Jake Koebernik
2/23/2011
Tournament Angling Affecting Largemouth Bass
Fishing is one of the most popular hobbies in America. It is by far my favorite sport and I spend most of the summer tournament fishing for bass. For those that do not know, the object of a bass tournament is to catch five bass and weigh them in at the end of the tournament. The goal is for your five bass to weigh more than anyone else’s catch. The fish usually must be fourteen inches or larger, depending on what lake the tournament takes place. The individual who weighs in the five heaviest bass is the winner. During the tournament, when a fisherman catches a bass and it is of legal size, the bass is placed in a livewell. A livewell is a holding tank on the boat that circulates fresh water and oxygen to keep the fish alive and healthy. Livewells have come a long way in keeping the fish as healthy as possible, but there is a new threat to largemouth bass and tournament anglers.
In 1991 the Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV) was found in Lake Weir, Florida. Then four years later, a fish kill of approximately 1,000 fish occurred in a South Carolina lake infected with LMBV. Now the virus has spread all across the Eastern United States and has come as far north as Wisconsin. The virus is spread by largemouth bass coming in close contact with each other, and this occurs during every bass tournament while the fish are in the livewell. The bass can be in the livewell for the duration of the tournament, possibly up to eight hours. This gives ample time for the virus to infect the healthy bass that are in the same livewell. When the virus infects a fish, the fish will be fatigued, weak, and has the potential of death. Not all bass that become infected die but many do, especially the older, larger fish. Studies have shown that largemouth bass are the only species affected by this virus, which is interesting to me. How can a virus specifically affect one species when there are so many other fish species, including a very close relative of the largemouth, the smallmouth bass? As I already mentioned, the virus is relatively new and studies are still being done to learn more about the physiology and effects of infected bass.
This virus truly scares me. I love to bass fish and don’t want to see huge numbers of bass dying because of tournament fishing. However, there are some solutions on the horizon to elude this problem causing virus. For some of the larger tournaments in the Southern United States the tournament format has changed. Instead of keeping fish in the livewell all day until the weigh in, there are “marshals” that ride along with the fisherman and record what they caught. After the fish is recorded, it is immediately released. This is a great way to avoid spreading the disease, but there are so many smaller tournaments across the U.S. that doing this for every tournament would be impossible. Another way to avoid this problem is to have “big bass” tournaments, where the angler brings in one fish to the scale, it being the biggest fish they caught. This type of tournament is becoming more popular across the country. The only way to hinder the spread of this virus is to keep the health of the fish and fishery in mind when fishing or boating. Hopefully LMBV will be controlled better in the future with the cooperation of anglers and tournament directors, while educating the public on the issue.
References:
“Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV) and Its Effects on Largemouth Bass Resources in Florida.” Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 23 Feb. 2011. http://research.myfwc.com.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Complex Issues
Complex Issues in a Complex World
Emily Kermath
2/24/2010
Today the concept of global climate change is widely accepted. Even though some are still skeptical of the cause of this change, the observations and data showing the severity of these changes are undeniable. Melting ice caps, being the most severe change, cause the ocean levels to rise which lead to numerous problems including an altering habitat for arctic species, increase in extreme weather conditions such as tropical storms, and death of coral reefs. When educating the public on this issue the polar bear is often the mascot. The polar bear serves as a great representative for global warming because it possesses characteristics that attract public interest such as being powerful, unique, and playful. However, many species are suffering an equal amount but do not share the spotlight. In addition, only focusing on one species fails to show the devastation occurring as a whole ecosystem.
Due to low species diversity and complex trophic levels, the Arctic ecosystem is highly fragile. For example the polar bear is at the top of the food chain and depends almost solely on ringed seals for nutrition. These seals depend on the ice for survival, particularly for raising their young. A decrease in ringed seal populations force polar bears to scavenge for alternative food sources. Typically these alternatives do not contain the fat content required by polar bears to survive.
At the bottom of the trophic level are microscopic species that actually live in the ice. Bacteria, fungi, algae and other single and multi-celled organisms all depend on the ice for habitat and in turn create the basis for all other life in the arctic. Krill, along with other small organisms, feed heavily on these ice dwelling species. In addition to decreased food availability, melting ice caps produce more acidic seawater which prevents krill and other types of plankton from fully growing their shells. Therefore, the disappearance of ice creates a detrimental cascade along all trophic levels.
Again while a small few still may not agree that humans are the cause for global climate change, I am among the ones that do. And I am thankful for the support and awareness polar bears gather by serving as the poster child for global warming. It is incredibly worrisome to me that while the polar bears are starving before our eyes we continue to live our lives with no true regard for their survival. For example when new species are listed under the endangered species act critical habitats are established because it is recognized that a species cannot be preserved without the habitat in which it lives. Therefore, once a critical habitat is established it is illegal to “take” or in other words harm that species or its habitat. The polar bear, however, failed to receive this important element of protecting an endangered species. This is due to public interest and not biology. Almost everything we do in our everyday life is the direct cause of harm to the polar bear and its fellow arctic compatriots. Just by driving a car we would be violating the act.
Our desire to continue the lifestyle we live is causing other types of threats to the arctic other than loss of species. The melting ice caps have created more accessible arctic waters allowing multiple industries to expand from fishing, to oil drilling and gas development, and shipping. These are creating new international dilemmas because several countries have access to these areas. Pollution from these new developments and potential oil spills are now an additional threat to the already burdened arctic species. I guarantee these human related issues will be addressed more enthusiastically even though they are secondary results to a larger problem.
Obviously I don’t think driving or using electricity should be made illegal tomorrow in order to save this fragile ecosystem- there would be riots in the street. However, I think people need to realize the severity of our lifestyles and the implications our decisions have even if we cannot directly see them. Additionally we need a new way to educate people about this issue in a more holistic way.
Barcott, B. (2011, February). Retrieved February 2011, from On Earth: http://www.onearth.org/article/arctic-fever
Emily Kermath
2/24/2010
Today the concept of global climate change is widely accepted. Even though some are still skeptical of the cause of this change, the observations and data showing the severity of these changes are undeniable. Melting ice caps, being the most severe change, cause the ocean levels to rise which lead to numerous problems including an altering habitat for arctic species, increase in extreme weather conditions such as tropical storms, and death of coral reefs. When educating the public on this issue the polar bear is often the mascot. The polar bear serves as a great representative for global warming because it possesses characteristics that attract public interest such as being powerful, unique, and playful. However, many species are suffering an equal amount but do not share the spotlight. In addition, only focusing on one species fails to show the devastation occurring as a whole ecosystem.
Due to low species diversity and complex trophic levels, the Arctic ecosystem is highly fragile. For example the polar bear is at the top of the food chain and depends almost solely on ringed seals for nutrition. These seals depend on the ice for survival, particularly for raising their young. A decrease in ringed seal populations force polar bears to scavenge for alternative food sources. Typically these alternatives do not contain the fat content required by polar bears to survive.
At the bottom of the trophic level are microscopic species that actually live in the ice. Bacteria, fungi, algae and other single and multi-celled organisms all depend on the ice for habitat and in turn create the basis for all other life in the arctic. Krill, along with other small organisms, feed heavily on these ice dwelling species. In addition to decreased food availability, melting ice caps produce more acidic seawater which prevents krill and other types of plankton from fully growing their shells. Therefore, the disappearance of ice creates a detrimental cascade along all trophic levels.
Again while a small few still may not agree that humans are the cause for global climate change, I am among the ones that do. And I am thankful for the support and awareness polar bears gather by serving as the poster child for global warming. It is incredibly worrisome to me that while the polar bears are starving before our eyes we continue to live our lives with no true regard for their survival. For example when new species are listed under the endangered species act critical habitats are established because it is recognized that a species cannot be preserved without the habitat in which it lives. Therefore, once a critical habitat is established it is illegal to “take” or in other words harm that species or its habitat. The polar bear, however, failed to receive this important element of protecting an endangered species. This is due to public interest and not biology. Almost everything we do in our everyday life is the direct cause of harm to the polar bear and its fellow arctic compatriots. Just by driving a car we would be violating the act.
Our desire to continue the lifestyle we live is causing other types of threats to the arctic other than loss of species. The melting ice caps have created more accessible arctic waters allowing multiple industries to expand from fishing, to oil drilling and gas development, and shipping. These are creating new international dilemmas because several countries have access to these areas. Pollution from these new developments and potential oil spills are now an additional threat to the already burdened arctic species. I guarantee these human related issues will be addressed more enthusiastically even though they are secondary results to a larger problem.
Obviously I don’t think driving or using electricity should be made illegal tomorrow in order to save this fragile ecosystem- there would be riots in the street. However, I think people need to realize the severity of our lifestyles and the implications our decisions have even if we cannot directly see them. Additionally we need a new way to educate people about this issue in a more holistic way.
Barcott, B. (2011, February). Retrieved February 2011, from On Earth: http://www.onearth.org/article/arctic-fever
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Time for Quality Management
Ryan Rodenkirch
2/25/11
Time for Quality Management
If you are a Wisconsin deer hunter of any sort you know what I’m talking about when I say quality management. What this means, for those that do not know, is the idea of letting animals reach maturity before they are harvested, which rids the population of any individual not suitable for breeding. This is an idea that many hunters have begun to self impose with a goal of trying to increase the abundance of animals as well as average age, due to these factors not existing over the last decade. In order to have a management technique Wisconsin deer hunters need to learn one important thing, they can’t harvest every deer they see year after year and expect the population to remain constant. This then in turn allows hunters to start playing the blame game by accusing the DNR of allowing too many permits or due to the growing number of wolves now residing in Wisconsin. Now, I do feel both of these factors play into the low density of deer, but hunters have played the greatest role which is evident by the number of deer harvested annually.
Hunters now need to come together and be part of a conservation era where hunters learn to only harvest animals that have reached their peak maturity. By doing so it will ensure that this population of animals is around for future generations to use as well. Techniques for management should be started exactly where we find our Wisconsin deer herd right now, relatively low in numbers, but ready to rebound. This idea of management is the right idea because the numbers are seen as in check, which is referred to as a 1:1 buck to doe ratio. Having a ratio like this allows for the population to be manipulated in a way that best benefits the animals as well as for human recreation. I personally feel this is a little low and that a greater amount of benefits could be achieved by even a slight increase of 2:1 or even 3:1, especially since every hunter is after the deer with the largest amount of head gear but will still harvest females readily.
