The ADC program was transferred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in December 1985. The ADC mission continues to be the protection of American agriculture and other resources from wildlife damage. Changes have been implemented to enhance the program, and efforts are continuing toward additional improvements

Acord, Bobby R.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for February 1989 The Current Program and Future of ADC in the USDA Bobby R. Acord ADC/APHIS/USDA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Acord, Bobby R., "The Current Program and Future of ADC in the USDA" (1989). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 391. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/391 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. As most of you are aware, the Animal DamageControl (ADC) Program was transferred from theU.S. Department of Interior-Fish and WildlifeService (USDI-FWS) to the U.S. Department ofAgriculture-Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (USDA-APHIS) about 3 years ago. TheAPHIS-ADC mission continues to be the protectionof American agriculture and other resources fromwildlife damage. There have been a number ofchanges in the structure and organization of ourprogram since the transfer to USDA. Today I'dlike to discuss some of the changes we've seensince 1985 and outline the direction that ADC istaking to deal with some of the major issuesconfronting our program at the present time.One of the measures undertaken by ADC toassure the long-term effectiveness of the programhas been the formation of a Strategic Long RangePlan. ADC's Top Management Team (TMT) identifiedand assessed apparent program strengths andweaknesses, external influences andrelationships, and conditions that would ensurecontinued program vitality. Based on thesefactors, the TMT identified a set of strategicgoals for ADC and developed a plan for theirachievement over a 5-year period. We arecurrently pursuing strategies to achieve many ofthese goals, and we're optimistic about where thefull implementation of this plan is going to takethe ADC program.1 Paper presented at the Ninth Great PlainsWildlife Damage Control Workshop, Fort Collins,Colorado, April 17-20, 1989.2Bobby R. Acord is AssociateDeputy Administrator, Animal DamageControl, APHIS, USDA, Washington, D.C.Another positive step taken to improve ourprogram since the transfer to USDA has been theestablishment of a National Animal Damage ControlAdvisory Committee (NADCAC). NADCAC is composed of20 members chosen from nominees by the agricultureindustry, conservation and environmental groups,land use groups, and wildlife agencies. Thepurpose of this committee is to makerecommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture onpolicies and program issues regarding wildlifedamage control. Issues and problems addressedinclude wildlife interfering in agriculturalproduction, jeopardizing human health and safety,and creating nuisance problems in urban areas.NADCAC has been very supportive of ADC, and theirrecommendations have been extremely helpful inguiding the program.One of the most important issues ADC iscurrently involved with is the completion of a:ogrammatic environmental impact statement ,EIS).APHIS is legally required by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) to conduct an EISon the ADC program. The EIS under which we nowfunction was completed in 1979 while the programwas under the FWS, and covered only the westernpredator control program. This EIS was formallyadopted by APHIS as an interim measure, but was tobe replaced as soon as possible. Efforts are wellunderway toward completion of the new EIS, whichwill cover the entire program. We have beenworking closely with the EIS contractor, Dames andMoore, and the draft EIS is due to be releasedlater this year.One issue that's presented somewhat of achallenge for ADC since the transfer to USDA hasbeen the resolution of migratory bird damageproblems. These include waterfowl and blackbirddepredations on grain crops, depredations byfish-eating birds at aquaculture facilities, andbird/aircraft strike hazards at airports. WhileADC isIn addition to other research, DWRC isresponsible for the registration of all thepesticides used in ADC. Pesticide registration isa complicated and expensive process. Costs forregistration of a new chemical can range from$5,000 up to $20,000,000 or more, depending on theintended use for the product. Maintaining existingregistrations is also expensive. For example, tomaintain the registration of strychnine products,additional data requirements have to be completedby ADC and submitted to EPA within the next 2years. Estimated costs for these data call-insrange from $500,000 to $3 million. Our program hasbeen underinvesting in research to develop datanecessary for the maintenance of pesticideregistrations, and we're currently trying to catchup. ADC research is dedicated to developing newpesticides and maintaining the registration onthose products that are vital to our program. Theimprovements to DWRC mentioned earlier will. helpwith this endeavor. Increasing costs, increasinglyrestrictive environmental regulations, andincreased opposition to chemical control methodspresent a challenge to our efforts. ADC willcontinue to develop and maintain effective controltools that best serve the requirements of the ADCcommunity.Another issue relative to pesticideregistration that is confronting ADC right now isEPA's new Endangered