Wildlife Services Program: Information on Activities to Manage	 
Wildlife Damage (30-NOV-01, GAO-02-138).			 
								 
Activities such as birdwatching, hunting, and wildlife		 
photography provide important recreational, aesthetic, and	 
income-generating benefits to the American public. In addition,  
wildlife help maintain ecosystems, and the mere knowledge that	 
wildlife exist is viewed as beneficial by many people. At the	 
same time, however, some wildlife destroy crops, kill livestock, 
damage property, and pose risks to public health and safety.	 
Further, as the U.S. population has grown and impinged upon	 
wildlife habitats, conflicts between wildlife and humans and	 
their property have become increasingly common. Wildlife	 
Services, a program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's  
(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is tasked with
controlling damage by wildlife. Mammals and birds damage crops,  
forestry seedlings, and aquaculture products each year, at a cost
of hundreds of millions of dollars. In fiscal year 2000,	 
predators killed half a million livestock--mostly lambs and	 
calves--valued at $70 million. To reduce such threats, Wildlife  
Services conducts operational and research activities with	 
federal, state, and local agencies; agricultural producers and	 
ranchers; private homeowners; and others. In carrying out these  
activities, Wildlife Services applies the most appropriate	 
methods--whether lethal or nonlethal--of prevention and control. 
Considerable opportunity exists for developing effective	 
nonlethal means of controlling damage by wildlife on farms and	 
ranches--for example, through wildlife contraceptives or through 
the use of scare devices triggered by motion sensors. In view of 
the growing controversy surrounding the use of lethal controls,  
Wildlife Services scientists are focusing most of their research 
on developing improved nonlethal control techniques. GAO	 
identified no independent assessments of the costs and benefits  
associated with Wildlife Services' program.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-138 					        
    ACCNO:   A02474						        
  TITLE:     Wildlife Services Program: Information on Activities to  
Manage Wildlife Damage						 
     DATE:   11/30/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Wildlife conservation				 
	     Wildlife management				 
	     Contraception					 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     USDA Animal Damage Control Program 		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-138
     
Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

November 2001 WILDLIFE SERVICES PROGRAM Information on Activities to Manage
Wildlife Damage

GAO- 02- 138

Page i GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Damage Caused by Wildlife Can Be Significant
and Costly 7 Wildlife Services Conducts Operational and Research Activities
to

Manage Wildlife Damage 16 Studies Done by, or in Collaboration With,
Wildlife Services Staff

Have Found That Program Benefits Exceed Costs 27 Wildlife Services Research
Efforts Focus on Developing More

Effective Nonlethal Controls 38 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 45

Appendix II Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program 47

Appendix III Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and Activity 53

Appendix IV Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State 58

Appendix V Examples of Wildlife- Aircraft Strikes 66

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 70 GAO Contact 70 Staff
Acknowledgments 70

Tables

Table 1: Annual Livestock Losses Attributed to Predators 9 Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 2: Estimates of Annual Human Injuries and Fatalities in the United
States From Wildlife Bites or Attacks 12 Table 3: Wildlife Services?
Administrative Expenditures, Fiscal Year

2000 53 Table 4: Wildlife Services? Operational Expenditures, by State and

Funding Source, Fiscal Year 2000 54 Table 5: Wildlife Services? Operational
Expenditures for

Agriculture, by Subcategory, Fiscal Year 2000 57 Table 6: Examples of
Resources Damaged by Injurious Wildlife,

and Related Emerging Concerns, by State 58

Figures

Figure 1: Coyotes Are Responsible for Most Lamb Losses to Predators 10
Figure 2: A Single Bird Can Cause Considerable Damage to a Large

Aircraft 14 Figure 3: After Capture, Raccoons Undergo Various Procedures to

Ascertain the Effectiveness of the Oral Rabies Vaccination Project 26 Figure
4: Wildlife Services? Operational Expenditures, by Program

Category, Fiscal Year 2000 56

Page 1 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

November 30, 2001 The Honorable Herb Kohl, Chairman The Honorable Thad
Cochran, Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States
Senate

The Honorable Henry Bonilla, Chairman The Honorable Marcy Kaptur, Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House
of Representatives

Wildlife are greatly valued by the American public. Activities such as
birdwatching, hunting, and wildlife photography provide important
recreational, aesthetic, and income- generating benefits. In addition,
wildlife have important roles in maintaining ecosystems, and the mere
knowledge that wildlife exist is viewed as beneficial by many people. At the
same time, however, some wildlife destroy crops, kill livestock, damage
property, and pose risks to public health and safety. For example,
collisions between aircraft and birds put people?s lives at risk and cause
considerable damage to aircraft. Further, as the U. S. population has grown
and impinged upon wildlife habitats, conflicts between wildlife and humans
and their property have become increasingly common, making modern wildlife
management more challenging. The use of some methods of controlling
wildlife, especially lethal methods, has been a subject of considerable and
continuing controversy.

Wildlife Services (formerly known as Animal Damage Control), a program
within the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, is tasked with controlling damage by wildlife, primarily
mammals and birds. To do this, Wildlife Services conducts a variety of
operational and research activities in cooperation with its clients-
federal, state, and local agencies; agricultural producers and ranchers;
private homeowners; and others. For example, on request from individuals or
agencies, it provides advice about managing wildlife damage. In carrying out
its activities, Wildlife Services considers and applies what it believes to
be the most appropriate methods- whether lethal or nonlethal- of prevention
and control.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

The Conference Committee on USDA?s fiscal year 2001 appropriations directed
us to conduct a study of the Wildlife Services program. Specifically, we
agreed to determine (1) the nature and severity of threats posed by
wildlife, (2) the actions the program has taken to reduce such threats, (3)
the studies Wildlife Services and others have done to assess the specific
costs and benefits of program activities; and (4) the opportunities that
exist for developing effective nonlethal methods of predator control on
farms and ranches.

Among the steps taken in our review, we visited Wildlife Services? two
regional offices (western and eastern) as well as program offices in four
states; we also visited Wildlife Services? National Wildlife Research Center
in Colorado and field research stations in Ohio and Utah. In each state
visited, we met with program clients, including farmers, ranchers, and
federal and state wildlife management officials. To obtain information on
costs and benefits, we interviewed Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service economists and discussed costs and benefits with Wildlife Services
researchers and operations personnel, program clients, and academicians. As
agreed with your offices, we did not conduct an independent cost- benefit
analysis of the Wildlife Services program. Instead, we reviewed studies of
program costs and benefits that were done by or in collaboration with
Wildlife Services personnel. Based on our interviews with federal and state
wildlife officials and representatives of wildlife advocacy organizations-
including the Humane Society of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife-
and on an extensive literature search, these are the only cost and benefit
studies that have been done on the Wildlife Services program. See appendix I
for a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.

Although no estimates are available of the total cost of damages
attributable to them, some wildlife can pose significant threats to
Americans and their property and can cause costly damage and loss. Mammals
and birds damage crops, forestry seedlings, and aquaculture products each
year, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Livestock is vulnerable
as well. In fiscal year 2000, predators (primarily coyotes) killed nearly
half a million livestock- mostly lambs and calves- valued at about $70
million. Some predators also prey on big game animals, game birds, and other
wildlife, including endangered species. Beavers, woodchucks, and other
species cause millions of dollars in damage each year to property such as
roads, bridges, dams, water drainage systems, and electrical utilities.
Seemingly benign wildlife, such as deer and birds, can also sometimes be
injurious. For example, accidents involving Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

automobiles and deer result in over $1 billion in damage annually, and deer
consume a wide variety of landscape, garden, and forestry shrubs, plants,
and trees. There were about 6, 000 collisions between aircraft and wildlife-
especially birds- in calendar year 2000. Such collisions result in not only
human injuries and deaths, but also significant aircraft damage, and cost U.
S. civil aviation nearly $400 million a year. Wildlife can attack and injure
people, sometimes fatally, and can harbor diseases, such as rabies and West
Nile virus, that threaten human health.

Wildlife Services conducts both operational and research activities to curb
damage by wildlife. Generally, the program?s agricultural clients (e. g.,
farmers and ranchers) already have several nonlethal controls in place, such
as fences, guard dogs, and chemical repellents, to deter wildlife. When
these controls prove insufficient, clients seek assistance from Wildlife
Services. In these instances, Wildlife Services personnel determine the type
of assistance warranted, depending on the severity and extent of the damage
and the type of wildlife involved. Assistance may involve suggesting
additional techniques for controlling wildlife damage, recommending habitat
modifications, or capturing and/ or killing animals that are preying on
livestock or causing other damage. The Wildlife Services program spent
nearly $60 million on such damage control activities in fiscal year 2000;
the program provided about $23. 3 million of these funds, and its clients
provided the remaining $36. 4 million. The program also conducts research,
such as studying the biology and behavior of injurious animals or conducting
experiments on reproductive intervention- interference with a species?
normal reproductive cycle or whelping ability. In fiscal year 2000,
expenditures for research totaled about $12 million. About 85 percent of the
research funding was provided by Wildlife Services funds; the remainder, by
clients.

We identified no independent assessments of the costs and benefits
associated with Wildlife Services? program. The only available studies were
conducted by the program or with the involvement of program staff. However,
the studies were peer reviewed prior to publication in professional
journals. The most comprehensive study, issued in 1994, concluded that
Wildlife Services? current program, which uses all practical methods (both
lethal and nonlethal) of control and prevention, was the most cost effective
of the program alternatives evaluated. Other studies, focused on specific
program activities, have shown that program benefits exceed costs by ratios
ranging from 3: 1 to 27: 1. Nevertheless, there are a number of difficulties
inherent in analyses that attempt to assess relative costs and benefits. Of
most significance, estimates of the economic benefits (savings) associated
with program activities are based largely on

Page 4 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

predictions of the damage that would have occurred had the program?s control
methods been absent. Such predictions are difficult to make with certainty
and can vary considerably depending on the circumstances.

Considerable opportunity exists for developing effective nonlethal means of
controlling damage by wildlife on farms and ranches- for example, through
wildlife contraceptives or through the use of scare devices triggered by
motion sensors. In view of the growing controversy surrounding the use of
lethal controls, Wildlife Services scientists are focusing most of their
research on developing improved nonlethal control techniques. In fiscal year
2000, about $9 million, or about 75 percent of the program?s total research
funding (federal and nonfederal), was directed toward such efforts. However,
developing effective, practical, and economical nonlethal control measures
has been a challenge, largely for two reasons. First, some methods that
appeared to be promising early on proved to be less effective when tested
further. For example, initial research indicated that lamb carcasses laced
with lithium chloride, a chemical that sickens coyotes, might be an
effective means of conditioning coyotes not to kill lambs. However, while
the coyotes learned not to eat lambs, they still killed them. Second,
animals often adapt to nonlethal measures, such as scare devices (e. g.,
bursts of sound or light).

Wildlife are valuable to society in many ways, providing a wide range of
social, ecological, and economic benefits. For example, hunting and
birdwatching are important as both recreational and income- generating
activities. In 1996, according to the latest national survey by the
Department of the Interior?s Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 40 million U. S.
adults (16 years old and older) went fishing and/ or hunting and spent over
$71.9 billion on related items. Their expenditures included fishing and
hunting equipment, trips, licenses and fees, and books and magazines. In the
same year, nearly 63 million adults enjoyed ?nonconsumptive? activities such
as observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. These wildlife- watching
participants spent over $29. 2 billion on related items such as equipment,
trips, and books and magazines. The total $101. 2 billion spent by anglers,
hunters, and wildlife- watchers does not include related economic multiplier
effects, or ripple effects, on the American

1 ?1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated
Recreation,? U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, November 1997.
Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

economy. Nor does it include the household income (salaries and wages) of
jobs supported by wildlife- related activities or the state or federal tax
revenues generated by such activities. For example, expenditures related to
hunting, fishing, and wildlife- watching activities generated about $5.2
billion in state income and sales tax revenues in 1996, according to reports
based on the 1996 Fish and Wildlife Service survey. 2

During the last decade, wildlife seem to have become an almost universal
object for concern, a symbol for environmental issues, and a focus for
resource management, according to a Cornell University extension
publication. 3 However, the publication also notes that actual encounters
with wildlife are frequently viewed as a nuisance or are associated with
damage and unwanted costs. For example, the coyote is one the most
successful and ubiquitous predators in the United States, and coyote
predation on livestock is a serious problem for U. S. producers.

In the United States, wildlife are a publicly owned resource held in trust
and managed by federal and state agencies. In general, the federal
government manages threatened and endangered species and migratory birds,
while the states manage big game and other mammals and birds. Wildlife
Services is authorized by Congress to conduct activities relating to most
wildlife damage situations. The primary statutory authority for the program
is the Act of March 2, 1931, as amended (7 U. S. C. 426- 426c; 46 Stat.
1468), which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct activities
to control injurious animals. In addition, the program operates under the
provisions of numerous other laws, including the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, as amended; the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended;
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The practice of managing wildlife is not new, nor is the control of
predators. For centuries, control of mammalian predators has been practiced
worldwide as a means of protecting livestock and enhancing

2 See ?1996 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching,? U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, April 1998; ?The Economic
Importance of Hunting: Economic data on hunting throughout the entire United
States,? Southwick Associates, Arlington, Virginia, 1998; and ?The Economic
Importance of Sport Fishing: Economic data on sport fishing throughout the
entire United States,? American Sportfishing Association, Alexandria,
Virginia, 1998. 3 Wildlife Damage News, Cornell Cooperative Extension
Wildlife Damage Management

Program, Vol. 1, Spring 2001.

Page 6 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

game populations. The first recorded federal involvement in wildlife damage
control in the United States occurred in 1885, when a federal agency sent
questionnaires to farmers about crop damage caused by birds. By 1915, the
Congress was appropriating funds for federal predator control operations
directed at wolves and coyotes. In 1931, the Congress passed the Act of
March 2, 1931, authorizing the control of injurious animals. Since then,
federal wildlife control activities have evolved along with demographic and
societal changes. In the program?s early years, for example, the emphasis
was on conducting general eradication campaigns that might be directed at
the entire statewide population of a particular species of predator. This
operating philosophy, as we reported in 1990, 4 contributed to decimating
gray wolf populations in the continental United States. As public attitudes
changed, the program?s focus changed as well, and it now emphasizes killing
only problem animals when necessary. Appendix II summarizes key events in
the program?s evolution.

Today the Wildlife Services program conducts operational and research
activities. The operational activities are headed by the program?s eastern
and western regional offices (located in Raleigh, North Carolina, and in
Lakewood, Colorado), which in turn oversee 37 state offices, some of which
are responsible for program activities in more than one state. Operational
activities consist of technical assistance (e. g., providing advice or
loaning equipment to individuals who are encountering problems with
wildlife) and direct assistance (e. g., diverting, removing, or killing
injurious wildlife). Generally, Wildlife Services conducts its operational
activities in response to requests for assistance. The program coordinates
its operational activities with other entities, such as state departments of
wildlife, local agricultural extension services, and private animal removal
services.

The program?s research activities are headed by the National Wildlife
Research Center, located in Fort Collins, Colorado. The center has three
research programs: product development research, bird research, and mammal
research. Whereas most of the product development research is done at the
center, most of the bird and mammal research is done at field stations
across the country. To augment their staff of scientists and technicians,
the research programs rely on undergraduate and graduate students, post-
doctoral appointments, and volunteers.

4 Wildlife Management: Effects of Animal Damage Control Program on Predators

(GAO/ RCED- 90- 149, Aug. 9, 1990).

Page 7 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Program funds for both operations and research are provided through
congressional appropriations and through cooperative agreements with
clients- organizations and individuals- that seek the program?s assistance.
Wildlife Services? clients include other federal agencies (e. g., the
Department of the Interior?s Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land
Management, USDA?s Forest Service, and the Department of Defense); state
agencies (e. g., state wildlife divisions and departments of
transportation); county agencies and city organizations (e. g., parks and
recreation departments, zoos, and airports); Indian tribes; associations (e.
g., the Farm Bureau, livestock associations, and wool growers?
associations); animal advocacy and conservation groups; private businesses
(e. g., hotels and stadiums); and individuals. Some Wildlife Services
activities are completely funded by clients.

In fiscal year 2000, the program spent about $80.6 million in funds: about
$42.3 million in congressional appropriations and about $38. 3 million in
funds from clients. Of the total funding, research spent about $12.2
million, or 15 percent; operations spent about $59 million, or 73 percent;
and program administration spent about $9. 5 million, or 12 percent. See
appendix III for information on operational expenditures by state, by
funding source, and by type of work.

People exist as only one element in the natural world. Increasingly, as
wildlife habitat shrinks due to human population growth and activities,
clashes occur between people and wildlife. These clashes take many forms.
For example, mammals and birds can damage crops and forestry resources,
deplete aquaculture stock, destroy livestock, and despoil property. Further,
they pose threats to human health and safety through the spread of disease
(e. g., rabies and West Nile virus); through direct attacks on humans; and
through collisions with passenger cars, trucks, trains, and aircraft. The
effects of injurious wildlife are not limited to rural populations;
suburbanites are grappling with how to best deal with growing deer, geese,
and beaver populations that damage property and pose threats to human
health.

