I am originally from Manitowoc Wisconsin and there is a topic causing controversy in my hometown. That topic is turning Manitowoc County into a rifle deer-hunting zone instead of just shotgun and muzzleloader. There are many mixed feelings on this issue. My opinion on the matter is that rifle hunting would be a mistake for this county. I grew up in Manitowoc County and even though there is a lot of farmland and timber, even the rural country areas are more densely populated than the open areas in the northern part of the state. I know the power rifles have and the distance a center- fire rifle cartridge can be upwards of 600 yards and more with some custom rifles and cartridges made today. Manitowoc was always a shotgun county because the range a shotgun can reach is significantly less than that of a rifle. Shotguns are much safer and easier to control where your shot goes after the target or if you miss a target. A rifle bullet can travel 500 yards past your intended target if you miss. That is a lot of space to cover and the chances of hitting something or someone are a lot higher than one would think in Manitowoc County because of the high numbers of people that live in the rural areas. Manitowoc is not like the north woods where you can drive for 5 miles and not see a house. You are lucky if you can drive 200 yards and not hit the next driveway.
According to the land conservation committee and public safety committee in Manitowoc county, a lot of citizens of Manitowoc county had arguments against the issue. Mary Muench is the chairperson for the public safety committee and she supports hunting but is worried about safety with rifles in this county. There are 144 people per square mile and that is denser than the numbers where when Manitowoc was initially designated as a shotgun county due to safety reasons. Larry Henchel stated that the original reason for shotgun was safety. He also said that current home density in Manitowoc is greater than when the law came to be. All the facts point to an even greater reason to keep Shotgun in Manitowoc, not change to a more dangerous, longer shooting weapon.
Works Cited
• Manitowon County Land Conservation Committee and Public Safety Committee Joint Meeting Minutes.http://www.co.manitowoc.wi.us/upload/3/LandConserv-PublicSafetyMinutes1-19-06.pdf. January 19,2006
Monday, November 14, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Conceal and Carry, should you be concerned?
Does carrying a concealed weapon really make you safe? Over the past couple of years there has been a great debate over the Conceal and Carry Law. I in fact believe that the conceal and carry will have no affect on the state of Wisconsin or the residents of this state.
Safety is a big issue when this law is brought up. However safety should not be an issue. Ever person that wants to carry a concealed weapon has to fill out a permit. Every person who carries a gun will be accounted for. There are restrictions to people who can get a permit and who cannot. Examples of people who cannot are convicted felons because they are not even allowed to possess a handgun. Anyone under the age of 21 may not apply for an application either.
Many people also think this will be a problem in public settings. Various places are choosing not to allow handguns into their buildings. While walking through campus many people can spot the no guns allowed sign on all the doors. An article in the Beloit Daily News argues that during public meetings people do feel safe because the guns are not allowed in the building; however outside the building they are allowed. This does not have a big concern for most people, but they suggest that the whole process needs to be closely monitored.
Hunting with the conceal and carry also brings up questions. There are many considerations that must take place while hunting. While shining for animals all the previous conditions are the same where a person cannot shine for animals with any type of firearm or bow. This includes a concealed weapon; a person may not have any weapon in the vehicle. While mentor hunting there are question asked about whether or not the mentor is allowed to carry a concealed weapon while the person being mentored is hunting. The answer to this question is no, the mentor program law only allows one firearm jointly between the mentor and the person being mentored.
While I do not possess a handgun, in the future I do plan to and will most likely get a carry and conceal permit. I feel like the passing of this law will not harm the public in any manner. Wisconsin is one of the last states to pass a law like this so we are actually far behind in the subject. In my opinion it’s not the people who get a permit to carry a concealed weapon that we have to worry about it is the people who already were carrying a concealed weapon before the law was passed.
Safety is a big issue when this law is brought up. However safety should not be an issue. Ever person that wants to carry a concealed weapon has to fill out a permit. Every person who carries a gun will be accounted for. There are restrictions to people who can get a permit and who cannot. Examples of people who cannot are convicted felons because they are not even allowed to possess a handgun. Anyone under the age of 21 may not apply for an application either.
Many people also think this will be a problem in public settings. Various places are choosing not to allow handguns into their buildings. While walking through campus many people can spot the no guns allowed sign on all the doors. An article in the Beloit Daily News argues that during public meetings people do feel safe because the guns are not allowed in the building; however outside the building they are allowed. This does not have a big concern for most people, but they suggest that the whole process needs to be closely monitored.
Hunting with the conceal and carry also brings up questions. There are many considerations that must take place while hunting. While shining for animals all the previous conditions are the same where a person cannot shine for animals with any type of firearm or bow. This includes a concealed weapon; a person may not have any weapon in the vehicle. While mentor hunting there are question asked about whether or not the mentor is allowed to carry a concealed weapon while the person being mentored is hunting. The answer to this question is no, the mentor program law only allows one firearm jointly between the mentor and the person being mentored.
While I do not possess a handgun, in the future I do plan to and will most likely get a carry and conceal permit. I feel like the passing of this law will not harm the public in any manner. Wisconsin is one of the last states to pass a law like this so we are actually far behind in the subject. In my opinion it’s not the people who get a permit to carry a concealed weapon that we have to worry about it is the people who already were carrying a concealed weapon before the law was passed.
Harmful effects of sonar
Recently I came across an article talking about the effect that the U.S. navy’s sonar signals have on marine life. The only visible impact that sonar has made so far is the unusually high amount of stranded whales in Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Greece and other places around the world. Now I know this may sound like another “save the whale” kind of a story, but I never thought about sonar activity and its impact on marine life and I’m guessing I’m not the only one, so I thought it would be interesting to talk about.
Apparently the U.S. Navy openly admits that their training with sonar does in fact have harmful effects on marine life and even estimated that within the two years they planned on training, they would be disturbing 17,000 marine mammals, permanently injure more than 500 whales and cause temporary hearing impairment in at least 8,000 others. I do want to say that I’m not trying to knock down the US Navy. I think training exercises are important for any kind of servicemen. But, like it said in the article, we should not have to choose between the US Navy and natural resources, such as wildlife.
Wildlife has already taken a hit over the centuries because of man’s impact. Most of the wildlife tragedies we have seen have been on land, who knows how many extinctions or major habitat changes we impacted in deep waters. The NRDC filed a case against the U.S. Navy in 2008 and within that case file was a list of suggestions that the U.S. Navy could put into action to lessen its sonar impact on marine life. Some of them included “Refrain from using sonar within 12 nautical miles of the CA coast and in certain vulnerable whale habitats” and “stop using sonar when marine mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards of a sonar-emitting vessel”. I’m not very familiar with US Navy or its training requirements so I can’t really comment on how fair I think their suggestions are but I do think that the US Navy could implement the following suggestion made by the NRDC: “Power down sonar by 6 decibels during “surface ducting” conditions.” Surface ducts are areas in the water where the sound waves are channeled better, making the noise more intense for the whales. Even if a whale is 300 miles away from the sonar source, if the waves emit an intensity of 140 decibels, it is a hundred times more intense than that known to alter the behavior in whales. Some of the navy’s operating systems emit more than 235 decibels of sound waves causing what divers know as “the bends” when they surface too quickly and cause bleeding around the brain, ears and large bubbles in their organs.
I realize that the US Navy cannot totally avoid this problem. Training is necessary and I don’t mean to downplay that. However I would like to do more research to see if they are at least trying to make certain adjustments to lessen their impact while we can still stop it before its too late.
Sources: Natural Resources Defense Council
Apparently the U.S. Navy openly admits that their training with sonar does in fact have harmful effects on marine life and even estimated that within the two years they planned on training, they would be disturbing 17,000 marine mammals, permanently injure more than 500 whales and cause temporary hearing impairment in at least 8,000 others. I do want to say that I’m not trying to knock down the US Navy. I think training exercises are important for any kind of servicemen. But, like it said in the article, we should not have to choose between the US Navy and natural resources, such as wildlife.
Wildlife has already taken a hit over the centuries because of man’s impact. Most of the wildlife tragedies we have seen have been on land, who knows how many extinctions or major habitat changes we impacted in deep waters. The NRDC filed a case against the U.S. Navy in 2008 and within that case file was a list of suggestions that the U.S. Navy could put into action to lessen its sonar impact on marine life. Some of them included “Refrain from using sonar within 12 nautical miles of the CA coast and in certain vulnerable whale habitats” and “stop using sonar when marine mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards of a sonar-emitting vessel”. I’m not very familiar with US Navy or its training requirements so I can’t really comment on how fair I think their suggestions are but I do think that the US Navy could implement the following suggestion made by the NRDC: “Power down sonar by 6 decibels during “surface ducting” conditions.” Surface ducts are areas in the water where the sound waves are channeled better, making the noise more intense for the whales. Even if a whale is 300 miles away from the sonar source, if the waves emit an intensity of 140 decibels, it is a hundred times more intense than that known to alter the behavior in whales. Some of the navy’s operating systems emit more than 235 decibels of sound waves causing what divers know as “the bends” when they surface too quickly and cause bleeding around the brain, ears and large bubbles in their organs.
I realize that the US Navy cannot totally avoid this problem. Training is necessary and I don’t mean to downplay that. However I would like to do more research to see if they are at least trying to make certain adjustments to lessen their impact while we can still stop it before its too late.
Sources: Natural Resources Defense Council
Michaela Wallace
Wolves in the Western Great Lakes region were listed as endangered in 1967 and 1974. These wolves were listed as eastern timber wolves. The wolf population in the Western Great Lakes region is and was a mixture of two species and their hybrids. These wolves should be considered as one population because that is how they were listed on the endangered species list over 30 years ago and how they still act today. There is controversy between the DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). “The USFWS says that there is a newly discovered species, the eastern wolf, that exists in the Western Great Lakes as a separate species” (WDNR, 2011). The DNR, however, feels that this species should be considered as part of the eastern timber wolves because all the wolves act as one population. They all breed together and therefore should be considered as one population. The USFWS doesn’t want to take the animals off the endangered species list because of this newly discovered species. They think that if the wolves are no longer endangered that some of the wolves will be killed and this could hurt the eastern wolf’s population. The Wisconsin DNR wants to de-list the wolves because they said that the wolf population has fully recovered. They would still manage the wolf population but they would then be able to control problem wolves or problem wolf packs.
I think the wolves should become de-listed because there are a lot of problem wolves in areas and the problems will continue to get worse unless they are controlled. The wolf population is going to continue to grow and more wolves will become problem wolves. There will be more problem wolves because they are social animals and the packs need different territories and once all the territories are full wolves will start invading on human territories. These wolves will start being in contact with humans more often and that will lead to more problems. Soon people are going to start taking action into their own hands to control the population even though it is illegal. A lot of people are getting sick of wolves killing their dogs or livestock and with the population raising the problems will only get worse. If the wolves were taken off the endangered species list and the problem wolves were controlled a lot of people would be happy. I don’t think that the newly discovered species should stop the wolves from becoming de-listed because there is a lot of controversy, as well, about whether or not this actually is the eastern wolf or just a version of the gray wolf. If this species is in fact the eastern wolf it has always been in the Western Great Lakes region and was listed as endangered as an eastern timber wolf so it should not stop the wolves from becoming de-listed. These eastern wolves breed with the eastern timber wolves and are in packs with them so they should be considered as one population.
Works Cited
WDNR. (2011, September 20). DNR Secretary Stepp: “Wisconsin urgently needs wolf delisting”. Retrieved November 2, 2011, from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_article_Lookup.asp?id=1919
I think the wolves should become de-listed because there are a lot of problem wolves in areas and the problems will continue to get worse unless they are controlled. The wolf population is going to continue to grow and more wolves will become problem wolves. There will be more problem wolves because they are social animals and the packs need different territories and once all the territories are full wolves will start invading on human territories. These wolves will start being in contact with humans more often and that will lead to more problems. Soon people are going to start taking action into their own hands to control the population even though it is illegal. A lot of people are getting sick of wolves killing their dogs or livestock and with the population raising the problems will only get worse. If the wolves were taken off the endangered species list and the problem wolves were controlled a lot of people would be happy. I don’t think that the newly discovered species should stop the wolves from becoming de-listed because there is a lot of controversy, as well, about whether or not this actually is the eastern wolf or just a version of the gray wolf. If this species is in fact the eastern wolf it has always been in the Western Great Lakes region and was listed as endangered as an eastern timber wolf so it should not stop the wolves from becoming de-listed. These eastern wolves breed with the eastern timber wolves and are in packs with them so they should be considered as one population.
Works Cited
WDNR. (2011, September 20). DNR Secretary Stepp: “Wisconsin urgently needs wolf delisting”. Retrieved November 2, 2011, from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_article_Lookup.asp?id=1919
Asian Carp in Wisconsin
Asian carp, specifically the bighead and silver carp are well known invasive species, and up to this point have been a significant concern across the United States. In the 1990's the silver and bighead variants of Asian carp escaped into the Mississippi River from flooded aquaculture facilities and have been steadily making their way north, gradually becoming the most abundant species in some areas of the Mississippi. To many people this issue seems distant and the concern of other states, only now they are entering Wisconsin as well. Asian carp can grow up to one hundred pounds and up to four feet long and are known jump out of the water and injure boaters. More importantly they are known for their potential to outcompete native fish species. This can potentially lead to a diminishing number game fish in the waters they enter.
Fortunately there are currently no signs of Asian carp reproducing in Wisconsin waters and the existing population densities are low. There are also several dams that will hopefully slow the species passage upstream. This along with the various countermeasures the DNR has taken will hopefully further hinder the passage of Asian carp into Wisconsin waters. Wisconsin is currently supporting research in methods of eradication of aquatic invasive species or ways of at least limiting their spread. Despite these barriers and countermeasures some say it is only a matter of time before Asian carp begin to cause problems in Wisconsin waters.
Currently Asian carp are found throughout the Mississippi river and the only thing keeping them from entering into Lake Michigan is an electrical barrier system in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. This system is far from fool proof and does not actually kill the fish, but merely acts as a repellent. There are also existing points in the Canal that if flooded, could carry water and Asian carp upstream past the barrier. The only guaranteed way of preventing Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan through the Canal would be to close the canal. Despite the inadequacies in the electrical barrier, construction of similar electrical barriers at two other points along the Mississippi has been recommended. These systems would need to be more advanced and in turn more expensive so that they would allow the passage of native fish, while still stopping Asian carp from passing.
The public is asked to help by continuing to follow state rules to prevent the spread of Asian carp and other invasive species as well as reporting any catch of Asian carp by taking a photo of it, noting where it was caught and bringing it in, on ice to the local DNR office.
Further information about the issue can be found at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/asian_carp.htm
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/asian_carp.html
Fortunately there are currently no signs of Asian carp reproducing in Wisconsin waters and the existing population densities are low. There are also several dams that will hopefully slow the species passage upstream. This along with the various countermeasures the DNR has taken will hopefully further hinder the passage of Asian carp into Wisconsin waters. Wisconsin is currently supporting research in methods of eradication of aquatic invasive species or ways of at least limiting their spread. Despite these barriers and countermeasures some say it is only a matter of time before Asian carp begin to cause problems in Wisconsin waters.
Currently Asian carp are found throughout the Mississippi river and the only thing keeping them from entering into Lake Michigan is an electrical barrier system in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. This system is far from fool proof and does not actually kill the fish, but merely acts as a repellent. There are also existing points in the Canal that if flooded, could carry water and Asian carp upstream past the barrier. The only guaranteed way of preventing Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan through the Canal would be to close the canal. Despite the inadequacies in the electrical barrier, construction of similar electrical barriers at two other points along the Mississippi has been recommended. These systems would need to be more advanced and in turn more expensive so that they would allow the passage of native fish, while still stopping Asian carp from passing.
