Environmentalists and animal advocates are seeking to halt San Diego’s longtime practice of killing rats, crows, gulls and other predators of two endangered bird species that mate in Mission Bay Park.

They say less lethal methods, such as improved fencing and better maintenance of habitats for the endangered birds, could be more effective at protecting them and cost taxpayers less money.

They also say city and federal officials haven’t adequately studied the consequences of killing so many predators since the program began in 1991, analyzed whether environmental changes in the last 25 years might make new approaches more effective, or evaluated the risks for nearby domestic pets.

City officials say they are required to protect the birds by the federal Endangered Species Act and that their predator management program was carefully developed in the 1990s with help from state and federal wildlife agencies and UC San Diego.


Concerns about the program prompted the San Diego Sierra Club, the San Diego Humane Society and nonprofit San Diego Animal Advocates to file papers this winter seeking to force further analysis before the program can continue.

RELATED: Proposals unveiled for transforming part of Mission Bay Park

The City Council is scheduled to vote on Tuesday whether to allow the program to move forward or halt it, which could jeopardize the endangered birds’ mating season that begins in April.

It’s the first time in the 25-year history of the program that anyone has sought to block it, city officials said.


While federal efforts to protect species by killing their predators are often controversial, environmental groups typically focus only on efforts to kill so-called “high-level” predators like bobcats and mountain lions.

It’s much less common for there to be controversy over government efforts to kill lower-level predators like the crows, rats, squirrels and snakes that threaten the two endangered birds: the California least tern and the light-footed Ridgway’s rail.

Environmentalists say it’s crucial to protect the two birds and their habitat because both play crucial roles in the local ecosystem, including preventing erosion, shrinking carbon emissions and reducing rises in sea level.

The papers filed by the environmentalists and animal advocates contend the city’s predator management program in Mission Bay Park is not exempt from analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act.


The city declared the program exempt from that law in December, as it has done each year for more than two decades, because the law grants exemptions to programs where regulatory agencies are using legally approved methods to protect the environment.

The Sierra Club’s appeal of the city’s declaration contends that efforts to protect the environment that involve killing predators do not qualify under that exemption.

The appeal, written by club wildlife committee chair Renee Owens, stresses that the Sierra Club supports protecting the two endangered birds.

“It is important to note that in no way do we disagree with what appear to be the ultimate goals of this project: specifically to aid in the recovery of endangered species,” Owens wrote.


But the letter says the lack of environmental review creates doubts whether the program is having success, has been updated to include the best available science, and is a cost-effective use of the limited resources the city has to protect endangered species.

The letter also mentions anecdotal reports that hawks, owls and falcons have been captured or killed as part of the program.

And it urges more transparency about the program and thorough analysis of alternate approaches.

“We do not approve of the prioritizing of projects that use conservation funds to maximize killing and removal of native species if and when other methods of prevention, including better site restoration, habitat and land procurement, fencing and other methods of deterrence could all be strategies not being fully implemented,” Owens wrote.


The appeal filed by San Diego Animal Advocates focuses on the risk the program creates for domestic pets.

“The setting of animal traps does not protect the environment or its natural resources,” wrote Jane Cartmill, the group’s leader. “Some of the traps are baited with cat food, which actually lures both feral and domestic cats from nearby housing into the Least Tern habitat — an action in direct conflict with the stated goal of the project.”

Cartmill’s letter also says the public should be given more information about the program so they can make better decisions.

“The logic of killing members of many species in the attempt to protect individuals of two species is questionable at best,” she wrote. “The public should be able to evaluate whether there is a need for this project at all.”


The Humane Society’s appeal says simply that killing predators is not acceptable.

“Suggesting we trap and kill one group of wildlife to save another is contrary to the mission of San Diego’s oldest nonprofit, and not the answer,” wrote Gary Weitzman, the society’s chief executive. “San Diego is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, and it’s our job to keep it that way.”

In response to the appeals, city senior planner Myra Herrmann stressed that the program follows criteria established by several sets of approved rules and regulations.

“The project is done in accordance with the Mission Bay Park Natural Resources Management Plan, Mission Bay Park Master Plan, the city’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations in the San Diego Land Development Code, and the city’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan, all of which were developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,” Herrmann wrote.


Rebecca Schwartz-Lesberg, conservation director for the San Diego Audubon Society, said lobbying for alternative methods makes sense, but that killing predators is sometimes necessary.

“Non-lethal predator control such as fences, hazing and trapping/relocating predators is best whenever possible,” she said. “When that fails, some predators are taken lethally and there are strict guidelines to make sure animals do not suffer. It’s done only when the survival of endangered species depends on this.”

Schwartz said that because development by humans has taken away natural nesting areas for the birds and left them with much smaller and more precarious nesting areas, it’s harder to preserve these species without killing predators.

“The real problem sprouts from humans over developing and depleting precious habitats causing species to become endangered,” she said.


david.garrick@sduniontribune.com (619) 269-8906 Twitter:@UTDavidGarrick