Paul Brandt
21 April, 2011
Once again, oil shale is back in the spotlight as a way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Between Colorado, Wyoming and Utah there is an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the shale deposits, the richest of which is in Piceance Basin of Western Colorado (an area around the Green River and Roan Plateau).
Oil shale, which is actually called kerogen, is fossilized organic matter from 50 million years ago and generally sits a couple thousand feet below the surface of the Earth. It was “discovered” on accident by settler in Colorado who some used the shale to build a chimney for his cabin, which subsequently burned to the ground after inaugurating his fireplace. For the past century or so, companies have toiled with extracting and refining the shale to little, if any success. During the Oil Crisis of the 1970’s investment was made to the point of a boom on the Western Slope in Colorado for oil shale, but then went bust in the early eighties, which is a scar and vivid memory to this day on the West Slope.
A handful of companies are experimenting on public land with how to extract and refine the shale efficiently, but the general process is to heat up the shale to liquefy, but not so much as to ignite it (no small challenge) and pump it to the surface for refinement. This is water intensive, in an area that is water-scarce. Estimates from studies are that “one to 12 barrels of water, or up to about 500 gallons, may be needed to produce a barrel of oil” with an average of about 5 barrels (Tsai, C.). In an area of the country that is arid, dealing with increased pressures from scarce water resources, limited un-purchased water rights, and facing unknown effects of climate change on its water supply, this seems extremely foolish at best, no matter the energy crisis. In my opinion, this is not only a waste of precious water, but of our public lands and research efforts that could be used to reduce our dependency on oil, foreign or domestic. Developing new oil extraction techniques is like coming up with a new lifeboat on the Titanic: mostly useless and ignores the actual problem. Not least important, no one yet knows the potential effects of any pollution from shale development on the water supply; there are vague assurances of research and to prevent it somehow, someday. Given that we are now only a year out from the BP oil fiasco, I am not inclined to blindly trust the good intentions of big oil.
Work Cited:
Tsai, Catherine. “GAO: More Research Needed on Oil Shale, Water.” The Aspen Times. 29 November, 2010. Available from http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20101129/NEWS/101129858&parentprofile=search
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Traditional Archery
Patrick Killian
04/12/11
When Is a Bow No Longer a Bow?
Archery has been one of the most important skills man-kind has ever developed and without it we would probably still be stuck in caves. The Egyptians are thought to be the first to develop the bow and arrow more than 5000 years ago but it is believed that they have been used in the Stone Age (around 20,000 BC). It has been used for both warfare and hunting and has evolved into many different forms. Today the bow and arrow's use in warfare has been surpassed by many implements of destruction but its hunting heritage is still practiced throughout the United States. Today the most commonly used forms are the traditional recurve and compound bows but there is another that is constantly debated about whether its too advanced, the crossbow. In the State of Wisconsin the only times crossbows are to be used during archery seasons are if you are at least 65 years of age or have a disability that prevents you from using a traditional bow. There is constant talk about whether or not everyone should be able to use a crossbow. Personally I believe that we should stick to the simpler bow styles. Today's crossbows are less of a modified bow than they are a gun modified to shoot arrows. They take a lot of the skill out of bow hunting and without that skill we will lose our archery heritage. Archery has always been hiding in the woods covering your scent and blending in to the environment so the deer come close enough for a shot. When that shot comes you must move silently to nock and draw your arrow and line up your shot using little to no sights. Now compare that to a crossbow, you have a bolt (arrow) loaded into a crossbow ready to fire by the time you sit down in your treestand, what was little to no sights turned into a brand new high optic rifle scope, and what was moving carefully to not make a sound and line up your shot turned into point and shoot, just like a rifle. Now I understand that a lot of the time crossbows don't shoot farther or hit your target any harder but everything leading up to the arrow leaving your control has completely been changed. Archery has always been a sport of skill and patience and it seems to me that people are using crossbows to take the easy way out. I have shot a crossbow and yes they are very fun and I'm sure that shooting a missile is fun too but that doesn't mean it belongs in our archery seasons. Let those that require it use it, meaning the disabled and elderly; it is understandable that they often cannot draw a bow or hold it for long but for the rest of us I think we can manage. Let's try to keep archery what it is.
04/12/11
When Is a Bow No Longer a Bow?
Archery has been one of the most important skills man-kind has ever developed and without it we would probably still be stuck in caves. The Egyptians are thought to be the first to develop the bow and arrow more than 5000 years ago but it is believed that they have been used in the Stone Age (around 20,000 BC). It has been used for both warfare and hunting and has evolved into many different forms. Today the bow and arrow's use in warfare has been surpassed by many implements of destruction but its hunting heritage is still practiced throughout the United States. Today the most commonly used forms are the traditional recurve and compound bows but there is another that is constantly debated about whether its too advanced, the crossbow. In the State of Wisconsin the only times crossbows are to be used during archery seasons are if you are at least 65 years of age or have a disability that prevents you from using a traditional bow. There is constant talk about whether or not everyone should be able to use a crossbow. Personally I believe that we should stick to the simpler bow styles. Today's crossbows are less of a modified bow than they are a gun modified to shoot arrows. They take a lot of the skill out of bow hunting and without that skill we will lose our archery heritage. Archery has always been hiding in the woods covering your scent and blending in to the environment so the deer come close enough for a shot. When that shot comes you must move silently to nock and draw your arrow and line up your shot using little to no sights. Now compare that to a crossbow, you have a bolt (arrow) loaded into a crossbow ready to fire by the time you sit down in your treestand, what was little to no sights turned into a brand new high optic rifle scope, and what was moving carefully to not make a sound and line up your shot turned into point and shoot, just like a rifle. Now I understand that a lot of the time crossbows don't shoot farther or hit your target any harder but everything leading up to the arrow leaving your control has completely been changed. Archery has always been a sport of skill and patience and it seems to me that people are using crossbows to take the easy way out. I have shot a crossbow and yes they are very fun and I'm sure that shooting a missile is fun too but that doesn't mean it belongs in our archery seasons. Let those that require it use it, meaning the disabled and elderly; it is understandable that they often cannot draw a bow or hold it for long but for the rest of us I think we can manage. Let's try to keep archery what it is.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Managing for CWD
Controversies when Managing for CWD
Alyce Kacena
04-20-11
Chronic Wasting Disease is a very political disease. The reason for this is because it affects one the most highly sought after resource of Wisconsin, white tailed deer. Managing CWD is a very controversial topic and the reason for the controversy lies within the diseases etiology.
Chronic Wasting Disease is caused by miss folded prions, which are a type of protein in the brain. These proteins can be transmitted through saliva, urine and other bodily fluids. This causes huge problems when trying to manage for the disease. For example, a good majority of hunters in Wisconsin like to put out bait piles, salt blocks and mineral blocks in order to attract the biggest of all bucks. However, these methods can be a huge source for transmission of CWD among white-tailed deer, which leads to controversy between biologists and hunters. Hunters do not enjoy being told that they cannot practice hunting methods that they have been using their entire lives. So, when the DNR attempts to manage CWD by telling hunters that they cannot bait white-tailed deer any longer, issues between the DNR and hunters arise.
Another controversy concerning the management of CWD, is earn a buck. Earn a buck means just that, in order to obtain a buck tag one must first kill a female deer. The Wisconsin DNR has attempted enforcing this management strategy in order to reduce the white-tail deer populations. Studies have shown that CWD is more easily spread when animals are over populated and living in close proximity to each other. So, if you reduce the white-tail deer populations, you reduce the spread of infection. Well it turns out that a majority of WI hunters do not like this method of management. This is because most WI hunters either: feel bad about killing female deer, believe that the white-tailed deer population is to low already, or they just simply want to get a trophy buck.
My personal opinions on both controversies tend to favor the DNR’s type of management. This is because their management strategies are backed by science, and I am big on scientific facts. These two controversies are only two examples of a long list of controversies concerning the management of CWD. These are just the two controversies that I felt the most strong about. I believe controversies concerning the management of CWD will be an ongoing thing, and will most likely continue to be reoccurring political issues. White-tail deer are one of the biggest revenues for the WI DNR, and because of this the DNR needs to find a happy medium with WI hunters. I don’t know what that happy medium is, but it needs to be discovered soon because CWD is becoming more and more common across the state of Wisconsin, which means we have a huge problem.
Alyce Kacena
04-20-11
Chronic Wasting Disease is a very political disease. The reason for this is because it affects one the most highly sought after resource of Wisconsin, white tailed deer. Managing CWD is a very controversial topic and the reason for the controversy lies within the diseases etiology.
Chronic Wasting Disease is caused by miss folded prions, which are a type of protein in the brain. These proteins can be transmitted through saliva, urine and other bodily fluids. This causes huge problems when trying to manage for the disease. For example, a good majority of hunters in Wisconsin like to put out bait piles, salt blocks and mineral blocks in order to attract the biggest of all bucks. However, these methods can be a huge source for transmission of CWD among white-tailed deer, which leads to controversy between biologists and hunters. Hunters do not enjoy being told that they cannot practice hunting methods that they have been using their entire lives. So, when the DNR attempts to manage CWD by telling hunters that they cannot bait white-tailed deer any longer, issues between the DNR and hunters arise.
Another controversy concerning the management of CWD, is earn a buck. Earn a buck means just that, in order to obtain a buck tag one must first kill a female deer. The Wisconsin DNR has attempted enforcing this management strategy in order to reduce the white-tail deer populations. Studies have shown that CWD is more easily spread when animals are over populated and living in close proximity to each other. So, if you reduce the white-tail deer populations, you reduce the spread of infection. Well it turns out that a majority of WI hunters do not like this method of management. This is because most WI hunters either: feel bad about killing female deer, believe that the white-tailed deer population is to low already, or they just simply want to get a trophy buck.
My personal opinions on both controversies tend to favor the DNR’s type of management. This is because their management strategies are backed by science, and I am big on scientific facts. These two controversies are only two examples of a long list of controversies concerning the management of CWD. These are just the two controversies that I felt the most strong about. I believe controversies concerning the management of CWD will be an ongoing thing, and will most likely continue to be reoccurring political issues. White-tail deer are one of the biggest revenues for the WI DNR, and because of this the DNR needs to find a happy medium with WI hunters. I don’t know what that happy medium is, but it needs to be discovered soon because CWD is becoming more and more common across the state of Wisconsin, which means we have a huge problem.
Knock Knock: It's Invasive Species
Alyson Brush
4/19/11
An ominous menace lies lurking in the shadows of the Illinois River threating to decimate Lake Michigan’s treasured fishing. The Bighead and Silver Carp, most often referred to simply as Asian Carp, are knocking on Lake Michigan’s door after working their way up the Mississippi River over the past forty years. Despite the use of fish repelling electric barrier in the Chicago canal which connects the Illinois River and Lake Michigan, the DNA of Asian Carp has been found in Lake Michigan. So far there does not appear to be a breeding population of Asian Carp in Lake Michigan, but it seems as though it is only a matter of time. If Asian Carp breach the barriers and form a breeding population in Lake Michigan there will be very little that can be done to stop their spread throughout the Great Lakes.
A real threat to Lake Michigan’s fishery is posed by Asian Carp. These invasive fish are very hardy and have a diet is similar to that of many native fish. When you couple this with their rapid population and growth rates it is plain to see that they would be a formidable competitor for lake resources. It is reasonable to assume that if a breeding population forms in Lake Michigan several native fish species would be wiped out and the entire ecosystem would be permanently altered.
