Jamie Johnson
March 30, 2011
Environmental Education: Which Side of the Fence Are You On?
Everyone believes their child should have a quality education, right? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but not everyone believes that, when it comes to environmental education. I believe that environmental education is just an important, if not more important in today’s world, than the standard reading, writing, and arithmetic that is taught in schools in grades K-12. I am a strong believer that in order for our children to grow up strong, well educated and well rounded they need to be exposed to some sort of environmental education, preferably at the youngest age possible. If you are opposed to, or in favor of environmental education, I would advise that you keep reading. Even if you don’t know about this sometimes heated debate you may want to read on to get informed about the issue. Please enjoy!
I am an environmental interpreter and educator at the Seacoast Science Center in New Hampshire. I have been working here for a little over a year now, and have found this to be one of the greatest experiences of my life. This is the job that I always dreamed of having when I was in college. The job had brought me new experiences, new friends and acquaintances, and an even greater love for the marine environment and children. All of these things are great, but as with most professions, there are some challenges to be being an environmental interpreter and educator.
I was teaching a 5th grade class a lesson about the importance of protecting the world’s coral reefs last week. Everything was going great. I was having a blast, and it seemed that most of the children were too. We were doing really fun hands on activity and everyone was getting involved and seemed to be enjoying themselves. All was going well, until one of the children raised his hands and said, “my mom and dad told me that environmental education isn’t important and that it should not be part of this school’s curriculum.” I was somewhat shocked, but at the same time I knew that some time during my career I would face a road block similar to this one. Here is where the difficult part of my career began, and I knew I would face many more situations similar to this one in the future.
Why on earth would someone tell their child that that environmental education isn’t important? The debate of environmental education is very much played out in the media. There are such critics as Rush Limbaugh, and ABC news reporter John Stossel. They, among other critics, believe that environmental education is not faced based, but based upon emotions. They feel that environmental educators use the “doom and gloom” approach to try to get people to ‘think’ that there is an environmental problem occurring. They say that environmental educators teach children that humans are a nuisance on this planet and that plants and animals are more important. This garbage that the media is feeding parents across the county is what is causing this debate. Then the parents pass this nonsense on to their children and it can seem like a never ending cycle.
I hope that this does not discourage current and/or future environmental educators or interpreters. I certainly have not let it get in my way of finding a career that I absolutely love. Each day I wake up and think about all the people, especially children that will hopefully have a positive learning experience in the out of doors. I hope you enjoyed my story and that you continue to do research to form your own opinion about this very important debate.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Food Waste Absurdity
Michael Zueger
3/29/11
Before tossing away that fruit or vegetable with one minute imperfection or piling up the buffet plate knowing that you’ll only eat a fraction of it, please reconsider for the good of everyone and the earth. This is an issue that is relatively well-known, but is in the top shelf of concerns that cannot get enough recognition. Farmers, restaurants, grocery stores, and households throw away millions of tons of food per year Food waste production in this world, especially the U.S., is mind-boggling. As if our unsustainable and exploitative mass-agricultural productions aren’t harmful enough, we somehow manage to throw away between 25% and 40% of all the food that is produced! With food waste being the third largest contributor to the waste stream (after paper and yard waste), one estimate portrays that $31 billion worth of food is discarded annually and only 3% may be recovered.
Waste is built into the system in modern days so more efficient production and distribution should be utilized. Key benefits of diversion/recovery efforts are reduced disposal and hauling costs, decreasing the amount of material sent to landfills, supporting local economy by creating and sustaining new jobs (e.g. composting facilities), improving soil properties with composting, and helping to feed the surplus of hungry people. An ideal solution is food waste prevention such as better preparation of food, portion sizes, and more closely inspecting inventories and trends in consumption.
An obvious, but quite significant argument is that we waste so much while many individuals are malnourished or starving everyday, even in America. It’s a shame the middle and higher class lifestyles must be so indulgent, exploitative, and picky on a planet that has treated us far too well for how poorly we treat and tend to care for it. Grocery stores and restaurants tend to throw away massive amounts of food rather than donate for concern of unsafe food liability (the 1996 Good Samaritan Food Donation Act addresses this). A large portion of food could be separated for a donation to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, etc. A separate section of a market for items past the sell by date or about expired at a lower cost would be great.
Another large approach is to compost or vermicompost (using worms to accelerate the process). This method can either be on-site, off-site or done in your own backyard(with that yard waste too!). On-site would be used for a smaller company or farm that would like to use it or distribute it for soil nutrients locally. I have a feeling many companies and large farms would request off-site composting facilities. This is where large productions, similar to the recycling program, can occur to create jobs, useable material, and possible methane capture (methane production/capture of composting and landfills is a whole different arena). Compost is primarily used for excellent land fertilizers and soil conditioners.
Food scraps can be made of great use for animal feed. Although certain guidelines and restrictions exist, it would be worth a little effort in education and creating procedures for stores and restaurants to do this. Food processing by-products (e.g. excess whey from cheese making) can be high in nutrients and other raw materials that would work as raw materials for edible foods and animal feed.
I personally encourage commercial (not residential!) dumpster diving and scavenging for discarded items although compactors are common enemies. It may be illegal in some areas, but there’s no reason for this waste. Expiration dates hardly mean a thing (careful of dairy and raw meats, choose wisely and carefully) and “sell by” dates are where a good amount of store waste comes from. But alas the almighty, germ fanatic human cannot have flawed or older food in any way or it will be discarded of immediately and replaced with twenty more items. If you’re fine with putting chemicals all over your body and in, while residing in a sealed, air-polluted chamber pumping yourself full of sugar and pre-packaged foods, you can handle a food item that is not at its highest quality or freshness.
Since this is an output approach technique (similar to recycling), management plans, collection methods and facilities must be developed to aid the implementation. It’s quite frustrating when people can’t do a simple task such as recycling or reusing the container the food arrives in, so I foresee a large struggle in trying to carry out food management practices. Appropriate analysis and more potential solutions for this topic would necessitate a thesis-length paper, but this nano overview may raise awareness and a desire to support the situation.
References:
http://www.wastecapwi.org/documents/foodwaste.pdf
http://californiawatch.org/health-and-welfare/food-waste-remains-persistent-problem-farms-grocery-stores-and-restaurants
3/29/11
Before tossing away that fruit or vegetable with one minute imperfection or piling up the buffet plate knowing that you’ll only eat a fraction of it, please reconsider for the good of everyone and the earth. This is an issue that is relatively well-known, but is in the top shelf of concerns that cannot get enough recognition. Farmers, restaurants, grocery stores, and households throw away millions of tons of food per year Food waste production in this world, especially the U.S., is mind-boggling. As if our unsustainable and exploitative mass-agricultural productions aren’t harmful enough, we somehow manage to throw away between 25% and 40% of all the food that is produced! With food waste being the third largest contributor to the waste stream (after paper and yard waste), one estimate portrays that $31 billion worth of food is discarded annually and only 3% may be recovered.
Waste is built into the system in modern days so more efficient production and distribution should be utilized. Key benefits of diversion/recovery efforts are reduced disposal and hauling costs, decreasing the amount of material sent to landfills, supporting local economy by creating and sustaining new jobs (e.g. composting facilities), improving soil properties with composting, and helping to feed the surplus of hungry people. An ideal solution is food waste prevention such as better preparation of food, portion sizes, and more closely inspecting inventories and trends in consumption.
An obvious, but quite significant argument is that we waste so much while many individuals are malnourished or starving everyday, even in America. It’s a shame the middle and higher class lifestyles must be so indulgent, exploitative, and picky on a planet that has treated us far too well for how poorly we treat and tend to care for it. Grocery stores and restaurants tend to throw away massive amounts of food rather than donate for concern of unsafe food liability (the 1996 Good Samaritan Food Donation Act addresses this). A large portion of food could be separated for a donation to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, etc. A separate section of a market for items past the sell by date or about expired at a lower cost would be great.
Another large approach is to compost or vermicompost (using worms to accelerate the process). This method can either be on-site, off-site or done in your own backyard(with that yard waste too!). On-site would be used for a smaller company or farm that would like to use it or distribute it for soil nutrients locally. I have a feeling many companies and large farms would request off-site composting facilities. This is where large productions, similar to the recycling program, can occur to create jobs, useable material, and possible methane capture (methane production/capture of composting and landfills is a whole different arena). Compost is primarily used for excellent land fertilizers and soil conditioners.
Food scraps can be made of great use for animal feed. Although certain guidelines and restrictions exist, it would be worth a little effort in education and creating procedures for stores and restaurants to do this. Food processing by-products (e.g. excess whey from cheese making) can be high in nutrients and other raw materials that would work as raw materials for edible foods and animal feed.
I personally encourage commercial (not residential!) dumpster diving and scavenging for discarded items although compactors are common enemies. It may be illegal in some areas, but there’s no reason for this waste. Expiration dates hardly mean a thing (careful of dairy and raw meats, choose wisely and carefully) and “sell by” dates are where a good amount of store waste comes from. But alas the almighty, germ fanatic human cannot have flawed or older food in any way or it will be discarded of immediately and replaced with twenty more items. If you’re fine with putting chemicals all over your body and in, while residing in a sealed, air-polluted chamber pumping yourself full of sugar and pre-packaged foods, you can handle a food item that is not at its highest quality or freshness.
Since this is an output approach technique (similar to recycling), management plans, collection methods and facilities must be developed to aid the implementation. It’s quite frustrating when people can’t do a simple task such as recycling or reusing the container the food arrives in, so I foresee a large struggle in trying to carry out food management practices. Appropriate analysis and more potential solutions for this topic would necessitate a thesis-length paper, but this nano overview may raise awareness and a desire to support the situation.
References:
http://www.wastecapwi.org/documents/foodwaste.pdf
http://californiawatch.org/health-and-welfare/food-waste-remains-persistent-problem-farms-grocery-stores-and-restaurants
Dancing with the...Devil?
Andy Whaley
March 27, 2011
What do you think of when someone mentions a forest fire? Death or destruction? Do you cringe at the thought of a fire happening near you? If you do, let me change your mind right now: forest fires are good for everybody. If that statement didn’t do it alone, please continue to invest your attention.
There are two views on forest fires in today’s world. We have the “put it out! It’s destroying everything! It’s ugly! It’s Scary!” view, and the “let it burn” view. I am convinced that our nation has turned into a fear-stricken country that screams for fire departments to suppress unnecessary fires, which leads to a larger number of catastrophic fires and a lack of full potential from ecosystems.
So far this year, we have seen almost 600,000 acres burned in wildfires (www.nifc.gov). This number is unusually high for this time of year already. So is this a bad thing? We are left wondering if these 600,000 acres are now useless parcels of land or do we consider the burned acres new potential for quality timber and habitat.
Let us review some facts. Many western timber species and some Midwestern timber trees rely heavily on the heat produced from low to moderate intensity fires for reproduction. The heat may open cones, expose mineral soil and/or eliminate competition. Grasslands rely on frequent fire to revive old, snarled up grasses and bring new life to the area. Also, frequent fires reduce build-up of dead material in forests and grasslands which reduces fire intensity in the long-run (which is good for our safety).
I won’t deny that large, catastrophic wildfires are bad, because in reality they are very bad for all of us. On average, the US will see close to 15,000 “large” fires in a year. (nifc.gov). These large fires completely destroy standing timber; threaten homes, property and even lives. In these cases, suppression action needs to be taken, and there is no way around it if you want to save property and lives. But now we have to ask, what about the little fires that burn on the forest floor with no sign of threat? Right now, if there is a fire we swiftly respond via fire departments and departments of forestry in order to extinguish it no matter the size. I would have to say there is no point in wasting valuable resources on suppressing a fire that will do more good to the environment than harm. By allowing small fires to burn, or even use prescribed burns, we can manage the amount of fuel for future fires in an area and greatly reduce the chances that a “large” fire will occur and destroy houses and lives.
I feel that if the general public were to know more about the benefits of fire, everyone would be better off; citizens and the environment. I think we need consider the facts of each fire, and determine whether it should be a priority to suppress it. Most people would be happy to know that we would also save money by switching to a system like this. Perhaps someday we will consider it.
National Interagency Fire Center, http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/nfn.htm
March 27, 2011
What do you think of when someone mentions a forest fire? Death or destruction? Do you cringe at the thought of a fire happening near you? If you do, let me change your mind right now: forest fires are good for everybody. If that statement didn’t do it alone, please continue to invest your attention.
There are two views on forest fires in today’s world. We have the “put it out! It’s destroying everything! It’s ugly! It’s Scary!” view, and the “let it burn” view. I am convinced that our nation has turned into a fear-stricken country that screams for fire departments to suppress unnecessary fires, which leads to a larger number of catastrophic fires and a lack of full potential from ecosystems.
So far this year, we have seen almost 600,000 acres burned in wildfires (www.nifc.gov). This number is unusually high for this time of year already. So is this a bad thing? We are left wondering if these 600,000 acres are now useless parcels of land or do we consider the burned acres new potential for quality timber and habitat.
Let us review some facts. Many western timber species and some Midwestern timber trees rely heavily on the heat produced from low to moderate intensity fires for reproduction. The heat may open cones, expose mineral soil and/or eliminate competition. Grasslands rely on frequent fire to revive old, snarled up grasses and bring new life to the area. Also, frequent fires reduce build-up of dead material in forests and grasslands which reduces fire intensity in the long-run (which is good for our safety).
I won’t deny that large, catastrophic wildfires are bad, because in reality they are very bad for all of us. On average, the US will see close to 15,000 “large” fires in a year. (nifc.gov). These large fires completely destroy standing timber; threaten homes, property and even lives. In these cases, suppression action needs to be taken, and there is no way around it if you want to save property and lives. But now we have to ask, what about the little fires that burn on the forest floor with no sign of threat? Right now, if there is a fire we swiftly respond via fire departments and departments of forestry in order to extinguish it no matter the size. I would have to say there is no point in wasting valuable resources on suppressing a fire that will do more good to the environment than harm. By allowing small fires to burn, or even use prescribed burns, we can manage the amount of fuel for future fires in an area and greatly reduce the chances that a “large” fire will occur and destroy houses and lives.
I feel that if the general public were to know more about the benefits of fire, everyone would be better off; citizens and the environment. I think we need consider the facts of each fire, and determine whether it should be a priority to suppress it. Most people would be happy to know that we would also save money by switching to a system like this. Perhaps someday we will consider it.
National Interagency Fire Center, http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/nfn.htm
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Review of Recycling
Jeremy Schill
3-30-11
“Review of Recycling”
Just recently the Wisconsin state government has started cutting budget money, and part of the cuts affected local municipalities and their ability to fund a recycling program. I am not going to try to take a side on this issue; I merely want to give a different perspective to recycling. Sure, it is better for the environment than land filling all of our waste, however in a time of recession where do we draw the line? The return economically for recycling just isn’t there. However, there are exceptions. The most noteworthy are metals, such as aluminum, they hold their value or integrity better than plastics. This makes metals more economical to recycle. There are some issues with this assumption as well, because in most instances mining the resource is actually cheaper than recycling it.
The most ideal situation would be to take a step back, realize how much waste is actually being generated. In my opinion assigning a value that an average household wastes, doesn’t cut it. The mindset for most people is as long as it’s in the bag on the curb it’s gone, “out of sight, out of mind.” The easiest remedy to the situation would be to reduce how much we waste, but taking a habit that has been engraved in the person’s mind for so long and changing it is very difficult. An even further step back would be to use the reusable glass bottles people used for so long.
Another issue to take a look at is the recycling of paper. Is it a good idea to recycle a renewable resource? The paper industry like so many other industries is hurting financially, and if we were given the opportunity to revive it, is a renewable resource a good one to exploit in an attempt to create jobs? Paper is the most biodegradable of the recycled resources, why not compost it or landfill it? I see no problem with land filling biodegradable resources. As long as they degrade rapidly, they take up no space, and if we land filled only biodegradable items, the way we manage landfills could change drastically allowing a company or individual to reopen and remove the degraded nutrients and apply them to the land. Composting would accomplish the same thing or even burning the paper to produce electricity and then land applying the ash.
Recycling needs to be more efficient not only on the environmental side but also the economic side, it’s such a delicate balance and right now the balance honestly seems to not be working. I certainly don’t want to deter people from recycling, because it is a very good way to protect the environment by keeping metals and plastics out of the landfill. I just think there is a way to refine how our waste is being managed to be more efficient, not only for our sake but also the sake of the environment.
3-30-11
“Review of Recycling”
Just recently the Wisconsin state government has started cutting budget money, and part of the cuts affected local municipalities and their ability to fund a recycling program. I am not going to try to take a side on this issue; I merely want to give a different perspective to recycling. Sure, it is better for the environment than land filling all of our waste, however in a time of recession where do we draw the line? The return economically for recycling just isn’t there. However, there are exceptions. The most noteworthy are metals, such as aluminum, they hold their value or integrity better than plastics. This makes metals more economical to recycle. There are some issues with this assumption as well, because in most instances mining the resource is actually cheaper than recycling it.
The most ideal situation would be to take a step back, realize how much waste is actually being generated. In my opinion assigning a value that an average household wastes, doesn’t cut it. The mindset for most people is as long as it’s in the bag on the curb it’s gone, “out of sight, out of mind.” The easiest remedy to the situation would be to reduce how much we waste, but taking a habit that has been engraved in the person’s mind for so long and changing it is very difficult. An even further step back would be to use the reusable glass bottles people used for so long.
Another issue to take a look at is the recycling of paper. Is it a good idea to recycle a renewable resource? The paper industry like so many other industries is hurting financially, and if we were given the opportunity to revive it, is a renewable resource a good one to exploit in an attempt to create jobs? Paper is the most biodegradable of the recycled resources, why not compost it or landfill it? I see no problem with land filling biodegradable resources. As long as they degrade rapidly, they take up no space, and if we land filled only biodegradable items, the way we manage landfills could change drastically allowing a company or individual to reopen and remove the degraded nutrients and apply them to the land. Composting would accomplish the same thing or even burning the paper to produce electricity and then land applying the ash.