Species Pesticide LabelingProgram. The intent of this program is to ensurethat the use of pesticides does not threaten thesurvival of any threatened or endangered species.This is a very complex program being implementedunder the authority of the Endangered Species Act,which i» administered by FWS, and the FederalInsecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)which is administered by EPA. The program wasfirst announced by EPA in May 1987, and originallywas to be fully implemented by February 1988, butis stilt on hold. It's been quite controversialbecause if implemented as originally designed, thenet effect of the new labeling requirements wouldhave meant severely restricting or eliminating theuse of many pesticides registered for use by ADC.Currently EPA, USDA, and the USDI are all workingtoward revising and improving these labelingrequirements to assure the protection ofendangered species while still permitting theessential use of pesticides. This program willundoubtedly affect the way ADC operates in someareas, but we can't fully estimate the magnitudeof this effect until the scope of the labelingprogram is completely known.responsible for addressing these problems, we haveencountered some obstacles because we have had nomanagement or regulatory authority. This authoritylies with the FWS, and we are currently workingclosely with FWS people to overcome some of theregulatory obstacles to dealing with migratorybird problems. We're optimistic about thesenegotiations and are looking forward to being ableto solve these problems more effectively in thenear future.Another area of particular concern to ourprogram has been predator control on public lands.This issue is coming under increasing publicscrutiny. There are a lot of people out there whoare very much against any kind of predator controlprogram being conducted on public lands. On theother hand, the livestock industry at timessuffers tremendous losses to predators on theselands, and this industry relys on ADC to helpprotect their resources. The Forest Service (FS)and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are becomingvery cautious and often more restrictive inallowing predator control on public lands.Increasingly these agencies want to dictate typesof control tools used as well as the placement andtiming of their use. These decisions are oftenbeing made by managers with limited ADC expertisein response to pressure from the public andenvironmental groups. This has made it moredifficult at times for us to carry out ourmission. We continue to work closely with FS andBLM policy officials, and are optimistic thatwe'll be able to address concerns on both sides ofthe issue and still do our part to protect theagricultural resource.With the transfer to USDA there has been achange in outlook on the kind of work we ought tobe doing, with increased emphasis placed on theprotection of agriculture and human health andsafety. This change has carried over to ADC'sresearch unit, the Denver Wildlife Research Center(DWRC). The focus of research efforts has nowshifted more toward solving specific ADC problems.A strong research effort is vital to the continuedsuccess of our program. All of the tools that wehave now are our "life blood," and we need tomaintain the use of these tools to 'accomplish ourgoals, but at the same time we have to startlooking at a new generation of controltools--replacements for the tools we're now usingin case we eventually lose these. The tools thatare going to provide us with effective animalcontrol in the ecological, cultural, and politicalclimate facing us 10-20 years from now will bebased on today's investments in long termresearch. USDA has requested funds to upgrade DWRCfacilities and equipment to bring them intocompliance with EPA's Good Laboratory Practicesand the Animal Welfare Act. These improvements areneeded, and they will allow research to bettermeet the future demands of the ADC program.6We all recognize the need to protectendangered species, and ADC is actively involvedin efforts toward this goal. In cooperation withother agencies, control programs have recentlybeen initiated to protect endangered species suchas the desert tortoise, California least tern,and several species of Hawaiian birds. We arealso involved in efforts to control damage causedby one endangered species, the eastern timberwolf in Minnesota. We have responded to thisproblem by removing those animals that areresponsible for the livestock loss. This controlprogram complies fully with the endangeredspecies regulations, and is accomplished throughthe cooperation of ADC, FWS, and the MinnesotaDepartment of NationalResources. ADC involvement with the control ofendangered species could increase in the future,either as a result of the natural expansion ofendangered species populations, or thereintroduction of endangered species into theirformer ranges.Another project we currently have underwayis modernization of our Management InformationSystem (MIS). This is a computer based systemthat records, processes, stores, and reportsinformation that pertains to the operationalactivities of the program. The MIS was developedin the late 1970's to assist with theinformational needs of western State programs,but it only became operational in Arizona,California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, andUtah. The MIS records and maintains data onresources, damage, control methods used, andanimals taken. This system generates a variety ofreports