The public is asked to help by continuing to follow state rules to prevent the spread of Asian carp and other invasive species as well as reporting any catch of Asian carp by taking a photo of it, noting where it was caught and bringing it in, on ice to the local DNR office.
Further information about the issue can be found at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/asian_carp.htm
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/asian_carp.html
Feral Cats in Wisconsin
Imagine yourself sitting peacefully in the woods, partaking in one of your favorite outdoor activities. It could be hunting, bird watching, or just taking a leisurely stroll through the back 40. Off in the distance you see something that looks un-natural. Some type of animal that just doesn’t seem to be in the right place. Soon enough you identify it as a cat, but is it an actual feral cat or someone’s beloved house cat who wandered onto your property? That is the first call that needs to be made; by no means should anyone have the right to harvest a collared animal wandering through their property. But, say it is for sure a non-collared, feral cat, what are your options? Can you harvest this animal or can’t you? After searching throughout the Wisconsin DNR website, feral cats are neither listed specifically as a protected nor unprotected species. An unprotected species can be harvested with no bag limits, possession limits, or seasons (meaning the season is open year-round). According to the WDNR small game regulations all wild mammals that are not specifically mentioned in hunting, trapping, and migratory game bird regulations and also not listed as endangered, threatened, or protected are considered unprotected species. Unmistakably a feral cat is a mammal, but are they considered wild? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of wild is: “living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated, growing or produced without human aid or care, or relating to or resembling a corresponding cultivated or domesticated organism.” Feral cats live in nature, on their own without human care, and relate/resemble domesticated house cats. According to these definitions it would be fair to categorize feral cats as wild mammals.
Now that we defined what a feral cat is, why would we want them to be removed from our environment? Well, first of all, feral cats are not native, they originated from domesticated house cats and now they live and reproduce in the wild on their own. And you natural resource majors out there know what we like to do with non-native, invasive species right? Get rid of them. Secondly, what do you think feral cats eat? Naturally they are carnivores so they aren’t out there eating grass and berries. We’ve all seen our house cats bring home squirrels, rabbits, and song birds. Well these are the same things that feral cats are eating in the wild. Feral cats are having an effect on small mammal and song bird populations and it is not a positive one. There is no concrete number out there on how many feral cats are roaming our woodlands and chances are there never will be. One University of Wisconsin professor estimates that 1.4 million of them in Wisconsin and the article also says that the Humane Society estimates there to be between 10-70 million nationwide (Nine Lives Needed). So, even with conservative estimates, feral cats are killing millions of song birds and small mammals in Wisconsin alone every year. These song birds provide great sources of recreation and money via bird watchers in our state. Small mammals not only provide recreation to hunters but they are also vital sources of food to many hawks, falcons, owls, and small canines. Some of these animals have a hard enough time surviving, especially when some food sources, like rabbits, have yearly cycles that affect predator populations. So, let’s give them a leg up on their situation by beginning to remove one of their top competitors, the feral cat.
References:
http://www.dnr.wi.gov/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wild
“Nine Lives Needed.” Economist April 16, 2005, Volume 375: pg. 27.
Now that we defined what a feral cat is, why would we want them to be removed from our environment? Well, first of all, feral cats are not native, they originated from domesticated house cats and now they live and reproduce in the wild on their own. And you natural resource majors out there know what we like to do with non-native, invasive species right? Get rid of them. Secondly, what do you think feral cats eat? Naturally they are carnivores so they aren’t out there eating grass and berries. We’ve all seen our house cats bring home squirrels, rabbits, and song birds. Well these are the same things that feral cats are eating in the wild. Feral cats are having an effect on small mammal and song bird populations and it is not a positive one. There is no concrete number out there on how many feral cats are roaming our woodlands and chances are there never will be. One University of Wisconsin professor estimates that 1.4 million of them in Wisconsin and the article also says that the Humane Society estimates there to be between 10-70 million nationwide (Nine Lives Needed). So, even with conservative estimates, feral cats are killing millions of song birds and small mammals in Wisconsin alone every year. These song birds provide great sources of recreation and money via bird watchers in our state. Small mammals not only provide recreation to hunters but they are also vital sources of food to many hawks, falcons, owls, and small canines. Some of these animals have a hard enough time surviving, especially when some food sources, like rabbits, have yearly cycles that affect predator populations. So, let’s give them a leg up on their situation by beginning to remove one of their top competitors, the feral cat.
References:
http://www.dnr.wi.gov/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wild
“Nine Lives Needed.” Economist April 16, 2005, Volume 375: pg. 27.
The Benefits of Rain Gardens
What is a rain garden? What is the importance of a rain garden? What are the benefits of a rain garden?
A rain garden is simply planting native grasses and flowers in a low lying area of your yard, near a runoff source (the roof of a house, gutter downspout, other non-porous surfaces). If the water is caught in the rain garden it prevents it from simply running into the sewer system.
Rain gardens are important for the recharge of local groundwater. They are also important for the prevention of storm water runoff. Preventing or reducing storm water runoff will reduce erosion, prevent or reduce flooding, and improve water quality by reducing the number of pollutants that enter directly into local streams and lakes.
Rain gardens benefit you by filtering runoff pollution, reduce mosquito breeding grounds, remove standing water from your yard, create habitat for birds and other wildlife, reduce the potential for home flooding, reduce garden maintenance, and increase your garden enjoyment.
What size should my rain garden be? Where in my yard should my rain garden be? What plants should I plant in my rain garden?
Rain gardens can be whatever size you want. There is no set size that is mandatory to create the above mentioned benefits. The size is dependent on your yard and your preference. The size of your rain garden is slightly dependent on the amount of water you get and how badly it ponds in your yard.
Your rain garden should be placed in your yard at the low-lying areas where the water pools or ponds in your yard. In these areas it will be most effective. Other considerations to make for placement are if you have a sump pump or putter system where water is expelled into your yard. At these locations a rain garden would also work well for filtering water from your yard.
Rain gardens should be planted with native plants including grasses and flowers. Examples vary by region but for central Wisconsin some plants that could be planted include: sweet flag, marsh marigold, tall bellflower, bur sedge, hop sedge, wild blue flag iris, cardinal flower, Virginia bluebells, and sensitive fern. Other plants can easily be planted; wetland plants work best in these rain gardens.
Having a rain garden not only improves your life but the lives of all your neighbors as well. The improvements that rain gardens provide to the environment are also benefits that you may see after installing a simple rain garden in your lawn.
For additional information please see:
(http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/raingarden.htm)
(http://www.raingardennetwork.com)
(http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/raingarden.htm)
(http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/rg/)
A rain garden is simply planting native grasses and flowers in a low lying area of your yard, near a runoff source (the roof of a house, gutter downspout, other non-porous surfaces). If the water is caught in the rain garden it prevents it from simply running into the sewer system.
Rain gardens are important for the recharge of local groundwater. They are also important for the prevention of storm water runoff. Preventing or reducing storm water runoff will reduce erosion, prevent or reduce flooding, and improve water quality by reducing the number of pollutants that enter directly into local streams and lakes.
Rain gardens benefit you by filtering runoff pollution, reduce mosquito breeding grounds, remove standing water from your yard, create habitat for birds and other wildlife, reduce the potential for home flooding, reduce garden maintenance, and increase your garden enjoyment.
What size should my rain garden be? Where in my yard should my rain garden be? What plants should I plant in my rain garden?
Rain gardens can be whatever size you want. There is no set size that is mandatory to create the above mentioned benefits. The size is dependent on your yard and your preference. The size of your rain garden is slightly dependent on the amount of water you get and how badly it ponds in your yard.
Your rain garden should be placed in your yard at the low-lying areas where the water pools or ponds in your yard. In these areas it will be most effective. Other considerations to make for placement are if you have a sump pump or putter system where water is expelled into your yard. At these locations a rain garden would also work well for filtering water from your yard.
Rain gardens should be planted with native plants including grasses and flowers. Examples vary by region but for central Wisconsin some plants that could be planted include: sweet flag, marsh marigold, tall bellflower, bur sedge, hop sedge, wild blue flag iris, cardinal flower, Virginia bluebells, and sensitive fern. Other plants can easily be planted; wetland plants work best in these rain gardens.
Having a rain garden not only improves your life but the lives of all your neighbors as well. The improvements that rain gardens provide to the environment are also benefits that you may see after installing a simple rain garden in your lawn.
For additional information please see:
(http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/raingarden.htm)
(http://www.raingardennetwork.com)
(http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/raingarden.htm)
(http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/rg/)
Here Kitty Kitty
Within the last couple years here in Wisconsin a new controversial subject has arisen. This subject has to deal with the animal Puma concolor otherwise known as the mountain lion. The last couple years in Wisconsin, this powerful animal has made its debut in the papers, the news on television, and of course the headlines. Many of the public statements made about this animal have been quite negative. These negative accusations have been created through only a couple of encounters with these animals. One encounter happened in the town of Wonewoc located in southern Wisconsin. This encounter was through a turkey hunter who observed what he thought was a mountain lion attacking a cow. The hunter fired rounds towards the animal to scare the lion off. Later the DNR confirmed that it was a mountain lion and proceeded by setting traps in attempt to catch this animal and study it. Then weeks later a few miles north of the first attack another attack occurred. This time the cougar targeted a large horse. The horse was not killed, but was wounded. Along with this attack only twenty yards from the house a sheep was taken by the same cougar. The DNR searched for this animal with the use of dogs, but the cougar was never found. Through experiences like these the once native to Wisconsin mountain lion is being persecuted for the instinctive survival behavior to hunt.
Once being one of three native cats to the land of Wisconsin this animal disappeared around the time of 1910. Now the only one of these native cats that sustain a steady population is the bobcat (Lynx rufus). The main reason the mountain lions left Wisconsin was the pressure put on by the ever so vigorously colonizing human population. The large woods that once made up Wisconsin were being destroyed and turned into agricultural fields. Habitat for these animals constantly being diminished until the point they were driven elsewhere. Later in the 1940s reports began to surface about cougars being spotted. We soon began to collect these reports and it wasn’t until early 2008 near Milton, Wisconsin a cougar sighting was completely confirmed. This confirmation was through DNA testing that came from a droplet of blood in a cougar’s track on the ground. Is the fact that mountain lions are sneaking through their once native land a bad thing? I believe mountain lions making their way through Wisconsin is not a bad thing at all, it is increasing biological diversity. First off, not all cougars are going to target domestic animals. Over the years it has been suggested by many people believe that white-tail deer populations are too abundant. Therefore can you consider the fact that the rising presence of the mountain lions may be a natural response to this ever increasing deer population? Also, before the major use of trail-cameras it was never truly known whether or not these animals regularly roamed Wisconsin. Most of these mountain lions that have been spotted by the use of trail-camera, twenty years ago probably never would have been spotted. So in other words think about how many cougars have probably made their way through Wisconsin causing no harm to humans or human property. Are the mountain lions really as big of threat as people make them out to be? I believe we should share the land with the animals that once dominated the lands before we arrived and pushed them out.
Wisconsin DNR website
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/cougar/
Once being one of three native cats to the land of Wisconsin this animal disappeared around the time of 1910. Now the only one of these native cats that sustain a steady population is the bobcat (Lynx rufus). The main reason the mountain lions left Wisconsin was the pressure put on by the ever so vigorously colonizing human population. The large woods that once made up Wisconsin were being destroyed and turned into agricultural fields. Habitat for these animals constantly being diminished until the point they were driven elsewhere. Later in the 1940s reports began to surface about cougars being spotted. We soon began to collect these reports and it wasn’t until early 2008 near Milton, Wisconsin a cougar sighting was completely confirmed. This confirmation was through DNA testing that came from a droplet of blood in a cougar’s track on the ground. Is the fact that mountain lions are sneaking through their once native land a bad thing? I believe mountain lions making their way through Wisconsin is not a bad thing at all, it is increasing biological diversity. First off, not all cougars are going to target domestic animals. Over the years it has been suggested by many people believe that white-tail deer populations are too abundant. Therefore can you consider the fact that the rising presence of the mountain lions may be a natural response to this ever increasing deer population? Also, before the major use of trail-cameras it was never truly known whether or not these animals regularly roamed Wisconsin. Most of these mountain lions that have been spotted by the use of trail-camera, twenty years ago probably never would have been spotted. So in other words think about how many cougars have probably made their way through Wisconsin causing no harm to humans or human property. Are the mountain lions really as big of threat as people make them out to be? I believe we should share the land with the animals that once dominated the lands before we arrived and pushed them out.
Wisconsin DNR website
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/cougar/
Is Fur Really Murder?
It isn’t very surprising to hear that many people are very unsure or pessimistic when they think of trapping. Many individuals whom are isolated from rural communities or are just unsure of trapping practices hold a negative image of trapping practices. When individuals imagine trapping they think of the large bear toothed traps or clips from Disney’s film The Fox and the Hound. Surely if trapping is as depressing as it seems in these examples why then do people trap, and is it really the way as it is in the movies? Trappers are not just the man in flannel brutalizing animals for his own wealth, but are individuals closely accustomed to the ways of wildlife management. Trapping helps us learn more and more everyday about furbearing mammals which we trap relating to behaviors, numbers and home ranges so we can effectively manage species. Trappers help regulate and manage furbearers to create a balance among all the aspects of the ecosystem. Trapping animals can be classified as compensatory mortality by taking the surplus of animals from the population which would otherwise perish due to limiting factors, which are then used positively for things such as educational purposes, clothing, oils, medicines, food and much more (Trapping and Furbearer Management 2001). Muskrat populations for example, can and often decrease by 75% during the winter season but population explodes in the spring and summer, to be stable in the fall the next year (Smith, Sloan and Walton 1981). This is why trapping is such a sustainable and manageable practice, where trappers in this case, can take the surplus of the population with virtually no effect on future population numbers, to use these animals as valuable resources. Furbearers are a renewable resource which we can use and thrive on with correct management of the species which we are selecting. Is the quote “Fur is Murder” often chanted by people against wearing fur as clothing, really accurate? Animals perish every year due to limiting factors such as food, space and habitat. Not trapping, but urban sprawl presents itself as the number one cause of furbearing mammal mortality and decrease of sustainable populations. For the fact that numbers rise high in such small areas, is the reason trapping is such an effective management tool. Trapping is a very species specific practice where trappers use different types of traps, trap set locations and scents to harvest the specific animal they are targeting. Most trapping is done with foothold traps for dry land mammals, these traps cause little to no pain to the animal after it is caught in the trap. In many cases dogs are caught in trap lines and released with no harm done. Trappers targeting canine animals can release wolves, fox or coyotes which they do not have a tag for or that they don’t desire. Trapping is used also remove nuisance animals like the raccoon in your attic or the snake in your garage, and can effectively remove and relocate animals to their natural habitat. Trapping is a highly regulated practice with a large array of specific rules which need to be followed by trappers. Sometimes trappers may have an accidental trap in a set like an otter in their beaver trap, these animals are turned in and used for education purposes which many benefit greatly from. Trapping isn’t brutal or murder, it’s a practice of effective management of a species which many people often no little about. Trapping is a way of recreation, management, resource use and education which should be encouraged by all. Picketer’s and animals rights activists need not target trappers or renewable furbearing animals used for resources, but narrow their campaigns to the endangered species which need protection. Like the bumper sticker on my truck says. “I’m Pro Choice: I choose to Hunt, Fish and Wear Fur.
Smith, H. R., R. J. Sloan, and G. S. Walton. 1981. Some management implications between harvest rate and population resiliency of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 425-442.
Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation 2001.
Smith, H. R., R. J. Sloan, and G. S. Walton. 1981. Some management implications between harvest rate and population resiliency of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 425-442.
Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation 2001.
Hunting for New Ammunition: Lead and Bald Eagles
Deer hunting season in Wisconsin is revered as an extended holiday. Many of these hunters spend colossal amounts of time roaming the Wisconsin hardwoods scouting for animal sign, spend precipitous amounts of money on trail-cameras just to catch a glimpse of the monster, and litter their homes with blaze colored clothing articles and gear in preparation for the hunt.
I’ve participated in these traditions. There’s nothing quite like spending numerous hours in the woods sitting still, being teased by squirrels, hearing the hoot of the great-horned owls. For those of you who’ve done the same, you know what I’m talking about, and for those of you who think this sounds crazy, you’re probably right.
In preparation for the hunt there is one thing that many hunters spend little time thinking about: The type of ammunition. Overwhelming amounts of slugs and shot are found in the hunting departments of Fleet Farm and Gander Mountain, and with sizes for every firearm, what are the costs and benefits of each.
An easy thing to overlook is the effects these different ammunition types have on the environment that produces these desirable monster bucks. Surely they can’t be too detrimental… wrong.
My name is Katie Rymer, a part-time avian rehabilitator at Raptor Education Group Inc. (REGI). Our rehabilitator eagles are graciously donated deer carcasses by hunters every year, these carcasses are void of any lead shot. Just this October alone REGI has received a handful of wild, lead poisoned bald eagles.
Treatment for lead poisoning is a series of injections that cost several thousand dollars per eagle, and require rehabilitation staff members to repeatedly come in contact with these powerful animals. Bald eagles, although preferring fish, often end up on road-kill animals and animals that have been shot and not found by hunters. Though road-kill eagles often make it to REGI for “hit by car” treatment, eagles that have been munching on unfound deer carcasses often end up consuming more than a lethal dose of lead.
The effects of lead poisoning on raptorial birds has been felt worldwide. The California condor (down to only 13 individual birds at one point in time) has been captivity bred, and after numerous releases has a small wild population on the west coast. There was one large factor that was putting an extreme pressure on the newly introduced condors. Lead poisoning. These wild birds had to be recaptured several times for the same treatment of injections as our Wisconsin eagles, a much harder task to repeat when the birds are free-flying in the environment.
I love hunting, and just like many other Wisconsinites, get that itch that starts in September and can’t quite be scratched for some time. Our rehabilitation team at REGI and our eagles would like to encourage hunters everywhere to give a shot at trying non-lead ammunition (no pun intended).
I’ve participated in these traditions. There’s nothing quite like spending numerous hours in the woods sitting still, being teased by squirrels, hearing the hoot of the great-horned owls. For those of you who’ve done the same, you know what I’m talking about, and for those of you who think this sounds crazy, you’re probably right.
In preparation for the hunt there is one thing that many hunters spend little time thinking about: The type of ammunition. Overwhelming amounts of slugs and shot are found in the hunting departments of Fleet Farm and Gander Mountain, and with sizes for every firearm, what are the costs and benefits of each.
An easy thing to overlook is the effects these different ammunition types have on the environment that produces these desirable monster bucks. Surely they can’t be too detrimental… wrong.
My name is Katie Rymer, a part-time avian rehabilitator at Raptor Education Group Inc. (REGI). Our rehabilitator eagles are graciously donated deer carcasses by hunters every year, these carcasses are void of any lead shot. Just this October alone REGI has received a handful of wild, lead poisoned bald eagles.
Treatment for lead poisoning is a series of injections that cost several thousand dollars per eagle, and require rehabilitation staff members to repeatedly come in contact with these powerful animals. Bald eagles, although preferring fish, often end up on road-kill animals and animals that have been shot and not found by hunters. Though road-kill eagles often make it to REGI for “hit by car” treatment, eagles that have been munching on unfound deer carcasses often end up consuming more than a lethal dose of lead.
The effects of lead poisoning on raptorial birds has been felt worldwide. The California condor (down to only 13 individual birds at one point in time) has been captivity bred, and after numerous releases has a small wild population on the west coast. There was one large factor that was putting an extreme pressure on the newly introduced condors. Lead poisoning. These wild birds had to be recaptured several times for the same treatment of injections as our Wisconsin eagles, a much harder task to repeat when the birds are free-flying in the environment.
I love hunting, and just like many other Wisconsinites, get that itch that starts in September and can’t quite be scratched for some time. Our rehabilitation team at REGI and our eagles would like to encourage hunters everywhere to give a shot at trying non-lead ammunition (no pun intended).
Wolves in Wisconsin
The current issue of wolves in Wisconsin is an important concern of WiDNR. Residents against the wolves being present are asking when “Wolf Season” will start. Currently wolves are still listed as a threatened species in this state, which means we have yet to reach a sustainable population of wolves. With a sustainable population yet to be reached how are we supposed to start controlling the population? Once the population is at a sustainable population, the species will be delisted. After the delisted status a population control may be implemented.
Only individuals whom are killing livestock may be culled by a DNR or USDA official. Those are the only ways to euthanize a wolf while it is listed as a threatened species. It is unlawfully to shoot a wolf if you are only a landowner, you would be violating state and federal laws to take matters into your own hands. Only during the actually act of an attack from a wolf is this allowed, but officials must be contacted within 24hours and be turned over to the state, you cannot keep a wolf pelt in this state without proper permits. Landowners may be issued permits to euthanize nuisance wolves on their land.
Wolf-like creatures in urban areas are also subject to being euthanized by state officials but not by the general public. But this is unlikely to be a true wolf. These cases are most likely to be a hybrid pet that gets lose. Due to wolves’ nature, they avoid any kind of public surrounding.
So only until wolves are fully reestablished in this state should residents start harassing wolf populations. Keep in mind; Wolves were completely eradicated from this state just from humans hunting them because they didn’t like them. Why would you hunt an animal if you are not going to even use the animal for food purposes. People are hunting these animals just to show off a pelt. This act is deemed unethical in some cultures. The wolves were here 1st and we kicked them out completely, now that they may have come back naturally, some residents want to kick them out again.
Since the 1st time wolves were eradicated, times have changed. Livestock owners have gone down in numbers, yet the aggression towards wolves seems greater. Livestock owners are not the only ones making these suggestions of a wolf season. It seems like our deer hunters are afraid wolves are going to eat all the deer. When there are less than 350 wolves in the state and they can only eat 15 deer/year individually and we hit more than 450,000 deer/yr. with our cars, this should not be a reason to limit our states population of wolves.
So the next time individuals would like to suggest such an absurd suggestion such as this, know your facts first. We don’t want our state to look like a bunch of Neanderthals since we can’t like with other big predators living with us.
References:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/plan5.htm
Only individuals whom are killing livestock may be culled by a DNR or USDA official. Those are the only ways to euthanize a wolf while it is listed as a threatened species. It is unlawfully to shoot a wolf if you are only a landowner, you would be violating state and federal laws to take matters into your own hands. Only during the actually act of an attack from a wolf is this allowed, but officials must be contacted within 24hours and be turned over to the state, you cannot keep a wolf pelt in this state without proper permits. Landowners may be issued permits to euthanize nuisance wolves on their land.
Wolf-like creatures in urban areas are also subject to being euthanized by state officials but not by the general public. But this is unlikely to be a true wolf. These cases are most likely to be a hybrid pet that gets lose. Due to wolves’ nature, they avoid any kind of public surrounding.
So only until wolves are fully reestablished in this state should residents start harassing wolf populations. Keep in mind; Wolves were completely eradicated from this state just from humans hunting them because they didn’t like them. Why would you hunt an animal if you are not going to even use the animal for food purposes. People are hunting these animals just to show off a pelt. This act is deemed unethical in some cultures. The wolves were here 1st and we kicked them out completely, now that they may have come back naturally, some residents want to kick them out again.
Since the 1st time wolves were eradicated, times have changed. Livestock owners have gone down in numbers, yet the aggression towards wolves seems greater. Livestock owners are not the only ones making these suggestions of a wolf season. It seems like our deer hunters are afraid wolves are going to eat all the deer. When there are less than 350 wolves in the state and they can only eat 15 deer/year individually and we hit more than 450,000 deer/yr. with our cars, this should not be a reason to limit our states population of wolves.
So the next time individuals would like to suggest such an absurd suggestion such as this, know your facts first. We don’t want our state to look like a bunch of Neanderthals since we can’t like with other big predators living with us.
References:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/plan5.htm
Fuel vs. Drinking Water
Fuel vs. Drinking Water
In a temperate climate in the Midwest, water is easy to take for granted. It falls from the sky routinely, conglomerates in huge puddles we call lakes, and spurts from a faucet after a slight turn of the knob. It is essential for the existence of every living organism on Earth, but yet its importance is still easily overlooked. Throughout the last couple centuries, we have been determined to degrade, dilute, and contaminate water in a variety of ways. To name a few, we have negatively affected our water quality in ways such as indoor plumbing, runoff from poorly managed land surfaces, and most recently, hydraulic fracturing.
Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new method for extracting natural gas from hard to reach areas, specifically gas that is “locked up” within shale deposits. It involves drilling a well and injecting millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and certain chemicals under pressure to fracture the shale and allows the released natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. In today’s world, energy is king. And it is no surprise that even though this process takes a lot of resources and effort, there is still big money to be made by companies who are drilling for the increasingly scarce natural gas. The problem with this process is beginning to become apparent in fracking locations throughout the United States. Documentaries are illustrating faucets that literally act like methane torches near fracking locations along with studies from researches that are indicating contaminates such as methane and other chemicals associated with fracking are being found in groundwater. At what point did fuel become more important than drinking water, the compound that is indefinitely essential for existence on this planet?
There are many problems with the fracking process in general and the fact that there is little to no regulation further magnifies those problems. In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by congress to protect drinking water from both natural and man-made contaminates. But, under what is commonly referred to as the Halliburton loophole, the Bush/Cheney energy bill exempted natural gas drilling from the safe water act. Essentially, the Environmental Protection Agency has no regulation over the fracking companies and they are not required to disclose the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Natural gas wells are typically deeper than the depth of drinking water aquifers, and typical problems involve well casings leaking natural gas and fracking fluid into water wells. Combine that with the fact that 1-8 million gallons of water are used to frack a well and a well may be fracked up to 18 times. In a world where water is on its way to becoming one of the most valuable and scarce resources, is it smart to continually and more destructively degrade and contaminate our water quality? This fall we were informed on our energy bill that natural gas prices would be slightly cheaper for this winter, and I was wondering if that was because of the intense fracking going on throughout the country. It is nice to pay less for services, but that is exactly the problem. We do get what we pay for and cheap natural gas will likely result in expensive water.
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
http://www.theoec.org/Fracking.htm?gclid=CO-rk4WIm6wCFYHe4AodQSZM1w
In a temperate climate in the Midwest, water is easy to take for granted. It falls from the sky routinely, conglomerates in huge puddles we call lakes, and spurts from a faucet after a slight turn of the knob. It is essential for the existence of every living organism on Earth, but yet its importance is still easily overlooked. Throughout the last couple centuries, we have been determined to degrade, dilute, and contaminate water in a variety of ways. To name a few, we have negatively affected our water quality in ways such as indoor plumbing, runoff from poorly managed land surfaces, and most recently, hydraulic fracturing.
Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new method for extracting natural gas from hard to reach areas, specifically gas that is “locked up” within shale deposits. It involves drilling a well and injecting millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and certain chemicals under pressure to fracture the shale and allows the released natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. In today’s world, energy is king. And it is no surprise that even though this process takes a lot of resources and effort, there is still big money to be made by companies who are drilling for the increasingly scarce natural gas. The problem with this process is beginning to become apparent in fracking locations throughout the United States. Documentaries are illustrating faucets that literally act like methane torches near fracking locations along with studies from researches that are indicating contaminates such as methane and other chemicals associated with fracking are being found in groundwater. At what point did fuel become more important than drinking water, the compound that is indefinitely essential for existence on this planet?
There are many problems with the fracking process in general and the fact that there is little to no regulation further magnifies those problems. In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by congress to protect drinking water from both natural and man-made contaminates. But, under what is commonly referred to as the Halliburton loophole, the Bush/Cheney energy bill exempted natural gas drilling from the safe water act. Essentially, the Environmental Protection Agency has no regulation over the fracking companies and they are not required to disclose the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Natural gas wells are typically deeper than the depth of drinking water aquifers, and typical problems involve well casings leaking natural gas and fracking fluid into water wells. Combine that with the fact that 1-8 million gallons of water are used to frack a well and a well may be fracked up to 18 times. In a world where water is on its way to becoming one of the most valuable and scarce resources, is it smart to continually and more destructively degrade and contaminate our water quality? This fall we were informed on our energy bill that natural gas prices would be slightly cheaper for this winter, and I was wondering if that was because of the intense fracking going on throughout the country. It is nice to pay less for services, but that is exactly the problem. We do get what we pay for and cheap natural gas will likely result in expensive water.
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
http://www.theoec.org/Fracking.htm?gclid=CO-rk4WIm6wCFYHe4AodQSZM1w
The Hunting Tradition
Hunting has always been an important part of our society. From the hunter-gatherers of the past to the professional hunters of today, hunting has withstood the test of time. It’s part of our heritage; it’s part of how we came to be. This is a hot topic for some people who feel as though hunting is unethical, inhumane, and maybe even unimportant. However, this is far from the truth. Most hunters are stewards of the land. They wish to sustain its resources and have them available for generations to come.
As a student of the College of Natural Resources majoring in wildlife ecology: research and management, it’s obvious that I have a passion for the outdoors. I see myself as a hunter, trapper, and fisherman: an outdoorsman. My fire for this obsession was fueled at a very young age. My father introduced me to the outdoors before I could even walk. Those moments, those memories ignited my passion for the outdoors that continues to burn bright today and will without a doubt continue to for the rest of my life. My experiences in the field have influenced my whole life which is evident as I pursue a career as a wildlife biologist. I feel as though my introduction to hunting and the outdoors in general as a young child is the reason I feel so strongly about this topic. It’s the reason I am who I am.
Through early introduction to hunting and other outdoor activities, my life was changed forever. I was instantly hooked. That’s why I believe it’s so important to introduce new people to hunting, young and old. This will give them the chance to enjoy the great outdoors, to enjoy our heritage. The more people that participate in these activities, the more people will become aware of their importance. These crucial values will become instilled in them. This will ensure that our heritage will live on and others will have the opportunities to experience the great outdoors as they should.
I feel it’s imperative for people to understand how much of an impact outdoorsmen have on our natural resources. We manage, sustain, control, and utilize these resources to the best of our abilities. As stewards of the land, we as outdoorsmen want the best for these resources in order for us to enjoy the activities we love to do. From personal experiences, I know how bringing someone with you out in the woods can impact their life; I’m living proof of the effects. All I ask is to bring some hunting, fishing or doing anything in the great outdoors. You never know how it will influence them and their decisions later in life. These people are the future stewards of the land; they just don’t know it yet.
As a student of the College of Natural Resources majoring in wildlife ecology: research and management, it’s obvious that I have a passion for the outdoors. I see myself as a hunter, trapper, and fisherman: an outdoorsman. My fire for this obsession was fueled at a very young age. My father introduced me to the outdoors before I could even walk. Those moments, those memories ignited my passion for the outdoors that continues to burn bright today and will without a doubt continue to for the rest of my life. My experiences in the field have influenced my whole life which is evident as I pursue a career as a wildlife biologist. I feel as though my introduction to hunting and the outdoors in general as a young child is the reason I feel so strongly about this topic. It’s the reason I am who I am.