Although they generate substantial economic activity, wildlife of all kinds
can cause damage, and that damage can be costly. Wildlife damage to U. S.
agriculture alone (including crops and livestock) has been estimated at
between $600 million and $1. 6 billion annually, with over half of all
farmers and ranchers experiencing some type of wildlife- related damage each
year. Following are examples of how wildlife can affect agricultural Damage
Caused by

Wildlife Can Be Significant and Costly

Wildlife Damage Agricultural and Natural Resources and Property

Page 8 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

resources, other wildlife, and property. Appendix IV provides, by state,
examples of injurious wildlife, the kinds of resources they damage, and
emerging concerns.

 Birds, rodents, deer, and other mammals cause significant damage to a
variety of crops such as corn, rice, sunflowers, and lettuce, as well as
berries and other fruits and nuts. The estimated annual losses of corn
attributed to wildlife exceed $90 million, and those of apples, blueberries,
and grapes exceed, in aggregate, $40 million. Deer and bears also eat
forestry seedlings and a wide variety of landscape and garden plants.

 Fish- eating birds (e. g., cormorants, herons, egrets, and pelicans) can
cause severe damage at aquaculture farms, eating catfish, crawfish, salmon,
bass, trout, and ornamental fish. According to a USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) survey of catfish producers from 15 states, 69
percent reported some wildlife- caused losses, with a financial loss of $12.
5 million to wildlife predation in 1996.

 In aggregate, coyotes, mountain lions, bears, and wolves kill thousands of
lambs and calves each year. Livestock losses attributed to predators-
predominantly coyotes- are about $71 million a year, according to the most
recent NASS surveys. According to a Defenders of Wildlife representative,
these livestock loss estimates are inflated because they are self- reported
by livestock producers. The available evidence, however, suggests otherwise,
according to a Wildlife Services study. 5 This study noted that surveys of
livestock producers tend to underreport losses, because reports emphasize
confirmed kills. The study also noted that NASS survey data typically report
lower losses than other national estimates. Table 1 shows the losses
reported by NASS.

5 M. J. Bodenchuk, J. R. Mason, and W. C. Pitt, ?Economics of predation
management in relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and
safety.? In: L. Clark (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
on the Economics of Wildlife Damage. Colorado State University Press, Fort
Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 1: Annual Livestock Losses Attributed to Predators Livestock Number
lost to

predators Value of loss (in millions of dollars)

Cattle and calves 147,000 $51.6 Sheep and lambs 273,000 16.5 Goats and kids
a 61,000 3.4

Total 481,000 $71.5

a Losses of goats and kids were reported only for the three major goat-
producing states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Source: ?Cattle Predator
Loss,? NASS, May 2001 (data for 2000); ?Sheep and Goats Predator Loss,?
NASS, May 2000 (data for 1999).

Various forms of damage compensation programs are in effect, at the state or
private level, for selected areas and selected wildlife species. For
example, several states provide some payment to individuals for damage done
(e. g., to property or crops) or livestock killed by certain species (e. g.,
elk, wolves, eagles, grizzly bears, and mountain lions). Additionally, the
Defenders of Wildlife has a compensation fund for damage caused by certain
species (e. g., wolves and grizzly bears) in certain areas of the country.
Generally, the programs require confirmation by state or federal officials
that the damage or loss was inflicted by one of the species covered by the
program. According to Wildlife Services officials, for example, before an
individual can receive compensation from Defenders of Wildlife for damage
caused by wolves, a Wildlife Services official must verify that a wolf
caused the damage.

Coyotes are the major predator responsible for livestock losses. Of lamb
losses to predators in 1999, for example, 64.3 percent were attributed to
coyotes. Wildlife Services personnel showed us how, by examining the damage
to a lamb carcass (e. g., a broken or missing trachea, the pattern of blood
clotting, and other indicators), they can often identify the species that
killed the lamb. Figure 1 illustrates the damage that coyotes can do.

Page 10 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 1: Coyotes Are Responsible for Most Lamb Losses to Predators

Sources: Coyotes attacking lamb, USDA; lamb carcass, GAO.

 Threatened and endangered species are sometimes at risk as well. Ravens
kill desert tortoises; feral hogs prey on several species of endangered
plants, tree snails, and forest birds; and Arctic fox prey on protected
Aleutian Canada geese. In Guam, the brown tree snake (a non- native species
accidently introduced to the island by humans) has eliminated 9 of the
island?s 12 species of forest birds and most of the terrestrial vertebrates,
killed many pets, and bitten many children.

 Beavers gnaw down trees, build dams, and plug up culverts, causing flood
damage to timber, roads, bridges, and other property. The monetary value of
beaver- related damage is also significant. In North Carolina alone, the
beaver damage management program prevented the loss of, or damage to, $8.5
million in property during fiscal year 2000, according to a program report.

In addition to their physical and economic impacts, wildlife can also
threaten human health and safety. Wildlife can harbor diseases that can
spread to livestock, pets, and people. Wildlife can also directly attack
people, causing injuries or death. Further, wildlife- particularly deer- are
sometimes the cause of automobile accidents. Collisions between aircraft and
birds are of particular concern, because such accidents can result in
serious and costly damage and, in some cases, injuries or death to pilots or
passengers.

Birds and mammals sometimes harbor diseases- such as rabies, bubonic plague,
Lyme disease, bovine tuberculosis, and West Nile virus- that can Wildlife
Also Pose Threats

to Human Health and Safety

Page 11 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

be passed along to people through direct or indirect contact. (Such diseases
are referred to as zoonotic diseases.) For rabies, the areas at greatest
risk are southern Texas (coyote and dog rabies), central Texas (gray fox
rabies), and the northeastern United States and Ohio (raccoon rabies). West
Nile virus, first documented in the United States in 1999, is now present in
the District of Columbia and more than 20 states (primarily in the East and
the South) and has been responsible for the deaths of at least 10 people.
Birds serve as a host for the virus, which is transmitted to humans and
animals through mosquito bites. Excrement poses health risks as well. The
excrement of gulls or other birds that nest on rooftops can enter
ventilation systems, posing the risk of histoplasmosis (a respiratory
disease) to workers who breathe the contaminated air. Similarly, especially
in the western states, exposure to rodent excrement poses the risk of
hantavirus (a potentially deadly lung disease). The costs associated with
these diseases can be substantial. For example, the increased incidence of
coyote, raccoon, and fox rabies has resulted in estimated costs of over $450
million annually for additional health care, education, vaccination, and
animal control.

Safety concerns are also an issue. With their populations expanding and
habitats shrinking, wildlife are more likely to come into contact with
humans. An attack by wildlife can result in a person?s injury or even death.
In August 2001, for example, a black bear broke into a home in a mountain
village in New Mexico and killed a 93- year- old woman; in 1997, a mountain
lion attacked and killed a 10- year- old child in Colorado?s Rocky Mountain
National Park. Bites or attacks from wildlife cause few fatalities, but many
injuries. While the number of fatalities from rodent (e. g., mice and rats)
bites is unknown, rodents cause about 27,000 injuries each year. Table 2
shows the estimated number of human injuries and fatalities that result each
year in the United States from wildlife bites or attacks.

Page 12 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 2: Estimates of Annual Human Injuries and Fatalities in the United
States From Wildlife Bites or Attacks

Species Injuries Fatalities

Rodents 27,000 Unknown Venomous snakes 8,000 15 Skunks 750 0 Foxes 500 0
Bears 30 1 Sharks 28 2 Alligators 18 .5 a Coyotes 2 0 Cougars 2 .4 a

Note: These data are extrapolated from various studies done in various
geographic regions over various time periods. They are probably understated
because they exclude non- reported bites, which could be quite high in
number. a Fewer than one human fatality a year. Alligators, for example,
cause an average of one fatality every 2 years. Source: Michael R. Conover,
William C. Pitt, K. K. Kessler, T. J. DuBow, and W. A. Sanborn, ?Review

of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the
United States,? Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 407- 414,
Fall 1995.

In other instances, wildlife have collided with automobiles, trains, and
planes. Each year more than a million deer- automobile collisions occur in
the United States, resulting in over $1 billion in damage to vehicles, 29,
000 human injuries, and 200 human fatalities.

Aircraft collisions with wildlife are of particular concern, given their
safety and economic consequences. In calendar year 2000, about 6,000
aircraft collisions involving wildlife, primarily birds, were reported in
the United States. From 1990 through 2000, wildlife- aircraft strikes
resulted in the deaths of about 140 people and the destruction of about 115
aircraft worldwide. The economic toll has been heavy as well. Wildlife-
aircraft strikes cost the aviation industry more than $1 billion a year
worldwide, with costs to U. S. civil aviation (commercial and private
aircraft) estimated at nearly $400 million a year. For U. S. civil aviation,
wildlife strikes have also resulted in nearly 500, 000 hours of aircraft
downtime each year. Effects on military operations are estimated at $30
million a year.

A single large bird, such as a goose, can cause serious damage to an
aircraft. The average aircraft is designed to withstand a direct hit from a
bird weighing up to 4 pounds, whereas a Canada goose typically weighs 8 to
15 pounds. In September 1995, the U. S. Air Force lost 24 airmen and a

Page 13 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

$190 million AWACS aircraft in a strike involving Canada geese. Although
most strikes take place during takeoff or landing, some occur en route.
Pilots have reported strikes occurring as high as 30,000 feet. Gulls (which
weigh about 2 pounds) are a particular hazard, making up nearly one- third
of the reported strikes that identified the type of wildlife struck. In the
Great Lakes region alone, the ring- billed gull population has increased
about 20- fold over the past 40 years, according to a Wildlife Services bird
research official. In an August 2000 incident, a Boeing 747 airplane engine
ingested at least one Western gull just after takeoff from the Los Angeles
International Airport. The pilot had to dump 83 tons of fuel over the ocean
before making an emergency landing. The plane was out of service for 72
hours; the repair cost was $400,000. Figure 2 illustrates the kind of damage
a single bird can cause.

Page 14 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 2: A Single Bird Can Cause Considerable Damage to a Large Aircraft

Source: USDA.

Page 15 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Even small birds can be damaging. Starlings, for example, which weigh only
about 3 ounces, are referred to as ?feathered bullets? because their mass is
so great for their size, according to a Wildlife Services official.
Starlings are especially dangerous, the official said, because they often
travel in dense flocks of many thousands.

All wildlife- aircraft strike reports are entered into the Federal Aviation
Administration?s (FAA) National Wildlife Strike Database, which is managed
by Wildlife Services. As of March 2001, the database contained about 34, 000
strike reports for the period 1990 through 2000. However, the actual number
of such strikes is probably considerably higher because only FAA- certified
airports are required to report wildlife- aircraft strikes. 6 While non-
certified airports sometimes report such strikes, Wildlife Services
estimates that the total number reported represents only about 20 percent of
those that have occurred.

Certain unauthorized uses of airport land can increase the risk of
birdstrikes. In a 1999 report, 7 for example, we cited two instances of
landfills that had been established on airport land without FAA?s
authorization. Landfills attract wildlife and thereby increase the risk of
birdstrikes. In both of the examples we cited, the unauthorized land use had
continued undetected or uncorrected for years. Citing weakneses in FAA?s
compliance monitoring program, we recommended that FAA revise its compliance
policy guidance to require regularly scheduled monitoring, including
periodic on- site visits.

Although 97 percent of wildlife- aircraft strikes over a 10- year period
involved birds, four- legged animals were also involved in some: 418
reported strikes were with deer; 71 were with coyotes; and another 73
strikes involved turtles, alligators, foxes, or woodchucks. See appendix V
for excerpts from reports of wildlife- aircraft strikes.

6 Certified airports are those that serve air carrier operations with
aircraft seating more than 30 passengers. 7 General Aviation Airports:
Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for Improved

Oversight and Enforcement (GAO/ RCED- 99- 109, May 7, 1999).

Page 16 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

To curb the damage done by wildlife, Wildlife Services conducts operational
and research activities for the benefit of various public and private
clients. Program operations and research activities are focused, in large
part, on (1) protecting livestock; (2) protecting game animals, game birds,
and threatened or endangered species; (3) protecting property and crops; (4)
protecting the flying public; and (5) reducing and monitoring the spread of
wildlife diseases.

Wildlife Services? operational activities consist of technical assistance
(e. g., providing information, advice, or equipment to property owners and
others who are confronted with wildlife problems) and direct assistance (e.
g., diverting, relocating, or killing wildlife). Wildlife Services responds
to telephone inquiries from the public and has published booklets and
pamphlets to help people deal with wildlife problems such as a bat in the
attic, a skunk under a porch, or a bear in a hot tub. The program?s research
activities include both laboratory research and field experiments. Some
research investigates particular species? behavior and biology; other
research is aimed at improving controls, both lethal and nonlethal.

The type of assistance Wildlife Services provides to a client varies,
depending on the situation, the location, and the species involved. In
response to a request for assistance from a farmer or a rancher, for
example, Wildlife Services officials will provide advice over the phone,
mail information, or visit the site and assess the situation. As
appropriate, officials will coordinate with other stakeholders, such as
state wildlife departments, other federal agencies, or adjoining neighbors.
After assessing the situation, officials may suggest the use of one or more
controls, including fences, guard dogs, harassment, traps, or shooting.

Once a course of action has been agreed upon, it is documented in a
cooperative agreement between Wildlife Services and the client. The
cooperative agreement specifies the work that will be done, the methods that
will be used, and the way costs will be shared. Cost- sharing arrangements
vary by state, depending largely on the demand for program services and the
availability and amount of cooperative funding. Cooperative funding is a
critical component affecting program availability and delivery and is a key
factor determining variability among Wildlife Services? state programs. For
example, in some cases, a client pays half the cost of services received; in
others, counties pay for part of a Wildlife Services employee?s salary, and
that employee serves those counties. In still other instances, an
organization, such as a wool growers? association, collects fees from its
members, who are then eligible to receive services Wildlife Services

Conducts Operational and Research Activities to Manage Wildlife Damage

Wildlife Services Manages Wildlife Damage in Various Ways

Page 17 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

for no additional charge. And in the case of threatened or endangered
species, a government agency (e. g., the Fish and Wildlife Service) enters
into an interagency agreement to fund control efforts to protect a certain
species.

The type of action Wildlife Services takes varies. In some cases, harassment
devices (such as noisemakers or bright lights) are effective in deterring
the presence of injurious animals. Repellents are sometimes effective, as
are devices such as gridwire (to discourage perching or nesting) and
fencing. In other cases, relocation is the best option, particularly when a
threatened or endangered species is causing damage. But even when suitable
habitat is available, relocation is not always in an animal?s best interest,
as relocated animals are vulnerable in unfamiliar locations. They may fall
prey to predators; they may be seen as interlopers and killed by other
members of their own species; or their unfamiliarity with the new habitat
and its food and water sources may result in severe stress or even death. In
many cases, such as with bears, a relocated animal will immediately return
to the area from which it was removed. And moving a bear is no simple task,
officials explained. Not only is a bear large and heavy, it is also double-
jointed and thus quite floppy. If harassment or relocation is not considered
appropriate to the situation, depending on the species involved and the type
and extent of damage, lethal means may be needed to halt the depredation or
damage. In such cases, Wildlife Services officials strive to select the
method that will kill the bird or mammal quickly, effectively, and humanely.
Shooting is sometimes considered the best method.

Working with state and local agencies, associations, and individuals,
Wildlife Services conducts many wildlife control activities. Some of the
program?s major efforts include (1) protecting livestock from predation by
coyotes and other species; (2) protecting game animals, game birds, and
threatened or endangered species from predation by other wildlife; (3)
protecting property and crops from damage by mammals and birds; (4) reducing
the risk of aircraft striking wildlife around airport runways; and (5)
reducing and monitoring the spread of wildlife diseases to livestock, pets,
or humans. Both operations and research activities play a part in all of
these efforts.

This is a major area of program emphasis. The program?s control activities
are directed at selected animals or local populations in areas where damage
has occurred. When livestock producers find that the controls Program
Operations and

Research Activities Benefit Resources and People

Protecting Livestock

Page 18 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

they have in place to deter predators have proven insufficient, they turn to
Wildlife Services for assistance.

Livestock producers generally use several nonlethal control methods, such as
guard animals, exclusion fences, and scare devices. In 1999, for example,
according to a recent survey by NASS, most sheep producers had in place one
or more nonlethal control methods. The number and type of control methods in
use varied from state to state, but certain methods were more widely used
than others. For example, half or more of the producers surveyed in numerous
states used fencing, ?shed lambing? (confining pregnant ewes to a shed
during birthing and for several days afterward), and/ or night penning to
protect their sheep. In three states, half or more of the producers reported
using guard dogs, and in two states, a high percentage of producers (61
percent and 70 percent, respectively) reported using guard llamas.

