Last season, Joanne called Wildlife Watch to ask for help for a mother deer and her triplets. There really was nothing for Joanne to do, the fawns and doe were doing just fine, thank you.
We asked Joanne to take a photo for our newsletter. Here are the babies! We didn’t have a chance to publish this, so we are doing so now. These babies would be yearlings now. Wildlife Watch wishes them well. When Joanne emailed, she wrote that she was happy they could enjoy her hostas.
LEE MATHESON sadly passed away January 13, 2017. Lee was one of the most responsive and best wildlife rehabilitators in the Mid-Hudson Valley of NYS.
Lee never turned down a wild animal in need. We first met Lee shortly after relocating to Ulster County, NY. We needed to find someone who knew how to help a fawn and someone recommended Lee Matheson. Lee immediately took him, telling us he would be fine.
After that time, Lee took in so many more injured and orphaned animals. We always knew we could count on her.
Lee will be greatly missed by Wildlife Watch, and by the many people and animals she helped over the years.
Preston Friedman, a member of Wildlife Watch and a friend of Lee’s wrote:…”Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I thought you would want to know of the passing of a fine woman and great animal lover, Lee Matheson. I know that Lee is in paradise, where she rightly belongs.”
Wildlife Watch knows that, too!
Karen Schumaker is one of those rare individuals who lives simply in nature and cares for all of the wild animals she encounters. She is the founder of the Newhaven Private Wildlife Sanctuary in Idaho.
Karen writes both technically and poetically about wild animals and her sensitive interaction with them.
At one time or another, I’m sure our readers have all had the experience of trying to get an insect to safety. In the current issue of Newhaven News, Karen describes her attempt to rescue a bee:
Laundry is a hand-pumping operation, usually done in a 5-gallon bucket at times when midday heat makes it a pleasantly cooling job. I’d just stuck my arm into the soapy wash water when one of our gorgeous bumblebees tumbled in. He was lucky I was right there to scoop him out almost instantaneously, saying alound, ‘You’re ok, don’t be afraid.’ His wings and splendid yellow fur with its orange rump band were completely flattened, drenched. His movements, initially a vigorous protest, turned shocked and feeble. I debated a quick dip in the rinse, but we use earth-friendly soap, and another dunk might kill him. He couldn’t manage to cling to a flat-topped yarrow, so I set him on the metal lid of the ash bin in the warm sun. Then, fearing it would burn him, I coaxed him up off the hot metal, explaining, ‘Climb up onto my toothbrush, that’s what it’s good for.’ He spent about 20 minutes there, resting. Gradually recovering movement in his cold legs, he groomed his fur as it dried. At Newhaven, as everywhere, bee populations are down from neonic pesticide-induced disease. We don’t use pesticides of course, but bees travel long distances. With the neonics scare, we’re trying more than ever to protect our insects both in diversity and numbers.
Orange rump made a tentative, premature attempt to fly. He stumbled, discouraged and bewildered, onto the metal. I helped him back onto the brush. After a few more minutes, he again reflexively tried to fly. This time he made it and you could tell he was surprised as he joyously flew away.
------------------------
To learn more about Karen Schumaker’s work, contact her at Newhaven Private Wildlife Sanctuary P.O. Box 217, Deary, ID 83823
Meet the “fearsome” bobcat named Preston.
They say: Preston’s such a laid-back guy. Not much bothers him. Preston is one of several animal ambassadors who live at AFAS. “Preston loves the attention of having his picture taken almost as much as he loves his little playhouse.”
Visit: http://www.afasrehab.org/
THE MARCH FOR SCIENCE
As President Trump would like to cut billions from the EPA and National Institutes of Health in order to increase military spending, there was an outcry from scientists and their friends. It manifested in the “March for Science” in April and was held in cities throughout the world. In one article on CNN online http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/health/march-for-science-walkup-trnd/ a cancer researcher named Leslie Paul was featured. Her important words went beyond her work on cancer and focused on the animals. She said: “If there was ever a time that it was important to say, ‘You can’t do that to the EPA, you can’t disregard wildlife, you can’t censor science,’ it would be now.”
Another featured marcher was conservation scientist Rachel Golden Kroner who said, “If we do nothing, we face a crisis for biodiversity and people.”
We were impressed by the fact that so many of those in attendance focused on how the animals are being affected by human caused climate change.
One very important contingent of the March for Science was the Factory Farming Awareness Coalition – FFAC-Chicago – that produced this great poster: http://www.ffacoalition.org/
WISCONSIN DNR SCRUBS LANGUAGE TO continue to
BAFFLE and CONFUSE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
Chris Jazewski, a Wildlife Watch member, sent an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by Lee Bergquist:
The article reported that the DNR recently scrubbed language from an agency web page on the Great Lakes that said humans and greenhouse gases are the main cause of climate change.
The DNR now says the subject is a matter of scientific debate. The department made the changes on 12/21, striking out whole sentences attributing global warming to human activities and rising levels of carbon dioxide.
Mr Bergquist said this; More broadly, the changes reflect how the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker has de-emphasized the subject since he took office in 2011.
The Governor can be contacted here: https://walker.wi.gov/contact-us
WHY BE VEGAN?
We urge our readers to move in the direction of veganism for many reasons. One article that we found to be excellent is written by Ashley Capps. It can be found here: http://freefromharm.org/why-vegan/
To get up close with some fortunate animals who’ve escaped one of the worst fates we can imagine, please visit a local farm sanctuary. Here in the Hudson Valley, NY, you’ll find two great ones: http://woodstocksanctuary.org/your-environment/ and https://casanctuary.org/
COWS HAVE FEELINGS
In spite of their dire situation, they are shown giving love to a little cat, and obviously, the feeling is mutual.
PROGRESSIVE ORTHODOX RABBIS CALL FOR A REDUCTION OF MEAT CONSUMPTION
Shmuly Yanklowitz
In April, 2017, a group of progressive orthodox rabbis from around the world called on the Jewish community to consider the moral and spiritual dangers associated with meat consumption. While they condemned factory farming, they also pointed to the fact that significant and unnatural pain is caused toward animals during their raising and slaughter for human consumption, which in turn contributes to health conditions. They asked for a reduction of meat intake and described it as a global concern.
Visit: http://forward.com/scribe/369525/orthodox-rabbis-warn-of-moral-and-spiritual-dangers-of-eating-meat/
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND REDUCE YOUR FEAR OF COYOTES
Janet Kessler, a photographer and blogger, has documented and interpreted coyote life in San Francisco. In her website: www.coyoteyipps.com she advocates for tolerance and understanding of coyotes, and provides practical solutions for co-existing with this species.
Please visit her website to expand your knowledge of coyote behavior, reduce your fear, and keep your companion animals safe.
THE GINNY FUND:
By Anne Muller
I’ve known about the Ginny Fund for at least 20 years, and had the honor of meeting Ginny at a presentation by Philip Gonzalez. Philip was Ginny’s human companion who recognized her special talent. I remember how honored I felt when, during that packed lecture, Ginny meandered through the crowd, and then chose to sit by my side. She allowed me to curl the fur on her neck. The lecture was all about Ginny and her amazing work of rescuing special needs cats and dogs.
After Ginny’s sad passing in 2005, Philip carried on Ginny’s work to rescue stray cats and dogs from the streets. You can learn more about this wonderful organization by visiting:
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2016/05/the-ginny-fund-the-legacy-of-a-rescue-dog-who-paid-it-forward/
or her Facebook page
Anna Breytenbach communicates with wild animals:
Anna Breytenbach takes us on many journeys touching our hearts and souls, as well as touching the hearts and souls of the animals.
From sharks to baboons, her extraordinary communication with animals will leave you in awe.
Additionally, Ms. Breytenbach succeeds in communicating with our own species in order to engender compassion in us.
Please visit her website and watch her extraordinary super sense in action: http://www.animalspirit.org/ and watch her incredible videos on YouTube
CAARE
According to CAARE, the need for improved methods of drug development is essential. The FDA describes the current process, which is based largely on animal testing, as “complicated, time-consuming and costly.” It is also extremely inhumane.
Only 5 in 5,000 compounds that enter early testing make it to human clinical trials, and only 1 of those 5 may be safe and effective enough to reach the market.
To view the medical testing breakthroughs that replace the use of animals, please visit this website: http://www.caareusa.org/ Bob, please close the right justification
LIVING IN NEW YORK CITY? LONGING TO CONNECT WITH NATURE? CONSIDER THE URBAN NATURALIST PROGRAM AT THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN
https://www.nybg.org/learn/adult-education/urban-naturalist-certificate-program/
A quick look at the website summarizes the program this way:
This five-week program focuses on vascular and non-vascular plants, invertebrates and vertebrates of New York City’s uplands and coastal wetland ecosystems, emphasizing the critical conservation issues facing each locale. Classroom lectures and hands-on activities are complimented with classes in the field and working excursions in the Thain Family Forest, Bronx River, Central Park, and Pelham Bay Park, among other locations.
Chris Arenella, a friend and member of Wildlife Watch, told us about the program. She said, When I learned that the New York Botanical Garden was offering a new program called Urban Naturalist that teaches students how to become stewards of our urban environment, I signed up.