Recycling needs to be more efficient not only on the environmental side but also the economic side, it’s such a delicate balance and right now the balance honestly seems to not be working. I certainly don’t want to deter people from recycling, because it is a very good way to protect the environment by keeping metals and plastics out of the landfill. I just think there is a way to refine how our waste is being managed to be more efficient, not only for our sake but also the sake of the environment.
Snakes in the Water
Steve Hafvenstein
March 28, 2011
Snakes in the Water
Imagine sitting next to a quiet peaceful lake. You’re about the take a bite of your ham sandwich when suddenly you discover it missing. Finding it rather strange you tell yourself, “I guess I’ll just make another one.” All of a sudden there is something moving on your lap! It’s a fish! And it is looking for the mustard to go with the ham sandwich it just stole from you. Running a safe distance away, you glance back to see the fish ravaging your picnic in a few despairing moments. Never seeing a fish in America like this before, you mutter to yourself, “impossible!”, or is it? Normally a fish shouldn’t be out of the water. The quote, “Like a fish out of water,” speaks about a person who is uncomfortable with the situation they are in, not so with this fish. Whoever came up with the quote probably wasn’t thinking of a fish that can live both in and out of the water and feel comfortable either way. But what is this fish? Where does it come from, how did it get in America, and how big of a pest has it become? Snakeheads are found in most Asian lakes and rivers. They were thought to have come here via the Asian fish market where they are considered a high end delicacy. Upon entry into the United States, they were placed in pools until a most unfortunate day came along when they were to become, a fancy meal. However, a few of the snakeheads, being able to survive both in the water and on land, crawled out of their pools and left in search of better waters, and so they became fugitives in the United States. Most lakes that have inlets to major rivers such as the Mississippi are susceptible to snakehead invasion. Once a snakehead invades a lake it will consume all of the native fish until the lake becomes a desolate wasteland. Gluttons you might call them, half fish and half snake that is able to live both in and out of the water due to the presence of both lungs and gills in the fish. As part of the bowfin, family, they closely resemble a native bowfin and many a fisherman has thrown them back mistakenly thinking they were a native fish. A few years ago while fishing at my cabin, (which has inlets coming from the Mississippi), I caught what I thought at the time, to be a snakehead. The fish was large, snakelike, and when I took it off the hook, (or rather my pliers took it off the hook), it flipped up on its belly and started squirming around the boat like a snake, using its fins once in awhile to propel itself. This caused a ruckus in the boat as everyone, who was at one point, standing on the floor, began scrambling to find the nearest open seat to jump up on. Being the oldest I eventually summed up enough courage to drive the boat home to get the fish identified to see whether or not it was a snakehead. Only to find out, once it was properly identified, to be a native bowfin. We threw it back into the lake. Invasive species costs the United States millions of dollars each year. We need to do something to stop the spread of non-native invasive species. I believe the public needs to become educated on the threat of invasive species spread. In addition, I believe that a small bounty should be placed upon the snakeheads to give fishermen some incentive to catch and turn in snakeheads. In addition the DNR should use seine nets, electro-shocking, and chemical attractants to stop the spread on the snakeheads in our lakes and rivers. Also laws need to be enacted to control goods imported into the United States. We need to do something to stop the spread of this, “Snake in the Water.”
March 28, 2011
Snakes in the Water
Imagine sitting next to a quiet peaceful lake. You’re about the take a bite of your ham sandwich when suddenly you discover it missing. Finding it rather strange you tell yourself, “I guess I’ll just make another one.” All of a sudden there is something moving on your lap! It’s a fish! And it is looking for the mustard to go with the ham sandwich it just stole from you. Running a safe distance away, you glance back to see the fish ravaging your picnic in a few despairing moments. Never seeing a fish in America like this before, you mutter to yourself, “impossible!”, or is it? Normally a fish shouldn’t be out of the water. The quote, “Like a fish out of water,” speaks about a person who is uncomfortable with the situation they are in, not so with this fish. Whoever came up with the quote probably wasn’t thinking of a fish that can live both in and out of the water and feel comfortable either way. But what is this fish? Where does it come from, how did it get in America, and how big of a pest has it become? Snakeheads are found in most Asian lakes and rivers. They were thought to have come here via the Asian fish market where they are considered a high end delicacy. Upon entry into the United States, they were placed in pools until a most unfortunate day came along when they were to become, a fancy meal. However, a few of the snakeheads, being able to survive both in the water and on land, crawled out of their pools and left in search of better waters, and so they became fugitives in the United States. Most lakes that have inlets to major rivers such as the Mississippi are susceptible to snakehead invasion. Once a snakehead invades a lake it will consume all of the native fish until the lake becomes a desolate wasteland. Gluttons you might call them, half fish and half snake that is able to live both in and out of the water due to the presence of both lungs and gills in the fish. As part of the bowfin, family, they closely resemble a native bowfin and many a fisherman has thrown them back mistakenly thinking they were a native fish. A few years ago while fishing at my cabin, (which has inlets coming from the Mississippi), I caught what I thought at the time, to be a snakehead. The fish was large, snakelike, and when I took it off the hook, (or rather my pliers took it off the hook), it flipped up on its belly and started squirming around the boat like a snake, using its fins once in awhile to propel itself. This caused a ruckus in the boat as everyone, who was at one point, standing on the floor, began scrambling to find the nearest open seat to jump up on. Being the oldest I eventually summed up enough courage to drive the boat home to get the fish identified to see whether or not it was a snakehead. Only to find out, once it was properly identified, to be a native bowfin. We threw it back into the lake. Invasive species costs the United States millions of dollars each year. We need to do something to stop the spread of non-native invasive species. I believe the public needs to become educated on the threat of invasive species spread. In addition, I believe that a small bounty should be placed upon the snakeheads to give fishermen some incentive to catch and turn in snakeheads. In addition the DNR should use seine nets, electro-shocking, and chemical attractants to stop the spread on the snakeheads in our lakes and rivers. Also laws need to be enacted to control goods imported into the United States. We need to do something to stop the spread of this, “Snake in the Water.”
The Environmental Vegetarian
By: Athena S
28 March 2011
Now most of you are already probably thinking, "Oh dear God, here we go. Crazy vegetarian lady is going to tell us why we should stop eating meat." Well you can relax; that's not my intention. There are certainly ways that meat products can be sustainably harvested. Hell, when I decided to go vegetarian 4 years ago, I still ate venison for a while. I saw it as a good thing [environmentally]. We had an over abundance of deer in our fine state and the animal I was eating had been killed and cleaned and all that gross stuff by my own family members. Not to mention that venison is wonderfully lean. Anyhow, I wouldn't touch the stuff now, but that's beside the point. Its shocking to me how many people have this numbing disconnect with the food they eat - in terms of where it comes from and the impact it has. I think it’s really important to consider that the choices we make about the food we eat are also choices that we make about energy, land and water usage.
One of the first things that helped push me towards this lifestyle was when it occurred to me that having a plant-based diet is simply more efficient. Assuming our level in college, we should all know about how energy comes from the sun, and then goes into plants, and then works its way up the trophic levels - all the while energy is wasted traveling from one level to another. Eating lower on the trophic levels and/or consuming smaller animals in general will leave you with the least amount of wasted energy. Think about it...even comparing the needs of a cow versus a chicken. Cows require far more food and water than a chicken does. The cows also require a lot more land and put out a lot more waste. All of that extra energy, water, and land that is wasted could be used to grow crops to feed the 6.75 billion people on this planet (many of which are starving). Beyond this, these livestock operations come with an abundance of negative externalities. Run-off can get into out waterways, overgrazing degrades the land, and soils can be eroded among many others. I could also probably ramble on about the use of added hormones and antibiotics.
Please keep in mind that I am mostly referring to/attacking large scale factory farming here. As I said before, I know meat production can be sustainable; it’s just more than likely going to happen in a smaller scale operation (which far less common). However, it is our increasing consumption of animal products that is leading to the success of these factory farms. I'd also like to note that I understand that massive monocultures of soybeans are becoming more abundant as soy is sneaking its way into many areas of our diet. Similarly, these systems also have major drawbacks a can have a negative impact on the land. It would be absolutely absurd to expect everyone to give up meat in their diet. My goodness, we'd have riots here in Wisconsin. Ideally though, I think we could just make better use of our resources if we made better decisions in our every day lives. The root of the problem might very well be in the hands of the people who support industrialized agriculture and the politicians who subsidize them. Which leads me to ask: why are people so apathetic about the impacts their choices have? Do they even know what those impacts are? Is that Big Mac really worth it?
28 March 2011
Now most of you are already probably thinking, "Oh dear God, here we go. Crazy vegetarian lady is going to tell us why we should stop eating meat." Well you can relax; that's not my intention. There are certainly ways that meat products can be sustainably harvested. Hell, when I decided to go vegetarian 4 years ago, I still ate venison for a while. I saw it as a good thing [environmentally]. We had an over abundance of deer in our fine state and the animal I was eating had been killed and cleaned and all that gross stuff by my own family members. Not to mention that venison is wonderfully lean. Anyhow, I wouldn't touch the stuff now, but that's beside the point. Its shocking to me how many people have this numbing disconnect with the food they eat - in terms of where it comes from and the impact it has. I think it’s really important to consider that the choices we make about the food we eat are also choices that we make about energy, land and water usage.
One of the first things that helped push me towards this lifestyle was when it occurred to me that having a plant-based diet is simply more efficient. Assuming our level in college, we should all know about how energy comes from the sun, and then goes into plants, and then works its way up the trophic levels - all the while energy is wasted traveling from one level to another. Eating lower on the trophic levels and/or consuming smaller animals in general will leave you with the least amount of wasted energy. Think about it...even comparing the needs of a cow versus a chicken. Cows require far more food and water than a chicken does. The cows also require a lot more land and put out a lot more waste. All of that extra energy, water, and land that is wasted could be used to grow crops to feed the 6.75 billion people on this planet (many of which are starving). Beyond this, these livestock operations come with an abundance of negative externalities. Run-off can get into out waterways, overgrazing degrades the land, and soils can be eroded among many others. I could also probably ramble on about the use of added hormones and antibiotics.
Please keep in mind that I am mostly referring to/attacking large scale factory farming here. As I said before, I know meat production can be sustainable; it’s just more than likely going to happen in a smaller scale operation (which far less common). However, it is our increasing consumption of animal products that is leading to the success of these factory farms. I'd also like to note that I understand that massive monocultures of soybeans are becoming more abundant as soy is sneaking its way into many areas of our diet. Similarly, these systems also have major drawbacks a can have a negative impact on the land. It would be absolutely absurd to expect everyone to give up meat in their diet. My goodness, we'd have riots here in Wisconsin. Ideally though, I think we could just make better use of our resources if we made better decisions in our every day lives. The root of the problem might very well be in the hands of the people who support industrialized agriculture and the politicians who subsidize them. Which leads me to ask: why are people so apathetic about the impacts their choices have? Do they even know what those impacts are? Is that Big Mac really worth it?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Crooks in the Pickup Trucks
Andrew Gollnick
March 22, 2011
Crooks in the Pickup trucks
Picture yourself as a well to do landowner with some timber land in the state. It is the high point of your day to go out and walk it every morning before work and watch the cute little fuzzy critters run around and look at the deer tracks in the snow. For some of you, this may actually be a reality for you or your parents. The last thing that most people would want to happen would be an intrusion into their own piece of paradise. Currently in the state of Wisconsin, there are 361,000 private non-industrial landowners, and a good percentage of them have some sort of management plan for their property (i.e. MFL, Forest Stewardship Plan, etc). Sometime or another in the plan there is probably some type of management that should be done in the future, most of the time a harvest of some sort is needed. Enter the logger.
Most landowners views of loggers go one of two ways; either there upstanding guys with a pickup truck and a chainsaw, or they are a bunch of crooks out to cut and rape the forest of every merchantable stick of timber. Being employed in the timber industry, and seeing both sides of the story, I am as well inclined to believe this is true as well. Some of this is misunderstanding of the landowner on how a timber sale works and the lack of assistance they may have. The other part is greed on the part of the logger or the mill that is buying the timber. A logger is paid on the amount of timber that is cut and the landowner gets his share from that as well. It obviously pays to cut more trees on both the loggers and the landowner’s part but, aesthetics and forest quality may suffer in the long run. Some loggers let greed overcome them in not adequately scaling the loads or even flat out stealing loads while the landowner is not there when they are hauled out.
What is needed is a compromise on both ends as well as education for both parties involved throughout the whole process. Landowners must understand that harvests are needed to maintain forest health and species diversity as well in the case of oak wilt, the spread of disease. In addition to forest education, seeking out competent help in setting up a timber sale from either a consulting forester or a reputable contractor is a good way to go. They can help in the sale layout, cruising and estimation from the harvest as well as have the experience to know when a logger is in the wrong. In addition to landowner education the logger must also do business in a responsible way on every timber sale the they work on. Most if not all loggers are out to do well on the land in the way of forestry as well as make some sort of profit. It’s the other operators that do steal loads and abuse the forest that get portrayed as thieves in the public that give the rest a bad name. Having a competent contractor that can effectively communicate to the landowner about what they are doing is the key to a successful timber harvest. All too often have I heard about stories about “That crook in the pickup truck” knowing that what they did was good forestry and fair dealings with the landowner. It will take time but thoughts and opinions can change.
References: John Dupliss, Forestry 499 Private Forest Management-Class slides.
March 22, 2011
Crooks in the Pickup trucks
Picture yourself as a well to do landowner with some timber land in the state. It is the high point of your day to go out and walk it every morning before work and watch the cute little fuzzy critters run around and look at the deer tracks in the snow. For some of you, this may actually be a reality for you or your parents. The last thing that most people would want to happen would be an intrusion into their own piece of paradise. Currently in the state of Wisconsin, there are 361,000 private non-industrial landowners, and a good percentage of them have some sort of management plan for their property (i.e. MFL, Forest Stewardship Plan, etc). Sometime or another in the plan there is probably some type of management that should be done in the future, most of the time a harvest of some sort is needed. Enter the logger.
Most landowners views of loggers go one of two ways; either there upstanding guys with a pickup truck and a chainsaw, or they are a bunch of crooks out to cut and rape the forest of every merchantable stick of timber. Being employed in the timber industry, and seeing both sides of the story, I am as well inclined to believe this is true as well. Some of this is misunderstanding of the landowner on how a timber sale works and the lack of assistance they may have. The other part is greed on the part of the logger or the mill that is buying the timber. A logger is paid on the amount of timber that is cut and the landowner gets his share from that as well. It obviously pays to cut more trees on both the loggers and the landowner’s part but, aesthetics and forest quality may suffer in the long run. Some loggers let greed overcome them in not adequately scaling the loads or even flat out stealing loads while the landowner is not there when they are hauled out.
What is needed is a compromise on both ends as well as education for both parties involved throughout the whole process. Landowners must understand that harvests are needed to maintain forest health and species diversity as well in the case of oak wilt, the spread of disease. In addition to forest education, seeking out competent help in setting up a timber sale from either a consulting forester or a reputable contractor is a good way to go. They can help in the sale layout, cruising and estimation from the harvest as well as have the experience to know when a logger is in the wrong. In addition to landowner education the logger must also do business in a responsible way on every timber sale the they work on. Most if not all loggers are out to do well on the land in the way of forestry as well as make some sort of profit. It’s the other operators that do steal loads and abuse the forest that get portrayed as thieves in the public that give the rest a bad name. Having a competent contractor that can effectively communicate to the landowner about what they are doing is the key to a successful timber harvest. All too often have I heard about stories about “That crook in the pickup truck” knowing that what they did was good forestry and fair dealings with the landowner. It will take time but thoughts and opinions can change.
References: John Dupliss, Forestry 499 Private Forest Management-Class slides.
Tap Dancin'
Joe Weflen
March 22, 2011
Tap Dancin’
Spring is here; at least on the calendar it says that it is spring. So far spring has been birds chirping, standing ankle deep in mud on the driveway, perching precariously on chunks of ice that threaten to break away with just the right amount of encouragement, and overall looking to nice dry weather. As temperatures get above freezing during the day, and slip back below freezing at night it causes sap to really flow in trees, especially those of the Acer genus (maples to you non-foresters). Driving along out in the country you may see forests laden with buckets or plastic bags hanging from taps in Sugar Maples. Back where I live south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, not too far from the border, we don’t have many sugar maples in our woods. On my drive home for Spring Break I couldn’t count how many sugar maples I observed.
But I digress. Sugar Maples aren’t the only thing that can be tapped. Technically you can tap birches, which would be something I would like to try someday. But the overlooked tree, and one that rolls of people’s tongues with disdain, is the good old Acer negundo, or the Boxelder. Some may not know of the boxelder tree, but know quite well the boxelder bug, a populous annoying insect that makes its way into your homes and I don’t know about you, but they black out the corners of windows when the sun starts warming things up. Last year I had been doing some reading and noticed that boxelder was one of the trees that could be tapped for syruping, so I thought why not give it a try?
The sap runs like sap should, so many parts water that for all intents and purposes it practically is. But when drank has a slight boxelder taste to it, and for those who do not know what boxelder tastes like, break a twig and give it a good sniff. That will give you a pretty good idea of what the taste is like. Last year I had collected just short of 20 gallons of sap, which boiled down to approximately one and a half quarts of syrup, which tasted just about like any other syrup.
People like to bad mouth the boxelder, referring to it as a junk tree. This is true when looking at trees as they get older, they are notorious for shedding branches when getting old. They are also fairly “weedy,” meaning that they can grow quite easily and colonize fairly readily. To me, this is just the first step in secession, these fast growing light loving trees pop up, and in the meanwhile shade loving trees can come up underneath. So I implore you, before bad mouthing the humble boxelder, give it a chance. Build a tree fort in one, or even go the extra step and tap a few for syrup, I know I’d tap it.
