In an impassioned and well-attended afternoon session, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to renew the county’s contract with the increasingly controversial Wildlife Services, a federal agency that has recently been accused of overzealous and brutal animal control methods.

Local wildlife advocates showed up in droves to urge the board not to renew the contract, and an attorney from the Center for Biological Diversity threatened a lawsuit if the contract were renewed. But a number of ranchers said the agency provides an invaluable service by removing or killing dangerous predators that threaten livestock.

In all, more than two dozen public speakers took turns at the lectern with the majority urging the board to find an alternative method of wildlife management. Many of the speakers represented local nonprofit the Humboldt Wildlife Care Center, which offers nonlethal animal control methods.

Monte Merrick, the co-director of that agency, said volunteers answer hundreds of calls for animal control. “We’ve never had to kill or even trap an animal,” he said, adding that three quarters of calls can be handled over the phone. 

Several speakers accused Wildlife Services of being a rogue agency whose default solution is to kill troublesome creatures, often catching unintended animals in its traps. Amy Atwood, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, was perhaps the fiercest critic of Wildlife Services. “We maintain that Wildlife Services is a rogue federal program that kills millions of animals every year, including hundreds in Humboldt County, without transparency or accountability,” she said. Atwood added that her organization is poised to file a lawsuit if the contract were renewed.

“And if we do that and we win,” she said, “you will have to conduct a comprehensive review of the status quo. We know that if you do that, you will conclude that the most reasonable course is to move toward a nonlethal program. But we — believe it or not — would rather not sue you,” Atwood said. “We’re hoping we can convince you. But in order for us to step back from that threat, we need you to either reject renewal today or commit to taking steps toward a nonlethal program.”

Natalynne Delapp, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, urged supervisors to consider alternatives. “We know there are creative local solutions that exist,” she said. “They only need to be give an opportunity to take hold.”

Those speaking in favor of contract renewal included current and former employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retired Patrol Captain Nick Albert said Wildlife Services employees are trained professionals, “not some yahoo out there with a gun who wants to kill everything.” He argued that the agency is essential for dealing with rabid animals, wayward mountain lions and coyotes.

Contract renewal also got approval from local ranchers such as Johanna Rodoni, a former county supervisor, and Eel River Organic Beef owner Clint Victorine, who said Wildlife Services has helped him deal (non-lethally) with the massive flocks of of Aleutian geese that descend on his field each year, consuming roughly $45,000-worth of feed each time.

When the issue was brought back to the board for discussion, Third District Supervisor Mark Lovelace suggested that there is room for compromise on the issue. “Wildlife Services and Humboldt Wildlife Care Center both work on this, and yet there seems to be zero relationship, coordination or familiarity between the two. It seems to me that one possible outcome is to recognize that there should be a working relationship there.”

He added that there is no alternative to Wildlife Services immediately available and suggested possibly extending the contract for merely a year rather than the four that were on the table, thus giving the county time to potentially work on transitioning to another agency or approach.

Second District Supervisor Estelle Fennell addressed Ms. Atwood’s threat of litigation, suggesting that if the Center for Biological Diversity were to sue anybody it should be the federal government, since Wildlife Services is a federal agency. “Why bring [a lawsuit] against Humboldt County? Because we’re small?” Fennell asked. “I don’t like it.” She went on to say that, while a lot of people gave heartfelt testimony, Wildlife Services provides an important service. And sometimes death is inevitable, especially in rural areas like Humboldt County. Mother Nature, Fennell said, “is not exactly tidy and kind all the time, and living with nature is not always simple.”

Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg made a motion to approve the contract renewal, and Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass seconded the motion. There was a brief testy exchange when Supervisor Lovelace again brought up the idea of a shorter, one-year contract extension, to which Sundberg replied, “I heard your comments the first time” and held firm on his motion.

In approving the contract renewal, several council members said that, while Wildlife Services may have problems elsewhere, there have been few if any complaints specific to Humboldt County. The motion passed unanimously.

After the decision, Atwood, the attorney, expressed her disappointment, saying that at the very least the county should have tabled the issue to allow for more conversation. As for the threatened lawsuit? “We haven’t made a decision yet,” she said. But she insisted that the county has a responsibility under federal law to review the effectiveness of its wildlife management program.

Galvin, also of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the county had basically turned a blind eye to wildlife. “Going in we felt like, if the county was making progress, we were prepared to hold off on litigation,” he said. “Given that the county has basically rubber-stamped [the contract], it doesn’t leave a lot of options for people who care about wildlife.” 

Earlier in the meeting the board also voted unanimously to have staff develop a draft ordinance banning single-use plastic bags, though the local ordinance may be held back until the fate of a statewide ban is determined.

The supes told staff to model its draft plastic bag ban on both the pending Senate Bill 270 and the City of Arcata’s Reusable Bag Ordinance. Both measures ban single-use plastic bags at supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores, large retail stores and liquor stores and include small fees for paper bags. 

The pertinent questions before the county, staff explained, are (a) when should the ban go into effect, and (b) which department should be in charge of enforcement. It could be assigned either to the Department of Public Works or the Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Division, explained Assistant County Administrative Officer Cheryl Dillingham.

Jennifer Savage, the coastal programs director for the Northcoast Environmental Center, said she personally has been speaking about this issue for at least three years, and meanwhile lots of other jurisdictions have passed plastic bag bans. “We are long overdue for some kind of ordinance addressing this pervasive problem,” she said.

Peter Galvin, director of programs for the Center for Biological Diversity, said that a ban would benefit the fishing industry by improving the ecology of local waterways and help tourism by reducing ugly roadside garbage.

While all five supervisors were supportive of a ban, there was some disagreement about whether or not to include a small fee for paper bags. Staff had explained that such fees, which vary from three to 10 cents per bag, serve to further motivate consumers to choose reusable bags. But Fennell and First District Supervisor Rex Bohn were resistant to the idea, with Fennell calling it an attempt at “behavior modification” and Bohn saying fees would just mean more profit for store owners.

Bass and Lovelace, on the other hand, voiced support for a small fee for paper bags. “I think in some ways this is reminding people that there is a social responsibility to get rid of [plastic] bags,” Bass said.

Sundberg said that, if there is a fee, it should only be enough to cover the actual cost of the bag. Staff pointed out that it would be very difficult to determine exactly what each store pays for each bag.

In the end, the supervisors left it to staff to research the issue and provide more info when it comes time to present the draft ordinance, at which point the Great Paper Bag Fee Debate will likely resume.