During my field trips, I have learned to see nature with a new intimacy. My eyes have begun to focus more clearly on the not-so-apparent. I’m now even more protective of our urban natural environment. I can now identify a flower I always knew as Queen Anne’s Lace as Daucus carota, or wild carrot.
As American wetlands decreased in both size and number over the past few decades, falling prey to various forms of human encroachment, the federal government, spurred by the nascent environmental movement, made some efforts to ameliorate, or "mitigate," the situation. Mitigation banking was one tool that was developed for use in this cause, with what may be fairly called "mixed results."
In response to public concern about the degradation of our entire natural environment, the Nixon Administration implemented the Clean Air and Water Acts (1970, 1972) the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). President Carter signed an Executive Order Protection of Wetlands (1977); and the first Pres. Bush announced a "No Net Loss" policy for wetlands, which was also endorsed by Pres. Clinton in his first term.
The concept of "no net loss" was that anyone wanting to develop property in a protected wetland area would be obliged to "replace" the loss of that area by creating or restoring an equivalent wetland. Thus, it was thought, there would be "no net loss" of wetland acreage. This was considered to be an enlightened way to protect our fast-disappearing wetland habitats and their dependent animal species, as well. It also spawned the use of mitigation "banks" as a way of keeping track of these exchanges of land.
Just as one keeps records of financial transactions in a bank, the creation of new wetlands as payment for the destruction of others is recorded in order to ensure that there is no net loss. Federal guidelines for the implementation of the Clinton Administration’s Wetland Plan defined the notion of mitigation banking as: "the process of preserving, enhancing, restoring, or creating habitat to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts." It is preferred that this creation/restoration be accomplished prior to any building project, and the resultant new or restored wetland is expressed as a "credit" in the mitigation bank. Mitigation banks, then, provide a way for land developers to compensate for their destruction through currency "credits" of wetland creation, which pay for the "debits" of wetland destruction. Ostensibly, the developer would create or restore a viable wetland habitat of similar type and size to the area he is ruining. However, some developers understandably want to avoid taking on such a daunting task themselves. With mitigation banking, they can go to a land owner who has already created or restored a large wetland area, buy acreage in that property, and count it as a credit that makes up for their planned destruction.
Of course, creating a wetland from scratch is harder than restoring an ailing one. An on-site watershed is necessary; appropriate soils and vegetation may have to be imported; proper drainage is required. The developer who is acting as the banker might choose instead to enhance an existing wetland that just needs some improvement to meet the federal guidelines.
Virtually anyone can set up a mitigation bank. In some cases, local municipalities will establish a bank in order to protect their watershed needs; a Department of Transportation might set one up in order to compensate for their road-building projects; or a private entrepreneur could set up a bank simply for the purpose of buying and selling credits at a profit.
Before taking part in the banking process, a developer is supposed to try to avoid negative impact on the site in question; failing that, they must minimize the impact; and finally, they are to provide compensation for any remaining damage. While the first two steps in this sequence can be recognized as preferable to the third, unfortunately, the arrival of mitigation banking on the scene has encouraged many people to neglect efforts to preserve the natural site, seeing the way of compensation as a cheaper alternative. Adding to this betrayal of the spirit of wetland preservation is the fact that off-site mitigation is allowed. Where developers were originally required to restore or enhance the on-site wetland, now, through mitigation banking, they are allowed to compensate for their destruction of one site by creating another some place else.
Another feature of mitigation banking is that many small projects are typically consolidated into a large, contiguous creation area, believed to be more ecologically valuable than several isolated sites.
Regulation of mitigation banks is clearly essential to make sure that compensation is properly made and eco-systems are preserved. The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue permits for affected sites, and one might reasonably expect state departments of Ecology or Environmental Protection to monitor the continuing health of new sites. However, a NYS DEC official told me that sponsors are not legally forced to follow up on a restoration project. What sort of oversight is that? US Army Corps Engineer Dr. Robert Brumbaugh writes that "almost all [mitigation] banks established have been ad hoc arrangements between regulators and development entities." The impermanence of these arrangements do not inspire confidence. Although regulators are supposed to assess the comparability of the sacrificed wetland to the new one, Dr. Brumbaugh adds, "Owing to limitations in wetland functional assessment methodology, to date, in many cases, credits and debits have been measured simply in terms of acres." In other words, the quality and function of the wetland is often left out of the equation. By neglecting these two aspects, a newly created wetland that was meant to take the place of a built-over one, is likely to fail.
The Army Corps itself has been criticized for poor handling of wetlands protection. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, in an August 2003 letter to Army Under Secretary Les Brownlee, wrote that he was "extremely troubled by assertions that the Corps of Engineers and the other federal regulatory agencies have failed to fulfill their statutory mandates, thereby endangering a valuable national resource..." (Quoted by Mike Salinero in Tampa Tribune.)
The benefits of banking for the landowner are obvious: land that was previously off limits can now be used, as long as land elsewhere is slapped into a supposedly suitable condition. Variations in land values being what they are, this may prove much cheaper for the developer, particularly if he is not conscientious about creating a perfect replica of the original site. Even the most well-intentioned can find this a forbiddingly difficult task, as each wetland is unique, with plant and animal species that might not thrive anywhere else. Not every patch of wet ground can be turned miraculously into a viable substitute.
The permitting process is more efficient with banking, as applicants no longer require both a development permit and a wetland permit. Regulatory agencies save time as there are fewer reviews needed: many smaller projects are consolidated into larger ones, as recommended by the banking program. And local officials - Town Boards, Planning Boards - are spared protests from environmentalists as citizens are assuaged by the belief that mitigation’s no-net-loss ideal is preserving our nation’s wild heritage.
This seemingly happy solution to the problem of development versus nature has its critics. The Sierra Club does not support banking, noting that even "wetland biologists do not have the technical ability to create or restore all the functions of complex wetland systems."
Testifying before a Congressional Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, National Wildlife Federation Wetland Specialist Julie Sibbing, opposed the American Wetlands Restoration Act. After enumerating the many benefits of wetlands, including flood-water retention, groundwater recharge, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat, Sibbing noted that the no-net-loss policy does nothing to prevent the breakdown of remaining wetlands. "America’s wetlands are more vulnerable to destruction and degradation than at any time in the past 25 years." Sibbing cited several causes for this vulnerability, including "overly broad interpretations of the Clean Water Act loophole."
The challenge of re-creating a successful eco-system is considerable. "The idea that you can just go out and build another wetland is one of the myths that has been hardest to let go of," says Sibbing. "In general, our mitigation efforts have been dismal failures." (AP article, John Flesher, 12/23/03.) Additionally, the consolidation aspect of mitigation banking meant that the smaller, isolated wetlands were not really being replaced in kind. While a large, contiguous wetland sounds nice in theory, the loss of scattered areas could have unanticipated consequences: one suggested by Sibbing was altered flooding patterns, which affects human as well as animal populations.
The balance of water, appropriate soil types, and equivalent plant species is not always possible at sites that are distant from the original, now destroyed, wetland. A US Geological Survey Summary on Water Resources identified another potential problem: people might actually be encouraged to destroy natural wetlands if they are misled into thinking they can be easily replaced. The cheerful assumption of enhanced ecological value via mitigation banking is therefore rendered dubious.
Compensation through mitigation banking, originally intended as only the third leg of the preservation process, is becoming more prevalent. From 46 approved banks chartered nationwide in 1992, the industry had grown to nearly 300 by 2001. In Florida, alone, there are at this time 38 banks in existence. A financial success, perhaps, but to what effect on our natural treasures?
The impact of mitigation banking on wildlife is difficult to determine precisely, but logic may provide a reasonable interpretation. One likely result of the trading of wetland areas - credit here, debit someplace else - would be the disorientation and consequent dispersal of the traditional wild inhabitants of any given region and an eventual decrease in their number. We need only picture how we would react to having our neighborhood suddenly vanish. There would be no comfort in being told there is a "similar" habitat 20 miles away replete with residents who would not want to be displaced!
Just as animal species suffer from the man-made changes to their natural environments, so also do irreplaceable plant species disappear from our national landscape. And the failure rate of man-made wetlands is shocking. Consider as just one example, in the state of Michigan only 22 percent of authorized projects were deemed successful judging by natural functions such as water purification and wildlife habitat. Yet, mitigation banking is still a common and government-approved fact of life in 34 states.
Whenever economic and natural-resources considerations collide, you may generally depend upon the former to triumph at the expense of the latter. When regulatory agencies seem to collude with private groups, it is very dispiriting. For example, the St. John’s River Water Management District, which covers a huge part of Northeast Florida, is currently considering the request of a Baptist Church that wants to build a bridge over the headwaters of the Tomoka River, thus filling in a pristine wetlands area. The church proposes to buy land from a mitigation bank some miles away, as payment for their construction, which, environmentally-concerned opponents of the project contend, will naturally do nothing to preserve the Tomoka River itself. At issue here are the rather suspect standards of the agency. As the SJRWMD has said that the project meets their requirements, one must ask why those requirements are so lenient that they would permit the blocking of an important tributary to the Tomoka. As local citizen, Capt. Eric West, put it, "The land bank doesn’t make new wetlands, it just keeps profits coming in for those who own them now." He suggests rewriting the rules of SJRWMD to make it harder for people to take advantage of the present, slipshod situation that easily allows ruination of wetlands.