Since the beginning of January 2011 our State Department of Natural Resources has begun their all important herd study outside of known Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) areas. This study is based around two different cities, Winter and Shawano, which both happen to be found in the north woods where deer experience the roughest environmental conditions. The goal for this study is to radio collar males to determine movement patterns throughout the year and then to determine average age upon harvest. They will also be capturing females to vaginally implant transmitters to examine birthing periods and fawn mortality. As a critic of the DNR since the start of the CWD era I find this as a huge improvement to the techniques they are using and their overall goal for a healthy Wisconsin herd. As a group Wisconsin deer hunters can feel satisfied in knowing that our opinions were heard, but now it’s time to put it into action and begin the quality management.
2/25/11
Time for Quality Management
If you are a Wisconsin deer hunter of any sort you know what I’m talking about when I say quality management. What this means, for those that do not know, is the idea of letting animals reach maturity before they are harvested, which rids the population of any individual not suitable for breeding. This is an idea that many hunters have begun to self impose with a goal of trying to increase the abundance of animals as well as average age, due to these factors not existing over the last decade. In order to have a management technique Wisconsin deer hunters need to learn one important thing, they can’t harvest every deer they see year after year and expect the population to remain constant. This then in turn allows hunters to start playing the blame game by accusing the DNR of allowing too many permits or due to the growing number of wolves now residing in Wisconsin. Now, I do feel both of these factors play into the low density of deer, but hunters have played the greatest role which is evident by the number of deer harvested annually.
Hunters now need to come together and be part of a conservation era where hunters learn to only harvest animals that have reached their peak maturity. By doing so it will ensure that this population of animals is around for future generations to use as well. Techniques for management should be started exactly where we find our Wisconsin deer herd right now, relatively low in numbers, but ready to rebound. This idea of management is the right idea because the numbers are seen as in check, which is referred to as a 1:1 buck to doe ratio. Having a ratio like this allows for the population to be manipulated in a way that best benefits the animals as well as for human recreation. I personally feel this is a little low and that a greater amount of benefits could be achieved by even a slight increase of 2:1 or even 3:1, especially since every hunter is after the deer with the largest amount of head gear but will still harvest females readily.
Since the beginning of January 2011 our State Department of Natural Resources has begun their all important herd study outside of known Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) areas. This study is based around two different cities, Winter and Shawano, which both happen to be found in the north woods where deer experience the roughest environmental conditions. The goal for this study is to radio collar males to determine movement patterns throughout the year and then to determine average age upon harvest. They will also be capturing females to vaginally implant transmitters to examine birthing periods and fawn mortality. As a critic of the DNR since the start of the CWD era I find this as a huge improvement to the techniques they are using and their overall goal for a healthy Wisconsin herd. As a group Wisconsin deer hunters can feel satisfied in knowing that our opinions were heard, but now it’s time to put it into action and begin the quality management.
Where is Deer Hunting Headed?
Kris Korn
Wednesday February 23, 2011
Where is deer hunting headed…?
Seeing most of us in the state, and especially at this college, are such avid deer hunters, it makes me wonder what other people feel about how the state runs the hunting system. One of the biggest things I notice is how we have yet to find the right way of holding different seasons with different restrictions, and people’s pointless opinions and the right way to do things. Most of us learned to hunt from our fathers, and they learned it from theirs, but today, we are facing some critical turning points. With such an outrage over the DNR’s “miscalculated” herd totals, we all feel a little different about how things are run. With the earn-a-buck system, it’s clear that the DNR wants to reduce the doe population, but according to those that I’ve spoken with, there aren’t any doe “like there used to be”, and Wisconsin has been regulating deer hunting long enough to have it figured out by now.
Wisconsin has revenue of almost $1 Billion every year from deer hunting (http://www.ehow.com/about_6648043_history-deer-hunting-wisconsin.html), yet they fail to listen to those who spend the most time out in the woods. The hunters of the state spend an astounding amount of time hunting, and for people to say they haven’t seen deer in a few years is alarming. It makes us wonder if there is more to the issue then the DNR is telling us.
I understand that the DNR has the scientific evidence on the spread of CWD, and I think we all agree that it is a serious issue with the possibility of getting out of control, but to have an organization that is funded on such a large scale make errors calculating the deer totals, how do we know that what they have told us so far is right? I don’t think that those who pass on participating in such a strong state tradition understand all the issues going on with deer hunting, and really could care less how they feel. But for those of us who would like to pass our hunting knowledge down to our own kids some day, we realize that unless hunters do something, hunting could be gone completely.
We face enough issues with losing deer to CWD, more complicated hunting seasons, and loss of hunting land that we don’t need any from those who feel that hunting is immoral, violent, and animalistic. If you don’t like hunting, too bad, get over it, and be thankful that such a long running tradition provided such substantial money for the pointless things you want to do.
Wednesday February 23, 2011
Where is deer hunting headed…?
Seeing most of us in the state, and especially at this college, are such avid deer hunters, it makes me wonder what other people feel about how the state runs the hunting system. One of the biggest things I notice is how we have yet to find the right way of holding different seasons with different restrictions, and people’s pointless opinions and the right way to do things. Most of us learned to hunt from our fathers, and they learned it from theirs, but today, we are facing some critical turning points. With such an outrage over the DNR’s “miscalculated” herd totals, we all feel a little different about how things are run. With the earn-a-buck system, it’s clear that the DNR wants to reduce the doe population, but according to those that I’ve spoken with, there aren’t any doe “like there used to be”, and Wisconsin has been regulating deer hunting long enough to have it figured out by now.
Wisconsin has revenue of almost $1 Billion every year from deer hunting (http://www.ehow.com/about_6648043_history-deer-hunting-wisconsin.html), yet they fail to listen to those who spend the most time out in the woods. The hunters of the state spend an astounding amount of time hunting, and for people to say they haven’t seen deer in a few years is alarming. It makes us wonder if there is more to the issue then the DNR is telling us.
I understand that the DNR has the scientific evidence on the spread of CWD, and I think we all agree that it is a serious issue with the possibility of getting out of control, but to have an organization that is funded on such a large scale make errors calculating the deer totals, how do we know that what they have told us so far is right? I don’t think that those who pass on participating in such a strong state tradition understand all the issues going on with deer hunting, and really could care less how they feel. But for those of us who would like to pass our hunting knowledge down to our own kids some day, we realize that unless hunters do something, hunting could be gone completely.
We face enough issues with losing deer to CWD, more complicated hunting seasons, and loss of hunting land that we don’t need any from those who feel that hunting is immoral, violent, and animalistic. If you don’t like hunting, too bad, get over it, and be thankful that such a long running tradition provided such substantial money for the pointless things you want to do.
Managed Forest Law
Fred Freeman
NR 320
Managed Forest Law
Managed Forest Law, also known as MFL, is a program designed to promote good forestry management. The incentive to enroll in the program comes in the form of reduced property taxes. Whether you enter MFL Open or MFL Closed along with your current property tax rate, determines the exact tax reduction. Managed Forest Law Open reduces taxes about seven dollars per acre per year, while Managed Forest Law Closed reduces one or two dollars per acre per year. However, being entered into MFL Open requires the land owner to allow public recreation such as hunting, fishing, site seeing, hiking, and cross country skiing in addition to the other requirements. Prior to all harvests, a cutting notice must be submitted to the DNR and a cutting report after. Also, yield taxes must be paid on all timber sold. This tax is based on timber volume and current DNR rates. All timber harvests must be done within a few years of the plans set date. Not following the management program submitted will result in expulsion from the program.
The program can be terminated before the end of the determined period; however a withdrawal form must be submitted to the DNR. After terminating any contract early, all tax reductions from previous years must be paid in full along with an additional three hundred dollar fee. If any land entered into the Managed Forest Law is sold, the contract still stands.
The benefits of enrolling in an MFL plan are quite basic. A land owner can save money on his or her property taxes, and the land will be managed by a professional forester. Furthermore, the owner can give input into the land management goals, cut firewood, and implement salvage cuts in response to natural events such as a strong winds or insect infestation.
However, there are some negative sides to entering into the MFL as well. Logging can’t be done outside of the plan. This means that even if the log prices go up or the land owner enters into an economic crisis, he or she still cannot cut until the scheduled date. A special yield tax needs to be paid after any logging. The contract transfers with ownership; this is important to remember because this could reduce the property value in some potential buyers’ eyes. Also, a certified plan writer will have to be paid to check the land and write the management plan, plus withdrawal from the program cost money.
The pros and cons of the MFL system change depending on every situation. Land value, land use, timber value, tax rates as well as the owner’s personal beliefs and goals should all be considered when deciding to enter.
Joe Grapa, a certified forester
"Managed Forest Law - Division of Forestry - WDNR." Welcome to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Website... Web. 10 Feb. 2011..
NR 320
Managed Forest Law
Managed Forest Law, also known as MFL, is a program designed to promote good forestry management. The incentive to enroll in the program comes in the form of reduced property taxes. Whether you enter MFL Open or MFL Closed along with your current property tax rate, determines the exact tax reduction. Managed Forest Law Open reduces taxes about seven dollars per acre per year, while Managed Forest Law Closed reduces one or two dollars per acre per year. However, being entered into MFL Open requires the land owner to allow public recreation such as hunting, fishing, site seeing, hiking, and cross country skiing in addition to the other requirements. Prior to all harvests, a cutting notice must be submitted to the DNR and a cutting report after. Also, yield taxes must be paid on all timber sold. This tax is based on timber volume and current DNR rates. All timber harvests must be done within a few years of the plans set date. Not following the management program submitted will result in expulsion from the program.
The program can be terminated before the end of the determined period; however a withdrawal form must be submitted to the DNR. After terminating any contract early, all tax reductions from previous years must be paid in full along with an additional three hundred dollar fee. If any land entered into the Managed Forest Law is sold, the contract still stands.
The benefits of enrolling in an MFL plan are quite basic. A land owner can save money on his or her property taxes, and the land will be managed by a professional forester. Furthermore, the owner can give input into the land management goals, cut firewood, and implement salvage cuts in response to natural events such as a strong winds or insect infestation.
However, there are some negative sides to entering into the MFL as well. Logging can’t be done outside of the plan. This means that even if the log prices go up or the land owner enters into an economic crisis, he or she still cannot cut until the scheduled date. A special yield tax needs to be paid after any logging. The contract transfers with ownership; this is important to remember because this could reduce the property value in some potential buyers’ eyes. Also, a certified plan writer will have to be paid to check the land and write the management plan, plus withdrawal from the program cost money.