What can be done to stop this unwanted guest from entering Lake Michigan? The present electric barrier strategy seems to be working for now, but it is not 100% effective. I think the canal connecting the river and lake should be closed until another solution can be found. While some people might think that closing the canal is an extreme measure I think that extreme measures might be warranted for such extreme consequences. I think it is of utmost importance to continue to seek effective and permanent solutions this problem.
More information about the Asian Carp invasion can be found on the following websites.
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/asian_carp.htm
http://asiancarp.org/Documents/AsianCarp.pdf
4/19/11
An ominous menace lies lurking in the shadows of the Illinois River threating to decimate Lake Michigan’s treasured fishing. The Bighead and Silver Carp, most often referred to simply as Asian Carp, are knocking on Lake Michigan’s door after working their way up the Mississippi River over the past forty years. Despite the use of fish repelling electric barrier in the Chicago canal which connects the Illinois River and Lake Michigan, the DNA of Asian Carp has been found in Lake Michigan. So far there does not appear to be a breeding population of Asian Carp in Lake Michigan, but it seems as though it is only a matter of time. If Asian Carp breach the barriers and form a breeding population in Lake Michigan there will be very little that can be done to stop their spread throughout the Great Lakes.
A real threat to Lake Michigan’s fishery is posed by Asian Carp. These invasive fish are very hardy and have a diet is similar to that of many native fish. When you couple this with their rapid population and growth rates it is plain to see that they would be a formidable competitor for lake resources. It is reasonable to assume that if a breeding population forms in Lake Michigan several native fish species would be wiped out and the entire ecosystem would be permanently altered.
What can be done to stop this unwanted guest from entering Lake Michigan? The present electric barrier strategy seems to be working for now, but it is not 100% effective. I think the canal connecting the river and lake should be closed until another solution can be found. While some people might think that closing the canal is an extreme measure I think that extreme measures might be warranted for such extreme consequences. I think it is of utmost importance to continue to seek effective and permanent solutions this problem.
More information about the Asian Carp invasion can be found on the following websites.
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/asian_carp.htm
http://asiancarp.org/Documents/AsianCarp.pdf
Hello Convenience
Jessica Rettler
4-19-2011
Hello Convenience, Goodbye Planet Earth
Purchasing bottled water has been made to the ultimate convenience. It is the most indispensable item within our culture. It’s found in lunchboxes at school, in hallways and classrooms, and sold at every basketball game in the country. The sole purpose of bottled water was to infuse how healthy it is to consume the wonderful natural resource of H20 that has come from this Earth. Water itself helps regulate the body’s temperature and provide necessary nutrients to organs. Water also helps transport oxygen to cells and protects joints and organ function. The body is benefitting in all kinds of ways by drinking water, but the Earth is not benefitting at all by not recycling these plastic bottles and not using them in any reusable kinds of ways. According to Jordan Chris from Earth911 Facts, nearly 26 billion plastic bottles are thrown away each year. These bottles are not biodegradable and could sit in landfills for longer than your lifetime. It is now more than ever to focus on being healthy to our body as well as to the Earth that can sustain it.
One of the best ways to resolve the water bottle crisis is to not buy bottled water at all! Purchasing a reusable water bottle is nearly as convenient as buying a plastic water bottle, but will save a person thousands of dollars over a lifetime. According to MSN Health Aware, the average person in America purchases 170 plastic water bottles a year. By dwindling that number down not only saves someone money, but is helping reduce landfills nationwide. It is so easy for a person to go to a store and pick up a bottle of water, that consciously, no one is even aware of the effects of that one bottle. Recycling water bottles is an entirely other matter. In 2005, Nubious Water Bottle Facts reported only 15% of water bottles were actually recycled, the rest were dumped away clogging landfills nationwide.
With landfills continually filling and overflowing, there are bound to be mishaps with garbage deposits near or around the ocean. With known whereabouts, but with no one to blame, the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch is something everyone should be acquainted with. The trash mainly comprises of plastic debris and is not only huge but is also scattered along a wide expanse making it difficult to clear up. With a massive landfill in the middle of the ocean, many people are able to avoid any encounters, while the life at sea shares the largest risk. With concerns as to how to clean up this impossible mishap, there is not an easy answer. By simply using biodegradable items and not purchasing nearly as much as the non biodegradable ones, it will minimize the waste that is adding to this horrendous garbage patch. Recycling is one of the easiest solutions to help reduce these occurrences. However, with the majority of Americans not recycling bottled water, some efforts have been made to help reduce the effects. Laws have been made to help the public abide by new rules and regulations to keep on recycling. In the year 2009, Earth911 Facts states that almost 2,456 pounds of plastic were recycled, this was a record high. I believe we need to set our goals even higher to obtain a healthy a sustainable home we call Earth.
4-19-2011
Hello Convenience, Goodbye Planet Earth
Purchasing bottled water has been made to the ultimate convenience. It is the most indispensable item within our culture. It’s found in lunchboxes at school, in hallways and classrooms, and sold at every basketball game in the country. The sole purpose of bottled water was to infuse how healthy it is to consume the wonderful natural resource of H20 that has come from this Earth. Water itself helps regulate the body’s temperature and provide necessary nutrients to organs. Water also helps transport oxygen to cells and protects joints and organ function. The body is benefitting in all kinds of ways by drinking water, but the Earth is not benefitting at all by not recycling these plastic bottles and not using them in any reusable kinds of ways. According to Jordan Chris from Earth911 Facts, nearly 26 billion plastic bottles are thrown away each year. These bottles are not biodegradable and could sit in landfills for longer than your lifetime. It is now more than ever to focus on being healthy to our body as well as to the Earth that can sustain it.
One of the best ways to resolve the water bottle crisis is to not buy bottled water at all! Purchasing a reusable water bottle is nearly as convenient as buying a plastic water bottle, but will save a person thousands of dollars over a lifetime. According to MSN Health Aware, the average person in America purchases 170 plastic water bottles a year. By dwindling that number down not only saves someone money, but is helping reduce landfills nationwide. It is so easy for a person to go to a store and pick up a bottle of water, that consciously, no one is even aware of the effects of that one bottle. Recycling water bottles is an entirely other matter. In 2005, Nubious Water Bottle Facts reported only 15% of water bottles were actually recycled, the rest were dumped away clogging landfills nationwide.
With landfills continually filling and overflowing, there are bound to be mishaps with garbage deposits near or around the ocean. With known whereabouts, but with no one to blame, the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch is something everyone should be acquainted with. The trash mainly comprises of plastic debris and is not only huge but is also scattered along a wide expanse making it difficult to clear up. With a massive landfill in the middle of the ocean, many people are able to avoid any encounters, while the life at sea shares the largest risk. With concerns as to how to clean up this impossible mishap, there is not an easy answer. By simply using biodegradable items and not purchasing nearly as much as the non biodegradable ones, it will minimize the waste that is adding to this horrendous garbage patch. Recycling is one of the easiest solutions to help reduce these occurrences. However, with the majority of Americans not recycling bottled water, some efforts have been made to help reduce the effects. Laws have been made to help the public abide by new rules and regulations to keep on recycling. In the year 2009, Earth911 Facts states that almost 2,456 pounds of plastic were recycled, this was a record high. I believe we need to set our goals even higher to obtain a healthy a sustainable home we call Earth.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Mind the Trap
Becky Semke
4-18-11
There are many ways to enjoy wildlife and for some people it includes being able to trap them. People trap furbearers mainly for their warm, weatherproof, and attractive pelts. They are also used for food, bait, soap, and medicines. Very little, if any, of a trapped animal is wasted. Whatever a trapper doesn’t use is usually left in the woods for other wildlife to feed upon. Each person has their own opinions about trapping and whether or not we should allow for people to trap wildlife.
There are many reasons people believe that trapping is a bad thing and never want to have anything to do with it. People with this opinion sometimes believe trappers are greedy and just want the fur to sell in order to make more money; however, this is not necessarily the case. Most trappers are involved in trapping for the recreational side of it. It is a way for them to enjoy wildlife while also getting exercise by hiking around to check on their traps. The extra income is just a benefit of doing something that they already enjoy. A reason people are against trapping is because a trapper may end up trapping and killing a species that they did not intend to trap. This does happen, but if the trapper does not have a tag to keep that species or if they have already reached their bag limit then they must report it immediately. The animal is usually kept for educational purposes to teach new trappers how to properly skin a furbearer in a trapper’s education course.
It is also believed by some people that trapping is associated with species becoming endangered. Wisconsin currently has 17 different species of furbearers that can be trapped. These species are managed properly to prevent them from approaching the endangered status. There are many regulations of trapping; some of which are trapping seasons, number of tags distributed, daily checks of dry land traps, and types of traps that can be used. The type of trap used can mean the difference of life or death of an animal. A foot hold trap will allow for the trapper to release an animal that was not set out to be targeted. In addition, Wisconsin requires all trappers to participate in a trapper’s education course before they are allowed to get a license to trap.
Trapping also provides many benefits to society that some people may not even realize. It helps remove animals that are causing damage and problems for farmers and homeowners. Being able to manage and monitor populations of wildlife is also beneficial. By using foot hold traps, it allows Wisconsin to cooperate with other government agencies to trap, relocate or reintroduce endangered species with the goal of restoring biological diversity.1 Trapping is also a recreational activity that allows for social opportunities while enjoying the outdoors. It is a way people bond with members of their family.
Trapping can be looked at from two different perspectives. I know that not everyone is going to agree with it, but personally I believe that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Please respond, I would love to hear your opinions about trapping.
1“Traps, Trapping and Furbearer Management in Wisconsin” Brochure distributed by WDNR and Wisconsin Trappers Association
Wisconsin Cooperative Trapper Education Program put on by the Wisconsin Trappers Association
4-18-11
There are many ways to enjoy wildlife and for some people it includes being able to trap them. People trap furbearers mainly for their warm, weatherproof, and attractive pelts. They are also used for food, bait, soap, and medicines. Very little, if any, of a trapped animal is wasted. Whatever a trapper doesn’t use is usually left in the woods for other wildlife to feed upon. Each person has their own opinions about trapping and whether or not we should allow for people to trap wildlife.
There are many reasons people believe that trapping is a bad thing and never want to have anything to do with it. People with this opinion sometimes believe trappers are greedy and just want the fur to sell in order to make more money; however, this is not necessarily the case. Most trappers are involved in trapping for the recreational side of it. It is a way for them to enjoy wildlife while also getting exercise by hiking around to check on their traps. The extra income is just a benefit of doing something that they already enjoy. A reason people are against trapping is because a trapper may end up trapping and killing a species that they did not intend to trap. This does happen, but if the trapper does not have a tag to keep that species or if they have already reached their bag limit then they must report it immediately. The animal is usually kept for educational purposes to teach new trappers how to properly skin a furbearer in a trapper’s education course.
It is also believed by some people that trapping is associated with species becoming endangered. Wisconsin currently has 17 different species of furbearers that can be trapped. These species are managed properly to prevent them from approaching the endangered status. There are many regulations of trapping; some of which are trapping seasons, number of tags distributed, daily checks of dry land traps, and types of traps that can be used. The type of trap used can mean the difference of life or death of an animal. A foot hold trap will allow for the trapper to release an animal that was not set out to be targeted. In addition, Wisconsin requires all trappers to participate in a trapper’s education course before they are allowed to get a license to trap.
