Sandhill Cranes

Kevin Kannenberg

I have a riddle for you, “What sounds like a pterodactyl, and causes almost $300,000 in crop damage in Wisconsin every year?”  The answer: Sandhill Cranes.  Now, Sandhill cranes are one of the most successful recovery stories in recent years.  Hunting and habitat destruction pushed the birds to the brick of extinction in the early 1900’s, but through coordinated conservation efforts, they have made a major comeback. 

              

The problem with this comeback is that Sandhill cranes have quite an appetite, and are perfectly equipped to pluck seeds right out of a farmer’s field.   The cranes can walk right down a row in a freshly planted field, and using their beak, pluck the seeds right out of the ground, doing hundreds of thousands dollars in crop damage; none of which is reimbursed by the state. Seed can be treated to deter cranes, for an average of $8 damage per acre.  Now this might not seem like much, but if you figure the average farm is Wisconsin is around 200 acres, that’s $1600 a year per farm.  Farming is often not a very lucrative job, and a loss of $16,000 over 10 years is pretty significant.

 

Sandhill cranes are big birds, I’ve heard them referred to as “T-bones of the sky” and I’d believe it.  They are big, and in my experience, not afraid of people.  I have a road bike and have biked right past cranes, no more than ten feet away, with no reaction from the cranes.  I’ve heard stories of small planes being unable to land at smaller airports because Sandhill cranes had camped out on the runway.

 

For a couple years now, a proposed Sandhill Crane hunt has been tossed around by the state government, with public opinion divided.  One of the arguments I keep hearing against the hunt is that hunters might mistake the Whooping Crane, which is protected, for the Sandhill. A quick goggle search resulted in the images below.  On the left, a whooping crane, on the right, the Sandhill crane.  I’m not a hunter, but I am friends with a lot of hunters.  Most of the guys I know can identify ducks on the wing over what I frankly consider to be a ridiculously long distance.  I am pretty sure they could tell the difference between these two birds.

Like I said, I don’t hunt, and I’m not a farmer, I have no real reason to argue in either direction, but it seems to me that there are a lot worse things that could happen than allowing a limited number of Sandhill Cranes to be harvested.  I would hope that the cranes would learn to be more wary of people, and hopefully stop the large congregations of cranes in fields that cause so much crop damage.  If nothing else, it would placate a lot of farmers if they knew that something was being done. 

Old Growth Forests The Last of Their Kind

 

By Brenton Page

 

            Many people don’t understand how valuable old growth forests are, and by the time they do it will be too late. According to REO, “an Old Growth Forest stand are at least 180-220 years old with high canopy closure, with numerous large snags.” Many small and large mammals use these snags for cover.  Old Growth Forests offer many advantages such as natural reproduction with ability to fight disease and fire, as well as cover for many animals that are on the endangered species list. People have been harvesting old growth forests through logging because they offer a very good source of money because the trees are so big and rare, but that is the downside the trees are rare and we need to stop cutting them down because once we cut them down you can’t just bring back a Old Growth Forest. There are numerous types of animals such as the Northern Spotted Owl which is endangered, that only inhabits old growth forests and if we log them, you will put these owls into extinction. Something you might not think of is salmon. Certain salmon such as the Coho salmon which in habit numerous streams and river that run through the Old Growth Forests. This is low on peoples list on what gets affected because when they think of forests they don’t think of salmon. When companies want to log an old growth forest they have to make logging roads that run to and from the area they want to log, and by making these logging roads they destroy whatever is in their way such as streams and rivers. They don’t care if they destroy mother nature because there in it for the money and nothing else. According to Sequestration Controversy, “Old Growth Forests store very large amounts of carbon in their biomass and surrounding soil, as well as capture new carbon at the same time.” This is useful because many plants and flowers depend on carbon to live.

            We need to conserve our environmental future and by doing so we need to stop cutting down old growth forests because it harms numerous species. There are really no disadvantages to leaving old growth forests up. One of the largest Old Growth Forests left is located right here in the United States in Alaska. It’s called the Tongass National Forest, the reason this is still left is because it has not been logged, we need to do this more often to preserve our national Old Growth Forests. We can cherish our Old Growth Forests by not cutting them down, and to target younger forests for logging instead. Loggers don’t care about who suffers from their actions they do it only for the money, they need to realize that when they cut these forests down if effects not only people but animals and nature as well. Old growth forests have been here for many of years and if we destroy them future forest growth will decrease. We need to stop logging of the old growth forests so our future can benefit from them.