The pros and cons of the MFL system change depending on every situation. Land value, land use, timber value, tax rates as well as the owner’s personal beliefs and goals should all be considered when deciding to enter.
Joe Grapa, a certified forester
"Managed Forest Law - Division of Forestry - WDNR." Welcome to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Website... Web. 10 Feb. 2011.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Bats and White Nose Syndrome
Krishun Karau
02-23-2011
References:
Bat Conservation International Website
Wisconsin DNR Website
Wisconsin Bat Monitoring Program Website
Wisconsin Bats Are Soon To Be Under Attack
Bats across the nation are in danger and the perilous path of White Nose Syndrome is making its way towards Wisconsin populations. Many of our winged friends are falling victim to this lethal fungus that forms on the faces of hibernating bats. WNS was first discovered in New York in 2006 and has spread to 16 other states since then, and Canada as well. It’s been reported that mortality rates have reached numbers close to 100% in some infected caves.
An unfortunate and often ignorant retort from many people is “Yeah, who cares?” And to that I say “many people actually, myself included, lots of animals and plants, and you should too!” Of course it’s no secret that bats have received a bad rep from years of media portrayal as evil doers in horror flicks; then there’s the common misconception that they all carry rabies; and don’t forget the “ew factor” because let’s face it, these guys aren’t exactly the most cute and cuddly things in the world. I’m not going to dance around it, I find many of the species to be ugly as sin, but that’s not the point.
The point is that these animals are amazing and unique. They are the only mammals capable of true flight, they use echolocation to call to each other and find prey, and they can alter their physiology to insane measures to survive in the winter; greatly dropping their body temperatures and delaying their fertilization.
Bats are also essential to their ecosystems. They play a huge role in insect control. Not just pesky mosquitoes that plague our daily lives but detrimental pests that have the potential to destroy agricultural crops as well. In fact just one little brown bat, which happens to be native to Wisconsin, can consume over 1000 bugs in a single hour. Some bats also help pollinate plants, and others aid in seed dispersal.
Even the famed vampire bat has its beneficial uses. The anticoagulant found in its saliva has been used in many medical treatments all over the world!
Also to clear up some confusion about bats and rabies, let it be known that most bats do not carry rabies and a majority of deaths that result from rabies each year are usually do to contact with infected dogs. According to Bat Conservation International “In the United States from 1995 through 2009, an average of two people per year have died of rabies associated with bats”.
Clearly bats do a great deal for us and the environment, and they are in trouble and need our help. Especially in right here in Wisconsin, which has the largest concentration of bats in the upper Midwest. Our DNR has listed four of our cave dwelling species as threatened species and has also listed the fungus that causes WNS as a “prohibited invasive species”. These listings have been implemented in hopes to control possible transport of the fungus, monitor bat caves that have been infected or the potential to become infected, and take action if need be.
The Wisconsin DNR has also suggested several ways that you can help! Build a bat house! Volunteer to take part in acoustic bat house monitoring! Contact the Wisconsin Bat Program if you know of an area were larger numbers of bats exist! See a more extensive list at the Wisconsin Bat Monitoring Program Website; http://wiatri.net/inventory/bats/index.cfm.
02-23-2011
References:
Bat Conservation International Website
Wisconsin DNR Website
Wisconsin Bat Monitoring Program Website
Wisconsin Bats Are Soon To Be Under Attack
Bats across the nation are in danger and the perilous path of White Nose Syndrome is making its way towards Wisconsin populations. Many of our winged friends are falling victim to this lethal fungus that forms on the faces of hibernating bats. WNS was first discovered in New York in 2006 and has spread to 16 other states since then, and Canada as well. It’s been reported that mortality rates have reached numbers close to 100% in some infected caves.
An unfortunate and often ignorant retort from many people is “Yeah, who cares?” And to that I say “many people actually, myself included, lots of animals and plants, and you should too!” Of course it’s no secret that bats have received a bad rep from years of media portrayal as evil doers in horror flicks; then there’s the common misconception that they all carry rabies; and don’t forget the “ew factor” because let’s face it, these guys aren’t exactly the most cute and cuddly things in the world. I’m not going to dance around it, I find many of the species to be ugly as sin, but that’s not the point.
The point is that these animals are amazing and unique. They are the only mammals capable of true flight, they use echolocation to call to each other and find prey, and they can alter their physiology to insane measures to survive in the winter; greatly dropping their body temperatures and delaying their fertilization.
Bats are also essential to their ecosystems. They play a huge role in insect control. Not just pesky mosquitoes that plague our daily lives but detrimental pests that have the potential to destroy agricultural crops as well. In fact just one little brown bat, which happens to be native to Wisconsin, can consume over 1000 bugs in a single hour. Some bats also help pollinate plants, and others aid in seed dispersal.
Even the famed vampire bat has its beneficial uses. The anticoagulant found in its saliva has been used in many medical treatments all over the world!
Also to clear up some confusion about bats and rabies, let it be known that most bats do not carry rabies and a majority of deaths that result from rabies each year are usually do to contact with infected dogs. According to Bat Conservation International “In the United States from 1995 through 2009, an average of two people per year have died of rabies associated with bats”.
Clearly bats do a great deal for us and the environment, and they are in trouble and need our help. Especially in right here in Wisconsin, which has the largest concentration of bats in the upper Midwest. Our DNR has listed four of our cave dwelling species as threatened species and has also listed the fungus that causes WNS as a “prohibited invasive species”. These listings have been implemented in hopes to control possible transport of the fungus, monitor bat caves that have been infected or the potential to become infected, and take action if need be.
The Wisconsin DNR has also suggested several ways that you can help! Build a bat house! Volunteer to take part in acoustic bat house monitoring! Contact the Wisconsin Bat Program if you know of an area were larger numbers of bats exist! See a more extensive list at the Wisconsin Bat Monitoring Program Website; http://wiatri.net/inventory/bats/index.cfm.
Who Will Speak for Natural Resources?
Lauren Casterline
February 22nd, 2011
Who Will Speak For Natural Resources?
Everyone by now has heard of the bill Scott Walker has passed. Some of us may have even partook in the protest on campus or possibly in Madison. It has been inspiring to see such large groups of people come together for a cause and get their voices heard.
Clearly Wisconsin’s people have shown that if there is an issue on which they care about they will speak. But I am a bit saddened. There is an uproar right now concerning pensions, healthcare, and other benefits: essentially $$$. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the public employees that may be impacted. Those are very important issues for the welfare of the public and I have no intention of belittling the people affected. But on issues that affect the natural resources, I feel we generally stay quite quiet. Where are the protests for protection of our wetlands? Where was the voice against lax pollution protocol for businesses? Where are our political investments into sustainability?
I feel many people don't get passionate about these issues because they are not educated, not directly affected, and are not informed. First, many people don't know what is going on in the world of natural resources.We have been privileged to go to a green college that has been highly involved in natural resources and therefore have had access to insightful information on issues people don't even know about. For example, many people don't care about wetlands. They don't understand the importance of what wetlands provide: water filtration and purification and unique plants and wildlife (of just some to mention). Another reason people don't get involved is because they often are not directly involved with these issues. If the source is not in someones back yard, it is not their problem. People do not understand the importance of conservation and preservation. Also, it may not be an imminent problem. For example, it is cheaper at first to create a coal plant instead of a renewable energy plant. Sometimes, it is easier for people to lean towards the easy fix, then putting the time and money in for the later, more sustainable rewards. Lastly, people are not informed of the issues at hand. How many other controversial proposed bills can you recall besides the current collective bargaining bill? If the media doesn't report on the bill, most people are never informed on them, thus some bills get passed with little knowledge to the public.
Natural resources doesn't have a union to support them. They don't have a representative. They only rely on the voice of the people, of us! Where is our voice? Where is our initiative to find out what bills are being passed that will pollute our air, destroy habitats, and poison our waters? It's time for us natural resource majors to become political, because the air, the water, the fauna and flora, they cannot fight for their rights. We are the ones educated on the importance of these things. Now it is our turn to spread the word and pay attention to the bills being proposed and be vocal.
Great organizations that provide professional information on natural resources:
1. The Wildlife Society
2. American Water Resource Association
3. American Fisheries Society
4. Society of American Forestry
Useful sights to look up and read bills:
1. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ : Bills in Wisconsin
2. http://thomas.loc.gov/ : Federal bills
February 22nd, 2011
Who Will Speak For Natural Resources?
Everyone by now has heard of the bill Scott Walker has passed. Some of us may have even partook in the protest on campus or possibly in Madison. It has been inspiring to see such large groups of people come together for a cause and get their voices heard.
Clearly Wisconsin’s people have shown that if there is an issue on which they care about they will speak. But I am a bit saddened. There is an uproar right now concerning pensions, healthcare, and other benefits: essentially $$$. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the public employees that may be impacted. Those are very important issues for the welfare of the public and I have no intention of belittling the people affected. But on issues that affect the natural resources, I feel we generally stay quite quiet. Where are the protests for protection of our wetlands? Where was the voice against lax pollution protocol for businesses? Where are our political investments into sustainability?
I feel many people don't get passionate about these issues because they are not educated, not directly affected, and are not informed. First, many people don't know what is going on in the world of natural resources.We have been privileged to go to a green college that has been highly involved in natural resources and therefore have had access to insightful information on issues people don't even know about. For example, many people don't care about wetlands. They don't understand the importance of what wetlands provide: water filtration and purification and unique plants and wildlife (of just some to mention). Another reason people don't get involved is because they often are not directly involved with these issues. If the source is not in someones back yard, it is not their problem. People do not understand the importance of conservation and preservation. Also, it may not be an imminent problem. For example, it is cheaper at first to create a coal plant instead of a renewable energy plant. Sometimes, it is easier for people to lean towards the easy fix, then putting the time and money in for the later, more sustainable rewards. Lastly, people are not informed of the issues at hand. How many other controversial proposed bills can you recall besides the current collective bargaining bill? If the media doesn't report on the bill, most people are never informed on them, thus some bills get passed with little knowledge to the public.
Natural resources doesn't have a union to support them. They don't have a representative. They only rely on the voice of the people, of us! Where is our voice? Where is our initiative to find out what bills are being passed that will pollute our air, destroy habitats, and poison our waters? It's time for us natural resource majors to become political, because the air, the water, the fauna and flora, they cannot fight for their rights. We are the ones educated on the importance of these things. Now it is our turn to spread the word and pay attention to the bills being proposed and be vocal.