Trapping also provides many benefits to society that some people may not even realize. It helps remove animals that are causing damage and problems for farmers and homeowners. Being able to manage and monitor populations of wildlife is also beneficial. By using foot hold traps, it allows Wisconsin to cooperate with other government agencies to trap, relocate or reintroduce endangered species with the goal of restoring biological diversity.1 Trapping is also a recreational activity that allows for social opportunities while enjoying the outdoors. It is a way people bond with members of their family.
Trapping can be looked at from two different perspectives. I know that not everyone is going to agree with it, but personally I believe that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Please respond, I would love to hear your opinions about trapping.
1“Traps, Trapping and Furbearer Management in Wisconsin” Brochure distributed by WDNR and Wisconsin Trappers Association
Wisconsin Cooperative Trapper Education Program put on by the Wisconsin Trappers Association
Friday, April 15, 2011
Little Piggy Went Wee
Alyssa Zopfi
4/15/2011
And This Little Piggy Went Wee Wee Where it Doesn’t Belong
When the word pig is mentioned an image of a pink snorting barnyard animal usually is the image that corresponds to it. Lately however a new image is composing itself, a dark hairy stocky beast of a menace. This is the type of animal that has called Wisconsin its home as well as at least 22 other states. They are an invasive exotic species that threatens farmlands as well as habitats of other species. These pigs are pests that need to be heavily managed before they get out of control like many other invasive species have done in the past.
According to an article by Kyle Lafond these animals are able to adapt to new environments very easily and what’s worse is they can reproduce rapidly. In this article it states that females can start breeding as young as 6 months old. Not only that but they can reproduce 2-4 litters per year of 4-10 piglets per litter when conditions are good. These statistics are frightening to think about. The more feral pigs the more habitat they require the more farmlands they destroy.
Not only are they destructive to farms but they also compete with other animals for food such as white tailed deer, grassland birds, and upland birds. Also according to the article they can destroy areas of wetland habitats that are crucial to migratory game birds. This is a destructive species that harms native species, farmlands, and habitats. There can’t be more reason why to get this population under control, but that would be a lie. Not only do they run up $800 million annually in damages to farm economy in the U.S but also they can carry several diseases. These diseases can be transferred to other wild animals, farm animals, and even humans.
What’s more interesting is how they came to be in Wisconsin. Lafond suggests three possibilities and surprise surprise all of them have to do with people releasing them. Whether it’s the pigs being released from game farmers, or released by hunters for sporting purposes, or even being released by bear hunters to train their dogs they all have that unifying theme of being placed by people. Although to hunters and game farms it may have seemed like a good idea it seems some things were overlooked, like how destructive they truly could be. The idea of humans releasing an exotic species into its non-native land is a little bit of history repeating itself which needs to be put to a stop, starting with feral pigs. Wisconsin still has a chance with what is reported a group of 130 animals mostly in the 50-mile radius. We can contain this problem, probably not easily but it definitely is possible. The invasive species is unprotected and can be hunted year round, as well as lacking bag or season limit restrictions. The WDNR supports the aggressive removal of these creatures so hunters act now and help save the farmlands, native species of deer and game birds as well as their habitats. It is indeed for our benefit to be rid of this species before it grows stronger and larger like it is very capable of.
Work Cited
LaFond, Kyle. "Wild Hogs in the Woods." Wisconsin Natural Resources 2005: Web. 14 Apr 2011..
4/15/2011
And This Little Piggy Went Wee Wee Where it Doesn’t Belong
When the word pig is mentioned an image of a pink snorting barnyard animal usually is the image that corresponds to it. Lately however a new image is composing itself, a dark hairy stocky beast of a menace. This is the type of animal that has called Wisconsin its home as well as at least 22 other states. They are an invasive exotic species that threatens farmlands as well as habitats of other species. These pigs are pests that need to be heavily managed before they get out of control like many other invasive species have done in the past.
According to an article by Kyle Lafond these animals are able to adapt to new environments very easily and what’s worse is they can reproduce rapidly. In this article it states that females can start breeding as young as 6 months old. Not only that but they can reproduce 2-4 litters per year of 4-10 piglets per litter when conditions are good. These statistics are frightening to think about. The more feral pigs the more habitat they require the more farmlands they destroy.
Not only are they destructive to farms but they also compete with other animals for food such as white tailed deer, grassland birds, and upland birds. Also according to the article they can destroy areas of wetland habitats that are crucial to migratory game birds. This is a destructive species that harms native species, farmlands, and habitats. There can’t be more reason why to get this population under control, but that would be a lie. Not only do they run up $800 million annually in damages to farm economy in the U.S but also they can carry several diseases. These diseases can be transferred to other wild animals, farm animals, and even humans.
What’s more interesting is how they came to be in Wisconsin. Lafond suggests three possibilities and surprise surprise all of them have to do with people releasing them. Whether it’s the pigs being released from game farmers, or released by hunters for sporting purposes, or even being released by bear hunters to train their dogs they all have that unifying theme of being placed by people. Although to hunters and game farms it may have seemed like a good idea it seems some things were overlooked, like how destructive they truly could be. The idea of humans releasing an exotic species into its non-native land is a little bit of history repeating itself which needs to be put to a stop, starting with feral pigs. Wisconsin still has a chance with what is reported a group of 130 animals mostly in the 50-mile radius. We can contain this problem, probably not easily but it definitely is possible. The invasive species is unprotected and can be hunted year round, as well as lacking bag or season limit restrictions. The WDNR supports the aggressive removal of these creatures so hunters act now and help save the farmlands, native species of deer and game birds as well as their habitats. It is indeed for our benefit to be rid of this species before it grows stronger and larger like it is very capable of.
Work Cited
LaFond, Kyle. "Wild Hogs in the Woods." Wisconsin Natural Resources 2005: Web. 14 Apr 2011.
Phosphorus Nutrient Loading
Adam Slaminski
04/13/11
Phosphorus is an important element found in all living things. Phosphorus is commonly used as a major component in fertilizer, it helps replace the natural phosphorous used by the plants. Phosphorous is seen as a good thing when trying to grow crops for farming and other agricultural purposes. Phosphorous is still an important part of the aquatic ecosystem but there is a fine line between healthy levels and too much. When an aquatic system receives to much phosphorous, it triggers plant growth similar to the way it affects plant growth in terrestrial systems. However plant growth is not necessarily a good thing in aquatic systems.
Excessive phosphorous levels can lead to massive algae blooms and aquatic plant growth that can completely change the structure of the water body. This rapid plant growth usually occurs in the littoral zone of the lake which is the area of the lake that gets light to the bottom and is where rooted plants grow. The algae blooms usually occur in the limnetic zone which is the lighted zone over deeper water away from shore. When this rapid growth occurs it can change the tropic state of the waterbody, by changing the water temperature. Waterbodies that have cool water and are thought to be productive which would fall under the Mesotrophic state can quickly turn to the Eutrophic state which has the warmest water temperatures and is the most productive. More production seems good at first glance but it is the water temperature that has the greatest impact on fish. Fish are sensitive to water temperatures. Fish that are thought to be cold water fish, like trout can’t survive in warm water environments. Even cool water fish like walleye cannot survive in warm water environments for extended periods of time. Water temperature is raised as a result of the increasing plant biomass which blocks out the sunlight from reaching the bottom. These seemingly small changes can have great impacts on entire aquatic ecosystems.
Another problem with excessive phosphorous is that when winter comes around and the ice covers the water, more oxygen is used in the decomposing process for all the dying vegetation, and less oxygen is available for the fish to breathe. When this occurs you get a situation similar to the Big Eau Plain fish kill that happened a few years ago. This was a result of not enough oxygen for the fish so lots of them suffocated to death and piled up on the shoreline in spring when the ice melted.
They came to the conclusion that the excess phosphorus probably came from farmers fields. It is common practice for farmers to spread manure out on fields in late winter and early spring so that when the ground thaws, the nutrients are taken into the soil. The only problem was that the spring before the massive winterkill the snow melted rapidly before the ground had a chance to thaw and most of the manure washed off the fields and into the reservoir. This coupled with the fact that the aerators in the reservoir were not turned on or malfunctioned led to the massive fish kill. To help insure that this kind of thing didn’t happen again, they went ahead and installed a new aeration system and tried to educate farmers about the steps they can take to reduce the amount of phosphorus leaving their fields and entering the nearby water bodies.
04/13/11
Phosphorus is an important element found in all living things. Phosphorus is commonly used as a major component in fertilizer, it helps replace the natural phosphorous used by the plants. Phosphorous is seen as a good thing when trying to grow crops for farming and other agricultural purposes. Phosphorous is still an important part of the aquatic ecosystem but there is a fine line between healthy levels and too much. When an aquatic system receives to much phosphorous, it triggers plant growth similar to the way it affects plant growth in terrestrial systems. However plant growth is not necessarily a good thing in aquatic systems.
Excessive phosphorous levels can lead to massive algae blooms and aquatic plant growth that can completely change the structure of the water body. This rapid plant growth usually occurs in the littoral zone of the lake which is the area of the lake that gets light to the bottom and is where rooted plants grow. The algae blooms usually occur in the limnetic zone which is the lighted zone over deeper water away from shore. When this rapid growth occurs it can change the tropic state of the waterbody, by changing the water temperature. Waterbodies that have cool water and are thought to be productive which would fall under the Mesotrophic state can quickly turn to the Eutrophic state which has the warmest water temperatures and is the most productive. More production seems good at first glance but it is the water temperature that has the greatest impact on fish. Fish are sensitive to water temperatures. Fish that are thought to be cold water fish, like trout can’t survive in warm water environments. Even cool water fish like walleye cannot survive in warm water environments for extended periods of time. Water temperature is raised as a result of the increasing plant biomass which blocks out the sunlight from reaching the bottom. These seemingly small changes can have great impacts on entire aquatic ecosystems.
Another problem with excessive phosphorous is that when winter comes around and the ice covers the water, more oxygen is used in the decomposing process for all the dying vegetation, and less oxygen is available for the fish to breathe. When this occurs you get a situation similar to the Big Eau Plain fish kill that happened a few years ago. This was a result of not enough oxygen for the fish so lots of them suffocated to death and piled up on the shoreline in spring when the ice melted.