A Florida environmental attorney, Lesley Blackner, doubts the wisdom of elected officials, too many of whom, she says, "define ‘public interest’ as keeping the development industry happy." She advocates that people have the power to decide on land use changes in their own communities. Blackner maintains that the mitigation system is a kind of "shell game," sold to the public as way of saving our wetlands, but in reality merely a sham, causing the destruction of healthy habitats and setting up false substitutes.
An amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, a bill which deals with the chartering of mitigation banks, was introduced in June of 2003, and is still pending. H. R. 2531 IH may be reintroduced in the next Congress, commencing in January. If we wish to have any influence on the survival of our inherited wetlands, and protect the lives of their many dependents, we must call and write to our Representatives now, expressly stating our concerns regarding the use of mitigation banking. We can keep informed about local plans for wetland development, and attend Town and Planning Board meetings, speaking up and asking for details on such plans; and requiring that any mitigation bank providers, whether commercial or municipal, be monitored by the relevant agency. And don’t assume that regulatory agencies, however much they might speak about being "good stewards of the environment," are doing what is best for wildlife and wetlands. Their standards should be reviewed before they give out any more permits for destruction. Only by consistent and vociferous action can we hope to ensure the survival and maximum health of our precious wetlands and their residents.
US House of Representatives website - Sept. 12, 2001 Hearing on HR 1474 Before Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment; Statement of Julie M. Sibbing of NWF
US Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper #2425
US Environmental Protection Agency, Laws, Regulations, Guidance, and Scientific Documents: "Wetlands Mitigation Banking"
Florida Dept. Of Environmental Protection website
University of Florida IFAS, Handbook of Florida Water Regulation
Department of the Army, Federal Register: November 28, 1995 (Volume 60, #228)
US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Fla. District, Public Notice web page: "Mitigation Banking"
Washington State Department of Ecology, Access Washington: "Wetlands Mitigation Banking"
Univ. of Oregon, School of Law, Ocean and Coastal Law Memo, Issue 36, October 1990
Great Lakes Directory website, Great Lakes Article: "Creating New Wetlands Not So Easy to Do," by John Flesher of Assoc. Press
National Wildlife Federation website, Testimony on Mitigation Banking before House Sub-Committee on Water Resources and the Environment, Sept. 12, 2001
Sierra Club website, "Clean Water and Wetlands: Mitigation Banking Guidelines"
Alachua Post (online newspaper) - Ad Hoc Committee, 4/26/02
Mike Salinero, Tampa Tribune article, Aug. 29, 2004, "Feds Probe on Wetlands Permits"
Statement of Lesley Blackner in Support of Florida’s Hometown Democracy Amendment
E.M. FAY is a freelance writer with a bent for environmental and animal-rights causes, as well as politics. She has worked as a stringer for the Daily Freeman, a leading newspaper in Kingston, NY. She presently has an article about whales' and dolphins' suicides caused by man in Natural Life, a Canadian magazine.
In the past decade, a dramatic shift has taken place with respect to how Americans engage in the recreational enjoyment of wildlife. State agencies have maintained that their mission statement requires them to provide for the recreational enjoyment of wildlife – and that mandates them to provide hunting opportunities. Traditionally, "recreational enjoyment of wildlife" has meant hunting, and that was the interpretation given it under law.
The economic and moral shift that has occurred has given new meaning to the term "recreational enjoyment of wildlife." It requires a new interpretation of such legal mandates and a re-examination of the commercial opportunities that are provided by the recreational enjoyment of wildlife.
The shift has seen wildlife watching as a recreational activity far outstrip hunting in the number of participants, population percentages of participants, and in the amount of money spent on the activity.
We would expect the government agencies that are charged with providing opportunities for the recreational enjoyment of wildlife to develop programs to accommodate this numerically larger population whose purchases far exceed those of hunters. But, perhaps even more importantly, we would expect alert businesses to shift their attention from accommodating hunters to capturing this exciting new market of wildlife watching – especially since the two markets often make irreconcilable demands on resources. It won’t be long before the wildlife watching programs will come into conflict with the more poorly funded hunter programs that cater to only a fraction of the population. Both programs in most places can not be accommodated simultaneously.
Wildlife watching trends are significant nationwide but they are especially noteworthy in the States of New York, Florida and California.
All statistics cited below are all from the "2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation." This survey is published every 5 years by the Fish and Wildlife Service of U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
(When we’re using population figures in this discussion we are using residents age 16 and over, they are not included in these numbers.)
The basic numbers nationwide:
HUNTERS:
WILDLIFE WATCHING:
For New York State these numbers are:
HUNTERS:
WILDLIFE WATCHING:
Certainly the nationwide expenditure of $38.4 billion for wildlife-watching related activity makes wildlife watching a major industry. If wildlife-watching were a business it would be in the same league in terms of annual sales as Pfizer ($40.36 billion), Time-Warner (38.08 billion), or Prudential Insurance ($38.22 billion). Wildlife watching is a major economic player which is currently under-reported and underrated. It is a veritable business boom waiting to be discovered.
Inn keepers and resort owners should take note that a considerable portion of the expenditures are for food and lodging!
Nationwide hunters annually spend $2.45 billion on food (a lot of beer) and lodging in connection with hunting related activities; Wildlife watchers, however, spend $4.82 billion a year on food (with more diverse drinks) and lodging in connection wildlife watching related activities. Consider that wildlife watching is not yet institutionalized!
Each year in New York State hunters annually spend $82.4 million on food and lodging in connection with hunting related activities. Yet, wildlife-watchers annually spend $124.4 million on food and lodging in connection with wildlife-watching related activities in New York State.
The report shows that wildlife watchers are better educated, more affluent and travel with family members more than hunters.
USFWS statistics cited in the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation:
On average, hunters have no education beyond high-school; the median wildlife-watcher has 1 to 3 years of college. Seven percent of people with a family income of over $100,000 per year hunt, but 40% of those with a family income exceeding $100,000 engaged in wildlife watching. While only 9% of hunters are female – about 50% of wildlife watchers are female (54% of state-residents and 48% of out of state wildlife watchers are female).
New York State ranks third in the country among states in spending on watching wildlife. The three states receiving the greatest expenditure by wildlife watchers are:
1. California -- $2,580,875,000
2. Florida -- $1,575,481,000
3. New York -- $1,407,193,000
It’s important to realize that this has happened with little or no pro-active effort on the part of the inn-keepers and resort owners to attract wildlife watchers. On the contrary, by permitting and even encouraging hunters to come into areas when wildlife watching could be at its peak -- in the fall and during bird-migrations -- wildlife watchers are being sent a message to stay away.
We propose a pro-active campaign for communities and businesses that have a natural wildlife resource to promote wildlife watching opportunities in their areas.
Wildlife watchers are not a destructive force, they pose no risk to others or surrounding houses. They prefer to be as unobtrusive as possible. If resorts set up platforms, tree stands, and blinds, it would bring many eco-tourists to remote areas such as the Catskills region of New York State where the local economy has been devastated since the 1960s. Certainly, promoting wildlife watching as a tourist attraction is sociologically as well as economically preferable to introducing casinos.
Both photos from Everglades National Park
The conversion of some of the old resorts to accommodate wildlife watchers can be achieved for a relatively modest investment. It would also benefit the resort to invest in the construction of living platforms over water, for example chickees http://www.nps.gov/ever/visit/sitetype.htm , and boardwalks over wetland areas, as is currently done in the Everglades in Flamingo, Florida. This should all be done in consultation with experts. Wildlife watching will provide lucrative financial returns. This is a major industrial development waiting to happen. It is a win-win-win situation for the resort-operators, the wildlife watchers – and the wildlife.
Please contact us at wildwatch@verizon.net to become involved in this multi-faceted thrust to a brighter future for all.
Hunter websites, like Cabelas, offer products that can be used by wildlife watchers to enhance their experience. Should wildlife management agencies begin to focus on watching, you can imagine the increase in business for products such as the one to the left that sells for only $13.
The catalog describes it this way: "The comfortable behind-the-ear Woodland Whisper has five settings for up to 98db amplification with a decibel-limiting feature that won't amplify loud noises, so you can hear the faintest sounds in the woods."
AUDUBON
In October, Audubon released its first The State of the Birds report. They called the decline of bird populations "disturbing" and "abnormal." Audubon wants improved grassland, forest, and wetland protection; they want stronger pollution controls, backyard habitat programs, and private landowner programs. They cite the following statistics: 69 million Americans say they are birdwatchers. They contribute 32 billion in retail sales, 85 billion in overall economic output, 13 billion in state and federal taxes, and create almost 900,000 jobs [and that’s without trying!]