derived from these data, including somefor internal use and others for submission toState or cooperator entities. Use of the MIS hasenhanced the credibility of the ADC program withother Federal, State, and local agencies.However, due to equipment obsolescence, and theneed for a uniform system to serve the entire ADCprogram, the current system has reached itseffective limits. A long-range project has beeninitiated to redesign the system using updated,state of the art hardware and software, and webelieve it will provide the database for adecision support system that will improve theoverall efficiency of the ADC program. The newsystem is expected to be operational in allStates in 2 years.Animal damage is being recognized throughoutthe U.S. as a serious problem, and interest inthe ADC program is high. Congress has respondedby increasing funding for ADC. We've gone from abudget of 19.4 million at the time of thetransfer to a proposed budget of 29.8 million forFY 1990. We're expanding to address a wider rangeof species and the entire spectrum of wildlifedamage problems. We're developing additionalcooperatively fundedoperational programs in the East, and there iswidespread support for developing more of theseprograms. Right now we have cooperative beavercontrol programs to protect timber in Kentucky,Tennessee, and Mississippi, trout streams inWisconsin, and endangered freshwater musselhabitat in Louisiana. We also have cooperativedamage control programs for Canada geese inWisconsin and Tennessee, coyote control in NewYork, gull control at a U.S. Army facility inMichigan, and a nuisance grackle control programin Georgia. Part of the increase proposed for FY1990 will be used to begin cooperative programs inthose States that already have funds set aside forthis purpose.We have strong support within USDA for theADC program. In the early days of the transferfrom FWS there may have been some misdirection ofour program, but now we have genuine ADC peopleleading the program, and we feel we're heading inthe right direction. C. Joe Packham, our DeputyAdministrator comes from a strong ADC background,and has made great progress in leading our programforward. Employee morale is high, and our peopleare enthusiastic about their work.We have embarked on an aggressive staffrecruitment and development campaign so we canmaintain a qualified and competent workforce. Twoyears ago, we hired the first ever SupervisoryTraining Program class for the ADC program. Twentywildlife biologists were selected from across theNation and underwent intensive training. Thesepeople have become a vital part of our workforce.This class was hired in anticipation of a realdrain on our supervisory workforce within the next3-5 years, due primarily to retirements. Anotherrecruitment avenue we've started using is that ofcooperative education students. We are seeing moreincorporation of ADC issues and functions in thecurriculum at some major universities, and we'reworking with some of these institutions to developcooperative education programs. There is gettingto be a greater appreciation for ADC as a sciencein the academic community, but we need to continueworking on this.One of the things that we as leaders in thefield of ADC have got to recognize is that thereare different perspectives on ADC work, and we'vegot to attempt to deal with them. As ourpopulation grows and becomes more urbanized, thepeople involved in producing our nations food andfiber are becoming a smaller and smaller minority.This results in an increasingly larger percentageof our population that are not directly affectedby the problems that wildlife may create foragriculture or the threats it may pose to publichealth and safety. The environmental7movement has resulted in increasingly restrictiveregulations and opposition to ADC activities. Allof these factors highlight the need for aneducation program, that when presented to thepublic in an unbiased fashion, will show howimportant ADC work really is. It's important notonly for protecting agricultural products andeconomic interests of the producers, but forprotecting the economic interests of the Americanconsumer as well. We have long-range plans fordeveloping and implementing a publicinformation/education program that hopefully willlead to a gr=eater understanding and appreciationof the need for control of wildlife damage.We need to emphasize to people that we arenot an animal control agency--we are a   damagecontrol agency. We emphasize the principles ofIntegrated Pest Management, and our sole interestis in resolving conflicts as efficiently and in asenvironmentally acceptable a manner as possible.At the same time there needs to be recognitionthat American agriculture is not going to providethe habitat and feed the Nation's wildlife free ofcharge. One of the most detrimental things thatcould happen to the wildlife resource is to beforced into indemnity for damage caused by itspresence. An effective damage control program Is amuch cheaper alternative. It's up to us to seethat it happens!With the current leadership and support wehave from USDA, NADCAC, the agriculturalcommunity, our cooperators, and our workforce,we're looking forward to providing the Americanpublic with an Increasingly valuable service.8

The Current Program and Future of ADC in the USDA

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1390&context=gpwdcwp

The Current Program and Future of ADC in the USDA

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska