October 19, 2014
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (blm_id_predatorhuntderby@blm.gov) and U.S. MAIL
Attn: Predator Hunt Derby SRP
1206 S. Challis Street
Salmon, ID 83467
Attention: Predator Hunt Derby SRP
Re:
Comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Issuance of
Special Recreation Permits for Predator Hunting Derbies in the Idaho Falls
Area (2930 [IDI00000](P))
Dear BLM Officer,
Friends of Animals (FoA) submits these comments on the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) for Predator
Hunting Derbies on BLM lands in central Idaho. 1
The proposed SRPs would authorize a competition among 500 people,
encouraging each person to kill wolves along with an unlimited amount of coyotes,
weasels, skunks, jackrabbits, raccoons, and starlings. This massive assault is proposed to
take place for three consecutive days on over three million acres of public land.
Predators in the Idaho Falls District play an invaluable role in their ecosystems,
are an important part of the community culture, bring delight to millions of people, and
have intrinsic values on their own as living creatures. If permitted, the derby would
disrupt visitor use, diminish natural and cultural resources, and have negative social and
economic impacts on the area. The competitive hunting derby is also antithetical to the
goals and objectives of the recreation programs as outlined in the applicable land use
plans, and would impair public wilderness study areas. FoA, along with thousands of
others, revealed their adamant opposition to the proposed derby during the scoping
process. FoA again urges BLM to deny issuing the SRPs for the predator derby hunt.
IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
FoA is a nonprofit animal advocacy organization, incorporated in New York since 1957.
With nearly 200,000 members worldwide, FoA advocates for the just treatment of
animals, both domestic and wild.
1
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 2 of 9
While the BLM does not specifically manage for wildlife or determine hunting
regulations, it cannot ignore the fact that the wildlife are inextricably connected to the
health of the ecosystem, and the social and economic values of the area.
Each component of an ecosystem is integral to that ecosystems’ success, and to
take large amounts of predators from the Idahoan landscape could have unforeseen
consequences on the land, wildlife, and human communities there. Allowing the
predator derby to take place could disrupt the balance of the affected ecosystems due to
a loss of predators and changed predator-prey relationships. Apart from limits for
wolves, there are no limits on how many predators of other species can be taken by
hunters. Cumulative impacts from predator derbies over several years are also a
concern; after a one-year probation period, permits would allow the event to take place
for five years. See US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
September 2014. Draft Environmental Assessment for Predator Hunt Derby (EA) at 7.
The BLM does not have enough information to determine what kind of impacts
would result from the predator derbies, and therefore would be irresponsible in
granting the SRPs. The EA admits that predator management is “complex and involves
balancing diverse interests using biological and social considerations.” EA at 13. The EA
claims that species are not expected to be affected at a population scale, but fails to fully
analyze this claim. The EA contains no discussion of the expected amount of take, or the
populations’ ability to handle this type of assault concentrated in three days during the
winter months. The impacts related to the predator derby cannot be ignored because
hunting is already allowed in this area. This concentrated assault could have a lasting
impact on the wildlife and habitat in the area.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE PROPOSED DERBY AREA
If the derby is allowed to proceed, non-target animals could be also be killed or
displaced. EA at 14. This is of particular concern for the ESA-listed and special status
species in the area. Vital habitats for special status species are found within the affected
derby area as well; this includes habitat for the Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear,
wolverine, Townsend’s big-eared bat, fisher, greater sage-grouse, bald eagle, and
peregrine falcon, to name a few. EA at 12. BLM identified at least 35 special status
species in the action area, but failed to include an analysis of how each animals could be
affected by the derby.
