New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Amanda Newsome
Amanda Newsome
University of Central Florida
GPA 3.2

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Chemistry Fundamentals I
Dr. Melanie Beazley
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Chemistry Fundamentals I

Popular in Chemistry

This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Amanda Newsome on Sunday October 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to CHM 2040 at University of Central Florida taught by Dr. Melanie Beazley in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 3 views. For similar materials see Chemistry Fundamentals I in Chemistry at University of Central Florida.

Similar to CHM 2040 at University of Central Florida


Reviews for tester


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/02/16
SundayReview | OPINION America’s Wildlife Body Count By RICHARD CONNIFF SEPT. 17, 2016 Until recently, I had never had any dealings with Wildlife Services, a century- old agency of the United States Department of Agriculture with a reputation for strong-arm tactics and secrecy. It is beloved by many farmers and ranchers and hated in equal measure by conservationists, for the same basic reason: It routinely kills predators and an astounding assortment of other animals — 3.2 million of them last year — because ranchers and farmers regard them as pests. To be clear, Wildlife Services is a separate entity, in a different federal agency, from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, whose main goal is wildlife conservation. Wildlife Services is interested in control — ostensibly, “to allow people and wildlife to coexist.” My own mildly surreal acquaintance with its methods began as a result of a study, published this month in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, under the title “Predator Control Should Not Be a Shot in the Dark.” Adrian Treves of the University of Wisconsin and his co-authors set out to answer a seemingly simple question: Does the practice of predator control to protect our livestock actually work? To find out, the researchers reviewed scientific studies of predator control regimens — some lethal, some not — over the past 40 years. The results were alarming. Of the roughly 100 studies surveyed, only two met the “gold standard” for scientific evidence. That is, they conducted randomized controlled trials and took precautions to avoid bias. Each found that nonlethal methods (like guard dogs, fences and warning flags) could be effective at deterring predators. Seven other studies met a slightly lower scientific standard, but produced conflicting results or were inconclusive. So why is this agency so focused on killing predators? While predators are far from the leading cause of death of livestock, they are the most visible. Killing as many of them as possible in turn can feel like a deeply gratifying solution, in a way that dealing with disease or bad weather never has been. We seem to kill predators out of mindless, even primordial antipathy, rather than for any good reason. It is how we managed by the mid-20th century to eradicate gray wolves almost completely from the lower 48 states. Unwelcome Mammals: Prairie Dog KILLED TOP METHOD SHOT 20,777 Although reduced to just 2 percent of their original range, prairie dogs are said to compete with cattle for grass. Bobcat Beaver KILLED 731 TOP METHOD 21,581 NECK SNARE TOP METHOD Prey on small pigs, BODY GRIP TRAP lambs and chickens. Dams may cause KILLED flooding; damage to ornamental 68,905 plantings, orchards, TOP METHOD SHOT FROM AIRCRAFT About 0.03% of large cattle was lost to coyotes trees for lumber. in 2010. They also prey on other livestock. Red Fox TOP METHOD SHOT KILLED 1,534 Cause serious problems for poultry producers; also kill young pigs, lambs and game birds. Prairie Dog Photo credits: Max Whittaker for The New York Times (Coyote); Auscape/UIG via Getty Images (Prairie Dog); John Moore/Getty Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture; PLOS Oneesse — Getty Images (Beaver); Arterra/UIG via Getty Images (Fox) By The New York Times According to the Treves review, one organization of wildlife managers published a number of flawed or biased studies on lethal control in its scholarly journals. Then, in 2004, it published an article debunking some of those flawed studies. Thereafter, though, the same journals continued to cite the flawed studies as if they were still valid. Authors, editors and peer reviewers alike were seemingly blinded by conventional wisdom that killing predators protects livestock. I thought Wildlife Services might have a different perspective on the Treves study, and this is where things turned weird. Gail Keirn, a legislative and public affairs aide for Wildlife Services, declined to arrange an interview. The agency would accept written questions, she said, to be answered in writing, a useful formula for public relations, not journalism. I’ve had better luck getting access at the C.I.A. Soon after, Dr. Treves held an online session to introduce his study. Two journalists joined the conversation. But so did four other people — Wildlife Services employees, who refused to identify themselves by name despite repeated requests by Dr. Treves. The conversation stumbled to an awkward close. It was a creepy moment, but it was also wonderfully inept. Even if Ms. Keirn wouldn’t identify herself, her phone number, from which she had dialed into the session, was prominently displayed in a screen shot Dr. Treves sent me afterward. When I emailed to question Ms. Keirn about it, she protested, “I thought this was an open forum” and a good opportunity for Wildlife Services “to learn more.” Later, she sent me a written statement from a Wildlife Services official who ignored the Treves study while citing some of the same studies found to be flawed in that 2004 critique. It was perfect as slapstick, but also a pity, because taxpayers who spent $127 million in 2014 for the agency’s wildlife damage management operations deserve transparency. Instead, the agency reveals little more than its annual body count, listing only the species, the number of dead and the method of killing. Last year, for instance, it killed 68,905 coyotes using calling devices, snares and traps, “M 44 cyanide capsule” and other poisoning devices, and guns, sometimes fired with the help of “night vision/infrared equipment,” and sometimes from helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. Not Wanted Wildlife Services, an Agriculture Department agency, killed animals from 335 species during its most recent fiscal year. The majority were birds, including these: Red-Winged Cowbird Blackbird KILLED TOP METHOD POISON 475,905 Can damage ripening sorghum, sunflower and millet. Double-crested Cormorant KILLED 708,487 TOP METHOD POISON KILLED TOP METHOD SHOT 16,652 Feed on some commercial and sport fish. Mourning Dove European Starling Common Grackle KILLED 1.29 MILLION 134,743 TOP METHOD Poison Poison Blackbirds and grackles feed partly on corn and sunfloKILLED TOP METHOD SHOT seeds; starlings damage fruit crops. 16,907 These and other doves feed partly on crops. Photo credits: George Grall/National Geographic/Getty Images (Blackbird); Dan Kitwood, Getty Images (Starling); Universal Images Group via Getty Images (Cowbird); Education Images/UIG via Getty Images (Grackle, Cormorant, Mourning Dove) Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Audubon Society Graphics by Bill Marsh/The New York Times Cowbird Tools of the Cull Some examples of the more than 70 ways the U.S. captures and kills animals. METHOD ANIMALS KILLED IN F.Y. 2015 DRC-1339 poison 2.38 million birds On average, more than 6,500 birds daily. Firearms 336,047 birds and mammals Decoy trap 173,097, almost all birds Birds are lured into large cages, then killed by carbon dioxide or other methods. Aircraft, using firearm 47,578 mammals Body grip trap 17,322 various species, mostly beavers Cyanide capsule 13,862 mammals, mostly coyotes Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture By The New York Times But why were different species killed, or where? Your guess is as good as mine — and not just about the predators but about the agency’s decision to kill 17sandhill cranes last year, or 150blue-winged teal ducks, or 4,927 cattle egrets. Before killing 708,487 red-winged blackbirds that year, did anyone weigh the damage they do to ripening corn and other crops against the benefit they provide by feeding on corn earworms and other harmful insects? Is the scientific support for killing 20,777 prairie dogs (on which the survival of species like the burrowing owl and the black-footed ferret depend), better than that for killing predators? There is no way to verify the numbers Wildlife Services provides. The habit of secrecy is a pity because even critics of Wildlife Services acknowledge that killing is sometimes necessary. Feral swine (42,250 killed last year) are, for instance, a menace to agriculture and endangered species alike. Lethal control for livestock protection also “has to be on the table,” said Lisa Upson, executive director of the Montana conservation nonprofit group People and Carnivores. Ranchers will experiment with nonlethal methods first only if they have the option, as a last resort, of killing a specific individual predator that repeatedly attacks livestock. “A lot of ranchers have accepted that wolves are here to stay and have moved to saying let’s try some preventive things,” Ms. Upson said. In Montana, Wildlife Services has recently begun to collaborate with Ms. Upson’s group and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both longtime critics, on nonlethal predator deterrence projects. There is reason to hope for more substantial change. Last month, the Obama administration overrode objections by the State of Alaska and announced that 73 million acres of national wildlife refuges there are off limits to what Dan Ashe, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, described as that state’s “withering attack on bears and wolves.” The next step ought to be a closer look at the federal government’s own predator control programs. In their study, Dr. Treves and his co-authors urge the appointment of an independent panel to conduct a rigorous large-scale scientific experiment on predator control methods. They also recommended that the government put the burden of proof on the killers and suspend predator control programs that are not supported by good science. For Wildlife Services, after a century of unregulated slaughter of America’s native species, this could be the moment to set down the weapons, step out of the way, and let ranchers and scientists together figure out the best way for predators and livestock to coexist. A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 18, 2016, on page SR12 of the New York edition with the headline: America’s Wildlife Body Count. The article above was prompted in part by a recent paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The abstract of that article appears on the next page. An abstract of a scientific paper is a concise summary of the contents of the paper that appears at the beginning of the article. Please read the abstract and answer any questions about it that appear in the quiz. Volume 14, Issue 7 Pages 380–3886 Review Predator control should not be a shot in the dark Authors Adrian Treves, Miha Krofel, Jeannine McManus First published1 September 2016 Abstract Livestock owners traditionally use various non-lethal and lethal methods to protect their domestic animals from wild predators. However, many of these methods are implemented without first considering experimental evidence of their effectiveness in mitigating predation- related threats or avoiding ecological degradation. To inform future policy and research on predators, we systematically evaluated evidence for interventions against carnivore (canid, felid, and ursid) predation on livestock in North American and European farms. We also reviewed a selection of tests from other continents to help assess the global generality of our findings. Twelve published tests – representing five non-lethal methods and 7 lethal methods – met the accepted standard of scientific inference (random assignment or quasi-experimental case-control) without bias in sampling, treatment, measurement, or reporting. Of those twelve, prevention of livestock predation was demonstrated in six tests (four non-lethal and two lethal), whereas counterintuitive increases in predation were shown in two tests (zero non-lethal and two lethal); the remaining four (one non-lethal and three lethal) showed no effect on predation. Only two non-lethal methods (one associated with livestock-guarding dogs and the other with a visual deterrent termed “fladry”) assigned treatments randomly, provided reliable inference, and demonstrated preventive effects. We recommend that policy makers suspend predator control efforts that lack evidence for functional effectiveness and that scientists focus on stringent standards of evidence in tests of predator control.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.