While the headline of the article below on Wolves migrating from Mexico into Arizona is confusing and unclear, the article itself reveals some of the most positive news about the potential for expanded rewilding of Wolves that I have heard in some time.............The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will stop relocating Mexican Wolves that wander into Arizona back into the current reintroduction boundaries in the Apache and Gila National Forests .........The bottom line is that any Wolves that make it across the border into the USA from Mexico will have a chance to naturally recolonize as much of Arizona as they can............Hopefully there is enough unwalled habitat for those Wolves to make it up North...........FANTASTIC!

Agreement limits relocation of wild wolves

azstarnet.com

0

PHOENIX — Federal officials have agreed not to try to capture and relocate wolves entering Arizona from Mexico.

In a deal approved Monday in federal court, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will consider wolves found wandering outside the current reintroduction boundary areas to be wild. The agency is, in essence, revoking the permission it gave itself to capture and relocate the animals.

Michael Robinson of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity said the settlement is a crucial step in helping reintroduce the wolf population to its natural habitats in Arizona.

Robinson said the issue arose two years ago when Mexico began reintroducing wolves into its northern regions, a few dozen miles south of the area where Arizona and New Mexico meet.

What happened, he said, is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on its own, then gave itself a permit — without public notice — to capture any wolf that might cross the border and cause problems with livestock.

The agency already has the power to capture and relocate those wolves being reintroduced into Arizona and New Mexico in an effort to keep them from preying on cattle. That is because the whole reintroduction program is being conducted under rules that specifically consider the wolves in the program to be a “nonessential population.’’

But Robinson said there is no reason to unilaterally decide wolves that wander into Arizona on their own should be treated in a similar fashion.

More to the point, he said it’s illegal. Robinson said the rules that govern the domestic reintroduction program, including relocation, do not apply to wolves that were not placed by the United States government but instead wandered into this country on their own.

“These wolves, under the law, are fully protected’’ as an endangered species,’’ Robinson said. “And you can’t simply sacrifice them under the law for special interests, in this case, the livestock industry.’’

Robinson said it is impossible to determine whether any of the wolves released by the Mexican government have, in fact, made their way into the United States.

In essence, the lawsuit settlement recognizes the rules require that if a wolf is found outside the reintroduction area — or other areas where the animals have been welcome — it is required to presume the animal is “of wild origin with full endangered status.’’ And that can be overcome only with other evidence the wolf is of domestic origin and reintroduced, like a radio collar or identification mark.

Robinson said the settlement may actually help wolf reintroduction in this country.

He said the latest report shows there are 75 wolves in the program, including 37 in Arizona. But that includes only three breeding pairs.

Robinson said inbreeding results in smaller litter sizes. He said wolves released in Mexico that manage to make their way across the border could help diversify the population.

The current wolf reintroduction area includes the Apache and Gila national forests as well as lands where the owners have said they are welcoming the animals. Robinson said that includes the Fort Apache Reservation as well as property owned in New Mexico by media mogul Ted Turner

I'm the first one to talk about how man-made CO2 and methane from all types of fossil fuel extraction(including Natural Gas Fracking) is causing Global Warming................Yet, in the same breath I will tell you that putting windmills on every mountaintop and farmers field along with fuel cells across our deserts is not the answer to our problems...............Industrializing our remaining open spaces and somehow being told that we are being environmentally responsible is pure B.S........................And the fact is that all the windmills in the world are not going to provide us with the power we need to keep our economy strong and our houses warmed and cooled............Three separate studies have now documented that industrial wind does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions..................... It is a simple concept to understand.................. Since wind energy is intermittent and unreliable, it cannot be counted on, and thus requires backup fossil fuel power availability................. When the wind blows, a fossil fuel plant has to be turned down or off........................ When the wind stops blowing (which can vary on a minute-to-minute basis), the power source has to be ramped up again...................... It is analogous to driving in stop-and-go traffic -- more fuel is consumed and greater amounts of carbon are emitted................Thus far, every so-called solution to Global warming involves desecrating the land with ugliness and destruction..........................What is the alternative that can power us up and keep our open spaces OPEN AND GREEN????????

Critics and Supporters Agree – Giant Wind Turbines Are Ugly

northeastwindmills.com

Paul Crowe

West Virginia wind turbines destroy a mountain top and the view – note the land surrounding the base of the turbines, now picture a grape vineyard

We think putting up huge wind turbines on land overlooking the scenic vineyards and farms of North East township is a terrible idea, no surprise there, but what about the supporters of big wind projects? What do they think?

T. Boone Pickens, billionaire Texas oilman and several years ago, strong proponent of building a wind energy facility with over 2000 wind turbines in the central United States, was interviewed about the project by Fast Company magazine.

Fast Company: And you’ll do all this on your beautiful 68,000-acre ranch?
Pickens: I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly. The hub of each turbine is up 280 feet, and then you have a 120-foot radius on the blade. It’s the size of a 40-story building.

When even strong supporters of wind energy projects say the huge wind turbines are ugly, not something they want to see near their homes, why are opponents criticized when they say the same thing?

Often overlooked in the debate over wind turbines is how few of the proponents live near them. Some of their strongest political backers vigorously fight wind projects within sight of their own homes, but they’ve also found, the promise of money can put blinders on many eyes in small rural communities when developers want to move in. Of course, they don’t really move in, they’re just passing through, leaving a huge ugly mess behind.

