relating to this issue:
The first is why does the livestock industry continue to say that wolf predation has caused a "major" impact—compared to weather, disease etc— when clearly it hasn't and the government ensures that predator losses stay low by intervening quickly?
NIEMEYER: During the 25 years that I worked in the field on livestock damage caused by wolves, I conducted most of the livestock loss investigations in the Northern Rockies wolf recovery area and meticulously documented the losses. I also determined when livestock died from other causes. The procedures that I helped initiate in the early years set some of the standards that Wildlife Services and the individual states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming use today. I think what's going on is a clash of cultures. The truth as I see it, is that livestock losses attributed today to wolves and other predators are being exaggerated because of this clash.
I think what's going on is a clash of cultures. The truth as I see it is that livestock losses attributed today to wolves and other predators are being exaggerated because of this clash. —Carter Niemeyer
In many cases they go undocumented by wolf management agencies, but still end up in the statistics. While some livestock are killed by predators and never found, I still think that we need to stick to the numbers documented by federal and state agency field personnel and not based on anecdotal stories. When comparing actual documented livestock losses in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to the National Agricultural Statistical Reporting Service figures the numbers don't jive (documented losses are much lower than the NASS self-reporting method).
Compensation for livestock killed by wolves was provided by Defenders of Wildlife based upon government field investigation forms but now in Idaho, for example, state compensation funds (federal tax dollars) are provided for missing livestock which is mainly attributed to wolves with no documentation required. We need some method to measure predator loss based on documentation. Losses of livestock to wolves is comparatively low compared to other causes of death but nonetheless wolves are routinely being killed by government agents or livestock producers in response to wolf predation. Over 1500 wolves have been killed in the northern Rocky mountains, mostly in response to livestock predation.
WILKINSON: My second question is what do you make of all these assertions of "elk armageddon" and certain individuals encouraging people to poach wolves and spread poison and become lawless anti-wolf vigilantes?
NIEMEYER: I have never bought into the belief that wolves are wiping out the deer, elk and moose in the Northern Rockies. Wolves prey on all of these ungulate species and in areas of high wolf density some localized elk herds are showing some declines. Overall, elk are doing great in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and are at or above management objectives according to fish and game reports based on big game surveys and trend studies.
I never bought into the belief that wolves are wiping out the deer, elk and moose in the Northern Rockies. Overall, elk are doing great in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and are at or above management objectives. —Niemeyer
I do believe that the story has been repeated so many times by so many people that hunters have become convinced that elk are vanishing in the jaws of wolves. What is happening is that elk have learned to react to wolves by changing their grazing and travel habits and may be getting tougher to locate by some hunters.
I know several veteran hunters who kill an elk every year because they hunt hard, walk far and get back into country where the elk are hiding. Hunters depend too much on mechanized hunting, like ATVs, to hunt big game and are partly to blame for big game being hard to find. It is unfortunate that the anti-wolf crowd is playing on the fears of people that wolves are killing all of the elk, spreading diseases and parasites and stalking kids at bus stops. Poachers are criminals. Period.
WILKINSON: I have spoken with several long time wildlife managers. They say the Wyoming wolf management plan essentially pins the wolf population into a relatively small box of acceptability and then allows citizens to purge wolves from wherever else the animals wander—whether they are causing discernible serious impacts or not. For a charismatic imperiled animal that the public has spent millions of dollars recovering, this post-delisting management endorsed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, your former employer, this approach is unprecedented and has been panned by scientists and conservationists. What do you make of it?
NIEMEYER: I am disappointed that Wyoming isn't held to the same standards that Idaho and Montana have accepted - wolves protected and managed from border to border within their states. While I believe that few wolves would ever occupy most regions of Wyoming, I think that they should be allowed to live and disperse throughout Wyoming which could provide connectivity to other potential wolf habitat areas inside and outside the northern rocky mountain wolf recovery area.
George Catlin's "Buffalo Hunt Under The White Wolf Skin"
WILKINSON: By now forcing wolves to keep perpetuating themselves and maintain the minimum recovery criteria in a small corner of Wyoming—the part of the state—isn't Wyoming actually making the impacts on elk worse? Wolves have incredible reproductive potential and the greater Yellowstone ecosystem has historically served as an elk factory. Isn't it counterproductive to force northwest Wyoming to continue to account for the 10 packs or 100 animals right on top of the elk population year after year instead of letting wolves disperse across a larger area of the state to that more territory can absorb the wolf numbers?