Great organizations that provide professional information on natural resources:
1. The Wildlife Society
2. American Water Resource Association
3. American Fisheries Society
4. Society of American Forestry
Useful sights to look up and read bills:
1. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ : Bills in Wisconsin
2. http://thomas.loc.gov/ : Federal bills
Bass Pro/Bergstrom at Lambeau
Andrew Gadow
February 22, 2011
Should a Bass Pro Shop and Bergstrom Car Lot Be built by Lambeau Field?
There has been fair amount of conflict in the early months of 2011 about a Bass Pro Shop possibly being built in conjunction with a John Bergstrom car lot on three acres of land in close proximity to Lambeau Field off of U.S. Highway 41. This plot of land is being pushed to be developed into an economic hub around Lambeau to be named the Titletown Sports District. This plan, which began visionary development years ago, would bring jobs and economic stimulus to the area. The main goal was to develop the land around Lambeau Field with other businesses that would entice the community, boosting the local economy and create job openings for local area. This area has been delineated as a wetland which means that it falls under certain federal management standards and regulations. A bill was presented to the state legislation. The bill passed under the Republican majority Assembly Committee, giving permission to a development company to built up the wetland and develop it without proper the permits and review by the Department of Natural Resources. This was met with conflict by the Wisconsin Wetland Association as well as the Democratic side of the Assembly, who protested and demanded a review of the situation. At the end of January, after discussion by the management of Bass Pro Shop, the company decided to relinquish the possibility of development at this particular site due to the existing wetland and damages that could occur if the proposal moved forward. This decision could have been partially influenced by the media attention it received around this time as well.
This situation is quite controversial and a highly debatable topic. Most people can agree the destroying a wetland isn’t a good idea due to current scientific data about these particular ecosystems. They are important for many environmental reasons such as water quality and wildlife habitat as well as numerous other environmental benefits. If one looks at the other side of the situation, a national recession is in progress. Developing this area around an already productive area with a large community involvement could boost the local community, creating jobs as well as an economic epicenter. The federal laws require that one and a half acres of wetlands be created for every acre destroyed. If this dilemma is looked at through that perspective, the proposal does not seem like such a bad choice; however, preserving the environment and its ecosystems is another major topic receiving attention across the country.
References for this blog post were courtesy of the Green Bay Gazette Newspaper.
February 22, 2011
Should a Bass Pro Shop and Bergstrom Car Lot Be built by Lambeau Field?
There has been fair amount of conflict in the early months of 2011 about a Bass Pro Shop possibly being built in conjunction with a John Bergstrom car lot on three acres of land in close proximity to Lambeau Field off of U.S. Highway 41. This plot of land is being pushed to be developed into an economic hub around Lambeau to be named the Titletown Sports District. This plan, which began visionary development years ago, would bring jobs and economic stimulus to the area. The main goal was to develop the land around Lambeau Field with other businesses that would entice the community, boosting the local economy and create job openings for local area. This area has been delineated as a wetland which means that it falls under certain federal management standards and regulations. A bill was presented to the state legislation. The bill passed under the Republican majority Assembly Committee, giving permission to a development company to built up the wetland and develop it without proper the permits and review by the Department of Natural Resources. This was met with conflict by the Wisconsin Wetland Association as well as the Democratic side of the Assembly, who protested and demanded a review of the situation. At the end of January, after discussion by the management of Bass Pro Shop, the company decided to relinquish the possibility of development at this particular site due to the existing wetland and damages that could occur if the proposal moved forward. This decision could have been partially influenced by the media attention it received around this time as well.
This situation is quite controversial and a highly debatable topic. Most people can agree the destroying a wetland isn’t a good idea due to current scientific data about these particular ecosystems. They are important for many environmental reasons such as water quality and wildlife habitat as well as numerous other environmental benefits. If one looks at the other side of the situation, a national recession is in progress. Developing this area around an already productive area with a large community involvement could boost the local community, creating jobs as well as an economic epicenter. The federal laws require that one and a half acres of wetlands be created for every acre destroyed. If this dilemma is looked at through that perspective, the proposal does not seem like such a bad choice; however, preserving the environment and its ecosystems is another major topic receiving attention across the country.
References for this blog post were courtesy of the Green Bay Gazette Newspaper.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Coffee Confusion
Coffee Confusion
Nichole Besyk – Feb 21, 2011
A college student’s favorite part of a grocery store has to be the coffee isle. Come ‘round the corner to isle 6 and that rich, earthy aroma envelops you like a dream. But while searching for the bag you’ll take home, you are assaulted by a slew of different labels: “Organic”, “Fair-Trade”, “Shade-Grown”. What are these strange stamps on your sacks of grounds and beans? What could they possibly mean that makes these bags more expensive than the brands without the fancy labels?
Every purchase of your morning coffee is a moral statement, believe it or not. It turns out all coffee is not created equal.
Historically, all coffee was shade grown in the understory of rainforests as part of a complex functional community. Coffee comes from an evergreen shrub that is naturally intolerant of direct sunlight. This explains why it grows under a multi-layered forest canopy in nature. With the power of modern science, however, hybrid strains have been developed that grow in full sun and thus produce faster and higher yields. The use of these genetically altered plants in monoculture has caused millions of acres of land to suffer deforestation leading to soil erosion, depletion, and runoff. Since 1972, 60% of land used for coffee production has been stripped of its forest trees.
“Shade-grown” operations, however, make use of the natural ecosystem processes within which coffee originally grew. Multiple layers of tree canopy provide habitat for native bird and wildlife populations. In the meantime, the trees also fix nitrogen, participate in nutrient cycling, and mulch the forest floor with leaf litter to help retain soil moisture. In short, they actually help improve the soil instead of depleting it, as intensive monoculture operations do. Coffee may be grown among other cultivated trees and plants including fruits, vegetables, fuel wood, and medicinal plants. The biodiversity and overall health of the ecosystem is of a much higher quality than that of a “conventional” coffee plantation.
Many “shade-grown” plantations are also “organic”, meaning that plants are grown without the use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers. Chemicals may leach into local water sources, accumulate in the soil, or be released into the air causing a multitude of health and pollution problems.
The “Fair-Trade” system has to do with the social issues of coffee production and consumption. A coffee labeled with a fair trade stamp promotes fair prices and healthier working conditions for farmers. Fair trade coffee is purchased directly from a co-op of growers for a higher price than standard coffee; they are guaranteed a certain price and may be paid a higher “per-pound premium” if the market is good.
There are plenty of reasons to buy environmentally friendly organic, shade grown, or fair trade coffee. The reason that so many people don’t is due to the higher cost of these products. Quality-grown coffees may be up to three times more expensive than “conventionally” grown coffee. But if you extend your considerations while making that choice in the grocery isle, you’ll find that extra bit of money is buying you the best ingredients. You’ll be getting a higher quality, healthier product that doesn’t degrade the environment and that ensures fair treatment of its growers.
Nichole Besyk – Feb 21, 2011
A college student’s favorite part of a grocery store has to be the coffee isle. Come ‘round the corner to isle 6 and that rich, earthy aroma envelops you like a dream. But while searching for the bag you’ll take home, you are assaulted by a slew of different labels: “Organic”, “Fair-Trade”, “Shade-Grown”. What are these strange stamps on your sacks of grounds and beans? What could they possibly mean that makes these bags more expensive than the brands without the fancy labels?
Every purchase of your morning coffee is a moral statement, believe it or not. It turns out all coffee is not created equal.
Historically, all coffee was shade grown in the understory of rainforests as part of a complex functional community. Coffee comes from an evergreen shrub that is naturally intolerant of direct sunlight. This explains why it grows under a multi-layered forest canopy in nature. With the power of modern science, however, hybrid strains have been developed that grow in full sun and thus produce faster and higher yields. The use of these genetically altered plants in monoculture has caused millions of acres of land to suffer deforestation leading to soil erosion, depletion, and runoff. Since 1972, 60% of land used for coffee production has been stripped of its forest trees.
“Shade-grown” operations, however, make use of the natural ecosystem processes within which coffee originally grew. Multiple layers of tree canopy provide habitat for native bird and wildlife populations. In the meantime, the trees also fix nitrogen, participate in nutrient cycling, and mulch the forest floor with leaf litter to help retain soil moisture. In short, they actually help improve the soil instead of depleting it, as intensive monoculture operations do. Coffee may be grown among other cultivated trees and plants including fruits, vegetables, fuel wood, and medicinal plants. The biodiversity and overall health of the ecosystem is of a much higher quality than that of a “conventional” coffee plantation.
Many “shade-grown” plantations are also “organic”, meaning that plants are grown without the use of harmful pesticides and fertilizers. Chemicals may leach into local water sources, accumulate in the soil, or be released into the air causing a multitude of health and pollution problems.
The “Fair-Trade” system has to do with the social issues of coffee production and consumption. A coffee labeled with a fair trade stamp promotes fair prices and healthier working conditions for farmers. Fair trade coffee is purchased directly from a co-op of growers for a higher price than standard coffee; they are guaranteed a certain price and may be paid a higher “per-pound premium” if the market is good.
There are plenty of reasons to buy environmentally friendly organic, shade grown, or fair trade coffee. The reason that so many people don’t is due to the higher cost of these products. Quality-grown coffees may be up to three times more expensive than “conventionally” grown coffee. But if you extend your considerations while making that choice in the grocery isle, you’ll find that extra bit of money is buying you the best ingredients. You’ll be getting a higher quality, healthier product that doesn’t degrade the environment and that ensures fair treatment of its growers.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Future of Resources
Lee Rickert
February 21, 2011
The more I take upper level classes dealing with our resources and how we manage them, it seems that our story is a sad one. Our world fisheries are overharvested and nearly gone, species are outcompeting native species and radically changing ecosystems, deforestation is occurring at an ridiculous rate, we are lagging on development of “worthy” alternative energy sources, numerous species are steadily going extinct, a majority of the United States will experience water shortages in the near future, landfills are filling up, and nearly everything we do pollutes the air, water, or soil with what we discharge as waste. Discouraged yet?
The future of natural resources management has the daunting task of trying to demonstrate to the world that natural resources are important, valuable, and directly linked to us and our economy. Former Wisconsin Governor Gaylord Nelson says this:
"The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. All economic activity is dependent upon that environment and its underlying resource base of forests, water, air, soil and minerals. When the environment is finally forced to file for bankruptcy because its resource base has been polluted, degraded, decapitated and irretrievably compromised, the economy goes into bankruptcy with it. The economy is after all, just a subset with the ecological system."