March 22, 2011
Tap Dancin’
Spring is here; at least on the calendar it says that it is spring. So far spring has been birds chirping, standing ankle deep in mud on the driveway, perching precariously on chunks of ice that threaten to break away with just the right amount of encouragement, and overall looking to nice dry weather. As temperatures get above freezing during the day, and slip back below freezing at night it causes sap to really flow in trees, especially those of the Acer genus (maples to you non-foresters). Driving along out in the country you may see forests laden with buckets or plastic bags hanging from taps in Sugar Maples. Back where I live south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, not too far from the border, we don’t have many sugar maples in our woods. On my drive home for Spring Break I couldn’t count how many sugar maples I observed.
But I digress. Sugar Maples aren’t the only thing that can be tapped. Technically you can tap birches, which would be something I would like to try someday. But the overlooked tree, and one that rolls of people’s tongues with disdain, is the good old Acer negundo, or the Boxelder. Some may not know of the boxelder tree, but know quite well the boxelder bug, a populous annoying insect that makes its way into your homes and I don’t know about you, but they black out the corners of windows when the sun starts warming things up. Last year I had been doing some reading and noticed that boxelder was one of the trees that could be tapped for syruping, so I thought why not give it a try?
The sap runs like sap should, so many parts water that for all intents and purposes it practically is. But when drank has a slight boxelder taste to it, and for those who do not know what boxelder tastes like, break a twig and give it a good sniff. That will give you a pretty good idea of what the taste is like. Last year I had collected just short of 20 gallons of sap, which boiled down to approximately one and a half quarts of syrup, which tasted just about like any other syrup.
People like to bad mouth the boxelder, referring to it as a junk tree. This is true when looking at trees as they get older, they are notorious for shedding branches when getting old. They are also fairly “weedy,” meaning that they can grow quite easily and colonize fairly readily. To me, this is just the first step in secession, these fast growing light loving trees pop up, and in the meanwhile shade loving trees can come up underneath. So I implore you, before bad mouthing the humble boxelder, give it a chance. Build a tree fort in one, or even go the extra step and tap a few for syrup, I know I’d tap it.
Spearing Problem with Northern Lakes
Spearing: The Problem With Northern Lakes
Living in northern Wisconsin my whole life I’ve dealt with the hunting and fishing regulations a time or two. The biggest debate I have ever heard about fishing is the technique used to harvest fish. Growing up I had a view that this country was equal to everyone and anyone no matter what the person was doing, the law is the law.
The fish population in northern Wisconsin is declining because of this unethical technique. Up here the Native Americans abuse the right to spear our local lakes basically unattended. They have the right to spear with no purchase of a license using modern equipment.
I could see if they stuck to their guns and wanted their tready righnts and adopted everyone’s laws, but when they out fish our resources and limit everyone its unfair.
Living in northern Wisconsin my whole life I’ve dealt with the hunting and fishing regulations a time or two. The biggest debate I have ever heard about fishing is the technique used to harvest fish. Growing up I had a view that this country was equal to everyone and anyone no matter what the person was doing, the law is the law.
The fish population in northern Wisconsin is declining because of this unethical technique. Up here the Native Americans abuse the right to spear our local lakes basically unattended. They have the right to spear with no purchase of a license using modern equipment.
I could see if they stuck to their guns and wanted their tready righnts and adopted everyone’s laws, but when they out fish our resources and limit everyone its unfair.
Wolf Makes West Wild
Joshua R. Larson
March 17, 2011
The Wolf Makes the West “Wild” Again
Throughout history wolves have been one of the most controversial animals worldwide. The story of wolves in the United States is a classic example of the persecution that wolves have endured for centuries. Prior to the settlement of the Western United States, wolves numbered in the thousands. However, the wolves did not fit in with our “western” way of life. The problem with the wolves in the eyes of the settlers was the fact that they seen wolves as direct competition for the same game animals that sustained their families. As a result, the government supported and in fact paid for the extermination of the wolf. By the middle of the twentieth century, the wolf was extirpated in the lower 48 states, besides a small population that remained in the far northern portion of Minnesota.
The United States (besides MN and AK) remained almost wolf-free for over three decades. After a number of years, the absence of wolves was beginning to create problems within the ecosystems in which they had originally lived. Wildlife biologists/ecologists began to realize the importance of apex predators in maintaining a healthy and self sustaining ecosystem. In the early 1980’s, the government along with the help of wildlife biologists began to plan the reintroduction of wolves to portions of the west that were still wild enough to sustain the large territories that wolves required to survive. However, the politics that were involved with the restoration process took over a decade to work through. By the time wolves were set to be reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, wolves had made their way back into portions of Montana. But, in the winter of ‘95/’96 wolves were finally reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduction of wolves has brought many positive effects to the ecosystems where wolves live. The most visible effects that are already noticed are healthier prey animals, predators, scavengers, and a healthier plant and tree communities. Also, the reintroduction of wolves has also boosted tourism in the national parks where they reside to almost unbelievable numbers.
Despite the early success of wolf reintroduction, the presence of wolves is now beginning to become an issue, again. Although the threat of eradication seems implausible at this time, many political figures have begun expressing negative attitudes toward wolves. Is the latter a sign of things to come? Wolves have only been present in their reintroduced habitats for 15 - 20 years, which from a scientific perspective is relatively short. Many more effects of the wolves’ reintroduction have yet to reveal themselves in the coming decades of observation. However, for the moment the positive effects that wolf reintroduction have had on ecosystems seems to have secured their place in the environment. But, only through the continued research of the effects that wolves have on their ecosystems and the publics’ opinion of whether wolves have the right to stay, will decide the fate of the wolves existence in the future.
March 17, 2011
The Wolf Makes the West “Wild” Again
Throughout history wolves have been one of the most controversial animals worldwide. The story of wolves in the United States is a classic example of the persecution that wolves have endured for centuries. Prior to the settlement of the Western United States, wolves numbered in the thousands. However, the wolves did not fit in with our “western” way of life. The problem with the wolves in the eyes of the settlers was the fact that they seen wolves as direct competition for the same game animals that sustained their families. As a result, the government supported and in fact paid for the extermination of the wolf. By the middle of the twentieth century, the wolf was extirpated in the lower 48 states, besides a small population that remained in the far northern portion of Minnesota.
The United States (besides MN and AK) remained almost wolf-free for over three decades. After a number of years, the absence of wolves was beginning to create problems within the ecosystems in which they had originally lived. Wildlife biologists/ecologists began to realize the importance of apex predators in maintaining a healthy and self sustaining ecosystem. In the early 1980’s, the government along with the help of wildlife biologists began to plan the reintroduction of wolves to portions of the west that were still wild enough to sustain the large territories that wolves required to survive. However, the politics that were involved with the restoration process took over a decade to work through. By the time wolves were set to be reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, wolves had made their way back into portions of Montana. But, in the winter of ‘95/’96 wolves were finally reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduction of wolves has brought many positive effects to the ecosystems where wolves live. The most visible effects that are already noticed are healthier prey animals, predators, scavengers, and a healthier plant and tree communities. Also, the reintroduction of wolves has also boosted tourism in the national parks where they reside to almost unbelievable numbers.
Despite the early success of wolf reintroduction, the presence of wolves is now beginning to become an issue, again. Although the threat of eradication seems implausible at this time, many political figures have begun expressing negative attitudes toward wolves. Is the latter a sign of things to come? Wolves have only been present in their reintroduced habitats for 15 - 20 years, which from a scientific perspective is relatively short. Many more effects of the wolves’ reintroduction have yet to reveal themselves in the coming decades of observation. However, for the moment the positive effects that wolf reintroduction have had on ecosystems seems to have secured their place in the environment. But, only through the continued research of the effects that wolves have on their ecosystems and the publics’ opinion of whether wolves have the right to stay, will decide the fate of the wolves existence in the future.
Natural Born Killers
Andy Richardson
3/25/11
Natural Born Killers
Domestic cats have cemented themselves into our society as the most popular pet in the world. Our history with domestic cats goes back over 10,000 years to the Middle East and since then they have been loyal companions to the elderly, family pets, efficient farmyard mousers, and even surrogate children for some. The problem comes when these seemingly sweet pets are allowed to roam outdoors. They then become efficient predators killing anything they can stalk down, which often ends up to be native birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals. We should not blame these otherwise innocent creatures, after all they are just doing what naturally to them, but what we should do is control them to make sure that we are not unleashing what has become the most detrimental of invasive species.
According to recent estimates there are 117 – 157 million stray, feral, or outdoor pet cats in the United States. Conservative estimates say that these cats are responsible for the deaths of approximately 568 million birds/year. These studies just took into account only direct avian deaths. It does not count any of the amphibian, reptile, or small mammal deaths. It also does not count any of the deaths attributed to the diseases that feral cats are known to transmit to both wildlife and humans such as rabies, hookworm, toxoplasmosis, typhus, cat-scratch disease, and plague.
Right about now you might be thinking that this seems like a simple issue to fix. If loose cats are such a problem cities and towns could just implement licensing and leash laws similar to what is in effect for dogs. We could employ technicians to trap and euthanize stray cats. We could make cat owners keep their cats in outdoor enclosures. In reality though this issue is rooted back to our 10,000 years of attachment to cats. Wildlife biologists have suggested the implementation these very same control methods around the globe and have been met head-on by cat advocate groups. These groups, such as the Alley Cat Allies and Best Friends Animal Society, believe that feral cats have as much right to exist in the wild as our native species. They have invested millions of dollars to fund and lobby for a control method called Trap Neuter Release (TNR). TNR seems like a sound management practice in theory. Cats are live trapped, neutered, and then released back into the wild to out their lives, but have no chance of adding to the population. Feeding stations are then set up so that cats have no reason to kill any native species because they are being properly fed. As I said this management practice seems sound in theory, but when biologists actually study feral cats in TNR programs they have found just the opposite outcomes. The feral cats are trap-shy so the number of cats neutered isn’t enough to make an impact on the population. Also feeding feral cats has been found to concentrate their populations, which increases disease transmission between cats and wild animals coming to the feeding stations. Feeding also has not been shown to decrease predation because hunting is instinctual and has actually caused extirpation zones around feeding stations. It is obvious that TNR is not the answer to our problem.
I believe the best thing we can do to save our native species and remove this negative stigma from domestic cats is educate people. What I have discussed here are just two polarized sides to an argument, but there are many more cat owners whose opinions fall somewhere in the middle. Many of these people do not realize the detriment that they are doing to the ecosystem by allowing their cats to roam free outside. They do not realize that their innocent pet turns into a methodical killer when it is allowed outdoors. So, please, for the sake of wildlife and diversity everywhere keep your cats confined and pass the word on to others.
Dauphine, N. and Cooper, R. 2011. Pick One: Outdoor Cats or Conservation. The Wildlife Professional. Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 50.
Dauphine, N. 2011. Follow the Money: The Economics of TNR Advocacy. The Wildlife Professional. Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 54.
3/25/11
Natural Born Killers
Domestic cats have cemented themselves into our society as the most popular pet in the world. Our history with domestic cats goes back over 10,000 years to the Middle East and since then they have been loyal companions to the elderly, family pets, efficient farmyard mousers, and even surrogate children for some. The problem comes when these seemingly sweet pets are allowed to roam outdoors. They then become efficient predators killing anything they can stalk down, which often ends up to be native birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals. We should not blame these otherwise innocent creatures, after all they are just doing what naturally to them, but what we should do is control them to make sure that we are not unleashing what has become the most detrimental of invasive species.
According to recent estimates there are 117 – 157 million stray, feral, or outdoor pet cats in the United States. Conservative estimates say that these cats are responsible for the deaths of approximately 568 million birds/year. These studies just took into account only direct avian deaths. It does not count any of the amphibian, reptile, or small mammal deaths. It also does not count any of the deaths attributed to the diseases that feral cats are known to transmit to both wildlife and humans such as rabies, hookworm, toxoplasmosis, typhus, cat-scratch disease, and plague.
Right about now you might be thinking that this seems like a simple issue to fix. If loose cats are such a problem cities and towns could just implement licensing and leash laws similar to what is in effect for dogs. We could employ technicians to trap and euthanize stray cats. We could make cat owners keep their cats in outdoor enclosures. In reality though this issue is rooted back to our 10,000 years of attachment to cats. Wildlife biologists have suggested the implementation these very same control methods around the globe and have been met head-on by cat advocate groups. These groups, such as the Alley Cat Allies and Best Friends Animal Society, believe that feral cats have as much right to exist in the wild as our native species. They have invested millions of dollars to fund and lobby for a control method called Trap Neuter Release (TNR). TNR seems like a sound management practice in theory. Cats are live trapped, neutered, and then released back into the wild to out their lives, but have no chance of adding to the population. Feeding stations are then set up so that cats have no reason to kill any native species because they are being properly fed. As I said this management practice seems sound in theory, but when biologists actually study feral cats in TNR programs they have found just the opposite outcomes. The feral cats are trap-shy so the number of cats neutered isn’t enough to make an impact on the population. Also feeding feral cats has been found to concentrate their populations, which increases disease transmission between cats and wild animals coming to the feeding stations. Feeding also has not been shown to decrease predation because hunting is instinctual and has actually caused extirpation zones around feeding stations. It is obvious that TNR is not the answer to our problem.
I believe the best thing we can do to save our native species and remove this negative stigma from domestic cats is educate people. What I have discussed here are just two polarized sides to an argument, but there are many more cat owners whose opinions fall somewhere in the middle. Many of these people do not realize the detriment that they are doing to the ecosystem by allowing their cats to roam free outside. They do not realize that their innocent pet turns into a methodical killer when it is allowed outdoors. So, please, for the sake of wildlife and diversity everywhere keep your cats confined and pass the word on to others.
Dauphine, N. and Cooper, R. 2011. Pick One: Outdoor Cats or Conservation. The Wildlife Professional. Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 50.
Dauphine, N. 2011. Follow the Money: The Economics of TNR Advocacy. The Wildlife Professional. Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 54.
Risk/Hazard of Urban Trees
Dan Karow
3/24/2011
Risk and Hazard Assessment of Urban Trees
Our society values many things, one of those being aesthetics. We love to build eye-catching buildings, put up pretty pieces of art, and even produce slick looking transportation. Considering this, it is no wonder that we value the green space of our urban areas. Walking trails, parks, and even medians in the streets, not to mention peoples’ yards, they all combine to make up green space. Trees are, of course, a huge part of the green space, and are keystones in design and aesthetics of the green space. People love to see trees in the landscape, especially large dominate ones. This desire for trees does, however, bring about a quandary.
With great trees, comes great responsibility concerning their health and form, although this pertains to all trees. Since urban areas are inhabited by a lot of people, safety is a high priority. But the average person will see a tree at its face value. They don’t have the slightest idea about all the things that could be potentially wrong with the tree. This brings the assessment of risks and hazards to the forefront of tree care. It is vital to have trees in the urban area regularly assessed by arborists trained in identifying the weaknesses or problems within trees.
This past summer, during my internship, I developed a newfound appreciation for the methodology and need of assessing trees for various risks. My internship took place at Maple Bluff Country Club (MBCC) in Madison, WI; I had worked there for five summers prior to the internship. The five precursor years that I spent working on the grounds crew gave me a good knowledge of the course and its layout. However, before this past summer, I had never really paid attention to the condition of the trees on the course. Once I undertook the project assessing and cataloging problem trees, the need for regular checkups became painfully obvious. Golf courses are considered high risk areas due to the frequent use they receive, that being said, the concern for visitor safety is high. Without doing regular inventories it is impossible to know when and where a tree may fail. There are a number of things to look for to determine if a tree is healthy and safe; branching quality, disease/insect activity, cracks, and root growth are just a few things to look for. If trees can be assessed ahead of time, it gives managers the ability to mitigate disaster and make their site safer. Assessment inventories not only point out the trees that are an immediate threat, but those trees that should be watched in the future. Throughout the duration of the summer, I assessed every tree within MBCC grounds and cataloged the trees that had a certain risk level. The inventory I prepared was categorized into low, medium, and high risk trees, this granted my superintendant knowledge on the status of the trees on the grounds and how he might best manage them. Being up to date and informed as a manager is half the battle in prevention and mitigation of crisis.
I felt that this topic was relevant due to the rapid increase of urban areas and the need for green space within them. The correlation between MBCC and other green space is that a golf course is like a large park in which many people recreate.
For further information on risk and hazard assessment please visit: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/uf/utrmm/
3/24/2011
Risk and Hazard Assessment of Urban Trees
Our society values many things, one of those being aesthetics. We love to build eye-catching buildings, put up pretty pieces of art, and even produce slick looking transportation. Considering this, it is no wonder that we value the green space of our urban areas. Walking trails, parks, and even medians in the streets, not to mention peoples’ yards, they all combine to make up green space. Trees are, of course, a huge part of the green space, and are keystones in design and aesthetics of the green space. People love to see trees in the landscape, especially large dominate ones. This desire for trees does, however, bring about a quandary.
With great trees, comes great responsibility concerning their health and form, although this pertains to all trees. Since urban areas are inhabited by a lot of people, safety is a high priority. But the average person will see a tree at its face value. They don’t have the slightest idea about all the things that could be potentially wrong with the tree. This brings the assessment of risks and hazards to the forefront of tree care. It is vital to have trees in the urban area regularly assessed by arborists trained in identifying the weaknesses or problems within trees.