Through early introduction to hunting and other outdoor activities, my life was changed forever. I was instantly hooked. That’s why I believe it’s so important to introduce new people to hunting, young and old. This will give them the chance to enjoy the great outdoors, to enjoy our heritage. The more people that participate in these activities, the more people will become aware of their importance. These crucial values will become instilled in them. This will ensure that our heritage will live on and others will have the opportunities to experience the great outdoors as they should.
I feel it’s imperative for people to understand how much of an impact outdoorsmen have on our natural resources. We manage, sustain, control, and utilize these resources to the best of our abilities. As stewards of the land, we as outdoorsmen want the best for these resources in order for us to enjoy the activities we love to do. From personal experiences, I know how bringing someone with you out in the woods can impact their life; I’m living proof of the effects. All I ask is to bring some hunting, fishing or doing anything in the great outdoors. You never know how it will influence them and their decisions later in life. These people are the future stewards of the land; they just don’t know it yet.
Materialistic America
It seems that most Americans are always trying to have the latest and greatest things. I see people with huge houses that have more than enough room for them and their kids. Big SUVs and trucks drive around with one person in them and nothing in the back or being towed. People walk around with cell phones in their hand constantly texting. After class, count how many people walk out of the building texting with their cell phones vs. people not texting. It’s pretty amazing. All of these material things come with many consequences that are not noticed at first. Many people have all these things because they feel it will bring them comfort and happiness but that is usually not the case.
Many Americans today have large credit card debt or other debt. We are buying stuff that we don’t need with the money that we don’t have. Why must we do this? I guess it is just that important to people to show off their new purchase to their friends. Americans have to work strenuous hours at their jobs in order to afford much of the material goods that are considered normal in America. Much of the time is spent at work making money to pay for the goods that will now be used less due to more work. The parent’s time spent with their children decreasing due to working long hours is another subject. I think that I heard somewhere that Americans work the most per week on average of any other country. People are always in a rush and things like fast food quickly become more popular. I have heard the saying that if something is broken, “We just look for a quick fix.” Maybe that’s because everyone feels so rushed for time.
Having all of the material goods that we do is bad for our society. Why must we keep up with the Jones’? Who cares what other people think of you if don’t drive a $50,000 SUV around wasting gas. I don’t have an iPod and I have no desire to get one. My car is rusty and paid for and I don’t feel the need to buy a new and make payments. I think that Americans would be happier overall if we didn’t have all of the material goods that we do. People would have more time to spend with family and friends and wouldn’t have the stress of being in debt.
The environmental impact from all of our material goods is major. Just look at all the talk about climate change from our car emissions and factories. Every time we go to the store and get a plastic bag, it is bad for the environment. People say that it is more environmentally friendly to do things paperless such as using email or online payment methods. I have to disagree. I think that it is much less environmentally friendly to have computers and electronics made of plastics and other materials than to use paper. I think paper is very environmentally friendly. Sure you have to cut trees down, but they grow back or get planted. Paper is a very renewable resource that is easily biodegradable. With almost everything being made of plastic and our “Throw-away society”, we are destroying our natural resources.
I do believe that much of our society is starting to realize what is happening and is cutting back on many of the things they buy or choosing alternatives. For example, disk golf and kayaking are activities that are gaining much popularity. Sure these activities require a startup cost but it is very minor compared to alternatives such as boating or golf. Many of the activities that are free or almost free are becoming popular. I think that people realize that they have just as much fun canoeing down a scenic river vs. going fast in a boat. This is probably especially true when you factor in the costs such as money, work, and stress. People choosing to be “Green” is also gaining popularity. It is going to be interesting to see what happens in the next 50 years to see if our materialistic ways increase or decrease. What do you think?
Many Americans today have large credit card debt or other debt. We are buying stuff that we don’t need with the money that we don’t have. Why must we do this? I guess it is just that important to people to show off their new purchase to their friends. Americans have to work strenuous hours at their jobs in order to afford much of the material goods that are considered normal in America. Much of the time is spent at work making money to pay for the goods that will now be used less due to more work. The parent’s time spent with their children decreasing due to working long hours is another subject. I think that I heard somewhere that Americans work the most per week on average of any other country. People are always in a rush and things like fast food quickly become more popular. I have heard the saying that if something is broken, “We just look for a quick fix.” Maybe that’s because everyone feels so rushed for time.
Having all of the material goods that we do is bad for our society. Why must we keep up with the Jones’? Who cares what other people think of you if don’t drive a $50,000 SUV around wasting gas. I don’t have an iPod and I have no desire to get one. My car is rusty and paid for and I don’t feel the need to buy a new and make payments. I think that Americans would be happier overall if we didn’t have all of the material goods that we do. People would have more time to spend with family and friends and wouldn’t have the stress of being in debt.
The environmental impact from all of our material goods is major. Just look at all the talk about climate change from our car emissions and factories. Every time we go to the store and get a plastic bag, it is bad for the environment. People say that it is more environmentally friendly to do things paperless such as using email or online payment methods. I have to disagree. I think that it is much less environmentally friendly to have computers and electronics made of plastics and other materials than to use paper. I think paper is very environmentally friendly. Sure you have to cut trees down, but they grow back or get planted. Paper is a very renewable resource that is easily biodegradable. With almost everything being made of plastic and our “Throw-away society”, we are destroying our natural resources.
I do believe that much of our society is starting to realize what is happening and is cutting back on many of the things they buy or choosing alternatives. For example, disk golf and kayaking are activities that are gaining much popularity. Sure these activities require a startup cost but it is very minor compared to alternatives such as boating or golf. Many of the activities that are free or almost free are becoming popular. I think that people realize that they have just as much fun canoeing down a scenic river vs. going fast in a boat. This is probably especially true when you factor in the costs such as money, work, and stress. People choosing to be “Green” is also gaining popularity. It is going to be interesting to see what happens in the next 50 years to see if our materialistic ways increase or decrease. What do you think?
Wolves, wolves, wolves
Currently in Northern Minnesota along with parts of northern Wisconsin wolves are beginning to become somewhat of a problem for some landowners. While they are protected many people may not know that when wolves become a problem to a landowner by killing livestock trappers from the USDA are called in to take care of problem wolves. While depredation is not a serious issue yet with only minor occurrences happening on a grand scale it is something that could become a problem if the wolf population continues to grow.
I believe that in Minnesota the time has come to allow the MN Department of Natural Resources to begin managing the wolves. Currently wolves are still considered threatened in Minnesota and managed under the US Fish and Wildlife Service due to the endangered species act. Recent estimates show that there is probably somewhere around 3,000 wolves in the state. Also along with the transfer of management to the DNR you would not be allowed to hunt or trap wolves for 5 years, to monitor the growth of the population. This is a great thing in that it could help some people who are on the fence about delisting the wolves in Minnesota to realize that they will not be hunted for some time.
Some of the things that could be done differently by the state would be eventually to open up a hunting season on wolves. It would not have to be anything drastic, just something to keep the numbers in check. This would allow for increased revenue in the case of licenses, travel, food, etc. Economically it would be a lot better to open up a hunting season instead of having tax payer dollars spent on federal trappers going in and removing wolves. Many people in northern Minnesota also believe that the increase in the wolf population is having a direct effect on the deer hunting in their areas. Even when I lived there I heard many rumors of people who claimed to have poached wolves so that they would quit killing their deer. While I don’t know if these are true or not, I am sure some wolves are poached each year. Many people feel that the government is not doing enough to keep wolf numbers at a reasonable amount, and a hunting season may reduce the amount of unnecessary killing by recognizing that there is a season, and the wolves are being managed.
Hopefully soon the state and the federal government can decide on what is right for the wolves. The unnecessary spending of taxpayer dollars to take care of problem wolves should be reduced and people be allowed to harvest wolves. It makes a lot of sense for the state to allow people to hunt the revenue brought in from a wolf season would help with wolf research and other projects. As well, it might deter people from poaching wolves if they know that there is a season and that the wolves are being maintained at healthy levels. To conclude, I believe the federal government should hand management of the wolves back over to the state of Minnesota, and when the state feels the time is right they should open up a hunting season.
I believe that in Minnesota the time has come to allow the MN Department of Natural Resources to begin managing the wolves. Currently wolves are still considered threatened in Minnesota and managed under the US Fish and Wildlife Service due to the endangered species act. Recent estimates show that there is probably somewhere around 3,000 wolves in the state. Also along with the transfer of management to the DNR you would not be allowed to hunt or trap wolves for 5 years, to monitor the growth of the population. This is a great thing in that it could help some people who are on the fence about delisting the wolves in Minnesota to realize that they will not be hunted for some time.
Some of the things that could be done differently by the state would be eventually to open up a hunting season on wolves. It would not have to be anything drastic, just something to keep the numbers in check. This would allow for increased revenue in the case of licenses, travel, food, etc. Economically it would be a lot better to open up a hunting season instead of having tax payer dollars spent on federal trappers going in and removing wolves. Many people in northern Minnesota also believe that the increase in the wolf population is having a direct effect on the deer hunting in their areas. Even when I lived there I heard many rumors of people who claimed to have poached wolves so that they would quit killing their deer. While I don’t know if these are true or not, I am sure some wolves are poached each year. Many people feel that the government is not doing enough to keep wolf numbers at a reasonable amount, and a hunting season may reduce the amount of unnecessary killing by recognizing that there is a season, and the wolves are being managed.
Hopefully soon the state and the federal government can decide on what is right for the wolves. The unnecessary spending of taxpayer dollars to take care of problem wolves should be reduced and people be allowed to harvest wolves. It makes a lot of sense for the state to allow people to hunt the revenue brought in from a wolf season would help with wolf research and other projects. As well, it might deter people from poaching wolves if they know that there is a season and that the wolves are being maintained at healthy levels. To conclude, I believe the federal government should hand management of the wolves back over to the state of Minnesota, and when the state feels the time is right they should open up a hunting season.
Green Roofing
Green roofing is a new age technology that introduces ecofriendly attributes to existing infrastructure. It introduces a form of vegetation to the roof of a building to help improve certain qualities of the building. Some of the benefits to green roofing are the reduction of heating and cooling costs, reduction of noise, increase in water control, and an improvement in aesthetic qualities. However, there are some disadvantages like the cost of installation and maintenance, the climate and location for plants, and insurance availability.
Many buildings that have a green roof have lowered heating and cooling costs for the whole building. The plants act as a barrier in the summer time by reflecting and absorbing energy from the sun. In the winter, plants act as a natural insulator. The plants can affect the temperature of a building up to 5°C. The amount of energy saved depends on what types of plants are being used. Some plants lose their leaves reducing the insulation qualities during winter. Another advantage to green roofing is that it reduces that amount of sound. Planes, trains, and automobiles can be very noisy, but plants can reduce that sound by 45-50dB. Water control is also improved with green roofing. Water can cause flooding which could lead to algae blooms in rivers or lakes. Finally, aesthetic qualities are very important to people. If the area can be observed by people, the types of plants will be more appealing to make the people more attracted to view. But, if the area is not viewed by people then the plants can be coving plants to help save on energy.
The maintenance of green roofs is very costly. The least amount of money for a square foot of green roofing is $8, but it normally ranges from $12 to $24. This is about 5-10 times more than traditional roofing of a building. With all the extra weight added to the roof, it needs to be reinforced so the roof does not collapse. Drainage is also a big problem with green roofing. If there is a break in the pipe, fixing it will be very hard to get to with all the material and plants on top of the water removal system. Another problem with green roofing is that plants must be able to grow in the area. And if the conditions of the growing area are too windy some of the plants could be blown away. It takes time for the plants to become established. Finally, insurance is not easy to come by for green roofing. There is a chance that the roof could leak and no insurance company wants to be liable for these buildings.
I believe that green roofs are a very good idea because the advantages out benefit the disadvantages. There is a large possibility to improve the technology for green roofs and turn cities into more ecofriendly environments.
References:
1. Bryan, G. (2010). Green roof construction. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.greenroofconstruction.co.uk/
2. Wark, C., & Wark, W. (2003). Green roof specifications and standards: establishing an emerging technology. The Construction Specifier, 56(8).
3. Green Roofs: Pros and Cons. (No date). Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.house-energy.com/Roof/Roof-green-costs.htm
4. Farrell, M., Eakin, J., & Meakin, M. (No date). Green Roof Information. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.dtzbarnicke.com/Client/JJB/JJB_LP4W_LND_WebStation.nsf/resources/Van+-+News+and+Information/$file/Green+Roof.pdf
Many buildings that have a green roof have lowered heating and cooling costs for the whole building. The plants act as a barrier in the summer time by reflecting and absorbing energy from the sun. In the winter, plants act as a natural insulator. The plants can affect the temperature of a building up to 5°C. The amount of energy saved depends on what types of plants are being used. Some plants lose their leaves reducing the insulation qualities during winter. Another advantage to green roofing is that it reduces that amount of sound. Planes, trains, and automobiles can be very noisy, but plants can reduce that sound by 45-50dB. Water control is also improved with green roofing. Water can cause flooding which could lead to algae blooms in rivers or lakes. Finally, aesthetic qualities are very important to people. If the area can be observed by people, the types of plants will be more appealing to make the people more attracted to view. But, if the area is not viewed by people then the plants can be coving plants to help save on energy.
The maintenance of green roofs is very costly. The least amount of money for a square foot of green roofing is $8, but it normally ranges from $12 to $24. This is about 5-10 times more than traditional roofing of a building. With all the extra weight added to the roof, it needs to be reinforced so the roof does not collapse. Drainage is also a big problem with green roofing. If there is a break in the pipe, fixing it will be very hard to get to with all the material and plants on top of the water removal system. Another problem with green roofing is that plants must be able to grow in the area. And if the conditions of the growing area are too windy some of the plants could be blown away. It takes time for the plants to become established. Finally, insurance is not easy to come by for green roofing. There is a chance that the roof could leak and no insurance company wants to be liable for these buildings.
I believe that green roofs are a very good idea because the advantages out benefit the disadvantages. There is a large possibility to improve the technology for green roofs and turn cities into more ecofriendly environments.
References:
1. Bryan, G. (2010). Green roof construction. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.greenroofconstruction.co.uk/
2. Wark, C., & Wark, W. (2003). Green roof specifications and standards: establishing an emerging technology. The Construction Specifier, 56(8).
3. Green Roofs: Pros and Cons. (No date). Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.house-energy.com/Roof/Roof-green-costs.htm
4. Farrell, M., Eakin, J., & Meakin, M. (No date). Green Roof Information. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from http://www.dtzbarnicke.com/Client/JJB/JJB_LP4W_LND_WebStation.nsf/resources/Van+-+News+and+Information/$file/Green+Roof.pdf
A Dying Tradition
Baiting for deer, baiting for bears, baiting for turkeys, pheasants, grouse or waterfowl you name it; weather legal or not todays hunting is no different from the dying tradition of trapping. Many people think that trapping is unethical because the animal may suffer before it dies, but so does a deer when a hot chunk of lead pierces through its body. Just because you are using a gun does not mean that you are going to kill the animal. Well educated trappers (education course mandatory and similar to firearm safety course) know how to set traps to effectively catch and kill targeted furbearer. Firearm safety courses do not teach students on how to be a good shot, meaning you may or may not hit the animal and if you hit that animal you may or may not kill but wound the animal. Whereas a successful trapper will successfully trap furbearers and an unsuccessful trapper will simply not. Current regulations require to you check you non-killing sets once a day (24hr) to minimize “animal suffering”. So why is it then that trapping is becoming a lost tradition?
It simply is just not being passed on from generation to generation anymore like it used to. Trapping is so much more that hunting over a bait pile. A trapper becomes much more in tune with what is going on in the streams, lakes and woods. To be successful you have to pattern and get in the mind set of what the furbearer is thinking. Sure you may use lures and baits to direct the furbearer to the trap but the idea is to have the trap set where the animal is traveling or feeding. Even making lures and baits that furbearers will be interested in can be an art in itself. Young trappers will learn the lay of the land and bring back the tradition of trapping and using everything possible that the furbearer has to offer. Many perfumes, oils, garments, felt, fishing lures and other products are made from furbearers. Furbearers can also be eaten and are a renewable resource.