NIEMEYER: I would have to agree.
WILKINSON: As you know, I wrote a book, Science Under Siege: The Politicians' War On Nature and Truth about whistleblowers working in environmental and natural resource agencies. One of the persistent problems for civil servants involved with agencies is that they're prevented—by the order of superiors, or by fear or worries about their careers—from being allowed to speak their minds and state things as they actually are, instead of singing the party line of the ruling bureaucracy. It's one of the reasons why some of these resource issues become so muddled and turn into quagmires because the public never knows what the experts on the ground actually know and think. What can you say now that you couldn't before and what is important for the public to know?
NIEMEYER: Without a doubt, wildlife biologists, who are professionally trained, are inhibited from speaking and acting on their knowledge about wildlife management and resource conflict issues, mainly due to politics within their states.
Without a doubt, wildlife biologists, who are professionally trained, are inhibited from speaking and acting on their knowledge about wildlife management and resource conflict issues, mainly due to politics within their states. —Niemeyer
A major problem in many states is that governor-appointed fish and game commissions are dictating how professional biologists will conduct themselves and what they say, wolf management being a prime example. I know biologists who think wolves have been good for healthy elk herds but will never say it. In most states in thenorthern rocky mountain region state biologists try to avoid the W word [wolves] and let higher ranking officials make public statements related to wolf management. Fish and game commissions are a direct conduit from hunters and fisherman who pay much of the bill for fish and game agencies to function, so naturally hunters, trappers and fisherman have a greater say in what happens in game management.
Unfortunately, fish and game commissions give the rest of the non-consumptive public a bad perception about how wildlife is managed at a time when hunting and fishing as recreational sports could use some public image polishing.
WILKINSON: In the West, among certain advocacy groups, there seems to be denial that wolves ever existed as native animals that were important in the evolution of huntable big game species.
NIEMEYER. I agree. Another issue that concerns me is that predator bashing and predator control has become a popular topic among some sportsmen's and ranching groups. They are demanding that the federal and state agencies take a heavier handed approach to reduce predator populations - mainly via aerial hunting. I believe that we spend way too much money in the U.S. killing native predators.
If we want to kill something why don't we focus on reducing or removing introduced and non-native invasive species like wild hogs? More and more research shows that killing predators to increase and sustain big game herds is counterproductive unless adequate habitat exists and is maintained in the first place.
WILKINSON: You were involved in the on-the-ground investigation of real and alleged livestock losses and part of the decisionmaking teams that took out, sometimes, entire wolf packs.
NIEMEYER: Killing predators to protect livestock is a short-term fix to a long term problem. Studies have shown that predators become more prolific and resilient to ongoing predator control programs, which doesn't excuse these programs. We have been using federal money to kill coyotes in the lower 48 states and yet coyote numbers and distribution have increased nationwide. Where is the thinking there?
Corrective control - removing the individual problem animal(s) - is, I believe, the professional way to respond. But most of the time USDA Wildlife Services engages in what it calls "preventative control." I know because I did it. Federal hunters kill thousands of coyotes yearly just because they "might" kill livestock. If we, as a nation, really feel like we need to kill that many predators, why don't we let sportsmen do it and cut out the feds?
WILKINSON: Millions of livestock graze on public lands in the West—in national forests, Bureau of Land Management parcels, national wildlife refuges and even in national parks. These public lands are also places that provide vital habitat for public wildlife such as wolves and grizzly bears. Critics ask: Does it make sense that we are killing those native public wildlife to protect private cattle and sheep?
NIEMEYER: I am a believer that predator control in the United States should be conducted differently on federal lands than on private land. Private property rights should include the right to protect livestock from animal attacks but on federal grazing leases, I think livestock producers should make every effort to minimize losses to predators by using shepherds, guard dogs, range riders and keeping a close eye on their flocks and herds and keeping the range clear of livestock carcasses when feasible.
Private property rights should include the right to protect livestock from animal attacks but on federal grazing leases, I think livestock producers should make every effort to minimize losses to predators by using shepherds, guard dogs, and range riders. —Niemeyer
While many livestock producers are doing a good job of minimizing predator/livestock conflicts, some are not. Only when a chronic situation exists where predators become a persistent problem on federal land should federal predator control be applied.
WILKINSON: It seems like you were in a tough position. Some environmentalists lambasted you as a wolf assassin. Ranchers said you were a wolf lover.
