Various
chatnoir
Wyoming’s National Elk Refuge on Ten Most Imperiled List
Feeding programs, overpopulation and disease are creating a "wildlife
time bomb" at the elk refuge, a new report says.
By Amy Linn, 6-22-09
A grim future is predicted for the 25,000-acre National Elk Refuge in
Wyoming unless the sprawling home to elk and bison gets an infusion of
new policies and resources, according to a new report from the Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group ranks the
wildlife sanctuary—which has one of the largest concentrations of elk
in the world—as one of America’s Ten Most Imperiled Refuges.
The refuge was established in 1912 in the wilderness south of Grand
Teton and Yellowstone national parks in an effort to resuscitate elk
herds, which had faced mass starvation after bitterly cold winters and
human encroachment, PEER notes. The results have not been good.
An artificial feeding program began, causing a population explosion;
the overcrowded elk decimated plants that provide natural forage; and
the animals are at risk for devastating diseases, creating a “time
bomb” in the making, the PEER report says.
Here are some highlights straight from the group’s announcement:
-- Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a relative of mad cow disease, has
been discovered within 45 miles of the refuge. Like mad cow, CWD is
believed to be caused by prions, highly infectious agents (shed by
feces and urine) that can live in soil for decades. “Further spread
into the already stressed, dense herds will, in all probability,
produce a cataclysmic wildlife disaster.”
-- Overcrowding at the refuge allows elk herds to become “a reservoir
of brucellosis.”
-- The refuge has only seven employees, leaving it with “no resources
to undertake urgently needed management, research, and education
tasks.”
-- Thanks to the feeding program, the wintering population of elk
climbed to 7,500; the wintering numbers of bison rose from 13 animals
in 1980 to more than 2,500.
To keep the area from becoming a CWD “death zone,” PEER recommends
immediate action such as elk and bison herd reductions and the
creation of a multi-agency task force to create a workable master
plan.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/the-truth-about-cats-and-birds/?hp
headline:
June 2, 2009, 12:09 pm
The Truth About Cats and Birds?
By Andrew C. Revkin
I’m trying to get to bedrock on conflicting assertions and policies
related to free-ranging cats and songbirds. The American Bird
Conservancy has posted a new video criticizing an array of programs
across the country through which well-meaning animal lovers “trap,
neuter and release” feral cats.
Apture™
Search the Web for “ trap, neuter, release” or “ feral cat coalition”
and you’ll find such efforts from Indiana to Florida to Washington
State. The idea is that, once sterilized, populations of wild cats
will slowly decrease on their own accord by attrition. The video, and
other experts on bird-cat interactions, strongly dispute this, noting
that in some cases enduring communities of feral cats are a magnet for
cat owners seeking a place to dump their unwanted kittens or cats.
Officials at the Humane Society of the United States say the video
presents a one-sided view of a legitimate problem. In a phone chat,
Nancy Peterson, the head of cat programs for the society, said the
bird group’s proposed solutions, including cat sanctuaries, were
completely untenable in a world of limited resources. She described a
variety of places where trapping and neutering greatly reduced cat
populations. Ms. Peterson added that cat owners ideally should keep
their cats indoors or within a confined area, to avoid adding to wild
populations (and the killing of birds) and that cat lovers feeding
stray or feral animals should seek help in getting them neutered.
Otherwise, she said, populations can quickly spiral out of control.
A recent article in the Humane Society’s magazine has identified
something of a middle ground in this heated arena:
“Is there such a thing as a cat-person or a bird-person?” asked a 2008
press release from the Audubon Society of Portland in Oregon. “It’s
not about birds versus cats; it’s about protecting birds and cats.”
It was an unusual statement from a wildlife organization, but that
group’s conservation director, Bob Sallinger, defies some of the
stereotypes that animal advocates have about conservationists. For
one, he’s skeptical of lethal control solutions aimed at protecting
one species from another— something many environmentalists support
when they believe a species is threatened. “Where does it end?” Mr.