Pickens didn’t want them on his ranch, even though he had huge amounts of room and could place them far away from his house. He knew what an eyesore they would be, even the smaller ones being proposed then. The 500 foot tall monsters the developers want to build here and locate much closer to people and property than anything Pickens would have had to contend with, are even bigger than what he had in mind. Big isn’t beautiful, they’re ugly, plain and simple. No amount of lipstick will dress up these pigs.

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

 Not only will large-scale wind power blight Maine, but it won't lower emissions or reduce our oil dependence.

By JONATHAN CARTER

Mountaintop industrial wind development in Maine is both an ecological disaster and economic boondoggle. The mountaintop wind developers, or as I like to call them, "the mountain slayers and profiteers," are foisting upon the state an Enron-esque scam. This house of cards will collapse. The only questions are, when, how much damage will have occurred, and how many billions of dollars of stranded costs will the ratepayers and taxpayers have to pick up?

From an ecological perspective there is absolutely no way one can defend mountaintop industrial wind development.

Blasting and mountaintop leveling cause irreversible damage to soils, hydrological flows and the unique assemblages of plants and animal. Thousands of bats and birds will be killed and many species of wildlife, including bear, moose and deer, will be forced to flee from the massive ground vibrations and the pulsating of high- and low-frequency noise.

If, as envisioned by the state, 360 miles of mountaintop industrial wind structures are built (resulting in 50,000 acres of clearcut), the visual pollution of 400-foot towers with flashing lights, and the accompanying noise pollution, will penetrate thousands of square miles of the Maine wild lands. It would completely alter the bucolic nature of the quiet Maine countryside.

The biggest fraud being perpetrated by the mountain slayers and profiteers is that mountaintop industrial wind will somehow reduce our dependence on foreign oil and somehow result in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Three years ago, before I started to examine the science around mountaintop industrial wind, I would have wholeheartedly agreed -- but the facts are the facts.

Mountaintop industrial wind use will not reduce our consumption of oil and will not reduce green house gas emissions. Only 1 percent of the electricity in the United States is produced by oil. In Maine we have two oil-fired electric power plants, which, because of the high expense, are only used when peak demand outstrips supply.

Three separate studies have now documented that industrial wind does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a simple concept to understand. Since wind energy is intermittent and unreliable, it cannot be counted on, and thus requires backup fossil fuel power availability. When the wind blows, a fossil fuel plant has to be turned down or off. When the wind stops blowing (which can vary on a minute-to-minute basis), the power source has to be ramped up again. It is analogous to driving in stop-and-go traffic -- more fuel is consumed and greater amounts of carbon are emitted.

Yet the American Wind Energy Association (a lobbying group paid for by the wind developers) still is trying to paint industrial wind as a "green" renewable energy. This is analogous to the tobacco companies for years telling us that cigarette smoking is not hazardous to our health. And, like the tobacco companies, the wind industry has its paid-for scientists and environmental groups promoting its mantra.

If the ecological disaster of mountaintop industrial wind development is not enough to convince people to say no, then just consider the economic impacts.

Wind development would not even be a dream if it were not for the massive federal subsidies -- your tax dollars. If Maine constructs 360 miles of mountaintop industrial wind towers, $5 billion of your money will be placed in the bank accounts of the wind developers.

Currently, a wind developer can get 30 percent of a project's cost upfront from the U.S. Treasury. This does not include the loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation and potential production tax credits. While wind developers like to point out that they get a significantly smaller piece of the total energy subsidy pie than other energy projects, the fact remains that on a per-megawatt-produced basis, wind subsidies are 12 to 20 times greater. (Wind is subsidized at $23 per megawatt -- the next nearest subsidy is nuclear at $1.59 per megawatt).

The bottom line is that mountaintop industrial wind energy is two to three times more expensive than conventional sources. If you add the cost of the necessary new transmission lines and associated facilities, the price differential gets even bigger.

Why would it be in Maine's interest to destroy our mountaintops to create energy that is three times more expensive and will undoubtedly raise our electric rates? This becomes even more absurd when one considers that Maine already has a surplus of energy -- yes, we are a net exporter.

The Maine wind developers like to talk about the contribution of about $800 million spent to date on industrial wind in Maine. What they fail to mention is that most of this money was provided by federal government subsidies -- our tax dollars.

In addition, the bulk of the $800 million paid for turbines that were manufactured in foreign countries. In truth, the economic benefit to Maine thus far has been small -- only a few hundred temporary construction jobs. The irony is that once these projects are completed, they create very few permanent jobs.

The increased cost to ratepayers and taxpayers for a small number of temporary construction jobs is many times more than the wages paid by the developers for these jobs.

So how do these developers get away with bilking billions of our tax dollars to generate wind energy by destroying our mountaintops with industrial turbines, which in the long run are going to significantly raise our energy costs? This is a con job and a scam.

By any measure, mountaintop industrial wind use is uneconomical. It will not only raise electric rates (which is terrible for business), it will also have the unintended consequence of undermining Maine's most reliable and profitable industries -- tourism and recreation. It is our "quality of place" that brings 34 million visitors each year. It is our quality of place that generates $10 billion in sales each year. Our quality of place is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

If we destroy the golden egg, our competitive advantage will disappear and folks will no longer want to come to "Vacationland," where every mountain has monstrous 400-foot towers with flashing lights. They might as well stay home in New Jersey.

Another unintended consequence of mountaintop industrial wind development is its impact on property values. Recent nationwide studies have documented that property values plummet 20 percent to 40 percent within a two-mile radius of industrial wind turbines. There are already scores of folks in Maine who, because of the noise and visual pollution of wind turbines, would like to sell and move. However, most of these folks are stuck because nobody wants to buy their property.

How can we let these profiteers do this to Maine families?