NIEMEYER: I worked as a government hunter and trapper for 25 years of my career. While it was my job to prevent and reduce documented livestock damage by predators, it was also my duty to be fair, honest and impartial when evaluating a particular livestock loss situation. I did my best, and sometimes it caused hard feelings. On occasion it cost a friendship.
While most of my colleagues did a pretty good job of determining when predators were the cause of livestock loss, others weren't so professional and honest. This has led to perpetual scrutiny of the federal predator control program in the United States. Pointing fingers doesn't do anything but make everyone defensive, but I think it is in the best interest of Wildlife Services, the federal branch of government under the US Department of Agriculture that employed me, to make sure that depredation investigations are conducted in the most professional and transparent way possible so that the public will have a greater degree of trust and support for what that agency does.
After all, those guys work for the rest of us. I'm a big fan of taking lots of photos and over-reporting what happened at a depredation scene so that the public can better learn why predator control is conducted in the first place.
WILKINSON: Your book has met with the critical praise. What gave you the greatest satisfaction in writing it?
NIEMEYER: My career was pretty unusual, I have to admit. I had a lot of people tell me I should write it all down, so a few years ago, I started and Wolfer was the result—although there was a lot on the cutting room floor by the time my editors got through with it. I loved getting to spend my life outdoors solving problems, hunting and trapping and getting paid for it. I felt a close connection with the early culture in our country where settlers encountered an untamed land full of troublesome predators. To some degree, those problems still exist. I guess that means my phone will always ring because there aren't a lot of people anymore who have experience with the subject of predator control.
WILKINSON: : What advice do you have for civil servants in the trenches?
NIEMEYER: I know that being true to yourself and having a clear conscience will set you free in life and that goes for your professional career as well as your private life. I have always spoken up for what I believe is right and paid the price through severe criticism and chastisement by those who didn't agree with me.
I have no doubt that while some didn't like what I had to say I came away from my career with three precious gifts - credibility, integrity and respect. Over my career I had to develop skills and knowledge and apply them to my profession. I had to develop people skills and be a good listener and show respect to others. One of my mottos was: "people can't talk behind my back when I am facing them", so I made myself available to the public, attended every meeting (even those that were held on Sundays in the middle of nowhere.) I know that it is tough to earn respect and even tougher to speak up when the people that employ you want you to remain silent. I have known many colleagues who have done both and we're all better off for it.
For decades, Niemeyer worked as a U.S. civil servant in the employ of Wildlife Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a bureau within the U.S. Interior Department. His primary job was killing predators that menaced domestic livestock. Some environmentalists castigated him as a 'hit man" advancing the interests of cattle and sheep while ranchers on the other side of the barbed-wire fence said he was aligned with greens. After retiring, Niemeyer wrote a book about it, Wolfer, that has met with critical praise. We highly recommend that you read it.
With about 1,600 wolves in the northern Rockies, about one wolf has died for every one that still lives.
Since gray wolves were reintroduced to the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and central Idaho in the mid 1990s—in the wake of humans exterminating original lobo popultions—some 1,500 of the candid predators have been destroyed, largedly in appeasement of the livestock industry. It means that today, with about 1,600 wolves in the northern Rockies, about one wolf has died for every one that still lives. Nieymeyer is a giant, straight-shooter of a man—he stands 6'5". He has nothing to hide, little to apologize for, and he carries no hidden agendas. His bias is that he grew up in the great outdoors, loves wildlife and savors wildlife places.
Recently, I interviewed him about the ongoing wolf controversy in the West.
TODD WILKINSON: You've mentioned in interviews since Wolfer was published that you want to present an honest, unvarnished perspective on what has become known as the wolf saga. Looking back, what were the tactical mistakes that wolf advocates made that led to the political backlash and could the backlash have been avoided?
CARTER NIEMEYER: The backlash that you refer to was precipitated first, by the state of Wyoming by not providing a wolf conservation and management plan that was acceptable by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Secondly, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, according to a judge's ruling, did not follow the letter of the law by delisting wolves according to requirements in the Endangered Species Act - separating the state of Wyoming from Idaho and Montana. I think that wolf advocacy groups had no choice but to challenge delisting through litigation initially so that procedure was followed. Judges rulings indicate that wolf advocacy groups were correct in challenging delisting.
Where things get murky is the question of having enough wolves to delist- the Final Environmental Impact Statement for gray wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho calling for a minimum of 30 breeding pairs totaling 300 wolves equitably distributed over the three wolf recovery areas in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. That's 10 breeding pairs comprising 10 animals roughly in each pack. Those conditions were met in 2002; however, the state of Wyoming did not produce an acceptable wolf conservation and management plan by that time.