They came to the conclusion that the excess phosphorus probably came from farmers fields. It is common practice for farmers to spread manure out on fields in late winter and early spring so that when the ground thaws, the nutrients are taken into the soil. The only problem was that the spring before the massive winterkill the snow melted rapidly before the ground had a chance to thaw and most of the manure washed off the fields and into the reservoir. This coupled with the fact that the aerators in the reservoir were not turned on or malfunctioned led to the massive fish kill. To help insure that this kind of thing didn’t happen again, they went ahead and installed a new aeration system and tried to educate farmers about the steps they can take to reduce the amount of phosphorus leaving their fields and entering the nearby water bodies.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Deer Baiting in Wisconsin
Nick Gaede
4/14/2011
Deer baiting is one of those subjects that will draw plenty of opinions in Wisconsin, especially
if you are having a cold one at the local tavern and mention baiting. There are many good arguments whether to bait or not. Many proponents of baiting say it is necessary for youth just starting to hunt to have deer come in close for a safe shot. On the other side of the argument are those that say we would have more natural deer movement if we would ban baiting statewide. In my opinion, I think we would be better off with a statewide ban. Don't get me wrong, I have shot a few deer off a bait pile, including two during Wisconsin's late archery season last year. It may be easier to draw deer in, especially during the late season, but I find it to be a more rewarding experience to harvest an animal when it is moving naturally along a runway in the woods. Just looking at the regulations on baiting can make anyone's head hurt, there are five pages specific to baiting requirements in the Wisconsin deer hunting regulations pamphlet. I think it would just be easier to eliminate this aspect from our hunting lifestyle. Before the two gallon bait limit private landowners were dumping out truckloads of corn and potatoes to draw deer onto their property - talk about an unfair advantage to someone who primarily hunts public land! Many of the deer on public lands were drawn onto private lands making it tough to harvest an animal. This may not be occurring as much now with the two gallon limit, but I guarantee some are still putting out large amounts of bait. I remember when we had a statewide ban on baiting for one season, when CWD was first discovered in the state, and many hunters I talked to said they seen more antlered animals that year than in previous years. There are many other states that have a statewide ban on baiting and I don't hear too many hunters complaining about not seeing any deer in those states. Chronic Wasting Disease is also a big concern in the state with it already being prevalent in much of the southern half of the state. Banning baiting may not eliminate its spread into the north woods but I think it would be a step in the right direction. I recently read Greg Miller's book Bowhunting Forests and Deep Woods, Greg by the way, is a very well renowned bowhunter from Wisconsin who had some interesting things to say about baiting that I would like to share with you. "The sudden appearance of corn piles throughout the forest changed the habits and travel patterns of its deer. Equally bad, baiting made many Wisconsin deer hunters become lazy, both physically and mentally, disconnecting them from the forest itself. A disconnected deer hunter can never become a skilled, astute observer of whitetail deer behavior. I hate to say it, but the arts of scouting and interpreting deer sign are disappearing in my home state." Greg goes on the say that "In fact, baiting became so widespread that I eventually sold my share of my hunting cabin in northwestern Wisconsin." I thinks these are pretty bold statements made by a renowned bowhunter from our state and I have to say I am in agreement with many of Mr. Miller's thoughts on baiting. Hopefully hunters in our state will become to realize the benefits of not baiting so we can all have a great hunting experience.
4/14/2011
Deer baiting is one of those subjects that will draw plenty of opinions in Wisconsin, especially
if you are having a cold one at the local tavern and mention baiting. There are many good arguments whether to bait or not. Many proponents of baiting say it is necessary for youth just starting to hunt to have deer come in close for a safe shot. On the other side of the argument are those that say we would have more natural deer movement if we would ban baiting statewide. In my opinion, I think we would be better off with a statewide ban. Don't get me wrong, I have shot a few deer off a bait pile, including two during Wisconsin's late archery season last year. It may be easier to draw deer in, especially during the late season, but I find it to be a more rewarding experience to harvest an animal when it is moving naturally along a runway in the woods. Just looking at the regulations on baiting can make anyone's head hurt, there are five pages specific to baiting requirements in the Wisconsin deer hunting regulations pamphlet. I think it would just be easier to eliminate this aspect from our hunting lifestyle. Before the two gallon bait limit private landowners were dumping out truckloads of corn and potatoes to draw deer onto their property - talk about an unfair advantage to someone who primarily hunts public land! Many of the deer on public lands were drawn onto private lands making it tough to harvest an animal. This may not be occurring as much now with the two gallon limit, but I guarantee some are still putting out large amounts of bait. I remember when we had a statewide ban on baiting for one season, when CWD was first discovered in the state, and many hunters I talked to said they seen more antlered animals that year than in previous years. There are many other states that have a statewide ban on baiting and I don't hear too many hunters complaining about not seeing any deer in those states. Chronic Wasting Disease is also a big concern in the state with it already being prevalent in much of the southern half of the state. Banning baiting may not eliminate its spread into the north woods but I think it would be a step in the right direction. I recently read Greg Miller's book Bowhunting Forests and Deep Woods, Greg by the way, is a very well renowned bowhunter from Wisconsin who had some interesting things to say about baiting that I would like to share with you. "The sudden appearance of corn piles throughout the forest changed the habits and travel patterns of its deer. Equally bad, baiting made many Wisconsin deer hunters become lazy, both physically and mentally, disconnecting them from the forest itself. A disconnected deer hunter can never become a skilled, astute observer of whitetail deer behavior. I hate to say it, but the arts of scouting and interpreting deer sign are disappearing in my home state." Greg goes on the say that "In fact, baiting became so widespread that I eventually sold my share of my hunting cabin in northwestern Wisconsin." I thinks these are pretty bold statements made by a renowned bowhunter from our state and I have to say I am in agreement with many of Mr. Miller's thoughts on baiting. Hopefully hunters in our state will become to realize the benefits of not baiting so we can all have a great hunting experience.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Eurasian Milfoil
Doug Dicka
4/12/11
Eurasian Milfoil first originated in Europe and Asia and from there was introduced to the eastern part of the United States around the 1940’s. This invasive species is mainly transported from one water body to another by people that fail to wash off their boats when going from one lake to another one for any sort of recreation. Eurasian Milfoil is considered a very big problem considering the fact that it is all over the United States and it is very difficult to control and get rid of. When Eurasian Milfoil is introduced to a new body of water it can be very detrimental to the ecology of the lake. A few different ways that it can be bad from the aspect of people is that Milfoil will tend to form lots of vegetation on the surface of the water which makes swimming, fishing, canoeing, water skiing, and many other things a lot more difficult. These mats of vegetation are also a good habitat for mosquitos. These mats also tend to increase the sedimentation rate by trapping sedimentation. There are also many ways that this invasive species is detrimental to the other organisms in the same habitat. One of these ways is that this Milfoil starts its Spring growth cycle a lot sooner than other plants and it tends to shade out these other species that are good for the local environment. The diversity of the aquatic species in the same body of water also will decrease.
Milfoil is a species that will reproduce at a very high rate. Within two years of being introduced to a lake it will spread throughout the entire thing by being carried from one portion of the lake to another by water currents. Milfoil produces seeds that will help the plant to reproduce but the majority of the time the invasive species will reproduce through fragmentation. This is mainly how it is transported from one lake to another, when a portion of the plant sticks to a boat and is not removed before going to another lake.
Once Milfoil is established to a certain point within a lake it is very hard to get rid of if not impossible. In small bodies of there are a couple of different types of herbicides that are used to combat the invasion. The two main herbicides are called “Sonar”, and “triclopyr-TEA”. There are other types of removal options as well. These include: underwater rototilling, hand pulling by divers, the installation of bottom barriers, and diver dredging. Another way to get rid of Milfoil in a small body, such as a pond, is to drain the pond before winter and this will kill the species. Although this is very effective it usually takes up to two consecutive winters to achieve. All in all between people who pay to get rid of this species for private use and the cost to the state it comes out to be over a million dollars per year to try and contain, and get rid of Eurasian Milfoil.
4/12/11
Eurasian Milfoil first originated in Europe and Asia and from there was introduced to the eastern part of the United States around the 1940’s. This invasive species is mainly transported from one water body to another by people that fail to wash off their boats when going from one lake to another one for any sort of recreation. Eurasian Milfoil is considered a very big problem considering the fact that it is all over the United States and it is very difficult to control and get rid of. When Eurasian Milfoil is introduced to a new body of water it can be very detrimental to the ecology of the lake. A few different ways that it can be bad from the aspect of people is that Milfoil will tend to form lots of vegetation on the surface of the water which makes swimming, fishing, canoeing, water skiing, and many other things a lot more difficult. These mats of vegetation are also a good habitat for mosquitos. These mats also tend to increase the sedimentation rate by trapping sedimentation. There are also many ways that this invasive species is detrimental to the other organisms in the same habitat. One of these ways is that this Milfoil starts its Spring growth cycle a lot sooner than other plants and it tends to shade out these other species that are good for the local environment. The diversity of the aquatic species in the same body of water also will decrease.
Milfoil is a species that will reproduce at a very high rate. Within two years of being introduced to a lake it will spread throughout the entire thing by being carried from one portion of the lake to another by water currents. Milfoil produces seeds that will help the plant to reproduce but the majority of the time the invasive species will reproduce through fragmentation. This is mainly how it is transported from one lake to another, when a portion of the plant sticks to a boat and is not removed before going to another lake.
Once Milfoil is established to a certain point within a lake it is very hard to get rid of if not impossible. In small bodies of there are a couple of different types of herbicides that are used to combat the invasion. The two main herbicides are called “Sonar”, and “triclopyr-TEA”. There are other types of removal options as well. These include: underwater rototilling, hand pulling by divers, the installation of bottom barriers, and diver dredging. Another way to get rid of Milfoil in a small body, such as a pond, is to drain the pond before winter and this will kill the species. Although this is very effective it usually takes up to two consecutive winters to achieve. All in all between people who pay to get rid of this species for private use and the cost to the state it comes out to be over a million dollars per year to try and contain, and get rid of Eurasian Milfoil.
Hunter Recruitment
Hunter Recruitment: Not Just for Youth
Molly Norlin
4/13/11
For the past several years there has been a steady decrease in the number of hunters from across the nation. Not only is this alarming for game wardens but also for businesses and other hunters. Hunting is a tradition that has been passed down through the generations for ages and it encourages people to get outside and experience nature. Not only is it an important tradition but it is also a 22.1 billion dollar industry, with 14 million participants and 700,000 jobs created (Department of Fish and Game, 2011).
So the real question is how do we recruit and retain more hunters? It is common knowledge that many states implement youth hunts to get kids interested in hunting. This does recruit some hunters but in many instances it does not retain them. Think about it, how is a kid going to be able to afford all the costs associated with hunting? Yes, their parents can help out but if their parents don’t hunt it is hard for a kid to gain access to land and learn skills necessary for successful hunting. If the young person is persistent enough then yes, they may be able to continue the tradition. It is apparent that there are many challenges for youth to adopt the sport without some sort of parental figure helping them. I’m not saying that they are unwilling or do not have an interest, I am just saying that it is very difficult for them to stay in the sport for the rest of their lives. This is especially true when the child’s parents do not participate in the sport because they have no one to answer their questions or help them when needed. Some children may have other family members, friends or neighbors that could help them but in most cases many children do not have that opportunity.
I believe that states should try to recruit both youth and adults as well. If state programs were created to take adults who have never been hunting or who have been hunting only a few times on a hunt I think there would be a better recruitment and retention rate. Each adult could be mentored by a hunter who would teach them the hunting regulations and techniques. The mentor would also be there to answer any questions that the beginner had. Another reason adults would be a good candidate for hunting is their financial status. Most adults have a better chance at being able to afford the costs of hunting and may have their own land or access to others. By recruiting adults there is also the probability of them passing the tradition down to their children, thus recruiting even more hunters. The great part about hunting is that it is very family oriented and allows the parent to be able to experience the hunt with their child and pass on the tradition.
I strongly believe that the youth hunting program works and that it is a successful and necessary way to recruit hunters, but I also think that there should be hunting programs designed to take adults hunting as well. If a program such as this, along with the youth hunting programs, were implemented I believe that hunter recruitment and retention would increase.