Sallinger said. “I struggle with that.”
And despite the years he spent overseeing a wildlife rehabilitation
hospital that receives a steady flow of the victims of house cat
attacks, he doesn’t hold a grudge against cats either. Almost a third
of bird species in Oregon are in serious trouble, Mr. Sallinger says,
but “even if we solve the cat problem tomorrow, it’s not going to stop
bird populations from declining. It would just be removing one pressure
—and none of [the pressures] are going to be solved overnight.”
But many people involved with bird conservation are far less
accommodating. I also contacted Suzie Gilbert, a neighbor of mine
and the author of “Flyaway”, a book about her experiences as a bird
rehabilitator. She’s always mainly focused on hawks and other raptors
but has for years gotten calls from people who’ve come across
songbirds wounded by cats. She sides, no surprise, with the bird group
and pointed me to this passage in her book: ... (cont)
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20090622/CAPITOLNEWS/906220311
Officials defend eco-passage
US Senator calls stimulus funding for Lake Jackson tunnels 'wasteful'
By Bill Cotterell • Florida Capital Bureau Political Editor • June 22,
2009
Laugh if you will, but state transportation officials and wildlife
researchers said Wednesday a $3.4 million pair of tunnels under a busy
North Florida highway is a serious safety project — for people, too.
A hearty national guffaw started early this week when Sen. Tom Coburn,
R-Okla., released a list of 100 items he called wasteful in President
Obama's federal stimulus package. The Lake Jackson "eco-passage," a
few miles north of Florida's capitol, caught national media attention,
from the Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times.
But Kevin Thibault, assistant secretary for engineering and operations
in the state Department of Transportation, said the "turtle tunnel"
ridicule missed a couple of salient points. First, the money won't
detract from Interstate highways or airports, but will come from a
small "enhancement" pot that is set aside for just such work.
And second, the twin tunnels under a four-lane stretch of U.S. 27
north of Tallahassee will be big enough for a deer to scamper through
— thus making the road a lot safer for motorists who don't want to hit
one at 50 or 60 miles an hour. Even a major alligator or turtle can be
a highly hazardous speed bump in the dark, said DOT spokesman Dick
Kane.
"The federal stimulus package that was passed by Congress funded a lot
of transportation and safety projects," said Thibault. He said
Florida's $1.35 billion DOT share includes about $900 million for
major transportation projects, $400 million for local roads and
bridges and $40 million for "enhancement" work like the Lake Jackson
tunnels.
Jack Kostrzewa, planning manager for the Capital Regional
Transportation Planning Agency, and Matt Aresco, director of the
Nokuse Plantation wildlife preserve in Walton County, said U.S. 27
would never be built as it is, if today's environmental standards were
in place 50 years ago. Aresco said about 62 species need to cross the
road in the forests around Lake Jackson.
"It's a safety issue," said Kostrezewa. "We're trying to separate
wildlife from the road."
Thibault said "there are a lot of these types of crossings," for black
bears, the Florida Panther and other critters trying to coexist with
the intrusion of traffic, housing and business into once-wilderness
lands across the state.
"There's a lot of misinformation about it. It's not a turtle crossing,
it's a wildlife passage," said Kostrezewa. "It's a safety issue in an
environmentally sensitive area."
Local officials reacted quickly. County Commissioner Cliff Thaell
scheduled an appearance on CNN for Wednesday night to talk turtles,
Commissioner John Dailey set up a visit to the lake and Commissioner
Bob Rackleff fired off a letter to the Wall Street Journal decrying
Coburn's "ignorant cheap shot" at the project.
"Instead of waste, the wildlife crossing illustrates how decades-ago
blunders require expensive repairs," wrote Rackleff. "Road engineers
in the 1930s built U.S. Highway 27 through one of the finest bass
fishing lakes in the southeastern United States — not around, but
through. Then in the 1960s, they widened it into a four-lane divided
highway — further compounding the damage, which included wholesale
slaughter of small animals, including turtles, trying to cross."