Mary Roberson's painting Alpha, Alpha, Beta, Omega
Wolves kept breeding and numbers grew to over 1,600 wolves in over 100 packs by 2010. Some wolf advocacy groups were still not content that the NRM wolf recovery area had enough wolves in 2010 to guarantee viability and that wolf recovery was incomplete because wolves could occupy many more areas of the West.
While litigation by wolf advocacy groups continued, sportsmen, ranchers and rural resident in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming became frustrated, angry and fearful of the growing wolf population and felt that wolf advocates were trying to move the goal posts, so to speak, and the whole issue went political.
WILKINSON: In 2011, two U.S. senators, Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana, and Mike Simpson, from Idaho, attached an amendement to a federal budget bill legislatively stripping away federal protection for wolves. They knew that because it was in a budget bill, it would skirt debate, pass and be signed into law by President Obama. It was the first time that Congress has removed an endangered species from protection instead of going through the scientific process. What do you make of that?
NIEMEYER: Indeed, wolves were delisted by a rider attached to the national budget bill which had never been done before. I know that it appears to have been wolf advocates who prolonged the delisting process but I think that the state of Wyoming and the US Fish and Wildlife Services contributed greatly to the outcome. I think it was time that the delisting process came to an end, but it was unfortunate that it happened the way it did. Just one more indication of the polarization of attitudes and values going on in this country today.
WILKINSON: You and I both know the scientists involved with wolf reintroduction. Part of the brand bargain, as they knew it, was that wolf harvest—hunting, trapping, intervention—was always central to the deal that cleared the way for wolves to be brought back after an absence of half a century. In fact, you and guys like Mike Jimenez, another depredation specialist with the Fish and Wildlife Service, would aggressively act to stop a minor problem with livestock producers before it became major. In some cases, entire packs were removed when only a few calves had been killed but it looked like depredation could become chronic.
So I have two questions relating to this issue:
The first is why does the livestock industry continue to say that wolf predation has caused a "major" impact—compared to weather, disease etc— when clearly it hasn't and the government ensures that predator losses stay low by intervening quickly?
NIEMEYER: During the 25 years that I worked in the field on livestock damage caused by wolves, I conducted most of the livestock loss investigations in the Northern Rockies wolf recovery area and meticulously documented the losses. I also determined when livestock died from other causes. The procedures that I helped initiate in the early years set some of the standards that Wildlife Services and the individual states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming use today. I think what's going on is a clash of cultures. The truth as I see it, is that livestock losses attributed today to wolves and other predators are being exaggerated because of this clash.
I think what's going on is a clash of cultures. The truth as I see it is that livestock losses attributed today to wolves and other predators are being exaggerated because of this clash. —Carter Niemeyer
In many cases they go undocumented by wolf management agencies, but still end up in the statistics. While some livestock are killed by predators and never found, I still think that we need to stick to the numbers documented by federal and state agency field personnel and not based on anecdotal stories. When comparing actual documented livestock losses in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to the National Agricultural Statistical Reporting Service figures the numbers don't jive (documented losses are much lower than the NASS self-reporting method).
Compensation for livestock killed by wolves was provided by Defenders of Wildlife based upon government field investigation forms but now in Idaho, for example, state compensation funds (federal tax dollars) are provided for missing livestock which is mainly attributed to wolves with no documentation required. We need some method to measure predator loss based on documentation. Losses of livestock to wolves is comparatively low compared to other causes of death but nonetheless wolves are routinely being killed by government agents or livestock producers in response to wolf predation. Over 1500 wolves have been killed in the northern Rocky mountains, mostly in response to livestock predation.
WILKINSON: My second question is what do you make of all these assertions of "elk armageddon" and certain individuals encouraging people to poach wolves and spread poison and become lawless anti-wolf vigilantes?
NIEMEYER: I have never bought into the belief that wolves are wiping out the deer, elk and moose in the Northern Rockies. Wolves prey on all of these ungulate species and in areas of high wolf density some localized elk herds are showing some declines. Overall, elk are doing great in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and are at or above management objectives according to fish and game reports based on big game surveys and trend studies.