Trapping is regulated just like hunting is. There are restrictions on furbearers with low population numbers and the furbearer populations with no restriction rely on being harvested to control the population. In the spring babies are made which increases the population and then predators take care of the weak ones and trappers control the rest of population and then the cycle starts over again in the spring with an increase in population. Incidental catches are to be reported to game warden who will then take furbearer which will be saved and used for other trappers ed. courses or for schools.
It is important that the current generation pushes to continue this great tradition and equally important that past generations pass it on if they have not already. The feeling a trapper get is similar to that of how children feel when they wake up Christmas morning but instead of presents you are all excited to go and check your traps to see what you caught.
It simply is just not being passed on from generation to generation anymore like it used to. Trapping is so much more that hunting over a bait pile. A trapper becomes much more in tune with what is going on in the streams, lakes and woods. To be successful you have to pattern and get in the mind set of what the furbearer is thinking. Sure you may use lures and baits to direct the furbearer to the trap but the idea is to have the trap set where the animal is traveling or feeding. Even making lures and baits that furbearers will be interested in can be an art in itself. Young trappers will learn the lay of the land and bring back the tradition of trapping and using everything possible that the furbearer has to offer. Many perfumes, oils, garments, felt, fishing lures and other products are made from furbearers. Furbearers can also be eaten and are a renewable resource.
Trapping is regulated just like hunting is. There are restrictions on furbearers with low population numbers and the furbearer populations with no restriction rely on being harvested to control the population. In the spring babies are made which increases the population and then predators take care of the weak ones and trappers control the rest of population and then the cycle starts over again in the spring with an increase in population. Incidental catches are to be reported to game warden who will then take furbearer which will be saved and used for other trappers ed. courses or for schools.
It is important that the current generation pushes to continue this great tradition and equally important that past generations pass it on if they have not already. The feeling a trapper get is similar to that of how children feel when they wake up Christmas morning but instead of presents you are all excited to go and check your traps to see what you caught.
Snakes on a Plane!
Hopefully not. Or anywhere else on the Hawaiian Islands for that matter. The fear of snakes making it to Hawaii and escaping to establish breeding populations is very real. In particular, the locals fear the brown tree snake. It’s a relatively normal sized snake that lives in trees, and is from a family of venomous snakes. It’s native to Australia and much of the Indonesian Islands. Though it’s aggressive, it is not particularly dangerous to humans.
So why are all snakes, and the brown tree snake in particular, so feared in Hawaii? The brown tree snake is infamous for the impact it has had on the ecology of Guam, another tropical Pacific island. Brown tree snakes were accidentally introduced to the island of Guam through the Navy and the shipping industry. The snakes got themselves into the cargo holds of the ships and then got loose on the island. Guam had many native endemic (found only on the island) bird species, and no native snakes. The birds of the island did not know how to survive against the snakes. Since brown tree snakes are generalists, and will eat about anything they can fit into their mouths, they were easily able to wipe out the populations of native birds on Guam. Now, few native species still survive on the island. Birds that do thrive there are also exotic, and from areas where there were snakes to be wary of.
Like Guam, Hawaii has no native snakes. While other reptiles commonly kept as pets have established wild populations on the island (such as iguanas and jackson chameleons), zoos and academic institutions need special permits in order to bring snakes onto the island to keep in captivity. It’s nearly impossible for a regular resident to have any kind of snake as a pet, as there is also a fear of what a large snake like a boa constrictor could do.
In addition to strict regulation of captive snakes on the island, there is a substantial process in place to prevent the accidental transportation of snakes onto the island through the shipping industry, like Guam. There are special regulations and searches cargo being shipped to Hawaii must go through. There are even teams of specially trained dogs who sniff out snakes and kill them. Even with the strict measures, snakes still find a way. In the past few years, a dozen snakes have been picked up off the runways of airports, that had fallen out of the landing gear holds when they landed. Because there is always a possibility that some may have survived, residents and tourists are constantly reminded via posted signs to keep a look out for snakes and to call 911 if they see one.
I have been to Hawaii and seen some of the last members of a few different bird species that are dwindling due to the change in the forest landscape. The first 30 miles in from the coastline is all non-native species of plants and birds. What little of the natural habitat left is protected, but always in danger. It is imperative that the authorities in Hawaii remain vigilant in their protection of the ecosystems, and that the residents and tourists do all they can to prevent a fate similar to Guam’s.
So why are all snakes, and the brown tree snake in particular, so feared in Hawaii? The brown tree snake is infamous for the impact it has had on the ecology of Guam, another tropical Pacific island. Brown tree snakes were accidentally introduced to the island of Guam through the Navy and the shipping industry. The snakes got themselves into the cargo holds of the ships and then got loose on the island. Guam had many native endemic (found only on the island) bird species, and no native snakes. The birds of the island did not know how to survive against the snakes. Since brown tree snakes are generalists, and will eat about anything they can fit into their mouths, they were easily able to wipe out the populations of native birds on Guam. Now, few native species still survive on the island. Birds that do thrive there are also exotic, and from areas where there were snakes to be wary of.
Like Guam, Hawaii has no native snakes. While other reptiles commonly kept as pets have established wild populations on the island (such as iguanas and jackson chameleons), zoos and academic institutions need special permits in order to bring snakes onto the island to keep in captivity. It’s nearly impossible for a regular resident to have any kind of snake as a pet, as there is also a fear of what a large snake like a boa constrictor could do.
In addition to strict regulation of captive snakes on the island, there is a substantial process in place to prevent the accidental transportation of snakes onto the island through the shipping industry, like Guam. There are special regulations and searches cargo being shipped to Hawaii must go through. There are even teams of specially trained dogs who sniff out snakes and kill them. Even with the strict measures, snakes still find a way. In the past few years, a dozen snakes have been picked up off the runways of airports, that had fallen out of the landing gear holds when they landed. Because there is always a possibility that some may have survived, residents and tourists are constantly reminded via posted signs to keep a look out for snakes and to call 911 if they see one.
I have been to Hawaii and seen some of the last members of a few different bird species that are dwindling due to the change in the forest landscape. The first 30 miles in from the coastline is all non-native species of plants and birds. What little of the natural habitat left is protected, but always in danger. It is imperative that the authorities in Hawaii remain vigilant in their protection of the ecosystems, and that the residents and tourists do all they can to prevent a fate similar to Guam’s.
The Role of Zoos
Wild animals have always been a fascination to people throughout the ages. As far back as ancient Egypt and Rome wild animals have been kept in captivity. Sometimes they were held for religious purposes but most often they were held as a symbolic representation of someone’s power and status. Over the last few centuries many king’s had private zoos which were generally used as the entertainment for a few elite. The public had very little opportunity to visit them and these zoos were not very concerned for the well-being of the animals.
There seems to be a lot of debate over whether there should be any wild animals held in captivity at all today. I for one can’t argue that there are some road side zoos that are not suitable for any animal to have to endure. These places still have small, barred cages with cement floors and little or no activities for the captives. These places should be fixed or closed down. For most zoos though this is a thing of the past.
Zoos play an important role in education and conservation. Many people every year pass through the front gates of zoos, many with their children in tow. This is often the first contact these young minds have with wildlife. Seeing and interacting with species that you are unable to do anywhere else brings people and wildlife together and makes you actually care what happens to the wild counter parts of the zoo animals. While you are enjoying the activities offered at the zoo they are covertly educating you about the life history and the conservation issues of these animals. This is likely to have an effect on what you actually retain after your visit. When people care and understand what the issues are for the wild counter parts they may feel more empowered to do something about it.
With that said, there is still the fact that these are wild animals and they are captive. I believe that zoos are necessary and the animals kept here are ambassadors for their species. I also believe that if you are to keep captive wildlife it is the responsibility of the zoo to do everything they can to give their animals the closest thing to a natural environment. This is done through having large natural exhibits and providing environmental enrichment activities. These are changes implemented to an animal’s environment to improve the animal’s physical and mental well-being. Some goals of enrichment are too produce wild-type behavior, to reduce abnormal behavior by providing opportunities for species-appropriate behavior and basically to help the animals be more active. I believe in this so strongly that I have chosen to dedicate my career to it.
Zoos have come a long way since their very beginnings. In a perfect world there would be no need for zoos. The people of the world would live in balance with nature. This is not a perfect world. There should be no place for road side zoos that offer very little to their captive creatures but agony. All zoos should be held responsible for the physical and mental well-being of their animals. In this imperfect world they are necessary and are often the only chance of bringing people and wildlife together.
There seems to be a lot of debate over whether there should be any wild animals held in captivity at all today. I for one can’t argue that there are some road side zoos that are not suitable for any animal to have to endure. These places still have small, barred cages with cement floors and little or no activities for the captives. These places should be fixed or closed down. For most zoos though this is a thing of the past.
Zoos play an important role in education and conservation. Many people every year pass through the front gates of zoos, many with their children in tow. This is often the first contact these young minds have with wildlife. Seeing and interacting with species that you are unable to do anywhere else brings people and wildlife together and makes you actually care what happens to the wild counter parts of the zoo animals. While you are enjoying the activities offered at the zoo they are covertly educating you about the life history and the conservation issues of these animals. This is likely to have an effect on what you actually retain after your visit. When people care and understand what the issues are for the wild counter parts they may feel more empowered to do something about it.
With that said, there is still the fact that these are wild animals and they are captive. I believe that zoos are necessary and the animals kept here are ambassadors for their species. I also believe that if you are to keep captive wildlife it is the responsibility of the zoo to do everything they can to give their animals the closest thing to a natural environment. This is done through having large natural exhibits and providing environmental enrichment activities. These are changes implemented to an animal’s environment to improve the animal’s physical and mental well-being. Some goals of enrichment are too produce wild-type behavior, to reduce abnormal behavior by providing opportunities for species-appropriate behavior and basically to help the animals be more active. I believe in this so strongly that I have chosen to dedicate my career to it.
Zoos have come a long way since their very beginnings. In a perfect world there would be no need for zoos. The people of the world would live in balance with nature. This is not a perfect world. There should be no place for road side zoos that offer very little to their captive creatures but agony. All zoos should be held responsible for the physical and mental well-being of their animals. In this imperfect world they are necessary and are often the only chance of bringing people and wildlife together.
Decline of Wisconsin’s Deer Population
As a young child, I was told that the individual who knows the most about a topic is usually the one who listens instead of telling others what they know. As a young adult who can sit in the local tavern and listen to other adults complain about the lack of deer which they have been seeing during the past few hunting seasons, it has been brought to my attention that I am not the only person who has noticed a drop in the herd within the past 10 years. Many hunters complain about being able to bait or not and how it affects their hunting, or how poaching has had an impact in certain areas. There are also many stories of how wolves or bears harm the population in the northern regions of the state. I strongly feel that harvesting a doe before being able to harvest an antlered deer has been the true issue which has affected the deer herds the most within the state of Wisconsin. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you kill off the female population within a species, it will not take long at all for that population to struggle to remain as strong as it has been previously.
I strongly feel that insurance companies are the biggest harm to our Wisconsin deer population at this point in time. The number of car crashes that have directly been caused by deer in the last decade has undoubtedly gone through the roof. What we forget to consider within these increasing amounts of car crashes is the increase of the human population. Not just the increase of human population, but when there are more citizens, there is an increased demand for transportation, which means more cars! In the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage. One billion dollars is an immense amount of money to try to understand, but when the deer population hits rock bottom and there is no more game to pursue, it directly affects the local economy state wide. When you stop to think of every gas station, grocery store, restaurant, bowling alley, or local tavern who sees the highest amount of annual income during a ten day span every single year just abruptly stop, the affect is just a little more than one billion dollars. If our lack of deer herd continues the way it has been, there are a large amount of hunters who will just give up hunting and start buying beef from the local markets or farmers. In my mind, Wisconsin had some of the best deer hunting land in the entire nation, which drew out of state residents’ attention and is suffering to hold on to local support in purchasing kill permits. I think it is a positive step toward the regrowth of the deer herd to eliminate the earn-a- buck law in efforts to restore the White-tailed deer population, along with the economy, within the state of Wisconsin.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/deer-accident-statistics.html
I strongly feel that insurance companies are the biggest harm to our Wisconsin deer population at this point in time. The number of car crashes that have directly been caused by deer in the last decade has undoubtedly gone through the roof. What we forget to consider within these increasing amounts of car crashes is the increase of the human population. Not just the increase of human population, but when there are more citizens, there is an increased demand for transportation, which means more cars! In the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage. One billion dollars is an immense amount of money to try to understand, but when the deer population hits rock bottom and there is no more game to pursue, it directly affects the local economy state wide. When you stop to think of every gas station, grocery store, restaurant, bowling alley, or local tavern who sees the highest amount of annual income during a ten day span every single year just abruptly stop, the affect is just a little more than one billion dollars. If our lack of deer herd continues the way it has been, there are a large amount of hunters who will just give up hunting and start buying beef from the local markets or farmers. In my mind, Wisconsin had some of the best deer hunting land in the entire nation, which drew out of state residents’ attention and is suffering to hold on to local support in purchasing kill permits. I think it is a positive step toward the regrowth of the deer herd to eliminate the earn-a- buck law in efforts to restore the White-tailed deer population, along with the economy, within the state of Wisconsin.
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/deer-accident-statistics.html
Deer Overpopulation
I have noticed recently that, after being educated on the matter that the general public seems to have a misconception that there isn’t as many deer as there used to be. The truth is that there are more deer than there ever was. It is estimated that around the time when European settlers first arrived in Wisconsin, there were about 4 persquare kilometer and as low as 2 per square kilometer. After Massive logging operations in the late 1800’s more edge habitat was opened up for whitetail deer because of all the clearcut, and open areas. This allowed the whitetail deer populations to rise. Right after World War 2, populations were around 14 per square kilometer, and they are currently as high as 9 per square kilometer. To put that into a national perspective, in the early 1900’s there were 500,000 Whitetail deer in the United States, and now their population is 20 million and rising. I think it is important for us, as land managers, as well as the DNR and the forest service to educate people on this matter, because the truth is most people think there is much LESS deer than there used to be in the early 1900’s which is the exact opposite of the truth. Quite frankly, before I was educated on the matter, I would have agreed with them on the issue. One would assume, without knowing any better, that with less forest acreage, there should be less deer, but that just isn’t true.
I think that this issue needs to be remedied with a little bit of PR work and public education. This could easily be done by simply sending registered hunters pamphlets in the mail about the issue, so they know what the truth is, statistically and logically. People in the hunter’s safety program should also be educated on this issue; there is no reason why it shouldn’t be common knowledge to the public. Pamphlets should also be handed out at registration stations, and places that sell deer tags. Kiosks can be set up at popular hiking areas and camping areas to also educate the non-hunting public on this issue as well.
Not only do I think that the public should be educated about the deer populations in Wisconsin and the U.S. and Wisconsin, but something needs to be done to control it. The fact that there is 40 times the amount of deer there was in the early 1900’s is just ridiculous. I understand that as a society we enjoy hunting, but this problem could potentially destroy or be very detrimental to forest ecosystems. Not only that, but there are hundreds if not thousands of car accidents a year as a result of deer overpopulation. Something needs to be done. Either year-round hunting or longer hunting seasons are a good option to help control the deer populations. Year round hunting is already occurring on the Menominee reservation in northern Wisconsin, and there populations are at lower, healthier, and more sustainable levels. I understand that we want to make sure that there are enough deer for us but we have to realize that deer overpopulation negatively effects too many species and has to be controlled.
