Wildlife Watch

“Invasive Species” is a term used by naturalists and conservationists to describe introduced species that have an undesirable affect on native wildlife or flora.

Without question, some non-native species can be very damaging, but something that is overlooked far too often is the benefit to natural areas that is derived from the presence of non-natives.  National Geographic published an interesting opinion piece on July 24, 2014 on this very topic. “It's Time to Stop Thinking That All Non-Native Species Are Evil” challenges us to examine the common knee-jerk reaction of wanting to eliminate introduced plants and animals, because many species are having a beneficial effect on their new homes.

The simplest example of this is found in something all of us do every day.  Many of the plants we farm for our dinner tables did not originate in North America, and in addition to being our main source of food, these crops also provide food and shelter to countless numbers of native wildlife.  It’s hard to imagine an argument against the benefits derived by these non-native plant species.

On the more exotic front, we can look to California to see how the establishment of non-native species can be a positive. 

When naturalists there ripped out and poisoned spartina grass, they found that their efforts were harming the endangered California clapper rail.  Efforts to eradicate the grass have been discontinued as a result and spartina grass will stay put.

Thankfully, a new school of thought among ecologists is blooming that is considering the value of leaving non-native species alone. The best example of the benefits of non-native species is that of the honey bee.  As we know, honeybees pollinate fruit and vegetable crops and carry out the same service for many species of wild plants. They are one of the most important species in North America yet they are not native to the New World, having been brought here several times in the 1600s.

Though we’ve been taught to think “Native, good; non-native, bad,” native species are not always beneficial species.  The insect that is killing more trees than any other in North America is the mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae – a species native to North America. Non-native beetles are not having such a devastating effect.

 “We predict the proportion of non-native species that are viewed as benign or even desirable will slowly increase over time,” wrote ecologist Martin Schlaepfer of the State University of New York in a paper published Feb. 22 in Conservation Biology.  Because only a fraction of non-native species will cause biological and economic damage, researchers predict the opinion of non-native species will slowly become more positive as their contributions become recognized.

CONCILIATION BIOLOGY

Scott Carroll of the University of California, Davis calls for a new kind of science he termed “conciliation biology.” Simply trying to eradicate all exotic species can be costly, he argues, and can harm native species. Introduced cats were eradicated from Maquarie Island off the coast of Australia after having driven two of the island’s bird species extinct, but with the cats gone an introduced population of rabbits exploded, devouring the native plants. 

Surely, challenging our beliefs about non-native species can lead to a greater understanding of the role they play. It should be kept in mind that non-native wildlife are individuals who enjoy their lives as we do, and killing them has ethical as well as scientific implications.

Another significant point to remember is that the species that has had the most devastating effect on the environment is Homo Sapiens.  Human activity devastates wildlife species and their native environment and it is the activity of this single species that has harmed biodiversity more than all others combined.

Before vilifying non-native species and cursing them with the tag “invasive,” we should look closely at who they are and what they do, and perhaps come to appreciate both.

Please visit:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-invasive-species-conservation-biology-extinction-climate-science/  and

http://www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/pubs/ja_iitf_2011_Davis001.pdf?

------------------------

Joe Miele is a writer for the C.A.S.H. Courier.  He works for a spay/neuter group and is a non-native resident of New Mexico

Sent by GooseWatchNYC

New York City is currently exploring ways to manage deer on Staten Island and in the Bronx. The city has assembled an Interagency Deer Task Force, which is in the process of considering various management options to address complaints about a growing deer population on Staten Island. The city's management must be approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the DEC will not approve any management plan that isn't “tied to” a USDA environmental assessment (EA).

Earlier this month, the USDA put forward an EA that covers the entire state of New York, providing information about various lethal and non-lethal management options as well as guidance, which can be used by municipalities across the state in the development of local deer-management plans.

Get involved: GooseWatch NYC is a volunteer-run organization, we need your help! Join our listserv to get more involved and discuss ideas, strategy, and actions we plan to take.

The USDA's EA presents three potential courses for its future role in deer management in New York State: (While it’s too late for formal comments, this will give you an idea of the options being considered.)

Alternative 1: (USDA Wildlife Service's preferred alternative): Continue the Current White-tailed Deer Management Program. Under this alternative, Wildlife Services would continue to assist property owners and managers with lethal management, as permitted by the DEC. USDA favors lethal management as necessary to control deer and reduce their population.

Alternative 2: White-tailed deer Damage Management by Wildlife Services through Technical Assistance Only. Under this alternative, Wildlife Services would provide those requesting assistance with technical aid only. The implementation of methods and techniques to resolve or prevent damage would be the responsibility of the requester.

Alternative 3: No White-tailed deer Damage Management Conducted by Wildlife Services. Wildlife Services would have no involvement with any aspect of white-tailed deer damage management in New York. 

GoosewatchNYC supports Alternative 3: No White-tailed Deer Management Conducted by Wildlife Services, or if selected, Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 but with strict reliance on humane and non-lethal strategies over lethal management.