I never bought into the belief that wolves are wiping out the deer, elk and moose in the Northern Rockies. Overall, elk are doing great in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and are at or above management objectives. —Niemeyer
I do believe that the story has been repeated so many times by so many people that hunters have become convinced that elk are vanishing in the jaws of wolves. What is happening is that elk have learned to react to wolves by changing their grazing and travel habits and may be getting tougher to locate by some hunters.
I know several veteran hunters who kill an elk every year because they hunt hard, walk far and get back into country where the elk are hiding. Hunters depend too much on mechanized hunting, like ATVs, to hunt big game and are partly to blame for big game being hard to find. It is unfortunate that the anti-wolf crowd is playing on the fears of people that wolves are killing all of the elk, spreading diseases and parasites and stalking kids at bus stops. Poachers are criminals. Period.
WILKINSON: I have spoken with several long time wildlife managers. They say the Wyoming wolf management plan essentially pins the wolf population into a relatively small box of acceptability and then allows citizens to purge wolves from wherever else the animals wander—whether they are causing discernible serious impacts or not. For a charismatic imperiled animal that the public has spent millions of dollars recovering, this post-delisting management endorsed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, your former employer, this approach is unprecedented and has been panned by scientists and conservationists. What do you make of it?
NIEMEYER: I am disappointed that Wyoming isn't held to the same standards that Idaho and Montana have accepted - wolves protected and managed from border to border within their states. While I believe that few wolves would ever occupy most regions of Wyoming, I think that they should be allowed to live and disperse throughout Wyoming which could provide connectivity to other potential wolf habitat areas inside and outside the northern rocky mountain wolf recovery area.
George Catlin's "Buffalo Hunt Under The White Wolf Skin"
WILKINSON: By now forcing wolves to keep perpetuating themselves and maintain the minimum recovery criteria in a small corner of Wyoming—the part of the state—isn't Wyoming actually making the impacts on elk worse? Wolves have incredible reproductive potential and the greater Yellowstone ecosystem has historically served as an elk factory. Isn't it counterproductive to force northwest Wyoming to continue to account for the 10 packs or 100 animals right on top of the elk population year after year instead of letting wolves disperse across a larger area of the state to that more territory can absorb the wolf numbers?
NIEMEYER: I would have to agree.
WILKINSON: As you know, I wrote a book, Science Under Siege: The Politicians' War On Nature and Truth about whistleblowers working in environmental and natural resource agencies. One of the persistent problems for civil servants involved with agencies is that they're prevented—by the order of superiors, or by fear or worries about their careers—from being allowed to speak their minds and state things as they actually are, instead of singing the party line of the ruling bureaucracy. It's one of the reasons why some of these resource issues become so muddled and turn into quagmires because the public never knows what the experts on the ground actually know and think. What can you say now that you couldn't before and what is important for the public to know?
NIEMEYER: Without a doubt, wildlife biologists, who are professionally trained, are inhibited from speaking and acting on their knowledge about wildlife management and resource conflict issues, mainly due to politics within their states.
Without a doubt, wildlife biologists, who are professionally trained, are inhibited from speaking and acting on their knowledge about wildlife management and resource conflict issues, mainly due to politics within their states. —Niemeyer
A major problem in many states is that governor-appointed fish and game commissions are dictating how professional biologists will conduct themselves and what they say, wolf management being a prime example. I know biologists who think wolves have been good for healthy elk herds but will never say it. In most states in thenorthern rocky mountain region state biologists try to avoid the W word [wolves] and let higher ranking officials make public statements related to wolf management. Fish and game commissions are a direct conduit from hunters and fisherman who pay much of the bill for fish and game agencies to function, so naturally hunters, trappers and fisherman have a greater say in what happens in game management.
Unfortunately, fish and game commissions give the rest of the non-consumptive public a bad perception about how wildlife is managed at a time when hunting and fishing as recreational sports could use some public image polishing.
WILKINSON: In the West, among certain advocacy groups, there seems to be denial that wolves ever existed as native animals that were important in the evolution of huntable big game species.
NIEMEYER. I agree. Another issue that concerns me is that predator bashing and predator control has become a popular topic among some sportsmen's and ranching groups. They are demanding that the federal and state agencies take a heavier handed approach to reduce predator populations - mainly via aerial hunting. I believe that we spend way too much money in the U.S. killing native predators.
If we want to kill something why don't we focus on reducing or removing introduced and non-native invasive species like wild hogs? More and more research shows that killing predators to increase and sustain big game herds is counterproductive unless adequate habitat exists and is maintained in the first place.