WASHINGTON SMELLS THE ROSES
In January, 2003, the state of Washington requested legislation that would "establish a watchable wildlife decal. They wrote "Nature-related tourism is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry with wildlife viewing rated as the number-one outdoor activity in the US. Washington ranks seventh nationally in wildlife-related expenditures, with more than $980 mission being spent on wildlife viewing activities. Most of these opportunities exist in rural communities and provide a major economic stimulus
WATCHING THE CROWS OF AUBURN, NY
Rita Sarnacola of CROW (Citizens Respectful of Wildlife) in Auburn, NY has been working on ways to wake up the town to the economic potential of wildlife watching. A bar has been having "crow shoots." Rita and Wildlife Watch would like to see Auburn, NY become the crow capital of the country. Wildlife Watch volunteers will soon be doing a presentation in Auburn to discuss the potential of wildlife watching and setting up for viewing these sociable, intelligent and playful birds. We will emphasize the economic potential that crow watching will have on Auburn.
www.crows.net/help.html - Have some cornchips!
It’s important to see the many perils facing individual wild animals in their daily existence. Some can be avoided by personal steps that we can take - others need to be dealt with through education or lobbying efforts.
Your additional contributions to R.O.C.K. will be shared between the wildlife rehabilitators, rehabilitation facilities, and Wildlife Watch. Your support for this project allows Wildlife Watch to continue to produce and mail our publication. Your funding will aid those who work tirelessly at their own expense to provide medical and hospice care to wild animals.
Wildlife rehabilitators are licensed by state game agencies, yet they are given no other support, and they are not allowed to charge for their “services.” Sadly, animals often come to the attention of rehabbers when they are found by people who either don’t want them near the house or don’t know how to help them. When the DECs, DNRs or police are called, they normally recommend killing, and most veterinarians cannot take time from their busy schedules.
The Wildlife Watch R.O.C.K. Project will help to fund the treatment, rehabilitation, or hospice care of wild animals. If you know of a wildlife rehabilitation facility in your area that might benefit from participating in our project, please let us know. wildwatch@verizon.net or P.O. Box 562, New Paltz, NY 12561.
If your Yellow Pages does not have a wildlife help number, please let us know. We will arrange for a "wildlife hotline" in your area and will be happy to carry the advertising if there are at least two rehabilitators in your area who are willing and able to handle the calls that will come their way.
Wildlife Watch is activating our National Hotline number 877-WILD-HELP. This line is not yet active.
We will need your help to activate it. Gratefully, for the wildlife, WILDLIFE WATCH
Carolyn’s Center, Mid-Hudson Wildlife Rescue, took care of two semi-tame pigeons who were disturbing an eatery in New Paltz. Wildlife Watch managed to capture one, and Carolyn was able to get the other blocks away both were united. They are now free to come and go from Carolyn’s center. To contact Carolyn Moore Engle, call Mid-Hudson Wildlife Rescue at 845-384-6847.
Chloe, a white tail fawn, arrived at my center at the age of one month. She had been abducted a few days after birth to become a pet for three children. She was taken to live at grandpa’s farm so the kids would have something to play with on their monthly visits.
Did the family not realize that deer milk is in no way like cow’s milk, and that giving a fawn cow’s milk would kill her from diarrhea?
Did they stop to think how the mother doe would feel upon losing her baby?
And did they not realize how fragile fawns are in captivity? When I heard about Chloe, she had been injured for three weeks with a broken leg and nothing had been done to help her. Along with that she was terribly sick from diarrhea. Well, grandpa never let a vet set foot on his farm in 80 years and he wasn’t about to now. It’s only a fawn for God’s sake and there are plenty of those around here.
After two days of haggling over the phone I managed to convince them that Chloe needed help now or she would die. Grandpa wanted the kids to make the decision but my insistence won out.
So Chloe came to live here and underwent surgery to have a pin inserted in the broken bone. Dr. Ruth Gillis at Compassion Veterinary Hospital performed the surgery. And with a lot of medication and good diet we cured the diarrhea.
But, Chloe had an even more disturbing problem than her infirmities! She was imprinted. Fawns imprint in 5-6 days. I knew this would be a problem but I let my heart rule out and hoped that during her 8 week recovery I could wild her up to be releasable. I tried to minimize contact with her. She grew healthy and strong; the pin was removed but she stayed too friendly. I decided to keep her in her secluded pen until after hunting season then try letting her go here at my farm. I built a higher fencing, but tons of forage for her daily, and kept away from her. One day she jumped out of her enclosure and was gone. She came home a few times but here was no pint in trying to keep her enclosed anymore. Then she didn’t come home again.
I knew better than to take in an imprinted fawn. A friendly animal is a dead animal. Now I live with the heartbreak of not knowing what ever happened to Chloe. Could she have suddenly turned wild? Not likely.
So my beloved Chloe, I’m so sorry that weren’t left with your mother. I sorry for the selfishness of people who want fawns and other wild animals as pets!
Unless you actually see a dead doe, leave the fawn alone. Fawns are rarely orphaned
Deer can and do cope with winter. They seek sheltered areas called "yards" where they concentrate and pack down snow making travel easier. The food they eat in the fall is converted into fat deposits and they grow highly insulated fur coats.
They restrict their activities including time spent feeding. Food intake drops to half that eaten in the fall and energy needs are reduced.
Healthy deer are well suited for winter, so adequate winter cover is essential for their survival. Protecting wintering areas extremely important.
It’s important to see the many perils facing individual wild animals in their daily existence. Some can be avoided by personal steps that we can take - others need to be dealt with through education or lobbying efforts.
Your additional contributions to R.O.C.K. will be shared between the wildlife rehabilitators, rehabilitation facilities, and Wildlife Watch. Your support for this project allows Wildlife Watch to continue to produce and mail our publication. Your funding will aid those who work tirelessly at their own expense to provide medical and hospice care to wild animals.
Wildlife rehabilitators are licensed by state game agencies, yet they are given no other support, and they are not allowed to charge for their “services.” Sadly, animals often come to the attention of rehabbers when they are found by people who either don’t want them near the house or don’t know how to help them. When the DECs, DNRs or police are called, they normally recommend killing, and most veterinarians cannot take time from their busy schedules.
Wildlife Watch has incorporated this section to help those who give so much to the care of wild animals.
Braveheart the Red Tail Hawk
Here is Braveheart the Red Tail Hawk following his second surgery for a broken humerus bone in his wing. (That’s the big bone like the one in your upper arm.) Braveheart was found by the side of the road bleeding and with the bone exposed, hit by a car, by a kind gentleman who picked him up. He was so weak that he had to be hand fed for weeks before the surgery could be attempted. You can see that he does not have the fierce glare that typifies a Red Tail, but he is making wonderful progress and we hope to see that glimmer in his eye soon. You can help him by visualizing his bone knitting itself together into a strong whole bone again.
Matty the Squirrel
Enjoying her luxury accommodations at Ravensbeard Wildlife Center! Matty somehow fell out of her nest and wandered away. She was a scrawny little baby when she came in, but has clearly made great strides now. Matty was released in October 2004.
“We can never hope to change our society for the better unless we first change ourselves for the better.”
— Samuel Butler
All of us, even those who try to avoid it as much as possible, are exploiters both of the earth and its plant and animal life. Even the strictest vegan finds it almost impossible to avoid all animal products. There are animal by-products, for example, in such diverse things as asphalt used in road construction, the tires of automobiles, and photographic film. There would be no paper for this article if there were no logging operations which kill and displace many animals. In fact, each time a person purchases any product he or she is responsible for environmental disruption and animal deaths as a result of the exploitation that occurs to procure the basic raw materials. This is another case of blindness to cause and effect relationships. How many people who think that they care about Nature are aware of the destruction that is wrought to produce their stereo set, VCR equipment or new home computer?
The trick, then, is to try to keep the destruction of life and the environment to a minimum. There are many ways that people can do this. Couples can make a commitment not to add to the population or at least to limit their family to one or two children. People can refuse to purchase any obviously frivolous nonessential product, particularly if this product wastes gasoline or electricity. In so doing they will help to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and the construction of new dams, atomic and fossil fuel plants, offshore oil drills, pipelines, and transmission lines.
People can recycle reusable products. They can grow some of their own food. They can become a vegetarian, or better still, a semi-vegan. (I use the term “semi-vegan “because virtually no one can avoid all animal products.) Animal agriculture is energy inefficient and environmentally degrading. A cow consumes ten to twenty times the amount of grain needed to nourish a person. An average chicken slaughterhouse uses 100 million gallons of water in a single day. Factory farming generates massive amounts of animal wastes that cannot be property disposed of and are polluting our atmosphere and water supplies. Production of beef cattle results in overgrazing of land, cutting back of forests and accompanying erosion. Wildlife suffers from the destruction of habitat and from predator control programs. In addition, beef imported from northern South America is a major factor in the destruction of rain forests that are vital habitat for many threatened and endangered plants and animals. Vegetarianism and semi-veganism aren’t panaceas for all of the world’s problems, but they are a good beginning. If done for selfless purposes, and not simply for health reasons, they are an accurate gauge of a person’s willingness to sacrifice for the good of all life.