 

Environmental effects of Frac Sand Mining

 

Tyler Ziehme

Northwest Wisconsin is home to beautiful lakes, great outdoor recreation, and now open pit frac sand mines. Frac sand is used to help extract oil from the earth by pumping it deep into the ground by hydraulic pumps where it is squeezed into shale. Here it occupies fissures, where oil and natural gas can be extracted. (Save the Hills Alliance Inc, 2011)

I grew up in Barron, a small town and the county seat of Barron County which lies in Northwest Wisconsin. I have seen firsthand what frac sand mines look like on the landscape, and I have been doing some research on my own as to the effects that they are having on the environment. Along with this I have read a few blog posts and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not the only one who seems to feel that these frac mines are a serious problem.

First off I want to start by telling anyone who is not familiar with Barron County that tourism is one of highest means of income for the county's economy. Now that the frac mines are coming in it won't be for long. Once beautiful forests are now being clear cut and frac mines are taking their places. As an avid outdoorsmen myself it definitely draws concern. What concerns me more than that is the health effects associated with the frac mining.

The biggest health concern that I have found is particulate matter of small size, the main one being crystalline silicate. Wisconsin has very high levels of silica. However weathered silicates in agricultural fields are much less dangerous than the ones that come from freshly fractured soils. Some of the health effects that can come from this are: decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, development of chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, non fatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease. (Pierce 2011)

            This is what many people don't understand right now. The frac sand companies are creating tons of jobs for our local economy which is great, but in hind sight it is only going to be here for 30 or 40 years. Once it is gone they will be without a job, and most likely shortly after they will either get very sick or die. Furthermore, our lands will be irreversibly damaged for decades, and our streams will have no fish in them due to extremely high pH levels from runoff from the open pit mines, and our drinking water will be undrinkable for the same reason. People will no longer want to come to Barron County. The worst part yet is now the frac sand companies are proposing to build a mine about a quarter mile from a school. If heavy regulations are not put on the amount of particulate matter going into the air, kid's lives could possibly be at stake. 

            Our economy is struggling and people are trying to put food on the table, but you have to ask yourself if the employment opportunities now are worth the possibility of bad health effects for your children down the road. I don't think any parent wants to know that it was their fault for their own child's death down the road.  Let's do everyone a favor and fight to keep frac sanding out of Wisconsin. Let your voice be heard and get involved by going to a board meeting. The more voices out there the better chance we have of stopping this.

Asian Carp in the Illinois River

Jeremy Thomas

 

 

Asian carp in the Illinois River has become a major economic and ecological issue.  Being from the Chicago land area, this has become an increasing problem locally as they continue to move upriver towards Lake Michigan.  As a fisheries major and angler, the advancement of the carp raises many issues that could be very devastating to recreational and commercial fishing in Illinois and Lake Michigan.  Locally, if the Asian carp make it to the rivers and streams surrounding Chicago they would destroy the native species by out competing with them for resources.  In some stretches of the Illinois River they occupy as much as 60% of the biomass in the river.  Asian carp are filter feeders so they feed on rotifers and zooplankton which mean many important species have to compete with them, such as the gizzard shad.  These native species have declined causing populations of game species like bass and walleye to decrease as well.  If the spread continues towards Lake Michigan it would cause the sought after streams and rivers to become filled with nothing but Asian carp and be undesirable to anglers. 

There have been some efforts to stop the spread by installing electric fences across the Illinois River in a few areas.  So far they have worked but not 100%.  Some of the carp still manage to make it through the fences.  A permanent solution must take place which would be closing all the locks and dams.  I think this is the only solution to the problem but many believe that keeping them open for the few barges that pass thought each year is more important.  As an individual who has a special interest in natural resources I am unable to grasp the fact that they are willing to put Lake Michigan at risk due to a handful of barges that pass through.  If the Asian carp were to invade Lake Michigan, the economic toll would be tremendous.  Although Lake Michigan does not produce as much as the other Great Lakes it still has a large number of jobs that rely on the fishing industry.  They have already taken a hit once from the invasion of zebra mussels which are also filter feeders.  Production of the lake has already declined a huge amount and the question is how much more can the native species handle.

Many states have taken this issue to court but have failed to get the locks and dams closed.  If nothing is done soon this will be an incredible irreversible mistake that could end Lake Michigan fishing as we know it.  As a fisheries major and angler it worries me greatly what our lake would turn into if taken over by Asian carp.  I think it will take all the anglers from around Lake Michigan to come together and fight to protect our waters from this invasive species.  If we do not put a stop to it now, who knows how far it will actually spread.