In the final analysis, this house of cards the wind developers have built is going to come crashing down -- but not because these folks have seen the light, become less greedy and developed an ecological conscience.

Yes, like Enron, mountaintop industrial wind development is based on a pyramid scheme that is unsustainable. Industrial wind not only is unreliable, but the cost, even with the huge subsidies, cannot compete with the cost of natural gas.

At $4 per million BTUs, natural gas costs would have to more than double to become more expensive than mountaintop industrial wind, with its $6.65 per million BTU subsidy. Switching to natural gas on a national scale -- replacing coal -- would have the added advantage of reducing electricity generation-related greenhouse gases by as much as 75 percent.

In conclusion, I want to make it clear that I believe strongly that we need to move away from fossil fuels. We need to pursue renewables -- residential/community wind and solar, geothermal, micro-hydro, etc. Energy conservation and efficiency should be our top priority.

Unfortunately, intermittent and non-storable mountaintop industrial wind power is not the answer.It is not the benign "green" industry some would like to have you believe.

The environmental damage to this place we love and call Maine will be catastrophic. It will significantly raise our electric rates, which will stifle business development and drain dollars out of the pockets of Mainers. It will reduce tourism and recreation revenue as well as strip Mainers of wealth through reduced property values.

The gold rush of wind developers, feeding at the trough of federal and state subsidies, must be stopped before Maine is transformed from a wild and bucolic paradise to an industrial wind wasteland.

Jonathan Carter is director of the Forest Ecology Network.

A thank you to biologist Roland Kays for posting Too Many Deer: A Bigger Threat to Eastern Forests than Climate Change? on his Facebook page..................This Nature Conservancy article adds to the story that our great American Naturalist(Aldo Leopold) first brought to our attention over 60 years ago when he stated: “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.” —Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949 ....................Findings similar to Leopold have been documented with increasing frequency across the country..................... U.S. Forest Service researchers have noted that even if areas with high deer densities were managed to reduce the impact of deer, there may be long-lasting legacy effects (Royo 2010).................. Webster (2005) found severe and lasting impacts at Smoky Mountain National Park to be so complete that some plants such as trilliums were unlikely to recolonize local areas on their own....................... Deer are also well-documented vectors for the dispersal of non-native exotic plants (Knight et al. 2009, Baiser et al. 2008, Williams and Ward 2006)..............In northern Minnesota, TNC staff demonstrated that decades of over browsing has led to recruitment failure for many tree species, a shift in sub-canopy and canopy dominance towards non-preferred white spruce, and significantly lower forest productivity (White 2012)................ In New York, TNC scientists report that one-third of New York’s forests are currently compromised as a result of excessive herbivory (see New York Forest Regeneration Study)......................No amount of human hunting is going to bring our forests back to biological health without the return of the Deer's "dancing partners", the Wolf and the Puma.......................Their age old dance has been interrupted by our myopic and narcistic outlook on the natural world that holds that everything is on the planet for our use and plunder and that the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" applies only to the human animal rather than all of life's creation........................Time to wake up boys and girls and fight long and hard for full rewilding of our natural areas, not a piecemeal approach with a species here and a species there----our long term health merits that we find a way to minimize the naysayers and create private and public partnerships that make rewilding a reality in our lifetime

Too Many Deer: A Bigger Threat to

 Eastern Forests than Climate Change?

A beautiful animal that also happens to arguably be the greatest threat to forests in the eastern United States. Photo: Matt Miller/TNC

By Allen Pursell, Southern Indiana Program Director, The Nature Conservancy in Indiana; Troy Weldy, Director of Ecological Management, The Nature Conservancy in New York; Mark White, Forest Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota and the Dakotas

 “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.” —Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949

In August, 2012 The Bloomberg View published a staff editorial entitled Deer Infestation Calls for Radical Free-Market Solution. The Wall Street Journal then ran a story in November 2012 entitled America Gone Wild, noting the impact of overabundant deer. If business news organizations can talk freely about deer, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) needs to speak openly as well. Aldo Leopold long ago warned us of the problems of a growing deer herd. Have we waited too long to heed his advice, or is there still time to reverse the damage done?

No native vertebrate species in the eastern United States has a more direct effect on habitat integrity than the white-tailed deer. There are no hard numbers, but in many states deer populations continue to rise well beyond historical norms. In many areas of the country deer have changed the composition and structure of forests by preferentially feeding on select plant species.

In northern Minnesota, TNC staff demonstrated that decades of overbrowsing led to recruitment failure for many tree species, a shift in subcanopy and canopy dominance towards non-preferred white spruce, and significantly lower forest productivity (White 2012). In New York, TNC scientists report that one-third of New York’s forests are currently compromised as a result of excessive herbivory (see New York Forest Regeneration Study).

Findings similar to these have been documented across the country. U.S. Forest Service researchers have noted that even if areas with high deer densities were managed to reduce the impact of deer, there may be long-lasting legacy effects (Royo 2010). Webster (2005) found severe and lasting impacts at Smoky Mountain National Park to be so complete that some plants such as trilliums were unlikely to recolonize local areas on their own. Deer are also well-documented vectors for the dispersal of non-native exotic plants (Knight et al. 2009, Baiser et al. 2008, Williams and Ward 2006).

Indirect effects on wildlife have been reported as well, such as widespread declines of North American songbird populations (Chollet 2012). One study found forest songbirds that preferred nesting in the shrub and intermediate canopy layer declined in abundance and species richness as deer density increased (deCalesta 1994).