Literature Cited:
“The Economic Importance of Hunting.” Department of Fish and Game. CA.gov. Web. April 12, 2011.
Molly Norlin
4/13/11
For the past several years there has been a steady decrease in the number of hunters from across the nation. Not only is this alarming for game wardens but also for businesses and other hunters. Hunting is a tradition that has been passed down through the generations for ages and it encourages people to get outside and experience nature. Not only is it an important tradition but it is also a 22.1 billion dollar industry, with 14 million participants and 700,000 jobs created (Department of Fish and Game, 2011).
So the real question is how do we recruit and retain more hunters? It is common knowledge that many states implement youth hunts to get kids interested in hunting. This does recruit some hunters but in many instances it does not retain them. Think about it, how is a kid going to be able to afford all the costs associated with hunting? Yes, their parents can help out but if their parents don’t hunt it is hard for a kid to gain access to land and learn skills necessary for successful hunting. If the young person is persistent enough then yes, they may be able to continue the tradition. It is apparent that there are many challenges for youth to adopt the sport without some sort of parental figure helping them. I’m not saying that they are unwilling or do not have an interest, I am just saying that it is very difficult for them to stay in the sport for the rest of their lives. This is especially true when the child’s parents do not participate in the sport because they have no one to answer their questions or help them when needed. Some children may have other family members, friends or neighbors that could help them but in most cases many children do not have that opportunity.
I believe that states should try to recruit both youth and adults as well. If state programs were created to take adults who have never been hunting or who have been hunting only a few times on a hunt I think there would be a better recruitment and retention rate. Each adult could be mentored by a hunter who would teach them the hunting regulations and techniques. The mentor would also be there to answer any questions that the beginner had. Another reason adults would be a good candidate for hunting is their financial status. Most adults have a better chance at being able to afford the costs of hunting and may have their own land or access to others. By recruiting adults there is also the probability of them passing the tradition down to their children, thus recruiting even more hunters. The great part about hunting is that it is very family oriented and allows the parent to be able to experience the hunt with their child and pass on the tradition.
I strongly believe that the youth hunting program works and that it is a successful and necessary way to recruit hunters, but I also think that there should be hunting programs designed to take adults hunting as well. If a program such as this, along with the youth hunting programs, were implemented I believe that hunter recruitment and retention would increase.
Literature Cited:
“The Economic Importance of Hunting.” Department of Fish and Game. CA.gov. Web. April 12, 2011.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Emeralds to Ashes
Emeralds to Ashes, Ashes to Dust
Nick Bossenbroek
4/11/2011
It is believed that the emerald ash borer arrived in Michigan in the 1990’s off a boat coming from Asia. Emerald ash borer is found in 13 states ranging from Minnesota to New York, Missouri to Maryland. There are 12 different species of ash in the U.S. and EAB will infest and kill any ash trees it encounters. The health of the tree prior to infestation is no concern to the beetle. It will use sick, dyeing or perfectly healthy trees. Since its arrival the beetle has already destroyed millions of Ash trees and is a major concern for the near future.
There are over 750 million ash trees found in our state of Wisconsin, all of which are vulnerable to this menace. Quarantine has been set up the following counties: Brown, Crawford, Vernon, Fond du Lac, Sheboygan, Washington, Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Kenosha, and Racine counties. “This means hardwood firewood that has been stored, purchased, or harvested in the following areas may not be moved out of these areas in Wisconsin” (WEAB). These beetles will no doubt have a detrimental effect on our state and national forests. The signs of an emerald ash borer infected tree may be subtle. The most distinguishable characteristic of an infected tree is a very tiny “D” shaped whole, created by adult larva when they exit their tunnel homes in the spring.
There are a couple ways to protect ash trees from these pests. Purple “kite looking” boxes can be placed in ash trees to attract and trap insects. This is a relatively easy way to help control the spread of EAB. An aerial spray Bt, has been found to kill EAB but has to be repeatedly sprayed and may toxic effects on other wildlife, and is also extremely expensive to use. The cost of spraying would be in the millions, and if other plants and animals are affected then even more money would have to be put in to restore these organisms. Another idea was to bring in an Asian wasp to feed on these beetles. Bringing in an exotic species to control an invasive species is extremely risky and in this case I don’t believe it will act fast or effective enough. The wasp would interact with more than just the beetles and could become a problem of its own, much like the cane toads of Australia. The best way to slow the spread of EAB is to not move fire would from any county in any state. If you have fire wood then burn it at a close location or use the firewood that’s already at the place you’re going to. I know it’s easy to throw some wood in the pick-up and drive away but it’s not the environmentally friendly thing to do. Also, if you have ash trees in your yard, put up a purple box. It may look a little silly but it’ll be a reminder that you’re helping out the environment. Finally, if you notice signs of a tree that may be infected, tell your local DNR to come check it out. Helping the environment may not be easy, but nothing worthwhile comes easy.
WORK CITED
"Emerald Ash Borer Resource Guide - Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection." IBM HTTP Server. Web. 11 Apr. 2011..
Nick Bossenbroek
4/11/2011
It is believed that the emerald ash borer arrived in Michigan in the 1990’s off a boat coming from Asia. Emerald ash borer is found in 13 states ranging from Minnesota to New York, Missouri to Maryland. There are 12 different species of ash in the U.S. and EAB will infest and kill any ash trees it encounters. The health of the tree prior to infestation is no concern to the beetle. It will use sick, dyeing or perfectly healthy trees. Since its arrival the beetle has already destroyed millions of Ash trees and is a major concern for the near future.
There are over 750 million ash trees found in our state of Wisconsin, all of which are vulnerable to this menace. Quarantine has been set up the following counties: Brown, Crawford, Vernon, Fond du Lac, Sheboygan, Washington, Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Kenosha, and Racine counties. “This means hardwood firewood that has been stored, purchased, or harvested in the following areas may not be moved out of these areas in Wisconsin” (WEAB). These beetles will no doubt have a detrimental effect on our state and national forests. The signs of an emerald ash borer infected tree may be subtle. The most distinguishable characteristic of an infected tree is a very tiny “D” shaped whole, created by adult larva when they exit their tunnel homes in the spring.
There are a couple ways to protect ash trees from these pests. Purple “kite looking” boxes can be placed in ash trees to attract and trap insects. This is a relatively easy way to help control the spread of EAB. An aerial spray Bt, has been found to kill EAB but has to be repeatedly sprayed and may toxic effects on other wildlife, and is also extremely expensive to use. The cost of spraying would be in the millions, and if other plants and animals are affected then even more money would have to be put in to restore these organisms. Another idea was to bring in an Asian wasp to feed on these beetles. Bringing in an exotic species to control an invasive species is extremely risky and in this case I don’t believe it will act fast or effective enough. The wasp would interact with more than just the beetles and could become a problem of its own, much like the cane toads of Australia. The best way to slow the spread of EAB is to not move fire would from any county in any state. If you have fire wood then burn it at a close location or use the firewood that’s already at the place you’re going to. I know it’s easy to throw some wood in the pick-up and drive away but it’s not the environmentally friendly thing to do. Also, if you have ash trees in your yard, put up a purple box. It may look a little silly but it’ll be a reminder that you’re helping out the environment. Finally, if you notice signs of a tree that may be infected, tell your local DNR to come check it out. Helping the environment may not be easy, but nothing worthwhile comes easy.
WORK CITED
"Emerald Ash Borer Resource Guide - Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection." IBM HTTP Server. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Campus Dining Services
Making Campus (Dining Services) more Sustainable
Donnie Peterson
4/11/11
This campus today could be a lot more sustainable in my opinion. Right now a lot of waste comes from the dining on campus. There are many ways that we can reduce the amount of waste we produce on this campus. We can eat all of the food you get at Debot or use reusable items instead of getting stuff to go. I work at University Dining Services (UDS) and I see people get food to go and then walk 10 yards to a booth seat, sit, and eat their food. I just think what is the point of getting your food to go if you are going to eat it here?
I have come up with some awesome ideas to eliminate extra waste generated at UDS. First, discourage the use of to go items by charging a fee for getting items to go. This would help reduce waste and reduce the cost to UDS, which with the cost lowered UDS can either give more food with a student’s meal plan or get better quality of food. The cost of the to go items would discourage people to get to go and encourage them to stay and eat. I do understand that people have to go and eat on the run, so I propose a way of reducing disposable to go containers. We could start a system where you play an upfront cost for a reusable container that can be used for to go orders of food. Bring in the dirty container and exchange it for a clean one for the next time you need a to go order in the future.
Another thing that would be to get the C-Store (lower debot) to switch to reusable plates and cups, instead of having all disposable plates and cups. UDS would have to hire a few extra people to pick up dishes and to wash dishes. The C-Store could work a lot like the DUC Food Court works right now. Food that is made at the C-Store can just be placed on plates, instead of wrapping everything in paper. Once again, if a student does need an order of food to go they simply need to get a reusable container and those students would be set.
At both C-Store and the DUC Food Court, they can switch from serving milk in cartons to serving milk from bulk bags into reusable cups. This would eliminate all of the waste of milk cartons and also eliminate the waste to shipping all of the milk cartons compared to bagged milk in bulk. This would also save money to UDS, which one again could keep the food prices lower and/or keep the meal plans low.
Finally to conclude, these are just some ideas that UDS/Campus could do to help reduce waste. DUC Food Court and C-Store could set up garbage for putting just food scraps, so then the food scraps could be composted. Another thing, the DUC Food Court could also server the burgers and sub sandwiches on plates. They don’t have to wrap everything up in paper, it is just a waste of resources and cost extra money for no reason.
Donnie Peterson
4/11/11
This campus today could be a lot more sustainable in my opinion. Right now a lot of waste comes from the dining on campus. There are many ways that we can reduce the amount of waste we produce on this campus. We can eat all of the food you get at Debot or use reusable items instead of getting stuff to go. I work at University Dining Services (UDS) and I see people get food to go and then walk 10 yards to a booth seat, sit, and eat their food. I just think what is the point of getting your food to go if you are going to eat it here?
I have come up with some awesome ideas to eliminate extra waste generated at UDS. First, discourage the use of to go items by charging a fee for getting items to go. This would help reduce waste and reduce the cost to UDS, which with the cost lowered UDS can either give more food with a student’s meal plan or get better quality of food. The cost of the to go items would discourage people to get to go and encourage them to stay and eat. I do understand that people have to go and eat on the run, so I propose a way of reducing disposable to go containers. We could start a system where you play an upfront cost for a reusable container that can be used for to go orders of food. Bring in the dirty container and exchange it for a clean one for the next time you need a to go order in the future.
Another thing that would be to get the C-Store (lower debot) to switch to reusable plates and cups, instead of having all disposable plates and cups. UDS would have to hire a few extra people to pick up dishes and to wash dishes. The C-Store could work a lot like the DUC Food Court works right now. Food that is made at the C-Store can just be placed on plates, instead of wrapping everything in paper. Once again, if a student does need an order of food to go they simply need to get a reusable container and those students would be set.
At both C-Store and the DUC Food Court, they can switch from serving milk in cartons to serving milk from bulk bags into reusable cups. This would eliminate all of the waste of milk cartons and also eliminate the waste to shipping all of the milk cartons compared to bagged milk in bulk. This would also save money to UDS, which one again could keep the food prices lower and/or keep the meal plans low.
