Updated 9/23/04

We lost our law suit. The merits of our case were never heard because the court determined that we did not have "standing" to sue. In other words, the public does not have the right to interfere with bear killing on private industrial lands, even though the public's tax money is being used to kill bears.

Updated 5/6/03

Help Save Black Bears from the Timber Industry

dead bearShould the federal government kill Black Bears that damage trees in private tree plantations in western Oregon?

USDA Wildlife Services (aka Animal Damage Control) has decided to kill bears that might eat bark in tree plantations. Wildlife Services has killed an average of 120 bears a year suspected of harming young trees on private industrial tree plantations and county land.

Most of these bears are killed with leg-snares. Wildlife Services places food to attract bears and when they step in a buried pan a trigger sends a wire coil around the bear's foot which tightens as the bear struggles. Wildlife Services' policy is to check the traps every other day. That means the bear could spend up to 48 hours in the leg-hold trap, longer if Wildlife Services doesn't check it on time.

Bears caught in traps are shot with a rifle. Bears suspected of damaging bark in tree plantations are never relocated. If the bear has cubs (yearling cubs stay with a trapped mother), the cubs are also shot. We don't know the fate of newborn cubs that are not seen when the trapped mother is shot.

Menu: Getting around the bear page ~


05/07/03

Groups File Lawsuit to Stop Wildlife Services from
Killing Oregon Black Bears

On May 7, 2003, Umpqua Watersheds and a coalition of conservation and animal protection organizations filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Oregon to stop Wildlife Services' plan to kill black bears who might claw bark in private tree plantations. On April 11, Wildlife Services -- a division within the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- issued a decision on its bear-killing program.

Other coalition members include the Animal Protection Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Predator Defense, Sinapu, and Siskiyou Project. The coalition charges that Wildlife Services violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal law that requires agencies to disclose and analyze the environmental effects of its actions before they take place. The government failed to analyze the effects of the bear killing on the local bear populations or the effectiveness of its program to curb the damage. Wildlife Services relied on faulty economics that inflated the estimated damage to timber, and the agency was biased in its decision-making process. We hope today's filing will prevent more bears from being killed while the court assesses whether Wildlife Services failed to comply with all applicable laws.

According to Brenna Bell, an attorney working on the case, "Wildlife Services has not shown that its bear killing program actually helps reduce bear damage to tree plantations. It is spending taxpayer money to subsidize the timber industry, but the ironic thing is that killing bears has not been effective! This is just another example of a wasteful government program, which harms the environment to benefit a select few."

The coalition contends there are alternatives to killing bears to protect trees. An understanding of bear behavior and foraging preferences, coupled with the use of non-lethal preventive techniques and modified forest management practices, can help reduce bear damage to timber. For example, timber corporations could manage tree farms differently to mitigate conflicts. Bears are less likely to damage trees in uneven-aged forests or in forests with a diversity of tree species. Bears rarely damage bark if their traditional food sources are plentiful, such as food in large rotting logs or berries in the forest understory. Other effective forest management practices include delayed thinning of forests and avoiding fertilization.

There has been minor bear damage to tree plantations ever since tree plantations were invented on a large scale in the 1950's. It used to simply be a cost of doing business. Now corporations are trying to squeeze out more profits from the Oregon woods by killing bears. But it doesn't seem to be working.

"For two decades timber companies have put out contracts on bears who claw a few trees and Wildlife Services has bumped the bears off. There are better ways to save trees than to snuff Smokey," said Brian Vincent, Program Coordinator for the Animal Protection Institute.

"Instead of working with timber companies to minimize what is already very minor damage caused by hungry bears, Wildlife Services wants to kill black bears only because they have the misfortune of inhabiting areas of value to timber interests," said Kelly Peterson, Oregon representative for The Humane Society of the United States. "North America has the only remaining stable bear populations in the world and to kill them needlessly and only for the protection of private industry under the guise of wildlife management is inhumane and unconscionable."

"Considering there is an unprecedented crash of large carnivore populations worldwide it is reckless to allow continued killing of black bears, especially to subsidize the timber industry which has left a legacy of trashed salmon streams, denuded hillsides, and wrecked communities. We need to save what is left of our wildlife and change course now," said Spencer Lennard, Executive Director of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.