Although nonlethal methods sometimes suffice, in other instances they do not
effectively deter predators or may only postpone predation. For example,
shed lambing is often thought to be an effective way to keep predators
(especially coyotes) from killing newborn lambs. This solution, while
effective, is only temporary. Eventually, the young lambs must come out of
the shed and when they do, they are at risk of predation. In the four states
in which we reviewed Wildlife Services? operations in 1995 (California,
Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming), 8 program personnel said they used lethal
methods in essentially all instances to control livestock predators because
livestock operators were already using nonlethal control methods but were
still losing livestock.

Further, nonlethal methods also pose problems. Guard dogs, for example, are
helpful in protecting flocks, but they are expensive- not only to buy, but
also to train and maintain, according to ranchers we interviewed. And scare
devices, such as sirens or spotlights, are generally effective in deterring
predators only for a limited time. Most predators- whether birds or mammals-
will habituate to any scare device that follows a discernable pattern. Thus,
although nonlethal methods have helped reduce losses, they have not brought
them to levels that most clients believe are economically viable. For
livestock producers who are already operating on a small profit margin, the
addition of even a low percentage of losses could drive a

8 Animal Damage Control Program: Efforts to Protect Livestock From Predators

(GAO/ RCED- 96- 3, Oct. 30, 1995).

Page 19 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

business into deficit. Livestock producers we interviewed said they expect
and can tolerate predation losses of 2 to 3 percent but could not continue
to operate with sustained losses higher than that.

For coyotes, Wildlife Services officials have found aerial shooting to be a
most efficient and effective means of control. It is, though, one of the
program?s most controversial activities. Funded through cooperative
agreements with individual ranchers or livestock associations, Wildlife
Services personnel carry out aerial shooting in the winter to kill coyotes
in areas of several western states considered most vulnerable to livestock
predation. Groups opposing this practice, such as Defenders of Wildlife and
the Humane Society of the United States, view it as a reckless,
indiscriminate killing campaign. According to representatives of these two
groups, the aerial shooting program kills coyotes indiscriminately; it does
not distinguish between coyotes that are known predators and those that have
never preyed on livestock and might never do so. These representatives noted
that they have no quarrel with the practice of killing coyotes or other
predators that are known to have preyed on livestock, as long as killing is
a last resort and is done in the most humane way possible. Wildlife Services
officials, however, defend the aerial shooting program as a proven
preventive method that is necessary to protect lambs. According to Wildlife
Services officials, the program is conducted in areas in which predation
routinely occurs and is timed to remove coyotes before or during their
mating season. The intent is to reduce the number of coyotes that have pups
to feed just as lambing season begins. The officials pointed out that the
aerial shooting activities have been shown to be both effective and cost-
efficient in preventing livestock losses, according to a 3- year study by
Utah State University researchers. 9

Although Wildlife Services officials and farmers and ranchers we interviewed
believe that the aerial shooting campaign is instrumental in preventing
intolerable levels of livestock loss, representatives of Defenders of
Wildlife and the Humane Society maintain that lethal control should never be
a first resort; it should be used only after all nonlethal controls have
been tried and found unsuccessful. Representatives of both groups expressed
concern that Wildlife Services personnel in the field tend to rely on lethal
methods as the first and primary means of control,

9 M. R. Conover and K. K. Wagner, ?Effect of preventive coyote hunting on
sheep losses to coyote predation,? Journal of Wildlife Management 63( 2),
pages 606- 612, April 1999. Peer reviewed.

Page 20 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

without considering whether nonlethal controls might be effective in
preventing or curbing damage. A major concern of both Defenders of Wildlife
and the Humane Society, according to their representatives, is that
livestock producers are not required to have nonlethal controls in place
before requesting assistance from Wildlife Services. If livestock producers
are unwilling to take reasonable nonlethal steps to prevent or control
further damage, the representatives said, then those producers should not be
allowed to avail themselves of Wildlife Services? assistance.

Program research has contributed much to the knowledge base about coyote
ecology and behavior, adding to the effort to develop more effective
nonlethal controls. For example, two recent studies sought to determine
whether coyote packs containing a sterile alpha pair 10 would kill fewer
lambs than packs with a fertile alpha pair and whether sterile pairs in the
wild would maintain pair- bonds and defend their territories, thereby
excluding other coyotes. 11 Study results showed that surgically sterilized
coyotes were significantly less likely to prey on lambs than were coyotes
with pups to feed and that they maintained their pair- bonds and
territories. During a 2- year period, 9 sterile packs killed 4 lambs, while
14 packs with pups killed 33 lambs. Future research efforts will seek
practical methods, other than surgery, to sterilize animals in the field.

Other research efforts include developing (1) new capture devices and
restraint methods that minimize injury to captured animals; (2) new scare
devices; and (3) advanced designs for live- capture cages, rather than
gripping devices, to restrain predators. In addition, Wildlife Services
researchers are looking at ways of using radio- activated conditioning
collars (much like those used to train dogs) to modify predators? attack
behavior. Researchers have developed a prototype animal- activated
electronic device and system, currently being field- tested, that repels
predators from livestock areas.

In addition to developing new control methods, researchers also evaluate the
effectiveness of nonlethal controls. For example, a study published in

10 An alpha pair (male and female), as the leaders of a coyote pack, defend
the pack?s territory from intruders (including other coyotes). 11 C. Bromley
and E. M. Gese, ?Effects of sterilization on territory fidelity and
maintenance, pair bonds, and survival rates of free- ranging coyotes,?
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79, pp. 386- 392, 2001; and ?Surgical
sterilization as a method of reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep,?
Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, pp. 381- 390, 2001.

Page 21 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

the fall 2000 Wildlife Society Bulletin evaluated the effectiveness of guard
llamas in reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep. 12 The study found
that the llamas reduced coyote depredation on lambs during the first year of
the study, but not during the second year. The authors concluded that
predation may have to reach a threshold before guard llamas have a
noticeable effect on losses. The study also found that producers with llamas
strongly supported their use as guard animals for sheep. Based on sheep
producers? assessments, llamas appear to provide depredation protection
similar to that provided by guard dogs. For example, llamas will chase
coyotes and will ?gather? the sheep and place themselves between the sheep
and a coyote. Unlike dogs, however, llamas require little or no training or
socialization period. Also, llamas pose little threat to humans, are
relatively easy to handle (even without training), and may have a guarding
tenure longer than 10 years, compared to an average of 2 years for guard
dogs.

Various game species and threatened and endangered species have also
benefited from the program?s operations and research efforts. In rural
areas, hunting- related revenue is sometimes critical to the local economy.
Accordingly, a growing part of Wildlife Services? activities involves the
protection of game populations from predation by other wildlife. The
protection of threatened and endangered species is important to ecosystems
as well as individual animals and is often essential to the recovery of a
species. As with game species, threatened and endangered species can benefit
not only from program activities conducted specifically for their
protection, but also from activities conducted for another species?
protection.

Killing predators is often crucial to the survival of game species.
According to a 2001 study, 13 for example, culling of coyotes in various
areas in Utah protected local populations of mule deer and pronghorn
antelope fawns. When coyote predation management was implemented in one mule
deer area, for example, fawn survival increased from 9 percent to 42
percent. As another example, in one population of sage grouse in

12 Laurie E. Meadows and Frederick F. Knowlton, ?Efficacy of guard llamas to
reduce canine predation on domestic sheep,? Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol.
28, No. 3, pp. 614- 622, Fall 2000. Peer- refereed. 13 M. J. Bodenchuk, J.
R. Mason, and W. C. Pitt, ?Economics of predation management in relation to
agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety.? In: L. Clark (ed.)
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the Economics of Wildlife
Damage. Colorado State University Press, Fort Collins, Colorado. In press,
2001. Peer reviewed. Protecting Game Animals,

Game Birds, and Threatened or Endangered Species

Page 22 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Utah, annual adult mortality due to predation (primarily by non- native red
fox) was 82 percent without fox control in place, but only 33 percent with
fox control.

Many threatened and endangered species have benefited from Wildlife
Services? operations and research. For example, for nearly a decade Wildlife
Services has conducted a major effort to reduce the brown tree snake?s
population on the Island of Guam and to prevent the snake?s introduction to
other Pacific islands. Since it was accidently introduced to Guam 50 years
ago, the snake- which has no natural predators on the island- has eliminated
9 of the 12 species of the island?s forest birds and most of its terrestrial
vertebrates. Program personnel conduct brown tree snake interdiction at
Guam?s commercial and military exit ports. Since the program?s inception in
1993, Wildlife Services personnel have captured about 30, 000 snakes near
high- risk ports and have trained Jack Russell terriers to detect snakes in
outgoing cargo shipments.

Research has played a major role in the snake control effort. After
experimenting with various controls, program researchers devised an
effective trap, added an alluring bait (mice), and found an effective
poison- acetaminophen, which is deadly to the snake. Field tests indicated a
zero- percent survival rate for snakes that ate the treated bait.
Acetaminophen bait is currently used on a limited scale, under an
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emergency use permit. Wildlife
Services is pursuing a Section 3 EPA registration 14 that would allow larger
scale use of this technique on the island. Wildlife Services has also
evaluated and registered methyl bromide as a cargo fumigant for use against
snakes, has conducted field tests on two alternative fumigants, and is
developing a delivery device for dermal toxicants that it found effective
against snakes.

Other threatened and endangered species have also benefited from program
operations and research. In fiscal year 2000, the program actively protected
142 federal- and state- listed endangered and threatened species. For
example, the program?s mongoose control in Puerto Rico has helped conserve
the entire population of Puerto Rican parrots. In New Hampshire, killing
ground hogs that forage on the wild lupine has helped

14 All pesticides must be used in accordance with the provisions of Section
3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and must
generally be evaluated and registered with EPA.

Page 23 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

protect the endangered Karner blue butterfly, whose reproductive cycle
depends on the wild lupine.

Various research efforts are related to threatened and endangered species.
For example, researchers are working to develop more humane, nonlethal
techniques for removing endangered wolves that are preying on livestock.
These techniques include tranquilizer tab traps to reduce stress to captured
animals and electronic collars to deter wolves from killing livestock.

Wildlife Services conducts many activities to protect property and crops
from mammals and birds. For example, a key program emphasis is eliminating
beaver and their dams from areas in which they are causing damage.
Particularly in the Southeast, but increasingly in other areas, beavers are
responsible for millions of dollars in damage annually; in fact, the
resulting dollar loss from beaver damage may be greater than that of any
other wildlife species in the United States. Along with eliminating the
dams, Wildlife Services personnel usually trap and eliminate the beavers as
well. If the beavers are left in place, they will quickly build another dam,
according to Wildlife Services biologists. And for beavers, as for other
species whose populations are increasing rapidly, relocation is not often a
viable option because there are not enough suitable habitats available.

To control birds, Wildlife Services personnel often use harassment
techniques, such as devices that emit bursts of light or loud noise, to
scare birds away and discourage their roosting near fields or aquaculture
farms or in urban areas. Wildlife Services research has shown that after
several days of harassment birds are likely to seek an alternate roost.
According to researchers at Wildlife Services? bird research station in
Ohio, recent experiments using lasers as harassment devices have shown
encouraging results with certain species. Similarly, Wildlife Services? use
of low- level laser lights, in conjunction with pyrotechnic harassment
techniques, has been very effective in controlling gulls and other birds
that were interfering with the work of law enforcement personnel searching
for evidence in the debris from the recent terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center. The debris is being hauled to the Staten Island landfill,
where it is being examined by personnel from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the New York City Police Department.

In some cases, such as to protect crops or livestock feed from consumption
by birds or contamination by bird feces, Wildlife Services personnel poison
birds. Program researchers have developed several effective poisons and have
maintained their registrations with EPA or the Protecting Property and Crops

Page 24 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And in still other cases, such as with
Canada geese, which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, program
personnel oil or addle (shake) bird eggs to interfere with their hatching
and thus discourage birds from nesting at that location. After several
unsuccessful attempts at breeding in a particular location, birds will leave
that location and seek another. A representative of the Humane Society said
that, while the Society has no objection to egg oiling or addling, it
strongly objects to Wildlife Services? practice of rounding up and killing
geese.

Another key effort has been to reduce the risk of aircraft striking wildlife
at airports. In 2000, Wildlife Services worked at over 418 airports- a 15-
percent increase over the previous year. The airport operator (a city,
county, or private company) pays 100 percent of the cost of Wildlife
Services? airport work. According to FAA regulations, a certified airport
must conduct a a wildlife hazard assessment if (1) an aircraft has
experienced a multiple birdstrike or engine ingestion, (2) an aircraft has
experienced a damaging collision with wildlife other than birds, or (3)
wildlife of a size or in numbers capable of causing a strike have access to
aircraft flight or movement areas. Usually, an airport hires a Wildlife
Services biologist to do a wildlife hazard assessment, which is based on
periodic observations of the numbers and types of wildlife on or near
airport grounds and the challenges posed by the surrounding habitat. Working
from the biologist?s report, an airport operator develops a wildlife hazard
management plan. For example, a plan might call for using truckmounted
sirens to harass birds or for installing exclusion fences to deter coyotes
or deer from wandering onto runways. In collaboration with FAA, Wildlife
Services prepared a manual to aid airport personnel in developing,
implementing, and evaluating wildlife hazard management plans. The manual,
which FAA distributed to all certified airports in the country, includes
information on the nature of wildlife strikes, wildlife management
techniques, and sources of help and information.

Research contributing to wildlife control at airports includes studies to
determine whether birds and small mammals are more attracted to mowed or
unmowed areas of vegetation. These studies found that birds were more
numerous in unmowed plots. Also, the variety and abundance of small mammals
was greater in unmowed plots and increased over time, while remaining
constant in mowed plots. This finding is important because small mammals are
a primary source of food for raptors, which pose a threat of aircraft
collisions because of their large size and their habit of soaring. Other
research contributing to wildlife control at airports includes research on
the use of mesh bags of coyote hair as a repellent for white Protecting the
Flying Public

Page 25 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

tailed deer, the use of amplified distress calls as a harassment technique
for birds, and the use of wires installed at various heights to discourage
birds from perching on top of signs and other structures near airport
runways.

This is a large and growing area of emphasis. For several years Wildlife
Services has worked in various parts of the country to control rabies. For
example, in 1995 it began an oral vaccination campaign in south Texas to
control a variant of rabies that had crossed over from domestic dogs to
coyotes; in 1994, 166 cases were reported in south Texas. From 1995 to 2000,
rabies campaigns- involving the delivery of an oral vaccination enclosed in
a bait attractive to coyotes- resulted in the vaccination of between 75 and
90 percent of the coyotes in the area. In 2000, there were no reported cases
of the canine variant in south Texas. The rabies program is continuing in
2001, but at reduced levels.

In Ohio and the northeastern United States, another rabies control effort
has been ongoing for several years. Raccoon rabies entered northeast Ohio in
1996; by the end of 1997, 62 cases had been reported. To halt the westward
spread of raccoon rabies, Wildlife Services worked with federal and state
agencies to create a vaccination immune barrier from Lake Erie to the Ohio
River. Wildlife Services researchers assisted by developing the vaccine and
its delivery packet. (The vaccine, encased in a small plastic pouch about
the size of a fast- food ketchup pouch, is in turn encased in a bait cube
made of fish meal.) Twice a year, in the spring and in the fall, Wildlife
Services personnel drop the baits from a small plane equipped with a
conveyer- belt- like mechanism that flings out baits at a rate of about 75
per square kilometer. In fiscal year 2000, the program baited an area in
eastern Ohio covering about 2, 500 square miles. For several weeks following
the bait drops, Wildlife Services biologists trap raccoons for examination
and subsequent release. The biologists examine each raccoon, take a blood
sample to test for rabies antibodies, and pull a tooth (the first pre-
molar) for tests to determine how much vaccine the raccoon ingested and
when. The Ohio Wildlife Services office maintains a database on the number
and health of raccoons trapped and examined. In fiscal year 2000, for
example, the Ohio program trapped and examined over 450 raccoons. In
addition to their rabies vaccination- related activities, Wildlife Services
employees provide technical assistance. In 2000, for example, Wildlife
Services biologists in Ohio responded to questions about raccoons from more
than 700 people and assisted with educational and training seminars for
local health departments. Figure 3 shows raccoons undergoing procedures in
the rabies vaccine program. Protecting People, Pets, and

Livestock From Wildlife- Borne Diseases

Page 26 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 3: After Capture, Raccoons Undergo Various Procedures to Ascertain
the Effectiveness of the Oral Rabies Vaccination Project

Source: USDA.

Other wildlife- borne diseases are also of concern. For example,
surveillance programs for West Nile virus are active on the East Coast, and
the virus appears to be spreading southward and westward. In 2000, Delaware
reported that four horses had tested positive for West Nile virus. In 2001
(through October 15), Florida reported that 139 horses had tested

Page 27 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

positive for the virus. Wildlife Services personnel also assist in
surveillance and control activities for wildlife- borne diseases such as
hantavirus, bubonic plague, histoplasmosis, and salmonella.