This is truly a tragedy of the commons. It seems that people are not going to realize this until it has directly affected them and their pocketbook. Then people will wonder, why hasn’t anything been done? who was in charge of all this? I never knew about that! Aldo Leopold says this:
"The problem is how to bring about a striving for harmony with land among a
people many of whom have forgotten there is any such thing as land, among
whom education and culture have become almost synonymous with
landlessness."
Most Americans (and other people that live in industrialized nations) are too distanced from the environment because they live in the city. People in the city fail to see how they are affected by the environment because they have “little experience” with it. Aldo Leopold says this:
"There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace."
People in the United States fail to see how good we have it. We have clean and readily available drinking water, nourishing and sufficient food, more than reasonable housing, clothes on our backs, excellent education, and countless more blessings and opportunities! Compare that to people who have none of those things and live in true poverty and neediness! Who better to give those things than those who have excess!
February 21, 2011
The more I take upper level classes dealing with our resources and how we manage them, it seems that our story is a sad one. Our world fisheries are overharvested and nearly gone, species are outcompeting native species and radically changing ecosystems, deforestation is occurring at an ridiculous rate, we are lagging on development of “worthy” alternative energy sources, numerous species are steadily going extinct, a majority of the United States will experience water shortages in the near future, landfills are filling up, and nearly everything we do pollutes the air, water, or soil with what we discharge as waste. Discouraged yet?
The future of natural resources management has the daunting task of trying to demonstrate to the world that natural resources are important, valuable, and directly linked to us and our economy. Former Wisconsin Governor Gaylord Nelson says this:
"The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. All economic activity is dependent upon that environment and its underlying resource base of forests, water, air, soil and minerals. When the environment is finally forced to file for bankruptcy because its resource base has been polluted, degraded, decapitated and irretrievably compromised, the economy goes into bankruptcy with it. The economy is after all, just a subset with the ecological system."
This is truly a tragedy of the commons. It seems that people are not going to realize this until it has directly affected them and their pocketbook. Then people will wonder, why hasn’t anything been done? who was in charge of all this? I never knew about that! Aldo Leopold says this:
"The problem is how to bring about a striving for harmony with land among a
people many of whom have forgotten there is any such thing as land, among
whom education and culture have become almost synonymous with
landlessness."
Most Americans (and other people that live in industrialized nations) are too distanced from the environment because they live in the city. People in the city fail to see how they are affected by the environment because they have “little experience” with it. Aldo Leopold says this:
"There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace."
People in the United States fail to see how good we have it. We have clean and readily available drinking water, nourishing and sufficient food, more than reasonable housing, clothes on our backs, excellent education, and countless more blessings and opportunities! Compare that to people who have none of those things and live in true poverty and neediness! Who better to give those things than those who have excess!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The Pacific Northwest: More Harvest Restrictions, Less Funding for Timber Counties
As an employee of the U.S. Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest, I have seen the impact that the protection of the northern spotted owl has had on the economies and people of this area. Almost two decades ago the northern spotted owl was declared a threatened species. Since then millions of acres of our national forests in the Pacific Northwest have been restricted from harvest operations to save this species. Families, communities, and entire counties had their livelihoods ripped out from underneath them when these lands were locked up. Counties with high proportions of their acreage in National Forests depended on income from harvesting these lands to supplement the lack of property taxes that would have been generated if those areas were privately owned. Not only were these harvest incomes lost for the county governments, many families lost their personal incomes because they depended on the timber industry for employment.
To supplement these financial losses, temporary programs were established in 2000 to give money to counties in 41 states that were struggling to compensate for the loss in federal revenues due to the harvest restrictions. This temporary program will end in 2012, and President Obama plans to reinstate this financial support for another five years, but at a 20 percent reduction in funds.
As funding is proposed to decrease, the amount of land under harvest restrictions may increase, causing even more financial hardship for citizens of timber product dependent counties.
Even after 20 years of logging restrictions, there has been little progress towards the recovery of the northern spotted owl. In fact they may be more at risk due to the increased population of barred owls which compete against the spotted owl for food and space, and often succeed. Since two species are now competing for the same resources the barred owl may be subjected to population control, or more resources will be allocated to these species so that they each have enough habitat and food to both survive. Where will this land come from? Most likely the national forests of the Pacific Northwest. The result? Some effects we can be sure of: less income for rural counties from federal harvest revenues, more unemployment, and more financial hardship. Some effects we cannot be sure of: an increase in the northern spotted owl population.
Preserving biological diversity is a very important goal of the U.S. Forest Service but there is a line that should not be crossed. It is very easy for people outside of the affected region to rally for the protection of the northern spotted owl, as they have not seen or experienced its effects. Although logging practices in the past may not have been very sustainable there have been changes in mindset and technique to ensure more sustainable harvests. The people who depend on forest resources for their livelihoods do not want to see them destroyed, but they also do not wish for those resources to be taken away from them through preservation. I believe that the likelihood of this species making a comeback needs to be re-evaluated and compared to the reality of the financial suffering it has caused the people.
Sources of information:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Spotted-Owls-New-Nemesis.html?c=y&page=2
http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110214/NEWS02/102140303/-1/NEWSMAP
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/02/obama_budget_has_room_for_county_payments_--_but_at_lower_amount.html
To supplement these financial losses, temporary programs were established in 2000 to give money to counties in 41 states that were struggling to compensate for the loss in federal revenues due to the harvest restrictions. This temporary program will end in 2012, and President Obama plans to reinstate this financial support for another five years, but at a 20 percent reduction in funds.
As funding is proposed to decrease, the amount of land under harvest restrictions may increase, causing even more financial hardship for citizens of timber product dependent counties.
Even after 20 years of logging restrictions, there has been little progress towards the recovery of the northern spotted owl. In fact they may be more at risk due to the increased population of barred owls which compete against the spotted owl for food and space, and often succeed. Since two species are now competing for the same resources the barred owl may be subjected to population control, or more resources will be allocated to these species so that they each have enough habitat and food to both survive. Where will this land come from? Most likely the national forests of the Pacific Northwest. The result? Some effects we can be sure of: less income for rural counties from federal harvest revenues, more unemployment, and more financial hardship. Some effects we cannot be sure of: an increase in the northern spotted owl population.
Preserving biological diversity is a very important goal of the U.S. Forest Service but there is a line that should not be crossed. It is very easy for people outside of the affected region to rally for the protection of the northern spotted owl, as they have not seen or experienced its effects. Although logging practices in the past may not have been very sustainable there have been changes in mindset and technique to ensure more sustainable harvests. The people who depend on forest resources for their livelihoods do not want to see them destroyed, but they also do not wish for those resources to be taken away from them through preservation. I believe that the likelihood of this species making a comeback needs to be re-evaluated and compared to the reality of the financial suffering it has caused the people.
Sources of information:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Spotted-Owls-New-Nemesis.html?c=y&page=2
http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110214/NEWS02/102140303/-1/NEWSMAP
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/02/obama_budget_has_room_for_county_payments_--_but_at_lower_amount.html
“Reduce Poverty…Conserve Biodiversity!”
Poverty reduction through biodiversity conservation is a concept that focuses on ecotourism and natural resources-based programs to provide income for impoverished areas with the intention of creating a sustainable living environment for these communities. This may not be an idea that you have ever thought about, but I personally like that there are opportunities for me to merge both of these aspects (poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation) into a future career. It is my hope that this discussion will open your mind to the many positive differences that a career in a natural resources-related field can make for individual communities without the limitations of having to work towards the ‘bigger picture’ of world conservation.
The concept of merging biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction is supported by a multitude of government agencies, non-government organizations, and UN agencies across the world. The Nature Conservancy, The Jane Goodall Institute, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Conservation through Poverty Alleviation International (CPALI), and A Rocha are just a few well-known organizations that list goals in both sustainable living and biodiversity conservation. The Poverty and Conservation Learning Group (2010) provides a list of 141 organizations and 33 initiatives that merge poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. Ideas such as sustainable development, improvement of human well-being, environmental preservation, and conservation all seem to be common themes within these organizations’ goals. But the question is why don’t we hear more about the good being done by these many organizations to reduce poverty and conserve biodiversity?
Like with any type of project involving community participation, there are going to be challenges. Programs focusing on poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation need to have plans that are complex if there is any hope for long-term success and follow-through. However, the likely reason for not hearing about such amazing possibilities is that the work being done to reduce poverty is merely a by-product of biodiversity conservation in these organizations’ initiatives. With conservation programs that are successful, community involvement is a requirement. Without community support, conservation initiatives are doomed from the start. These organizations have found that community involvement can be used as a tool to accomplish their intended outcomes as the people are in need of income and jobs anyway. It also helps that ecotourism has become the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry in the last decade (Agrawal and Redford, 2006). Organizations such as the ones listed above have found ways to improve the lives of individual people while supporting the goals of improving the ‘bigger picture’ when it comes to biodiversity conservation. Now you should be asking yourself, as I am, what other sort of differences do we have the opportunity to make as students going into natural resources-based fields?
It seems like such an amazing opportunity to be able to help our world in more ways than just saving plants and animals. We can really make a difference for the world’s people too, and do it by using the skills we have gained as students in natural resources-related programs. I couldn’t possibly explain all of the opportunities we have, but I encourage all of you reading this blog to seek out the possibilities you have for future careers. If you are not satisfied with the difference you may be making, know that there are many opportunities to make a difference in the lives of real people. You are not limited to purely focusing on the ‘bigger picture’ when it comes to conservation. You can help the ‘bigger picture’ and see progress on an individual community scale while improving the well-being of real people. Open your mind to the possibilities. God Bless!
References:
Poverty and Conservation Learning Group. (October 2010). “Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction: who, what, and where?”. http://povertyandconservation.info/docs/20101015-PCLG_Directory_5-10-2010.pdf (Accessed on February 17, 2011)
Agrawal, A. and K. Redford (March 2006). “Poverty, development, and conservation: shooting in the dark?”. WCS Working Papers No. 26
The concept of merging biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction is supported by a multitude of government agencies, non-government organizations, and UN agencies across the world. The Nature Conservancy, The Jane Goodall Institute, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Conservation through Poverty Alleviation International (CPALI), and A Rocha are just a few well-known organizations that list goals in both sustainable living and biodiversity conservation. The Poverty and Conservation Learning Group (2010) provides a list of 141 organizations and 33 initiatives that merge poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. Ideas such as sustainable development, improvement of human well-being, environmental preservation, and conservation all seem to be common themes within these organizations’ goals. But the question is why don’t we hear more about the good being done by these many organizations to reduce poverty and conserve biodiversity?