I think that this issue needs to be remedied with a little bit of PR work and public education. This could easily be done by simply sending registered hunters pamphlets in the mail about the issue, so they know what the truth is, statistically and logically. People in the hunter’s safety program should also be educated on this issue; there is no reason why it shouldn’t be common knowledge to the public. Pamphlets should also be handed out at registration stations, and places that sell deer tags. Kiosks can be set up at popular hiking areas and camping areas to also educate the non-hunting public on this issue as well.
Not only do I think that the public should be educated about the deer populations in Wisconsin and the U.S. and Wisconsin, but something needs to be done to control it. The fact that there is 40 times the amount of deer there was in the early 1900’s is just ridiculous. I understand that as a society we enjoy hunting, but this problem could potentially destroy or be very detrimental to forest ecosystems. Not only that, but there are hundreds if not thousands of car accidents a year as a result of deer overpopulation. Something needs to be done. Either year-round hunting or longer hunting seasons are a good option to help control the deer populations. Year round hunting is already occurring on the Menominee reservation in northern Wisconsin, and there populations are at lower, healthier, and more sustainable levels. I understand that we want to make sure that there are enough deer for us but we have to realize that deer overpopulation negatively effects too many species and has to be controlled.
One Thing A Zamboni Can’t Fix
It is well believed that global climate change is clear danger. Humans have altered our planet in an immense way. Anthropogenic factors influence climate change ultimately affecting agriculture, air quality, sea levels and more. However, there is one thing that climate change hinders that probably doesn’t come to mind right away: sports.
A sport that is very near and dear to me is hockey. In this guy’s opinion, the only way to play is the great outdoors. There’s just a feeling of nobility, playing my favorite sport as it was played when created in 1875 (though I wouldn’t go so far as to play with a wooden puck as they did then). It’s playing outside that many professional hockey players, including NHL star Sidney Crosby, attribute much of their success too. Along with many other top-level pros and hall of famers, Crosby was interviewed in the 2008 documentary Pond Hockey. “We all grew up playing on lakes or outdoor rinks, that’s where you learn the game” he reminisced, “so in a way, that’s where you get back to your roots.”
For most Americans hockey isn’t a sport on their radar, but just think about our neighbors to the North. Hockey is king in Canada, as interwoven into the country’s culture as football and baseball in the US combined. Canadian concern on this issue was brought to the forefront when the “Save Hockey, Stop Climate Change” campaign arranged for a game of hockey to be played outside a United Nations conference on climate change in Montreal in 2005.
If climate change is occurring, it will have a major impact on all winter sports not just hockey. The World Research Institute, a group focusing on impacts of climate change and promoting sustainable behaviors, went so far as to say that global warming would have a detrimental effect on the continuation of the Winter Olympics.
Even closer to home, think about how many towns across Wisconsin depend on winter sports as a large portion of the economy. Eagle River, WI claims to be the snowmobile capital of the world. The city reports that it has 500 miles of maintained trails for public use. If that town experiences a shorter winter, not even to say snowless, it reduces tourism and significantly diminishes revenues generated by local businesses.
With increased temperatures and s
horter winters we might lose many of the sports that we love. Those sports aren’t just games, they’re culture. I would hate to never have the feeling of fresh lake ice under my skates again. Will my kids one day ask me what it was like playing hockey outdoors? If global climate change continues, that might be the case.
A sport that is very near and dear to me is hockey. In this guy’s opinion, the only way to play is the great outdoors. There’s just a feeling of nobility, playing my favorite sport as it was played when created in 1875 (though I wouldn’t go so far as to play with a wooden puck as they did then). It’s playing outside that many professional hockey players, including NHL star Sidney Crosby, attribute much of their success too. Along with many other top-level pros and hall of famers, Crosby was interviewed in the 2008 documentary Pond Hockey. “We all grew up playing on lakes or outdoor rinks, that’s where you learn the game” he reminisced, “so in a way, that’s where you get back to your roots.”
For most Americans hockey isn’t a sport on their radar, but just think about our neighbors to the North. Hockey is king in Canada, as interwoven into the country’s culture as football and baseball in the US combined. Canadian concern on this issue was brought to the forefront when the “Save Hockey, Stop Climate Change” campaign arranged for a game of hockey to be played outside a United Nations conference on climate change in Montreal in 2005.
If climate change is occurring, it will have a major impact on all winter sports not just hockey. The World Research Institute, a group focusing on impacts of climate change and promoting sustainable behaviors, went so far as to say that global warming would have a detrimental effect on the continuation of the Winter Olympics.
Even closer to home, think about how many towns across Wisconsin depend on winter sports as a large portion of the economy. Eagle River, WI claims to be the snowmobile capital of the world. The city reports that it has 500 miles of maintained trails for public use. If that town experiences a shorter winter, not even to say snowless, it reduces tourism and significantly diminishes revenues generated by local businesses.
With increased temperatures and s
horter winters we might lose many of the sports that we love. Those sports aren’t just games, they’re culture. I would hate to never have the feeling of fresh lake ice under my skates again. Will my kids one day ask me what it was like playing hockey outdoors? If global climate change continues, that might be the case.
White Nose Syndrome in Bats
Some people are afraid of bats, but I think that they’re a really cool animal. Many people might be afraid of them because they look creepy, or maybe it’s because they just don’t understand them. The reason you may not understand them is because you don’t see them very often because they sleep a lot. In fact, some bats sleep for up to 20 hours per day. Bats generally have three different roosts that they sleep in – a day roost, a night roost, and a hibernation roost. They wake up from their day roost at about dusk to feed for a while. After a couple of hours, they go to sleep in their night roost. They then wake up a couple of hours before dawn to feed once more before going back to sleep in their night roost. Once dawn comes, they fly to their day roost to sleep until night comes again. Only a single bat will occupy a day roost, but all of the bats will congregate in a night roost. This creates a little microclimate that allows the bats to stay warm. Also, bats poop near their night roosts so that there aren’t feces near their day roost for potential predators to be attracted to. They also have a hibernation roost, where they go to for the winter to sleep. Sometimes temperatures can get so cold, that the bats can become supercooled and still survive. There is a problem that has come up recently with a few other species of bats. It’s called white nose syndrome. The bats get a white fungus around their muzzle while they’re hibernating. Because people first discovered this fungus in 2006, we’re still unsure of what it does exactly. Bats usually wake up every 10 - 20 days during hibernation, but bats infected with white nose syndrome tend to wake up every 3 - 4 days. Some people think the fungus just causes the bat irritation, killing them indirectly by causing them to wake up and deplete their fat reserves. The bats end up starving to death during the winter. Bat mortality in caves and mines with white nose syndrome is about 90-100%. This fungus is only in nine states in the eastern US, but it seems to be spreading rapidly. We don’t know how this fungus is spreading, but there are theories of it being spread by bats, or even by humans inadvertently carrying cave gear from cave to cave. The fish and Wildlife Service is asking cavers to stay out of caves that are known to be affected to prevent possible spread. If white nose syndrome spreads across the country, large amounts of bats could die. Bats eat a large amount of moths, beetles, and other bugs. They’re the primary consumers of nighttime flying insects and many agricultural pests. If a large number of bats were to die, it could lead to economic damage in terms of agriculture. More research needs to be done in order to better understand this new disease.
Zoos: Beneficial or Detrimental?
My name is Natalie Quinn and I am a zookeeper at The New Zoo in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Citizens hold many different opinions about zoos. Some people say that zoos are cruel and that animals should not be contained for “recreational entertainment”. I am here to tell you the positives of zoos and how I believe the positives outweigh the negatives.
The number one beneficial aspect zoos provide is the message of conservation. Many zoos spread the conservation message by having live animal programs, pamphlets, and donation boxes. Many people know little or nothing of conservation efforts, and most zoos do a great job informing citizens about how they can help.
Zoos also provide great educational opportunities. In a classroom setting, it is hard to learn about something that you never get to see. Viewing animals up close and sometimes even meeting them in person really aids in the learning process. Many zoos also provide hands-on learning experiences, activities, and educational programs to the public.
Another important aspect (not well known to the public) of zoos is the research they participate in. Many zoos have employees out in the field collecting research. The more we know about animals and their environments, the more we can do to help (by preserving and conserving). Research can be very important and beneficial to animals and even to the human population.
In addition, some zoos have a rehabilitation license. This allows them to practice rehabilitation of animals on their premises. Rehabilitation is very valuable and beneficial to ecosystems and to species in general (especially if the population of the injured animal is low).
I understand that holding animals in captivity is a controversial issue, but zoos do their very best to provide the animals not only with necessities, but also naturalistic enclosures and great enrichment. Most zoos provide the very best care to their animals. I also understand that conducting live animal shows is another controversial topic. Many people feel the animals should not be “forced” to perform. It is true that attending a live animal show is a popular recreational activity, but most live animal shows are based on learning (in both the animal and human sense). Live animal shows are held not only to show the public the intelligence of an animal, but also to engage/involve the public. Furthermore, while most shows are taking place, a narrator/speaker informs the audience of interesting and fun facts about the animal. I believe training animals to perform keeps the animals engaged and can be a form of enrichment in their everyday lives (especially with the use of positive reinforcement). Live animal shows are a learning experience for animals as well as the public.
I will admit that some zoos of lower-quality have undesirable attributes, but the same goes for restaurants, gas stations, clinics, and even nursing homes. There will always be exceptions, but for the most part, zoos are very beneficial and crucial in the understanding of wildlife and of the animal kingdom in general.
The number one beneficial aspect zoos provide is the message of conservation. Many zoos spread the conservation message by having live animal programs, pamphlets, and donation boxes. Many people know little or nothing of conservation efforts, and most zoos do a great job informing citizens about how they can help.
Zoos also provide great educational opportunities. In a classroom setting, it is hard to learn about something that you never get to see. Viewing animals up close and sometimes even meeting them in person really aids in the learning process. Many zoos also provide hands-on learning experiences, activities, and educational programs to the public.
Another important aspect (not well known to the public) of zoos is the research they participate in. Many zoos have employees out in the field collecting research. The more we know about animals and their environments, the more we can do to help (by preserving and conserving). Research can be very important and beneficial to animals and even to the human population.
In addition, some zoos have a rehabilitation license. This allows them to practice rehabilitation of animals on their premises. Rehabilitation is very valuable and beneficial to ecosystems and to species in general (especially if the population of the injured animal is low).
I understand that holding animals in captivity is a controversial issue, but zoos do their very best to provide the animals not only with necessities, but also naturalistic enclosures and great enrichment. Most zoos provide the very best care to their animals. I also understand that conducting live animal shows is another controversial topic. Many people feel the animals should not be “forced” to perform. It is true that attending a live animal show is a popular recreational activity, but most live animal shows are based on learning (in both the animal and human sense). Live animal shows are held not only to show the public the intelligence of an animal, but also to engage/involve the public. Furthermore, while most shows are taking place, a narrator/speaker informs the audience of interesting and fun facts about the animal. I believe training animals to perform keeps the animals engaged and can be a form of enrichment in their everyday lives (especially with the use of positive reinforcement). Live animal shows are a learning experience for animals as well as the public.
I will admit that some zoos of lower-quality have undesirable attributes, but the same goes for restaurants, gas stations, clinics, and even nursing homes. There will always be exceptions, but for the most part, zoos are very beneficial and crucial in the understanding of wildlife and of the animal kingdom in general.
Give Praise, not Bad Rap
When it comes to all areas of natural resources, it seems there is nothing more complained or criticized about than how conservation game wardens ruin outdoor recreation experiences, specifically for hunters, fishers, trappers, snowmobilers, and ATVers. I have never heard someone having a positive experience with a game warden, only negative experiences. This may be because a person is more likely to tell many others about a negative experience with something, while they will tell very few others about a positive experience with something. In many cases it goes beyond just telling about a negative experience however, it seems many people try to give wardens a bad rap and even try to damage their reputation. What is the reasoning for this, should conservation game wardens be treated this way?
I have personally encountered a game warden twice while participating in outdoor recreation activities. Once while fishing and once while hunting. Neither one of these encounters was negative for me. The game wardens were just doing their job making contacts with the public that is using the state’s natural resources. My encounters with the wardens did not last longer than ten minutes each and I felt grateful after the contact that they were out protecting the state’s natural resources.
There are several reasons why the public may interpret their encounter wardens to be negative. One may be that the wardens are wasting their time that they could be spending hunting the trophy buck or monster musky. In reality the wardens don’t spend much time making the contact at all and they have plenty time to chase after their trophy game. Another reason is that the wardens are out to get everyone for some type of violation and slap a hefty fine on them. Wardens are out there to protect our natural resources and if the public is not violating any rules, which they should not be, they have nothing to worry about getting a fine. Just the thought that someone is out there watching you to make sure you are obeying the rules can give someone a negative attitude toward wardens as well.
What wardens do by protecting what we have left of our sacred waters, soils, plants, and wildlife far outweigh any reason to be negative toward a game warden. They are out putting their life on the line at times to stop the exploitation of what belongs to the public. Every walleye, grouse, or other species that has been poached in the wild was stolen from the public. Every species in the wild belongs to the public. Without wardens protecting natural resources that belong to the public, the public would not have any natural resources to recreate with.
This is why I am thankful there are brave law enforcement wardens so I can enjoy the outdoors and future generations can have the same opportunities I have had. The next time you encounter a game warden in the wild don’t think of the negative associated with them, give them praise for protecting what you love.
I have personally encountered a game warden twice while participating in outdoor recreation activities. Once while fishing and once while hunting. Neither one of these encounters was negative for me. The game wardens were just doing their job making contacts with the public that is using the state’s natural resources. My encounters with the wardens did not last longer than ten minutes each and I felt grateful after the contact that they were out protecting the state’s natural resources.
There are several reasons why the public may interpret their encounter wardens to be negative. One may be that the wardens are wasting their time that they could be spending hunting the trophy buck or monster musky. In reality the wardens don’t spend much time making the contact at all and they have plenty time to chase after their trophy game. Another reason is that the wardens are out to get everyone for some type of violation and slap a hefty fine on them. Wardens are out there to protect our natural resources and if the public is not violating any rules, which they should not be, they have nothing to worry about getting a fine. Just the thought that someone is out there watching you to make sure you are obeying the rules can give someone a negative attitude toward wardens as well.
What wardens do by protecting what we have left of our sacred waters, soils, plants, and wildlife far outweigh any reason to be negative toward a game warden. They are out putting their life on the line at times to stop the exploitation of what belongs to the public. Every walleye, grouse, or other species that has been poached in the wild was stolen from the public. Every species in the wild belongs to the public. Without wardens protecting natural resources that belong to the public, the public would not have any natural resources to recreate with.
This is why I am thankful there are brave law enforcement wardens so I can enjoy the outdoors and future generations can have the same opportunities I have had. The next time you encounter a game warden in the wild don’t think of the negative associated with them, give them praise for protecting what you love.
Communities and Gardens Growing Together
Community gardens are becoming more popular throughout Wood County and Wisconsin. With help from the Wood County Health Department’s “Get Active” campaign and the Central Wisconsin Resiliency Project, over 20 garden sites were planted in Wood County schools and communities during the 2011 growing season. Community gardens bring a lot more than fresh produce to the table. They bring people and communities together. People who use community gardens sometimes do not have appropriate space for a garden where they live or do not know how to start one. Community gardens can also be a good investment. The average gardener spends about 70 dollars to start a new garden and reaps an average savings of 600 dollars in fresh produce during a season. The benefits of community gardens far surpass the startup costs (USAA Magazine 2011).