We found no independent studies of Wildlife Services? costs and benefits.
The relatively few studies that have analyzed these issues were done by, or
in collaboration with, Wildlife Services personnel. However, these studies
were peer reviewed and adhered to standards governing their design and
conduct. The most comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits, conducted
as part of Wildlife Services? 1994 program- wide final environmental impact
statement, concluded that the existing program of lethal and nonlethal
controls was preferable to the other four alternatives that were studied in
detail because it was the most cost- effective, among other advantages.
Other, more narrowly focused studies found that program benefits exceed
costs, sometimes by large margins. However, there are several inherent
difficulties associated with studies of this nature. For example, estimates
of the economic benefits (savings) associated with program activities are
based largely on predictions of the damage that would have occurred had the
program?s control methods been absent. Such predictions are difficult to
make with certainty and can vary considerably depending on the
circumstances.

A variety of organizations, including environmental and animal rights
groups, have written about Wildlife Services? activities and policies.
However, we found no independent studies that rigorously assessed the costs
and benefits of the Wildlife Services program; the only studies that we
found were conducted by or in collaboration with Wildlife Services
scientists and researchers. Nevertheless, these studies were peer reviewed
and met other research standards required for publication in a professional
journal. For example, to be eligible for publication in the

Wildlife Society Bulletin, which has published several of the studies that
assessed the costs and benefits of specific Wildlife Services activities, a
study must be either peer refereed or peer reviewed. 15 The referees and
reviewers assess, among other things, whether a study has design or logic

15 The Wildlife Society Bulletin?s peer referee process entails review by an
associate editor and two qualified referees, selected by the editor. The
peer review process entails review by an editorial panel member who is
selected by the editor. In selecting referees and editorial panel reviewers,
the editor considers their areas of expertise, affiliation, and performance
on previous reviews. Studies Done by, or in

Collaboration With, Wildlife Services Staff Have Found That Program Benefits
Exceed Costs

The Only Rigorous Studies of the Program?s Costs and Benefits Were Done by
or With Wildlife Services Employees

Page 28 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

flaws that render its results invalid, biased, or questionable. Referees and
reviewers recommend acceptance or rejection of a manuscript submitted for
publication. Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the author for
revision and then reviewed again; sometimes a manuscript requires several
iterations before a decision is made about its acceptance. Wildlife Services
scientists and biologists publish their study results in other professional
journals as well. 16

In addition to following requirements that are prerequisites for
publication, all Wildlife Services studies adhere to standards governing the
design and conduct of the research studies themselves. Wildlife Services
researchers follow the standards published by FDA and EPA. The degree to
which research must adhere to the standards depends on its purpose. If
research were related to the development of a new chemical product, for
example, the full standards would apply. On the other hand, if the research
were a field ecological study, not all of the standards? requirements would
apply. The standards include requirements governing, among other things, the
protocol for and conduct of a study, the reporting of study results, the
storage and retention of records, and the humane treatment of any animals
used in the study.

Of the Wildlife Services? studies of program costs and benefits, the most
comprehensive is its program- wide environmental impact statement (EIS),
which was peer reviewed and issued for public comment prior to publication.
An EIS assesses the biological, sociocultural, physical, and economic
impacts of a federal action and alternatives to that action. The 1994 EIS
concluded that, of the alternatives evaluated, the existing program was the
most cost- effective, resulting in a favorable ratio of benefits to costs,
and offered advantages such as economies of scale and nationwide
accountability. The EIS was conducted to comply with requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which created the Council on
Environmental Quality. NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare an EIS
for every major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of
the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality?s regulations
implementing NEPA do not require a formal benefit- cost analysis to be
conducted. However, they require that

16 Wildlife Services? study results appear in publications such as the
Canadian Journal of Zoology, the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, the
Journal of Chemical Ecology, the

Journal of Mammalogy, the Journal of Wildlife Management, and the Journal of
Wildlife Research.

Wildlife Services? Environmental Impact Statement Concluded That Its
Existing Approach Was the Most Cost- Effective

Page 29 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

considerations important to a decision among alternatives be identified and
analyzed so that the merits and drawbacks of the alternatives can be
compared.

Wildlife Services? EIS, prepared by the Department of Agriculture?s Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, addressed its ongoing program of
wildlife damage management. 17 Its intent was to analyze the impacts
associated with the full range of wildlife damage control activities that
comprise its program. In addition, the final EIS analyzed the impacts
associated with several alternatives to the program. Originally, the
potential impacts of three program alternatives were analyzed in detail; as
a result of public comments, two additional alternatives were analyzed. 18

The total cost of the 1994 EIS was about $3. 5 million, according to a
Wildlife Services official. Scoping for that EIS began in 1987, when a
notice in the Federal Register sought public input on the issues and
alternatives to be addressed. The final EIS, which contained summaries of
and responses to the public comments received, was issued in April 1994 and
revised in October 1997; it quantified benefit- cost analyses where reliable
data existed.

According to the EIS, the total economic effects of wildlife damage control
are composed of direct and indirect effects- on individuals who sustain
damage and on the public. Direct economic effects are those effects that are
caused by the action and that occur at the same time and place as the
action. For the current damage control program, for example, a direct
economic effect on individual farmers or ranchers would be the savings
realized from a reduction in livestock losses. For the public, the current
program could result in direct effects such as the savings realized and the
potential losses of life avoided by improving airport safety through the
removal of wildlife from airport runways or flight paths. Indirect effects,
on the other hand, are those effects caused by actions occurring later in
time or removed in distance from the original action, but still reasonably
foreseeable. For example, wildlife damage control on one farm could

17 The 1994 EIS, for what was then called the Animal Damage Control program,
was preceded in 1979 by an EIS that analyzed mammalian predator damage
control activities that occurred in 1977 in 16 states. The age of that
analysis and the lack of a programwide analysis contributed to the decision
to prepare an updated, programmatic EIS. 18 The draft EIS was issued in July
1990 for public comments, and a supplemental EIS-

which incorporated public comments on the draft- was issued in January 1993,
again for comment. In both cases, about 90 days were allowed for comments.

Page 30 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

result in decreased livestock losses on a neighboring farm or ranch, thus
benefiting additional farmers and ranchers. Further, by reducing livestock
losses, controlling wildlife damage could benefit the public because it
could result in lower market prices for agricultural products.

The EIS evaluated five alternatives for controlling wildlife damage: (1) a
no- action alternative, in which the current federal control program would
not exist; (2) the existing program alternative, consisting of technical
assistance, nonlethal controls, and lethal controls; (3) a nonlethal
controls alternative, in which the program would employ only nonlethal
methods; (4) a nonlethal- before- lethal controls alternative, in which the
program would use lethal controls only as a last resort, after nonlethal
controls had proven unsuccessful; and (5) a damage compensation program
alternative, in which the program would compensate property owners
monetarily for the losses they incur.

The EIS assessed the cost- effectiveness of each of the program alternatives
and analyzed the various economic impacts that each alternative would likely
produce. Specifically, the EIS analyzed, for each of the alternatives, its
direct and indirect economic impacts on affected parties and its direct and
indirect economic impacts on the public.

 Direct impacts on affected parties. This analysis considered the impact,
in terms of losses, of wildlife damage on affected parties (e. g., farmers
and ranchers). The EIS concluded that the no- action alternative would offer
parties at risk the least protection from direct losses, assuming that the
current program would not be replaced by other federal, state, or local
programs. Under this alternative, where wildlife threatens human health and
safety, the affected parties would bear all potential losses, including
property damages and insurance and health care costs. The existing control
program, offering the widest range of choices in the application of
technical assistance and direct assistance methods, could be expected to
most efficiently minimize losses and risks. Two other alternatives (a
nonlethal control program and a nonlethal- before- lethal control program),
restricted by the methods permitted and their order of application, would
likely result in higher losses. And finally, the damage compensation program
alternative would partially offset agricultural losses, but unverified
losses would still be borne by the affected parties and could become
significant without a damage control program. Moreover, this alternative
would provide monetary compensation only for agricultural damage; in regard
to other threats posed by wildlife, such as risks to human health and
safety, the damage compensation alternative would be the same as a no-
action alternative. The EIS also considered the

Page 31 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

direct economic effects of damage control expenditures, and concluded that
the alternatives compared similarly.

 Indirect impacts on affected parties. This analysis considered the losses
and risks that would be borne by third parties. For example, program
activities that prevent the spread of disease by rodents and other wildlife
could have a positive effect on the costs of health insurance, even though
the individuals paying the lower insurance premiums may never suffer direct
losses. The EIS concluded that such indirect impacts could be positive or
negative, depending on the alternative considered. For example, a lethal
predator damage control program (one option under the current program) on
one rancher?s property could reduce the likelihood of losses by neighbors,
whereas a nonlethal control program might increase that likelihood. For many
agricultural producers, the analysis noted, assistance with wildlife damage
control can mean the difference between remaining in or going out of
business. Producers might not be able to absorb either increased losses from
wildlife damage or added costs of control to prevent those losses. Either or
both of these outcomes could result under a no- action alternative, a
nonlethal program alternative, or a nonlethal- before- lethal alternative.
The continued operation of such producers contributes to the economies of
their local communities. Local businesses, therefore, are indirect
beneficiaries of damage control activities. For the damage compensation
alternative, the affected parties would be on their own in controlling
animal damage; the federal role would be one of compensation rather than
control.

 Direct public impacts. These impacts mainly take the form of program
expenditures. The EIS concluded that the current program alternative was
likely to be the least costly to the public (with the possible exception of
the no- action alternative), whereas the nonlethal and the nonlethal-
beforelethal alternatives would be more costly, because their damage control
activities would likely take longer and have lower success rates. At the
other extreme, the damage compensation alternative was judged to be

?prohibitively expensive,? with budgeted funds, in effect, determining
expenditure levels. In addition to funds for compensation, the
administrative costs of verifying losses and processing claims would be
considerable. The no- action alternative would not have an impact at the
national level unless damage control were undertaken through other federal
programs. If state and local governmental entities were to assume animal
damage control responsibilities in the absence of a federal program, though,
the costs to the public could be collectively comparable to or even greater
than the costs of the current program.

Page 32 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

 Indirect public impacts. These impacts were considered in terms of each
alternative?s effects on other governmental costs. If, for example, a public
airport were held liable by passengers for injuries resulting from an
aircraft collision with birds, the cost of compensation would be an indirect
effect. Such incidents could be expected to occur most frequently if no
governmental wildlife controls were undertaken (i. e., under the no- action
alternative or the damage compensation alternative) and least frequently
under the current program alternative. For the other two alternatives,
nonlethal only and nonlethal- before- lethal, clients? satisfaction would
determine the ultimate impact. That is, if farmers and ranchers were
dissatisfied with the approaches used under a federal program, they might
demand more appropriate approaches by state, local, or other federal
agencies, thus increasing the costs of other government entities.

The EIS concluded that, in terms of both avoided losses (benefits) and
damage control expenditures (costs), the existing damage control program was
the most cost- efficient of the alternatives. The existing program offers
several benefits, such as standardizing approaches to wildlife damage
management and conducting and disseminating research leading to improvements
in wildlife damage management. Many of these advantages could be lost
through a no- action alternative. A damage compensation alternative would
provide some financial relief to producers for losses due to wildlife
predation, but would neglect nonmarket considerations such as the health and
safety of airline passengers. A nonlethal- only alternative could result in
clients going out of business, as many types of damage could not be
successfully addressed, and this would increase the costs to clients who
would need to assume their own lethal control activities. A nonlethal-
before- lethal program would be more time- consuming and costly to both the
program and its clients. Based on its analyses, the EIS concluded that the
existing program alternative offered a favorable ratio of benefits to costs,
even though the benefits and costs could not be rigorously quantified.

Wildlife Services studies other than the EIS have also shown that the
benefits of wildlife damage control exceed its costs. These studies
primarily address specific aspects of the program, often in specific areas
of the country. For example, several studies concluded that the estimated
benefit- to- cost ratios for livestock protection from predators
(predominantly coyotes) range from 3: 1 to 27: 1, depending primarily on the
types of costs considered. Comparing the market value of all livestock saved
in 1998 with the cost of all livestock protection programs in place yielded
a benefit: cost ratio of 3 to 1, according to a 2001 Wildlife Services
Other, More Narrowly

Focused Wildlife Services Studies Show Program Benefits Exceeding Costs

Page 33 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

study. 19 In contrast, comparing total savings (including a measure that
shows the potential ripple effect of predator losses on rural economies)
with federal program expenditures alone would yield a benefit: cost ratio of
27: 1.

Studies use several measures of program costs and benefits. Estimates of the
cost of livestock losses to predators, for example, vary widely, depending
on whether one considers only the value of confirmed losses (market value of
dead animals found, with predation confirmed by forensic examination) or
also the additional costs incurred by livestock producers to reduce
predation risk (e. g., the purchase, training, and maintenance of guard
animals; fencing; herders; repellent devices; and contributions to private
or public predation management programs such as aerial shooting campaigns).
These additional costs are significant, and can equal or exceed the cost of
predation.

The studies discuss various benefits of managing predation. In addition to
preventing agricultural losses, predation management activities can provide
other substantial benefits. For example, predation management is important
for the protection of game animals when their populations are reduced in
relation to available habitat. Also, predation management is essential for
the successful restoration of threatened and endangered species.

Some benefits of the program?s operations and research activities accrue to
society at large, such as activities undertaken to reduce risks to public
health and safety, and are cost effective as well, according to a recent
economic study. 20 For example, the benefits of controlling the spread of
raccoon rabies greatly outweigh the costs. This study analyzed the benefits
and costs associated with a hypothetical rabies barrier that would stretch
from Lake Erie to the Gulf of Mexico. The barrier would be a combination of
natural geographic features (the Appalachian Mountains) and oral

19 M. J. Bodenchuk, J. R. Mason, and W. C. Pitt, ?Economics of predation
management in relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and
safety.? In: L. Clark (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
on the Economics of Wildlife Damage. Colorado State University Press, Fort
Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed. 20 Philip Kemere, Michael
K. Liddel, Phylo Evangelou, Dennis Slate, and Steven Osmek,

?Economic Analysis of a Large Scale Oral Vaccination Program to Control
Raccoon Rabies.? (Paper delivered at a Wildlife Services? symposium, ?Human
Conflicts with Wildlife: Economic Considerations,? in Fort Collins,
Colorado, Aug. 1- 3, 2000.) Peer reviewed.

Page 34 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

vaccination zones. The goal of the barrier would be to prevent the raccoon
rabies variant from moving west into broader geographic regions of the
United States. The study compared the costs of establishing and maintaining
this hypothetical barrier with the benefits (avoided costs) of not having to
live with raccoon rabies west of its current distribution. The costs of
establishing and maintaining an immune barrier include expenditures for
baits, distribution of baits, and program evaluation. Benefits are viewed as
all costs, including direct medical and nonmedical costs, that would be
avoided as a result of the proposed oral rabies vaccination program. Such
costs include the costs of public education regarding raccoon rabies, pre-
exposure vaccinations and post- exposure treatments, increased compliance
rates for dog and cat vaccinations, increased local animal control and
surveillance activities, and increased laboratory staff and supplies.

The study, based on four variations of an economic model, concluded that a
large- scale oral rabies vaccination program should be economically
feasible, given the program costs and the avoided costs. The total
discounted program cost, over a 20- year period, would be about $95.7
million, and the net benefits (avoided costs minus program costs) of the
four model variations would range from $109 million to $496 million,
depending on the assumptions employed (i. e., the assumed rate at which the
rabies variant would travel and whether animal vaccinations were included or
excluded). To test the robustness of the model (i. e., how stable its
estimates were in reaction to changes in the range of data used), the
study?s economists used a sampling technique known as Monte Carlo, in which
they generated a random data set based on specific probability distributions
for the data (e. g., barrier area, bait density, bait cost, and aerial
distribution cost). The data set was then used in the model, and the
resulting variation in the model?s estimates was low, indicating that the
model was stable, or robust. Accordingly, the study concluded that the net
economic benefits, in terms of avoided costs due to the oral rabies
vaccination program, would be substantial.

The type of resource, or animal, protected affects the costs and benefits of
damage control. Values for threatened or endangered species have been
declared ?incalculable.? 21 Nevertheless, according to the 2001 study by

21 See Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 187 (1978)(
stating ?the plain language of the [Endangered Species] Act, buttressed by
its legislative history, shows clearly that Congress viewed the value of
endangered species as ?incalculable??).

Page 35 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Bodenchuk et al., such species? minimum values can be estimated from the
funds expended for their restoration. For example, black- footed ferret
populations are severely affected by coyote predation, especially following
restoration efforts. In studies of restoration success in South Dakota,
30day survival rates for ferrets averaged 31 percent in the absence of
predation management, but 67 percent with predation management in place.
Based on an introduction of 50 ferrets, about 18 ferrets would be saved with
predation management in place, resulting in a financial benefit of about
$524, 000. This benefit was calculated using an average individual value of
$29,000 per ferret. The individual value was, in turn, calculated by
dividing the total reintroduction expenditures in one year ($ 2,913, 220) by
the estimated number of individual ferrets in the wild (100).