Like with any type of project involving community participation, there are going to be challenges. Programs focusing on poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation need to have plans that are complex if there is any hope for long-term success and follow-through. However, the likely reason for not hearing about such amazing possibilities is that the work being done to reduce poverty is merely a by-product of biodiversity conservation in these organizations’ initiatives. With conservation programs that are successful, community involvement is a requirement. Without community support, conservation initiatives are doomed from the start. These organizations have found that community involvement can be used as a tool to accomplish their intended outcomes as the people are in need of income and jobs anyway. It also helps that ecotourism has become the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry in the last decade (Agrawal and Redford, 2006). Organizations such as the ones listed above have found ways to improve the lives of individual people while supporting the goals of improving the ‘bigger picture’ when it comes to biodiversity conservation. Now you should be asking yourself, as I am, what other sort of differences do we have the opportunity to make as students going into natural resources-based fields?
It seems like such an amazing opportunity to be able to help our world in more ways than just saving plants and animals. We can really make a difference for the world’s people too, and do it by using the skills we have gained as students in natural resources-related programs. I couldn’t possibly explain all of the opportunities we have, but I encourage all of you reading this blog to seek out the possibilities you have for future careers. If you are not satisfied with the difference you may be making, know that there are many opportunities to make a difference in the lives of real people. You are not limited to purely focusing on the ‘bigger picture’ when it comes to conservation. You can help the ‘bigger picture’ and see progress on an individual community scale while improving the well-being of real people. Open your mind to the possibilities. God Bless!
References:
Poverty and Conservation Learning Group. (October 2010). “Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction: who, what, and where?”. http://povertyandconservation.info/docs/20101015-PCLG_Directory_5-10-2010.pdf (Accessed on February 17, 2011)
Agrawal, A. and K. Redford (March 2006). “Poverty, development, and conservation: shooting in the dark?”. WCS Working Papers No. 26
Zoonotic Chytrid Fungus in Amphibians
The infectious disease chytridiomycosis is caused by the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. These motile zoospores form colonies in amphibians’ epidermal layer. The epidemiology of the disease is different for pre- and postmetamorphic amphibians; zoospores invade and colonize areas around larval mouthparts, reducing their ability to intake food. In adults they grow in the dermis, resulting in hyperkeratinization of the skin. In this case, mortality is caused by disruption of osmoregulation across the skin. B. dendrobatidis does not cause direct mortality in tadpoles, but as metamorphosis sets in, the frog will display the same conditions as infected adult frogs.
The chytrid fungus is the cause of worldwide amphibian decline and, in some cases, species extinction. It affects about 350 species of amphibian, and the extinction of 200 species is attributed to the disease. It originated in South Africa in the African clawed frog and for a while was localized to this region and species. In the 1960s, the disease was spread globally when this species began to be distributed for scientific research and for pets; the fungus is now found on every continent that amphibians inhabit. The African clawed frog, the Northern leopard frog, and other species serve as reservoirs for the disease.
The stream community is heavily affected once frog species have been extirpated. Algae growth increases, frog predators die off, and the entire stream foodweb is affected.
Chytridiomycosis spreads very rapidly, and it has the potential to crash an amphibian population in 4-6 months. The most highly susceptible species are those that live in higher elevations and breed and/or live in streams. The zoospores thrive at cooler temperatures, and their aquatic lifestyle allows them to be easily distributed through moving water. The most effective way for humans to prevent spreading the disease is to never put captive amphibians in the wild for release or to use as bait.
Chytridiomycosis is easily diagnosed in larval amphibians by the presence of deformed or missing mouthparts. In adults, diagnosis is done by histological examination of the digits and ventral side, the areas where the zoospores most commonly colonize. Sheddings of keratinized dermis can also be analyzed for the presence of zoospores or zoosporangia.
Unfortunately, there are no known treatments for chytridiomycosis in the wild. In the lab however, there are a few ways to treat the disease. Chloramphenicol can be applied topically, but this is absorbed into the skin so it cannot be used on animals meant for consumption. If the animal can tolerate temperatures higher than 30°C, exposure will kill the zoospores. Amphibians also have an inhibitory bacteria associated with their skin that can ward off B. dendrobatidis. This bacteria can be added to captive populations as a preventative measure against the fungus.
An interesting fact about the chytrid fungus is that it does not affect salamanders at nearly as high a rate as frogs. What I had not known was that a reason for this is may be that larval salamanders do not have the keratinized mouthparts that tadpoles do, so the fungus is not attracted to it. In the case of adult salamanders, many have terrestrial development rather than aquatic.
The chytrid fungus is the cause of worldwide amphibian decline and, in some cases, species extinction. It affects about 350 species of amphibian, and the extinction of 200 species is attributed to the disease. It originated in South Africa in the African clawed frog and for a while was localized to this region and species. In the 1960s, the disease was spread globally when this species began to be distributed for scientific research and for pets; the fungus is now found on every continent that amphibians inhabit. The African clawed frog, the Northern leopard frog, and other species serve as reservoirs for the disease.
The stream community is heavily affected once frog species have been extirpated. Algae growth increases, frog predators die off, and the entire stream foodweb is affected.
Chytridiomycosis spreads very rapidly, and it has the potential to crash an amphibian population in 4-6 months. The most highly susceptible species are those that live in higher elevations and breed and/or live in streams. The zoospores thrive at cooler temperatures, and their aquatic lifestyle allows them to be easily distributed through moving water. The most effective way for humans to prevent spreading the disease is to never put captive amphibians in the wild for release or to use as bait.
Chytridiomycosis is easily diagnosed in larval amphibians by the presence of deformed or missing mouthparts. In adults, diagnosis is done by histological examination of the digits and ventral side, the areas where the zoospores most commonly colonize. Sheddings of keratinized dermis can also be analyzed for the presence of zoospores or zoosporangia.
Unfortunately, there are no known treatments for chytridiomycosis in the wild. In the lab however, there are a few ways to treat the disease. Chloramphenicol can be applied topically, but this is absorbed into the skin so it cannot be used on animals meant for consumption. If the animal can tolerate temperatures higher than 30°C, exposure will kill the zoospores. Amphibians also have an inhibitory bacteria associated with their skin that can ward off B. dendrobatidis. This bacteria can be added to captive populations as a preventative measure against the fungus.
An interesting fact about the chytrid fungus is that it does not affect salamanders at nearly as high a rate as frogs. What I had not known was that a reason for this is may be that larval salamanders do not have the keratinized mouthparts that tadpoles do, so the fungus is not attracted to it. In the case of adult salamanders, many have terrestrial development rather than aquatic.
A Changing Art: Is it Ethical?
It used to be a string and a bowed tree limb, a sling shot, or a simple stick that came to a point that brought down big game by natives wearing nothing but a strip of animal skin as camouflage. Oh, how the game has changed. Now, there are guns that easily shoot accurately over 500+ yards, and bows that sling arrows at lightning speeds. Just as weaponry has greatly evolved, so have the various techniques of chasing game, specifically whitetail deer. I’m not talking about equipment, but rather the use of food plots and baiting.
A Land management technique for whitetails by implementing food plots on one’s land is a relatively new concept in the hunting world and has caused quite the controversy between the views of food plotters and baiters. There are plenty of arguments as to why both are negative, as well as positive. For me the choice is clear, food plots.
In Wisconsin, baiting for the use of hunting is legal in the majority of the state and I believe that they should ban it for the greater good of the sport, at least on public lands. Baiting alters natural deer habits by providing a food source that deer can quickly fill themselves with little effort. This often causes the deer to be extremely nocturnal and to reside within short distances of the food even if it is not favorable habitat. Baiting on public lands takes away from the hunters who put in a lot of time and effort scouting for a quality deer site. Regardless of the amount of sign, that hunter may never see a deer because someone else has a bait pile within close proximity, in which the deer lay low until it is dark and safely fill their stomachs with little effort. Many people feel that food plots have the same effect as baiting, I however feel differently.
Food plots are tracts of land in which a nutritional crop is planted to aid in the overall health of wildlife year round. Although the majority of food plots are planted to grow larger deer to be hunted, the crop allows for much more gain for multiple wildlife populations. Deer that are attracted to food plots have to forage around for a much longer time to get there fill, and while food plots may hold deer nearby, it provides for a much healthier herd for all surrounding properties. Deer and other wildlife are able to use food plots in a many different ways compared to the circle of corn in the middle of the woods. For one thing, that is just unnatural, and secondly, bait piles are primarily used for one objective, to kill. A food plot is just one source of nourishment that a deer can seek in an area and just like us, they like variety as well, which means they will travel. Food plots increase the health of a herd far more than a bait pile, and allows for deer to grow older and larger.
As I see it, if you want to put in the work to cultivate your land into a prime wildlife management area and put in the labor to do so, then you should be rewarded.
A Land management technique for whitetails by implementing food plots on one’s land is a relatively new concept in the hunting world and has caused quite the controversy between the views of food plotters and baiters. There are plenty of arguments as to why both are negative, as well as positive. For me the choice is clear, food plots.
In Wisconsin, baiting for the use of hunting is legal in the majority of the state and I believe that they should ban it for the greater good of the sport, at least on public lands. Baiting alters natural deer habits by providing a food source that deer can quickly fill themselves with little effort. This often causes the deer to be extremely nocturnal and to reside within short distances of the food even if it is not favorable habitat. Baiting on public lands takes away from the hunters who put in a lot of time and effort scouting for a quality deer site. Regardless of the amount of sign, that hunter may never see a deer because someone else has a bait pile within close proximity, in which the deer lay low until it is dark and safely fill their stomachs with little effort. Many people feel that food plots have the same effect as baiting, I however feel differently.
Food plots are tracts of land in which a nutritional crop is planted to aid in the overall health of wildlife year round. Although the majority of food plots are planted to grow larger deer to be hunted, the crop allows for much more gain for multiple wildlife populations. Deer that are attracted to food plots have to forage around for a much longer time to get there fill, and while food plots may hold deer nearby, it provides for a much healthier herd for all surrounding properties. Deer and other wildlife are able to use food plots in a many different ways compared to the circle of corn in the middle of the woods. For one thing, that is just unnatural, and secondly, bait piles are primarily used for one objective, to kill. A food plot is just one source of nourishment that a deer can seek in an area and just like us, they like variety as well, which means they will travel. Food plots increase the health of a herd far more than a bait pile, and allows for deer to grow older and larger.