This past summer, during my internship, I developed a newfound appreciation for the methodology and need of assessing trees for various risks. My internship took place at Maple Bluff Country Club (MBCC) in Madison, WI; I had worked there for five summers prior to the internship. The five precursor years that I spent working on the grounds crew gave me a good knowledge of the course and its layout. However, before this past summer, I had never really paid attention to the condition of the trees on the course. Once I undertook the project assessing and cataloging problem trees, the need for regular checkups became painfully obvious. Golf courses are considered high risk areas due to the frequent use they receive, that being said, the concern for visitor safety is high. Without doing regular inventories it is impossible to know when and where a tree may fail. There are a number of things to look for to determine if a tree is healthy and safe; branching quality, disease/insect activity, cracks, and root growth are just a few things to look for. If trees can be assessed ahead of time, it gives managers the ability to mitigate disaster and make their site safer. Assessment inventories not only point out the trees that are an immediate threat, but those trees that should be watched in the future. Throughout the duration of the summer, I assessed every tree within MBCC grounds and cataloged the trees that had a certain risk level. The inventory I prepared was categorized into low, medium, and high risk trees, this granted my superintendant knowledge on the status of the trees on the grounds and how he might best manage them. Being up to date and informed as a manager is half the battle in prevention and mitigation of crisis.
I felt that this topic was relevant due to the rapid increase of urban areas and the need for green space within them. The correlation between MBCC and other green space is that a golf course is like a large park in which many people recreate.
For further information on risk and hazard assessment please visit: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/uf/utrmm/
The Buckthorn Problem
The Buckthorn Problem
Ryan Polenski
3/17/11
Buckthorn has been known as an invasive species for some time now but how did it get here? Not many people in the younger generations know where it came from. In the early 1800’s it was introduced from Eurasia as an ornamental plant. It was commonly used as a hedge and by the 1900’s it was widespread and naturalized. One thing that we have known for a while is that it invades native plant communities and can take over and dominate the understory in a short period of time. How does it do this? Buckthorn is able to take over an area relatively quickly because of its traits. It’s a species that is fast growing, produces a lot of seeds, starts growth earlier than other species and end growth later and it is tolerant to a wide range of sites and conditions. This makes it capable of becoming established in just about any area that it gets introduced. The fruit are loved by birds which allow it to spread over large distances and because of dense growth it chokes out native plants. It can be easily identified by its Purple to blackish fruit or its grayish lenticel bark. Buckthorn also has sub opposite to alternating branching and its leaves have a venation similar to dogwoods. It can reach twenty to twenty five feet in height and ten inches in diameter. Most commonly however it is found in a large shrub form. The glossy variation is characterized by its glossy leaves. Over the years we have developed many techniques to managing this invasive only to be thwarted by its ability to re-sprout. With any treatment you would want to remove the plants before they begin to seed. We have tried hand pulling Buckthorn but that appears to only be successful in areas were the outbreaks are small and still young. Cutting-girdling is another method used but because of Buckthorns re-sprouting cutting has to be done repeatedly. Chemical treatments have been used with some success but the timing has to be perfect for foliar sprays. There have been some that have combined the chemical treatments and cutting. This has been proven to be more effective and because the chemical can be applied to the stumps it is move selective. Some of the chemicals that have been used are Glyphosate and Triclopyr. These have been in a twenty to twenty five percent mixture for Glyphosate and a twenty to fifty percent mixture for Triclopyr. If it’s applied to the foliage it is done in the fall when other species are dormant using a one and a half percent Glyphosate solution or a two percent Triclopyr solution. Fire is another option but is limited to larger areas away from communities and may need to be repeated several times. What I would like to know is if anyone has any alternative options or would recommend one over the other or a different combination? Also if you agree or disagree with Buckthorns classification as an invasive your comments are welcome.
Resources:
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/buckthorn_com.htm
http://www.hort.uconn.edu/cipwg/art_pubs/TNC/pdf/nat_buckglossy.pdf
Ryan Polenski
3/17/11
Buckthorn has been known as an invasive species for some time now but how did it get here? Not many people in the younger generations know where it came from. In the early 1800’s it was introduced from Eurasia as an ornamental plant. It was commonly used as a hedge and by the 1900’s it was widespread and naturalized. One thing that we have known for a while is that it invades native plant communities and can take over and dominate the understory in a short period of time. How does it do this? Buckthorn is able to take over an area relatively quickly because of its traits. It’s a species that is fast growing, produces a lot of seeds, starts growth earlier than other species and end growth later and it is tolerant to a wide range of sites and conditions. This makes it capable of becoming established in just about any area that it gets introduced. The fruit are loved by birds which allow it to spread over large distances and because of dense growth it chokes out native plants. It can be easily identified by its Purple to blackish fruit or its grayish lenticel bark. Buckthorn also has sub opposite to alternating branching and its leaves have a venation similar to dogwoods. It can reach twenty to twenty five feet in height and ten inches in diameter. Most commonly however it is found in a large shrub form. The glossy variation is characterized by its glossy leaves. Over the years we have developed many techniques to managing this invasive only to be thwarted by its ability to re-sprout. With any treatment you would want to remove the plants before they begin to seed. We have tried hand pulling Buckthorn but that appears to only be successful in areas were the outbreaks are small and still young. Cutting-girdling is another method used but because of Buckthorns re-sprouting cutting has to be done repeatedly. Chemical treatments have been used with some success but the timing has to be perfect for foliar sprays. There have been some that have combined the chemical treatments and cutting. This has been proven to be more effective and because the chemical can be applied to the stumps it is move selective. Some of the chemicals that have been used are Glyphosate and Triclopyr. These have been in a twenty to twenty five percent mixture for Glyphosate and a twenty to fifty percent mixture for Triclopyr. If it’s applied to the foliage it is done in the fall when other species are dormant using a one and a half percent Glyphosate solution or a two percent Triclopyr solution. Fire is another option but is limited to larger areas away from communities and may need to be repeated several times. What I would like to know is if anyone has any alternative options or would recommend one over the other or a different combination? Also if you agree or disagree with Buckthorns classification as an invasive your comments are welcome.
Resources:
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/buckthorn_com.htm
http://www.hort.uconn.edu/cipwg/art_pubs/TNC/pdf/nat_buckglossy.pdf
Wolves in Wisconsin
Mark Ryskiewicz
March 18, 2011
Wolves In Wisconsin
Canus lupis, commonly referred to as the gray or timber wolf, has been creating quite a stir in Wisconsin in the recent years. The timber wolf has existed in Wisconsin since the time of the glaciers, approximately 10,000 years ago. Native Americans coexisted with these majestic animals for many years and it was looked upon as a highly skilled hunter. Soon after the Europeans came to Wisconsin though the wolf was seen as a threat so a bounty was placed on them. The timber wolf first disappeared from southern Wisconsin and by 1950 there were but only fifty wolves remaining in the north woods. Since then they have been tossed on and off of the endangered species list and are currently sitting as a federally protected species. Today in Wisconsin if you mention the word wolf around particular parties of interest, strong opinions may be voiced. Many of these opinions voiced may be negative toward the animal however these people may be misperceived about the facts and notions these animals hold in the wilderness.
Wisconsin may be known for the Packers, good cheese, and bitterly cold weather, but another thing it is known for is whitetail deer hunting. Wisconsin has one of the highest deer populations in the nation sitting right around one million. This is roughly 37% above the goal that the DNR has intended for the herd. An adult wolf will kill approximately twenty deer per year. This number may sound pretty high and alarm a few people but what they don’t know are the other factors that kill deer. There are approximately 662 wolves living in Wisconsin so they roughly kill 13,000 deer per year. This number is impressive but when compared to hunting, bears, coyotes, winter mortality rates, and car crashes, this number doesn’t even come close. Every year hunters take roughly 122,000 deer out of the herd, bears kill approximately 33,000 deer, coyotes kill around 16,000 deer, the winter mortality rate is between 5% and 15% depending on the severity of the season, and car crashes make up the same amount as wolf kills sitting at 13,000. (The Gray Wolf (Timber Wolf) in Wisconsin)
In the hunting realm quality deer management is becoming quite the popular objective of many hunters. Many of these hunters put a lot of time and effort into managing their land for these desired trophy bucks and so the last thing they want are wolves around to take down their trophies. A few people however think this isn’t the case and that wolves can actually increase the health and fitness of the deer population by taking out the weak, sick, and old. Our neighbor to the west, the state of Minnesota, has approximately 3,000 wolves and is currently sitting as the second best state for boone and crocket bucks shot and registered. This suggests QDM can thrive while wolves are present. (The Gray Wolf (Timber Wolf) in Wisconsin)
The timber wolf is indeed a majestic animal and has been gracing us with its presence in Wisconsin. Many people are not too fond of this animal though and insist it be taken out. However they don’t realize the importance of the animal and that humans and wolves can co-exist together. The timber wolf was almost wiped out of Wisconsin, an ecological mistake that cannot happen again.
“The Gray Wolf (Timber Wolf) in Wisconsin”. 7 September 2010. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 15 September 2010. < http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/>.
March 18, 2011
Wolves In Wisconsin
Canus lupis, commonly referred to as the gray or timber wolf, has been creating quite a stir in Wisconsin in the recent years. The timber wolf has existed in Wisconsin since the time of the glaciers, approximately 10,000 years ago. Native Americans coexisted with these majestic animals for many years and it was looked upon as a highly skilled hunter. Soon after the Europeans came to Wisconsin though the wolf was seen as a threat so a bounty was placed on them. The timber wolf first disappeared from southern Wisconsin and by 1950 there were but only fifty wolves remaining in the north woods. Since then they have been tossed on and off of the endangered species list and are currently sitting as a federally protected species. Today in Wisconsin if you mention the word wolf around particular parties of interest, strong opinions may be voiced. Many of these opinions voiced may be negative toward the animal however these people may be misperceived about the facts and notions these animals hold in the wilderness.
Wisconsin may be known for the Packers, good cheese, and bitterly cold weather, but another thing it is known for is whitetail deer hunting. Wisconsin has one of the highest deer populations in the nation sitting right around one million. This is roughly 37% above the goal that the DNR has intended for the herd. An adult wolf will kill approximately twenty deer per year. This number may sound pretty high and alarm a few people but what they don’t know are the other factors that kill deer. There are approximately 662 wolves living in Wisconsin so they roughly kill 13,000 deer per year. This number is impressive but when compared to hunting, bears, coyotes, winter mortality rates, and car crashes, this number doesn’t even come close. Every year hunters take roughly 122,000 deer out of the herd, bears kill approximately 33,000 deer, coyotes kill around 16,000 deer, the winter mortality rate is between 5% and 15% depending on the severity of the season, and car crashes make up the same amount as wolf kills sitting at 13,000. (The Gray Wolf (Timber Wolf) in Wisconsin)
In the hunting realm quality deer management is becoming quite the popular objective of many hunters. Many of these hunters put a lot of time and effort into managing their land for these desired trophy bucks and so the last thing they want are wolves around to take down their trophies. A few people however think this isn’t the case and that wolves can actually increase the health and fitness of the deer population by taking out the weak, sick, and old. Our neighbor to the west, the state of Minnesota, has approximately 3,000 wolves and is currently sitting as the second best state for boone and crocket bucks shot and registered. This suggests QDM can thrive while wolves are present. (The Gray Wolf (Timber Wolf) in Wisconsin)
The timber wolf is indeed a majestic animal and has been gracing us with its presence in Wisconsin. Many people are not too fond of this animal though and insist it be taken out. However they don’t realize the importance of the animal and that humans and wolves can co-exist together. The timber wolf was almost wiped out of Wisconsin, an ecological mistake that cannot happen again.
“The Gray Wolf (Timber Wolf) in Wisconsin”. 7 September 2010. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 15 September 2010. < http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/>.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Suburban Sprawl
What is A Bigger Threat than Urban Sprawl? Suburban Sprawl
Allison Willman
March 16, 2011
Since the aftermath of World War 2, a new phenomenon has taken over the United States that is unlike any other thing in the history of the movement of humanity and that is the development of the suburbs. Fueled by the post-war American optimism, these beehive-like structures have come to dominate the landscape that surrounds major cities. Their development was based off the fact that rapidly increasing numbers of people in the country owned cars. Thus, a big part of the suburban layout was and very much still is designed around the car.
Many feel that to live in the suburbs is to embody the American dream. All one needs to do is buy a cookie-cutter house, have a family, a dog named Spot, two cars, and a nice white picket fence surrounding it all. However, the reality of these developments is not so nice as Leave it to Beaver may make it seem. The early 2000’s in America experienced a housing boom that saw the expansion of new sprawling housing developments in the suburbs. The whole design of these housing developments consisted of tan colored houses row after row with yards barely large enough to call green space. Along with the houses sprouted retail chain stores on their outskirts promptly placed for the new tenants to buy supplies.
In order to build these sprawls, land had to come from somewhere and it wasn’t going to come from demolishing pre-existing structures. Oftentimes, agricultural land and natural areas are build over instead. By continuing to build over these open spaces, were are diminishing the amount of land we can grow food on and contributing to the loss of biodiversity. This down the road will most definitely lead to higher food prices and a loss of valuable natural areas.
There is nothing efficient at all about the design of suburbs. Because they are built around the car, they have a sprawling stature so the car can drive on them. Also, if people want to go out and run errands, they cannot walk or bike to the store because it would be inconvenient to do so even if the store is in a short distance. Instead, they have to drive their car and park in a parking lot that is too big most of the year for the people that shop. The whole layout creates a disconnect among people and nature. Everything people do and how they react is determined by machines and manmade structures. People may call me naïve whenever I rant about the suburbs and say that I may live in one someday but with the world’s oil supply running out, reliance on cars for transportation will not be as convenient as it used to be. Eventually, people will have to live closer to work and closer to where they shop because traveling there will be so expensive by car. Hopefully, suburban sprawl will decline for the sake of not only our open lands but for our own experiences with each other.
Allison Willman
March 16, 2011
Since the aftermath of World War 2, a new phenomenon has taken over the United States that is unlike any other thing in the history of the movement of humanity and that is the development of the suburbs. Fueled by the post-war American optimism, these beehive-like structures have come to dominate the landscape that surrounds major cities. Their development was based off the fact that rapidly increasing numbers of people in the country owned cars. Thus, a big part of the suburban layout was and very much still is designed around the car.
Many feel that to live in the suburbs is to embody the American dream. All one needs to do is buy a cookie-cutter house, have a family, a dog named Spot, two cars, and a nice white picket fence surrounding it all. However, the reality of these developments is not so nice as Leave it to Beaver may make it seem. The early 2000’s in America experienced a housing boom that saw the expansion of new sprawling housing developments in the suburbs. The whole design of these housing developments consisted of tan colored houses row after row with yards barely large enough to call green space. Along with the houses sprouted retail chain stores on their outskirts promptly placed for the new tenants to buy supplies.
In order to build these sprawls, land had to come from somewhere and it wasn’t going to come from demolishing pre-existing structures. Oftentimes, agricultural land and natural areas are build over instead. By continuing to build over these open spaces, were are diminishing the amount of land we can grow food on and contributing to the loss of biodiversity. This down the road will most definitely lead to higher food prices and a loss of valuable natural areas.
There is nothing efficient at all about the design of suburbs. Because they are built around the car, they have a sprawling stature so the car can drive on them. Also, if people want to go out and run errands, they cannot walk or bike to the store because it would be inconvenient to do so even if the store is in a short distance. Instead, they have to drive their car and park in a parking lot that is too big most of the year for the people that shop. The whole layout creates a disconnect among people and nature. Everything people do and how they react is determined by machines and manmade structures. People may call me naïve whenever I rant about the suburbs and say that I may live in one someday but with the world’s oil supply running out, reliance on cars for transportation will not be as convenient as it used to be. Eventually, people will have to live closer to work and closer to where they shop because traveling there will be so expensive by car. Hopefully, suburban sprawl will decline for the sake of not only our open lands but for our own experiences with each other.
Another One Bites the Dust
Another One Bites the Dust
March 28th 2011
By: Laura Johnson
Perhaps some of you have heard that recently, the second oldest eagle known in Alaska was found dead. So just how did this majestic bird meet its untimely demise? Poachers? Harsh weather? Poor health? Nope it was in fact death by electrocution when the eagle most likely flew into or roosted on a utility pole on Kodiak Island in Alaska.
Many raptors are killed each year by electrocution. The exact number is unknown because electric companies are not required to keep data on dead birds found around the utility poles they operate. Some companies do attempt to deter eagles and other raptors from coming near the utility poles. They do this by installing visual markers like spinning disks, streamers, and colored spheres to scare them away. While some companies are at least doing something others are choosing to do nothing. Whenever a raptor is killed by a utility line, the company that operates the power line is in violation of one or more federal wildlife statutes. Some of which include the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Act. Fines for violating can range from $5,000-$50,000. However, it is very rare for a lawsuit to be brought against an electric company. In fact the first time this occurred was in 1999. A lawsuit was brought against the Moon Lake Electric agency, a company stationed in Utah and Colorado. They were fined $50,000 and required to pay $50,000 in restitutions for the death of 4 ferruginous hawks, 12 golden eagles, and 1 great horned owl. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service has said they would work with companies to help them identify areas along their lines that need improvement. They are hoping to get voluntary compliance from the utility companies so they can work together on reaching a goal.
There are ways to make sure that older utility poles are up to date with some forms of raptor-safe technology in place. One of these ways is putting up insulating sheaths to protect the raptors should they accidently come into contact with the lines. These sheaths can only be used on lines up to a certain voltage though otherwise they will catch fire. A few wildlife officials are working diligently at making sure all new utility lines are being put up with raptor safe technology. This includes making sure the wires are far enough apart and installing the deterrents I have previously mentioned.
We must also hold ourselves accountable for raptor electrocutions as well. After all it is our fault that there are now utility lines all over their natural habitat. What can an individual do to try and help in some way? The best option is to make sure your utility provider is one of the companies that has or is in the process of installing raptor safe technology on their lines. If they are not, then severe your business with them. Perhaps they will see saving raptors from electrocution as more of an incentive when they realize they are losing business over it.
Resources:
For more information about the 2nd oldest bird that died please visit http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110224.html.
Lehman Robert N. Raptor electrocution on power lines: current issues and outlook. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(3):804-813.
March 28th 2011
By: Laura Johnson
Perhaps some of you have heard that recently, the second oldest eagle known in Alaska was found dead. So just how did this majestic bird meet its untimely demise? Poachers? Harsh weather? Poor health? Nope it was in fact death by electrocution when the eagle most likely flew into or roosted on a utility pole on Kodiak Island in Alaska.