The traffic and shooting alone will likely affect these species. Moreover, the
disruption of natural predator-prey relations could damage these species. Lastly, it is
likely that some contestants will misidentify their targets and kill animals such as
wolverines, fishers, kit foxes or Canada lynx. Unlike hunting that is normally allowed on
these lands, this is a competition. People are not coming to take a few animals for
subsistence. Rather, they are competing based on a point system that rewards hunters
based on the number and types of predators harvested. Thus, there is incentive to take
as many animals as possible, and there is an increased risk with this type of competition
and additional impacts that need to be fully analyzed.
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 3 of 9
FoA is also concerned about the enforceability of hunting rules and take quotas
during the derby. The EA states that the applicant is going to work alongside the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to make sure that wolf quotas are not violated, but
since hunters are widely dispersed and left to hunt alone, this will be all but impossible
to accomplish. Id. at 7. This is especially poignant given that there are 3.1 million acres
that make up the area of analysis for the derby. Id. at 4. According to the EA, there would
be a BLM representative at the pre-meet and registration to ensure rules and regulations
are communicated to contestants. Id. at 8. However, one BLM representative is not
sufficient to communicate rules and regulations to 500 competitors. Further, the EA
does not state exactly how the applicant and IDFG plan to disperse information about
derby rules and regulations or how they expect to certify compliance with rules.
ESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to evaluate expected impacts to listed
species and designated critical habitat before authorizing, funding, or taking any
discretionary action. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). When a proposed agency action is likely
to adversely affect a listed species, a biological opinion must be prepared. Biological
opinions must be based on the best available science and must analyze whether the
proposed agency action is likely to jeopardize any listed species or adversely modify any
designated critical habitat. Id. If a proposed agency action will jeopardize a listed species
or adversely modify designated critical habitat, the agency must suggest reasonable and
prudent alternatives that will avoid jeopardy and adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). The proposed action will affected listed
species and critical habitat, and thus, the BLM must conduct a Section 7 consultation
regarding the impacts before issuing a permit. The contents of this consultations should
be made available for public comment and review.
GRAY WOLVES
One of the main targets of this predator derby hunt is the gray wolf. Strong antiwolf sentiments abound in the West; many people support culling wolf populations in
order to increase big game numbers – including the applicant. Idaho has proved its bias
for wolf population control by writing a budget item with Montana that allowed it to
place wolf management in the states’ hands and prohibit judicial review of state wolf
management. See Wyoming's lawmakers might use law to remove wolves from endangered
species list, Casper Star Tribune (October 6, 2014), available at
http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreation/wyoming-s-lawmakers-might-use-law-to-removewolves-from/article_cee56ebe-6fa5-503f-be7d-dd6fc107b855.html (last visited Oct. 14,
2014). Also, just weeks ago, in Montana, a man purposefully ran over two wolves on the
Interstate and then bragged about it online; officials Montana have stopped the
investigating the claim. See Montana officials drop probe into wolf-kill brag, KHQ Q6
(October 3, 2014), available at http://www.khq.com/story/26701424/montana-officialsdrop-probe-into-wolf-kill-brag (last visited Oct. 14. 2014). These kinds of actions towards
wolves are far from uncommon.
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 4 of 9
These anti-wolf sentiments, along with derbies such as the one proposed here,
lead to the endangered status of wolves, which were only recently delisted from the ESA
in Idaho and much of the West. 76 Fed. Reg. 22590 (May 5, 2011).
To allow the proposed derby in Idaho to occur would undermine the recovery
efforts for gray wolves and could trigger another listing decision or court challenge.
For example, when Wyoming failed to adequately protect wolves, conservation
groups brought a lawsuit and a court reinstated federal protections for the animals due
to the state’s inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, Civil
Action No. 12-1833 (Sept. 23, 2014). Another assault against wolves instigated litigation
this past winter, when Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) hired a professional
hunter to kill nine wolves in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (near
Salmon, Idaho, and the areas in question for the predator derbies). As a result, the
Wildlife Bureau Chief of the IDFG swore to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
that the IDFG, “will not conduct any agency control actions for wolves within the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness before November 1, 2015.” See Idaho Suspends
Wilderness Wolf-Killing Plan In Face of Court Challenge, Earthjustice (July 29, 2014),
available at http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/idaho-suspends-wildernesswolf-killing-plan-in-face-of-court-challenge (last visited Oct. 8, 2014).