White-tailed deer likely impact every landscape east of the Mississippi River. The damage has been insidious — both slow moving and cumulative. Unfortunately, the harm is often overlooked, or worse, accepted as somehow “natural.”

In our opinion, no other threat to forested habitats is greater at this point in time — not lack of fire, not habitat conversion, not climate change. Only invasive exotic insects and disease have been comparable in magnitude. We can argue about which threat is more significant than another, but no one who walks the eastern forests today can deny the impact of deer to forest condition.
It is clearly true that fire suppression has had a widespread impact on successional trajectory and tree species composition. A natural fire return interval would be a great benefit to many eastern forests. Yet even where fire is present, excessive deer herbivory has been shown to depress tree species diversity or at least minimize the benefits of fire. In the words of a recent study on the interactions of fire, canopy gaps, and deer browsing: “… restoring disturbances without controlling browsing may be counterproductive.” (Nuttle, 2013)

While we acknowledge that climate change is a long-term stressor that will lead to significant changes in eastern forest ecosystems, high deer populations have had a much greater negative impact currently and over the last several decades. At present there is little evidence of direct climate change impacts on eastern forests (Beckage et al. 2008, Woodall et al. 2009, Zhu et al. 2012, Rustad et al. 2012). With climate envelope and other modeling systems, we have a general understanding about likely range shifts and compositional changes in eastern forests over the next 50-100 years. However, due to the many interacting factors such as atmospheric deposition (nitrogen, ozone), insect pests and pathogens, invasive plants, CO₂ enrichment, longer growing seasons, and white-tailed deer populations, there is a high degree of uncertainty about the future condition and function of eastern forests in a changing climate (Frelich and Reich 2009, Rustad et al. 2013).

No such uncertainty exists regarding the negative impacts of high deer populations on eastern forests; the body of evidence is unequivocal. In this article, we present only a small fraction of the literature on deer impacts. Reducing the impact of deer herbivory is currently a key forest restoration strategy (White 2012, Nuttle et al. 2013) and likely will become more important in order to help maintain resilient, functioning forests in a warming climate (Galatowitsch et al.2009).

Engaging society to address the problem will be difficult, probably similar to our experience with wild pig eradication in California and Hawaii, but on a wider scale. Views on deer management are deeply entrenched, both among those who hunt and those who don’t. People have strong opinions when it comes to deer.

A Call to Action

The forest understory is nearly absent except for Japanese stiltgrass. Note the deer appears to be especially thin. Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania. Photo: Ron Rathfon.

Change is possible but it won’t be easy or quick.

Deer management cannot be regulated at the federal level. As early as 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that states have “ownership” of their wildlife. As a result, each state has its own intricate rules. State regulations need not be standardized, but efforts at reform must be made state-by-state. This process will be slow as rules are generally promulgated by processes that ensure adequate evaluation by respective wildlife authorities and to allow for public review.

Nevertheless, some states are beginning to do the difficult work of changing policies to stabilize or reduce the number of deer. For example, Indiana recently enacted the first modern firearms season targeting female deer in the state’s history.

It will be difficult to overcome traditional hunter concepts of proper deer management as it is counter-intuitive to most hunters that fewer game animals are desirable. Decades of effort, patience, and expense were invested to enhance populations to the point where hunting success is now commonplace. To suggest that populations be reduced and therefore increase the effort needed to harvest a deer understandably generates resistance. Success will take a carefully crafted and sustained public relations effort.

Like almost all conservation problems, deer management is a societal issue. If the deer population is to be reduced, it must be reduced slowly. Rules that lower the population drastically will almost certainly spur a backlash from hunters who can appeal to their respective legislatures to overturn regulations they regard as harsh. In an effort to lower the population of deer in Wisconsin the DNR liberalized hunting dramatically.
The result was a hunter revolt. Gov. Scott Walker campaigned on a pledge to fix deer management. Once elected, he made good on that promise by appointing a deer trustee to evaluate his state’s DNR. The trustee’s final report noted that by failing to adequately communicate with hunters and involve them in determining solutions the DNR had lost credibility (Kroll 2012). A similar push back may be occurring in Pennsylvania.

In some sense one of the greatest losses of all is that deer are no longer viewed as the majestic and even mystical animals of the forest that they were only a few decades ago. To quote Bloomberg: “… it’s hard to think of a more insidious threat to forests, farms and wildlife, not to mention human health and safety, than deer.”

How different that is from the time of John Muir, who wrote, “Standing, lying down, walking, feeding, running even for its life, it [deer] is always invincibly graceful, and adds beauty and animation to every landscape — a charming animal and a great credit to nature.”

Opinions expressed on Cool Green Science and in any corresponding comments are the personal opinions of the original authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Nature Conservancy.
References