Many raptors are killed each year by electrocution. The exact number is unknown because electric companies are not required to keep data on dead birds found around the utility poles they operate. Some companies do attempt to deter eagles and other raptors from coming near the utility poles. They do this by installing visual markers like spinning disks, streamers, and colored spheres to scare them away. While some companies are at least doing something others are choosing to do nothing. Whenever a raptor is killed by a utility line, the company that operates the power line is in violation of one or more federal wildlife statutes. Some of which include the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Act. Fines for violating can range from $5,000-$50,000. However, it is very rare for a lawsuit to be brought against an electric company. In fact the first time this occurred was in 1999. A lawsuit was brought against the Moon Lake Electric agency, a company stationed in Utah and Colorado. They were fined $50,000 and required to pay $50,000 in restitutions for the death of 4 ferruginous hawks, 12 golden eagles, and 1 great horned owl. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service has said they would work with companies to help them identify areas along their lines that need improvement. They are hoping to get voluntary compliance from the utility companies so they can work together on reaching a goal.
There are ways to make sure that older utility poles are up to date with some forms of raptor-safe technology in place. One of these ways is putting up insulating sheaths to protect the raptors should they accidently come into contact with the lines. These sheaths can only be used on lines up to a certain voltage though otherwise they will catch fire. A few wildlife officials are working diligently at making sure all new utility lines are being put up with raptor safe technology. This includes making sure the wires are far enough apart and installing the deterrents I have previously mentioned.
We must also hold ourselves accountable for raptor electrocutions as well. After all it is our fault that there are now utility lines all over their natural habitat. What can an individual do to try and help in some way? The best option is to make sure your utility provider is one of the companies that has or is in the process of installing raptor safe technology on their lines. If they are not, then severe your business with them. Perhaps they will see saving raptors from electrocution as more of an incentive when they realize they are losing business over it.
Resources:
For more information about the 2nd oldest bird that died please visit http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110224.html.
Lehman Robert N. Raptor electrocution on power lines: current issues and outlook. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(3):804-813.
Genetically Modified Pollution
Caleb Hillberry
3/17/2011
Genetically Modified Pollution
Genetically modified crops have been a controversial topic in the United States. Many of you can relate to why there is disagreement about genetically modified crops. The lack of genetic diversity has always been a fear for the large scale death of genetically modified crops. The other fear is of possible side effects of ingesting genetically modified crops. One issue you probably did not consider is pollution caused by genetically modified crops. This is not the possible pollution from chemicals used on crops by farmers, but actual chemicals being washed off crop biomass.
The process of genetically modifying a crop involves inserting a gene into the crop. This gene can help the crops withstand harmful herbicides or repel insects (Insecticides). Scientists have found concentrations of the insecticide gene in nearby waterways. They have been unable to determine the exact threat to human health or the environment yet. Two years ago, more than 85% of the United States corn crops were genetically modified. Considering all the other possible genetically modified crops other than corn, there are vast potential sources for pollution. A study in 217 Indiana streams reported that approximately 86% of the streams contained corn debris of some type (leaves, cobs, stalks). They also found that 28 sites in those 217 streams contain detectable concentrations of insecticides used in genetically modified corn. Even though no research has been devoted to the possibility of these insecticides polluting groundwater and wells, there needs to be concern for these possible situations.
Once these crops are harvested the remaining biomass is typically left on the field. This follows no-till agriculture and aims to prevent soil erosion. This practice is allowing even more time for crop byproducts to enter the environment. The simplest solution would seem to be to use non-genetically modified crops. I doubt that many farmers would take the chance of using conventional crops. They offer fewer yields and require more management then genetically modified crops do. We as a country need to start taking precautions and start monitoring genetically modified crops more. There also needs to be stricter testing on all genetically modified crops.
The United States currently has a policy of allowing products to be manufactured until they are found to be harmful. The European Union (EU) has a policy of not allowing a product to be released unless it is proven to be harmless. The EU has also follows a standard of not implementing genetically modified crops/foods. The adoption of similar policies from the EU by the United States would help prevent future tragedy from happening. We cannot allow ourselves to essentially use our environment as a testing stage. This calamity will hopefully influence more rugged regulation of genetically modified crops. There also needs to be an expansion on the types of test performed on genetically modified crops to look at any possible way they can negatively affect our environment. Whether you are pro genetically modified or con, we can all agree that pollution of any type is an unacceptable hazard to have. As the agricultural industry keeps on evolving, the standards and regulations in place need to evolve to ensure the safety of the environment.
Reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/gm-maize-has-polluted-rivers-across-the-united-states-2091300.html
3/17/2011
Genetically Modified Pollution
Genetically modified crops have been a controversial topic in the United States. Many of you can relate to why there is disagreement about genetically modified crops. The lack of genetic diversity has always been a fear for the large scale death of genetically modified crops. The other fear is of possible side effects of ingesting genetically modified crops. One issue you probably did not consider is pollution caused by genetically modified crops. This is not the possible pollution from chemicals used on crops by farmers, but actual chemicals being washed off crop biomass.
The process of genetically modifying a crop involves inserting a gene into the crop. This gene can help the crops withstand harmful herbicides or repel insects (Insecticides). Scientists have found concentrations of the insecticide gene in nearby waterways. They have been unable to determine the exact threat to human health or the environment yet. Two years ago, more than 85% of the United States corn crops were genetically modified. Considering all the other possible genetically modified crops other than corn, there are vast potential sources for pollution. A study in 217 Indiana streams reported that approximately 86% of the streams contained corn debris of some type (leaves, cobs, stalks). They also found that 28 sites in those 217 streams contain detectable concentrations of insecticides used in genetically modified corn. Even though no research has been devoted to the possibility of these insecticides polluting groundwater and wells, there needs to be concern for these possible situations.
Once these crops are harvested the remaining biomass is typically left on the field. This follows no-till agriculture and aims to prevent soil erosion. This practice is allowing even more time for crop byproducts to enter the environment. The simplest solution would seem to be to use non-genetically modified crops. I doubt that many farmers would take the chance of using conventional crops. They offer fewer yields and require more management then genetically modified crops do. We as a country need to start taking precautions and start monitoring genetically modified crops more. There also needs to be stricter testing on all genetically modified crops.
The United States currently has a policy of allowing products to be manufactured until they are found to be harmful. The European Union (EU) has a policy of not allowing a product to be released unless it is proven to be harmless. The EU has also follows a standard of not implementing genetically modified crops/foods. The adoption of similar policies from the EU by the United States would help prevent future tragedy from happening. We cannot allow ourselves to essentially use our environment as a testing stage. This calamity will hopefully influence more rugged regulation of genetically modified crops. There also needs to be an expansion on the types of test performed on genetically modified crops to look at any possible way they can negatively affect our environment. Whether you are pro genetically modified or con, we can all agree that pollution of any type is an unacceptable hazard to have. As the agricultural industry keeps on evolving, the standards and regulations in place need to evolve to ensure the safety of the environment.
Reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/gm-maize-has-polluted-rivers-across-the-united-states-2091300.html
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Invasive Species
Invasive Species
By:
William Aamodt
Increased annual water temperatures, increased aquatic vegetation area, and decreased native species. These are all signs that invasive species have taken control of your lake. Invasive species have been flying under the radar for a long time in this country and were left unadulterated for many years. Only when they start to cause a problem do we take notice and realize that we need to do something about it. Increased water temperatures are happening due to zebra mussels, these mussels can siphon more water through their bodies to locate food than most of the native mussels to this region. This siphoning cleans up the water, sure that’s good for swimmers and recreational boat users, but what it does is allows more light to reach deeper into lakes. Deeper in the water means that more water is warmed up, increasing water temperatures. This could lead to some major perchid (walleye and perch) lakes turning into centrachid (bass and sunfish) dominated lakes. It also means that some deeper areas are going to be inhabitable by aquatic plants that were prior contained in shallower areas.
Its not just mussels that have been invading our waters; there are plants too. Eurasian water milfoil has become a problem in many lakes. Unlike its native cousin, Northern water milfoil, Eurasian is highly transportable. If it is broken into little pieces, say by a weed harvester, each one of those pieces is able to become an entire new plant! It is found in dense patches that can blot out any sunlight from reaching the lower depths of a lake and thus eliminating more oxygen from the system. Not only is it highly movable, it is highly adaptable. It has been choking out native aquatic plants since it was transported here from its native home range.
Another tiny little aquatic invertebrate that is causing some trouble is the Spiny Water Flea. This little guy is a voracious predator that can eat all of the other invertebrate food, usually phytoplankton or zooplankton, before the native species can. The reason that this is bad is because it causes problems with fish. The species is named spiny because its tail is basically a large spine that, when ingested by predators, fish, tends to puncture holes in internal organs. Fish tend to learn to stay away from things that hurt and thus this species goes unchecked once it has established itself.
The only reason that these pests are here is because of humans. Just like any other exotic species, they have been transported by the bipedal species that drives boats from one lake to the next. A plant just can’t sprout wings and decide it wants to fly over the ocean to grow in a new lake; it had to get here somehow. The same goes for every invasive. They cause problems in the new systems because they go unchecked. When something enters into a new system, it usually leaves its old predator behind, meaning that there is nothing eating or utilizing it. This leads to exponential growth that will only yield once all of the usable resources are gone.
By:
William Aamodt
Increased annual water temperatures, increased aquatic vegetation area, and decreased native species. These are all signs that invasive species have taken control of your lake. Invasive species have been flying under the radar for a long time in this country and were left unadulterated for many years. Only when they start to cause a problem do we take notice and realize that we need to do something about it. Increased water temperatures are happening due to zebra mussels, these mussels can siphon more water through their bodies to locate food than most of the native mussels to this region. This siphoning cleans up the water, sure that’s good for swimmers and recreational boat users, but what it does is allows more light to reach deeper into lakes. Deeper in the water means that more water is warmed up, increasing water temperatures. This could lead to some major perchid (walleye and perch) lakes turning into centrachid (bass and sunfish) dominated lakes. It also means that some deeper areas are going to be inhabitable by aquatic plants that were prior contained in shallower areas.
Its not just mussels that have been invading our waters; there are plants too. Eurasian water milfoil has become a problem in many lakes. Unlike its native cousin, Northern water milfoil, Eurasian is highly transportable. If it is broken into little pieces, say by a weed harvester, each one of those pieces is able to become an entire new plant! It is found in dense patches that can blot out any sunlight from reaching the lower depths of a lake and thus eliminating more oxygen from the system. Not only is it highly movable, it is highly adaptable. It has been choking out native aquatic plants since it was transported here from its native home range.
Another tiny little aquatic invertebrate that is causing some trouble is the Spiny Water Flea. This little guy is a voracious predator that can eat all of the other invertebrate food, usually phytoplankton or zooplankton, before the native species can. The reason that this is bad is because it causes problems with fish. The species is named spiny because its tail is basically a large spine that, when ingested by predators, fish, tends to puncture holes in internal organs. Fish tend to learn to stay away from things that hurt and thus this species goes unchecked once it has established itself.
The only reason that these pests are here is because of humans. Just like any other exotic species, they have been transported by the bipedal species that drives boats from one lake to the next. A plant just can’t sprout wings and decide it wants to fly over the ocean to grow in a new lake; it had to get here somehow. The same goes for every invasive. They cause problems in the new systems because they go unchecked. When something enters into a new system, it usually leaves its old predator behind, meaning that there is nothing eating or utilizing it. This leads to exponential growth that will only yield once all of the usable resources are gone.
Chimps in the Kitchen
CHIMPS IN THE KITCHEN, TIGERS IN THE YARD
Stephanie Bergholtz
March 16th 2011
Fatal Attractions
Like many of you, I grew up with a great interest in animals of all shape and size. As a small child, around 10 or so, I used to cover up my pet dog Shadow with blankets if I were cold, because if I was cold I figured, so should she. If I painted my nails a nice pink color, I would paint Shadow’s nails pink because if I wanted my hand to look pretty then obviously Shadow would want her paw to look just as pretty as my hand. Shadow, being the amazingly patient dog that she was, would just lay there under the blanket for as long she could take before she overheated and would then run away from. She was considerably less patient for the nail painting. It only took about 2 minutes before she would try to escape. I used to tell her beauty was pain and she would just have to deal with it, this worked for another 30 seconds before she went running out of my room.
I distinctly remember asking my mother for a pet lion when I was about the same age, she told me no. I was upset for about ten minutes before I got over it and started terrorizing poor Shadow. Could you imagine trying to cover up a lion with a blanket when it was cold out or painting a lion’s nails?! I have a feeling the lion would not have been as accepting as my beloved Shadow.
Thanks to animal planet’s Fatal Attractions, I have learned about some interesting people who obviously never got over the fact that their mothers denied their request for a wild animal. There have been people with pet tigers, lions, bears (oh my), chimpanzees, alligators, monitor lizards, venomous snakes, elephants, buffalo and the list goes on and on. In every case, the “owner” is convinced that the animal will never harm them; that their love for each other is too strong.
How do you think most of these episodes end? The owner is mauled by/trampled by their “pet”. It seems that love truly is not enough. People try to put emotions on animals all the time but the truth is we have no idea what they are thinking, what they are feeling. I’m the first to admit that I put emotions on animals. I go to the zoo and see a pair of penguins huddling together and think “awww they must be in love!” There was even a summer where I spent at least one day at the NEW Zoo each week and spent half the time at a polar bear exhibit. I seriously felt a close bond with the bear but never have I thought; gee I should bring Bob the polar bear home with me.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is this: if you love wild animals, do you love them enough to respect that they need a lot more than any one person can give them? Do you love them enough to let them live out their life in the wild? Do you love them enough to respect their natural instincts and give them the space they deserve?
The majority of people would answer yes to this, which begs the question: why do so many people have exotic pets? Do they sincerely think they can be domesticated? Is it this perception that animals feel the same emotions as people that drive the owners of wild animals to treat tigers as they would domestic cats?
For more information, albeit overly dramatic (this is a cable show after all) go to: http://animal.discovery.com/tv/fatal-attractions/
Not convinced getting an exotic pet is a bad idea? Make sure your state allows you to own one of these potentially dangerous animals. For some bizarre pet laws check out http://animal.discovery.com/tv/fatal-attractions/5-exotic-pet-laws.html
Stephanie Bergholtz
March 16th 2011
Fatal Attractions
Like many of you, I grew up with a great interest in animals of all shape and size. As a small child, around 10 or so, I used to cover up my pet dog Shadow with blankets if I were cold, because if I was cold I figured, so should she. If I painted my nails a nice pink color, I would paint Shadow’s nails pink because if I wanted my hand to look pretty then obviously Shadow would want her paw to look just as pretty as my hand. Shadow, being the amazingly patient dog that she was, would just lay there under the blanket for as long she could take before she overheated and would then run away from. She was considerably less patient for the nail painting. It only took about 2 minutes before she would try to escape. I used to tell her beauty was pain and she would just have to deal with it, this worked for another 30 seconds before she went running out of my room.
I distinctly remember asking my mother for a pet lion when I was about the same age, she told me no. I was upset for about ten minutes before I got over it and started terrorizing poor Shadow. Could you imagine trying to cover up a lion with a blanket when it was cold out or painting a lion’s nails?! I have a feeling the lion would not have been as accepting as my beloved Shadow.
Thanks to animal planet’s Fatal Attractions, I have learned about some interesting people who obviously never got over the fact that their mothers denied their request for a wild animal. There have been people with pet tigers, lions, bears (oh my), chimpanzees, alligators, monitor lizards, venomous snakes, elephants, buffalo and the list goes on and on. In every case, the “owner” is convinced that the animal will never harm them; that their love for each other is too strong.
How do you think most of these episodes end? The owner is mauled by/trampled by their “pet”. It seems that love truly is not enough. People try to put emotions on animals all the time but the truth is we have no idea what they are thinking, what they are feeling. I’m the first to admit that I put emotions on animals. I go to the zoo and see a pair of penguins huddling together and think “awww they must be in love!” There was even a summer where I spent at least one day at the NEW Zoo each week and spent half the time at a polar bear exhibit. I seriously felt a close bond with the bear but never have I thought; gee I should bring Bob the polar bear home with me.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is this: if you love wild animals, do you love them enough to respect that they need a lot more than any one person can give them? Do you love them enough to let them live out their life in the wild? Do you love them enough to respect their natural instincts and give them the space they deserve?
The majority of people would answer yes to this, which begs the question: why do so many people have exotic pets? Do they sincerely think they can be domesticated? Is it this perception that animals feel the same emotions as people that drive the owners of wild animals to treat tigers as they would domestic cats?
For more information, albeit overly dramatic (this is a cable show after all) go to: http://animal.discovery.com/tv/fatal-attractions/
Not convinced getting an exotic pet is a bad idea? Make sure your state allows you to own one of these potentially dangerous animals. For some bizarre pet laws check out http://animal.discovery.com/tv/fatal-attractions/5-exotic-pet-laws.html
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Humans: A Natural Disaster?
Sara Wendt
3/14/2011
Humans: A Natural Disaster?
As many people know, a large amount of money, time, and effort is spent in an attempt to understand the world’s biodiversity, and yet the planet is losing species. The past annual extinction rate averages one for every one million species, which equates to an average of 10 to 100 species per year1. However, the extinction rates have been on the rise and in the last 400 years extinction rates have been 45 times greater2 than the predicted past average.
My natural instinct as a Wildlife Ecology major, and future researcher and conservationist is to run out there to try and save what I can. I believe that if we cause the trouble, we need to fix it. However, I heard a different point of view that occasionally returns to my mind. This point of view is based on the idea that human impact is part of a natural course that is meant to happen. In the past, great extinctions were theoretically caused by natural disasters such as meteorites striking the earth or ice ages. This other theory revolves around the idea that humans are the new “natural disaster.” Humans must still try to live sustainably, but whatever species go extinct are not “fit” enough to survive on earth anyway, so there is no point in attempting to keep them in existence. I must admit, it is an intriguing theory, whether right or wrong.