Now, it is particularly critical to consider the impact of the derby on wolves. Not
only are wolves a BLM-designated sensitive species, but also the population of wolves in
Idaho has been declining since 2009, and the number of breeding pairs has declined
50% since 2011 (Idaho Department of Fish and Game & Nez Perce Tribe, 2014, p. 8-9).
To permit the derby would perpetuate the stereotypes that wolves are vicious
competition for big game and need to be lethally-managed. These stereotypes often lead
to misinformed decisions about wolf conservation that leave the wolves vulnerable and
compel legal intervention.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
In addition to impacting wildlife and habitat, issuing the SRPs for the derby would
also have impacts on recreation and land management in the area. The public has
overwhelming voiced their opposition, as over 99.9% of the 56,500 of public comments
submitted during the scoping process opposed the SRPs.
Idaho as a state has the highest overall per capita participation in non-huntingrelated recreation in the US. EA at 15. In fact, “the largest single category of non-resident
wildlife-related recreation spending in Idaho is wildlife watching.” Id. Allowing this sport
hunting competition alienates those that recreate on public lands, including FoA
members. The hunting derby deters those who are opposed to hunting or value a serene
atmosphere for recreation. Gunshots and a resulting loss of naturalness may also serve
as a deterrent for people that would otherwise visit the area. Id. at 22. Many FoA
members would not come to the area if the predatory derby proceeds as proposed.
Moreover, the derby could significantly diminish the amount of wildlife that is available
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 5 of 9
long after the hunt has ended, since it targets these animals when they are already
vulnerable from winter conditions and populations may not be able to recover.
Additionally, the Shoshone and Bannock tribes, that have rights to these areas,
oppose the derby. Through a resolution, “…the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have indicated
opposition to the proposed action on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.” Id. at 19. The tribes oppose the derby because of the important role of
predators and scavengers in the ecosystem and how the derby could affect those roles.
Id.
The EA mentions that for some people in Lemhi County, subsistence hunting is
considered an important social and cultural aspect of the way of life. However, denying
this permit does not impact those people, because this competition and predator hunting
are not indented to provide meat to families, and the EA itself notes that predators’ meat
is rarely eaten. EA at 6.
The only real purpose of the predator derby is for “sport” and alleged predator
control. It is critical to understand though that “predator control” is not only inhumane
and environmentally devastating, but it is also fruitless. On page 13, the EA cites a
population control study, saying, “However, the study concluded that coyote removal
had no detectable effect on the population growth rate for mule deer in the study area.”
If “population control” measures, of which one of the main goals is to increase game
numbers, do not work, then it is illogical for said strategies to be pursued. A natural
ecosystem, free from human manipulation, will ultimately balance itself. The BLM
issuing the SRPs would establish a precedent it will likely regret—one that favors a small
stakeholder group over many others.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Besides citing a need for predator control in Idaho, the BLM also contends that
permitting the derby would have vast economic benefits for the Idaho communities in
the derby area. This is untrue. The economic gain from hosting the derby would be
minimal as compared to Idaho’s overall economy and tourism industry, which could be
seriously affected by the economic losses caused by the derby.
According to the EA, some businesses would receive a short term increase in
sales for out-of town participants, $ 94,000 based on BLM’s estimates. EA at 17. On the
other hand, the economy has much more to lose. As a result of the derby, FoA members
and others would likely avoid the BLM land and not be able to recreate during that time.
If a small portion of those that submitted comments opposing the plan (approximately
1% or 10,000) decided not to visit Idaho because of implantation of the plan, this could
cost the economy over a $ 2 million dollar loss. Id.