Because of the nature of cost- benefit studies in general, their results
should be viewed with some caution. Inherent difficulties bedevil any
attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of a program designed to prevent
damage. Key among these difficulties are (1) projecting the degree of losses
that would have occurred absent the program, (2) valuing those losses, and
(3) valuing the program benefits. Moreover, in some instances, the relevancy
of data available for quantifying the costs and benefits associated with
Wildlife Services activities may be limited by the data?s age.

Predictions of the degree of loss that would have occurred had Wildlife
Services? control methods not been in place are difficult to make with any
certainty and vary considerably depending on the circumstances. For example,
few data exist on livestock losses in the absence of controls. Livestock
producers generally have not one control, but a combination of several, in
place, such as guard animals, fences, herders, and repellent devices. Yet
livestock are taken by predators despite these controls. So the degree of
loss that producers would have suffered had they not had controls in place
can only be estimated.

Predictions about the degree of loss are further complicated by the
difficulty in distinguishing between the relative contributions of program
activities versus other factors such as weather, disease, or natural
fluctuations in predator and prey populations. For example, according to a
Several Caveats Are

Associated With Wildlife Services? Cost and Benefit Studies

Predicting the Degree of Losses

Page 36 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

September 1999 study on coyote depredation control, 22 various interrelated
factors influence coyote depredation rates on sheep, including coyote
density (e. g., pack size, territory size, and number of coyotes per
territory) and the abundance of alternative prey. According to the study,
research has shown that coyote predation rates on sheep are closely related
to the abundance of natural prey, such as rodents and jackrabbits. A 6- year
study in Idaho, 23 for example, showed that predation rates on sheep
increased in proportion to changes in the abundance of jackrabbits. When the
hare population collapsed, and the coyotes had no alternative food source,
their depredation on sheep escalated dramatically.

The uneven distribution of damage poses a particular difficulty in
predicting losses. That is, although average losses to predators are small
compared to overall losses from other causes, such as weather and disease,
the damages are not evenly distributed over time or over area. A small
proportion of producers absorb high losses, whereas the vast majority of
producers sustain less serious economic damage. Thus, using a single average
statistic to infer overall program effectiveness would not accurately
reflect the distributional variations. For ranchers who are already
operating on a small profit margin, additional losses of even a few
percentage points could drive their businesses into deficit.

The value of losses is difficult to estimate for several reasons. For
example, the value of livestock changes with the daily fluctuations in
market values. Further, the loss of a pregnant ewe is not simply the loss of
that animal, but also the loss of the unborn lamb, as well as any future
offspring.

Inherent difficulties also exist in the valuation of wildlife. As species,
wildlife have positive value for society, but the specific individuals that
cause damage and thus, economic losses, have negative value for livestock
producers and others who sustain damage. Although the intrinsic value of
wildlife is difficult to quantify, the economic value of wildlife can be
estimated from the dollar values that wildlife management agencies place

22 Frederick F. Knowlton, Eric M. Gese, and Michael M. Jaeger, ?Coyote
depredation control: An interface between biology and management,? Journal
of Range Management

52( 5), pp. 398- 412, September 1999. 23 L. Charles Stoddart, Richard E.
Griffiths, and Frederick F. Knowlton, ?Coyote responses

to changing jackrabbit abundance affect sheep predation,? Journal of Range
Management

54( 1), pp. 15- 20, January 2001. Valuing Losses

Page 37 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

on them, according to a 2001 Wildlife Services study. 24 For many common
game species, for example, state departments of fisheries and wildlife have
established economic values based on estimates of the species? contributions
to the economy. These economic values serve as the basis for civil financial
penalties assessed as mitigation for illegal poaching or wildlife kills that
result from environmental contamination. For example, according to the
study, the weighted average civil penalties assessed for illegally killing
wildlife ranged from $26 for an upland game bird to $1, 312 for a bighorn
sheep. The penalty for taking a mule deer was $350; a pronghorn, $400.

Estimates of the value of benefits (avoided costs) also cannot be made with
certainty. Estimating the value of controlling wildlife at airports, for
example, entails making assumptions about not only the number and severity
of wildlife- aircraft collisions that would occur without the program in
place, but also about the cost associated with repairs, medical treatment,
and loss of human life.

Some groups that take issue with Wildlife Services activities suggest that
its programs are not cost- effective because the money spent on livestock
protection exceeds the value of the losses to ranchers and others. However,
Wildlife Services officials believe that it is misleading to focus only on
the value of losses that occur with a control program in place and to
disregard the value of the damage that is prevented by the program. They
compared this type of analysis to having a fire department that costs $10
million a year to operate and keeps fire damage in a community down to $2
million a year in losses. Rather than saying that the department is not
worth its cost because losses due to fire damage were only a fraction of the
cost of operating the fire department, consideration should be given to what
the losses would have been without a fire department.

The age of the various cost- benefit studies, and the data upon which they
were based, may pose yet another limitation, in terms of both relevance and
scope. The environmental impact statement, for example, was based on data
that are now over a decade old and may not reflect current conditions. For
example, the EIS did not include analyses of the whitetailed deer and the
resident Canada goose, both of which have become

24 M. J. Bodenchuk, J. R. Mason, and W. C. Pitt, ?Economics of predation
management in relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and
safety.? In: L. Clark (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium
on the Economics of Wildlife Damage. Colorado State University Press, Fort
Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed. Valuing Program Benefits

Relevance of Data

Page 38 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

increasingly problematic. Some of the other, more narrow, studies we
reviewed were also based on old data.

Wildlife Services has requested funding to update the EIS. The EIS primarily
used fiscal year 1988 data to provide a comparable baseline against which to
evaluate each alternative. If funded, work on the supplemental EIS would
likely start next year and would be expected to take about 3 years to
complete. The supplemental EIS would incorporate information on new wildlife
management techniques that have been introduced since the early 1990s.
Program officials also plan to study and incorporate into the supplemental
EIS information on aquaculture depredation issues and on overabundant
animals such as white- tailed deer, resident Canada geese, and blackbirds.

Wildlife Services researchers believe that considerable potential exists for
developing more effective nonlethal controls of wildlife damage through the
use of new and improved technologies. In light of the controversy
surrounding lethal controls, Wildlife Services devotes most of its research
efforts toward this end. Past efforts to develop effective and economical
nonlethal controls, however, have met with limited success. Although
Wildlife Services research has developed several nonlethal controls that are
used on many farms and ranches, these controls have not limited livestock
losses to the point where lethal controls are no longer needed.

The National Wildlife Research Center conducts research and provides
information on a range of methods for managing wildlife damage. Considerable
opportunity exists for developing more effective nonlethal means of
controlling predators on farms and ranches- for example, through wildlife
contraceptives or through the use of scare devices triggered by motion
sensors. In fiscal year 2000, about $9 million (75 percent) of the program?s
total research funding was spent on efforts related to developing or
improving nonlethal controls. A National Wildlife Research Center program
manager noted that scientists feel considerable pressure to research and
quickly develop nonlethal control methods. The manager noted that the
pressure comes not only from animal advocacy groups and personal
preferences, but also from a changing environment where experts in the field
see the loss or diminishing acceptance of traditional control tools like
guns, traps, and poisons. Nevertheless, funding levels have remained static
for the past several years, hampering the center?s ability to conduct
additional research projects. Wildlife Services

Research Efforts Focus on Developing More Effective Nonlethal Controls

Opportunities Exist for Developing More Effective Nonlethal Control Measures

Page 39 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

The center generally has about 19 projects underway in such areas as
wildlife contraceptives, wildlife repellents, rodent control methods, and
analytical chemistry methodology. Most of the projects are multi- year
efforts of 3 to 5 years? duration. 25 According to the center?s product
development manager, research projects dealing with reproductive controls
are particularly promising. A goal of these projects is to develop and
field- test economical and effective agents to control fertility in
populations of mammals and birds involved in human- wildlife conflicts.
Researchers are also seeking ways to improve the delivery of contraceptives
to wildlife, through, for example, darts or bio- bullets. Some species,
however, such as deer, live for a dozen or more years. Using contraceptives
to address the problem now that the deer population has surged will mean a
long delay before relief can be obtained. Consequently, a researcher stated
that such species? populations should probably first be

?culled? and then treated with a reproductive inhibitor. Following are some
examples of reproductive control projects recently completed or underway
that may lead to the development of more effective nonlethal means of
controlling predators on farms and ranches, as well as problem wildlife in
urban areas:

 Researchers recently completed a 5- year study on reproductive
intervention strategies for managing coyote predation. The goals of the
study were to (1) determine whether sheep losses could be reduced by
sterilizing coyotes in territories where sheep and other livestock are
pastured and (2) develop and transfer information critical to the
registration and/ or practical application of sterilant technologies and
pharmaceutical products. In addition to determining whether sterilized
coyotes kill fewer sheep than do coyotes with pups to feed, researchers
evaluated whether surgical sterilization changed the coyotes? territorial or
affiliate behaviors. After extensive field tests, researchers concluded that
sterilization reduced, but did not eliminate, coyote predation on sheep.

 Center scientists are working to tailor an oral contraceptive, Nicarbazin,
so that it can be given to geese. They are focusing on developing a more

25 Wildlife Services considers research aimed at improving traps and snares-
such as pantension devices to preclude capture of smaller nontarget animals
in foothold traps- to be nonlethal efforts. However, the Humane Society
contends that the end result of using such traps is that the predator is
killed and that, therefore, categorizing such research as nonlethal is
misleading.

Page 40 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

palatable bait to deliver the contraceptive, delaying release of the
contraceptive into the bird?s body, and determining effective dose levels.

 Center scientists are working with a rodent immunocontraceptive, GnRH,
which is a hormone vaccine. Officials in a California city have asked for
help in controlling ground squirrels that are creating a problem on area
beaches. Local laws prohibit poisoning or relocating nuisance animals such
as the ground squirrels; consequently, officials are using the rodent
immunocontraceptive to resolve the problem.

 Wildlife Services researchers received FDA approval to assist in a study
trial of a single- shot delivery of PZP (porcine zona pellucida), an
injectiondelivered contraceptive, for use on deer. A large urban area in
Ohio has requested assistance in controlling its deer population in city
parks and has agreed to be the host site for the proposed PZP study trial.

The research program also provides data pertaining to pesticide and drug
registrations to EPA and FDA. For example, an application for new
registration has been submitted to EPA for methiocarb, a bird repellent. To
support the application, researchers submitted data required by EPA for
future product registrations. In addition, other program specialists are
engaged in projects involving the development of global information system
(GIS) applications, statistical and monitoring methods, and electronics
designs for use in wildlife damage management.

Developing nonlethal control methods is a challenge that involves further
research on such tools as chemical repellents and contraceptives. This
challenge also involves biological and behavioral science research focusing
on the differences both among species and within a single species. However,
the nature of scientific research is such that while many research projects
are undertaken, relatively few yield effective, marketable results.
Moreover, research that looks promising at the outset often encounters
problems that cannot be overcome easily. Such has been the case with
nonlethal control research. Many nonlethal controls work well, but only in
certain situations or locations, and some work only temporarily.

According to researchers, certain chemicals show promise as nonlethal
repellents. For example, the center developed methyl anthranilate- a
chemical that smells like grape soda- which is repugnant to geese and is
applied to ponds and grassy areas to repel geese from golf courses,
airstrips, and public parks. Although the use of this chemical appears
promising, it must be reapplied frequently to be effective. In other cases,
Past Efforts to Develop

Nonlethal Controls Have Met With Limited Success

Page 41 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

chemical research that looked promising has not come to fruition. For
example, in one research project, researchers laced lamb carcasses with
lithium chloride, a chemical that causes coyotes to vomit. Researchers
thought that this chemical showed promise in early laboratory and field
tests as a means of conditioning coyotes not to kill lambs. However, while
the coyotes in the field tests learned not to eat lambs, they continued to
kill them. Another chemical that causes a predator to feel sick is Mesurol.
This chemical has proven to be an effective deterrent on ravens, predators
of bird eggs such as those of the endangered least tern. The center is
working on other nonlethal chemical products such as alpha- chloralose. This
chemical is an FDA- approved immobilizing agent that researchers are using
to capture waterfowl so that identification bands or radio collars can be
attached to the birds as part of research studies. Alpha- chloralose is also
used to facilitate removal of nuisance animals such as ducks and geese that
have found their way into swimming pools or city reservoirs. The presence of
geese in these areas is a serious potential health hazard because of
bacteria found in goose fecal matter.

In other instances, deterrence devices that appeared to be promising in the
lab and during initial testing, such as the Electronic Guard predator scare
device, have not received widespread acceptance for use on farms and
ranches. The research center?s product development program manager stated
her belief that the Electronic Guard, which emits both a bright light and a
loud noise to scare coyotes, could be highly effective if used correctly.
She said purchasers need to use several of them at random intervals to be
effective. Unfortunately, each one is fairly expensive. However, an
operations official in Utah told us the Electronic Guard is not particularly
useful in his state. He pointed out that the Electronic Guard technology is
outdated- utilizing a bulky 12- volt battery- and consequently the device is
not very easily transported to Utah?s remote grazing locations, because it
does not fit into a saddlebag. The official expressed his belief that the
Electronic Guard has potential for other uses, such as deterring deer and
other wildlife.

Other nonlethal control methods that employ traditional ?scare? devices such
as pop- up scarecrows, flashing lights, pyrotechnics, and noisemakers are
also useful in managing birds. Mylar tape works well, too, because light
reflecting off the tape apparently frightens the birds. With most such
techniques, however, the birds adapt within a relatively short period of
time and the measure is no longer effective. Consequently, adjunct
techniques must be used.

Page 42 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Lasers are one of the newest scare techniques to show great promise in bird
control. According to center researchers in Sandusky, Ohio, the use of
lasers has proven effective in dispersing certain species of birds. For
example, lasers have worked quite well in low light conditions (after
sunset) with geese, double- crested cormorants, and Hawaiian stilts, which
shy away from the beam of light emitted by the laser. In a test in Ohio, for
instance, lasers were effective in scaring away- within 15 minutes-
approximately 18, 000 geese at a municipal lake. Because the laser is silent
and can be selectively directed at a particular species of bird, the laser
is preferable to loud devices where disturbance of people and other wildlife
is a concern. Wildlife Services has developed a helium neon gas laser that
costs less than $1, 000. The beam can extend for a quarter of a mile. The
French are marketing a similar laser for animal control for about $7, 700.
Bird necropsies have shown no damage from lasers, even at 1 meter.
Nevertheless, some animal rights groups are protesting their use.

Other nonlethal control approaches can be directed at disrupting the
animals? behavior without scaring them. One such nonlethal bird control is

?pond gridding,? which involves the placement of gridwire over ponds to
prevent landings by geese and other birds. Wildlife Services staff also
provide advice to homeowners and commercial building owners on how to alter
the structure of buildings to discourage birds from roosting on them. For
example, ledges can be boxed in, and spiky steel ?porcupine wire? can be
placed on ledges to dissuade landings. However, birds sometimes figure out
how to build nests right on top of the spiky wire, so other devices may be
needed in conjunction with the wire.

Supplemental feeding is another nonlethal control directed at changing an
animal?s damage- causing behavior without frightening the animal. According
to researchers, this approach looks promising for bears that are coming out
of hibernation when little food is available. In the Pacific Northwest,
bears resort to stripping the bark from trees to eat its sweet inner
surface, which kills large sections of forest. Experiments have shown that
providing bears with sugar cane deters them from damaging the trees and may
discourage their livestock predation as well. A successful bear feeding
program for the protection of timber has existed for several years in
Washington State. Unfortunately, the problem of bears? predation on
livestock is often more difficult to resolve. According to a Wildlife
Services researcher, even when bears have ample alternate food supplies,
they simply seem to prefer lambs and ewes. However, in Utah this past
summer, the Wildlife Services state director coordinated with various
federal and state organizations and with the permittee to try a bear feeder
on a remote grazing allotment. The state director hopes that the use

Page 43 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

of the bear feeder, which contains molasses- sweetened dry pellets, will
help deter both livestock and wildlife kills by bears.

Wildlife Services has had limited success working to develop effective
nonlethal controls for beavers. In addition to landowners? concerns about
beavers flooding timber and croplands, Wildlife Services receives numerous
requests to help cities deal with beaver problems at their sewage treatment
plants. For beavers, the main nonlethal device currently in use is a water
control device, developed at Clemson University, called a Clemson Beaver
Pond Leveler. The pond leveler design is intended to suppress the problem of
flooding by allowing water to drain through a beaver dam or plugged road
culvert, even if beavers build a dam at the mouth of the culvert. The pond
leveler is a simple, low- cost device that is made largely from PVC pipe.
Pond levelers work better in some geographic locations than others. In North
Carolina, Wildlife Services installed seven pond levelers in 2000, with
mixed results. The pond levelers? effectiveness was temporary at best: most
failed within 12 months. The beavers either thwart the pond levelers by
building their dams 30 feet downstream, thereby backing up water and
defeating the purpose of the devices, or they dam up the pond leveler
itself. According to Wildlife Services officials, pond levelers seem to work
better in locations with hillier, steeper topography than North Carolina?s.