And if it’s right? Say humans did not exist on the planet… either we moved to the moon or never existed. Many problems faced by the earth’s species would be drastically different. There would be no habitat destruction, road kills, human poaching or hunting, human caused pollution, etc. Anything that occurred would be at the whim of Mother Nature. In this world, species would be challenged everyday to survive and pass on genes to their offspring, and failing to do so would result in the decline and extinction of the species. Any large changes would either cause a species to adapt or go extinct.
Now put humans back onto earth. In terms of the earth’s life history, human impact has been a very small portion of time… about as short as the start of an ice age. The changes occurring due to human impact have been challenging the planet’s species everyday to survive and pass on their genetic information. Is it possible that humans are the factor eliminating the “weak” species and opening niches that allow more species to evolve? Could this occurrence be as natural as a giant volcanic eruption that blocks out the sun?
Of course I argue against this with beliefs that the changes are occurring due to the human species’ disrespect for natural resources, and living the way humans do may cause changes that make the earth uninhabitable, even for us. Here, the theory again becomes relevant. If the earth is uninhabitable even for humans, a natural course is being followed and the “weak” species go extinct. The theory stresses the idea that humans need to live more sustainably but don’t determine who lives or dies. It poses the question, “Do we as a species, have the right to play God?”
Please respond! I would love to hear opinions supporting or opposing this view!
Resources:
1 Wilson, E. O. 2000. Vanishing before our eyes. Time 155 (17): 29.
3/14/2011
Humans: A Natural Disaster?
As many people know, a large amount of money, time, and effort is spent in an attempt to understand the world’s biodiversity, and yet the planet is losing species. The past annual extinction rate averages one for every one million species, which equates to an average of 10 to 100 species per year1. However, the extinction rates have been on the rise and in the last 400 years extinction rates have been 45 times greater2 than the predicted past average.
My natural instinct as a Wildlife Ecology major, and future researcher and conservationist is to run out there to try and save what I can. I believe that if we cause the trouble, we need to fix it. However, I heard a different point of view that occasionally returns to my mind. This point of view is based on the idea that human impact is part of a natural course that is meant to happen. In the past, great extinctions were theoretically caused by natural disasters such as meteorites striking the earth or ice ages. This other theory revolves around the idea that humans are the new “natural disaster.” Humans must still try to live sustainably, but whatever species go extinct are not “fit” enough to survive on earth anyway, so there is no point in attempting to keep them in existence. I must admit, it is an intriguing theory, whether right or wrong.
And if it’s right? Say humans did not exist on the planet… either we moved to the moon or never existed. Many problems faced by the earth’s species would be drastically different. There would be no habitat destruction, road kills, human poaching or hunting, human caused pollution, etc. Anything that occurred would be at the whim of Mother Nature. In this world, species would be challenged everyday to survive and pass on genes to their offspring, and failing to do so would result in the decline and extinction of the species. Any large changes would either cause a species to adapt or go extinct.
Now put humans back onto earth. In terms of the earth’s life history, human impact has been a very small portion of time… about as short as the start of an ice age. The changes occurring due to human impact have been challenging the planet’s species everyday to survive and pass on their genetic information. Is it possible that humans are the factor eliminating the “weak” species and opening niches that allow more species to evolve? Could this occurrence be as natural as a giant volcanic eruption that blocks out the sun?
Of course I argue against this with beliefs that the changes are occurring due to the human species’ disrespect for natural resources, and living the way humans do may cause changes that make the earth uninhabitable, even for us. Here, the theory again becomes relevant. If the earth is uninhabitable even for humans, a natural course is being followed and the “weak” species go extinct. The theory stresses the idea that humans need to live more sustainably but don’t determine who lives or dies. It poses the question, “Do we as a species, have the right to play God?”
Please respond! I would love to hear opinions supporting or opposing this view!
Resources:
1 Wilson, E. O. 2000. Vanishing before our eyes. Time 155 (17): 29.
Epidemic Nature Deficit
Grace Mitchell
14 March 2011
The Epidemic Sweeping Our Nation
This epidemic cannot be spread by a sneeze or a cough. It won’t directly put you or members of your family in the hospital. Though, it might require medical attention if ignored. This is a serious epidemic and the children of this country are being hit the hardest. Some people call it laziness, others…Nature Deficit Disorder.
Today’s average eight year old child can more commonly identify characters from a cartoon television program than a common oak leaf or a beetle. This may be in part because a child in today’s society spends an average of about 6.5 hours a day watching television or on the computer. When I came home from school, I finished my homework then went out to play until I got hungry, heard Mom calling or the street lights turned on. Today, children come home with their ear plugs in, sit down in front of the TV or computer, and hang out with their friends…online, alone, secluded in their bedrooms.
Researchers are beginning to prove the enormous benefits that experiencing nature can have on a child. While the amount of time a child spends outside decreases, childhood obesity rates and the number of children diagnosed with ADHD rises. Unsurprisingly, the 25% of children that are considered to be obese in America correlates with the children that watch television for five hours or more each day. Frances Kuo, a social psychologist from the University of Illinois in Champaign, found that children between the ages of 7 and 12 that had been diagnosed with ADHD experienced a 20% increase in their ability to concentrate in the classroom after spending time outdoors. Rather than medicating a child with stimulants such as Ritalin, simply spending half an hour on the playground a day has shown signs of improving behavior. Beyond that research has shown that children that get outdoors have less stress, more creativity and higher self-esteem.
The biggest obstacle a child faces is not finding a place to explore outdoors. Most parks and forests can be reached by foot, bicycle, or public transportation. The biggest obstacle for children is parental fear. We have become a paranoid society afraid of people kidnapping our children, afraid of germs and afraid of the big, unknown outdoors. There are safe ways to slowly step into the outdoors. There are nature centers that provide guided walks. There are programs, like that with the Chicago Park District, which provides tents, sleeping bags and meals for families that have never been camping before for a small fee of $40. I hope that parents will weigh the odds and see that taking the time to introduce nature to children is such an enormous benefit to both parent and child.
There are so many things that parents can do in your own neighborhood or backyard for their children.
• Set up the hose or sprinkler, kids love playing in water.
• Plant shrubs, grasses, ferns, flowers and trees in your yard, it provides kids with places to hide and climb. Even better, make the plants native to your area so that they will attract wildlife.
• Have a dirt pile for them to dig and build things in. Don’t worry parents, kids do wash. It is not the end of the world if kids get a little dirt on their hands. Think of the hours of fun they will have.
• You could start a vegetable garden. It gives kids outdoor time, and you have vegetables for dinner.
• As a family, you could camp in the backyard or maybe just a snack outside in August during the meteor shower.
• Look under a log with a magnifying glass or catch fireflies in a glass jar.
The list is endless! Use your imagination!
The exercise and social and cognitive benefits to a child’s development cannot be overlooked. From the beginning of human kind, children have been playing outdoors and now society is taking that right away from them and they are silently suffering. As Rachel Carson once said, “If a child is to keep alive his inborn sense of wonder, he needs the companionship of at least one adult who can share it, rediscovering with him the joy, excitement and mystery of the world we live in.” Parents take your children outside and witness the magic that happens when they turn over the log. I’m afraid for the children of future generations. If we do not introduce and share the wonder of nature with them, who will protect the forests after we are gone?
Louv, Richard. “Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.”
Millett, Katherine. "People Nurture & Nature." Chicago Wilderness http://www.chicagowildernessreports.org/pdf/people_nurture%20&%20nature.pdf
14 March 2011
The Epidemic Sweeping Our Nation
This epidemic cannot be spread by a sneeze or a cough. It won’t directly put you or members of your family in the hospital. Though, it might require medical attention if ignored. This is a serious epidemic and the children of this country are being hit the hardest. Some people call it laziness, others…Nature Deficit Disorder.
Today’s average eight year old child can more commonly identify characters from a cartoon television program than a common oak leaf or a beetle. This may be in part because a child in today’s society spends an average of about 6.5 hours a day watching television or on the computer. When I came home from school, I finished my homework then went out to play until I got hungry, heard Mom calling or the street lights turned on. Today, children come home with their ear plugs in, sit down in front of the TV or computer, and hang out with their friends…online, alone, secluded in their bedrooms.
Researchers are beginning to prove the enormous benefits that experiencing nature can have on a child. While the amount of time a child spends outside decreases, childhood obesity rates and the number of children diagnosed with ADHD rises. Unsurprisingly, the 25% of children that are considered to be obese in America correlates with the children that watch television for five hours or more each day. Frances Kuo, a social psychologist from the University of Illinois in Champaign, found that children between the ages of 7 and 12 that had been diagnosed with ADHD experienced a 20% increase in their ability to concentrate in the classroom after spending time outdoors. Rather than medicating a child with stimulants such as Ritalin, simply spending half an hour on the playground a day has shown signs of improving behavior. Beyond that research has shown that children that get outdoors have less stress, more creativity and higher self-esteem.
The biggest obstacle a child faces is not finding a place to explore outdoors. Most parks and forests can be reached by foot, bicycle, or public transportation. The biggest obstacle for children is parental fear. We have become a paranoid society afraid of people kidnapping our children, afraid of germs and afraid of the big, unknown outdoors. There are safe ways to slowly step into the outdoors. There are nature centers that provide guided walks. There are programs, like that with the Chicago Park District, which provides tents, sleeping bags and meals for families that have never been camping before for a small fee of $40. I hope that parents will weigh the odds and see that taking the time to introduce nature to children is such an enormous benefit to both parent and child.
There are so many things that parents can do in your own neighborhood or backyard for their children.
• Set up the hose or sprinkler, kids love playing in water.
• Plant shrubs, grasses, ferns, flowers and trees in your yard, it provides kids with places to hide and climb. Even better, make the plants native to your area so that they will attract wildlife.
• Have a dirt pile for them to dig and build things in. Don’t worry parents, kids do wash. It is not the end of the world if kids get a little dirt on their hands. Think of the hours of fun they will have.
• You could start a vegetable garden. It gives kids outdoor time, and you have vegetables for dinner.
• As a family, you could camp in the backyard or maybe just a snack outside in August during the meteor shower.
• Look under a log with a magnifying glass or catch fireflies in a glass jar.
The list is endless! Use your imagination!
The exercise and social and cognitive benefits to a child’s development cannot be overlooked. From the beginning of human kind, children have been playing outdoors and now society is taking that right away from them and they are silently suffering. As Rachel Carson once said, “If a child is to keep alive his inborn sense of wonder, he needs the companionship of at least one adult who can share it, rediscovering with him the joy, excitement and mystery of the world we live in.” Parents take your children outside and witness the magic that happens when they turn over the log. I’m afraid for the children of future generations. If we do not introduce and share the wonder of nature with them, who will protect the forests after we are gone?
Louv, Richard. “Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.”
Millett, Katherine. "People Nurture & Nature." Chicago Wilderness http://www.chicagowildernessreports.org/pdf/people_nurture%20&%20nature.pdf
Energy and You
Energy and You
March 15, 2011
Advances in technology have pushed us forward in energy use and consumption. The world is in a different place from where it was 30 years ago and will be even more different 30 years in the future. If there is one thing that will change, it is our use of electrics and advances in technology, many of which make our lives increasingly more comfortable. The world is powered by electricity and so now are our lives. The USA is one of the biggest users of energy in the world, an average American can use close to 11,548 kilowatts/ hr. during the day. This doesn’t include all the energy that is used from outside sources. The world is not getting any smaller and neither is the world’s consumption of energy. What part can you play in the world of energy consumption?
There are vast numbers of ways to turn the tide on the way we consume energy. The changing of old light bulbs to new, energy saving light bulbs is one way to reduce energy consumption, but it is also one of the most advertised methods. There are other ways to reduce the use by making simple choices concerning everyday things. Choosing paper rather than plastic at your local grocery store can make an energy difference. The amount of energy it takes to break down plastic is astronomical compared to paper which can simply decay in the environment. An even better choice to this situation would be to just simply bring a reusable bag when at the grocery store. There are other, easy ways to change your consumption, like turning off the lights when you leave a room and opening a window instead of turning on the air conditioning. One unexpected method is to unplug electronic devices while not in use; this can make an unbelievable change in electricity consumption. The reason for this is a phantom charge that all electronics have, even when turned off. Basically a phantom charge is electrical current that go on inside electronic devices when they are plugged into the wall. An example of a phantom charge would the lights on game system that are still lit up when the system is turned off or a cell phone charger that is plugged in even if it is not connected to the cell phone. The replacing of old power strips with energy saving ones can help reduce consumption and hopefully reduce fire danger by replacing any faulty old strips. The use of rechargeable batteries is helpful in reducing waste and energy, yeah sure you’re still using energy from the wall, but energy going to recharge them is less than the energy of breaking down the battery and because these batteries have multiple reuses, they will not end up in a landfill. The use of a bicycle or simply walking to get somewhere can make its difference known. Not only are you not driving and using up gas as a form of energy, but you’re using your own body energy and making yourself healthier.
There is an endless list of things that one can do to reduce your consumption of energy. However, there are two things that each of us need to ask ourselves first. One is, what I do that consumes energy in a wasteful way. Second, what will I do to change my behavior and make myself less energy dependent and more energy efficient? A last thing is the realization that even little things can make a difference in the long run. Unplugging that old stereo that has been plugged into the wall for months or maybe even years can show a reduction on your energy bill.
On a national scale we have found ways to lower our consumption such as using buses, trains, and other mass modes of transportation to move people. Switching energy sources that we use is a change that we are trying to do as nation. I’m talking about going green and the use of clean and reusable sources of energy such as hydro electrical power, wind power, and geo-thermal power. These are some of the ways many people have found to make the world a little greener. The system of reduce, reuse, and recycle has also made a difference in the way we treat our waste materials. Even now there are people in the world who are coming up with new and inventive ways to reduce their consumption and make what we do consume healthier for the environment around us. What is it that you will do to make a change?
March 15, 2011
Advances in technology have pushed us forward in energy use and consumption. The world is in a different place from where it was 30 years ago and will be even more different 30 years in the future. If there is one thing that will change, it is our use of electrics and advances in technology, many of which make our lives increasingly more comfortable. The world is powered by electricity and so now are our lives. The USA is one of the biggest users of energy in the world, an average American can use close to 11,548 kilowatts/ hr. during the day. This doesn’t include all the energy that is used from outside sources. The world is not getting any smaller and neither is the world’s consumption of energy. What part can you play in the world of energy consumption?
There are vast numbers of ways to turn the tide on the way we consume energy. The changing of old light bulbs to new, energy saving light bulbs is one way to reduce energy consumption, but it is also one of the most advertised methods. There are other ways to reduce the use by making simple choices concerning everyday things. Choosing paper rather than plastic at your local grocery store can make an energy difference. The amount of energy it takes to break down plastic is astronomical compared to paper which can simply decay in the environment. An even better choice to this situation would be to just simply bring a reusable bag when at the grocery store. There are other, easy ways to change your consumption, like turning off the lights when you leave a room and opening a window instead of turning on the air conditioning. One unexpected method is to unplug electronic devices while not in use; this can make an unbelievable change in electricity consumption. The reason for this is a phantom charge that all electronics have, even when turned off. Basically a phantom charge is electrical current that go on inside electronic devices when they are plugged into the wall. An example of a phantom charge would the lights on game system that are still lit up when the system is turned off or a cell phone charger that is plugged in even if it is not connected to the cell phone. The replacing of old power strips with energy saving ones can help reduce consumption and hopefully reduce fire danger by replacing any faulty old strips. The use of rechargeable batteries is helpful in reducing waste and energy, yeah sure you’re still using energy from the wall, but energy going to recharge them is less than the energy of breaking down the battery and because these batteries have multiple reuses, they will not end up in a landfill. The use of a bicycle or simply walking to get somewhere can make its difference known. Not only are you not driving and using up gas as a form of energy, but you’re using your own body energy and making yourself healthier.
There is an endless list of things that one can do to reduce your consumption of energy. However, there are two things that each of us need to ask ourselves first. One is, what I do that consumes energy in a wasteful way. Second, what will I do to change my behavior and make myself less energy dependent and more energy efficient? A last thing is the realization that even little things can make a difference in the long run. Unplugging that old stereo that has been plugged into the wall for months or maybe even years can show a reduction on your energy bill.
On a national scale we have found ways to lower our consumption such as using buses, trains, and other mass modes of transportation to move people. Switching energy sources that we use is a change that we are trying to do as nation. I’m talking about going green and the use of clean and reusable sources of energy such as hydro electrical power, wind power, and geo-thermal power. These are some of the ways many people have found to make the world a little greener. The system of reduce, reuse, and recycle has also made a difference in the way we treat our waste materials. Even now there are people in the world who are coming up with new and inventive ways to reduce their consumption and make what we do consume healthier for the environment around us. What is it that you will do to make a change?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Toxic Chemicals...What is Lurking in PVC?
Over the past few years the toxic chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) has taken the limelight in the media and become the poster child for reducing the use and our exposure to toxic chemicals. Though wonderful in how it has worked in educating the generl public on the dangers it poses, other toxic chemicals are still prevelant in the products we use every day that do not grab the attention of the media, chemicals such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC or commonly known as vinyl).
PVC is not as readily understood by most in it's toxic nature since it is not PVC the chemical, but the chemicals that are used for the creation of PVC as well as those that are harbored in PVC and released throughout it's lifecycle that are toxic. Given all these chemicals together PVC can be considered the most toxic plastic on this planet.
Let's start from the beginning. When PVC is created synthetic chemicals called dioxins are released. Dioxins are harmful to our immune systems and reproductive systems and are considered a carcinogen (i.e. they cause cancer), yet they are prevalent in PVC products due to the process it takes to create PVC. Dioxins are also released at the end of the plastic's life cycle if it is burned, releasing them into the air we breath. Those that are not burned are put into landfills as PVC plastic can never be recycled, so dioxins are then released into our soil, water, and impact the environment we live in.