Finally to conclude, these are just some ideas that UDS/Campus could do to help reduce waste. DUC Food Court and C-Store could set up garbage for putting just food scraps, so then the food scraps could be composted. Another thing, the DUC Food Court could also server the burgers and sub sandwiches on plates. They don’t have to wrap everything up in paper, it is just a waste of resources and cost extra money for no reason.
Destroying Ourselves
Brandon Carmichael
April 8th, 2011
On my way back to the United States from my spring break trip to Costa Rica, I noticed a sign at the airport that encouraged people to not bring home exotic pets. This prompt got me to think of all the problems that people have created over the centuries because of improper care or containment of pets. It is unfortunate to say, but there are a surprisingly large number of ecosystems that have introduced species running around because of human intervention, both intentional and unintentional. Invasive species are a problem everywhere; locally we’re fighting an emerald ash borer beetle infestation, in Florida the everglades are swamped with boa constrictors, in our lakes and rivers we have problems with carp and snakeheads and on the other side of the world, in Australia, people have introduced rabbits and cane toads, both of which have swarmed the continent. Wild pigs create a problem all over the world because of the way they dig up the earth and eat nearly everything in sight. To be fair, some species have been introduced purely on accident, but there are many more that have been released on purpose, generally in an effort to get rid of another problem animal.
Pet ownership requires a lot of responsibility and sometimes people simply are not prepared for that responsibility. In the case of boa constrictors, owners are sometimes unprepared for the eventual size of the animal or the costs associated with feeding the continuously growing animal. As a way of shedding this responsibility, some negligent snake owners in Florida decided that simply releasing the animals into the everglades was either the easiest or cheapest way to get rid of the animals. What they didn’t realize was that once the snakes were able to set up a breeding population, they effectively shifted the entire food chain of the region by placing themselves as the top predator. Today the snakes roam the everglades almost without fear, except when they’re young. However, it’s not just carnivores that can throw off an ecosystem; herbivores can wreak just as much havoc, if not more. For instance, in Australia rabbits have been introduced to the grasslands where, naturally, their population levels took off. Without any natural predators and the ability to not only out-compete, but also out-breed any competition, the rabbits started to have a huge effect on the populations of the native marsupial herbivores. Once the people of Australia took notice of this, they decided to try to do something about their rabbit problem by introducing foxes. Unfortunately, this ended up leading to more of a snowball effect because while the foxes did eat the rabbits, they also started going after the slower, less apprehensive marsupials, such as wombats.
A complete lack of knowledge can, of course, lead to terrible outcomes when it comes to introducing a new animal, but a small amount or basic knowledge of something can be even more dangerous. For example, in Australia, farmers who were having trouble with beetles destroying their crops decided to have some cane toads sent over from Hawaii because they knew the cane toads ate most anything smaller than themselves. Regrettably, this plan backfired because it turned out that the toads did not acquire a taste for the beetles and escaped the farmlands in search of food, which they found plenty of. Today cane toad numbers are astronomical because they have no predators that can handle the toxin that they produce. Even though Australia is home to some of the most venomous species of snakes in the world, one attack on a cane toad kills most any would-be predator in Australia. While I have no intention of promoting pesticides, they do seem to be a better alternative to other “natural” solutions we, as humans, have come up with in the past.
April 8th, 2011
On my way back to the United States from my spring break trip to Costa Rica, I noticed a sign at the airport that encouraged people to not bring home exotic pets. This prompt got me to think of all the problems that people have created over the centuries because of improper care or containment of pets. It is unfortunate to say, but there are a surprisingly large number of ecosystems that have introduced species running around because of human intervention, both intentional and unintentional. Invasive species are a problem everywhere; locally we’re fighting an emerald ash borer beetle infestation, in Florida the everglades are swamped with boa constrictors, in our lakes and rivers we have problems with carp and snakeheads and on the other side of the world, in Australia, people have introduced rabbits and cane toads, both of which have swarmed the continent. Wild pigs create a problem all over the world because of the way they dig up the earth and eat nearly everything in sight. To be fair, some species have been introduced purely on accident, but there are many more that have been released on purpose, generally in an effort to get rid of another problem animal.
Pet ownership requires a lot of responsibility and sometimes people simply are not prepared for that responsibility. In the case of boa constrictors, owners are sometimes unprepared for the eventual size of the animal or the costs associated with feeding the continuously growing animal. As a way of shedding this responsibility, some negligent snake owners in Florida decided that simply releasing the animals into the everglades was either the easiest or cheapest way to get rid of the animals. What they didn’t realize was that once the snakes were able to set up a breeding population, they effectively shifted the entire food chain of the region by placing themselves as the top predator. Today the snakes roam the everglades almost without fear, except when they’re young. However, it’s not just carnivores that can throw off an ecosystem; herbivores can wreak just as much havoc, if not more. For instance, in Australia rabbits have been introduced to the grasslands where, naturally, their population levels took off. Without any natural predators and the ability to not only out-compete, but also out-breed any competition, the rabbits started to have a huge effect on the populations of the native marsupial herbivores. Once the people of Australia took notice of this, they decided to try to do something about their rabbit problem by introducing foxes. Unfortunately, this ended up leading to more of a snowball effect because while the foxes did eat the rabbits, they also started going after the slower, less apprehensive marsupials, such as wombats.
A complete lack of knowledge can, of course, lead to terrible outcomes when it comes to introducing a new animal, but a small amount or basic knowledge of something can be even more dangerous. For example, in Australia, farmers who were having trouble with beetles destroying their crops decided to have some cane toads sent over from Hawaii because they knew the cane toads ate most anything smaller than themselves. Regrettably, this plan backfired because it turned out that the toads did not acquire a taste for the beetles and escaped the farmlands in search of food, which they found plenty of. Today cane toad numbers are astronomical because they have no predators that can handle the toxin that they produce. Even though Australia is home to some of the most venomous species of snakes in the world, one attack on a cane toad kills most any would-be predator in Australia. While I have no intention of promoting pesticides, they do seem to be a better alternative to other “natural” solutions we, as humans, have come up with in the past.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Animal Use in Educational Programs
Christin Groth
April 7, 2011
Over winter break I spent a lot of time looking for a captive wildlife internship that would fill the internship requirement for my captive wildlife minor. I came across an internship at a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facility. Although it was already past the application due date, I read through the application because from looking at their website, this sounded like an interesting place. In this application, there was a page with a few of the center’s philosophies on working with captive wildlife, and I found one of them very interesting. It read, “WRR does not use animals in education programs. We firmly disagree with using animals as public display and feel this places the animal under undeserved stress and sends a mixed message to the public suggesting wild animals can be tamed and made into good ‘pets’. . . What are your thoughts on this philosophy?”
Looking at this question with an open mind, I can see and understand parts of this philosophy. I do agree that using an animal in an educational program can be stressful for that animal, but this can be minimized. When an animal is chosen to be used in an education program, that animal can become accustomed to the increased attention through handling and training. Animals can adapt to captive lifestyle in a way that makes interventions with humans less stressful.
Another point to be made is that this is a wildlife rehabilitation center. If they have animals that are injured but will recover to a point that they can be released again, they would not use that animal in a program. In this case they would want to handle that animal as little as possible so that it does not get used to humans. Human desensitization has been proven to be detrimental in the wilderness. This being said, some injuries are too extensive, and that animal would not survive in the wild upon being released. As long as these animal’s injuries heal to a point that is not painful to them, they can serve as a great teaching tool rather than being euthanized or put back in a cage for the rest of their lives.
Then there is the part that talked about sending a mixed message to the public suggesting that wild animals can be tamed and made into good pets. Again, I can see their concern on this issue because I understand that the public may see that beautiful animal being handled and in turn want one themselves. Here I feel that it is important for the individual putting on an educational program to stress a few concepts. First they should stress that this animal has been injured and cannot be released into the wild. It is not uncommon that animal injuries are human influenced, so here people can be taught that their actions can have a large impact on wildlife. The public should also be reminded that as a wildlife rehabilitation center, there are permits, rules, and regulations that need to be kept in order to have these animals. These regulations are there to ensure that while an animal is kept in captivity, it is kept under good living conditions.
Like I said before, I never did end up filling out this application, but this is what I would have said. I understand and can see valid points in their philosophy, but I guess there is a little conflict in our views. Under the right conditions, animals can be a valuable teaching tool used to enhance public awareness and appreciation of wildlife.
April 7, 2011
Over winter break I spent a lot of time looking for a captive wildlife internship that would fill the internship requirement for my captive wildlife minor. I came across an internship at a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facility. Although it was already past the application due date, I read through the application because from looking at their website, this sounded like an interesting place. In this application, there was a page with a few of the center’s philosophies on working with captive wildlife, and I found one of them very interesting. It read, “WRR does not use animals in education programs. We firmly disagree with using animals as public display and feel this places the animal under undeserved stress and sends a mixed message to the public suggesting wild animals can be tamed and made into good ‘pets’. . . What are your thoughts on this philosophy?”
Looking at this question with an open mind, I can see and understand parts of this philosophy. I do agree that using an animal in an educational program can be stressful for that animal, but this can be minimized. When an animal is chosen to be used in an education program, that animal can become accustomed to the increased attention through handling and training. Animals can adapt to captive lifestyle in a way that makes interventions with humans less stressful.
Another point to be made is that this is a wildlife rehabilitation center. If they have animals that are injured but will recover to a point that they can be released again, they would not use that animal in a program. In this case they would want to handle that animal as little as possible so that it does not get used to humans. Human desensitization has been proven to be detrimental in the wilderness. This being said, some injuries are too extensive, and that animal would not survive in the wild upon being released. As long as these animal’s injuries heal to a point that is not painful to them, they can serve as a great teaching tool rather than being euthanized or put back in a cage for the rest of their lives.
Then there is the part that talked about sending a mixed message to the public suggesting that wild animals can be tamed and made into good pets. Again, I can see their concern on this issue because I understand that the public may see that beautiful animal being handled and in turn want one themselves. Here I feel that it is important for the individual putting on an educational program to stress a few concepts. First they should stress that this animal has been injured and cannot be released into the wild. It is not uncommon that animal injuries are human influenced, so here people can be taught that their actions can have a large impact on wildlife. The public should also be reminded that as a wildlife rehabilitation center, there are permits, rules, and regulations that need to be kept in order to have these animals. These regulations are there to ensure that while an animal is kept in captivity, it is kept under good living conditions.
Like I said before, I never did end up filling out this application, but this is what I would have said. I understand and can see valid points in their philosophy, but I guess there is a little conflict in our views. Under the right conditions, animals can be a valuable teaching tool used to enhance public awareness and appreciation of wildlife.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Earth Day
Alyssa Uhen
April 6, 2011
Earth Day: Is it still effective?
These days, there are many different views and ideas that circulate in regards to Earth Day. When Earth Day was created in 1970, it was meant to make the public conscious of environmental issues such as water and air pollution as well as force the idea of protecting the environment onto the agenda of politicians. As a result, many environmental acts were passed and the Environmental Protection Agency was established. After 1970, Earth Day became an annual occurrence and many people and organizations took steps towards being environmentally sound. While many people first supported Earth Day and found it effective and still do, a lot of opinions have also since changed. Today, there are many arguments against the holiday and its level of effectiveness and many people that believe Earth Day has overstayed its welcome and is no longer necessary. For example, the Bright Green Environmental Earth group says “Thank you Earth Day, but you can stop now.” They believe that Earth Day has accomplished its mission of pushing the environment to the top of the global agenda, but that awareness is no longer enough.