Why would our government do this?

Bears cause minor economic harm to western Oregon tree plantations by occasionally pealing and eating the bark of young trees between April and June. The Coastal Mountain Range (where bear damage happens) is blanketed with young, even age, Douglas fir tree plantations manPhoto by Scott Yostaged by private timber companies like Weyerhaeuser, Boise, and Roseburg Forest Products. Wildlife Services (WS) claim they are required to "remove" any black bears that damage tree plantations whenever a corporation asks. Coos County has also asked for this federal service.

Bear damage to plantations is minuscule. The EA itself says "confirmed or reported [ie not confirmed] bear damage to timber was less than 3.5% of the land in the analysis area. However, for most cooperators, bear damage occurs on only a small portion of the property in any given year". Yet the government pays to protect every single tree from bears for the benefit of the private landowners.


We are paying for this?

Not only are Oregon's bears paying with their lives, our money is being used to kill them. The timber corporation pays 72% of the bear killing cost and public funds pay the remaining 28% (12% county and 16% federal). That amounts to over $28,482 of tax payer subsidy every year for resolving bears problems in privately owned tree plantations, just in western Oregon. That doesn't include the cost of legalizing it with this NEPA analysis or responding to your comments.


There are alternatives, but....

An alternative to killing bears is to manage tree farms differently. Bears don't damage trees in uneven-aged forests or forests with a diversity of tree species. Bears rarely damage bark if their traditional food sources are plentiful, such as food in large rotting logs or berries in the forest understory. Bears do more damage to bark after the application of chemical fertilizers in intensively managed tree plantations. But timber owners are not required to change their forestry practices before using Wildlife Services. Corporate ethics dictate that wildlife is secondary to their highest potential economic return.

Bear Cub Photo courtesy of Forest ServiceThere is no law against bear hunting in Oregon. But Wildlife Services claims private trappers are not monitored with professional oversight. Not only was no alternative offered to correct unethical hunting by trappers, but the monitoring group Sinapu documents that Wildlife Services itself has "been caught breaking the law and using cruel tactics to capture and kill wildlife."


Impacts to the Bear

Wildlife Services did not analyze in the EA, as it should, impacts on the bears that are trapped. From other sources we know that foot-snares (the most common method used in tree plantations) cut off circulation to the foot. The more the bear struggles, the tighter it gets. In Arizona a black bear caught in a leg-hold snare climbed up into a tree, then tumbled out of the tree and hung upside down with its leg in the snare until it died. According to the Humane Society, animals killed in another device, the neck-snare, are often referred to as "jelly-heads" because of the thick, bloody lymphfluid that swells their heads and necks.

Wildlife Services analyzed Humaneness in the EA. "Humaneness is a person's perception of harm or pain... What is unnecessary suffering is subject to debate". They site a study proving this and conclude that "actions are necessary to resolve problems with bear damage to timber on private and county lands." They justify possible pain by finding that "Determining whether an animal is experiencing pain or suffering is difficult... Suffering is not defined in most medical dictionaries... suffering can occur without pain and... pain can occur without suffering." They site another study.


Some Statistics:

From 1996 through 2001 the "Wildlife Services" branch of the USDA killed 1,031 Black Bears in Oregon. Most of those (at least 119 a year, or about 714) were killed to protect industrial tree plantations. 831 were shot after being caught in a foot-snare. 58 bears caught in a cage were shot. 26 bears were caught with a neck or body snare and shot. 68 were killed in a "culvert trap". The rest were shot with the aid of animal calls, spotlights or pursuit by dogs.

Though the killing has increased, it has not helped. In 1996, 138 bears were killed. In 2000, 204 bears were killed. But tree damage remains constant (always minimal). Until now Wildlife Services has been killing bears for the timber industry without any of the required NEPA analysis. But they are hoping to come into compliance with the law now by offering you this proposal to comment on.