Do you know that "new shower curtain" smell? When you open a new shower curtain or rain coat made of PVC you get a smell from the PVC plastic used. And guess what? That offgassing never stops. Dioxins will be offgassed throughout the life of the product so you will be breathing them in every time you use the item. This is how prevalent this chemical is.
So is Dioxins it? Is that the only reason PVC is toxic? No, not quite. PVC often also has Mercury, lead, organotins, cadmium,VOCs, phthalates, and other metals inside it to give it the properties we are used to seeing with PVC plastic, such as bendability and pliability. Think rubber ducky, soft and pliable so you can squeeze it, which is often a desireable characteristic for many products it is used in. But with these latent hazards the risks outweigh the benefits.
One of the chemicals used to help make PVC pliable, phthalates, has it's own toxicity issues. Phthalates are produced every year for use in everything from PVC to cosmetics and research says the harmful effects that may be remifications from their use include "Early puberty in girls, Premature delivery, Impaired sperm quality and sperm damage in men, Genital defects and reduced testosterone production in boys, Genital defects and testicular cancer" (Source: Environmental California). There has been a Nation Wide Ban on the use of phthalates in items marketed for children 12 and under in the Children's Safe Products Act but this does not limit the amount of phthalates used in your normal household items.
Many concerns lie with PVC use in common household products, but especially with products used for infant/child products and even those used in schools and other centers (see a compilation of documented reports on the risks of the creation, use and disposal of PVC products at the Campaign for Safe and Healthy Consumer Products website) Young children do not have the abilities adults have built up in our bodies to break down chemicals such as these since their livers are not fully functional until they are older, and chemicals such as dioxins accumulate in the body and build up over time (the half-life of dioxin molecules persist for 7-11 years according to the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice).
With links being made between the chemicals in PVC and concerns such as athsma, obesity, breast cancer, and learning disabilities like ADD, decreasing the use of PVC in our products and thus our exposure over our lifetime to the chemicals it harbors is a step many product companies and large companies (such as Target, Walmart, etc.) are taking. Some comanies, however, still are not taking these steps, such as Toys R Us.
With the prevalence of PVC products in today's economy and lack of available alternatives for the time being the greatest step you can take for your own heath and those of your family and friends is to reduce your exposure and make educated decisions when you purchase your products. Someone can't do everything, but Everyone can do something.
If you are interested in information on BPA please see my compilation article "Bisphenol-A: Should It Be Banned?" in my Green Resource archives.
Other wonderful sources of information can be found at SafeMama, The Soft Landing Blog, ZRecommends, and Healthy Child Healthy World besides the previous links throughout this post.
How to find PVC plastics in your home: HERE
Alternatives to PVC plastics are databased HERE
Why is PVC Considered Toxic?
PVC is not as readily understood by most in it's toxic nature since it is not PVC the chemical, but the chemicals that are used for the creation of PVC as well as those that are harbored in PVC and released throughout it's lifecycle that are toxic. Given all these chemicals together PVC can be considered the most toxic plastic on this planet.
Let's start from the beginning. When PVC is created synthetic chemicals called dioxins are released. Dioxins are harmful to our immune systems and reproductive systems and are considered a carcinogen (i.e. they cause cancer), yet they are prevalent in PVC products due to the process it takes to create PVC. Dioxins are also released at the end of the plastic's life cycle if it is burned, releasing them into the air we breath. Those that are not burned are put into landfills as PVC plastic can never be recycled, so dioxins are then released into our soil, water, and impact the environment we live in.
Do you know that "new shower curtain" smell? When you open a new shower curtain or rain coat made of PVC you get a smell from the PVC plastic used. And guess what? That offgassing never stops. Dioxins will be offgassed throughout the life of the product so you will be breathing them in every time you use the item. This is how prevalent this chemical is.
So is Dioxins it? Is that the only reason PVC is toxic? No, not quite. PVC often also has Mercury, lead, organotins, cadmium,VOCs, phthalates, and other metals inside it to give it the properties we are used to seeing with PVC plastic, such as bendability and pliability. Think rubber ducky, soft and pliable so you can squeeze it, which is often a desireable characteristic for many products it is used in. But with these latent hazards the risks outweigh the benefits.
One of the chemicals used to help make PVC pliable, phthalates, has it's own toxicity issues. Phthalates are produced every year for use in everything from PVC to cosmetics and research says the harmful effects that may be remifications from their use include "Early puberty in girls, Premature delivery, Impaired sperm quality and sperm damage in men, Genital defects and reduced testosterone production in boys, Genital defects and testicular cancer" (Source: Environmental California). There has been a Nation Wide Ban on the use of phthalates in items marketed for children 12 and under in the Children's Safe Products Act but this does not limit the amount of phthalates used in your normal household items.
Concerns of PVC Plastics, what can you do?
Many concerns lie with PVC use in common household products, but especially with products used for infant/child products and even those used in schools and other centers (see a compilation of documented reports on the risks of the creation, use and disposal of PVC products at the Campaign for Safe and Healthy Consumer Products website) Young children do not have the abilities adults have built up in our bodies to break down chemicals such as these since their livers are not fully functional until they are older, and chemicals such as dioxins accumulate in the body and build up over time (the half-life of dioxin molecules persist for 7-11 years according to the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice).
With links being made between the chemicals in PVC and concerns such as athsma, obesity, breast cancer, and learning disabilities like ADD, decreasing the use of PVC in our products and thus our exposure over our lifetime to the chemicals it harbors is a step many product companies and large companies (such as Target, Walmart, etc.) are taking. Some comanies, however, still are not taking these steps, such as Toys R Us.
With the prevalence of PVC products in today's economy and lack of available alternatives for the time being the greatest step you can take for your own heath and those of your family and friends is to reduce your exposure and make educated decisions when you purchase your products. Someone can't do everything, but Everyone can do something.
If you are interested in information on BPA please see my compilation article "Bisphenol-A: Should It Be Banned?" in my Green Resource archives.
Other wonderful sources of information can be found at SafeMama, The Soft Landing Blog, ZRecommends, and Healthy Child Healthy World besides the previous links throughout this post.
How to find PVC plastics in your home: HERE
Alternatives to PVC plastics are databased HERE
Big Cats in Wisconsin
Breanna Zieher
3/10/11
Big Cats in Wisconsin
I have a question for you. Would you leave a 3 year old locked in a crib or small room without the ability to get enough food and water? Would you leave a child without toys or some other way to entertain themselves? I really hope not. Many big cats live in these conditions here in the US. If you leave a child to their own devices, they are going to do some kind of damage, whether to themselves or their surroundings. The same goes for any animal. Big cats that are locked in a cage under those circumstances are highly aggressive and fearful, which makes them more dangerous.
But why am I comparing lions and tigers to a human child? Animals have been found to have an intelligence level around that of a child. Some animals are able to pass the Self-Recognition Test. The test is quite simple; it means if the subject looks in a mirror and recognizes itself, it passes. Most human two year-olds are not yet capable of passing this test.
In WI, there are no laws or regulations controlling private ownership of big cats. Even in states where owning a big cat is banned, there are many loopholes and exceptions that people can, and do, get around. According to Big Cat Rescue, you can purchase a big cat over the internet for less than the price of a purebred puppy.
These big cats can end up in many situations. They could end up being used as nothing more than breeding stock under the pretense of Conservation. So they breed their big cats for “the cause”, except that the bloodlines are unknown so, they’re only good for selling to private owners. The rare white tigers that are seemingly highly prized aren’t their own species. The only way to get a white tiger is to inbreed with more white tigers. This leads to physical deformities, mental problems, and, likely, even death.
Most people who end up with a big cat are ignorant of their needs. That ignorance leads to neglect, abuse, and just deplorable living conditions. They need space, but normally they live in a small enclosure made out of wire fences and cement floors. Or in the opposite extreme, they are let to freely roam their owner’s property. Big cats also need the proper nutrition. The amount of food they need can get expensive fast, and their owners can’t afford to feed them but don’t want to give them up. So they starve their animals whether knowingly or out of ignorance.
There needs to be better laws so that these kinds of things don’t occur. Now it’s argued that anyone who wants to own a big cat should be able to simply because it is our right as US citizens. Just because someone wants to own a tiger or a lion doesn’t mean they should be able to. In a perfect world, these majestic beings would be able to roam in their natural environment. But that perfect world doesn’t exist. Instead, the majority of the tigers in the world are stuck in some form of a cage, mainly for human gain.
Along with the moral issues, there is also the danger involved. When people do not put the proper precautions in place, things become dangerous not just for humans. If a big cat attacks a human, no matter the reason, they are normally killed. Banning big cat contact can eliminate 94% of incidents according to the Big Cat Rescue. We need more than just a ban on trade; we need a ban of private ownership.
If you want to help improve the lives of big cats here in the US, the US needs better laws, not only for their safety but also for ours. Humans are the only ones who can improve their living conditions. So if you agree with me, I hope you do something about it. If nothing else, just spreading the knowledge of this injustice is helpful.
Resources:
Big Cat Rescue,
www.bigcatrescue.org
WWF,
www.worldwildlife.org/
Born Free USA,
www.bornfreeusa.org/
Save the Tigers Fund,
www.savethetigerfund.org/
3/10/11
Big Cats in Wisconsin
I have a question for you. Would you leave a 3 year old locked in a crib or small room without the ability to get enough food and water? Would you leave a child without toys or some other way to entertain themselves? I really hope not. Many big cats live in these conditions here in the US. If you leave a child to their own devices, they are going to do some kind of damage, whether to themselves or their surroundings. The same goes for any animal. Big cats that are locked in a cage under those circumstances are highly aggressive and fearful, which makes them more dangerous.
But why am I comparing lions and tigers to a human child? Animals have been found to have an intelligence level around that of a child. Some animals are able to pass the Self-Recognition Test. The test is quite simple; it means if the subject looks in a mirror and recognizes itself, it passes. Most human two year-olds are not yet capable of passing this test.
In WI, there are no laws or regulations controlling private ownership of big cats. Even in states where owning a big cat is banned, there are many loopholes and exceptions that people can, and do, get around. According to Big Cat Rescue, you can purchase a big cat over the internet for less than the price of a purebred puppy.
These big cats can end up in many situations. They could end up being used as nothing more than breeding stock under the pretense of Conservation. So they breed their big cats for “the cause”, except that the bloodlines are unknown so, they’re only good for selling to private owners. The rare white tigers that are seemingly highly prized aren’t their own species. The only way to get a white tiger is to inbreed with more white tigers. This leads to physical deformities, mental problems, and, likely, even death.
Most people who end up with a big cat are ignorant of their needs. That ignorance leads to neglect, abuse, and just deplorable living conditions. They need space, but normally they live in a small enclosure made out of wire fences and cement floors. Or in the opposite extreme, they are let to freely roam their owner’s property. Big cats also need the proper nutrition. The amount of food they need can get expensive fast, and their owners can’t afford to feed them but don’t want to give them up. So they starve their animals whether knowingly or out of ignorance.
There needs to be better laws so that these kinds of things don’t occur. Now it’s argued that anyone who wants to own a big cat should be able to simply because it is our right as US citizens. Just because someone wants to own a tiger or a lion doesn’t mean they should be able to. In a perfect world, these majestic beings would be able to roam in their natural environment. But that perfect world doesn’t exist. Instead, the majority of the tigers in the world are stuck in some form of a cage, mainly for human gain.
Along with the moral issues, there is also the danger involved. When people do not put the proper precautions in place, things become dangerous not just for humans. If a big cat attacks a human, no matter the reason, they are normally killed. Banning big cat contact can eliminate 94% of incidents according to the Big Cat Rescue. We need more than just a ban on trade; we need a ban of private ownership.
If you want to help improve the lives of big cats here in the US, the US needs better laws, not only for their safety but also for ours. Humans are the only ones who can improve their living conditions. So if you agree with me, I hope you do something about it. If nothing else, just spreading the knowledge of this injustice is helpful.
Resources:
Big Cat Rescue,
www.bigcatrescue.org
WWF,
www.worldwildlife.org/
Born Free USA,
www.bornfreeusa.org/
Save the Tigers Fund,
www.savethetigerfund.org/
Wolves in Wisconsin -Yearous
David Yearous
3/11/11
Wolves in Wisconsin
The timber wolf once ranged throughout the state of Wisconsin but as settlers moved into Wisconsin the wolf was seen as a threat to livestock. This perspective on wolves led to their demise in the state, where a bounty was soon placed on wolves and they were eradicated by 1959. The Minnesota wolf population was allowed to expand into Northern Wisconsin and now the timber wolf ranges throughout northern Wisconsin.
I believe that the wolf population should be encouraged to prosper in the state and that the wolf should remain on the DNR’s list of animals to keep an eye on and track throughout the state. Wolves making a comeback would be a good thing for the state because it would keep a balance between coyotes and wolves and the wolf is a natural predator of prey that are too large for a coyote to take on. Since the wolf has been missing the coyote population has flourished. The two predators share some prey species and having wolves back on the landscape gives the coyote some competition. The wolf’s return also will help keep the deer population from getting out of hand as well. The deer population also needs to be kept in check especially with the prevalence of CWD and the deadliness of the disease. By thinning the deer herd the spread of CWD would slow since there are fewer animals to be infected with. Having wolves back on the landscape means the return of the days when there was a larger diversity of predators. Farmers have the right to be scared of wolves attacking their livestock but wolves typically attack the weak animals or the calves, I understand the farmers concern with the well-being of the cattle but as I drive throughout the countryside in the spring the calves stick with their mothers. If you have ever had to deal with livestock and separating the cow and calf; even if it is for a short time the mother is very defensive and will attack the farmer, so even though the animals have been domesticated their natural instincts are still alive and well. With this argument I believe that may there be some attacks on livestock they will not be frequent enough to lose a considerable amount of cattle. I am also certain that there is a program that will compensate farmers for their loss, if a wolf were to attack cattle. Livestock have lived with wolves in the past and they can live with wolves in the future. The state could also be used as a platform for really understanding how wolves can change a landscape. Since the wolves have been gone for a length of time the other animals have become accustomed to not having a wolf’s presence and now that they have returned there would a before and after snapshot of the state with wolves and without. This could make for an interesting research project and make a collection of information that would tell us a lot about wolves and their importance.
http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/skala/Wisconsin-Timber-Wolve.htm
3/11/11
Wolves in Wisconsin
The timber wolf once ranged throughout the state of Wisconsin but as settlers moved into Wisconsin the wolf was seen as a threat to livestock. This perspective on wolves led to their demise in the state, where a bounty was soon placed on wolves and they were eradicated by 1959. The Minnesota wolf population was allowed to expand into Northern Wisconsin and now the timber wolf ranges throughout northern Wisconsin.
I believe that the wolf population should be encouraged to prosper in the state and that the wolf should remain on the DNR’s list of animals to keep an eye on and track throughout the state. Wolves making a comeback would be a good thing for the state because it would keep a balance between coyotes and wolves and the wolf is a natural predator of prey that are too large for a coyote to take on. Since the wolf has been missing the coyote population has flourished. The two predators share some prey species and having wolves back on the landscape gives the coyote some competition. The wolf’s return also will help keep the deer population from getting out of hand as well. The deer population also needs to be kept in check especially with the prevalence of CWD and the deadliness of the disease. By thinning the deer herd the spread of CWD would slow since there are fewer animals to be infected with. Having wolves back on the landscape means the return of the days when there was a larger diversity of predators. Farmers have the right to be scared of wolves attacking their livestock but wolves typically attack the weak animals or the calves, I understand the farmers concern with the well-being of the cattle but as I drive throughout the countryside in the spring the calves stick with their mothers. If you have ever had to deal with livestock and separating the cow and calf; even if it is for a short time the mother is very defensive and will attack the farmer, so even though the animals have been domesticated their natural instincts are still alive and well. With this argument I believe that may there be some attacks on livestock they will not be frequent enough to lose a considerable amount of cattle. I am also certain that there is a program that will compensate farmers for their loss, if a wolf were to attack cattle. Livestock have lived with wolves in the past and they can live with wolves in the future. The state could also be used as a platform for really understanding how wolves can change a landscape. Since the wolves have been gone for a length of time the other animals have become accustomed to not having a wolf’s presence and now that they have returned there would a before and after snapshot of the state with wolves and without. This could make for an interesting research project and make a collection of information that would tell us a lot about wolves and their importance.
http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/skala/Wisconsin-Timber-Wolve.htm
The Lead Ban
Justin Hill
NR320
The Lead Ban
The ban on the use of lead in hunting and fishing equipment has long been a debate among scientists, hunters, anglers and the general public. This debate focuses on the impacts that lead has on animals and humans. Due to this debate there have been a significant number of studies done to try and understand the affects that lead has on animals and the environment. After evaluating and compiling these studies some scientists have proposed a solution and would like to impose a new regulation- a total ban- on the use of lead in hunting and fishing.
Most research that has been done suggests that lead has an overall negative effect on the ecosystem and most of all the animals that live there. Some research suggests that large amounts of lead, over time, can break down and cause groundwater contamination in some areas. These areas would include shooting ranges as well as any areas that are heavily hunted. Studies also suggest that lead has negative affects on many different wildlife species such as; birds, scavengers, and some mammals. Although all of these studies suggest negative impacts on certain wildlife, fish seem to be generally unaffected. We have the research but the question still lingers. Should the DNR impose a regulation to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing?
I think a complete ban of lead in all hunting equipment is necessary, but I believe that the lead ban needs to be gradually imposed over time. I think that hunters should start by gradually weening themselves off the use of lead shot and start using other metals such as steel. The DNR should set a date in the near future, say 4 years, where up until that date hunters can use the lead ammunition for hunting purposes. This way hunters can use up their lead ammunition and not have it go to waste while shot shell manufacturers can gradually switch over to making shot shells with other types of metals. After that set date no more lead shot will be allowed to be sold or used for hunting.