Sadly, most people do not want to sacrifice for the benefit of Nature. This is a result of a far greater problem –that being the nature of the human animal. There are no easy solutions. Perhaps enlightened self-interest will someday result in an environmental ethic which will include the concept that the lives of all creatures are sacred. But one thing is certain: The toughest opponent that we in the animal protection and environmental/ecology movements face is not any of our traditional adversaries. Our very toughest opponent is here, deep within ourselves. It is our greed and selfishness. We have met the enemy and it is us. Let’s try to search for and embrace the friend within.
Ron Baker homesteaded in the Adirondacks for 27 years, living in tents and a cabin made of indigenous fallen trees. He is a co-founder of Wildlife Alive, the first wildlife protection group in the Adirondacks. He is author of The American Hunting Myth (Vantage Press, 1985) and editor and writer of the Backwoods Journal. Some excerpts from that out of print publication will occasionally be printed here.
By Kristine Flones
“Ho Mitakuye Oyasin” is the Lakota phrase that translates as “all my relations”. In using these words we honor our connectedness to all life, and the sacredness of the entire circle of life.
A couple of weeks ago my neighbor, Jackie Kukle came to get me to catch an eagle that was just sitting on the road by her house. I gathered my raptor gloves, heavy towels, nets and a large dog kennel, scolding myself for not having bought the large bird net that would handle an eagle, and took off down the road trying to keep myself centered so that I might somehow catch an eagle with a butterfly net and a towel. Arriving at Jackie’s house, I found Woodstock Police and several people waiting. They had chased the bird into the woods trying to catch her or get her off the road. I asked the policemen to help me, knowing that it is a piece of work to catch such a bird even if they can’t fly. I passed towels around and we went into the woods. There she was sitting on a log: a truly huge and magnificent female red tailed hawk. She was only a few months old because she still had her new brown tail feathers. The red tails don’t come until the second year.
Moonlight the Barred Owl
She didn’t have an obvious injury. I felt that I might be able to catch her if I approached obliquely and very slowly with a calm energy. I asked the others to step back as I moved closer. There had to be something terribly wrong for me to be within ten feet of her. She wasn’t alert looking about for an escape. Her eyes were cast down and her expression was one of misery. I let her feel my energy before taking each step as she was looking away. When I was within four feet she turned around to face me. There was a resignation in her eyes. Gently, gently I moved up to her showing her my bath towel “skirt” that I had wrapped around me. When I saw and felt that she acquiesced I carefully raised the towel and dropped it over her, scooping her up in my arms. Oh my, she weighed no more than a crow! How did such a young hawk get so emaciated?
Everyone was relieved that I had caught her and there were many wishes for her recovery and her life. This was not to be. Despite our best efforts the female red tail hawk whose name was Phoenix did not make it. She died the next afternoon. Her story is a familiar one to wildlife rehabilitators and naturalists. You see Phoenix died of mouse poison. She is at the NY State Pathology lab where her tissues are being sampled to check for the poison that kills so many wild ones every year. This is how it works: people put out the tiny green pellets of mouse or rat poison in their attics and basements. The mice collect the sweet smelling pellets and save many of them, but eat one. The mouse or mice leave the house desperate for air as their systems close down from the poison. The hawks, owls and the snakes see the weak mouse and eat it. A few days later they are in the same state as the mouse. They are bigger so their death takes longer, but eventually their blood vessels dilate and the blood leaks out. It leaks out of their hearts, too. They die a sad, miserable death. Along comes a crow, a vulture or a raven, the carrion eaters. They eat the hawk or the owl. They too will die of this poison that is made for mice and rats. And so on.
Her name was Phoenix. This is an opportunity to give her life again to match her name. Please go through your storage areas and gather up this poison and triple bag it before taking it to the RRA for toxic disposal. Surely there is no longer a need for a poison such as this. The hawk, the owl and the snake are among our natural rodent control devices in this world. Obviously, the poison is also extremely dangerous for children, adults and for our pets as well as for our community water supply.
Ravensbeard Wildlife Center was founded by Ellen Kalish and Kristine Flones. Ellen Kalish has been rehabbing for five years. She specializes in birds, especially raptors and waterfowl. Kristine Flones has been rehabbing for four years. She will take most species, but loves to work with... raptors, crows, woodchucks, fox, bluejays, snapping turtles, vultures, and bears! Bears? Yes, Ravensbeard has a special program on Coexisting with Black Bears, as well as on other topics of interest.
Contact:
PO Box 463, Bearsville, NY 12409 Website will completed soon.
A few helpful hints from Kristine:
In general, do not disturb a wild animal unless it is clearly an emergency. Wounded animals should be handled with great care, protecting oneself from talons, teeth, thrashing legs, or whatever. Items to have in your car for emergencies are: a large sturdy box or dog carrier, heavy bath towel, heavy work gloves, small shovel, a couple of plastic bags. If you have caught an injured animal keep him or her in a dark, quiet, warm place. Do not give it anything to drink or eat until you speak with a rehabilitator. Do not trust info on the web.
“It is not a case of survival of the fittest ...It is rather a case of flourishment of the most cooperative.” -- Ken Casey in “The Return of the Bird Tribes.”
By Nicole Roskos, Ph.D.
While walking my dog one morning this past August, I came upon a young deer lying on the side of the road. She was alive, but had been seriously injured by a gunshot wound to her face. I stood there flooded with feelings of sadness, anger, and dismay. My neighbor walked up with his dogs to inform me that the gunshot had been delivered by a policeman who had attempted to put her out of her misery after she had been hit by a car. Rather than alleviate her suffering, however, the inept but well-meaning policeman had only exacerbated her pain. This is just one personal account that reflects a larger, dreadful narrative that has been occurring on our roads since the construction of the first highway.
More animals are killed by cars in the United States each year than by any other method. According to one organization, every day an estimated one million animals are killed by cars on US highways. Actual numbers are higher, however, since most wildlife fatalities are left unrecorded. For instance, the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation does not keep records of roadkill for any animal, with the exception of black bears. Matt Merchant has tallied 19 bears killed by vehicles in 2003 just in one region (Region 3) out of nine, and 16 in Region 3 in 2004. Kristine Flones of the Ravensbeard Wildlife Center estimates that millions of squirrels and possums are killed on NY State’s roadways each year. Turtle, deer, and bird mortalities also are common problems in New York. Crows, ravens, gulls, owls, and hawks fly into passing cars as they chase prey or are crushed under wheels as they eat other “roadkill.” During the spring, even more animals are killed when birds and turtles cross roadways in an effort to gather materials for their nests and food for their young.
Jack Rabbit
All Photos in this article by Will Duncan Tuscan, AZ
In states where records of deer-vehicle crashes are kept, fatalities are alarmingly high. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa, 125,801 deer were killed in 2003 alone. This number reflects only those crashes reported, leading some experts to estimate that the number of deer killed on roads is actually double or triple the reported figure. David Havlick from the Society for Conservation Biology states a more jarring statistic: every eight minutes, a car hits a deer in Michigan.
Other animals also are victims of America’s roadways: 100 black bears were killed in North Carolina in 2002; 1,291 snakes, 1,333 frogs, 374 turtles, 265 birds, 72 mammals, 29 alligators, and 1 lizard were killed in a single year along a 2-mile stretch of Florida’s highway 441. Even in areas where animals are ostensibly protected, cars take their victims. This year in Yellowstone National Park, six bears were killed, including “a grizzly sow and three black bear cubs.”
Most Americans view the loss of individual animals as an “incidental” by-product of driving, rarely considering the effect each individual death has on familial bonds and wider wildlife communities. In certain regions, automobiles threaten the very existence of local populations and entire species. For example, two of the bears hit this year in Yellowstone were female grizzlies. Their deaths caused Yellowstone to declare that the grizzly population had reached its “mortality limit” and was teetering on the brink of extinction within the Park. In Florida, roadways are putting an untenable stress on already endangered panther and Key deer populations. In East Texas, snake populations are highly depressed due to road mortality and Timber rattlesnake populations have disappeared entirely from areas with dense road coverage.
Car-animal death is also a major factor in turtle decline nationwide, according to three independent studies. James P. Gibbs, a conservation biologist says, “Some of the species have just disappeared. Obviously, one of the greatest obstacles for turtles is this web of roadways.” Gibbs studied turtle populations in central New York State and found a 95% male turtle population near busy roads, suggesting a large number of female turtles are killed in these areas when they cross roadways in search of nesting sites. Low numbers of females mean fewer offspring, a problem exacerbated by the fact that some species of turtles don’t hit sexual maturity until 12 to 15 years of age.
Although the statistics are grim, individuals and organizations are making efforts to halt the roadside massacre. Gibbs, for example, suggests building a low barrier on the sides of roads to prevent turtle crossings. These barriers can also direct turtles to safer locations or more productive nesting habitats. Other suggestions include the construction of overpasses and tunnels. This latter option has become popular internationally. The Netherlands leads the world in efforts to integrate roadways and ecological habitats. Canada and Europe also have begun to construct wildlife passages under and over roadways.
While the US lags behind other nations in the construction of wildlife crossings, progress can be found here as well. Florida leads the US effort, building underpasses to protect endangered black bears, panthers, reptiles and amphibians from motorists. Florida also has proposed building 13 crocodile underpasses in the Keys. Scientist Daniel Smith of the University of Florida has collaborated with the Florida Department of Transportation, identifying 15,000 hot spots where underpasses could be productively matched with road projects. Hot spots are locations of peak roadkill “where wildlife corridors such as riparian zones or strips of forest intersect with roads.”