WILKINSON: You were involved in the on-the-ground investigation of real and alleged livestock losses and part of the decisionmaking teams that took out, sometimes, entire wolf packs.
NIEMEYER: Killing predators to protect livestock is a short-term fix to a long term problem. Studies have shown that predators become more prolific and resilient to ongoing predator control programs, which doesn't excuse these programs. We have been using federal money to kill coyotes in the lower 48 states and yet coyote numbers and distribution have increased nationwide. Where is the thinking there?
Corrective control - removing the individual problem animal(s) - is, I believe, the professional way to respond. But most of the time USDA Wildlife Services engages in what it calls "preventative control." I know because I did it. Federal hunters kill thousands of coyotes yearly just because they "might" kill livestock. If we, as a nation, really feel like we need to kill that many predators, why don't we let sportsmen do it and cut out the feds?
WILKINSON: Millions of livestock graze on public lands in the West—in national forests, Bureau of Land Management parcels, national wildlife refuges and even in national parks. These public lands are also places that provide vital habitat for public wildlife such as wolves and grizzly bears. Critics ask: Does it make sense that we are killing those native public wildlife to protect private cattle and sheep?
NIEMEYER: I am a believer that predator control in the United States should be conducted differently on federal lands than on private land. Private property rights should include the right to protect livestock from animal attacks but on federal grazing leases, I think livestock producers should make every effort to minimize losses to predators by using shepherds, guard dogs, range riders and keeping a close eye on their flocks and herds and keeping the range clear of livestock carcasses when feasible.
Private property rights should include the right to protect livestock from animal attacks but on federal grazing leases, I think livestock producers should make every effort to minimize losses to predators by using shepherds, guard dogs, and range riders. —Niemeyer
While many livestock producers are doing a good job of minimizing predator/livestock conflicts, some are not. Only when a chronic situation exists where predators become a persistent problem on federal land should federal predator control be applied.
WILKINSON: It seems like you were in a tough position. Some environmentalists lambasted you as a wolf assassin. Ranchers said you were a wolf lover.
NIEMEYER: I worked as a government hunter and trapper for 25 years of my career. While it was my job to prevent and reduce documented livestock damage by predators, it was also my duty to be fair, honest and impartial when evaluating a particular livestock loss situation. I did my best, and sometimes it caused hard feelings. On occasion it cost a friendship.
While most of my colleagues did a pretty good job of determining when predators were the cause of livestock loss, others weren't so professional and honest. This has led to perpetual scrutiny of the federal predator control program in the United States. Pointing fingers doesn't do anything but make everyone defensive, but I think it is in the best interest of Wildlife Services, the federal branch of government under the US Department of Agriculture that employed me, to make sure that depredation investigations are conducted in the most professional and transparent way possible so that the public will have a greater degree of trust and support for what that agency does.
After all, those guys work for the rest of us. I'm a big fan of taking lots of photos and over-reporting what happened at a depredation scene so that the public can better learn why predator control is conducted in the first place.
WILKINSON: Your book has met with the critical praise. What gave you the greatest satisfaction in writing it?
NIEMEYER: My career was pretty unusual, I have to admit. I had a lot of people tell me I should write it all down, so a few years ago, I started and Wolfer was the result—although there was a lot on the cutting room floor by the time my editors got through with it. I loved getting to spend my life outdoors solving problems, hunting and trapping and getting paid for it. I felt a close connection with the early culture in our country where settlers encountered an untamed land full of troublesome predators. To some degree, those problems still exist. I guess that means my phone will always ring because there aren't a lot of people anymore who have experience with the subject of predator control.
WILKINSON: : What advice do you have for civil servants in the trenches?
NIEMEYER: I know that being true to yourself and having a clear conscience will set you free in life and that goes for your professional career as well as your private life. I have always spoken up for what I believe is right and paid the price through severe criticism and chastisement by those who didn't agree with me.
I have no doubt that while some didn't like what I had to say I came away from my career with three precious gifts - credibility, integrity and respect. Over my career I had to develop skills and knowledge and apply them to my profession. I had to develop people skills and be a good listener and show respect to others. One of my mottos was: "people can't talk behind my back when I am facing them", so I made myself available to the public, attended every meeting (even those that were held on Sundays in the middle of nowhere.) I know that it is tough to earn respect and even tougher to speak up when the people that employ you want you to remain silent. I have known many colleagues who have done both and we're all better off for it.
PHOTO CREDITS
No comments:
Post a Comment