Allan B.F., L.S. Goessling, G.A. Storch, and R.E. Thach. 2010. Blood meal analysis to identify reservoir hosts for Amblyomma americanum ticks. Emerging Infectious Disease 16(3):433-440.
Baiser, B.J., L. Lockwood, D. La Puma, and M.F.J. Aronson. 2008. A perfect storm: two ecosystem engineers interact to degrade deciduous forests of New Jersey. Biological Invasions 10: 785-795.(Beckage, Osborne et al. 2008)
Beckage, B., B. Osborne, et al. 2008. A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 4197-4202.
Beckage, B., B. Osborne, D.G. Gavin, C. Pucko, T. Siccama and T. Perkins 2008). “A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(11): 4197-4202.
Bloomberg View. (2012, August 8). Deer infestation calls for Radical Free-Market Solution. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from http://www.bloomberg.com/.
Chollet, S. and J. Martin. 2012. Declining woodland birds in North America: should we blame Bambi? Diversity and Distributions doi: 10.1111/ddi.12003.
Conover, M.R. 1998. Perceptions of American agricultural producers about wildlife on their farms and ranches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3):597-604.
deCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(4): 711-718.
Fagerstone, K.A. and W. H. Clay. 1997. Overview of USDA Animal Damage Control Efforts to Manage Overabundant Deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2): 413-417.
Frelich, L.E. and P.B. Reich. 2010. Will environmental changes reinforce the impact of global warming on the prairie–forest border of central North America? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 371-378.
Galatowitsch, S., L. Frelich. 2009. Regional climate change adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation in a midcontinental region of North America. Biological Conservation 142: 2012-2022.
Knight, T.M., J.L. Dunn, L.A. Smith, J. Davis, and S. Kalisz. 2009. Deer facilitate invasive plant success in Pennsylvania forest understory. Natural Areas Journal 29(2): 110-116.
Kroll, J.C., D.C. Guynn, Jr, and G.L. Alt. 2012. Final Report and Recommendations by Wisconsin White-tailed Deer Trustee and Review Committee. 2012. Madison, Wisconsin. 136 pp.
Nuttle, T., A.A. Royo, M.B. Adams, and W.P. Carson. 2013. Historic disturbance regimes promote tree diversity only under low browsing regimes in eastern deciduous forest. Ecological Monographs 83(1): 3-17.
Royo, A.A., S.L. Stout, D.S. deCalesta, T.G. Pierson. 2010. Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions: Is recovery limited by legacy effects? Biological Conservation 143: 2425-2434.
Rustad, L., J. Campbell, J. Dukes, T. Huntington, K. Fallon Lambert, J. Mohan, N. Rodenhouse. 2012. Changing Climate, Changing Forests: The Impacts of Climate Change on Forests of the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-99: 56pp.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2012, October 23). It’s West Virginia Again. Mountain State Leads State Farm’s List of States Where Deer-Vehicle Confrontations Are Most Likely. Statefarm.com. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from http://www.statefarm.com/.
Wall Street Journal. (2012, November 2). America Gone Wild. online.wsj.online.com. Retrieved January 18, 2013 from http://online.wsj.com/.
Webster, C.R., M.A. Jenkins, J.H. Rock. 2005. Long-term response of spring flora to chronic herbivory and deer exclusion in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 125: 297–307.
White, M.A. 2012. Long-term effects of deer browsing: Composition, structure, and productivity in a northeastern Minnesota old-growth forest. Forest Ecology and Management 269:222-228.
Williams, S.C. and J.S. Ward. 2006. Exotic seed dispersal by white-tailed deer in southern Connecticut. Natural Areas Journal 26(4): 383-390.
Woodall, C.W., C.M. Oswalt, J.A. Westfall, C.H. Perry, and A.O. Finley.  2009. An indicator of tree migration in the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 1434-1444.
Zhu, K., C.W. Woodall and J.S. Clark. 2012. Failure to migrate: lack of tree range expansion in response to climate change. Global Change Biology 18: 1042-1052.

Allen Pursell has been with The Nature Conservancy in Indiana for 19 years and holds a BS and MS in Forestry from Purdue University. Contrary to what the article may lead you to believe he likes deer very much. Mark White is the Forest Ecologist for The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota and the Dakotas. Mark’s work focuses on ecological forestry, habitat conservation, and climate change adaptation. Troy Weldy is Director of Ecological Management for The Nature Conservancy in New York.

Stripped of it's carnivores(Grizzlies, Wolves, Pumas) by the mid 1800's, Iowa, with only Foxes, Coyotes and Bobcats(10-25 pound animals) remaining,, still find themselves concerned with a declining deer population............The dramatic loss of Conservation Reserve land due to rising commodity prices and demand for biofuels, has shrunk habitat for all wild creatures ...... There used to be some deer because of old groves and CRP acres, now these areas have basically become deer-free...................Combine this key factor with Global Warming induced drought and you have a far larger problem than if you had significant open spaces that allowed for Deer,.Bison, Wolves and Pumas to exist side by side as they did pre "sod-busting"

The state of deer(Iowa)

spencerdailyreporter.com

By Dana Larsen

Decreasing amounts conservation land and last year's
 drought are prominent among the list of reasons for a
 small deer count in northwest Iowa, according to Iowa
 DOT biologist Tom Lichtfield.

Several factors shrinking area whitetail population

They say Tom Lichtfield knows so much about deer that he's starting to think like them. Turns out, they're right."Deer have a bigger brain, which usually means intelligence. They're not exactly Einsteins, but some people who have been after a certain older buck for a while might think they are," Tom said. "Some people might think they are the goofiest animal in the wild kingdom, because they will just stand in the road and stare at headlights coming and not make a move to escape ... but there is something about light that triggers something in their brain that virtually blanks them out ... we think that all they perceive is a light, that they don't see the big metal object behind it at all. The way they are wired, they see light getting bigger, they don't get the depth perception to realize it is coming closer to them."

What deer are good at is surviving in an ecosystem that today offers very little habitat and protection.
"They are smart enough to learn and remember. If a behavior keeps them alive one season, they tend to repeat it in following years. They are smart enough to cue into deer season, to recognize that human activity ramps up on a certain piece of property at a certain time of year," said Tom, the Iowa Department of Transportation's leading deer guru biologist. Some deer will retreat to what they consider their safe spot each year when hunting pressure begins, and some bucks become virtually nocturnal -- changing their entire natural behavior through the hunting season.Generally this is enough smarts to ensure that the herd will continue on a stable basis even in a year when hunting conditions are exceptional.

