Feeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act?
October 29, 2007
Some states have laws against feeding wildlife. This includes bird feeders as well as piling grain, junk food and most anything else that would attract an animal. Other states have no regulation of such. In areas that people live where there are large predators, i.e. bears, wolves, coyote, mountain lions, etc., sometimes there are laws and sometimes not. What is becoming clear is that these areas are working to educate the people on how to live with these animals so as not to habituate them into becoming nuisance animals.
The truth of the matter is that many people move out into the suburbs in order to be “closer to nature”, whatever that is. I say that because isn’t it really all in the eyes of the beholder? Many times once these folks have settled into their new abode, they begin feeding the wildlife so they can enjoy it out their picture windows of which they often spend thousands of dollars to have. This innocent feeding of wildlife sometimes involves dumping corn, grain, apples and other “attractants” in order to draw wildlife for viewing or picture taking.
So what happens when your next door neighbor, who is spending good money, on his own property, is feeding deer and you, coming home from work one night, run full tilt into one of these well-fed deer and total your car, perhaps even resulting in injury? Is the neighbor liable?
Suppose the same neighbor continues his deer feeding - reminder here, there are no laws saying he can’t - and your wife gets bitten by a Lyme disease-infected tick rendering her very ill with lifelong battles with the disease. Is your friendly neighbor responsible?
What if your neighbor, in his attempt at feeding deer, inadvertently attracts a good-sized black bear or even a grizzly bear, and that bear attacks someone or kills your pet or some other tragic event. Is your neighbor going to be held liable for that action?
I’m sure by now I have an entire array of different answers to the above asked questions. The issue here becomes quite complex. First, there are no laws stating that you cannot feed wildlife and if there were, wouldn’t it have to be species specific? There are also property rights issues. Doesn’t you neighbor have a right of feed wildlife, especially if there are no laws prohibiting it? How does public safety factor in?
This issue can get much more complex. Let’s take a look.
What if you lived in an area where there were protected species? Let’s say for example, you lived in northern Maine in an area where the Canada lynx is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I can tell you can already see where I’m going with this can’t you.
While feeding your much adored wildlife, for either simple or complicated reasons, a Canada lynx was seen frequenting the area. Perhaps what the neighbor was feeding with drew several snowshoe hares, a delicacy for the lynx. What if that lynx got run over by a car while heading for the feed station? Is the neighbor responsible for the death of that lynx? Is he in violation of the Endangered Species Act? What about the person driving the car?
Now we are onto something a bit different. We have been looking at this concerning property rights and laws governing the feeding of wild animals. Does this now become a different situation because we are talking about protected species?
Let’s twist the story a bit more and make it more complicated. What if a man who lived in northern Idaho began putting out food for the wildlife. By the way, there are no laws in Idaho forbidding the feeding of wildlife. This man, let’s call him Tom, had a bit of a different reason for feeding wildlife. He liked to take pictures of them. You may ask what’s so unusual about that? Lot’s of people take pictures of wildlife, especially those who feed animals in their back yards.
Tom is a professional photographer and he takes pictures of the wildlife that comes to his feeder and sells the photos on his website for a few bucks. Does this make a difference? Is it somehow less acceptable for someone to feed wildlife, take pictures and sell them than someone who just takes pictures for their own pleasure?
Tom lives in an area of Idaho where many neighbors like to feed wildlife. It’s not like he is the only one.
But here comes the twist. Because of his feeding habits, some are claiming that he had drawn in grizzly bears and some bears have become nuisances and accustomed to humans being around. We’ve all heard about this scenario before. Sometimes these bears continue to hang around because people refuse to take proper steps to reduce bear encounters and others just simply and deliberately continue to feed the animals. In Tom’s case, he wanted to take photos.
What if a grizzly bear turned into a problem bear and wildlife officials ended up killing the bear? We all know that once a bear loses all its fear of man and becomes accustomed to free meals, scare tactics and trapping and removing becomes ineffective. The end result often times is the need to kill the bear.
Not to pick on Tom here too much but we must realize this isn’t a unique situation to northern Idaho. We hear everyday of officials having to put down bears for the same reasons and sometimes these bears happen to be grizzlies, a protected species.
Here’s the million dollar question. Is Tom responsible for that bear’s death? There are no laws in Idaho that say you can’t feed wildlife. If he didn’t break the feeding laws, was he in violation of the Endangered Species Act? Did his actions cause the death of an animal that is protected by law and can he be charged?
Is this an absurd story? If you’re like me, there are certain aspects of this story that go beyond absurd but I have news for you. It’s a true story. Tom Holman, who lives near Nordman in Idaho, admits to feeding wildlife, along with many other people who live in his neighborhood. He admits to doing it to take pictures and sell them but the Idaho Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are considering bringing charges against Nordman for causing the death of a grizzly bear because of his feeding of wildlife.