Quality Deer Management in Wisconsin

Brock Tetzlaff

 

 

Quality deer management has always been a hot topic with deer hunters in Wisconsin and across the nation. People all over have many different opinions on how Wisconsin’s deer population should be managed. I recently skimmed over the Quality Deer Management Association’s (QDMA) 2012 annual report. Within that report it detailed how many antlered and antlerless deer were harvested from 2008 through 2010. Using those numbers, the report also detailed percent changes in how many of each sex were harvested from 2009 to 2010 as well as calculated how many bucks and does were harvested per square mile for every state. In this blog, I will strictly use only the numbers for Wisconsin and maybe other Midwestern states to give you an idea to compare them to.

            Wisconsin was the number two state for the most bucks harvested from 2008 to 2010, second only to Michigan. The following are the years and amount of harvested bucks in Wisconsin: 2008 harvested 138,507; 2009 harvested 134,696; and 2010 harvested 148,378. Michigan harvested 248,350, 215,120, and 212,341 respectively. For Wisconsin, that was an increase of 10% from 2009 to 2010. Based on those numbers, the QDMA calculated that out to 4.4 bucks per square mile in 2010. That is the highest of any Midwestern state while the lowest was 0.4 bucks per square mile in North Dakota. On top of that, 53% of bucks shot in Wisconsin were 2 ½ years or older. Concluding the buck harvest totals, Wisconsin was in the top five (fourth) for 2010 antlered buck harvest as well as top five (third) for 2010 buck harvest per square mile for all U.S states.

In continuing with harvesting numbers, the total antlerless harvest in Wisconsin was 313,378 in 2008, 192,557 in 2009, and 185,211 in 2010. That calculates out to a percent change of negative 4% from 2009 to 2010. The 2010 number for does per square mile was 5.4. Those numbers put Wisconsin in second for total harvest for all three years and antlerless deer per square mile in the Midwest.

With that as background information, I will now explain my dilemma that I have with the way the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is currently managing the deer management units (DMU). This summer I went and bought my 2012 gun deer license for the nine day gun deer season in November. When they went on sale on August 18, 2012 at 10am, I bought a bonus antlerless permit for twelve dollars. The bonus permits were permits that could be bought on top of the antlerless permit that comes with your original license for herd control and CWD units. Before I went to by the bonus permit for the DMU I hunt in, I researched to find out how many permits were available for all units. I found that my unit only had 450 bonus permits for sale, while the unit to the east (across a two lane street) had over 3800 permits for sale and the unit to the west (across a two lane highway) had 3500 permits for sale. Now this is where I wonder how this is logical. What the DNR is saying is that deer (antlered or antlerless) do not cross over roads/highways to exit one unit and enter another unit. How is it you can sell a combined 7300+ permits for the two units on either side of one unit in the middle, and only sell 450 permits to that unit? This makes absolutely no sense to me. I suppose I would be much more upset if I did not get a bonus permit, but it is still irritating to me that I could have gone hunting without that bonus permit. Needless to say, the 450 permits were sold out in nine minutes. Luckily, my dad and I had a new dealer location that just had the licensing machine installed the day before so we were able to get our bonus permits.

I would like to find out, read, or be told by a DNR official how they determine and decide how many bonus permits are allotted for each DMU because we all know that deer can and do cross major streets and highways and move between deer management units. The past few deer seasons I have not seen many does where I hunt. This may be the reason for lack of bonus permits but it shouldn’t affect only one DMU. I would like to see some logical proof, whether it is from the Wisconsin DNR or the QDMA, that specifically explains which DMU get bonus tags and how many they get. I understand land cover can change deer habitat and the preference of the deer, but it should not influence deer populations astronomically from one unit to the next.

            In conclusion, the numbers for harvested antlered deer increased as of late, and the number of harvested antlerless deer has decreased for the past five years. With that in mind, the number of bonus permits all over the state should be decreasing down to 500-1000 for each deer management unit. It should not fluctuate so much between units that have the same border.

 

 

Works Cited:

QDMA’s Whitetail Report 2012. 18 September 2012.

Antlerless deer (bonus) carcass tags availability for 2012. http://dnr.wi.gov. 18 September 2012

 

Why we should Care about the Urban Forest

Gary Tellefson

 

            Growing up I’ve always had a passion for trees. They were fun to climb and I was always interested in the different varieties. What I didn’t know were the benefits that trees can come with. Trees in urban settings create benefits that many people don’t realize. Two of the major benefits are the economic and environmental impacts these forests have on our communities. Once I started learning more about urban forestry, I got even more interested in the benefits they have in our communities. So I’ll go over only some of the many benefits these forests have that I have learned.