How do the animals know to go to the constructed passageways? In Florida’s Wekiva State Park, animals are blocked from the highway by a fence on both sides of the road and funneled along the barrier to the safe tunnel. Hidden cameras at the tunnel entrances show that bears use the underpass and remember it. “When the fence first went up, the bears snuffled along its edge looking for a gap,” says Havlick. “Now, they tend to make a beeline for the underpass.” Havlick hopes that the underpass will reverse the decline of Florida’s Black Bear population, which has dropped to 1,500 today. Underpasses already appear to be having an effect on Florida’s panther population. On the Big Cypress National Preserve, where a remarkable 24 wildlife underpasses have been built in key areas along Interstate 75, panthers are no longer found dead along the roadway.
Like a great many environmental issues, the sheer scope of the problem can feel overwhelming. Considering that there are over 4 million miles of public roads in North America the potential for one person to make a difference seems miniscule. Yet, the potential for positive impact is also great. In general, there are two ways to approach this issue: as an individual driver and as a collective activist for animal friendly roads:
Flones believes that 90% of animal road deaths can be avoided by attentive and slow driving. Consider some suggestions on animal friendly driving:
1) Drive slowly. This allows you time to respond to a crossing animal.
Gull
All Photos in this article by Will Duncan Tuscan, AZ
2) Respond with caution to wildlife crossing signs. These usually are put up in areas that have had high wildlife activity.
3) Be particularly careful during dawn and dusk when many animals are out.
4) Avoid driving at night when visibility is low and wildlife activity is high.
5) If driving at night, look for the reflection of eyes from your lights along the sides of the roads. When you see an animal, slow down and dip your headlights to give animals more range to see. Bright lights can temporarily blind or paralyze them.
6) Don’t litter. The smell of any food--from apple cores, to candy wrappers, to soda bottles, to fast food wrappers--attracts animals to roadsides.
7) If you encounter a turtle crossing the road, pick it up by the back of the shell and move it to the side of the road in the direction that it was heading. BE CAREFUL! Never pick up a snapping turtle (identified by its rough shell and pointed tail) since it can seriously injure you. [Editor’s note: I’ve picked up many snappers from the rear part of the shell. They can’t reach that far back. Hold them securely with two hands and be prepared for strong pushing from their back feet. It can be done, but you have to exercise caution, of course!]
Collective efforts on a local level involve building passways, barriers, etc. These efforts take funds as well as local support. Get involved! Conservation measures to allow for safe wildlife passage can easily become part routine road maintenance. What you can do on a collective level:
1) Participate in your local government. Go to county commission, metropolitan planning, or zoning meetings. Inform your representatives about the tremendous loss of wildlife and habitat caused by roadways. Encourage them to modify existing roads to direct wildlife to culverts or bridges. Also, ask for legislation to reduce speed limits.
2) Write to the state department of transportation. Tell them about the impact of roads on wildlife. Ask about any efforts being done to curtail the loss of wildlife on roadways. Encourage them to renovate roadway infrastructure to allow for wildlife crossings. Also, tell them to expand the railroad system to reduce dependence on automobiles and eliminate congestion on roads.
Note: This article was heavily foot-noted. For all footnotes and color photos, go to www.wildwatch.org
Nicole Roskos, Ph.D., is an ecological activist and philosopher. She is teaching adjunct in the philosophy department at Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY This story was written for Wildlife Watch.
All photos are by Will Duncan, Tucsan, AZ
Connie Young, posted the following information:
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention data, October and November are the worst months for car versus animal crashes. And deer-car crashes injure far more drivers than any other kind of vehicle-animal collision. Eighty-six percent of all injuries from such crashes involving vehicles and animals involve deer. About another 13 percent involve horses, cows, bulls, and moose.
AAA makes these suggestions among others
By: Emily Kennedy
The introduction of the Internet and advancements in international shipping has brought the world closer together as well as elevated consumers’ interests in the exotic aspects of different countries. The majority of such interests are positive in that people are learning more about other cultures than their own and many countries have benefited financially from international trade and tourism. Some consumer interests cause more harm than good, however, one such interest is the exotic pet trade.
The exotic pet trade is the trade of live animals that have not been domesticated and are typically native to developing countries. People not interested in having the simple dog or cat, which have been domesticated for thousands of years, increasingly have expanded their idea of a pet to include more novel animals such as non-human primates, parrots, reptiles, and even big cats. The inclusion of exotic pets into the home can have devastating effects that not only affect the animals, but the owners and environment as well.
Many of the animals in the exotic pet trade are taken out of environmentally sensitive areas such as the rainforest. The capture and sale of animals from the wild often includes killing the mother in order to take the young, further increasing the extinction rate of many already endangered animals. Some birds and reptiles, in addition, have a calculated mortality rate that can reach sixty to seventy percent, and even eighty to ninety percent for reef fish. The loss of animals from the wild is a dangerous outcome since ecosystems rely largely on animal carriers to spread plant seeds through their fur and dung. Animal prey and predators furthermore rely on each other so as not to starve from either loss of prey or overpopulation due to lack of natural predators.
Supporters of the exotic pet trade are quick to point out that the majority of animals involved in the trade are in fact bred in captivity and, therefore, do not affect the wild. The problem is that these captive bred animals are still called exotic because “they have not been intensively and selectively bred for life with humans,” says Mark Derr, author of many social and environmental books as well as articles for the New York Times, Audubon, Atlantic Monthly, and Natural History. This “wildness” and rarity of the exotics are in fact what entice buyers. The outcome is that animals that have not been “wired” for over thousands of years to live with humans are now living with humans.
A baby tiger or monkey may be a very cute and lovable pet, but once it grows older and stronger the safety of the owner is at risk. Some solutions for controlling older animals have been to de-claw or de-tooth them. This method is a demoralizing practice that takes away the very parts of an animal that often defines it. How does a bird feel if it cannot fly? Even if an animal does keep all of its body parts, the minimal space it has as compared to the wild often creates insane, depressive, and violent behaviors. Such mental problems can be often seen in self-mutilation such as tearing fur or feathers off their limbs (refer to pictures of Denise the Gibbon).
Denise, a poor victim of the
exotic pet trade
The safety of the public is not only an issue for people with dangerous animals such as big cats and non-human primates, the risk of contracting diseases between human and animal is a much larger threat. The spread of monkey-pox from infected prairie dogs in 2003 and the ever-present risk of reptile-associated salmonellosis are just two examples of how seemingly “safe” exotics can be dangerous. In the case of Salmonella, risks to children rise as the popularity of baby turtles, lizards, and snakes grow. Ninety percent of reptiles are asymptomatic carriers of Salmonella bacteria says Michelle Jacmenovic, a research associate of the Humane Society’s Wildlife Advocacy Division. Simon Hable, Director of the North American branch of Traffic, an international organization that monitors the trade in plants and animals, has said that pet reptiles account for 2.5 million imports a year.
(Left) Denise when she first arrived to the Highland Farms Gibbon Sanctuary in Mae Sot, Thailand. She had formerly been a pet. If not for her arms, you would think she was a Capuchin monkey. Photo by Pharanee Deters.
For photos of what gibbons should look like, go to www.ippl.org or hasekamp.com
The source of these problems is due not only to illegal trades but, also, due to the unclear and loophole-ridden regulations of the exotic pet trade. “It’s kind of an old-fashioned industry where we take people at their word,” says Mike Hoffer, owner of Hoffer’s Tropic Life Pets (which sold infected prairie dogs), of the trade. The pet trade is full of infected, illegal, and mistreated animals largely due to loosely enforced and scattered regulations. “The U.S. government doesn’t prohibit the ownership and sale of exotic animals, however, some counties and cities do,” says Susanne Quick of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It is relatively easy to illegally transport an exotic from one part of the country to another because laws are often unknown and misunderstood due to inconsistent regulations and lack of enforcement.
The ideal solution to the mounting negative aspects of the exotic pet trade would be to ban it nationally, even internationally if possible. At a minimum, laws concerning the health and sale of exotics need to be made uniform and enforcement strengthened. As far as international regulations are concerned, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) will meet this November to discuss increasing or decreasing CITES protection for 54 species of wild fauna and flora. If our laws are not changed dramatically, the health and safety of the environment, wildlife, and the public are at a great risk.
For more information and an update, please visit the CITES (www.cites.org) and Traffic (www.traffic.org) websites.
Emily says what you can do:
Emily Kennedy recently graduated from Eckerd College with a BA in Anthropology and a minor in Environmental Studies. She has volunteered at the Highland Farms and Wildlife Refuge in Mae Sot, Thailand and with the Primate Dept. at the Lowry Park Zoo in Tampa, FL. For the past year she worked as a research assistant for a six-year, White-faced Capuchin Monkey project in Bagaces, Costa Rica. Currently she is interning at the Jane Goodall Institute.
