skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Clean Power plan
Safe Chemicals

Melissa Waage’s Blog

Torturing Statistics: Wildlife Services' Big Carnivore Kill Rate is 98%

Melissa Waage

Posted July 11, 2012

, , , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Red Fox - Photo by U.S. Fish and Wildlif Service

"Just to give tons of raw data to people would not be smart. Torture numbers long enough and they are going to confess to anything."

That’s what Jeffrey Green, Western Regional Director of USDA-Wildlife Services, said recently when scientists with the American Society of Mammalogists asked Wildlife Services to release some basic information about its predator control program.  

The first thing I thought when I heard Green’s comment was, “That’s a great line. I’ll have to remember that one.” The second thing I thought was, “Waaaiiittt…isn’t torturing numbers what you guys do all the time?”

You see, at the very same debate where this exchange occurred, Wildlife Services once again repeated its misleading soundbite of a statistic that I’ve come to call “the 80 percent fallacy.”

As agency spokesperson Carol Bannerman put it in the Sacramento Bee on June 25, “An objective review will show that more than 80 percent of Wildlife Services interactions with wildlife is solved with nonlethal methods..." (The line turned up most recently in this story in Monday's Oregonian.) This is what I'm calling

The 80 Percent Fallacy: Wildlife Services’ own reporting indicates that it kills 98% of the big carnivores like wolves, foxes, bears, and mountain lions that it interacts with. Yet when asked about predator control, agency spokespeople routinely repeat an out-of context statistic that obscures the agency’s overwhelming focus on lethal control of predators.

Out of context, the 80% number is pretty accurate. In the context of predator control, it’s very misleading. Bannerman was referring to the full suite of Wildlife Services activities. As we have described before, Wildlife Services is engaged in some types of work that does not emphasize killing animals to control them. For example, the agency “disperses” millions of birds of many different species each year. 

But the Sacramento Bee story, the conversation with the mammalogists, and the concerns of groups like NRDC are focused on mammals, specifically predators, and specifically predators killed at the behest of the agriculture industry or big game interests. Not the full suite of Wildlife Services activities.

When we take a look at some of these species, including species of bears, foxes, wolves, mountain lions, and bobcats, the picture looks very different. Again, this is based on the numbers publicly reported by Wildlife Services on its website



In fiscal year 2011, ninety-eight percent of Wildlife Services’ interactions with these predators ended in a dead predator. Wildlife Services killed nearly every large predator it interacted with.

That number is much harder to defend. Why does the government continue to kill public wildlife for private interests? Why the emphasis on lethal methods such as traps, poisons, and expensive aerial gunning when there are effective, non-lethal methods available? I wouldn't want to have to defend this deadly and wasteful record on predator control either. Perhaps that's why Wildlife Services doesn't even try.

Share | | |


LHJul 11 2012 02:04 PM

Ridiculous. Depending on the state and whether you're a resident or not, tags to hunt these animals go for anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars.

So not only does the state miss out on that revenue (admittedly small, but still), but taxpayers of every other state (through the feds) have to pay to kill the animals. They're literally spending money instead of making it.

All so ranchers can send a few extra cattle to market. Here in Ohio, farmers can apply for nuisance permits to shoot deer if they're causing crop damage outside the regular hunting season. Why is this not applied for these predators as well? If you don't want them on your property, get a permit from the government to kill them. This way, the gov't still isn't making money like it could be through tags, but at least it's not spending any either.

Comments are closed for this post.


Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit

Feeds: Melissa Waage’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In