Relocation, a nonlethal control method, is rarely a viable option, for
several reasons. First, some animals such as beavers, white- tailed deer,
and resident Canada geese are considered to be overabundant, so finding a
suitable relocation habitat is difficult. Second, relocation is not always
effective or in the animal?s best interest. Some animals (e. g., bears) will
just return to their original habitat; relocated animals may die in their
new habitat because they are unfamiliar with the terrain and food sources or
because they are killed by competitors whose territories they have invaded.
Third, the risk of wildlife- borne disease sometimes makes people reluctant
to accept the relocation of wildlife to areas near their residences. In
fact, to help prevent the spread of disease, many states have laws against
relocating wildlife.

Most nonlethal control methods such as fencing, guard animals, and animal
husbandry practices are most appropriately implemented by the livestock
producers themselves, with technical assistance from Wildlife Services.
According to Wildlife Services officials, by the time producers request
assistance from the Wildlife Services program, they have typically already
been employing a variety of nonlethal control measures and are experiencing
predation on their livestock in spite of these measures.

Page 44 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Wildlife Services must use lethal control methods in situations where
nonlethal controls are ineffective, impractical, or unavailable.

We provided the Department of Agriculture with a draft of our report for its
review and comment. We received comments from officials of the Wildlife
Services program, including the Deputy Administrator and the Associate
Deputy Administrator. The officials agreed with the information presented in
the report. They said that the report was thorough and unbiased, and that it
competently communicated the need for and complexities associated with
wildlife management. The officials acknowledged that there are many emerging
wildlife damage concerns, as presented in appendix IV of this report, that
exceed the program?s current ability to address, within current resources.
In an effort to respond to these emerging needs, Wildlife Services officials
said they have at times compromised the program?s infrastructure by
providing services rather than upgrading equipment and facilities. The
officials said they are committed to fixing the infrastructure problems
while concurrently taking steps to target current and future resources
toward the most critical emerging issues. The officials also provided a
number of technical corrections and clarifications to the draft report,
which we incorporated as appropriate.

We conducted our review from March 2001 through October 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Details of our scope
and methodology are discussed in appendix I.

We are sending a copy of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture and
appropriate congressional committees. We will make copies available to
others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Lawrence J. Dyckman Director, Natural Resources and the Environment Agency
Comments

and Our Evaluation

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 45 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

In October 2000, the Conference Committee on the Department of Agriculture?s
fiscal year 2001 appropriations directed us to conduct a study of the
Department?s Wildlife Services program. 1 Specifically, we agreed to
determine (1) the nature and severity of threats posed by wildlife, (2) the
actions the program has taken to reduce such threats, (3) the studies
Wildlife Services and others have done to assess the specific costs and
benefits of program activities, and (4) the opportunities that exist for
developing effective nonlethal methods of predator control on farms and
ranches.

To obtain information about the damage caused by injurious wildlife and the
actions Wildlife Services takes to control such damage, we reviewed program
documents, research studies, and surveys such as the livestock loss surveys
conducted by the U. S. Department of Agriculture?s National Agricultural
Statistics Service. We gathered information on both the operations and
research arms of Wildlife Services. For the operations arm, we visited
Wildlife Services? western and eastern regional offices and offices in four
states (two western and two eastern). For the research arm, we visited
Wildlife Services? National Wildlife Research Center, in Fort Collins,
Colorado, and two of its field research stations (one western, near Logan,
Utah, and one eastern, in Sandusky, Ohio). The field research station in
Utah conducts mammal research; the station in Ohio, bird research. At each
of the regional and state offices we interviewed officials and reviewed
records such as cooperative agreements, program evaluations, and budget and
accounting documents. In selecting states to visit, we strove for geographic
diversity as well as a cross- section of the program?s various operational
emphases (e. g., protection of agriculture, human health and safety, natural
resources, and property). In each state visited, we met with program clients
(e. g., farmers, ranchers, representatives of associations such as the Farm
Bureau, and federal and state wildlife management officials), and we
accompanied Wildlife Services personnel in the field to observe various
activities such as removing beaver dams and vaccinating raccoons. We also
visited and interviewed officials of the program?s Management Information
System Support Center, located in Fort Collins, Colorado, which tracks the
number and types of operational activities conducted.

To obtain information on the program?s costs and benefits, we conducted
literature searches; reviewed economic studies conducted by program

1 The Committee?s direction was contained in Conference Report H. R. 106-
948, p. 117. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 46 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

researchers, academicians, and others; and interviewed Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service economists who were involved in assessing costs
and benefits for the programmatic environmental impact statement. We also
discussed the costs and benefits of the Wildlife Services program with
program researchers, operations personnel, and cooperators.

To obtain information on nonlethal methods of controlling livestock
predators, we reviewed research studies and interviewed program researchers
and field operations personnel. At the program?s predation ecology and
behavioral applications field station, we attended a review of current
research on reproductive intervention strategies for managing coyote
depredation. We also discussed nonlethal control methods with various
livestock operators who were program clients, as well as with
representatives of industry associations (e. g., the Farm Bureau and wool
growers? associations). Finally, we discussed nonlethal control methods and
general Wildlife Services operations with representatives of the Humane
Society of the United States and the Defenders of Wildlife.

We conducted our review from March 2001 through October 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program

Page 47 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

The Wildlife Services program, including its predecessor programs, has
evolved over the past century to meet the changing needs and desires of
society. This appendix, drawing from the history contained in the program?s
final environmental impact statement (EIS), addresses some of the key events
that have shaped the program over the years.

The first federal government involvement in wildlife damage control efforts
occurred in 1885, when the Department of Agriculture?s Branch of Economic
Ornithology sent questionnaires to farmers about damage caused by birds. The
following year the branch was elevated to division status and renamed the
Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy. The Commissioner of
Agriculture stated that the new division would be responsible for educating
farmers about birds and mammals affecting their interests so that the
destruction of useful species might be prevented. Efforts to educate farmers
included conducting studies and demonstrations of wildlife damage control
techniques in the western United States and testing poisons for control of
the house sparrow.

Between 1905 and 1907, the program, by then named the Bureau of Biological
Survey, investigated and published methods for coyote and wolf control in
conjunction with the Forest Service. At the same time, western livestock
interests began voicing opposition to fees levied by the federal government
for livestock grazing on federal lands in areas with high populations of
coyotes and wolves.

As agricultural interests began to speak out, more attention was focused on
problems with wildlife. In 1913 direct assistance work began under a small
administrative allotment of funds to control plague- bearing rodents in
California national forests. During the following year, the first
cooperative agreement was signed by the president of the New Mexico College
of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts and the Secretary of Agriculture. In 1914
the Congress responded to the concerns of farmers and ranchers by
appropriating funds for experiments and demonstrations on predator control.
The first congressional appropriation for federal predator control
operations came in 1915, when the Congress appropriated $125, 000 to the
Bureau of Biological Survey to control wolves and coyotes.

The 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain for the
Protection of Migratory Birds and its enabling legislation, the 1918
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, authorized the issuance of permits for the taking
of migratory birds that were injurious to agriculture and other interests.
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program

Page 48 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

The need for improved methods and techniques for the control of predators
and rodents led to the establishment of a laboratory in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, for experimentation with poisons. In 1921 this laboratory, called
the Eradication Methods Laboratory, was moved to Denver. Years later, this
facility would become known as the National Wildlife Research Center,
located today in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Although the need for wildlife damage control efforts was acknowledged by
the Congress, some felt the federal program was unnecessary. In 1930 the
American Society of Mammalogists issued a strong statement of opposition to
the federal predator control program. This nearly caused the cancellation of
the $1 million congressional appropriation for predator and rodent control.
But in 1931, after full congressional hearings, a bill was passed by the
Congress and signed by President Hoover giving the federal government
authority to conduct wildlife damage control activities. This bill became
the Act of March 2, 1931, and remains the primary statutory authority under
which the current Wildlife Services program operates.

In 1934, the Congress appropriated funds to buy property in Pocatello,
Idaho, for a facility to produce baits for the predator and rodent control
programs. The facility opened in 1936 as the Pocatello Supply Depot, which
remains an integral part of the current program.

In 1939, under President Franklin Roosevelt?s government reorganization
plan, Agriculture?s Bureau of Biological Survey and Commerce?s Bureau of
Fisheries were transferred to the Department of the Interior, forming the U.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All wildlife damage control functions were
transferred to Interior?s new Branch of Predator and Rodent Control. The
reorganization was part of President Roosevelt?s attempt to consolidate
within the Interior Department all federal activities dealing primarily with
wildlife. This presented the Fish and Wildlife Service with the dual
objectives of both controlling and enhancing certain wildlife species,
depending on the circumstances.

In 1946, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 was amended to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with other federal,
state, and public or private agencies in minimizing damage caused by

?overabundant? species. In 1948 the Lea Act was passed, authorizing the
program to purchase or rent up to 20, 000 acres in California for the
management and control of migratory waterfowl. That same year, a worldwide
shortage of cereal foods prompted the Congress to appropriate funds for
Agriculture and Interior to become involved with rat control. The Predator
and Rodent Control program conducted extensive rodent control

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program

Page 49 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

activities that further established wildlife damage control efforts in the
eastern United States.

The federal animal damage control program operated in relative obscurity,
with little public opposition, during the 1940s and 1950s. By then the
program comprised several components, including research, technical
assistance, and both lethal and nonlethal direct assistance activities. The
type of assistance provided depended on the location, the local
institutions, and the resource being protected.

In the 1960s, however, growing environmental awareness brought the program
under closer scrutiny. The use of poisons to kill predators increasingly
came under criticism, even from traditionally conservative interests such as
editors of national hunting and fishing magazines.

In 1963, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall appointed a group called
the Advisory Board on Wildlife Management to investigate federal wildlife
damage control efforts. The Board published a report in 1964 officially
entitled ?Predator and Rodent Control in the United States? (Leopold et al.
1964), but the report is more commonly referred to as the Leopold report,
named after A. Starker Leopold, Chairman of the Advisory Board. The report
was critical of the animal damage control program in many ways, charging it
with indiscriminate, nonselective, and excessive predator control. For
example, the report stated that the leghold trap was nonselective, meaning
it was apt to capture non- target species, resulting in unnecessary loss of
wildlife.

Recommendations of the Leopold report were incorporated in the 1969 Animal
Damage Control program?s policy manual. For example, professionally trained
personnel were added to the program, in- service training for long- time
employees was instituted, nearly all predator control practices were
reduced, and regulation and supervision of toxicants were tightened.

Predator control continued to be the focus of public attention. In 1971,
spurred by lawsuits from animal welfare groups over the program?s use of
toxicants, the Secretary of the Interior and the President?s Council on
Environmental Quality appointed a seven- person Advisory Committee on
Predator Control. The report of that committee, like the Leopold report,

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program

Page 50 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

took on the name of its chairman, Stanley Cain. 1 The Cain report stated
that the use of chemicals is likely to be inhumane and nonselective, and it
recommended that landowners be trained in the use of leghold traps as a
major method of predator damage control. The report was generally critical
of federal predator control efforts, and outlined 15 recommendations for
changes in the federal program. Among the recommendations was that immediate
congressional action be sought to remove all toxic chemicals from
registration and use for direct predator control.

In February 1972, as a result of the Cain report?s recommendations,
President Richard Nixon signed Executive Order 11643, restricting the use of
toxicants for predator control by federal agencies or for use on federal
lands. In compliance with the order, the Environmental Protection Agency
cancelled the registrations of several chemicals: Compound 1080, strychnine,
sodium cyanide, and thallium sulfate. In 1974, the program was titled the
Office of Animal Damage Control.

In 1975, President Nixon?s Executive Order 11643 was amended by President
Gerald Ford?s Executive Order 11870, to allow the experimental use, for up
to 1 year, of sodium cyanide to control coyote and other predatory mammal or
bird damage to livestock on federal lands or in federal programs. Order
11643 was again amended in 1976 by Executive Order 11917 to allow the
operational use of sodium cyanide for predator control on certain federal
lands or in federal programs. 2

In 1978, the Secretary of the Interior appointed an Animal Damage Control
Policy Study Committee to review the federal Animal Damage Control program.
This committee, too, was very critical of the program, saying it found
insufficient documentation to justify the program?s existence. As a result
of this report, and related public hearings, the Department of the Interior
prepared a December 1978 report ?Predator Damage in the West:

1 S. A. Cain, J. A. Kadlec, D. L. Allen, R. A. Cooley, M. C. Hornocker, A.
S. Leopold, and F. H. Wagner, ?Predator Control- 1971,? Council on
Environmental Quality and U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.
C., 1972. 2 Use of sodium cyanide was still prohibited in: (1) areas where
endangered or threatened

animal species might be adversely affected; (2) areas of the National Park
System; (3) areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System; (4) areas of the
National Wilderness Preservation System; (5) areas within National Forests
or other federal lands specifically set aside for recreational use; (6)
prairie dog towns; (7) National Monument areas; and (8) any areas where
exposure to the public and family pets is probable.

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program

Page 51 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

A Study of Coyote Management Alternatives.? This report summarized all
pertinent information and was developed to serve as a source document for
consideration by the Secretary in making decisions about the program. The
Committee?s report led to a policy statement issued by Secretary of the
Interior Cecil Andrus in November 1979, which stopped the practice of
denning (i. e., finding and killing coyote pups at their dens) and research
on the use of the chemical Compound 1080. The policy was an attempt to
emphasize the use of nonlethal control methods.

Adverse reactions to Secretary Andrus? policy were expressed in a January
1980 memo by the Western Regional Coordinating Committee, composed of 28
university research and extension personnel and various Agriculture and
Interior employees. The committee members were concerned that the policy
showed minimal understanding of livestock industry problems and minimal
knowledge of the realities of predator losses and control. The Committee?s
concerns reflected a growing opinion that the Animal Damage Control function
would be better served if it were administered by the Department of
Agriculture.

In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency held hearings on the predator
control issues. At the same time, Secretary of the Interior James Watt
rescinded former Secretary Andrus? policy statement that banned denning. In
January 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12342, which revoked
President Nixon?s Executive Order 11643 (banning the use of toxicants), as
amended.

In an amendment to the 1986 continuing federal budget resolution, the
Congress transferred all Animal Damage Control program personnel, equipment,
and funding from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the Department of
Agriculture. By April 1986, transfer of all personnel and resources had been
completed. Specifically, the Animal Damage Control program was placed in the
Department?s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Also in 1986, the National Animal Damage Control Advisory Committee,
comprised of agricultural producers, environmental and animal welfare
organizations, and academic institutions, was appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide advice on policies and issues of concern to the
Animal Damage Control program. At the end of 1987, the Congress, in Public
Law 100- 202, authorized the program to conduct control activities of
nuisance mammals and birds and those that are reservoirs for zoonotic
diseases (i. e., diseases that can be passed to people). In 1991, the
Congress authorized the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to
undertake a

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program

Page 52 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

pilot program to control the brown tree snake on Guam. Since 1993 Wildlife
Services has conducted a brown tree snake damage management program on Guam,
in cooperation with the Department of Defense, the Department of the
Interior, and the governments of Guam and Hawaii.

In June 1990, the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Animal
Damage Control program was released for public comment. The supplement to
the draft EIS, which contained revisions, additional information, and
analyses developed in response to comments received, was released for public
comment in January 1993. Based on comments received, two additional
alternatives and more information were included in the April 1994 final EIS,
which provided the basis for future direction of the program.

In 1997, the program?s name was changed to Wildlife Services. That same
year, the program relocated its laboratory headquarters and established the
National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. In 2000, the
Congress amended Wildlife Services? authority under the Act of March 2, 1931
(7 U. S. C. 426). The amendment removed specific language that, according to
Wildlife Services officials, reflected outdated program goals and
philosophy, such as to ?. . . promulgate the best methods of eradication . .
. of mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, . . .? and to ?. . . conduct campaigns
for the destruction . . . of such animals.? The revised section of the act
now authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to ?. . . conduct a program of
wildlife services with respect to injurious animal species and take any
action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting the program. The
Secretary shall administer the program in a manner consistent with all of
the wildlife services authorities in effect on the day before October 28,
2000.?

According to the EIS, the close scrutiny the program has received over the
years, together with internal reviews and strategic planning, has resulted
in the program?s continual evolution. Increasing emphasis has been placed on
the development and implementation of a variety of damage control methods,
including multiple forms of technical assistance and direct assistance
services. Also, the program has sought to increase its staff?s
professionalism and training, to improve its data systems and its
relationships with other wildlife management agencies, and to emphasize
research and development of new control methods. In consideration of
contemporary societal values, the program seeks an acceptable balance
between human interests and wildlife needs.

Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and Activity

Page 53 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

This appendix contains details of Wildlife Services? fiscal year 2000
expenditures for its administrative costs, operational activities, and
research activities. Wildlife Services? total fiscal year 2000 expenditures
were $80.6 million. Of these expenditures, about $42. 3 million (including
just over half a million specifically earmarked for aquaculture) was funded
by Wildlife Services? appropriation; the other $38. 3 million was funded by
clients (i. e, by cooperative dollars).