There are statements that have been made about this case that leaves me scratching my head - nothing new in that. But what I’m puzzled at is why pick on Holman? Is he being singled out from all the others who feed wildlife in the Nordman area? Is this case any different than the thousands of other residents all across America who directly or indirectly feed wildlife and inadvertently cause their deaths? Is it because he is trying to make money by selling pictures? Does this somehow make it different?
Chris Servheen, the grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency was looking into Holman’s actions.
“People like that might as well just shoot these animals right out,” he said. “But the management agencies end up doing the dirty work.”
Is this comment directed at Holman or everybody who feeds wildlife? While I can understand the end result, what is Servheen suggesting?
Idaho does not restrict backyard wildlife feeding.
“We don’t have any options from an enforcement standpoint as far as dealing with people who are creating nuisance animals,” said Wayne Wakkinen, a biologist with Fish and Game.
But the federal Endangered Species Act could be applied, said Servheen, if such wildlife feeding resulted in the avoidable death of an endangered species.
Fish and Game admits they have no recourse in dealing with people who feed wildlife. USFWS is saying that they could apply the ESA if feeding “resulted in the avoidable death” of the grizzly. I hope that USFWS is prepared to bring charges against thousands of people nationwide for causing the avoidable death of endangered species. Would he please step up to the microphone and explain to all of us what is “avoidable”?
I agree with Mr. Holman when he says that if this is the action the feds are going to take in administering the Endangered Species Act, then they will be directly trouncing on our property rights. Are we all now going to be in violation of the ESA if owning property could prove the avoidable death of an endangered species? Think about it!
Here’s where I think a certain amount of the accusations against Holman are discriminatory.
Chuck Bartlebaugh, director of the Missoula-based Center for Wildlife Information, said putting out bait to get photos of grizzlies is unethical and can have lethal consequences for the bears.
“We don’t need any more grizzly bear photographs,” Bartlebaugh said. “We need more grizzly bears.”
Isn’t it wonderful that the world is blessed with people like Chuck Bartlebaugh who feel that it must be their appointed duty to determine what is ethical and not concerning taking pictures. I want to vomit when I have to deal with people who believe they are an equal to God by dictating what is ethical hunting. Now we have people that are going to tell us how to take an ethical picture. Give me a break!
It becomes clear what Bartlebaugh’s agenda is when he claims we need more grizzly bears. I need say nothing more on that issue.
This is a gross misinterpretation of the Endangered Species Act in my opinion and one that once again proves to me that the ESA is in need of change or total elimination. Should the USFWS become successful in bringing charges against Holman for causing the “avoidable” death of a grizzly, there will be no end to who can and will be charged. Such a ruling would give animal rights groups the equivalent of a nuclear weapon if the USFWS is allowed to proceed with an investigation in such a ridiculous accusation.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts. wrote an interesting post today on Feeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act?Here’s a quick excerptFeeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act? … Posted by Tom Remington on October 29, 2007 | Leave a Comment Grizzly Bear Getting into Bird Feeder Some states have laws against feeding wildlife. This includes bird feeders as well as piling [...]
[...] Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts. wrote an interesting post today on Feeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act?Here’s a quick excerptFeeding Wildlife A Legal Infraction Of The Endangered Species Act? … your pet or some other tragic event. Is your neighbor going to be held liable for that action? I’ [...]
Tom……. as always you have a way of drawing out the truths in stupid situations. Following your thinking in this issue of feeding leading to death…… I am surprised the anti’s haven’t moved to outlaw all Feeding/baiting in Idaho. All backyard feeders are in fact “bait stations”. We just choose not to kill, or prefer to photograph. I see this situation leading to no real answers..just one more poor soul being reemed and trashed by the USFWS and the bleeding hearts.
This subject is so involved that it would take volumes to discuss it in the depth needed. I have always felt that if the liability issue were applied to its’ fullest extent that it would mean the end of wildlife populations as we know them today.
Here are a few point:
1.Many would like to see landowners that post their land held liable for damage caused by wildlife that inhabit that land. This brings up a question though as to why someone would purchase or keep land at todays prices (if they bought it for hunting or wildlife related purposes)if they were required to provide hunting for the general public. If they were required to permit public hunting then they may as well sell the land and hunt or photograph, etc. on public land or someone else’s land than to buy and pay taxes on land that they cannot control. Isn’t that simply a recipe for more land to be lost to development!
2. If landowners are held liable shouldn’t government agencies then be liable for damage caused by species which they are responsible for? Some would argue that liability would not apply if an approved management plan were not in place, but it seems likely if the liability issue starts to roll that there will be no stopping it.
3. A landowner who meets certain criteria can kill wildlife for damaging his property, crops, etc. in many if not all states, yet it is wrong for someone who wants wildlife on their property to feed it.