Moreover, the long-term impact may make the area less desirable for wildlife
viewing, due to the impact on wildlife in the area. This is an important considering that
wildlife watching is the largest single category on non-resident wildlife-related
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 6 of 9
recreation spending in Idaho, attracting 550,000 individuals that spend over $432
million per year. See EA at 15.
ETHICAL IMPACTS
It is time for the BLM to recognize that the individual animals have inherent value,
and this in turn demands that the BLM incorporate ethics into its consideration of wildlife
management activities on public lands. There is a growing recognition among
conservationists and biologists that ethics must play a greater role in wildlife policy. See, e.g.,
Fox & Bekoff, Integrating Values and Ethics into Wildlife Policy and Management—
Lessons from North America, Animals 2011, 1, 126-143. But as Fox and Bekoff point out:
“[w]hile many agree that ethics must play a central role in any project involving [animals], it
is often interesting to note that in many books on human-animal interactions . . . there is often
no mention of ethics. This needs to change.” Id. at 129. The same must be said for the
regulation of animals.
Undoubtedly, discussions in the context of policy development about ethics
and animals can make some people uncomfortable. But, of course, just a generation ago it
was also unheard of for an agency like the BLM to even incorporate the humane treatment of
animals into its decision-making process. This has changed dramatically. Our generation
must now adopt the same approach to educating the decision-makers and the public as to the
role of ethics in making wildlife management decisions. Indeed, it is our jobs as
conservationists, animal advocates and scientists “to work toward public education and
information dissemination to address real and perceived fears held” by others. Id. at 128.
What is missing in the BLM’s current regulations, policies, and environmental analysis is the
viewpoint of the animals. Again, from Fox and Bekoff:
The growing body of literature on animal cognition and emotions
demonstrates undeniably that animals have interests and points of view. Like
us, they avoid pain and suffering and seek pleasure. They form close social
relationships, cooperate with other individuals, and likely miss their friends
when they are apart. Emotions have evolved, serving as “social glue,” and
playing major roles in the formation and maintenance of social relationships
among individuals. Emotions also serve as “social catalysts,” regulating
behaviours that guide the course of social encounters when individuals follow
different courses of action, depending on their situations. If we carefully study
animal behaviour, we can better understand what animals are experiencing
and feeling and how this factors into how we treat them.
Id. at 131.
Sadly, here the BLM states, as if it is a forgone conclusion, that the killing of
animals for recreation is an allowable use of public lands. The BLM should not, however,
merely focus the attention of the public and the decision-maker on the human perspective of
the wildlife-human relationship; the wildlife perspective is equally important to consider
when deciding whether or not to issue the SRPs.
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 7 of 9
BLM Should Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
FoA suggests that BLM deny the permit for the predator derby. However, if BLM
decides to take another action on the permit, it must prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).2 Issuing a permit to conduct the derby would affect millions of acres of
public land, and countless wild animals, which constitutes a major federal action.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted to ensure that all
federal agencies examine the environmental impacts of their actions before acting, that they
inform the public about alternatives and impacts of proposed actions, and that they
provide the public an opportunity to comment on proposed actions.
Thus, NEPA requires that for federal action that significantly affects the quality of the
human environment, the acting agency must prepare a detailed EIS that discusses, among
other things: “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, [and]
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The EIS is the cornerstone
of NEPA. An EIS is required for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) defines “major federal action” to
include “actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to
Federal control.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18 (emphasis added). The requirement to prepare an
EIS is broad and intended to compel agencies to take seriously the potential
environmental consequences of a proposed action. Whether an agency action is
“significant” enough to require preparation of an EIS requires “considerations of both
context and intensity.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.