Teachers and staff at Howe Elementary school in Wisconsin Rapids noticed the benefits of community gardens and built four raised beds at Howe school in 2010. After a successful first gardening season the garden needed to be expanded. During the 2011 growing season Howe school added ten raised garden beds, a 150 gallon rain water collection system, and an outdoor learning space to their school garden. With help from the Wood County Health Department’s “Get Active” campaign and Woodlands church, Howe Elementary school was able to add ten raised beds to the four garden beds they used during the previous gardening season. Woodlands church donated all of the garden building supplies with help from Home Depot. Forty members of the church congregation built ten garden beds, a rain barrel system, and an outdoor learning space during their annual spring into action service day.
The ten additional garden beds have allowed more people from the Wisconsin Rapids community to get involved in gardening. Families from Howe school have adopted the gardens and take care of them during the summer months until school begins in the fall. The gardens will serve as an outdoor learning space during the school year. School gardens provide an excellent opportunity for students to learn about the environment, small scale agriculture, food preparation, photosynthesis, and the cell cycle. The gardens also serve as an avenue for children to experiment with new food and eat fresh nutritious produce.
Throughout the summer 50-60 raised garden beds were built and planted in Wood County. Garden locations outside of Wisconsin Rapids included: Pittsville, Vesper, Nekoosa, Auburndale, Marshfield, and Port Edwards. Pittsville also received a brand new greenhouse with help from the Wood County Health Department and Future Farmers of America (FFA). These gardens and greenhouses have the potential to impact several hundred elementary, middle, and high school students as well as many low income families. Several of the community gardens planted will donate surplus produce to food pantries throughout the county. Many of the school gardens used vegetables grown in them for healthy snacks in the classroom. Several schools started to supplement the school lunch program's salad bar with vegetables grown from the gardens and greenhouses. Auburndale High School is currently supplementing their lunch program with fresh lettuce from the greenhouse. A hydroponic system is being installed which will increase production of fresh lettuce and tomatoes for the lunch line. It will be exciting to see the progress the schools and communities of Wood County make during the 2012 growing season toward their goal of healthy school lunches and the ultimate goal of decreasing obesity in school-aged children.
Works Cited:
Usaa Magazine. "Turn Finds into Cash." Https://www.usaa.com. 25 May 2011. Web. 02 Nov. 2011..
Teachers and staff at Howe Elementary school in Wisconsin Rapids noticed the benefits of community gardens and built four raised beds at Howe school in 2010. After a successful first gardening season the garden needed to be expanded. During the 2011 growing season Howe school added ten raised garden beds, a 150 gallon rain water collection system, and an outdoor learning space to their school garden. With help from the Wood County Health Department’s “Get Active” campaign and Woodlands church, Howe Elementary school was able to add ten raised beds to the four garden beds they used during the previous gardening season. Woodlands church donated all of the garden building supplies with help from Home Depot. Forty members of the church congregation built ten garden beds, a rain barrel system, and an outdoor learning space during their annual spring into action service day.
The ten additional garden beds have allowed more people from the Wisconsin Rapids community to get involved in gardening. Families from Howe school have adopted the gardens and take care of them during the summer months until school begins in the fall. The gardens will serve as an outdoor learning space during the school year. School gardens provide an excellent opportunity for students to learn about the environment, small scale agriculture, food preparation, photosynthesis, and the cell cycle. The gardens also serve as an avenue for children to experiment with new food and eat fresh nutritious produce.
Throughout the summer 50-60 raised garden beds were built and planted in Wood County. Garden locations outside of Wisconsin Rapids included: Pittsville, Vesper, Nekoosa, Auburndale, Marshfield, and Port Edwards. Pittsville also received a brand new greenhouse with help from the Wood County Health Department and Future Farmers of America (FFA). These gardens and greenhouses have the potential to impact several hundred elementary, middle, and high school students as well as many low income families. Several of the community gardens planted will donate surplus produce to food pantries throughout the county. Many of the school gardens used vegetables grown in them for healthy snacks in the classroom. Several schools started to supplement the school lunch program's salad bar with vegetables grown from the gardens and greenhouses. Auburndale High School is currently supplementing their lunch program with fresh lettuce from the greenhouse. A hydroponic system is being installed which will increase production of fresh lettuce and tomatoes for the lunch line. It will be exciting to see the progress the schools and communities of Wood County make during the 2012 growing season toward their goal of healthy school lunches and the ultimate goal of decreasing obesity in school-aged children.
Works Cited:
Usaa Magazine. "Turn Finds into Cash." Https://www.usaa.com. 25 May 2011. Web. 02 Nov. 2011.
Factory Farms: A Food System to Fear
Whether carnivore or herbivore, we should all be concerned with the negative implications of our modern industrial food system. Factory farming is responsible for diverse and far spread destruction. For many people like myself, the only solution is to abstain from consuming all animal by-products; refusing to support an industry that has no remorse for its actions. Even if you are not able to sympathize with the animals involved, you should consider the effects industrial farming has on natural resources and public health.
Animals in factory farms live and die in terror. Even though laws have been passed to improve the conditions of these sentient beings, their treatment is far from from humane. A few states have recently passed laws to banish the cruel practice of keep pigs in gestation crates; confinements so small that they can not even turn around. It was also decided that battery cages will be outlawed in the European Union after 2012 and California will now follow suit in 2015 (Pacelle 2011). Chickens in these metal cages have their beaks cut off, are repeatedly starved, and do not even have enough room to stand up (Pacelle 2011). It has given me a sense of hope that people like the citizens of California are demanding that this cruel behavior be stopped. Factory farming not only neglects and tortures sentient beings, it also passes external costs and consequences onto people and the environment.
Animal waste releases toxins into our air and water including nitrates, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and dangerous gases (Natural Resources Defense Council 2005). Human health is at risk due to this constant pollution. Contaminated drinking water not only causes sedimentation, fish death and the over growth of algae, but also has effects such as blue baby syndrome (NRDC 2005). In the past disease outbreaks have also been linked to animal waste (NRDC 2005). Filthy conditions and overcrowding on farms have also made it easier for bacteria to enter the food supply. Clearly, many changes need to take place to restructure the food system.
Action groups have been struggling to successfully challenge policies regarding intensive livestock farming even though there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the threats of this practice. Unfortunately, many of the individuals in decision-making positions are past or present affiliates of the livestock industry, thus lacking the incentive to do what is right for the animals, the environment, and the people (Pacelle 2011). Strong opposition is necessary to weaken these massive operations.
The most far-reaching and effective method of undermining large-scale agricultural production is to adhere to a plant-based diet. Since not every individual will consider this as an option, it is important to make sure that we are making responsible decisions as consumers. I feel that some of the most important initiatives include: supporting legislation that will regulate the industry, holding corporations involved responsible for their actions ,and purchasing locally from responsible farmers. Spreading knowledge and creating awareness is integral since it is hard for many people to envision the actual costs and consequences of these confined operations on our society. I feel that every individual has a responsibility and the ability to minimize the future consequences of factory farming through their own personal choices.
Works cited:
“Pollution from Giant Livestock Farms Threatens Public Health.” NRDC.org. Natural Resources Defense Council, 15 July 2005. Web. Nov 4 2011.
Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond: Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them. New York: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.
Animals in factory farms live and die in terror. Even though laws have been passed to improve the conditions of these sentient beings, their treatment is far from from humane. A few states have recently passed laws to banish the cruel practice of keep pigs in gestation crates; confinements so small that they can not even turn around. It was also decided that battery cages will be outlawed in the European Union after 2012 and California will now follow suit in 2015 (Pacelle 2011). Chickens in these metal cages have their beaks cut off, are repeatedly starved, and do not even have enough room to stand up (Pacelle 2011). It has given me a sense of hope that people like the citizens of California are demanding that this cruel behavior be stopped. Factory farming not only neglects and tortures sentient beings, it also passes external costs and consequences onto people and the environment.
Animal waste releases toxins into our air and water including nitrates, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and dangerous gases (Natural Resources Defense Council 2005). Human health is at risk due to this constant pollution. Contaminated drinking water not only causes sedimentation, fish death and the over growth of algae, but also has effects such as blue baby syndrome (NRDC 2005). In the past disease outbreaks have also been linked to animal waste (NRDC 2005). Filthy conditions and overcrowding on farms have also made it easier for bacteria to enter the food supply. Clearly, many changes need to take place to restructure the food system.
Action groups have been struggling to successfully challenge policies regarding intensive livestock farming even though there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the threats of this practice. Unfortunately, many of the individuals in decision-making positions are past or present affiliates of the livestock industry, thus lacking the incentive to do what is right for the animals, the environment, and the people (Pacelle 2011). Strong opposition is necessary to weaken these massive operations.
The most far-reaching and effective method of undermining large-scale agricultural production is to adhere to a plant-based diet. Since not every individual will consider this as an option, it is important to make sure that we are making responsible decisions as consumers. I feel that some of the most important initiatives include: supporting legislation that will regulate the industry, holding corporations involved responsible for their actions ,and purchasing locally from responsible farmers. Spreading knowledge and creating awareness is integral since it is hard for many people to envision the actual costs and consequences of these confined operations on our society. I feel that every individual has a responsibility and the ability to minimize the future consequences of factory farming through their own personal choices.
Works cited:
“Pollution from Giant Livestock Farms Threatens Public Health.” NRDC.org. Natural Resources Defense Council, 15 July 2005. Web. Nov 4 2011.
Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond: Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them. New York: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.
Sandhill Crane Hunting in Wisconsin
It is currently illegal to hunt Sandhill Cranes in the State of Wisconsin. This has been a hot topic and an issue of great debate over the last few years. Many are pushing for a reversal on this law, opening a season that allows the harvest of Sandhill Cranes. I personally agree with this and believe that it is time to open the cranes to hunting.
Sandhills were originally closed to hunting around the country because of dwindling numbers due to over harvest. The birds were market hunted along with other species of cranes for their meat as well as their beautiful feathers. In western states that currently allow hunting the birds are known as the “rib eye of the sky”, due to the delightful flavor of their meat. The cranes were over hunted to extremely low numbers in the early 1900’s. With good reason, regulations where put in place to save the species and protect them from extinction.
Today, the birds have made an astonishing come back, thanks to organizations such as the International Crane Foundation based in Baraboo Wisconsin. The ICF has worked hard to restore the population of Sandhill and other cranes throughout the country. According to the ICF the current population of Sandhills is approximately 650,000 birds. With the increased health of the Sandhill population, many states (mostly western) have opened seasons for hunting the birds.
The population of Sandhills has rebounded in Wisconsin as it has in other states, yet we cannot harvest them. There is no longer a solid argument as to why individuals should not be able to harvest Sandhills in Wisconsin. We finally have a healthy population, possibly overpopulated in certain areas of the state, but still we drag our feet on the issue. I can appreciate that many people enjoy the aesthetic value of the birds and enjoy viewing them, and a hunting season for the birds would not intrude on those viewing opportunities. Many hunters and landowners would like to harvest the birds simply because they are annoying. I hear this all the time, and it is not a legitimate reason for hunting cranes, but there are some good ones.
Sandhill cranes cause significant damage to crops such as corn and other grains, creating an economic loss for farmers. The birds main source of food is grains, which leads them to farm fields for an easy meal. While it is possible that the population will level off naturally, we currently have no method of controlling the increasing population of Sandhill cranes in Wisconsin. As with other animals, hunters are one of the most effective methods of population control. Hunting of Sandhill Cranes could also bring in more revenue for the DNR and other conservation agencies that work to manage the cranes and other wildlife. The sale of a permit for Sandhill hunting would provide funding to further protect Crane habitat and conservation. Hunting Sandhill cranes is also fun. It is another type of hunting that provides new recreation opportunities. Finally, let’s not forget that they taste great. I have not personally tried Sandhill Crane, but it had to get it’s nickname somehow (“rib eye of the sky”).
Now I am definitely not advocating an all out war on the cranes as some may suggest, even though they are very loud, obnoxious and can cause significant damage to crop fields. But I do think that it is time to introduce a well managed hunting season for Sandhill Cranes. Even the ICF which is one of the main organizations that made the population of cranes what it is today, is not against the hunting of cranes. So why are Sandhills still closed to hunting in Wisconsin?
Much of this information was obtained through “Should Wisconsin allow a hunting season for sandhill cranes?” by: Scott Stankowski.
Sandhills were originally closed to hunting around the country because of dwindling numbers due to over harvest. The birds were market hunted along with other species of cranes for their meat as well as their beautiful feathers. In western states that currently allow hunting the birds are known as the “rib eye of the sky”, due to the delightful flavor of their meat. The cranes were over hunted to extremely low numbers in the early 1900’s. With good reason, regulations where put in place to save the species and protect them from extinction.
Today, the birds have made an astonishing come back, thanks to organizations such as the International Crane Foundation based in Baraboo Wisconsin. The ICF has worked hard to restore the population of Sandhill and other cranes throughout the country. According to the ICF the current population of Sandhills is approximately 650,000 birds. With the increased health of the Sandhill population, many states (mostly western) have opened seasons for hunting the birds.
The population of Sandhills has rebounded in Wisconsin as it has in other states, yet we cannot harvest them. There is no longer a solid argument as to why individuals should not be able to harvest Sandhills in Wisconsin. We finally have a healthy population, possibly overpopulated in certain areas of the state, but still we drag our feet on the issue. I can appreciate that many people enjoy the aesthetic value of the birds and enjoy viewing them, and a hunting season for the birds would not intrude on those viewing opportunities. Many hunters and landowners would like to harvest the birds simply because they are annoying. I hear this all the time, and it is not a legitimate reason for hunting cranes, but there are some good ones.
Sandhill cranes cause significant damage to crops such as corn and other grains, creating an economic loss for farmers. The birds main source of food is grains, which leads them to farm fields for an easy meal. While it is possible that the population will level off naturally, we currently have no method of controlling the increasing population of Sandhill cranes in Wisconsin. As with other animals, hunters are one of the most effective methods of population control. Hunting of Sandhill Cranes could also bring in more revenue for the DNR and other conservation agencies that work to manage the cranes and other wildlife. The sale of a permit for Sandhill hunting would provide funding to further protect Crane habitat and conservation. Hunting Sandhill cranes is also fun. It is another type of hunting that provides new recreation opportunities. Finally, let’s not forget that they taste great. I have not personally tried Sandhill Crane, but it had to get it’s nickname somehow (“rib eye of the sky”).
Now I am definitely not advocating an all out war on the cranes as some may suggest, even though they are very loud, obnoxious and can cause significant damage to crop fields. But I do think that it is time to introduce a well managed hunting season for Sandhill Cranes. Even the ICF which is one of the main organizations that made the population of cranes what it is today, is not against the hunting of cranes. So why are Sandhills still closed to hunting in Wisconsin?
Much of this information was obtained through “Should Wisconsin allow a hunting season for sandhill cranes?” by: Scott Stankowski.
Set Street Trees Free
For thousands of years people have been removing trees from their natural environment and placing them in urban settings. These street trees are very important and play many roles. Urban trees do many things for us. They provide shade for pedestrians, parked cars, and homes. These trees are very important wind breakers and also have been integrated into the storm water management plan. Finally one another main reason we have street trees is to add aesthetics and beauty to the urban environment. Having beautiful trees in your yard can increase the value of your home substantially. In order for our urban trees to grow and fulfill our expectations of them, they must be properly cared for. There are many things in the urban environment that are currently putting these trees at risk. And most of these things can be corrected and avoided in the future.
Let’s start at the roots and work our way up to discover how we can better help these majestic plants. Most tree problems occur in the roots. This is mainly result of being overlooked. Urban soils are often compacted, have a highly basic pH, and lack many essential nutrients. The urban environment is full of impermeable surfaces such as sidewalks, roads, and buildings. All of these things limit the health and vigor of trees. In the future, we should plan for trees by using floating sidewalks and less sensitive tree species to be planted by our roads.