As I see it, if you want to put in the work to cultivate your land into a prime wildlife management area and put in the labor to do so, then you should be rewarded.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Fishing for the Future
Fishing for the Future
Derek LaVigne
February 16th, 2011
Catch and release is not a complex concept to grasp. Yet the majority of anglers become frustrated when they return home from a fishing trip without success. It would be wrong of me to assume that most anglers are overharvesting, but I can confidently state that a portion of license carrying fishermen are selfishly taking advantage of these resources. Keeping a fish or a limit of fish is a matter of not only legality, but also of ethics. Any persons that purchased a fishing license is entitled to keep twice the daily bag limit of any and all fish species, given that is was not caught during a closed season and with legal harvesting tactics. This is called a possession limit, and is a difficult law to enforce. Possessing more than the possession limit is illegal, unethical, and in most cases unnecessary. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides information and warnings about safe levels of fish consumption from Wisconsin waters. A healthy diet would contain far less servings of fish than a possession limit provides, so there is no reason to horde fish fillets. Getting back to ethics, this discussion gets a little more personal. Telling someone to release a fish because it is illegal to keep is one thing, but telling them to release it because it could detriment the population is not so easy. Anglers prefer harvesting large fish because they provide more meat per fillet than smaller fish, a more sporting challenge to catch, and an opportunity for bragging rights. However, these larger fish are long lived, mature, and make up the breeding stock in most populations. Removing too many breeding age fish from any given lake can certainly send it into a downward spiral. The notion of releasing fish to maintain a balanced, healthy population is fairly new. We’ve all seen old black and white photos of people with huge stringers of fish to be eaten. These old habits die hard. Those good old days gave little thought to the future when dealing with natural resources. We have learned now that collapsing fish populations is a reality because we’ve done it all over the state in the past. A prime example of this would be the Lake Trout demise in Lake Michigan during the 1950s. The good news is that through expensive programs, strict regulations, and time we can help ‘fix’ population degradation of fish. The truth is we shouldn’t have to! By simply returning fish that we catch back to the waters where they live we can sustain or world class fishing opportunities for future generations. As time goes on and more and more water bodies are ‘ruined’ the catch and release practice will be forced to catch on. Next time you embark on a fishing adventure, take a camera to capture your catches instead of harvesting them for the fillet board. Catch and release: It will grow on you!
Derek LaVigne
February 16th, 2011
Catch and release is not a complex concept to grasp. Yet the majority of anglers become frustrated when they return home from a fishing trip without success. It would be wrong of me to assume that most anglers are overharvesting, but I can confidently state that a portion of license carrying fishermen are selfishly taking advantage of these resources. Keeping a fish or a limit of fish is a matter of not only legality, but also of ethics. Any persons that purchased a fishing license is entitled to keep twice the daily bag limit of any and all fish species, given that is was not caught during a closed season and with legal harvesting tactics. This is called a possession limit, and is a difficult law to enforce. Possessing more than the possession limit is illegal, unethical, and in most cases unnecessary. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides information and warnings about safe levels of fish consumption from Wisconsin waters. A healthy diet would contain far less servings of fish than a possession limit provides, so there is no reason to horde fish fillets. Getting back to ethics, this discussion gets a little more personal. Telling someone to release a fish because it is illegal to keep is one thing, but telling them to release it because it could detriment the population is not so easy. Anglers prefer harvesting large fish because they provide more meat per fillet than smaller fish, a more sporting challenge to catch, and an opportunity for bragging rights. However, these larger fish are long lived, mature, and make up the breeding stock in most populations. Removing too many breeding age fish from any given lake can certainly send it into a downward spiral. The notion of releasing fish to maintain a balanced, healthy population is fairly new. We’ve all seen old black and white photos of people with huge stringers of fish to be eaten. These old habits die hard. Those good old days gave little thought to the future when dealing with natural resources. We have learned now that collapsing fish populations is a reality because we’ve done it all over the state in the past. A prime example of this would be the Lake Trout demise in Lake Michigan during the 1950s. The good news is that through expensive programs, strict regulations, and time we can help ‘fix’ population degradation of fish. The truth is we shouldn’t have to! By simply returning fish that we catch back to the waters where they live we can sustain or world class fishing opportunities for future generations. As time goes on and more and more water bodies are ‘ruined’ the catch and release practice will be forced to catch on. Next time you embark on a fishing adventure, take a camera to capture your catches instead of harvesting them for the fillet board. Catch and release: It will grow on you!
Wolves in Wisconsin
Wolves in Wisconsin
Ben Cate
Feb 16, 2011
Wolves in the state of Wisconsin have been a controversial issue for many years now. Many people believe that wolves should be in Wisconsin, and many people do not. People that are in favor of the presence of wolves vary from environmental groups, educators, members of the public, and many other people who are interested and care for the environment. People who tend not to want wolves at all in the state seem to be hunters, and farmers.
I believe that wolves should be present in Wisconsin; however I think they should not be as abundant as they are. Currently there are approximately 700 wolves in WI, several hundred more than the original plan of only around 350 wolves, and most of the wolf packs occur in Northern WI where they seem to be causing the deer numbers to drop. Many people will say that the wolves only kill a small portion of the deer herd in comparison with the number of deer hunters take from the woods each year. However, a high percentage of the deer harvested come from central and southern WI with many less deer being harvested in the north, and now with the high wolf population in the north, even less deer are being seen let alone harvested. Along with the higher wolf population, increased predation on livestock and pets has also increased, causing thousands of dollars in damages.
In my opinion people who say we do not need wolves in Wisconsin are ill informed. Wolves help keep deer populations in check, which in turn leads to less over browsing of habitat. With wolves in the state, natural vegetation has a better chance of reestablishing itself in the environment, this happens because of less browse pressure. Wolves can also help to improve the genetic integrity of a population by culling the old, young, sick, and the injured individuals, which in turn lead to a healthier and more viable population. Wolves can not only help the overall health of the environment, they also provide aesthetic value. Many people just enjoy the fact that wildlife exists, and when they do travel within the wolves range they may be happy to know that wolves roam in Wisconsin, and even happier to see one.
I do believe that the state of WI should manage our wolf population in a way that makes more people happy. I think that a season on wolves would be a healthy situation for the environment, and a smart one for local economies. With a wolf season in place, the state could generate money through application fees, and license sales. Small towns in the Northern portion of the state would also stand a chance of increasing revenue through sales of hunting equipment, lodging, and other expenses involved with traveling. I do believe that wolves in Wisconsin are a good thing, however I believe we should have them in a more limited supply.
Ben Cate
Feb 16, 2011
Wolves in the state of Wisconsin have been a controversial issue for many years now. Many people believe that wolves should be in Wisconsin, and many people do not. People that are in favor of the presence of wolves vary from environmental groups, educators, members of the public, and many other people who are interested and care for the environment. People who tend not to want wolves at all in the state seem to be hunters, and farmers.
I believe that wolves should be present in Wisconsin; however I think they should not be as abundant as they are. Currently there are approximately 700 wolves in WI, several hundred more than the original plan of only around 350 wolves, and most of the wolf packs occur in Northern WI where they seem to be causing the deer numbers to drop. Many people will say that the wolves only kill a small portion of the deer herd in comparison with the number of deer hunters take from the woods each year. However, a high percentage of the deer harvested come from central and southern WI with many less deer being harvested in the north, and now with the high wolf population in the north, even less deer are being seen let alone harvested. Along with the higher wolf population, increased predation on livestock and pets has also increased, causing thousands of dollars in damages.
In my opinion people who say we do not need wolves in Wisconsin are ill informed. Wolves help keep deer populations in check, which in turn leads to less over browsing of habitat. With wolves in the state, natural vegetation has a better chance of reestablishing itself in the environment, this happens because of less browse pressure. Wolves can also help to improve the genetic integrity of a population by culling the old, young, sick, and the injured individuals, which in turn lead to a healthier and more viable population. Wolves can not only help the overall health of the environment, they also provide aesthetic value. Many people just enjoy the fact that wildlife exists, and when they do travel within the wolves range they may be happy to know that wolves roam in Wisconsin, and even happier to see one.
I do believe that the state of WI should manage our wolf population in a way that makes more people happy. I think that a season on wolves would be a healthy situation for the environment, and a smart one for local economies. With a wolf season in place, the state could generate money through application fees, and license sales. Small towns in the Northern portion of the state would also stand a chance of increasing revenue through sales of hunting equipment, lodging, and other expenses involved with traveling. I do believe that wolves in Wisconsin are a good thing, however I believe we should have them in a more limited supply.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Shed Antler Crazy
Shed Antler Crazy
Jordan Redeker
With the aroma of spring weather in the air this week, one cannot help but look forward to the change in seasons. This is especially true if you have lived anywhere in the Upper Midwest this winter where record snow falls have blanketed the landscape and sub zero temperatures have kept outdoor recreation to a minimum. A glimpse of spring has definitely gotten me excited for one of my favorite spring activities, shed hunting. Many people who know me believe I have more than a passion for shed hunting, I have an addiction!
Although most do not call the practice of picking up shed antlers a sport, it is however gaining rapid popularity. For any dedicated hunter, the season doesn’t end at the close of the late bow season. Shed hunting is merely another piece of the puzzle to the art of hunting. It is a great way to get back into the outdoors and see what kind of bucks made it through the long winter. This sport, however, is not for the faint of heart and not everyone who goes out is going to find a shed antler. Many of the people I talk to say they never seem to find a shed and that it is a waste of time, but if you take advantage of a few of the tips I am going to provide, I think you will greatly increase your odds and begin to enjoy the sport of shed hunting.
To find a shed you have to know where the deer have been, and this may require some late season scouting to know the deer are herding up for the winter. Knowing this, you should concentrate your efforts on where they are feeding, where they are bedding, and the trails between the two. Wandering aimlessly around in the woods will do you no good! I also caution against walking only the deer trails as more often than not sheds will be located off the main trails and in thicker areas of cover. Developing a grid pattern over an area will significantly increase your odds of finding one of these fallen gems. I have also found over the years that a deer will choose a spot to bed that is in the sunlight, away from the wind. This is often located on south facing slopes so keying in on these areas can be very beneficial as well.
I would say the biggest hint I can offer a “greenhorn” shed hunter or anyone who is interested in “hiking with a purpose” as some call it, is to put on as many miles in the woods as you can! The more you walk the better your odds; it’s as simple as that. I will start walking in the beginning of January and continue through the first part of April. I have become shed antler crazy and look forward to the beginning of another great shedding season! Take the time to get out and do some walking this spring, you will not regret it Happy shed hunting to all!