Administrative expenditures totaled about $9. 5 million and included a
variety of activities such as administrative support, employee development,
and Management Information System (MIS) support. Table 3 shows the breakout
of administrative expenditures, funded solely with federal dollars.

Table 3: Wildlife Services? Administrative Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2000
Administrative category Millions of dollars

Department (United States Department of Agriculture) charges $1.5 Agency
(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) overhead 3.4 Headquarters
support and program investment (e. g., MIS support and employee development)
3.2 Eastern and Western Regional Offices 1. 4

Source: Wildlife Services.

In fiscal year 2000, the Wildlife Services program spent almost $60 million
on operational activities. Of that amount, about $23 million was from
Wildlife Services appropriations; the other $36 million was contributed by
cooperators (program clients). Table 4 shows the program?s fiscal year 2000
operational expenditures, by state and by source (i. e., Wildlife Services
or cooperators). Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity Administrative Expenditures

Operational Expenditures

Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and Activity

Page 54 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 4: Wildlife Services? Operational Expenditures, by State and Funding
Source, Fiscal Year 2000

State Federal (Wildlife Services) funding Cooperative

funding Total

Alabama $204,859 $292,671 $497,530 Alaska 129,796 730,573 860369 Arkansas
252,084 266,441 518,525 Arizona 423,222 434,826 858,048 California 1, 458,
860 3,389, 125 4,847, 985 Colorado 746,133 470,306 1,216, 439 Connecticut
37,000 5,407 42,407 Delaware 1,684 0 1, 684 District of Columbia 102 0 102
Florida/ Puerto Rico 205,394 383,355 588,749 Georgia 112,000 149,718 261,718
Hawaii 155,000 1,283, 322 1,438, 322 Idaho 713,796 613,148 1,326, 944 Iowa
23,721 59,593 83,314 Illinois 104,236 536,000 640,236 Indiana 94,158 41,179
135,337 Kansas 49,518 85,793 135,311 Kentucky 158,910 442,310 601,220
Louisiana 352,095 327,535 679,630 Maine 132,133 246,147 378,280
Massachusetts 47,175 93,082 140,257 Maryland 101,233 158,197 259,430
Michigan 95,229 90,374 185,603 Minnesota 201,427 47,554 248,981 Mississippi
845,264 790,859 1,636, 123 Missouri 158,753 195,160 353,913 Montana 1,139,
067 1,705, 032 2,844, 099 Nebraska 333,797 315,425 649,222 Nevada 772,618
824,929 1,597, 547 New Hampshire 284,672 230,672 515,344 New Jersey 120,653
228,598 349,251 Pennsylvania 61,915 95,646 157,561 New York 383,858 342,521
726,379 New Mexico 1,226, 520 1,027, 238 2,253, 758 North Carolina 180,965
1,124, 000 1,304, 965 North Dakota 730,996 518,012 1,249, 008 Ohio 581,456
7,835 589,291 Oklahoma 746,621 1,679, 374 2,425, 995 Oregon 918,791 1,197,
022 2,115, 813 Rhode Island 8,328 17,495 25,823

Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and Activity

Page 55 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Federal (Wildlife Services) funding Cooperative

funding Total

South Carolina 173,916 493,577 667,493 South Dakota 325,222 1,135, 074
1,460, 296 Tennessee 158,910 486,563 645,473 Texas 2, 645, 488 6,828, 214
9,473, 702 Utah 948,371 1,115, 755 2,064, 126 Virginia 166,684 631,478
798,162 Vermont 176,803 47,444 224,247 Washington 531,887 1,340, 674 1,872,
561 Wisconsin 511,687 1,291, 189 1,802, 876 West Virginia 281,320 220,658
501,978 Wyoming 946,182 645,977 1,592, 159 Guam 115,364 1,751, 622 1,866,
986 Total $21,275, 873 $36,434, 698 $57,710, 571

Source: Wildlife Services.

In addition to the $21,275,873 of federal funding allocated specifically for
state operations, approximately $2 million of funding managed at the
regional level was available for state operations use. According to a
Wildlife Services official, the additional amount is managed at the regional
office level.

The program spends the majority of its operational funds on activities to
protect agriculture; in fiscal year 2000, cooperators contributed about 60
percent of these funds. Figure 4 shows Wildlife Services? fiscal year 2000
operational expenditures, by category (the program?s various operational
emphases).

Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and Activity

Page 56 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 4: Wildlife Services? Operational Expenditures, by Program Category,
Fiscal Year 2000

Source: Wildlife Services data.

Wildlife Services also tracks subcategories of operational expenditures.
Within each program category are several subcategories of expenses. For
example, the agriculture category includes expenditures for the protection
of livestock, crops, forest/ range, and aquaculture. Cooperators provide the
majority- over 60 percent in fiscal year 2000- of the funds spent on
livestock protection. Table 5 shows the program?s fiscal year 2000
agriculture expenditures, by subcategory.

Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and Activity

Page 57 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 5: Wildlife Services? Operational Expenditures for Agriculture, by
Subcategory, Fiscal Year 2000

Agriculture subcategory Federal and cooperative funding

Livestock $23,369, 093 Crops 4,632, 556 Forest/ Range 2,887, 121 Aquaculture
1,053, 743

Total $31,942, 513

Source: Wildlife Services.

Wildlife Services? expenditures for its research activities totaled $12,226,
694 in fiscal year 2000. Wildlife Services covered the majority of these
expenditures with $10,357, 000; cooperator funding accounted for the
remaining $1, 869, 694. Research Expenditures

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 58 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 6 provides examples, by state, of the wildlife that pose challenges,
the resources they damage, and emerging concerns about wildlife damage. For
each state, only a few examples are given (of injurious wildlife and the
damage they do); many more problems than these exist in each state. The
examples do not include the risk to human health and safety posed by birds
at airports. This risk is excluded because it exists in every state, and
Wildlife Services performs control activities in every state. In some
states, though, particularly coastal ones, the risk to human health and
safety posed by migratory birds and the risk of their colliding with
aircraft is already significant and is growing.

Table 6: Examples of Resources Damaged by Injurious Wildlife, and Related
Emerging Concerns, by State State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged
(annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Alabama Fish- eating birds (e. g., cormorants, pelicans, herons, egrets)

Beavers Catfish ($ 4 million)

Timber ($ 19 million), transportation infrastructure

Wildlife diseases pose greater threats to humans, livestock, and pets;
populations of fish- eating birds continue to increase; and diminished sport
trapping is adding to the increase in beaver populations.

Alaska Arctic foxes Aleutian Canada goose (threatened), nesting seabirds
Increased air travel throughout the state,

coupled with immense populations of migratory birds and other wildlife, has
created an urgent need for state and federal management of wildlife threats.
Also, farmers and ranchers need assistance with damage from birds and
predators. Arizona Coyotes, black bears,

mountain lions Blackbirds

Livestock Dairy cattle, feedlot cattle (disease risk from contaminated feed
and water)

Increased human populations and increased recreational use of public lands
emphasize the need to deal with risks of wildlife disease transmission.

Arkansas Blackbirds Fish- eating birds

Rice crops ($ 3. 5 million) Catfish ($ 2. 3 million)

The growing rice and aquaculture industries require additional protection
from the increasing populations of fish eating birds. California Coyotes,
black bears,

mountain lions Birds, rodents

Feral cats, red foxes, raccoons, coyotes, striped skunks, raptors

Livestock (nearly $2 million) Row crops, fruit and nut crops, vineyards

Threatened or endangered species (e. g., California red- legged frog, salt
marsh harvest mouse, Sierra Nevada big horn sheep, Monterey Bay western
snowy plover)

Increased airline traffic and population growth of many bird species has
created a greater need for wildlife control at airports; the recent surge in
the number of direct attacks on humans creates an increased need to protect
humans from large predators such as coyotes, black bears, and mountain
lions.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 59 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

Colorado Coyotes Sheep and lambs ($ 1.5 million), black- footed ferrets
(endangered) Human population growth, especially in

rural and semi- rural areas, creates an increased potential for human-
wildlife conflicts. Connecticut Starlings, blackbirds

Canada geese, blackbirds, mute swans

Birds, bats, squirrels, monk parakeets, ospreys

Dairy cattle (salmonella risk from contaminated feed and water)

Vegetable crops, cranberries Buildings, landscaping, utilities

Preventing wildlife- borne diseases from affecting humans and livestock has
become a growing concern with the recent outbreaks of rabies, West Nile
virus, salmonella, and E. coli; increased air travel and growing bird
populations also call for increased wildlife control at airports.

Delaware Snow geese Canada geese

Coastal salt marsh habitat Grain crops, golf courses ($ 75,000)

West Nile virus is a major health concern. In fiscal year 2000, Delaware
reported that four horses tested positive for the virus. Growth in air
travel, coupled with growth in deer and bird populations, has created a
greater need for wildlife control at airports. Florida Raccoons, red foxes,

coyotes, feral hogs, ghost crabs, armadillos

Foxes, coyotes, black rats, skunks, raccoons, snakes, armadillos, dogs

Red foxes, rats, coyotes, raccoons, feral cats

Beavers Threatened or endangered sea

turtles (e. g., leatherback, hawksbill, loggerhead turtles)

Endangered beach mice (e. g., Perdido Key, Anastasia Island, Choctawhatchee
beach mice)

Threatened or endangered birds (e. g., roseate tern, least tern, Puerto
Rican parrot)

Flooded timber lands, croplands, roadways ($ 620, 000)

Wildlife continue to threaten the safety of air travelers at many airports,
but resource constraints have prevented Wildlife Services from resolving the
hazards; livestock producers suffer losses from coyote and vulture
predation, and direct assistance from Wildlife Services, rather than advice,
would help reduce these losses.

Georgia Armadillos, raccoons, coyotes

Beavers Resident Canada geese, white- tailed deer

Ground- nesting birds (e. g., bobwhite quail)

Landscapes, pastures, timber, sanitation lines, culverts, highways, wells ($
152, 000)

Crops, property, neighborhood landscapes and gardens

Increased habitat loss, human population growth, and the adaptability of
many wildlife species to human environments increase the need for
professional resolution of wildlife problems. Of concern are deer, geese,
beavers, vultures, cormorants, pigeons, feral hogs, and raccoons.

Hawaii Feral goats, sheep, pigs, deer

Tree frogs Rats

Endangered waterbirds, plants Horticulture, parrots, Axis deer Agricultural
products, native plants, seabirds, turtles

The state is concerned about the time and expense involved in complying with
the National Environmental Policy Act (conducting environmental analyses of
Wildlife Services? actions performed for nonfederal cooperators), and the
associated administrative requirements.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 60 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

Idaho Coyotes, black bears, mountain lions, wolves, red foxes

Ravens, coyotes, badgers, red foxes

Sheep, lambs ($ 1. 5 million) Sage grouse, endangered northern Idaho ground
squirrels

Efforts to control crop damage by the sandhill crane have been limited by
the lack of resources. Populations of ravens and red foxes have increased,
to the detriment of the sage grouse.

Illinois Canada geese, whitetailed deer

European starlings Private and municipal property

Private and industrial property, risk of disease (histoplasmosis)

Bird predation at fish production facilities- an emerging agricultural
industry in Illinois- is a concern, as is the transmission of wildlife-
borne diseases such as West Nile virus. Indiana Canada geese

Starlings Private and industrial property

($ 169, 000 in property damage reported in fiscal year 2000)

Property damage (e. g., buildings and equipment), risk of disease
(histoplasmosis)

Over 12, 000 people used Indiana?s toll free wildlife conflicts hotline
during its first 2 years of service, preventing an estimated $100, 000 in
wildlife damage; now an additional person is needed to respond to calls.

Iowa Coyotes Beavers

Sheep, cattle, hogs ($ 20, 000 in confirmed losses to coyotes)

Roads, crops, bridges Requests for assistance continue to

increase, especially in regard to livestock predators (especially coyotes)
and beavers. Kansas Blackbirds (grackles,

starlings, cowbirds) Livestock feed (more than $660,000 in damage at three

feedlots during a recent winter) Wildlife Services? success in addressing

blackbird problems at feedlots has fueled demand for similar services
statewide. Kentucky Starlings, Canada

geese Agriculture, residential and industrial property, aquaculture,

golf courses, parks, utility structures

Increased urbanization and expansion into formerly rural areas, coupled with
escalating wildlife populations, have led to a rise in wildlife- human
conflicts. Louisiana Blackbirds, cowbirds,

egrets, cormorants, white pelicans, herons

Beavers Sprouting rice ($ 5 million to $10

million a year in damage), strawberries, pecans, crawfish, catfish

Threatened Louisiana pearlshell (a mussel), timber, roadways, bridges,
public utilities. Nearly $5 million in beaver- caused losses was reported
between 1998 and 2000.

Increased damage by birds is becoming more difficult to control, despite the
more than $17 million spent annually by aquaculture facilities throughout
the state. Beavers are another source of increasing wildlife damage in the
state.

Maine Birds, deer, moose, raccoons, skunks, black bears

Beavers Blueberries, strawberries,

vegetable crops, beehives, campsites, summer homes, fences

Commercial timberlands, municipal roads, highways

Increasing predation from a rising cormorant population is harming the
commercial, pen- raised Atlantic salmon industry and is thought to be the
primary cause of the dwindling wild Atlantic salmon population.

Maryland Canada geese, vultures Crops, waterfront properties The state has
an increased need to protect humans, their pets, and livestock from
wildlife- borne diseases. Rabies and West Nile virus are two major health
concerns on the East Coast.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 61 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

Massachusetts Canada geese, blackbirds

Eider ducks, swans, cormorants, gulls

Cranberries, vegetables, dairy feed Trout hatcheries, shellfish

Preventing the spread of wildlife- borne diseases to humans and livestock is
a growing concern, given the recent outbreaks of rabies, West Nile virus,
salmonella, Giardia, and E. coli. Michigan Starlings

Gray wolves (endangered)

Deer Dairies, feedlots

Livestock Bovine tuberculosis in cattle (projected impact to the state?s
producers is $121 million over 10 years)

Wolf populations will likely increase and expand from the Upper to the Lower
Peninsula, causing increased demand for prompt and professional response in
wolf management services. Also, demand for help in reducing damage by
congregating starlings has grown significantly.

Minnesota Gray wolves Beavers

Cattle, horses, sheep, poultry, dogs Private property, roads, timber, fish
habitat

As the wolf population continues to expand, the need for Wildlife Services?
professional assistance is expected to increase. Nuisance bear complaints
are also increasing. Mississippi Double- crested

cormorants, American white pelicans

Beavers Black bears

Aquaculture (about $5 million) Roads, bridges, drainage structures,
agricultural fields, private property, timber (several million dollars a
year in damage)

Beehives, crops, private property Feral hogs are causing more crop

damage and posing a disease threat (pseudorabies) for the domestic hog
industry. Canada geese and black bears are becoming a growing concern for
property owners.

Missouri Beavers, muskrats Blackbirds, herons Canada geese

Crops, roads, levees Rice crops, aquaculture Crops, lawns, golf courses
(more than $122, 000 in turf and crop damage in fiscal year 2000)

The state?s resident Canada goose population has quadrupled since 1993,
causing increased damage; the feral hog population is also increasing, and
the state needs Wildlife Services? help with this problem.

Montana Grizzly bears, Rocky Mountain gray wolves (threatened or endangered)

Livestock (predators caused a $1.1 million loss to state?s sheep industry in
2000)

With the successful reintroduction and recovery of Rocky Mountain gray
wolves in nearby states, Montana Wildlife Services expects a growing demand
for its expertise in handling wolf- related livestock predation issues.
Nebraska Coyotes, foxes,

mountain lions, bobcats Prairie dogs Blackbirds

Livestock Rangeland Feedlots

Areas requiring increased attention include wildlife management at airports,
livestock predation, and public protection from wildlife- borne diseases.
Increased public awareness of Wildlife Services? professional role in these
issues has increased the demand for its services.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 62 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

Nevada Rodents Coyotes, mountain lions

Public health risk of sylvatic plague (wild form of bubonic plague)

Livestock; humans and pets in urban areas

Aviation safety is a growing concern. Population growth and city development
around Nevada?s major airports has created an ideal habitat for migratory
birds such as Canada geese, mallard ducks, and American coots.

New Hampshire Black bears Deer

Woodchucks Gulls

Apiaries, row crops, livestock Apples, fruit crops, ornamental shrubbery

Earthen dams and levees, wild lupine (essential to the endangered Karner
blue butterfly)

Roseate and common tern recolonization efforts

Controlling the spread of West Nile virus is an emerging concern, along with
rabies, Lyme disease, salmonella, and chronic wasting disease. Also, the 10-
year trend of increasing conflicts associated with bears and bird feeding
activities needs to be addressed.