The trunks of street trees are where a lot of problems occur and become noticed. Here it is hard to find a tree that doesn’t have some sort of decayed wood or included bark. Most of the damage done to trees in this area is a result of construction damage, weed whips, chaining bikes to trees, and other human inflicted wounds. Tree trunks can be preserved by using an environmentally friendly weed-whip protective sleeve and by encouraging proper treatment of these tree specimens. People need to stop chaining bikes and hanging garage sale signs from trees- the result is a weaker and more stressed tree that will not grow as vigorous or live as long.
The canopy or crown of street trees are frequently appreciated and admired for their aesthetic beauty. This is the part of the tree that most people notice as they are passing through a town or out walking the family dog. Many street trees that have some abnormality in the crown of the tree are called in to a city forester to be taken care of. The problem with entering a tree and removing limbs and defects is that many don’t know the proper way to prune a tree. The science of keeping a tree in good condition is an art that is constantly changing. The best way to ensure an urban tree will be correctly pruned and cared for is by hiring certified arborists with multiple years of experience. Certified arborists are passionate about their job, safe, and good at what they do. So, save our street trees. Set them free and let a professional help guide them to a long and beautiful life!
Let’s start at the roots and work our way up to discover how we can better help these majestic plants. Most tree problems occur in the roots. This is mainly result of being overlooked. Urban soils are often compacted, have a highly basic pH, and lack many essential nutrients. The urban environment is full of impermeable surfaces such as sidewalks, roads, and buildings. All of these things limit the health and vigor of trees. In the future, we should plan for trees by using floating sidewalks and less sensitive tree species to be planted by our roads.
The trunks of street trees are where a lot of problems occur and become noticed. Here it is hard to find a tree that doesn’t have some sort of decayed wood or included bark. Most of the damage done to trees in this area is a result of construction damage, weed whips, chaining bikes to trees, and other human inflicted wounds. Tree trunks can be preserved by using an environmentally friendly weed-whip protective sleeve and by encouraging proper treatment of these tree specimens. People need to stop chaining bikes and hanging garage sale signs from trees- the result is a weaker and more stressed tree that will not grow as vigorous or live as long.
The canopy or crown of street trees are frequently appreciated and admired for their aesthetic beauty. This is the part of the tree that most people notice as they are passing through a town or out walking the family dog. Many street trees that have some abnormality in the crown of the tree are called in to a city forester to be taken care of. The problem with entering a tree and removing limbs and defects is that many don’t know the proper way to prune a tree. The science of keeping a tree in good condition is an art that is constantly changing. The best way to ensure an urban tree will be correctly pruned and cared for is by hiring certified arborists with multiple years of experience. Certified arborists are passionate about their job, safe, and good at what they do. So, save our street trees. Set them free and let a professional help guide them to a long and beautiful life!
The Golden Hour Rule…… It Doesn’t Always Work In Wildland Fire
In EMS the Golden rule is the first sixty minutes after a major trauma. The concept is basically that if the injured patient can be treated within the first sixty minutes of a traumatic injury the chances of survival are increased. This concept is a term coined from the Vietnam War. This term became a very heated topic for the fire service during the fire season of 2008 when Andrew Palmer, a first season firefighter for Olympic National Park was killed in tree felling operations on the Eagle Fire in the Shasta Trinity National Forest. This fatality incident is best known as the Dutch Creek Incident to those involved in fire suppression. This is where the Golden hour rule comes into play. Instead of the sixty minutes it should have took for Palmer to receive treatment for major traumatic injuries to his leg from a tree falling on him it took three hours and twenty minutes, subsequently leading to Andy’s death from a loss of blood. After Andrew death his brother, Robert Palmer, also a wildland firefighter, released a paper basically saying that we as firefighters should not engage completely until an EVAC, emergency evacuation can be complemented.
There are a lot of problems with this though. If you have ever had any experience with fighting wildfires you know as well as I do that this rule can’t always be implemented. We as firefighters battle blazes in all different types of terrain, at different times of day, and in very adverse and sometimes dangerous weather conditions. We can be a few yards off the road fighting a grass fire in a ditch or ten miles from the nearest road in high winds or low visibility and two hours from the nearest hospital at times. These conditions to me make the golden hour rule null, even if you have a ship, “helicopter”, capable for EVAC at that said hospital.
In the Dutch Creek Incident there was heavy smoke over the area making it impossible and even more dangerous to not only the firefighters on the ground but also the crew of the ship if it went down. Yes, we can cut a helispot if needed, yes we could have an EMT on the fire but this still doesn’t matter. When it comes to major injuries a lot of times you don’t even have an hour, you have minutes. If the femoral artery in the leg is severed you may only have minutes. Even still if you get the patient stabilized enough for transport can the transport get there, or do you have enough people to sufficiently do a carry out operation?
What I am basically getting at is that we can’t always take the “Golden Rule” into effect. We know the job we signed up to do, and we know that fighting fire is adherently dangerous. What it really comes down to is the fact we still have to do our job knowing that it could be our last roll. We have the right to refuse risk and nobody can knock us for that. We have SA, “Situational Awareness”, another term coined from the military. Regardless of these and other abatement actions accidents still happen and will always happen in this line of work. We can’t stop doing our job, to meet the “Golden Rule”.
Mr. Palmer’s death saddened all the members of the fire community, especially me since he was a fellow National Park Service ground pounder when it happened, but we can’t stop doing our job just because we can’t provide for this rule. We have an obligation to save lives, lively hood, and our nations beautiful places regardless of knowing this fire could be our last.
There are a lot of problems with this though. If you have ever had any experience with fighting wildfires you know as well as I do that this rule can’t always be implemented. We as firefighters battle blazes in all different types of terrain, at different times of day, and in very adverse and sometimes dangerous weather conditions. We can be a few yards off the road fighting a grass fire in a ditch or ten miles from the nearest road in high winds or low visibility and two hours from the nearest hospital at times. These conditions to me make the golden hour rule null, even if you have a ship, “helicopter”, capable for EVAC at that said hospital.
In the Dutch Creek Incident there was heavy smoke over the area making it impossible and even more dangerous to not only the firefighters on the ground but also the crew of the ship if it went down. Yes, we can cut a helispot if needed, yes we could have an EMT on the fire but this still doesn’t matter. When it comes to major injuries a lot of times you don’t even have an hour, you have minutes. If the femoral artery in the leg is severed you may only have minutes. Even still if you get the patient stabilized enough for transport can the transport get there, or do you have enough people to sufficiently do a carry out operation?
What I am basically getting at is that we can’t always take the “Golden Rule” into effect. We know the job we signed up to do, and we know that fighting fire is adherently dangerous. What it really comes down to is the fact we still have to do our job knowing that it could be our last roll. We have the right to refuse risk and nobody can knock us for that. We have SA, “Situational Awareness”, another term coined from the military. Regardless of these and other abatement actions accidents still happen and will always happen in this line of work. We can’t stop doing our job, to meet the “Golden Rule”.
Mr. Palmer’s death saddened all the members of the fire community, especially me since he was a fellow National Park Service ground pounder when it happened, but we can’t stop doing our job just because we can’t provide for this rule. We have an obligation to save lives, lively hood, and our nations beautiful places regardless of knowing this fire could be our last.
Duck Identification – The “Unseen” Problem
It was one of those days that duck hunters dream of. Ducks were thick in the air, and were decoying with reckless abandon. As flock after flock of mallards came in, I picked out the drakes in each flock. With 4 well placed shots and 3 shots that didn’t find the mark I filled my four bird mallard limit. I watched as flock after flock of birds were shot at around me. Many birds were killed but one comment rang true around that marsh, “Not another hen!”
Wisconsin (along with a few other states) has a limit of one hen mallard per day per hunter. Simply put there is no other species that you are expected to distinguish between drake and hen. This means people are expected each time they step in the marsh, to not only distinguish between drake and hen, but also, take careful aim when duck hunting as to not shoot over your limit of hens.
This, however, is sadly not the case. Many hunters simply do not know how or simply do not care about harvesting more than their one allowed daily. Many of these hunters would rather simply stomp or bury their hens in the mud so they are not counted against their daily limit. These hunters simply have no respect for the resource and unfortunately distinguishing between hen and drake mallards is not the end. Many hunters cannot distinguish between species which inhabit the flyways they hunt. In much the same way that hunters harvest more than their limits of hen mallards they have the potential to go over their species limits as well. These cases are often much more extreme as species that have lower limits are often species that are not doing as well.
The identification problem is more of an issue in northern states. In these states in the early season ducks are often still in eclipse plumage and are all “brown”. Colors normally seen in the birds in breeding plumage are completely non-existent. To make identification easier, hunters should attempt to get birds to decoy closer. They should also spend more time in the marsh in the spring simply watching birds and learning to identify ducks by flight patterns and general shape. These things when combined will greatly reduce the chance that birds are misidentified.
In the end, these cases of misidentification are one of two things, either blatant disrespect for the laws which everyone is expected to abide by, or ignorance. Both of these things are unacceptable. Not only do these individuals not respect the birds they are pursuing, but they also do not respect the other hunters and birders that also enjoy hunting and viewing ducks.
I believe the DNR needs to begin to emphasize identification of individual duck species and differentiation between drakes and hens of these species. Enforcement at boat launches and parking areas frequented by duck hunters should also increase. Classes should be offered that help educate hunters on proper identification.
I think it is important for people to understand that duck identification is an issue but the responsibility of the hunters to make the effort to educate themselves on how to identify what they are shooting at.
Wisconsin (along with a few other states) has a limit of one hen mallard per day per hunter. Simply put there is no other species that you are expected to distinguish between drake and hen. This means people are expected each time they step in the marsh, to not only distinguish between drake and hen, but also, take careful aim when duck hunting as to not shoot over your limit of hens.
This, however, is sadly not the case. Many hunters simply do not know how or simply do not care about harvesting more than their one allowed daily. Many of these hunters would rather simply stomp or bury their hens in the mud so they are not counted against their daily limit. These hunters simply have no respect for the resource and unfortunately distinguishing between hen and drake mallards is not the end. Many hunters cannot distinguish between species which inhabit the flyways they hunt. In much the same way that hunters harvest more than their limits of hen mallards they have the potential to go over their species limits as well. These cases are often much more extreme as species that have lower limits are often species that are not doing as well.
The identification problem is more of an issue in northern states. In these states in the early season ducks are often still in eclipse plumage and are all “brown”. Colors normally seen in the birds in breeding plumage are completely non-existent. To make identification easier, hunters should attempt to get birds to decoy closer. They should also spend more time in the marsh in the spring simply watching birds and learning to identify ducks by flight patterns and general shape. These things when combined will greatly reduce the chance that birds are misidentified.
In the end, these cases of misidentification are one of two things, either blatant disrespect for the laws which everyone is expected to abide by, or ignorance. Both of these things are unacceptable. Not only do these individuals not respect the birds they are pursuing, but they also do not respect the other hunters and birders that also enjoy hunting and viewing ducks.
I believe the DNR needs to begin to emphasize identification of individual duck species and differentiation between drakes and hens of these species. Enforcement at boat launches and parking areas frequented by duck hunters should also increase. Classes should be offered that help educate hunters on proper identification.
I think it is important for people to understand that duck identification is an issue but the responsibility of the hunters to make the effort to educate themselves on how to identify what they are shooting at.
Invasive Species
I would like to talk about the problem of invasive species. As humans have spread across the world they have brought many animals and plants with them. Some of these are basically harmless like the pheasant and dandelion. At the same time there are some that are extremely detrimental to the native ecosystems.
These invasive species usually do so well because they have high reproductive rates and short generation times. Also they have high dispersal rates, are habitat generalists, and have a broad diet. They also do really well living around humans. The community they come into also has a lot to do with how well they invade it. If they invade an area where they have no predators, or the prey has never had a predator that was similar, their populations will explode. Also it helps if the area they invade is similar to their native habitat and has a low diversity of native species.
The reasons invasive species become so bad is because nobody realizes it’s a problem until it is too late. When they are first introduced into and area they are at very low numbers and do not cause much damage. Then they start to increase a little more and a little more and that is when you have to put a stop to them. Because after that they explode and become so wide spread it is extremely difficult to control or get rid of them.
The two main invasive species I have a problem with are feral cats and feral hogs. These are two species that we bought over as pets and farm animals. Because of lack of effort on our part they are now a devastating problem in our native forests. Cats are extremely good predators and can destroy many of the song bird populations, they also spread diseases. Feral hogs destroy crop land and rip up soil causing erosion. They also out compete the deer for food.
These two animals are well adapted to be invasive, but it is also our fault. I think the main reasons they have become so bad is because we let them. Many people let their cats roam free and un- fixed. Also many people in the south keep their feral hog populations around because they like to hunt them.
There are ways to control and prevent the spread of these species we just need to take the initiative to do it. A very simple way to stop the cats is to have your pet spayed or neutered. Also keep your cat inside or fed so they do not need to hunt native species. I also think that we could put a serious dent in both of these species if the DNR would let people shoot feral cats and hogs on sight without special permits or tags. Another way I think would be a great way would be to put a bounty on these animals. This way more people have an incentive to kill them. Also instead of spending government money on projects that might not work you just pay a person ten bucks when they bring in the hide of the animal. I think this would be a good way to do it because it would be cheaper and it has been proven to work in the past. We completely eradicated the passenger pigeon and the American Bison by having a bounty on them, and their numbers were much higher than feral cats and hogs.
References:
Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, C.Ronald. Carroll.” Principles of Conservation Biology.” Third Edition. 2006. Sinauer Associates, Inc. p. 294-331
These invasive species usually do so well because they have high reproductive rates and short generation times. Also they have high dispersal rates, are habitat generalists, and have a broad diet. They also do really well living around humans. The community they come into also has a lot to do with how well they invade it. If they invade an area where they have no predators, or the prey has never had a predator that was similar, their populations will explode. Also it helps if the area they invade is similar to their native habitat and has a low diversity of native species.
The reasons invasive species become so bad is because nobody realizes it’s a problem until it is too late. When they are first introduced into and area they are at very low numbers and do not cause much damage. Then they start to increase a little more and a little more and that is when you have to put a stop to them. Because after that they explode and become so wide spread it is extremely difficult to control or get rid of them.
The two main invasive species I have a problem with are feral cats and feral hogs. These are two species that we bought over as pets and farm animals. Because of lack of effort on our part they are now a devastating problem in our native forests. Cats are extremely good predators and can destroy many of the song bird populations, they also spread diseases. Feral hogs destroy crop land and rip up soil causing erosion. They also out compete the deer for food.
These two animals are well adapted to be invasive, but it is also our fault. I think the main reasons they have become so bad is because we let them. Many people let their cats roam free and un- fixed. Also many people in the south keep their feral hog populations around because they like to hunt them.
There are ways to control and prevent the spread of these species we just need to take the initiative to do it. A very simple way to stop the cats is to have your pet spayed or neutered. Also keep your cat inside or fed so they do not need to hunt native species. I also think that we could put a serious dent in both of these species if the DNR would let people shoot feral cats and hogs on sight without special permits or tags. Another way I think would be a great way would be to put a bounty on these animals. This way more people have an incentive to kill them. Also instead of spending government money on projects that might not work you just pay a person ten bucks when they bring in the hide of the animal. I think this would be a good way to do it because it would be cheaper and it has been proven to work in the past. We completely eradicated the passenger pigeon and the American Bison by having a bounty on them, and their numbers were much higher than feral cats and hogs.
References:
Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, C.Ronald. Carroll.” Principles of Conservation Biology.” Third Edition. 2006. Sinauer Associates, Inc. p. 294-331
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)