Jordan Redeker
With the aroma of spring weather in the air this week, one cannot help but look forward to the change in seasons. This is especially true if you have lived anywhere in the Upper Midwest this winter where record snow falls have blanketed the landscape and sub zero temperatures have kept outdoor recreation to a minimum. A glimpse of spring has definitely gotten me excited for one of my favorite spring activities, shed hunting. Many people who know me believe I have more than a passion for shed hunting, I have an addiction!
Although most do not call the practice of picking up shed antlers a sport, it is however gaining rapid popularity. For any dedicated hunter, the season doesn’t end at the close of the late bow season. Shed hunting is merely another piece of the puzzle to the art of hunting. It is a great way to get back into the outdoors and see what kind of bucks made it through the long winter. This sport, however, is not for the faint of heart and not everyone who goes out is going to find a shed antler. Many of the people I talk to say they never seem to find a shed and that it is a waste of time, but if you take advantage of a few of the tips I am going to provide, I think you will greatly increase your odds and begin to enjoy the sport of shed hunting.
To find a shed you have to know where the deer have been, and this may require some late season scouting to know the deer are herding up for the winter. Knowing this, you should concentrate your efforts on where they are feeding, where they are bedding, and the trails between the two. Wandering aimlessly around in the woods will do you no good! I also caution against walking only the deer trails as more often than not sheds will be located off the main trails and in thicker areas of cover. Developing a grid pattern over an area will significantly increase your odds of finding one of these fallen gems. I have also found over the years that a deer will choose a spot to bed that is in the sunlight, away from the wind. This is often located on south facing slopes so keying in on these areas can be very beneficial as well.
I would say the biggest hint I can offer a “greenhorn” shed hunter or anyone who is interested in “hiking with a purpose” as some call it, is to put on as many miles in the woods as you can! The more you walk the better your odds; it’s as simple as that. I will start walking in the beginning of January and continue through the first part of April. I have become shed antler crazy and look forward to the beginning of another great shedding season! Take the time to get out and do some walking this spring, you will not regret it Happy shed hunting to all!
BP Gulf Stream Effects
BP Gulf Stream Effects
By: Josh Nemec
2/14/2011
As many of you know over 2010 BP (British Petroleum) had a major oil spill in the Gulf that affect many coastal regions with oil on the beaches, shutting down marine fisheries and disrupting people’s lives. The true impacts of the oil spill are still not known and how it’s going to have an effect on the ecosystem in the long run. There has been a lot of talk on how the oil is going to affect the mangroves along the coast or the fishing community, but there has been little talk about the circulation of ocean currents.
Ocean currents are a continuous movement of ocean water generated by the forces acting upon it. Forces include things such as temperature, Coriolis Effect, salinity and tides caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Ocean currents can flow great distances and together they create a global conveyor belt which plays a dominant part in climate throughout many of Earth’s regions. One of the most striking examples is the Gulf Stream, which is a major factor in northwest Europe causing more temperate conditions than other regions at the same latitude.
But what does this have to do with the oil spill? Satellite images show that the heat transfer of the Gulf Stream is slowed and breaking apart before reaching the coast of Europe. Scientists are speculating that the bounder layer of warm and cold water is mixing because of the oil particulates in the ocean. A simple experiment with a plexiglass tub of cold water with a stream of warm water that is colored so you can see it scientists can study the bounder layer of the two water temperatures. If you add oil to that mix, what the oil does to the warm water stream in a cold water body of water it breaks the bounder layer down in doing so it basically kills the velocity of the warm stream.
Now the Gulf Stream is supposed to get all the way to Ireland and it isn’t getting there. The temperature in Europe was cooler for the early winter months. Russia seen its first snows two weeks early, Norway has had 1-2 feet of snow at the end of August which is unusual, the Alps have seen its first snows a month early. In the southern hemisphere Antarctica has been unusually cool, southern Australia has seen its coldest winter for 35 years and the sea ice in the Antarctic is close to recorded levels. This is something that can affect the whole world.
What can we do? First and foremost we need to get more data off the Gulf Stream to make decisions on how to improve its flow. As of right now there is no current game plan to restore the Gulf Stream. The only best solution that is in place right now is to leave it the way it is, in hopes that it will restore its self. This is in hope that eventually the oil particulates will disappear and that the natural systems of temperature, wind, salinity and tides will take care of our problem. The real question is what can we do in the future?
By: Josh Nemec
2/14/2011
As many of you know over 2010 BP (British Petroleum) had a major oil spill in the Gulf that affect many coastal regions with oil on the beaches, shutting down marine fisheries and disrupting people’s lives. The true impacts of the oil spill are still not known and how it’s going to have an effect on the ecosystem in the long run. There has been a lot of talk on how the oil is going to affect the mangroves along the coast or the fishing community, but there has been little talk about the circulation of ocean currents.
Ocean currents are a continuous movement of ocean water generated by the forces acting upon it. Forces include things such as temperature, Coriolis Effect, salinity and tides caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Ocean currents can flow great distances and together they create a global conveyor belt which plays a dominant part in climate throughout many of Earth’s regions. One of the most striking examples is the Gulf Stream, which is a major factor in northwest Europe causing more temperate conditions than other regions at the same latitude.
But what does this have to do with the oil spill? Satellite images show that the heat transfer of the Gulf Stream is slowed and breaking apart before reaching the coast of Europe. Scientists are speculating that the bounder layer of warm and cold water is mixing because of the oil particulates in the ocean. A simple experiment with a plexiglass tub of cold water with a stream of warm water that is colored so you can see it scientists can study the bounder layer of the two water temperatures. If you add oil to that mix, what the oil does to the warm water stream in a cold water body of water it breaks the bounder layer down in doing so it basically kills the velocity of the warm stream.
Now the Gulf Stream is supposed to get all the way to Ireland and it isn’t getting there. The temperature in Europe was cooler for the early winter months. Russia seen its first snows two weeks early, Norway has had 1-2 feet of snow at the end of August which is unusual, the Alps have seen its first snows a month early. In the southern hemisphere Antarctica has been unusually cool, southern Australia has seen its coldest winter for 35 years and the sea ice in the Antarctic is close to recorded levels. This is something that can affect the whole world.
What can we do? First and foremost we need to get more data off the Gulf Stream to make decisions on how to improve its flow. As of right now there is no current game plan to restore the Gulf Stream. The only best solution that is in place right now is to leave it the way it is, in hopes that it will restore its self. This is in hope that eventually the oil particulates will disappear and that the natural systems of temperature, wind, salinity and tides will take care of our problem. The real question is what can we do in the future?
CWD Decreasing Harvest?
Kyle Finger
2/14/11
CWD zones a factor in decreased harvest rates??
This is currently a large factor in determining if deer hunting enthusiast will partake in the following hunting seasons. There is a big issue that the deer numbers are a lot lower than what the DNR “counts” and the DNR is taking all of the blame for it. I do believe that maybe the counts are off in the deer counts every year but that is why they are called estimates. Also for the fact that the estimates are also based on how many deer are harvested and if there is a lack of honesty in the hunters and they shoot deer and don’t report them or tag a single deer several times then the counts are off due to that.
In CWD zones there is technically an unlimited harvest and some people will take full advantage of this while others will take this as an opportunity to wait for a better deer if there are more deer available. I do not think that there is a lack of deer by any means in these areas; I believe the deer are becoming more adapted to different areas and are becoming smarter about when hunting season is coming around. If there is a large amount of shooting in a particular area then the deer would obviously be smart to stay where they are unless pushed out. In CWD zones the hunt last into the early part of January and this allows hunters to harvest more deer until the DNR deems the population to a suitable level. If hunters take advantage of the lengthened deer hunt then how can they complain about when the deer numbers are low? The more activity will push the deer to another area that is less active and more of a safe zone.
Many of these areas that are considered to be CWD zones have a very low number of deer actually found to be in there. While I understand that the DNR wants to rid the woods of the CWD disease, putting some of these areas in zones and lengthening the hunt has proven not to be a popular choice with a large portion of the population. When I say this I am referring to the EAB or earn a buck regulations that have been established recently. Granted nobody is saying that the people this is affecting have to shoot a ton of deer every year but until the numbers are down nothing is going to change. This is where you get least honest people as far as deer more than once in order to get buck tags without having to wait for a doe to walk in.
Of course not all hunters have these characteristics and a large majority probably follow the rules but these are also instances that are quite practical and do occur, and I believe that CWD zones do play a part in the deer population miscounts.
2/14/11
CWD zones a factor in decreased harvest rates??
This is currently a large factor in determining if deer hunting enthusiast will partake in the following hunting seasons. There is a big issue that the deer numbers are a lot lower than what the DNR “counts” and the DNR is taking all of the blame for it. I do believe that maybe the counts are off in the deer counts every year but that is why they are called estimates. Also for the fact that the estimates are also based on how many deer are harvested and if there is a lack of honesty in the hunters and they shoot deer and don’t report them or tag a single deer several times then the counts are off due to that.
In CWD zones there is technically an unlimited harvest and some people will take full advantage of this while others will take this as an opportunity to wait for a better deer if there are more deer available. I do not think that there is a lack of deer by any means in these areas; I believe the deer are becoming more adapted to different areas and are becoming smarter about when hunting season is coming around. If there is a large amount of shooting in a particular area then the deer would obviously be smart to stay where they are unless pushed out. In CWD zones the hunt last into the early part of January and this allows hunters to harvest more deer until the DNR deems the population to a suitable level. If hunters take advantage of the lengthened deer hunt then how can they complain about when the deer numbers are low? The more activity will push the deer to another area that is less active and more of a safe zone.
Many of these areas that are considered to be CWD zones have a very low number of deer actually found to be in there. While I understand that the DNR wants to rid the woods of the CWD disease, putting some of these areas in zones and lengthening the hunt has proven not to be a popular choice with a large portion of the population. When I say this I am referring to the EAB or earn a buck regulations that have been established recently. Granted nobody is saying that the people this is affecting have to shoot a ton of deer every year but until the numbers are down nothing is going to change. This is where you get least honest people as far as deer more than once in order to get buck tags without having to wait for a doe to walk in.
Of course not all hunters have these characteristics and a large majority probably follow the rules but these are also instances that are quite practical and do occur, and I believe that CWD zones do play a part in the deer population miscounts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)