WyoFile reporter Angus M. Thuermer Jr. posted an April 11th article, “Feds ban Idaho cyanide bombs, still want Wyoming use,” that tells of the Urbigkit family’s support of the current USDA Wildlife Services program in Wyoming by stating, “They said in comments that continued killing and use of M-44 cyanide bombs keep their operation running.” M-44s were never mentioned in our letter of comment and for Thuermer to indicate otherwise is both inaccurate and dishonest, but typical of what we expect from Thuermer’s reporting. We have never used M-44 devices, contrary to Thuermer’s statement that the “use of M-44 cyanide bombs keep their operation running.” In fact, M-44 devices haven’t been used anywhere in Sublette County (where we live) for decades. M-44 use is prohibited in areas where federally protected predators are known to roam – that includes most of Sublette County. Yet to Thuermer, M-44s keep us in business. If one were to go back through agency files, you would find the first comment letter I ever sent to an agency was in opposition to the use of M-44s on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, decades ago. Our concern at that time was for the protection of remnants of Wyoming’s native wolf population – long before the wolf reintroduction program. Our family has a long record of advocating the use of livestock guardian dogs to deter predators, and the use of these dogs by necessity precludes the use of poisons and some other lethal methods of predator control. It’s a point I’ve made in every presentation I’ve given about the use of livestock guardian dogs for at least the last decade. It’s also mentioned in two books I’ve written about guardian dogs. In Shepherds of Coyote Rocks: Public Lands, Private Herds and the Natural World (published Sept. 2012) I wrote: “There are trade-offs to using guardian dogs. It means disallowing the use of snares, traps, or poisons within the dogs’ range, because these methods of predator control could also kill or injure the dogs.” Similar words are used in my new book, published in January 2017, Brave and Loyal: An Illustrated Celebration of Livestock Guardian Dogs: “The use of guardian dogs means that the use of traps, snares, and poisons is prohibited in the dog’s territory because of the potential of harm to the dogs.” The letter that we sent in support of Wildlife Services was in response to an environmental assessment that offered the following alternatives: 1. Continuation of existing program 2. No Wildlife Services program 3. Technical assistance only 4. Nonlethal management only 5. Nonlethal required before lethal control. We supported a continuation of the existing program in Wyoming, knowing some control methods are used in some areas and situations and not in others. Our letter outlined 13 nonlethal techniques routinely used by our family to protect our livestock, and spoke of our family’s partnership with Wildlife Services that has resulted in more research on guardian dogs, and the importation of various guardian breeds, in attempt to increase the effectiveness of guardian dogs in reducing depredations by wild predators. But these efforts didn’t fit into Thuermer’s evil-rancher narrative. Thuermer’s reporting demonstrates his intent and bias, including the repeated use of the phrase “cyanide bombs” when referring to M-44 devices, which are spring-activated ejector devices. In contrast, a bomb is a device designed to explode on impact, or when detonated by a time mechanism, remote control, or lit fuse. Thuermer was also deceptive in reporting on the Sublette County Predator Management District’s letter (I’m a member of that board). Again, M-44s weren’t mentioned in the letter and aren’t used in Sublette County, despite Thuermer’s allegation that “the district rejected an alternative to immediate cyanide use.” Advocacy for his personal position and prejudice drive Thuermer’s reporting. The first canon of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which WyoFile claims to “closely subscribe,” is to “seek truth and report it.” Truth-telling was not Thuermer’s goal. Follow these links to read the Wildlife Services EA, and our letter of comment on that document.
5 Comments
Brenda Williams
4/13/2017 05:55:59 am
Good reading Livestock Guardian Dogs are the best way to control peditors Along with donkeys
Reply
Paul Domski
4/13/2017 06:04:14 am
That's outrageous! I hope you are taking steps to reveal the BS this guy has written about you, typical in this new age of alternative facts.
Reply
4/13/2017 06:45:43 am
Thank You for writing this and exposing this Mr. Thuermer & his biased reporting. The fact, just the facts ...
Reply
Clark Driver
4/13/2017 07:18:10 am
There seems to be an epidemic in our country. The undertone that I see in many aspects of our society is, "the true is what you want it to be." I believe the only way to combat the lies and false pretenses created by others is to continually reveal the truth with no malice. Good job Cat
Reply
Bradley Hill
4/13/2017 09:04:03 am
The author of the article merely picked what he thought was low hanging fruit from your letter written to the USDA. Effectively he put words in your mouth... He needs think about this- Why would anyone who utilizes LGD's in the their livestock operations support the use of M44's ?? Answer is they dont...His use of your comments, are taken completely out of context and they defy logic.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Range writingInterested in sponsoring this blog? Want to reprint a post? Interested in syndication? Please send an email for details. Archives
June 2020
Categories
|
Cat Urbigkit • P.O. Box 1663 • Pinedale WY 82941 • catu2@mac.com
|