However, deer numbers have declined in the Buena Vista County and northwest Iowa regions, Tom said.
Statewide, Iowa's deer herd has been decreasing steadily since 2006. In 2003, the DNR set out to reduce the state's herd to the levels seen in the mid to late 1990s, using antlerless hunting permits to encourage hunters to take a doe after they got their buck. It took three years to have an effect, with population then peaking and beginning a down curve. Other than a few isolated spots in south central Iowa and in the Loess Hills, that goal has now been met, Lichtfield said.

However, Buena Vista County was never really considered to have an excess of animals. "Even in 2003, your county and most of northwest and north central Iowa saw a lot fewer deer than the rest of the state. There's less cover and more land in row crops. By 2006, many counties in your area had already declined back to the mid 1990s level."

Now, Buena Vista and surrounding counties are likely below the goal level. "We feel like the population is okay, and stable, but (antlerless) quotas were reduced to zero in 2006-07, and there may be some need in this area to change policies even more to foster a little increase," Lichtfield said.
The outlook for the coming hunting season?

"Numbers in Buena Vista County should be similar to last year, with one caveat - in my opinion hunters in northwest Iowa had a much better last season than I would have expected. The harvest in my opinion was strong for the number of deer. The drought had deer up on their feet seeking forage, and concentrated more around water -- making them artificially vulnerable. This fall hunters may find fewer compared to last year."
It's impossible to get an accurate count on deer, who are simply too elusive and too mobile for a census, Lichtfield admitted. "I do a population estimate just because people ask for it -- it's of no real value to me as a biologist. Really all we can hope for is general trend knowledge."

Local deer face an uphill battle that the DNR didn't foresee -- the dramatic loss of Conservation Reserve land. With rising commodity prices and demand for biofuels, habitat has taken a back seat. "There used to be some deer because of old groves and CRP acres, now these areas have basically become deer-free," Lichtfield said. Those few places left with some cover, food and access to water have good deer numbers.
Could BV support more deer? Of course, Lichtfield said. "Even at the peak, we were still a long way from reaching the carrying capacity. Social tolerances would never let it reach capacity because of property damage -- and maybe that's a good thing, because the deer are healthier for not being very concentrated," Lichtfield says.

Northern Iowans are less willing to put up with deer than those in the rest of the state, just because they are used to lower numbers, he said. Luckily, the counties with low deer numbers haven't had a serious health problem to further knock down population. Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease has made no serious inroads into this region, with the weather just a bit too cold for the inspect that spreads the disease to thrive in numbers. There are outbreaks in Iowa about every 10 years; last year was the worst to date.Chronic Wasting Disease was found in three areas in 2012, but all among captive deer. Over 4,400 wild deer were tested last year in an effort to prevent the disease from gaining a foothold.

Poaching, however, is a threat. "It ebbs and flows. Last year it picked up. Iowa is at risk because it is known for having larger than average bucks. Years ago, it seemed that poaching in this area was someone shooting a doe ... probably because they needed the food, and they ate it. Now it's going to be someone shooting a buck for something to decorate their wall. They cut the head off and leave the rest to rot," the biologist says.
"It's enough to make a person mad, or sad. There's always someone with no ethics, and there are never enough wardens to stop it. We need people to provide tips to catch these people. In a world with hungry people, why would we kill animals just to brag about a set of antlers or sell them for a profit?"
Lichtfield isn't thrilled about some of the hunting practices today, either. "Surveillance cameras are one of the unfortunate things in my opinion. I hate to see hunters get too dependent on technology. I come from Montana, and no remote cameras are allowed in the field there during big game seasons," he said.
He worries too about animals that are raised or confined in small areas by landowners who bring in hunters for a like-shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience at a profitable price. "People watch the shows on TV and see a hunter getting their animal pretty much instantly, because that's how they have to do it with a film crew. Unfortunately, some people going into hunting are expecting the same -- and there's nothing really sporting about that."

Even well-meaning people can be a problem. "One of the biggest things in the spring are people finding wild fawns and picking them up, thinking they are abandoned. That's almost never the case. It's called hider strategy -- a fawn has very little scent to attract predators, while that isn't the case with the mother. The doe beds down the fawn and only comes to it to nurse and groom -- otherwise it stays at a safe distance so predators can't use the doe to find the fawn."

A final threat, oddly, is lower numbers of young hunters. "We're still recruiting youth pretty well, but if we lose this generation in the outdoors, we're going to hit a tipping point," Tom says, and that will mean the state in the future will have lost its only tool to control the herd size, and thus the health of the animals."
With all considered, local deer are down, but far from out. "We need to keep an eye on them," Lichtfield says. "In your part of the state they are vulnerable enough."

When our native trees start to succumb to the synergistic scourge of global warming, chemical pollution and imported pests/ disease, one has to be far-sighted and empathetic enough to realize that all of animal life including Man becomes threatened with existence....................Our Chestnuts, Elms, Oaks, Maples, Dogwoods, Hemlocks, Pines, Ash and a myriad of other forest trees are "dying in plain sight" in front of our eyes through our insistence on "good living through the use of chemistry" and sloppy safeguarding of what comes in and out of our Country on airplanes and container ships..................When alien parasites, insects and pathogens enter North American ecosystems,,,,,,,,,,,,,,When so-called "exhale" by-products of industry"(Co2, methane, pesticides, etc, etc) enter our North American ecosystems,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,THE RESULT IS DEATH AND DESTRUCTION--SOMETIMES QUICKLY, SOMETIMES SLOWLY, BUT ALWAYS INEVITABLY.....Such is the case as the Asian Emerald Ash Borer bears down on our iconic Ash trees, aka the "baseball bat tree"..................Yes we are attempting to fight this "DESTROYER" through the use of biological control agents such as parasitic wasps and native birds,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but what will be the ultimate impact to all the citizens of our woodlands where the Ash tree is an integral member?................Just how many tree genocides can our forests absorb before our animal, bird and insect life blinks out for good?