New Jersey Canada geese Deer, blackbirds Red foxes, raccoons, opossums

Human health effects of goose feces, human safety threats from aggressive
geese, crops, turf

Crops, fruit trees, vegetables Threatened and endangered shorebirds (e. g.,
piping plovers, least terns, black skimmers)

The state?s large population of resident Canada geese will pose increasing
challenges for the protection of human health and safety, as well as
property, at schools, hospitals, airports, and urban and suburban areas. The
spread of West Nile virus is another concern.

New Mexico Coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bears

Prairie dogs, pocket gophers, ground squirrels

Sandhill cranes, snow geese

Livestock (losses in excess of $1. 6 million in 1999)

Agricultural crops, pasture land, turf, human health and safety (nearly
$500,000 in rodent damage in fiscal year 2000)

Crops (e. g., alfalfa, chile, wheat) Coyotes are becoming an increasing

problem in urban and suburban areas, killing pets and other domestic animals
and posing safety risks to humans. Wildlife Services? assistance will be
needed to resolve conflicts between humans and the black- tailed prairie
dog, a candidate threatened species.

New York Cormorants, gulls Canada geese

Catfish, bait fish, crawfish, sport fish

Property, crops Bat and raccoon rabies remain a health

concern, and urban winter crow roosts are emerging as a unique problem to
city residents, resulting in conflicts over droppings, noise, odor, and fear
associated with zoonotic disease.

North Carolina Beavers Timber, crops, roads, drainage systems, landscapes.
In fiscal year 2000, Wildlife Services prevented about $8. 5 million in
damage to such resources: nearly $9 saved for every $1 spent.

Threats to public safety, not only by wildlife at airports, but also by the
rapidly growing beaver population, must be addressed. A rabid beaver?s
recent attack on a human has increased public awareness of this issue.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 63 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

North Dakota/ South Dakota Coyotes, foxes

Blackbirds Canada geese and other waterfowl

Cattle, sheep, poultry Sunflowers and other grain crops (over $5 million in
losses annually in the upper Great Plains), feedlots

Grain crops (damage increased by 80 percent in 2000, resulting in $162,000
in losses)

More work at airports is needed, and concerns over the threat of rabies
transferring from skunks to humans or domestic animals continues to be a
concern.

Ohio Coyotes, vultures Raccoons Rooftop nesting gulls Blackbirds, Canada
geese

Cattle, sheep, poultry Human health and safety Property Crops, property

Increasing populations of gulls, vultures, and starlings are causing
significant human health and safety issues and crop and property damage.

Oklahoma Beavers Coyotes Canada geese

Dams, timber, crops, roads, private property

Cattle, sheep, goats, poultry Crops (especially winter wheat)

Feral hogs cause many problems (livestock predation, crop destruction);
Canada geese are growing in number and are damaging crops.

Oregon Canada geese Cougars

Black bears, beavers Turf grass seed, other crops

Human safety (Wildlife Services addressed 386 cougar complaints in 2000; 118
involved threats to humans)

Timber Successful wolf reintroduction in Idaho

means future wolf conflicts with livestock in Oregon. Wolves will hamper
present predator control efforts because control tools and methods will be
restricted around wolves.

Pennsylvania Deer Canada geese Starlings

Human safety (automobile collisions)

Landscape, crops (program annually assists over 300 residents with goose-
related problems)

Livestock facilities The state?s large population of resident

Canada geese will pose increasing challenges over time, as will increasing
populations of deer, vultures, and gulls. Emerging public health issues (e.
g., West Nile virus) will also be a challenge.

Rhode Island Canada geese, gulls, crows, turkey vultures

Mute swans Monk parakeets, ospreys

Property, turf, vegetable crops Pond water quality Landscaping, utilities

The needs of some citizens are currently unmet. Increasingly, the program is
able to respond to requests for assistance only from entities that can fully
fund it. Preventing wildlife- borne diseases is a growing concern.

South Carolina Beavers White- tailed deer

Timber, crops, roads, levees, dams Landscaping, human safety (automobile
collisions), human health (tick- borne diseases)

The demand for beaver management has overwhelmed the program, yet some
counties cannot afford to share the costs. At the same time, the vulture
population and related complaints have increased.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 64 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

Tennessee Canada geese Beavers

Vultures Turf (at golf courses, parks, etc.)

Roads, bridges, timber, wildlife management areas

Municipal utility structures, residential property

The growing number and variety of wildlife- human conflicts pose a challenge
to the program, especially in terms of wildlife control at airports and
urban damage by large birds.

Texas Coyotes, foxes Coyotes Beavers

Blackbirds Feral hogs

Human health (rabies) Sheep and goats Dams, dikes, railroad track beds,
timber, roads, pastures, crops

Citrus crops, rice, feedlot operations

Agricultural crops, livestock The feral hog population in the state

exceeds 1 million. Hogs damage many crops (e. g., corn, rice, peanuts, hay),
and they prey on lambs, kids, fawns, and ground nesting birds. Also, damage
by migratory birds (e. g., cattle egrets, vultures, cormorants) has
increased, taxing the program?s response abilities.

Utah Coyotes, mountain lions, black bears

Skunks, raccoons, feral and urban waterfowl, pigeons

Sheep and lambs (nearly $2 million in losses in 1999, even with controls in
place), endangered black- footed ferrets, sage grouse, mule deer fawns

Human health and safety (threat of rabies, raccoon roundworm, salmonella,
plague)

Demands for wildlife damage management are increasing, yet the program
already has more requests than it can address. Protection of native wildlife
continues to be of importance.

Vermont Raccoons Starlings

Human health (rabies), threatened Eastern spiney softshell turtle

Cattle feed at dairies Wildlife diseases like West Nile virus,

Lyme disease, salmonella, and chronic wasting syndrome continue to emerge
and need to be addressed. Virginia Coyotes, black vultures

Beavers Canada geese, crows, vultures, starlings, muskrats

Livestock Roads, railroads Urban and suburban property, water quality, human
health and safety. (Canada geese are involved in 26 percent of all requests
for program assistance in Virginia.)

Challenges include finding a way to provide damage management services to
low- and middle- income people and protecting Virginia?s rare natural
resources (e. g., the threatened piping plover and Wilson?s plover).

Washington Northern pikeminnows, gulls

Starlings, feral pigeons, Canada geese, gulls

Coyotes Threatened and endangered

salmon and steelhead Bridges, buildings (bird feces are corrosive to paint
and metal), fruit crops, public and private property, human health (over $6
million a year in damage to the fruit industry)

Livestock, endangered Columbian white- tailed deer, pygmy rabbits

Increasing problems are caused by urban Canada geese and by predators
(damage to livestock, agriculture, and forestry resources), but program
resources are already strained.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They Damage, and
Emerging Concerns, by State

Page 65 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife Resource damaged (annual damage estimate, if
available) Emerging concerns

West Virginia Coyotes, vultures Raccoons Muskrats, beavers

Sheep, cattle, goats Human health (rabies) Levees and dams

With its limited resources, the program concentrates on the highest
priorities (human health and safety). As a result, though, program staff
cannot make muchneeded on- site evaluations of wildlife damage to property;
rather, they make recommendations based on telephone interviews. Also,
problems caused by starlings and roosting birds need attention. Wisconsin
Deer

Black bears Beavers Gray wolves Canada geese

Crops (over $1 million a year in damage)

Crops, property, human safety Trout streams Livestock, pets Municipal and
private property

The endangered gray wolf population has grown from 34 wolves in 1990 to
about 250 in 2000, and the wolf?s recovery is considered a success. But
problems, such as depredation on livestock and pets, have come with the
wolf?s recovery. Also problematic is the damage done by the burgeoning
population of resident Canada geese, which now numbers over 70, 000.

Wyoming Coyotes, black bears, red foxes, mountain lions, grizzly bears,
wolves

Skunks Coyotes

Livestock (losses of over $5. 6 million to predators in 2000)

Human health (rabies risk) Black- footed ferrets

As wolf and grizzly bear populations expand, new or different control
methods will be needed to prevent unnecessary conflicts with them. Also,
skunk rabies seems to be spreading westward across the state, and a program
is needed to contain it.

Guam Brown tree snakes Power transmission lines, poultry and small animals,
endangered species (e. g., Vanikoro swiftlets, Mariana crows, Guam fruit
bats, Guam rails, Micronesian kingfishers), human health and safety

The magnitude and complexity of the work to control the brown tree snake
pose significant challenges, and the administrative burden is increasing.

U. S. Virgin Islands Black rats

Roosting birds Endangered sea turtles, migratory

birds, native vegetation Human health concerns

Invasive species? impacts on native plants and animals is a major and
growing problem.

Source: Wildlife Services.

Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife- Aircraft Strikes

Page 66 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

Through an interagency agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Wildlife Services maintains a database of all reported wildlife
strikes to U. S. civil aircraft and to foreign carriers that experience
strikes within the United States. The database contains about 34,000 strike
reports from 1,100 airports for the period 1990 through 2000. In 2000 alone,
about 6, 000 strikes were reported. Wildlife Services estimates, however,
that the number of strikes reported represents only about 20 percent of
those that have occurred.

The following examples from the database show the serious effects that
strikes by birds or other wildlife can have on aircraft. The examples are
not intended to highlight or criticize individual airports; strikes have
occurred at or near almost every airport in the United States. For more
information on wildlife strikes, visit www. birdstrike. org.

 In January 1990, a Hawker Siddeley aircraft struck several white- tailed
deer during takeoff from John Tune Airport in Tennessee. One deer was
completely ingested by the left engine. The impact tore the engine loose,
and the aircraft had to be replaced at a cost of $1. 4 million.

 In November 1990, a Bae- 3200 ingested doves in both engines during
takeoff from Michiana Regional Airport in Indiana. The engines were
destroyed, and the aircraft was out of service for 60 hours. The repair cost
was about $1 million.

 In November 1991, a DC- 10?s number 1 engine ingested one or more American
crows during takeoff from Chicago O?Hare International Airport. Parts of the
engine came out the side and damaged the number 2 engine. The aircraft made
a precautionary landing.

 In December 1991, a Citation 550?s number 1 engine ingested one or two
turkey vultures during takeoff from Angelina County Airport in Texas. The
engine experienced an uncontained failure, a fire, and vibrations that
caused a 100- percent loss of thrust, causing the takeoff to be aborted. The
wing and fuselage received damage from engine shrapnel. The aircraft was out
of service for 2 weeks, at a repair cost of $552, 500.

 In February 1992, a Piper 28 was just about to touch down on the runway at
Sandstone Airport in Minnesota when a deer ran toward the aircraft and
collided with it. The pilot added power and aborted the landing, but lost
power during the climb and crashed into trees and then into the ground about
a quarter- mile from the airport. The pilot was seriously injured; the
aircraft was destroyed. Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife- Aircraft

Strikes

Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife- Aircraft Strikes

Page 67 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

 In October 1992, a Boeing 747 struck numerous herring gulls during takeoff
from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. A gull was ingested
by an engine, bending four fan blades and causing the aircraft to make a
precautionary landing. The passengers departed on another aircraft the next
day. The reported cost- of hotel, lost revenue, and repairs- was $750,000.

 In October 1993, a Boeing 757 struck about 35 cattle egrets on takeoff
from Orlando International Airport. Takeoff was aborted. Three tires on the
right side blew out, and the aircraft was towed to the gate. The ingestion
of 10 to 12 birds damaged engine fan blades and the engine cowl.

 In December 1993, a Cessna 550 struck a flock of geese on its climbout
from DuPage Airport in Illinois. A loud bang occurred, followed by unstable
flight. The number 2 engine lost power, and the aircraft experienced a
substantial fuel leak on the left side. The pilot made a safe emergency
landing at Midway Airport. Both engines had to be replaced. The aircraft was
out of service for 90 days; the cost of repairs was $800,000.

 In May 1994, a Bell BHT- 47 helicopter crashed into the backyard of a
residence in Oklahoma, resulting in two fatalities. The pilot of another
helicopter, which had been traveling ahead of the one that crashed, said he
had warned the other pilot about a flock of birds which he himself had
avoided by banking sharply. The probable cause of the crash, according to
the National Transportation Safety Board, was the pilot?s loss of control
when he maneuvered abruptly to avoid colliding with the flock of birds.

 In July 1994, a Cessna 172 was seen flying about 200 feet above the water
along a beach in Florida. A pelican collided with the windshield; the
aircraft rolled upside down and hit the water. The pilot was fatally
injured.

 In June 1995, a Concorde ingested a Canada goose into the number 3 engine
upon landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The engine suffered
an uncontained failure, causing parts to go into the number 4 engine. Both
engines were destroyed. The aircraft was out of service for 5 days; repair
costs were over $9 million. In an out- of- court settlement 3 years later,
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey paid Air France $5.3 million
in compensation for losses.

 In December 1995, on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport, a
Boeing 747 broke through a cloudbank and struck a flock of snow geese,

Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife- Aircraft Strikes

Page 68 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

which sounded like sandbags hitting the aircraft. The impact destroyed one
engine, damaged several fan blades on another, and extensively damaged the
airframe. The repairs cost about $6 million.

 In July 1996, a Boeing 737 ingested an American kestrel into the left
engine upon takeoff from Nashville International Airport, resulting in a
compressor stall and an aborted takeoff. The aircraft overran the runway,
and the passengers were evacuated. One passenger was seriously injured; four
others received minor injuries.

 In October 1996, a Boeing 727 struck a flock of gulls just after takeoff
from Washington National Airport. An engine ingested at least one bird,
began to vibrate, and was shut down. A burning smell entered the cockpit,
and an emergency was declared. The aircraft, carrying Housing and Urban
Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and 52 other passengers, returned to
the airport and made a safe precautionary landing. Engine blades were
damaged.

 In January 1997, a McDonnell Douglas 80 struck over 400 blackbirds just
after takeoff from Dallas- Fort Worth Airport. Nearly every part of the
plane was hit. The pilot declared an emergency and returned to land
uneventfully. The number 1 engine had to be replaced, and damage to the
plane was substantial. The cost of repairs was about $219,000.

 In August 1997, a Boeing 737 struck 12 to 15 mallards after takeoff from
Portland International Airport in Oregon. The pilot returned to the airport
and landed safely. The radome and all engine fan blades had to be replaced,
at a cost of over $100, 000.

 In May 1998, a Boeing 727 struck several Canada geese after takeoff from
Colorado Springs Metro Airport. The crew felt moderate to severe vibration
after the aircraft ingested one or more birds. The aircraft lost essential
electrical power, which was restored by a generator. The number 3 engine
suffered an uncontained failure. Shrapnel was ejected through the engine
case, severing electrical wires and puncturing the anti- ice bleed air duct.
The radome, upper engine cowling, and thrust reverser were also damaged. The
aircraft was out of service for 98 hours; the repair cost was $1.4 million.

 In November 1998, a Boeing 737 struck a buck deer on the runway when
taking off from Western Nebraska Regional Airport. The pilot proceeded with
the takeoff, but then returned to land. An engine suffered major damage. The
flight was canceled; the passengers and crew were rerouted

Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife- Aircraft Strikes

Page 69 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

the next day. Total cost was $430,000 for repairs, lost revenue, meals and
hotel rooms, and other transportation for passengers.

 In February 1999, a Boeing 757 encountered a flock of European starlings
upon takeoff from Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky International Airport. The
first officer tried to climb over the birds but struck several hundred of
them. Both engines ingested birds and were damaged; the repair cost was
about $500, 000. More than 400 dead starlings were picked up from the runway
area following the strike.

 In December 1999, a Boeing 747 encountered a red- tailed hawk upon takeoff
from Toledo Express Airport in Ohio. The hawk struck the nose bullet, which
shattered and entered the engine. A witness called the sheriff and reported
hearing a large boom and seeing one of the engines on fire as the aircraft
took off. The pilot dumped fuel and returned to the airport to land. Pieces
of fan blades tore large holes in the nose cowling. Time out of service was
84 hours; cost of repairs was $1. 3 million.

 In March 2000, a Boeing 767 ingested a flock of Bonaparte?s gulls after
takeoff from Dulles International Airport. The pilot returned to the airport
and made a precautionary landing. Fan blades were damaged; the repair cost
was $65, 000.

 In August 2000, a Boeing 747 flew through a flock of about 30 Canada geese
and ingested 1 or 2 in the number 1 engine after taking off from
Philadelphia International Airport. The high- speed aborted takeoff resulted
in nine flat tires; the aircraft was towed to the ramp. The engine was a
total loss, and the aircraft was out of service for 72 hours. The cost was
$3 million.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 70 GAO- 02- 138 Wildlife Services Program

James R. Jones, Jr., (202) 512- 9839 In addition to the individual named
above, Carol Bray, Amy Sue Bunting, Nancy Crothers, Brian Eddington,
Jerilynn Hoy, Diane Lund, LuAnn Moy, Cheryl Pilatzke, Pam Tumler, and Amy
Webbink made key contributions to this report. Appendix VI: GAO Contact and
Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments

(360057)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO E- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and
complete the easy- to- use electronic order form found under ?To Order GAO
Products.?

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (301) 413- 0006 Fax: (202)
258- 4066

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***