4. I especially like the point about we don’t need more bear photographs, but need more bears. There seems to be more and more of a sentiment that the animals belong to the government and heaven forbid if someone should enjoy watching them or photographing them. It is only acceptable to kill them, and that only after following a long list of regulations that in many cases it would take an attorney to understand completely. It is almost as though a certain class wants wildlife to exist in a vacuum where only a select few are able to enjoy it in any meaningful way. Although it is not a severe problem yet, this attitude is noticeable to a certain extent in some of our National Parks personnel.
5.I have seen news releases saying that backyard bird feeders are of no benefit and that feeding birds is just self-gratification. I’ll bet the man who wrote that doesn’t do anything for self-gratification does he?
Willard - Sorry it took so long to respond to your comments. I have been out of town and have not had the time.
1. Your point is indeed well taken and herein lies one of the problems we as Americans face as land owners or potential landowners. It was once the ultimate dream come true to possess land and be totally free. I have often asked the same question. What incentive is there any more to own land? It seems that what land isn’t being bought up and closed to others is being bought up and controlled by Government often prompted by special intests.
2. Liability is one of the biggest issues facing landowners who want to leave their land open to recreational use. But with the constant onslaught of lawsuits from those who take no responsibility for themselves, once again a landowner refrains from opening his land out of fear of liability. I think you already know that there is a double standard when dealing with the Government.
3. Good point. Once again a double standard.
4. This is a problem for a number of reasons. One is the result of the narcissistic society we have created that only sees things as for themselves and nobody else. With this attitude then rules and laws are invoked for their own purposes only otherwise disregarded or changed.
Two, is the continued growth of special interest, a byproduct of narcissism. With no tolerance or respect for the interests of others, special interests focus on what they want at the expense of all others. This is true on all sides of our wildlife issues, including hunters. I see it everyday.
The state declared a long time ago that wildlife belonged to the state, in order to have the ability to manage such. We mustn’t forget that in most cases when fish and game departments were created, the purpose was to regulate and better manage game animals - for hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. Over time it has evolved into the management of all game, still mostly funded by licenses, and is some cases, states have gone against the laws of that state in using license fees to manage no game programs.
The problem of “certain classes” is a growing one and will become a major battle in the months and years to come.
5. Some people do feed birds and other wildlife in their backyards for various reasons. Some believe it keeps the animals from starving in winter, others do if in fact for self-gratification. Who wouldn’t or doesn’t? In my talks with wildlife biologists, the majority say that what little feeding is being done, it has virtually no impact, positively or negatively on wildlife. Even the discussion of feeding deer during winter, most biologists don’t think such an event matters.
The biggest concern over feeding predator wildlife is the association of humans as a food source that can present some problems. Wildlife feeding done smartly can provide hours of pleasure for a lot of people with no risk to others.
I think that most of the issues discussed here are secondary to property rights. Whether we think feeding wildlife is or is not good or bad for the animals is secondary to what a person has a right to do on their land. The last thing we need is to give government a bigger hold over us and further stripping us of our property rights.
You are right when you state that this issue is very complex and would take forever to cover it in depth, that is why I felt it important to publish this information so readers can know what is going on out there. I wish there was more discussion here on this.
Thanks for the comments and great discussion further creating questions and inciting deeper thought.
Brent - Idaho has attempted, via animal rights, to end the practice of “baiting” but only when it pertains to hunting. It is really unfortunate that “baiting” of wildlife, whether for taking game or observing in your backyard, has taken on such a negative connotation. Other than a few isolated incidents, it is not the big problem some would like us to believe.
It is unfortunate that in this case, the USFWS doesn’t seem to be taking into consideration the widespread bear problems in the west this past summer due to extended heat and drought. It may very well have been this bear and many others would have been a nuisance whether Tom Holman had fed wildlife or not.
This to me is just a clear case of the USFWS in conjunction with a corrupt Idaho Fish and Game Department, overstepping their boundaries. It has to stop.
Tom,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments to my response.
To elaborate a bit further on point five. The person who wrote the article which I unfortunately did not save, concerning bird feeding was portraying backyard feeding in a negative light because it was done for self gratification and that really disturbed me as again much of what we do is for self gratification, often along with other reasons.
I think you nailed it that the biggest problem with feeding is when it attracts the animals to other peoples property and they cause damage to others because of the feeding. I defend feeding because I do feed wildlife on a limited scale under carefully controlled conditions to obtain photographs and observe animals and birds. It is one of my greatest pleasures in life. There is strong sentiment among many in the PGC to outlaw at least the feeding of deer (bear and elk is already illegal} By a simple decree from the execute director one would be deprived of this pleasure. I do respect the right of the landowner to defend his property from wildlife damage when he must, but I believe you got my point that it is the double standard that really irritates me. I have seen some landowners use the damage law though simply as an excuse to shoot a large number of animals. This often ends up with them being ostracized by their neighbors, most of whom are engaged in agricultural pursuits themselves, but enjoy having the wildlife on their property. I have also seen damage so severe that anyone no matter their feelings toward wildlife would be compelled to deal with the issue.