Although many assume that "culling" is necessary, deer populations have not exceeded their biological carrying capacity, and in some cases are peripatetic — the end result of deer slaughters will be more deer, more expense, a failure to address underlying problems, and a never-ending cycle of killing.

--------------------------

GooseWatchNYC can be reached at goosewatching@gmail.com

Whether non-human animals suffer pain has long been debated. Comparative brain physiology and behavioral reactions have been used to argue the point.
Scientists in relevant fields have been able to make the case that all vertebrates experience pain, and also some invertebrates, such as octopi. In 2012, many noted specialists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that many non-human animals have consciousness not unlike our own. This implies that they can also suffer pain as we do.
This is an important finding because animal protection advocates have raised concerns about the possible suffering of fish caused by angling. In fact, Germany has banned specific types of fishing because of the infliction of pain upon the fish.

Looked at logically, it seems absurd that anyone could think that getting a sharp metal hook caught in your lip or in your gut would not hurt terribly.  Not to mention the pain caused when it is ripped out, and then the fish is left to suffocate in the open air.

Recognizing that fish do indeed feel pain is a long overdue acknowledgement, and ideally, should lead to banning angling worldwide.  We think this is a good beginning towards a more humane society.

------------------------

We promised that we would continue to publish writings by Eileen Fay that have no expiration date.  Eileen was passionate about all species.  Seafood is another area of concern as our consciousness expands to all beings.  It is also clear that our choice to become vegan is the only way we can help to stop the suffering of "food" animals.

By E.M. Fay (Published posthumously)

As members of Wildlife Watch know, wildlife rehabilitation is our primary focus.  We are so grateful to the too few wildlife rehabilitators who give of their time and money to help wild animals.

Over the years of maintaining wildlife rehabilitation lists, we have been struck by the fact that each year results in ever increasing attrition.

Rehabbers are forced to stop practicing due to money and time resources, but also due to continuing regulations that put them at risk of violating state laws.  That, and the harassment they suffer by the game agencies from which they obtain their permits.

While the bureaus of wildlife give permits (for which they charge), they give wildlife rehabbers no help to do their work.  In fact, they do not allow wildlife rehabbers to charge for their services, yet they do allow "nuisance trappers," who usually use lethal means, to charge fees.  If your permit is to capture and kill a wild animal, you will get support, but if it is to help a wild animal in distress, you will get no support and often the opposite.

Particularly appalling is when wildlife rehabilitation of an entire species is prohibited.

Ohio has stopped allowing the rehabilitation of deer, including fawns. This past 2015 baby season (spring and summer) was sad and disturbing when calls came in to Wildlife Watch from Ohio residents who had found fawns in distress, some next to dead mothers.  To compound the public’s concern and anxiety, we had no choice but to tell them that fawn rehabilitation was not allowed in Ohio. 

One of our Ohio friends believes, as we do - that deer matter. She, along with a medical doctor who feels similarly, introduced a bill called "Trooper's Law" to bring back deer rehabilitation to Ohio. Wildlife Watch was asked to write a letter on behalf of the law, and this is what we wrote:

November 16, 2015

Sent to all of the Honorables of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee

PLEASE SUPPORT TROOPER'S LAW AND ALLOW DEER REHABILITATION

Dear Representative Landis:

Wildlife Watch is a not for profit organization that operates one of the leading national hotlines for injured and orphaned wild animals.  The hotline is referred to the public by police departments, towns, veterinarians, and SPCAs across the country.

This past spring and summer, scores of calls came from concerned OH citizens about orphaned deer, raccoons, and other species found in distress.

What struck me was that people from all walks of life, including hunters, were appalled to learn that OH did not allow the rehabilitation of fawns.  When we asked if they would be willing to support an OH bill that would bring back fawn rehabilitation, they overwhelmingly said, "Yes."  Wildlife rehabbers and the field of wildlife rehabilitation should be on a par with other community services, such as ambulance squads, fire departments, police departments, and community services that assist people in need.  This is a public need, not only a wildlife need.   By allowing deer rehabilitation, the public is not placed at risk, and the animals are not given the wrong help by well-meaning but unqualified individuals. 

Wildlife Watch fully supports the efforts of Ohioans to bring wildlife rehabilitation back to OH.  We have been hugely saddened and incapacitated by Ohio's policy of withholding care for deer and raccoons in need and look forward to a change of policy.

We hope that laws pass, or policies change, to favor those who are helping the public by helping them to save wild animals.

Sincerely,

Anne Muller, President

-------------------------

Follow-up:

Sadly, this law appears to be dying in committee (not moving). If you are in Ohio and agree with us, please let us hear from you. We will get you in touch with people who feel the same way and would like to push Trooper’s Law along, or reintroduce it in the new session. There's strength in numbers.  If you are a wildlife rehabilitator in another state and are facing similar restrictions, we'd like to hear from you as well. Contact us at wildwatch@verizon.net.