Supporting documents:


source data: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws, information & publications, WS annual tables

Black Bears Taken in Oregon by Wildlife Services
1996-2001 Data

Number of Animals Taken and Methods Used by the Wildlife Services Program

FY

Caught in a cage

Leg snare

Leg or foot snare

Neck or body snare

Killed with spotlight

Killed with animal call

Just plain shot

Culvert Traps

Chemical ie sedatives

Total killed

2001

16

1

127

4

 

7

 

15

 

170

2000

24

4

142

11

 

 

6

17

 

204

1999

7

 

144

4

1

 

4

14

 

174

1998

4

 

149

4

 

 

11

8

 

176

1997

2

1

146

2

 

 

7

11

 

169

1996

5

1

123

1

 

 

4

3

1

138

Totals:

58

7

831

26

1

7

32

68

1

1031


What the above data looks like in chart form




The following is a letter to Wildlife Services concerning the lack of NEPA and excessive censorship, emailed on 1/21/03.

To: Kim Wagner
Wildlife Services
Portland, Oregon

Dear Kim,

Thank you for spending so much time with me on the phone this morning to help me better understand the "Black Bear Damage to Timber" EA proposal. In this email I would like to review some of the things we talked about. If I have misunderstood anything you said, please correct me. (I am not asking for additional documents at this time.)

1) Thank you for sending me the 1996 (for Roseburg) and 1997 (for NW Oregon) NEPA EAs that covered removal of bears in Oregon up to this point. You have removed an average of 119 timber-damaging bears a year since 1996 under these NEPA analyses.

I pointed out to you today that the 1996 EA says "timber resources are outside the scope of this EA" (4-17), and the 1997 EA says "protection of timber resources are outside the scope of this EA" (4-6).

You responded that it looked like I caught an oversight, that your State Director was under the impression the current removal of bears for timber damage was covered under a NEPA analysis. It appears to not be covered. I asked what you will do about this. You stated that the current EA proposal should be finished before the Bear Removal for Timber Damage season begins this April.

2) I noted that the 1996 and 1997 EAs for animal damage control in Oregon had a lot of names blacked-out -- intentionally censored so that public agencies would not be identified. ODFW, BLM, and county names were blackened, (but not National Forest names). It was very strange to read a reference to the Northwest Forest Plan that said "Amendments to Forest Service and Blank Blank Blank Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl".

It was also quite disconcerting to have most of the EA references censored (blacked-out), so that we can not access data or studies referenced in the EAs. The "List of agencies consulted" had most names and agencies blackened so it was a useless page. ODFW and BLM were mentioned so often, the black marks made the document almost unreadable, that is until one learned what length of black mark fit which agency name. Even the title pages were mostly blackened, and in the case of the 1996 EA, the date was censored. All the maps of covered areas in Oregon were completely blackened.

It was the most censored public document I have ever seen. Some pages had more black than print. Today I asked you why the current Black Bear Damage to Timber Resources EA did not have this censorship. Even Coos County is now identified as a cooperator.

You stated that your agency has re-assessed the Texas court ruling that caused you to censor the 1996 and 1997 EAs, though there has been no new court determination. You decided that since the current EA does not divulge individual cooperators, public agency information does not need to be censored.

When I first asked for the 1996 and 97 EAs, I asked for an electronic copy instead of a hard copy. You directed me to your web site where most of your EAs are posted, but stated that the 1996 and 97 EAs were not there because they had not yet been censored (called "redacted"). Today you said that they have not been posted publicly because the branch of Wildlife Services in charge of posting EAs had not yet gotten around to it. You did not know when they would be posted.

A question I did not ask you today, but would like to is: Since you have decided that public agency names no longer have to be censored from your NEPA documents, can we have a copy of the '96/'97 EAs without the black marks? We would prefer the electronic version.

3) The current Black Bear EA references the "WS Programmatic EIS (USDA 1997, Revised). Today I asked to see a copy of that (I assume the current EA is tiered to it), hopefully an electronic version. You said that this programmatic EIS has also not yet been posted to your web site, but it will be, eventually. You could not send me a hard copy because it was 4" thick and you were out of copies. I asked that you have a public copy available someplace, like the public library, the Roseburg WS office, or your web site, that we could look at in preparation for our comments.

Kim, thank you again for your help in providing us information for the Managing Black Bear Damage to Timber EA. It was a long conversation this morning, and I hope I have covered it accurately here. We also discussed some additional documents I could ask for. I will do that separately.

Sincerely,
Francis Eatherington
Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.