Issuing a permit for the derby could have both significant short-term and longterm effects. Immediately, this would affect each animal killed as part of this
competition, disrupt the recreational experiences of those on BLM land not participating
in the derby, and increase traffic on BLM lands. Long-term impacts would include the
disruption of natural ecological processes, decreased wildlife populations, and
diminished visitors’ experiences. The proposed action also affects a vast amount of
public land, as it is occurring on over 3 million acres, including several unique
wilderness study areas. The action is highly controversial, as BLM received over 55,000
comments in the 15 day scoping period. The actions set precedence for at least five years
and will likely impact threatened and endangered species which are found in the area.
Many impacts are unknown because this has not been permitted on these lands before,
and the competition occurs over a vast area, made up of different habitats.
The possible impacts on ecologically critical areas, the degree to which this action
may establish a precedent, and the degree to which this action may adversely affect ESAlisted species or habitat all contribute to the proposed permit being considered a
FoA also asks the BLM to extend the comment period on this Draft Environmental
Assessment by 15 days to meet its full 30-day comment period, as required under NEPA.
2
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 8 of 9
significant, highly intense action. At minimum, BLM must prepare an EIS to weigh
alternatives, to communicate all relevant information to the public, and to adequately
measure the impacts to nature, wildlife, humans, and their resources that could result
from issuing a permit for a predator derby.
CONCLUSION
FoA respectfully submits these comments and asks the BLM to consider the
ecological, societal, economic, ethical, and legal reasons to deny issuing the SRPs. We
advocate for natural systems that are free from human interference and will continue to
work for the protection of opportunities for positive human-nature interactions for
future generations. The best choice for the BLM is Alternative B, to deny the SRPs and
respect the right of wildlife on public lands and the position of recreationists,
conservation groups, and native peoples.
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG
Page 9 of 9
REFERENCED WORKS
Statutes
16 U.S.C. § 1536
40 C.F.R. § 1508
42 U.S.C. § 4332
Other
76 Fed. Reg. 22590 (May 5, 2011)
Casper Star Tribune. (October 6, 2014). Wyoming's lawmakers might use law to remove
wolves from endangered species list. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from
http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreation/wyoming-s-lawmakers-might-use-law-to-removewolves-from/article_cee56ebe-6fa5-503f-be7d-dd6fc107b855.html.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, Civil Action No. 12-1833 (Sept. 23, 2014).
Earthjustice. (2014, July 29). Idaho Suspends Wilderness Wolf-Killing Plan In Face of Court
Challenge. Retrieved August 14, 2014 from
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/idaho-suspends-wilderness-wolf-killingplan-in-face-of-court-challenge.
Fox, C.H., & Bekoff, M. (2011). Integrating Values and Ethics into Wildlife Policy and
Management—Lessons from North America. Animals, 1(1), 126-­­143.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez Perce Tribe. (2014). 2013 Idaho Wolf
Monitoring Progress Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Nez Perce Tribe Wolf
Recovery Project, Lapwai, Idaho.
KHQ Q6 (Associated Press article). (October 3, 2014). Montana officials drop probe into
wolf-kill brag. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from
http://www.khq.com/story/26701424/montana-officials-drop-probe-into-wolf-kill-brag.
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September 2014.
Draft Environmental Assessment for Predator Hunt Derby. Available at
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front
office/projects/nepa/39720/49856/54298/SRP_Derby_EA_508.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office. (2013, October 22).
CANDIDATE, PROPOSED AND LISTED SPECIES & PROPOSED AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL
HABITAT IN IDAHO. Retrieved August 14, 2014 from
http://www.fws.gov/idaho/species/SpeciesList102213List.pdf.
☐
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS  777 POST ROAD SUITE 205  DARIEN, CT 06820  T 203 656 1522  F 203 656 0267
☐
NEW YORK OFFICE  1841 BROADWAY SUITE 350  NEW YORK, NY 10023  T 212 247 8120  F 212 582 4482

WILDLIFE LAW PROGRAM  7500 E. ARAPAHOE ROAD SUITE 385  CENTENNIAL, CO 80112  T 720 949 7791
FRIENDSOFANIMALS.ORG