Talk:Wildlife Services

Controversy

According to John Robbins:

"The USDA’s Animal Damage Control (ADC) program was established in 1931 for a single purpose—to eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to be detrimental to the western livestock industry… In 1997, following the advice of public relations and image consultants, the federal government gave a new name to the ADC—“Wildlife Services.” And they came up with a new motto—“Living with Wildlife.” --John Robbins

"What 'Wildlife Services' actually does is kill any creature that might compete with or threaten livestock. Its methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and aerial gunning. In 'denning' wildlife, government agents pour kerosene into the den and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests.

"Among the animals Wildlife Services agents intentionally kill are badgers, black bears, bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, red fox, mountain lions, opossum, raccoons, striped skunks, beavers, nutrias, porcupines, prairie dogs, black birds, cattle egrets, and starlings. Animals unintentionally killed by Wildlife Services agents include domestic dogs and cats, and several threatened and endangered species.

"All told, Wildlife Services, the federal agency whose motto is 'Living with Wildlife,' intentionally kills more than 1.5 million wild animals annually. This is done, of course, at public expense, to protect the private financial interests of ranchers who wish to use public lands to graze their livestock." Davedecot (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This is unbelievable. They pour kerosene in the den and burn the young in their nests? Really? Please prove these allegations before posting them on an "unbiased", NPOV encyclopedia, besides John Robbins is not a reliable source. The Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for exhibiting such obvious bias. 68.7.233.27 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey 68.7.233.27, you're a moron...why not do something call research before just writing any thing. What you say is not a rebuttal it's just opinion and not even that it's a WP:IDL using Wikipedia's own rules. Davedecot is talking about improving this article by pointing out that's written in a fashion promoting a load positive-spin POV. Rather than acknowledging the awkward truth about this Federal agency. Takes all but seconds to realise that it is operating under some very dubious mandates that allow it to kill indiscriminately large numbers of animals every years, Wildlife Services: Critics target America's ‘rogue’ assassins who kill 3 million animals a year.81.129.203.40 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Now who is violating Wikipedias own rules? Name calling is not acceptable. By starting your response to 68.7.233.27 with "you're a moron" you invalidated your own arguement that its not a rebuttal its an opinion... Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment. And there is still nothing in any of the sources you cited about them using kerosene to burn young animals in their nests anywhere. Thank you.

Removed Biased Wording

Wildlife Services does not use civilian vehicles to hide their activities, nor do they intentionally target radio or GPS collared animals. Whoever added this information needs to cite verifiable sources. This article is filled with more examples of this kind of biased wording and is obviously written from an Non-Neutral point of view. I also added some information about the non-lethal methods that they use and have developed including the radio activated livestock guard developed by wildlife services biologists as well as their role in protecting endangered species from predation. Bugguyak (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted above....Wildlife Services: Critics target America's ‘rogue’ assassins who kill 3 million animals a year, and besides in January 2013, this is the sort of person they quite happily employ, Wildlife Services Trapper arrested after trapping a neighbor's dog in his front yard and allowing it to gnaw its leg off. What a responsible human being! 81.129.203.40 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The article does not mention the dog gnawing its leg off. Where did you get that? It only says the animal lost some teeth from biting the steel trap. Check your own sources please. You should also maybe mention the dog owner was cited, so who is being biased? Besides that, what does this incident have to do with the topic bugguy has mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.76.19 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Written by the USDA

"Wildlife Services is the program that provides Federal leadership and skill to resolve wildlife interactions that threaten public health and safety, as well as agricultural, property, and natural resources." I would bet my bottom dollar this was copied and pasted directly from a Wildlife Services media kit brochure. This article desperately needs help to be turned into an entry in an encyclopedia and not marketing fluff.

Looking at the history, there is a chunk of edits from IP 168.68.1.127. That entire /16 subnet is owned by the USDA. http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-168-68-0-0-1/pft The IP has made no attempt either on the talk page here or on their IP user page to explain their gross conflict of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.68.1.127

Disclosure: I host a site that tracks incidences of animal cruelty in the United States. Thus, to avoid charges of hypocrisy, I need assistance from the community to assist with this article. Please help! Jay Dubya (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)