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/jun/17/mark-what-we-cant-control-we-kill/
headline:
ON THE MARK: What we can’t control, we kill
By MARK STRAIN (Contact)
2:34 p.m., Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A new exhibit has opened at the Naples Zoo to display native Florida
Black Bears. Because the Zoo is owned by the taxpayers, it was most
certainly the taxpayers that footed the $750,000 to reproduce as near
a natural habitat as possible where the bears will spend the rest of
their lives. In another setting, miles away in Bonita Bay, someone
obviously spent a considerable amount of money to relocate an intact
osprey’s nest to a manmade perch specifically made as a home for the
birds. Unfortunately, for many animals, living near humans is far from
being safe and they will have a better chance of survival if we coop
them up or provide specially built habitat than if they remain
unattended.
There are a large number of requirements designed to govern management
of bears and ospreys, as well as a host of other species, if they
begin to interact too closely with us. The effort to deal with special
habitat, keeping clear of nests and restoring conservation areas that
animals use costs billions of dollars, both in time and actual cash
spent. Yet, no matter how much money we spend to save animals, very
often, many still meet their demise at the hands of humans.
There are laws in place to control the urge that some people have to
kill; sometimes those laws are not enough for everyone and far too
often they can be circumvented by slick attorneys. A perfect example
is the meaningless slaughter of 21 protected birds in February by
seven individuals who were caught, with their firearms, returning from
where the birds had been shot. One of the seven even admitted shooting
the birds. Because the property they were apprehended on was not
properly posted, the individuals who did the shooting walked, and
those charges were dropped. Among the birds killed were blue heron and
white ibis.
The original charges were based upon shooting a firearm while
trespassing. But the property they were on was not properly posted for
“no trespassing,” so they could not be charged with shooting while
trespassing. The simple fact that protected birds were shot ought to
be enough of a crime to prosecute. Certainly, the law was not meant to
be applied the way it was, but attorneys often find a way for those
breaking the law to be set free. The charges were obviously not
properly filed and hopefully more carefully structured charges will
follow. ... (cont)
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2009/06/an_invasive_species_is_an_inva.html
An invasive species is an invasive species
Six years ago, a coalition of state and federal agencies launched an
effort to eradicate nutria from Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
where the animals, a species native to South America, had destroyed
thousands of acres of marshland. They appear to have succeeded and the
effort is seen as a great victory for the environment.
Maryland officials have also been trying to remove another invader,
mute swans that have destroyed submerged aquatic vegetation, habitat
that is considered extremely valuable to many native Chesapeake Bay
species. But instead of a triumph, the next and perhaps final step in
this effort is seen as a "slaughter" of the remaining 500 or so of
these "beautiful" animals by protesters.
What's the difference? The only significant one is human aesthetics.
People love to look at swans with their white feathers and elegant
long necks. Not so much with nutria, which might generously be
described as a cross between a beaver and a rat.
Mere aesthetics is no way to manage a complex ecosystem. Aren't we
past this sort of arrogance? If aesthetics are to rule the day, we
might as well turn forests into manicured parks, kill all the snakes
and other species we deem ugly or frightening, and watch the laws of
unintended consequences bite us in the tail feathers.
While my colleage, Glen McNatt, may see beauty in the mute swan,
perhaps he should poll the terns, black ducks and other waterfowl that
suffer because of the swan's presence. Not to mention the juvenile
blue crab and fish that depend on underwater grasses for their
survival.
What's needed is to bring the system into balance. The Maryland
Department of Natural Resources really has two choices -- eliminate
the invaders completely now or gradually over time. The second option
is an expensive indulgence. The money would be better spent on
restoring habitat.
To mute swan lovers that may sound cruel, but it's the way nature
works (and the way wildlife management should). Their appearance
doesn't make them any less harmful to the environment. We don't cry
for the zebra mussel, the northern snakehead fish or the grass carp.
They are understood to be pests. Let us not assign value to another
invasive species because it happens to suit our human criteria for
beauty.