On November 3rd, 2004, Governor Pataki signed into law a measure that will ban the keeping of certain exotic animals as pets in New York State. S7616 which will make it illegal to keep primates, large cats and many dangerous snakes as pets in New York. Those owning prohibited animals on January 1st, when the new law takes effect, will be permitted to keep them provided that they can comply with stringent animal care and public safety requirements.
The chapter amendment to the law makes technical changes in addition to expressly permitting ownership of New World monkeys trained to assist people who are paralyzed from the neck down. Such ownership will be predicated on securing a permit from the state.
By Jim Robertson
A deep admiration for nature has led many to another level of appreciation--the craft of wildlife photography. Unfortunately, not all who photograph wildlife do so out of caring and with respect for our fellow beings. In fact, the behavior of many photographers, both amateur and professional, can only be described as disrespectful, disruptive and sometimes dangerous to the animals they are photographing.
For example, every spring in Yellowstone you are sure to see a large group of photographers standing around--or even sitting on lawn chairs--talking loudly right outside some poor badger’s birthing den, waiting for the family to emerge. Though these folks may think nothing of the clamor of a rowdy bar or ball game, how would they like to live next door to that bar or ball field, or wake up to the racket of an expectant crowd of photojournalists right outside their bedroom window?
In response to this kind of ill-behavior, which invariably results in the harassment or endangerment of wildlife, informal guidelines have been established to spell out just how close, in yards or feet, one should get to an individual animal, depending on that species’ tolerance zone.
But rather than memorizing numbers and gauging distances, perhaps it would be easier for photographers and wildlife observers to apply the golden rule in each and every situation. However, instead of the old, oversimplified rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” why not adopt a revised golden rule that takes into account the differences between ourselves and other species? Maybe something like, “Do unto others as you think they would have you do unto them.” In other words, try to envision what the animals’ needs and self interests are and take into consideration how their lives in the wild are different from our own. Empathy, the intellectual or emotional identification with another -- or the ability to relate to others -- is essential for maintaining ethical standards when photographing wildlife.
This mother and young badger were photographed across the road from their den using a 600mm telephoto lens and a 2X multiplier.
Last spring I watched from a distance as the annual gathering of noisy photographers was posted outside the entrance of a badger den. They were so deep in conversation and oblivious to their surroundings that none of them noticed as the mother badger finally made a break for it in hopes of procuring food for her young. The day before, I had photographed the same badger den from across a road with a 600mm telephoto lens fitted with a 2X extender to bring the subject in closer without actually getting close. Because I remained on the opposite side of the road and well away from the den, quietly giving them the space they needed to engage in their activities and enjoy the sunny day, the badger and her young came and went freely, without paying me any notice.
A national Park like Yellowstone can be the perfect place for photographing animals without causing them undue stress. Since they know they are safe from hunting within park boundaries, “game species” are not so distrustful of human presence. Although many species are easily viewable from park roadways, they are much less concerned about vehicles than people approaching on foot. Staying in your car makes wildlife feel more comfortable, and your vehicle makes a great blind for photographing animals calmly going about their business. Some of my best photos have been taken out of the window of my rig.
Other examples of photographer misconduct include trimming away vegetation--that may conceal a nest or den from people and predators--to get a clearer photo, throwing food to attract animals, and the all-too-common habit of yelling or honking at an elk, a bison or a family of bears so they will look toward the camera. By using empathy we can begin to recognize changes in behavior and respect the signals animals use to convey to us that we are irritating them or getting too close for their comfort. Every year irresponsible photographers are gored by bison, trampled by moose, or charged by bears. When these animals are annoyed to the point that they feel the need to defend themselves, chances are they will suffer or die for it in the end. Thoughtless conduct can also force animals to leave their familiar surroundings, interrupt natural activities necessary for survival, or even separate mothers from their young.
Outdoor Photographer magazine ran an article in January/February 2000 on “Tips for Photographing Eagles” with the sub-heading “A long lens, the right location and a sensitive approach can get you excellent images of these majestic birds”. The author of the article, Bill Silliker, Jr. wrote, “If you don’t have a long lens, don’t push it. Ethical wildlife photography requires that we forego attempts to photograph wildlife when we’re not equipped for it or if the attempt might harass or somehow place the subject in jeopardy. Be satisfied with images that show an eagle in its habitat. Editors use those too.”
The other day a neighbor stopped by and, upon seeing the small herd of black-tailed deer who found refuge on my land, asked if I was a hunter. When I said, “No, I’m a wildlife photographer,” he shrugged and replied, “It’s all shooting.”
Well, yes and no. The obvious, major difference is that the animals “shot” with a camera do not end up dead. But because there are similarities to hunting, many people approach wildlife photography with a similar mind-set. It’s laughable to see photographers in a national park camouflaged from head-to-toe, sometimes including face paint, photographing a bull elk as he calmly grazes alongside the road--fully aware of their presence. And I couldn’t count how many times I’ve seen tourists run right up to a bear, elk, bison, or moose with a tiny disposable camera to get their close-up “trophy” photo. They seem to think it’s only fair--that they are entitled to get closer--since they don’t have a large telephoto for their camera. But if they were to examine their motives they would realize that their behavior is not fair to the animal. Is their trophy more important than the well-being of the subject of their photo?
Bull Elk
This bull elk was photographed from my vehicle in Jasper National Park, Alberta, using a telephoto lens
Grizzly Bear
This sow grizzly bear was photographed with a 600mm telephoto from a supervised Forest Service observation platform along Fish Creek, in Southeast Alaska.
Most photographers and photo editors do not differentiate between wild or captive animals when selling and publishing images. Using photos shot at game farms supports those who profit from exploiting animals by keeping them captive to serve as models for photographers, entertainment for tourists, or targets for trophy hunters. At the same time, these photos set a new, unnatural standard for closeness and intimacy with animals that the public expects to see in every future image.
And while on the subject of ethics, how ethical is it to top off a day of photographing waterfowl or ungulates with a dinner of poultry or red meat? Don’t all living beings deserve our compassion and respect? I had long heard that animals feel less threatened by someone who does not eat meat, but I wondered how long a human could survive without consuming the flesh of others. After six years as a vegan, I can attest to the fact that wild animals are not as fearful of me now, and that saying “no” to animal protein is healthier and easier than I ever would have imagined.
-- Jim Robertson
By Ron Baker
At a meeting at the Mohonk Preserve, it was stated that there was some concern about wildfires if there should be an extremely dry summer, and that these fires could be exacerbated by some of the blowdowns caused by wind and ice. The touted cure was “controlled burning.”
The truth is that “controlled burning”, like wildfires, can be very destructive. Even low-level ground fires can kill insects, toads, salamanders, mice and voles who are in burrows close to the surface. Low-growing bushes that can provide food for many species of birds and mammals are often killed. Since much burning is done in the spring, the smoke-producing fire can drive away nesting birds. Those that return will find a dramatically altered environment and a diminished food supply. Moreover, a charred ground surface is far from an ideal habitat for any animal. Even burning fields in late autumn (as is presently being considered at the Preserve) destroys the seeds of frost-killed tall grasses and late blooming flowers. These would otherwise be eaten by some species of wintering birds.
Regular burning results in the depletion of soil quality by destroying microorganisms essential for healthy plant growth. The result is inferior, low-grade plant life, as is found in Albany’s (NY) Pine Bush. Since plant eating animals are only as healthy as their food supply, this principle applies all the way up the food chain.
Moreover, it isn’t uncommon for “controlled burns” to become uncontrollable. There have been many news stores about these.
An Excerpt from the Reno News in 2000:
“The National Park Service’s controlled burn near Los Alamos N.M., is the most deadly example… So far it has scoured some 50,000 acres, historic structures at the old atomic-bomb site, hundreds of homes and tribal land. At last count, 405 families had been burned out. Businesses suffered too, being cut off from customers.”
Several years ago a “prescribed burn” in the Pine Bush raged out of control after a sudden strong wind sprang up. A specially assembled fire-fighting crew and a DEC helicopter were needed to extinguish the blaze.
Since “fire management” is an environmentally destructive practice, one would be justified in asking how it became fairly widespread. As you probably know, it was first proposed some 70 years ago by Aldo Leopold, who was much less of an ecologist than the historical revisionists have led many people to believe. Today, many of Leopold’s contentions are anachronisms. Nevertheless, they are still quite widely accepted by forest and wildlife managers.
The use of fire to manage wildlands didn’t come into general use until the mid-1970s. Prior to that time, a policy of complete fire suppression was usually pursued. The period between 1973 and 1978 was a time of severe economic recession. In New York State unemployment bottomed out at 11.3 per cent, the highest state unemployment rate since The Great Depression. The federal and state governments sought ways to balance budgets by saving money. Forest and park rangers and fire wardens were laid off. The belt-tightening increased during the Reagan presidency.
Since fire-fighting funds were cut, it became common policy to allow fires to burn themselves out on wildlands where homes were not threatened. Likewise, some forestlands were burned, ostensibly to prevent serious fires later. This was like throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it was good dollar diplomacy.
Forest and park officials now began to claim with increasing certitude that was the use of fire was an ecologically sound practice. (Naturally, when people engage in an activity, for whatever reason, they will usually try to justify it.)