The way I see it, Earth Day may have accomplished its primary mission, but that doesn’t mean it should no longer be a part of our society. It still does just what it was originally meant to do; create awareness, and awareness is always the first step in making a change. Earth Day gives people a reason to talk about and address the environmental issues that plague our planet. I also believe that Earth Day is one of the basis’ of environmental education in many places, especially with younger children because it is much easier to explain the concept of a day devoted to our environment than a formal act or policy. Without it, some people may never hear about these issues, leading them to never take any action. If no action is ever taken then it may become difficult to solve some of the problems our environment faces.
Yes, I agree that Earth Day will not solve all of our environmental problems, but it is definitely a start. By getting the information out to the public and giving them opportunities to participate in “green” activities and actions favorable for the Earth, we are starting the process of making a difference. However, I also agree that once the information is out there, it is up to us to actually start taking action. It’s good and all to start talking about the issues, but if that’s all we ever do, we’ll never make a difference. Yet it is not fair to completely discredit the day, because while most of it is just talk, the first ever Earth Day did make a huge difference for us. Without it, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air and Water Acts may have never been created. If we translate our words into actions, we too can make a difference in the present and future environment.
Sources:
“Earth Day: The History of A Movement.” Earth Day Network. Earth Day Network. 5 April 2011.
“Criticism of Earth Day and Bright Green Environmental Group.” Culture & Society: Nature. 21 April 2009. Bukisa. 5 April 2011.
April 6, 2011
Earth Day: Is it still effective?
These days, there are many different views and ideas that circulate in regards to Earth Day. When Earth Day was created in 1970, it was meant to make the public conscious of environmental issues such as water and air pollution as well as force the idea of protecting the environment onto the agenda of politicians. As a result, many environmental acts were passed and the Environmental Protection Agency was established. After 1970, Earth Day became an annual occurrence and many people and organizations took steps towards being environmentally sound. While many people first supported Earth Day and found it effective and still do, a lot of opinions have also since changed. Today, there are many arguments against the holiday and its level of effectiveness and many people that believe Earth Day has overstayed its welcome and is no longer necessary. For example, the Bright Green Environmental Earth group says “Thank you Earth Day, but you can stop now.” They believe that Earth Day has accomplished its mission of pushing the environment to the top of the global agenda, but that awareness is no longer enough.
The way I see it, Earth Day may have accomplished its primary mission, but that doesn’t mean it should no longer be a part of our society. It still does just what it was originally meant to do; create awareness, and awareness is always the first step in making a change. Earth Day gives people a reason to talk about and address the environmental issues that plague our planet. I also believe that Earth Day is one of the basis’ of environmental education in many places, especially with younger children because it is much easier to explain the concept of a day devoted to our environment than a formal act or policy. Without it, some people may never hear about these issues, leading them to never take any action. If no action is ever taken then it may become difficult to solve some of the problems our environment faces.
Yes, I agree that Earth Day will not solve all of our environmental problems, but it is definitely a start. By getting the information out to the public and giving them opportunities to participate in “green” activities and actions favorable for the Earth, we are starting the process of making a difference. However, I also agree that once the information is out there, it is up to us to actually start taking action. It’s good and all to start talking about the issues, but if that’s all we ever do, we’ll never make a difference. Yet it is not fair to completely discredit the day, because while most of it is just talk, the first ever Earth Day did make a huge difference for us. Without it, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air and Water Acts may have never been created. If we translate our words into actions, we too can make a difference in the present and future environment.
Sources:
“Earth Day: The History of A Movement.” Earth Day Network. Earth Day Network. 5 April 2011.
“Criticism of Earth Day and Bright Green Environmental Group.” Culture & Society: Nature. 21 April 2009. Bukisa. 5 April 2011.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Logging Effects on Soil
Logging Effects on Soil
April 5, 2011
Logging has many effects on the soil. Some of these can be prevented or lessened by using different techniques or specialized equipment, but negative soil impacts are going to happen on a logging site no matter what a logging crew does to prevent it. It is important for foresters and loggers to understand the effects of logging on soil. Some of the things that logging does to soil is soil erosion and soil compaction.
Erosion is the process of weathering and transport of solids in the natural environment or their source and deposits them elsewhere. It usually occurs due to transport by wind, water, or ice, by down-slope creep of soil and other material under the force of gravity. Erosion can also be done by living organisms, such as burrowing animals, in the case of bioerosion. Erosion is a natural process, but it has been increased dramatically by human land use, especially in Industrial agriculture, logging, and urban sprawl. Land that is cleared of vegetation generally experiences a significantly greater rate of erosion than that of land under natural vegetation, or land used for sustainable forestry practices. Excessive erosion causes serious problems, such as receiving water sedimentation, ecosystem damage and outright loss of soil. One example of a logging site where erosion can be harmful to an organism is near trout or salmon streams. If silt and clay erodes into streams it may cover up gravel bars that these fish use to spawn.
Wisconsin loggers have worked hard to prevent erosion on logging sites. The best management practices hand book for water quality has many useful techniques that help diverge soil from washing into streams. There is a list of drainage structures that the BMP manual suggests such as pipe culverts, open-top culverts, broad based dips, and water bars. Building these structures can take the better part of a day in the case of a pipe culvert, or maybe just the better part of an hour in the case of the water bar.
Soil compaction on logging sites is a quite common problem, which is mostly due to large equipment moving over the terrain. Compacted soil resists absorption of water, restricts movement of air around the roots, and produces a physical barrier to the development of roots. One main procedure that loggers use to prevent soil compaction is logging when the ground is frozen. Logging when the ground is frozen will limit the impact of heavy machinery on the ground. Soil compaction has become such a big concern that heavy machinery companies such as John Deere have made logging equipment with wide tracks or extra wheels to decrease the pounds per square inch that they put on the ground. A few examples of these machines are the 120C model from John Deere excavator with 4.5 PSI. Or John Deere’s 1710D forwarder, this forwarder puts just 7.7 PSI on the front tires and 15.8 PSI on the rear tires. But with the addition of optional Enviro Tracks the PSI is lowered to 5.1 PSI in the front tires and 8.8 on the back tires. If you’re talking about harvesters the 759JH tracked harvester from John Deere puts between 7 and 8 PSI on the ground depending what options have been put on it. To put this all in perspective a six foot tall man with a medium build puts 8 PSI on the ground with every step.
There is no doubt that logging has an effect on the environment, but it is obvious that loggers are trying to limit the negatives of these effects. Many times logging jobs mimic a natural disturbance that can benefit early succession organisms. With proper management, and careful harvesting practices we can keep jobs in the woods and allow for a healthy ecosystem.
April 5, 2011
Logging has many effects on the soil. Some of these can be prevented or lessened by using different techniques or specialized equipment, but negative soil impacts are going to happen on a logging site no matter what a logging crew does to prevent it. It is important for foresters and loggers to understand the effects of logging on soil. Some of the things that logging does to soil is soil erosion and soil compaction.
Erosion is the process of weathering and transport of solids in the natural environment or their source and deposits them elsewhere. It usually occurs due to transport by wind, water, or ice, by down-slope creep of soil and other material under the force of gravity. Erosion can also be done by living organisms, such as burrowing animals, in the case of bioerosion. Erosion is a natural process, but it has been increased dramatically by human land use, especially in Industrial agriculture, logging, and urban sprawl. Land that is cleared of vegetation generally experiences a significantly greater rate of erosion than that of land under natural vegetation, or land used for sustainable forestry practices. Excessive erosion causes serious problems, such as receiving water sedimentation, ecosystem damage and outright loss of soil. One example of a logging site where erosion can be harmful to an organism is near trout or salmon streams. If silt and clay erodes into streams it may cover up gravel bars that these fish use to spawn.
Wisconsin loggers have worked hard to prevent erosion on logging sites. The best management practices hand book for water quality has many useful techniques that help diverge soil from washing into streams. There is a list of drainage structures that the BMP manual suggests such as pipe culverts, open-top culverts, broad based dips, and water bars. Building these structures can take the better part of a day in the case of a pipe culvert, or maybe just the better part of an hour in the case of the water bar.
Soil compaction on logging sites is a quite common problem, which is mostly due to large equipment moving over the terrain. Compacted soil resists absorption of water, restricts movement of air around the roots, and produces a physical barrier to the development of roots. One main procedure that loggers use to prevent soil compaction is logging when the ground is frozen. Logging when the ground is frozen will limit the impact of heavy machinery on the ground. Soil compaction has become such a big concern that heavy machinery companies such as John Deere have made logging equipment with wide tracks or extra wheels to decrease the pounds per square inch that they put on the ground. A few examples of these machines are the 120C model from John Deere excavator with 4.5 PSI. Or John Deere’s 1710D forwarder, this forwarder puts just 7.7 PSI on the front tires and 15.8 PSI on the rear tires. But with the addition of optional Enviro Tracks the PSI is lowered to 5.1 PSI in the front tires and 8.8 on the back tires. If you’re talking about harvesters the 759JH tracked harvester from John Deere puts between 7 and 8 PSI on the ground depending what options have been put on it. To put this all in perspective a six foot tall man with a medium build puts 8 PSI on the ground with every step.
There is no doubt that logging has an effect on the environment, but it is obvious that loggers are trying to limit the negatives of these effects. Many times logging jobs mimic a natural disturbance that can benefit early succession organisms. With proper management, and careful harvesting practices we can keep jobs in the woods and allow for a healthy ecosystem.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Trash? Trash!
Bo Yu Zhang
Every year, the United States generates approximately 230 million tons of "trash"--about 4.6 pounds per person per day. In 2004, the urban areas of China generated approximately 209 million tons of municipal solid waste, catapulting the nation past the U.S. as the largest generator of waste in the world. As we know, with the population increased in urbanizing global society, huge amounts of solid waste will be generated each year. How to manage these wastes by effective way seems like a big mission for the human being.
EPA defines solid waste as any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. The most common waste in our daily life is municipal solid waste (MSW) - known as trash or garbage which consists of everyday items people consume and then throw away. According to the EPA report on MSW generation, recycling, and disposal, in 2009, Americans produced about 243 million tons of MSW, or about 4.3 pounds of waste per person per day. How to deal with those wastes? Where these wastes go?
Most people may not know the detail behind the treatment on municipal solid waste. A majority of the municipal solid waste will ship to the landfill where close to your area. The municipal solid waste landfill can also receive non-hazardous sludge, industrial solid waste, and construction and demolition debris. However, not all the municipal solid waste can go to landfill. Some materials which including common household items such as paints, cleaners/chemicals, motor oil, batteries, and pesticides are not require to disposal in municipal solid waste landfills. Leftover portions of these products are called household hazardous waste. In many municipal landfills have a household hazardous waste drop-off station for these materials. After the MSW come to the landfill, through the anaerobic process, the MSW will generate some gases which can be captured by the landfill gas facilities, then combust them for energy use. Despite the benefit that landfill brings in, there is no enough space to build a landfill in some large city such as New York city, Tokyo, and Shanghai. This is also an issue we have to face right now. Based on the population expand in metropolis, build a large size of landfill seems to be impossible in those places. As a result, Incineration with energy recovery has become the waste disposal method of choice in several European countries. Relied on this method, it can save the landfill space apparently. More importantly, the waste can be exploited as the renewable energy source. At the same time, the incineration of MSW eliminates the same amount of carbon being emitted from a landfill in the form of CH4 (methane), which has 23 times the global warming impact of CO2. The primary argument against incineration has been force on its emissions. They believe the incomplete combustion of certain materials can result in the creation of potent greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) but also particulate matter emissions and gases that affect local air quality such as SOx and NOx (Pablo Paster, 2010). They also indicate that the byproduct from incineration will have heavy metals and other harmful substances, which include dioxins and furans. In addition, they point out the incineration could have a significant changes on the volume of landfill waste which about 95% of waste reduction, the ash that remains can be toxic and require special disposal facilities.