Native Species Step Up

 to Fight Ash Parasite

Scientists Make Headway in

 Curbing Scourge With Some 

Woodpeckers, Wasps

Caroline Porter;onlinewsj.com

When the emerald ash borer showed

 up in the U.S. about a decade ago, 

the native ecosystem didn't put up

 much of a fight against the Asian

 beetle—and the invader quickly

 munched its way through ash trees

 from Minnesota to New Hampshire, 

causing destruction that will cost 

billions of dollars to repair.

Now, however, scientists have found
 three reliable native allies in their fight 
against the scourge: Certain woodpeckers,
 nuthatches and parasitic wasps have
 developed a taste for the beetles. In
 conjunction with natural predators 
imported from the borers' original home 
in China and chemical treatments, the
 native species are helping curtail the
 pest after years of destruction.

The progress comes as a welcome
development for what is considered
 to be one of the most destructive forest
 pests in the U.S. in recent years. Over 
the past 10 years or so, the emerald ash 
borer has infested millions of trees in 21 
states, by scientists' reckoning. Various 
Forest Service estimates peg the potential 
cost at between $7 billion and at least $25 
billion for state and local governments
and landowners to take down or replace
 dead and dying ash trees over 25 years.

For just those trees in urban areas, cities 
are looking at the death of about 17 million
 trees by 2019 with a replacement cost of
 $11 billion by 2019, according to Robert 
Venette, a research biologist with the Forest
 Service. In natural areas and cities, the
 beetle has killed tens of millions of trees.
 In Michigan, the current estimate is well
 over 50 million.

Fighting Battles in the Forest

Sean Proctor/The Wall Street Journal

The emerald ash borer is an invasive species most likely from China that has left a trail of dead trees across parts of the Midwest and the Northeast U.S. in its wake.

Ash trees are prized for their timber, which is used to make furniture and baseball bats, and are known as shade and ornamental landscape trees that typically grow to about 60 to 80 feet. They live in most of the continental U.S., extending north into Canada and south into Mexico.

First detected near Detroit in
 2002, the emerald ash borer—
a half-inch-long bug with a green
 metallic sheen on its wings and 
a reddish stomach—is believed
 to have hitched a ride in packing 
materials from China. While
 researchers hustled to gain control
 over the invasive beetle, which 
burrows under trees' bark and 
cuts off their nutrient supply, 
for years they showed little 
success. They shipped Chinese
 wasps to the U.S. to prey on the
 beetle, deployed numerous traps
 and mounted a national awareness
 campaign for homeowners to adopt
 and treat trees in their neighborhoods.

Yet the ash borer thrived in its new
 home amid a dearth of predators native
 to the U.S."We found very few natural
 insects attacking the emerald ash borer 
in Michigan," said Leah Bauer, an insect
 researcher with the U.S. Forest Service,
 part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 "In China, there are three insect species
 that eat the beetle. It is their biological 
control."

But now the native parasitic wasps, 
red-bellied woodpeckers and white-
breasted nuthatches are giving scientists
 new hope that they can at least slow the
 destruction of ash trees with the help of 
chemical treatments and the Chinese wasps
 that were imported and are now being
 reared in the U.S. The USDA "is working 
very hard to put these little enemies [the 
Chinese wasps] out there to become 
established and help control the emerald
 ash borer," said Ms. Bauer.

Native parasitic wasps have discovered
 that the beetles make excellent hosts for 
their eggs. After the eggs hatch, the larvae
 snack on the ash borers. "They were like,
 'Hey, wow, look at this new giant buffet 
for us.' Now folks looking at the emerald 
ash borer are taking notice," said Therese 
Poland, who studies insects with the U.S.
Forest Service in East Lansing, Mich.

"Parasitic wasps may be most important
 in combination with woodpeckers as natural
 enemies become more relevant to fighting 
the bugs," said Deb McCullough, a professor 
of forest insects at Michigan State University.
 "They play a really valuable role."
Red-bellied woodpeckers, which feast on the 
ash borers' larvae, are experiencing a 
population boom due to the new food supply,
 according to a report this month by the U.S. 
Forest Service and Cornell University. 
White-breasted nuthatches are also 
experiencing a population increase, 
according to the report.
The woodpeckers also lead scientists to ash
 infestations, which can be otherwise difficult
 to spot. That is also helping the fight against 
the borer.

On a recent day, Ms. Bauer used woodpecker 
markings on ash trees to set up traps intended
 to monitor the number of specially raised 
Asian wasps in a forest south of Lansing
."They have a way of finding these trees
 and really do a number on them. They 
just pepper the bark."

Still, many scientists agree that the emerald
 ash borer maintains the upper hand. "We
 have just seen the tip of the iceberg," said 
Andrew Liebhold, an insect researcher with
 the Forest Service and co-author of the
 report. "In Detroit, there are a lot of dead
 trees everywhere. We're going to see that
 in every Eastern city in the next 20 to 30 
years. It's kind of a horrific thing."