The myth that fire is environmentally beneficial became incorporated into ecology textbooks used in colleges and universities, and is advocated by many professors whose programs are funded in part by groups such as the American Forestry Association. The primary problem with these programs is that no emphasis is placed upon an empathy with life and a reverence for Nature. But this is consistent with most forest and wildlife management practices, which are designed to produce sometimes-illusionary short-term benefits, usually at the cost of long-term hazards for the rest of Nature. That is a problem inherent in most commercial enterprises. There are responsible ways to manage natural lands, but they are benevolent and constructive, not malevolent and destructive.
The most basic problem is the prevailing cultural view that human beings are superior to the rest of Nature. Therefore, according to this philosophy, people have an inherent right to use, abuse, or manipulate it in any way that suits their interests. Otherwise good people can often be influenced by bad ideas, especially if these are presented in a seemingly logical fashion and if there would appear to be some benefits that result.
It’s true that some ecosystems, such as pine barrens<, have arrived at their present state as a result of periodic fires. The question is why these fires occurred. In the vast majority of cases they were a result of carelessness, or were caused by deliberate fire setting by mentally disturbed people. This was true for many years in central New Jersey and in the Pine Bush. Simply because fires have burned over an area on a regular basis doesn’t mean that fire is beneficial to the natural world!If these lands were to remain undisturbed by human acts and destructive natural forces they would evolve toward a climax state. Some forms of life would slowly disappear but many others would move in to take their place. Many pine barrens have become so scarred by fires that they are essentially sick ecosystems that support limited numbers of plans and animals.
Today, some forest and wildlife managers seem to be in competition with careless campers, irresponsible hunters, and deliberate match throwers.“Fire management” is a principle that, in many parts of the United States, has become increasingly irresponsible over the years.In parts of the West and Southwest napalm and chemicals are used to start major fires, even crown fires, to destroy insect infestations or for other land or wildlife management purposes.
The use of fire to mange woodlands and open spaces is short-sighted, unscientific, morally questionable, and can be very destructive to plant and animal life.It is my opinion, based on much experience elsewhere, that if fire is allowed to be used in Mohonk Preserve, it will be employed with increasing frequency and in increasingly irresponsible ways as time goes on.Invariably, Nature will be immeasurably diminished.
The problem at Mohonk Preserve, and on natural lands elsewhere in this region, is not droughts and blowdowns.The problem is with people who are careless with fire, since lightning-set fires are extremely rare in this part of the country.The time, money, and effort should be directed toward public education which might help to foster true ecological awareness.
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the seriously misguided plan for burning on Mohonk Preserve.
Ron Baker is a naturalist who homesteaded in the Adirondacks for 27 years.The only way to his handbuilthomestead was to cross a beaver pond and hike for 40 minutes uphill through a rugged forest.Mr. Baker was editor of the Backwoods Journal, a publication through which homesteaders shared the knowledge they’d accumulated over the years living in the woods.It was read by homesteaders, and aspiring homesteaders or those who could only homestead vicariously. In 1985, Mr. Baker published The American Hunting Myth. The book was a well-documented condemnation of wildlife management for hunting. After moving to the Hudson Valley a few years ago, Mr. Baker joined the Mohonk Preserve in order to hike and explore the beautiful preserve area.
By Jeff Davis
Twelve-year-old Melody Kauff’s outdoor education comes in three ways: from the mice whose tracks she follows, from the girl who in a game called “Follow the Scout” led her inadvertently to discover an owl pellet with a skull and teeth mixed in, and from the man in his forties she calls her mentor.
Like numerous youth in the Mid-Hudson Valley, Melody receives an education most of us adults would envy—an education in how to live confidently among deer and bear, owls and hawks. Programs, informal groups, and home schooling opportunities in the area are helping to raise a generation that doesn’t simply believe in its integral connection to the earth’s myriad inhabitants. They live it.
Mentoring programs intimately connect youth to larger communities — human, animal, and plant—through teaching them how to live in nature. At my first workshop on building a mentoring community recently, my hands joined with some forty people, ranging from a spry six year-old to a grizzly sixty-five year- old, who held hands and closed the circle.
While we stood in the meadow, workshop leader Mark Morey told the youth that for the next two hours they must go out into the woods and return with certain “goods”: evidence of specific types of owl, evidence of fox, dogbane for cordage, and more. “You’re going to need each other,” Morey told them. “So, first plan how you’re going to stay together, and how you’re going to find what you need.”
Morey’s purpose, as I would discover, was not simply to send the kids off on a natural treasure hunt. These tasks were part of a larger vision to help youth become more oriented to nature and more empathetic with wildlife.
The youth later returned not just with the required “items” and evidence. After going through an extensive questioning session with Morey, cofounder of the Vermont Wilderness School, they also possessed a deeper appreciation for their natural community. One boy told me he never really understood an owl’s diet and hunger until he felt with his own hands one of its pellets. A young woman said this experience had deepened her appreciation for preserving wildlife’s habitats. Consequently, she’s become involved with a local animal rescue organization.
These mentoring communities emphasize our responsibility to one another and to wildlife. And it begins, according to Morey, with authentic human commu- Into the Woods: Mentoring Youth in the “Invisible School” nities connected intimately to natural communities. Adult mentors, Morey said during a telephone interview, “raise the bar of expectation for youth in terms of character.” Children consequently grow up more aware of their responsibility both to the human community and the natural community. Morey recently sent an older student, for example, to the Canadian border to assist in a project to track and possibly help preserve lynx, now endangered.
Morey’s zeal for building mentoring communities inspired Charles Purvis of Accord, New York, four years ago. After participating in programs similar to Morey’s, Purvis said he instantly saw in his two sons an “amazing awakening marked by wonder, enthusiasm, passion.” Last autumn, Purvis, David Brownstein of New Paltz, New York, Chris Victor, and others formed Red Fox Friends, a group that offers youth workshops and summer camps to further this community-building.
Imagine the world as an animal. How does he see? How does he smell? How does he hear? These are typical activities that Purvis and others at Red Fox Friends engage youth in.
In an activity called “Owl Eyes,” boys and girls learn to view the birch and cedar in front of them with a soft focus. Then, they learn to heed their peripheral vision and “un-focus.” Doing so, Purvis notes, gets youth out of their rational, thinking mind and into a more wondrous state of mind that helps them empathize with animals. With the “Deer Ears” activity, youth try to hear everything they possibly can—what’s above, behind them, beneath them. They try to heed the tiniest ant crawling on a dead leaf. Doing so helps them recognize, too, that someone furry probably is listening to their every move.
And when the kids practice “Fox Walking,” they learn how to walk as silently and “invisibly” as possible like a fox. In some instances, Purvis says, some kids have been able literally to walk right up to a deer. Other wilderness programs in the area offer young people similar opportunities. Riccardo Sierra, Director of Hawk Circle Wilderness Programs—an hour southwest of Albany—says that building bonds between adults and youth is more important than imparting skills. These workshops and summer camps are not about just “cramming” information, says Sierra who has taught in New York since 1989. “The real learning happens between the skills” of animal tracking, fire building, and edible plant harvesting. The nearby Mohonk Preserve’s array of dynamic summer camp programs also heightens youths’ awareness of the outdoors in the context of building human relationships.
To introduce youth to the wilderness, naturalist and environmental educator Jay Leavitt founded the non-profit organization The Red Tail Rising School for Natural History. Leavitt and his groups of home-schooled youth, among other activities, take regular outings to the Adirondacks to track pine marten or cougar. These youth, Leavitt says, amaze him not just from their knowledge of animal behavior but also from their conviction to make the world better for their winged and furry friends.
The heart of these experiences is not about findings as if on a wild treasure hunt. For Bosch Purvis, who turns thirteen in March, it’s about becoming comfortable in nature. “I don’t mean just taking a walk in nature,” Bosch says. “I mean, you know, being comfortable in nature for three weeks without staying in a building.” An avid skier, sledder, and soccer player, Bosch is learning to love the outdoors for more than recreation. He and Melody and thousands of other lucky youth are discovering core parts of themselves as well in what some people like to call “the invisible school” — wilderness.
Jeff Davis is author of The Journey from the Center to the Page (Penguin 2004), His articles appear in publications such as Conscious Choice and Enlightened Practice. He is managing editor of Wildlife Watch Binocular.
Luc Jacquet’s documentary film March of the Penguins — due out this July — follows emperor penguins’ travails as they struggle
 |
| Baby penguin reaches for food Photo by Guillaume Dargaud |
to mate and to raise a family in the harsh Antarctic. Faced with winds reaching some 90 MPH, the females march over 70 miles and back to find food. Yet, nature’s sheer forces aren’t penguins’ only challenge. Mounting evidence suggests that global warming — as well as a proposed solution to confront global warming — will bring even more peril to penguins and other species across the planet.
The phenomenon of the greenhouse effect is fairly straightforward. As solar rays heat Earth’s surface, part of the energy forms into infra- red radiation. Much of that is absorbed by molecules of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere and reflected back to the surface as heat. The gaseous molecules thus act like a greenhouse’s glass panes by retaining the sun’s warmth. Too much heat retention can make Earth another Venus, steaming and unlivable for virtually all animal species