On the other hand, I don't believe that there is a need for the lead ban in fishing equipment. Research suggests that fish are generally unaffected by the presence of lead and that the cause of lead poisoning in birds, scavengers, and mammals come from mainly lead in hunting equipment, not fishing equipment. This is because, unlike lead in bird shot, lead in fishing equipment, such as split shots (sinkers), can be used over and over again without being placed permanently into the environment. Sure, people lose split shots on occasion, but that’s generally not enough lead to negatively effect the surrounding habitat or to the animals that live there.
I believe that a lead ban in hunting equipment, such as bird-shot, is necessary and I think it would be beneficial to the environment and to everyone who enjoys the outdoors if it were placed into effect. With that being said, I also believe that, fishing equipment should be exempt from the lead ban due to the research that suggests that lead in fishing equipment has smaller effects on the environment.
Reference Article: Concerns Rise Over Known and Potential Impacts of Lead on Wildlife, National Wildlife Health Center
NR320
The Lead Ban
The ban on the use of lead in hunting and fishing equipment has long been a debate among scientists, hunters, anglers and the general public. This debate focuses on the impacts that lead has on animals and humans. Due to this debate there have been a significant number of studies done to try and understand the affects that lead has on animals and the environment. After evaluating and compiling these studies some scientists have proposed a solution and would like to impose a new regulation- a total ban- on the use of lead in hunting and fishing.
Most research that has been done suggests that lead has an overall negative effect on the ecosystem and most of all the animals that live there. Some research suggests that large amounts of lead, over time, can break down and cause groundwater contamination in some areas. These areas would include shooting ranges as well as any areas that are heavily hunted. Studies also suggest that lead has negative affects on many different wildlife species such as; birds, scavengers, and some mammals. Although all of these studies suggest negative impacts on certain wildlife, fish seem to be generally unaffected. We have the research but the question still lingers. Should the DNR impose a regulation to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing?
I think a complete ban of lead in all hunting equipment is necessary, but I believe that the lead ban needs to be gradually imposed over time. I think that hunters should start by gradually weening themselves off the use of lead shot and start using other metals such as steel. The DNR should set a date in the near future, say 4 years, where up until that date hunters can use the lead ammunition for hunting purposes. This way hunters can use up their lead ammunition and not have it go to waste while shot shell manufacturers can gradually switch over to making shot shells with other types of metals. After that set date no more lead shot will be allowed to be sold or used for hunting.
On the other hand, I don't believe that there is a need for the lead ban in fishing equipment. Research suggests that fish are generally unaffected by the presence of lead and that the cause of lead poisoning in birds, scavengers, and mammals come from mainly lead in hunting equipment, not fishing equipment. This is because, unlike lead in bird shot, lead in fishing equipment, such as split shots (sinkers), can be used over and over again without being placed permanently into the environment. Sure, people lose split shots on occasion, but that’s generally not enough lead to negatively effect the surrounding habitat or to the animals that live there.
I believe that a lead ban in hunting equipment, such as bird-shot, is necessary and I think it would be beneficial to the environment and to everyone who enjoys the outdoors if it were placed into effect. With that being said, I also believe that, fishing equipment should be exempt from the lead ban due to the research that suggests that lead in fishing equipment has smaller effects on the environment.
Reference Article: Concerns Rise Over Known and Potential Impacts of Lead on Wildlife, National Wildlife Health Center
Deer Population Decline
Joe Bergsrud
3/8/2011
Reasons for Deer Population Decline
Hunting is a huge part of many peoples lives, and for some it is not just a hobby it is a reason for living. With the popularity of the sport being so high, I don’t understand how there can be so many problems without answers surrounding it. Deer hunting in Wisconsin is not at all what it used to be. When I learned how to hunt a person could see 20 deer in any given day. Now when I go hunting, I am lucky to see 3 deer all season. I am not old enough to claim back in the day, but my mentors are, and they will agree that the numbers are down. Why? There are many opinions on why there are less deer being harvested and many people put the blame to a given reason. I believe that there are multiple reasons for the decline in herd numbers, hunter satisfaction, and amount harvested.
Some people lay the blame on the wolves. I don’t disagree with this at all, I do believe that they have an impact. I do also believe that they should be taken off the endangered species list and the wolf population should be brought back down to the sustainable population. CWD is also having an impact on the herd. The DNR is doing everything they can to try to control the spread, and there is really nothing that the average hunter can do to prevent it. Baiting is also a target of some peoples blame. I as hunter do bait my stand during season, but we also have food plots on our land also. The people who come up from a different state and sit in the woods and throw out 50 lbs of corn at a time are the people who are misusing it. In my personal opinion, I am not against baiting, because it has been something that I grew up doing and would like to continue to do. However, if baiting is eliminated I will not be upset. Hunting regulations have been a topic I have heard discussed. There are debates over the seasons, how the population is estimated, regulations, and other things. I believe that the seasons set the way they are is not an issue. It has been the same ever since I can remember and I don’t see a need to change it now. The population estimates are a topic of my concern. The DNR has been using the same technique for many years to estimate the population. Nobody ever really questioned it until lately, because they would still see deer. Now hunters are not seeing deer and the population estimates are not dropping as much as they should. The DNR almost seems reluctant to listen to the people who spend all of their time in the woods tracking and studying the habits of the deer on their land. When someone who has owned the land and hunted it for years says that he doesn’t see deer on it anymore, I would believe him, he isn’t going to lie to you. These are some of the main reasons why the deer herd is being impacted, but I have another one that isn’t as widely talked about, and I think has more of an impact than a lot of people think.
Poaching is very widespread across the state. I am not sure about the number of deer estimated being poached every year, but I can tell you for a fact that there are a lot more than people think. I from personal experience know that poaching is a serious issue that is seriously hurting the population. I know people that will take any deer they see at any time of the year. They do not care about buying a license or registering it, they don’t care if it is mature or not, they only care that they killed it and put meat in their freezer. I believe that especially with the economy being bad, many people out of work, and prices rising, that a lot of people have thrown out their morals and values and went back to their basic instinct which was to put food in their mouths. Poaching a deer is one way to do it. I believe that this is a huge issue that is affecting the populations in WI, or at least I know in the northern part of Wisconsin. All of the reasons listed have an impact on the herd, but most issues are being dealt with. Poaching is hard to stop because a lot of people are good at it. The problem of poaching will never go away, but I believe that it needs to be looked at a little more closely as an impact on the herd.
3/8/2011
Reasons for Deer Population Decline
Hunting is a huge part of many peoples lives, and for some it is not just a hobby it is a reason for living. With the popularity of the sport being so high, I don’t understand how there can be so many problems without answers surrounding it. Deer hunting in Wisconsin is not at all what it used to be. When I learned how to hunt a person could see 20 deer in any given day. Now when I go hunting, I am lucky to see 3 deer all season. I am not old enough to claim back in the day, but my mentors are, and they will agree that the numbers are down. Why? There are many opinions on why there are less deer being harvested and many people put the blame to a given reason. I believe that there are multiple reasons for the decline in herd numbers, hunter satisfaction, and amount harvested.
Some people lay the blame on the wolves. I don’t disagree with this at all, I do believe that they have an impact. I do also believe that they should be taken off the endangered species list and the wolf population should be brought back down to the sustainable population. CWD is also having an impact on the herd. The DNR is doing everything they can to try to control the spread, and there is really nothing that the average hunter can do to prevent it. Baiting is also a target of some peoples blame. I as hunter do bait my stand during season, but we also have food plots on our land also. The people who come up from a different state and sit in the woods and throw out 50 lbs of corn at a time are the people who are misusing it. In my personal opinion, I am not against baiting, because it has been something that I grew up doing and would like to continue to do. However, if baiting is eliminated I will not be upset. Hunting regulations have been a topic I have heard discussed. There are debates over the seasons, how the population is estimated, regulations, and other things. I believe that the seasons set the way they are is not an issue. It has been the same ever since I can remember and I don’t see a need to change it now. The population estimates are a topic of my concern. The DNR has been using the same technique for many years to estimate the population. Nobody ever really questioned it until lately, because they would still see deer. Now hunters are not seeing deer and the population estimates are not dropping as much as they should. The DNR almost seems reluctant to listen to the people who spend all of their time in the woods tracking and studying the habits of the deer on their land. When someone who has owned the land and hunted it for years says that he doesn’t see deer on it anymore, I would believe him, he isn’t going to lie to you. These are some of the main reasons why the deer herd is being impacted, but I have another one that isn’t as widely talked about, and I think has more of an impact than a lot of people think.
Poaching is very widespread across the state. I am not sure about the number of deer estimated being poached every year, but I can tell you for a fact that there are a lot more than people think. I from personal experience know that poaching is a serious issue that is seriously hurting the population. I know people that will take any deer they see at any time of the year. They do not care about buying a license or registering it, they don’t care if it is mature or not, they only care that they killed it and put meat in their freezer. I believe that especially with the economy being bad, many people out of work, and prices rising, that a lot of people have thrown out their morals and values and went back to their basic instinct which was to put food in their mouths. Poaching a deer is one way to do it. I believe that this is a huge issue that is affecting the populations in WI, or at least I know in the northern part of Wisconsin. All of the reasons listed have an impact on the herd, but most issues are being dealt with. Poaching is hard to stop because a lot of people are good at it. The problem of poaching will never go away, but I believe that it needs to be looked at a little more closely as an impact on the herd.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Culturally Modified Trees
Ali Engle
3/9/2011
Culturally Modified Trees
In many areas of North America, especially the Pacific Northwest, there is unique evidence of aboriginal cultural and traditional practices. This evidence is present in individual forest trees that have been modified by various Native American tribes hundreds of years ago. A culturally modified tree, or CMT, is a tree that has been altered by aboriginal people as a part of their traditional use of the forest. I feel that it is very important to protect these specimens in order for Native Americans and non-native Americans alike to have a cultural connection to this land’s history and ancestors.
There are many types of CMTs, including bark-stripped trees, felled trees, planked trees, and arborgraphs/arborglyphs. A bark-stripped tree has either a rectangular or tapered bark-stripped scar on the bole of the tree. Native Americans used the bark of trees, especially cedar trees, for many things: clothing, dyes, blankets, rope and roofing, to name a few. CMTs that are felled can be found on the forest floor in many conditions. The base of a felled tree may have stone or bone chisel marks, indicating how the tree was cut. A felled CMT may also be in a fixed state of canoe construction. This is evidenced by charcoal burn marks on the surface of a felled tree. A planked CMT is a standing tree that has large vertical segments missing from its bole where Native Americans carved out planks or boards. An arborgraph is a standing tree that has Native American artwork carved out from its bole. An arborglyph is a standing tree that has Native American paintings or drawings on or within the bark of a tree. Oftentimes, the CMTs have grown over these modifications, concealing them from obvious notice.
CMTs are valuable as wood products from an economic standpoint. These trees are often large and therefore high quality timber. Silvicultural practices in areas where CMTs exist can be challenging. The trees may stand or lay in the way of excavation plans and logging roads. This can lead to increased expenses when it comes to modifying logging plans and redirecting large equipment. Art collectors or museums may want to purchase the arborgraphs or arborglyphs for personal art collections.
While this last reason may be viewed as an alternate way of preserving these cultural specimens, I believe it is important to let CMTs remain in their original locations. CMTs are found today in places that range from the middle of the forest to the middle of a large city. They indicate the trends in Native American tribes- where people settled and how far they were willing to go for necessary products. These trees are living and intact archaeological sites that often do not require excavation in order to be studied. There is a unique cultural connection that they provide to aboriginal descendants and everyone living in North America today. They demonstrate everyday activities that were practiced by native people, activities that were not written down and all too often become forgotten and lost over the years.
3/9/2011
Culturally Modified Trees
In many areas of North America, especially the Pacific Northwest, there is unique evidence of aboriginal cultural and traditional practices. This evidence is present in individual forest trees that have been modified by various Native American tribes hundreds of years ago. A culturally modified tree, or CMT, is a tree that has been altered by aboriginal people as a part of their traditional use of the forest. I feel that it is very important to protect these specimens in order for Native Americans and non-native Americans alike to have a cultural connection to this land’s history and ancestors.
There are many types of CMTs, including bark-stripped trees, felled trees, planked trees, and arborgraphs/arborglyphs. A bark-stripped tree has either a rectangular or tapered bark-stripped scar on the bole of the tree. Native Americans used the bark of trees, especially cedar trees, for many things: clothing, dyes, blankets, rope and roofing, to name a few. CMTs that are felled can be found on the forest floor in many conditions. The base of a felled tree may have stone or bone chisel marks, indicating how the tree was cut. A felled CMT may also be in a fixed state of canoe construction. This is evidenced by charcoal burn marks on the surface of a felled tree. A planked CMT is a standing tree that has large vertical segments missing from its bole where Native Americans carved out planks or boards. An arborgraph is a standing tree that has Native American artwork carved out from its bole. An arborglyph is a standing tree that has Native American paintings or drawings on or within the bark of a tree. Oftentimes, the CMTs have grown over these modifications, concealing them from obvious notice.
CMTs are valuable as wood products from an economic standpoint. These trees are often large and therefore high quality timber. Silvicultural practices in areas where CMTs exist can be challenging. The trees may stand or lay in the way of excavation plans and logging roads. This can lead to increased expenses when it comes to modifying logging plans and redirecting large equipment. Art collectors or museums may want to purchase the arborgraphs or arborglyphs for personal art collections.
While this last reason may be viewed as an alternate way of preserving these cultural specimens, I believe it is important to let CMTs remain in their original locations. CMTs are found today in places that range from the middle of the forest to the middle of a large city. They indicate the trends in Native American tribes- where people settled and how far they were willing to go for necessary products. These trees are living and intact archaeological sites that often do not require excavation in order to be studied. There is a unique cultural connection that they provide to aboriginal descendants and everyone living in North America today. They demonstrate everyday activities that were practiced by native people, activities that were not written down and all too often become forgotten and lost over the years.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Plant it Right
Seth Westberg
3-6-2011
Plant it Right the First Time
As most of us all know, there are many great things that come from having trees around. We get clean air, rain water interception, increased wild life, and having just the looks of the trees are very beneficial. Most people want to have trees on their property and like the fact that they planted their own tree in their yard. There is just one thing about tree planting, it needs to be done right. Most people think they can dig a hole and place the tree in it and everything will be all good, when in fact there is a science behind planting that tree.
Most people think that planting a tree lower in the ground is the best thing so the tree can’t blow over. This is actually about the worst thing you can ever do to a tree. Trees need to be planted at a certain depth when you dig your hole. Trees should be placed so that where the root flair and stem junction is right at ground level. If the tree is planted too high the roots can’t get nutrients and water out of the soil as they normally can. If a plant is planted too low, this is asking for early tree death. When trees are planted too low the roots try to get back up to where they normally would be in the soil, normally within the first six inches of the surface. When the roots come up they can create a serious problem called “girdling roots”. This is when the roots encircle the stem of the tree and cut off the growth and flow of nutrients. If this happens it is not normally caught in time to save the tree. The tree ends up dying sooner and can’t reach its full growth and ends up needing to be removed costing lots of money.
Once you have the tree placed at the right level in the soil there is still ongoing maintenance needed to keep the tree healthy. Trees need to be watered a lot to encourage vigorous growth and have a good start. Young trees should be watered at least three times a month during the growing season. Hand watering from a garden hose is normally the easiest way to get the trees the water that is needed. For each inch of tree stem there is requires five minutes of watering. This means for example, if a tree is two inches in diameter that requires 10 minutes of watering for the tree three times a month.
There is also another thing that should be looked at when planning a tree. You should look at the branches and make sure they are not broken. If branches are broken they should be pruned off properly to prevent diseases and insects can’t infect the tree. This can make sure the tree is in proper health to get off to a good start to its young life.
Trees are great to have and many benefits can come of having them around. There is small little things you can do to make sure they stay around for a long time and acquire the full benefits that a tree may offer.
http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/4dmg/Trees/caring.htm
3-6-2011
Plant it Right the First Time
As most of us all know, there are many great things that come from having trees around. We get clean air, rain water interception, increased wild life, and having just the looks of the trees are very beneficial. Most people want to have trees on their property and like the fact that they planted their own tree in their yard. There is just one thing about tree planting, it needs to be done right. Most people think they can dig a hole and place the tree in it and everything will be all good, when in fact there is a science behind planting that tree.
Most people think that planting a tree lower in the ground is the best thing so the tree can’t blow over. This is actually about the worst thing you can ever do to a tree. Trees need to be planted at a certain depth when you dig your hole. Trees should be placed so that where the root flair and stem junction is right at ground level. If the tree is planted too high the roots can’t get nutrients and water out of the soil as they normally can. If a plant is planted too low, this is asking for early tree death. When trees are planted too low the roots try to get back up to where they normally would be in the soil, normally within the first six inches of the surface. When the roots come up they can create a serious problem called “girdling roots”. This is when the roots encircle the stem of the tree and cut off the growth and flow of nutrients. If this happens it is not normally caught in time to save the tree. The tree ends up dying sooner and can’t reach its full growth and ends up needing to be removed costing lots of money.
Once you have the tree placed at the right level in the soil there is still ongoing maintenance needed to keep the tree healthy. Trees need to be watered a lot to encourage vigorous growth and have a good start. Young trees should be watered at least three times a month during the growing season. Hand watering from a garden hose is normally the easiest way to get the trees the water that is needed. For each inch of tree stem there is requires five minutes of watering. This means for example, if a tree is two inches in diameter that requires 10 minutes of watering for the tree three times a month.
There is also another thing that should be looked at when planning a tree. You should look at the branches and make sure they are not broken. If branches are broken they should be pruned off properly to prevent diseases and insects can’t infect the tree. This can make sure the tree is in proper health to get off to a good start to its young life.
Trees are great to have and many benefits can come of having them around. There is small little things you can do to make sure they stay around for a long time and acquire the full benefits that a tree may offer.
http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/4dmg/Trees/caring.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)