For homeowner Kate Simons in Cicero,
 N.Y., an influx of woodpeckers seemed 
to indicate the arrival of the invasive beetle
 in her area. While she's not bothered by 
the woodpeckers' noise, she is concerned
 about the financial burden of tree treatment
 for the borers, which is recommended in 
areas prone to infestation.

She plans to cut down the ash tree in her 
backyard that would otherwise cost about
 $300 to treat every year or two. "It's not
 that I don't like trees," said the 41-year-
old paralegal. "I can't justify the cost."

Unlike in the East where the Fisher is making it's way back as a denizen of the forest, the Pacific Fisher is still struggling to get a toe-hold............Now Washington State is considering rewilding this weasel back into Mt. Ranier and Cascades National Parks where it has been absent since the 1990's...............This is the one native species not to be found within the Cascade Range................Fishers are associated with forests having moderate to dense forest canopy and complex structure (for example, large amounts of coarse down wood, moderate shrub cover, dead trees and trees with decay elements, and a component of hardwood trees)...................The Species has become at risk mainly because of loss and fragmentation of this type of habitat due to timber harvest, roads, urban development, recreation, and wildfires

Input sought on return of weasel-like fishers to Mount Rainier National Park

yelmonline.com

Photo provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Return of the fishers

The fisher, a member of the weasel family, is a candidate to be listed as an endangered or threatened species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is considering a project to reintroduce the fisher to Mount Rainier National Park.

Officials last week said they are seeking public input on a proposed plan to reintroduce the Pacific fisher to Mount Rainier and North Cascades national parks.

Absent from Washington since the mid-1990s, the Pacific fisher — a member of the weasel family that lives in low- to mid-elevation closed canopy forests with large trees and logs — is the only native carnivore that is no longer found within the Cascade Range of Washington state, according to Ken Hires, the Stehekin District interpreter for the North Cascades National Park Complex

In 1998, the state formally listed the fisher as endangered, and in 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the West Coast fisher as a federal candidate for listing as an endangered or threatened species.

To restore this species to its historical range in Washington, Mount Rainier and North Cascades national parks are proposing to team up with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to reintroduce fishers to the North and South Cascades — the last two of the three major ecosystems statewide where successful fisher reintroduction is needed in order to meet Washington's recovery goals for this species, Hires said in a release.

Public comment on the proposed reintroduction may be submitted through Sept. 30.

During this time, comments may be submitted online at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/RestoreFisher or by mail to North Cascades National Park Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA, 98284.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Olympic National Park staff successfully reintroduced fishers at Olympic National Park from 2008-10.

"It is very exciting to partner with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Mount Rainier National Park to reintroduce the fisher to this area," North Cascades National Park Complex Superintendent Karen Taylor-Goodrich said. "Reintroducing any species, much less one as wild as the fisher, is a complex and dynamic process and requires the collaboration of landowners and managers across the landscape to be successful.

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

OREGON FISH & WILDLIFE

THE PACIFIC FISHER

Description and Life History

the fisher, a member of the weasel family (Mustelidae), has a long body, short legs and a long, bushy tail. The head is broad and flat with a sharp, pronounced muzzle. The ears are broad, rounded, and low. Fur color varies from light brown to dark blackish brown, although the face, neck, and shoulders may have a lighter grizzled gray appearance. Often there are irregular white patches on the chest and underside. Fur length ranges from 30 millimeters (about 1 inch) on the stomach and chest to 70 millimeters (about 2.75 inches) on the back. 

 Adults range in length from 90 to 120 centimeters (about 2.5 to 4 feet). Males weigh 3 to 6 kilograms (about 7 to 13 pounds); females weight 1.5 to 2.5 kilograms (about 3 to 5.5 pounds). Large feet, with 5 toes on all 4 feet and retractable claws, enable fishers to rotate their hind paws almost 180 degrees, allowing them to run down trees head first like a squirrel. Central pads on the hind paws have circular patches of coarse hair which are associated with plantar glands. These glands produce a distinctive odor believed to be used for communication during reproduction. It is estimated that fishers live up to 10 years. They are solitary animals except during the breeding season (late February through April).

Fishers are opportunistic predators that hunt exclusively in forested habitats where prey is abundant and vulnerable to capture. Their diverse diet includes birds, porcupines, snowshoe hare, squirrels, mice, shrews, voles, reptiles, insects, carrion, vegetation, and fruit. Their name is misleading since fishers do not actually catch fish. The name may have come from early European settlers who noted the fisher's similarity to the European polecat which was variously known as a fitchet or fitchew.

Habitat

Fishers are associated with forests having moderate to dense forest canopy and complex structure (for example, large amounts of coarse down wood, moderate shrub cover, dead trees and trees with decay elements, and a component of hardwood trees). The physical structure of this type of forest provides the fisher with reduced vulnerability to predation and an abundance of prey. The distribution of the fisher is likely limited by elevation and snow depth.

Reasons for Decline

The west coast population of the fisher is at risk mainly because of loss and fragmentation of habitat due to timber harvest, roads, urban development, recreation, and wildfires. Other threats include small population sizes and isolation, predation, and human-caused mortality from vehicle collisions, poaching, and incidental capture and injury.

Conservation Measures

Between 2008 and 2010, the National Park Service reintroduced nearly 100 fishers into Olympic National Park from populations in nearby British Columbia.  Fishers are also being reintroduced onto private timber company lands in the northern Sierra Nevada range of California in an effort to reestablish fisher into their historic range.

We are encouraging state and federal agencies who are proposing activities within the historic range of the fisher to give consideration to the fisher during the environmental planning process, especially activities which alter or destroy mature and old growth forests, as well as other biologically complex forests.