            Having vegetation in urban settings is a large contributor to helping economies. Places with more trees and shrubs in urban settings see better business than somewhere without. People come more often, spend more money, stay longer, and are more likely to come back if there is green infrastructure around. Businesses that have trees outside their location, or that are along a tree lined street see more customers and lower crime rates. It makes scene that someone would be more attracted to a business that has trees and plants outside then a business with just sidewalk. The costumer feels more welcome and comfortable in that situation and is more likely to give you their business. Trees and shrubs on private properties increase property values and make them more aesthetically pleasing to view as well.  

            The largest benefits they bring are for the environment. They take in toxic carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. They can reduce air pollution by filtering out greenhouse gases and other particles that contribute to smog and other types of air pollutants. Green infrastructure can reduce energy costs in more than one way. Trees shading parking lots can reduce gas emissions from parked vehicles, and create shade cooling effects on houses. Trees also play a very large role in water runoff and filtering. In urban settings impervious surfaces create many issues with drainage and pooling on streets and private property. Having vegetative surfaces create excellent drainage and filtering system for storm water. Trees intake large amounts of water through their roots and canopy, slowing the movement of water, and helping prevent sewage system overflows. On average, one tree can take up around 1000 gallons of water a year. With storm water treatment costs being between two to four cents a gallon, one tree can theoretically save around 20 dollars a year. Adding up all the trees in a community can create quite an impact on water treatment costs on a yearly basis. All vegetative plants in urban settings can prevent soil erosion problems. Their roots hold soil together and keep it in tact instead of getting swept away with the water.

           

 

I have only covered two of the major categories of benefits that urban forests provide. I didn’t get into the physiological and cultural benefits these forests have. I would argue that urban forests are more important now for us to understand than ever, and I encourage everyone to learn a little more about urban forests and see how they can benefit you. Once again if we can learn to use these forests, protect them, and keep them healthy, we can become more sustainable and absorb these benefits in our communities.

            References

"Benefits of Trees & the Urban Forest." Sustainable Cities Institute:. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2012

Richard Hauer, Ph.D. Urban Forestry, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

Run Forest Run

Jason Swaney

               Growing up in the 21^st century we are used to many careers and jobs being centered around technology and large businesses. With life’s like this, some may never get to experience or even recognize some of the natural resources that our land has to offer. To the Natural Resource students of the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point when you ask them what a forest is I’m sure you will get very similar answers, that sound like they read it straight from their NR250 text book. When the same question is asked to any other average person in the United States the answers might vary drastically. To some a forest might be what young Jenny Carron Yells to her young boy friend as he runs down the dirt road in the 1994 film Forest Gump. To a person that has grown up in down town Chicago their whole life a forest might be all the trees in Millennium Park and the surrounding area that they see day in and day out. I myself view a forest as a tool, a tool that we can manage to achieve a variety goals ranging from managing the forest for timber productions to make a profit all the way to creating the most scenic areas to take a walk with your family. No matter what your interests with the forests resource or even if you really know what a forest is, everyone is affected by forests. Whether it be the person who enjoys going horse bike riding through the public forested trails, the hunter that sets their climbing stand in a nice full grown oak, or someone that enjoys looking at the urban forestry scenery while walking on State Street in downtown Madison, they all have a some type of respect and appreciation to the resource.  With realizing that so many people have some type of everyday connection with forests and that forests have somewhat been integrated into the American culture, I believe that it is our responsibility to manage the land to keep all these forest centered hobbies and even just opportunity of utilizing the resource like we have for years around for others to enjoy.

               Wisconsin is a great place to experience all the different positive recreational and financial benefits of a forest. Wisconsin contains 2,362,847 acres of County Forests land and many different State Forests lands that are open to the public. With easy accessibility to millions of forested land it makes it very convenient to avid forest enthusiast or even a person that wants to give the outdoors a try to come and experience it firsthand. The reason that I have an interest in natural resources and forestry is that all my hobbies are done outside in those types of areas and I find it very interesting to build a career around that whether it’s protecting those resources or managing them to make a living. No matter what your interest with the forest or even natural resources I believe we all have a certain respect and attitude towards it that in the end contain the same goal. So I challenge you to keep you positive attitude and passion for the forest, because just like Jenny Carron in Forest Gump no matter what happens we will all love Forest.