Of course, we still cannot find a new approach to replace the landfill method and incineration method completely. However, with the technology pushing forward, we will get more and more ways to cope with our wastes.
Pablo Paster. (2010). Ask Pablo: Waste Incineration, Good or Bad? Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/ask-pablo-waste-incineration-good-or-bad.php
Every year, the United States generates approximately 230 million tons of "trash"--about 4.6 pounds per person per day. In 2004, the urban areas of China generated approximately 209 million tons of municipal solid waste, catapulting the nation past the U.S. as the largest generator of waste in the world. As we know, with the population increased in urbanizing global society, huge amounts of solid waste will be generated each year. How to manage these wastes by effective way seems like a big mission for the human being.
EPA defines solid waste as any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. The most common waste in our daily life is municipal solid waste (MSW) - known as trash or garbage which consists of everyday items people consume and then throw away. According to the EPA report on MSW generation, recycling, and disposal, in 2009, Americans produced about 243 million tons of MSW, or about 4.3 pounds of waste per person per day. How to deal with those wastes? Where these wastes go?
Most people may not know the detail behind the treatment on municipal solid waste. A majority of the municipal solid waste will ship to the landfill where close to your area. The municipal solid waste landfill can also receive non-hazardous sludge, industrial solid waste, and construction and demolition debris. However, not all the municipal solid waste can go to landfill. Some materials which including common household items such as paints, cleaners/chemicals, motor oil, batteries, and pesticides are not require to disposal in municipal solid waste landfills. Leftover portions of these products are called household hazardous waste. In many municipal landfills have a household hazardous waste drop-off station for these materials. After the MSW come to the landfill, through the anaerobic process, the MSW will generate some gases which can be captured by the landfill gas facilities, then combust them for energy use. Despite the benefit that landfill brings in, there is no enough space to build a landfill in some large city such as New York city, Tokyo, and Shanghai. This is also an issue we have to face right now. Based on the population expand in metropolis, build a large size of landfill seems to be impossible in those places. As a result, Incineration with energy recovery has become the waste disposal method of choice in several European countries. Relied on this method, it can save the landfill space apparently. More importantly, the waste can be exploited as the renewable energy source. At the same time, the incineration of MSW eliminates the same amount of carbon being emitted from a landfill in the form of CH4 (methane), which has 23 times the global warming impact of CO2. The primary argument against incineration has been force on its emissions. They believe the incomplete combustion of certain materials can result in the creation of potent greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) but also particulate matter emissions and gases that affect local air quality such as SOx and NOx (Pablo Paster, 2010). They also indicate that the byproduct from incineration will have heavy metals and other harmful substances, which include dioxins and furans. In addition, they point out the incineration could have a significant changes on the volume of landfill waste which about 95% of waste reduction, the ash that remains can be toxic and require special disposal facilities.
Of course, we still cannot find a new approach to replace the landfill method and incineration method completely. However, with the technology pushing forward, we will get more and more ways to cope with our wastes.
Pablo Paster. (2010). Ask Pablo: Waste Incineration, Good or Bad? Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/ask-pablo-waste-incineration-good-or-bad.php
Look Ma, No Pesticides
Lauren Nischan
March 31, 2011
Population growth, consumer choice, and the issue of food waste combined have created a demand for food that surpasses our actual needs. The world thinks we need more food to feed the world, but not many people know that we already produce enough food to do so – or that most of it either ends up in the belly of a cow; plastics, pills, and chemicals; or in the garbage. Despite this, our desire for maximized food production continues to increase. This demand forces farmers to use any method they can to achieve maximum food production. Unfortunately, this leads to the excessive use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals on our farms with little hope that the use will stop any time soon.
Few people know that fossil fuels are the main ingredient in commercial agricultural chemicals, including pesticides. Petroleum is used as a main ingredient, a synthesizer, and as the production energy source (How 2011). This is not only detrimental to the environment for its impact on pollution and climate change, but also our global economy. We continue to manufacture and utilize more pesticides (as well as plastics and other products) each year, yet we curse our dependency on oil and its foreign sources while screaming about the price. The massive amounts of fossil fuels used to create pesticides could instead be used for our homes and cars, and would even offset the costs in the U.S. Seed companies that patent Genetically Engineered (GE) seed say that they lessen the need for pesticides, but this is a false claim. The application of an incredibly potent herbicide is mandatory for GE seed to grow, not just in the beginning stages but also during every week in its lifecycle. How are we supposed to move towards more sustainable practices while reducing our dependency on oil when we continue to rely on pesticides for our food? The answer is complicated, but I can tell you that increasing organic production and/or labor on farms is a step in the right direction.
Pesticides are also one of the largest contributors to the contamination of water supplies and the degradation of soil quality. Roughly one billion pounds are applied on U.S. soil every year, primarily on agricultural land (Hamilton 2006). Pesticides lead to the contamination of over 70 percent of U.S. streams, making fish unsafe to eat and causing declines in wildlife populations (Hamilton 2006). Many ecosystems have been destroyed while our water is being contaminated because of pesticide use, yet we see little talk about this unless an interest group or the EPA recognizes the issue. If we were to take a serious and conscious look how pesticides have been impacting our ecosystems, maybe people would start to notice the science linking it to many of our health problems.
Cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders have been on the rise since the early 1900s. Combined with other issues and lifestyle choices, pesticide consumption is a leading factor in the major health issues of today. Warren Porter, a research scientist at UW-Madison, has been conducting studies on the effects of pesticides for a decade. Hundreds of studies exist linking pesticides to health, but his studies directly link pesticide consumption to neurological disorders in children. He found that exposure to agricultural pesticides from conception through puberty directly causes birth defects and learning disabilities (Markham 2011). He mostly researched the effects of chlorpyrifos, the most common type of pesticide, which are also neurotoxins – yet they’re used on our every day foods? The only way to decrease levels in the body, he found, is to eat organic food. In as little as one week with an organic diet, chlorpyrifo levels in his children study groups’ dropped to undetectable levels (Markham 2011). The fact that the mass media hasn’t spread this information and that people will still medicate their children when this information is known worries me. I recommend checking out the article on his findings and looking for the conclusion to his work later this spring.
Until policies or an overwhelming amount of peoples’ voices are used to reduce the use of pesticides, we can only make the decision for ourselves: to eat food with pesticides or not to eat food with pesticides; that is the question.
Literature Cited
Hamilton, Pixie. "Widespread Pesticide Poisoning of Water Focus of Landmark Government Study." Beyond Pesticides. Beyond Pesticides, 03 Mar. 2006. Web. 31 Mar. 2011..
"How a Pesticide Is Made - Material, Manufacture, Making, History, Used, Procedure, Product, Raw Materials, The Manufacturing Process of Pesticide, Quality Control, Byproducts/Waste." How Products Are Made. Advameg Inc. Web. 31 Mar. 2011..
Markham, Lynn. "Female Mice Disabled by Parents’ Pesticide Intake." The Bayview Compass. The Bayview Compass, 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2011..
March 31, 2011
Population growth, consumer choice, and the issue of food waste combined have created a demand for food that surpasses our actual needs. The world thinks we need more food to feed the world, but not many people know that we already produce enough food to do so – or that most of it either ends up in the belly of a cow; plastics, pills, and chemicals; or in the garbage. Despite this, our desire for maximized food production continues to increase. This demand forces farmers to use any method they can to achieve maximum food production. Unfortunately, this leads to the excessive use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals on our farms with little hope that the use will stop any time soon.
Few people know that fossil fuels are the main ingredient in commercial agricultural chemicals, including pesticides. Petroleum is used as a main ingredient, a synthesizer, and as the production energy source (How 2011). This is not only detrimental to the environment for its impact on pollution and climate change, but also our global economy. We continue to manufacture and utilize more pesticides (as well as plastics and other products) each year, yet we curse our dependency on oil and its foreign sources while screaming about the price. The massive amounts of fossil fuels used to create pesticides could instead be used for our homes and cars, and would even offset the costs in the U.S. Seed companies that patent Genetically Engineered (GE) seed say that they lessen the need for pesticides, but this is a false claim. The application of an incredibly potent herbicide is mandatory for GE seed to grow, not just in the beginning stages but also during every week in its lifecycle. How are we supposed to move towards more sustainable practices while reducing our dependency on oil when we continue to rely on pesticides for our food? The answer is complicated, but I can tell you that increasing organic production and/or labor on farms is a step in the right direction.
Pesticides are also one of the largest contributors to the contamination of water supplies and the degradation of soil quality. Roughly one billion pounds are applied on U.S. soil every year, primarily on agricultural land (Hamilton 2006). Pesticides lead to the contamination of over 70 percent of U.S. streams, making fish unsafe to eat and causing declines in wildlife populations (Hamilton 2006). Many ecosystems have been destroyed while our water is being contaminated because of pesticide use, yet we see little talk about this unless an interest group or the EPA recognizes the issue. If we were to take a serious and conscious look how pesticides have been impacting our ecosystems, maybe people would start to notice the science linking it to many of our health problems.
Cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders have been on the rise since the early 1900s. Combined with other issues and lifestyle choices, pesticide consumption is a leading factor in the major health issues of today. Warren Porter, a research scientist at UW-Madison, has been conducting studies on the effects of pesticides for a decade. Hundreds of studies exist linking pesticides to health, but his studies directly link pesticide consumption to neurological disorders in children. He found that exposure to agricultural pesticides from conception through puberty directly causes birth defects and learning disabilities (Markham 2011). He mostly researched the effects of chlorpyrifos, the most common type of pesticide, which are also neurotoxins – yet they’re used on our every day foods? The only way to decrease levels in the body, he found, is to eat organic food. In as little as one week with an organic diet, chlorpyrifo levels in his children study groups’ dropped to undetectable levels (Markham 2011). The fact that the mass media hasn’t spread this information and that people will still medicate their children when this information is known worries me. I recommend checking out the article on his findings and looking for the conclusion to his work later this spring.
Until policies or an overwhelming amount of peoples’ voices are used to reduce the use of pesticides, we can only make the decision for ourselves: to eat food with pesticides or not to eat food with pesticides; that is the question.
Literature Cited
Hamilton, Pixie. "Widespread Pesticide Poisoning of Water Focus of Landmark Government Study." Beyond Pesticides. Beyond Pesticides, 03 Mar. 2006. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
"How a Pesticide Is Made - Material, Manufacture, Making, History, Used, Procedure, Product, Raw Materials, The Manufacturing Process of Pesticide, Quality Control, Byproducts/Waste." How Products Are Made. Advameg Inc. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
Markham, Lynn. "Female Mice Disabled by Parents’ Pesticide Intake." The Bayview Compass. The Bayview Compass, 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)