Ecologist John Laundre is back with us today with his scathing reveal regarding "the latest BLUE RIBBON PANEL of handpicked folks who will be charged with recommending what direction the entire USA should take regarding the funding of our wildlife resources"..................As John sets the stage for his treatise below, he frames his concerns stating: "The co-chairs and founders of this panel are a former governor of Wyoming, a state that has a long history of emphasizing hunting and energy (= fracking) development along with the founder of the Bass Pro Shops, a business specializing in sport fishing".............."They populated their panel as follows: 13 (46%) from sport hunting or fishing groups, 7 (25%) from industry, including the sport industry and 3 from the energy industry"............."Why the energy industry?"........... "Only 6 individuals (21%) came from conservation minded organizations"............"NONE from any citizen's group advocating for non-consumptive use of wildlife"..............."According to the latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey, only 4% of U.S. citizens hunt and 14% fish while 32% watch wildlife"..............."According to this same report, the only group to more equally represent gender, age, ethnic, and economic proportions of the American population are wildlife watchers"............."According to this same report, wildlife watchers, spent more time observing wildlife"..........."Finally, according to this same report, wildlife watchers spent almost 3 times more than hunters and 1.6 times more than anglers in pursuing their activity".........."Is this representative of Americans relative to the current and future use of wildlife?"

The Blue Ribbon Whitewash: The selling out of our wildlife

Is it just me or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture: Two private individuals appoint themselves to form a panel, calling it no less, a Blue Ribbon panel. They then fill it with their handpicked members to decide what direction the ENTIRE COUNTRY should take regarding the funding of the conservation of our wildlife resources! Just where do they derive their power to first of all establish this committee and second of all invite only those they want to be on this panel? Were they asked by some public organization to form this panel? Did they make an effort to make sure the panel represents the makeup of Americans regarding their views on wildlife? Did they seriously consider options that would truly result in ALL Americans being represented as "investors in fish and wildlife conservation"?

Spokesmen from the Blue Ribbon Panel speaking on March 2 at the release of recommendations. From Left, David Freudenthal, Dave Chanda, John Morris, Collin O’Mara, and Jeff Crane. © Joshua Learn

It seems the answer to these and many other questions is a resounding NO.

First let's consider the makeup of this supposed blue ribbon panel. The co-chairs and founders of this august body are a former governor of Wyoming, a state that has a long history of emphasizing hunting and energy (= fracking) development, and the founder of the Bass Pro Shops, a business specializing in sport fishing.  They then proceeded to populate their panel with representatives of these special interests. Of the 28 members, 13 (46%) were from sport hunting or fishing groups, 7 (25%) were from industry, including the sport industry and 3 from the energy industry. Why the energy industry? Only 6 individuals (21%) came from conservation minded organizations. NONE from any citizen's group advocating for non-consumptive use of wildlife.

Is this representative of Americans relative to the current and future use of wildlife? According to the latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey, only 4% of U.S. citizens hunt and 14% fish while 32% watch wildlife. According to this same report, the only group to more equally represent gender, age, ethnic, and economic proportions of the American population are wildlife watchers. According to this same report, wildlife watchers, spent more time observing wildlife. Finally, according to this same report, wildlife watchers spent almost 3 times more than hunters and 1.6 times more than anglers in pursuing their activity. Yet, they only made up 21% of this blue-ribbon panel! To be representative of those who actually use wildlife in different ways, should not the bulk of the members have come from wildlife watching, usually conservation minded, organizations? Should there not have been individuals from citizens advocacy groups such as Speak for Wolves or Project Coyote?

Especially since the main reason for the panel was to identify how to fund primarily non-game species, why didn't it fairly represent those interests.  Not only do hunting and fishing interests have the most representation but combined with industry interests, they have a super majority (71%). This easily insures that any recommendations reflect their interests, their biases. Which, as I have written before, is to maintain a stranglehold on how wildlife are mismanaged in this country.

A Blue panel indeed. It is more a stacked deck, a whitewash, purposely biased to come up with specific preconceived recommendations that continue to exclude the 84% of us who do not hunt or fish, of which 40% watch wildlife. A stacked deck to make sure whatever was decided favored traditional hunting and fishing interests over conservation minded non-consumptive use of wildlife. A stacked deck insuring the continued exclusion of most of us from wildlife decisions.

And the final recommendations reflect this bias. They had the data that equal numbers surveyed (95%) favored setting aside either existing oil and gas drilling fees (= fracking) or reinvesting existing state and federal revenues (taxes) in state wildlife action plans. They had two equally politically acceptable choices.

In the first case, such funding would explicitly tie state wildlife funding to a very specific funding source, revenue from oil and gas extraction. This is no different than the dedicated funding of wildlife by hunters and anglers that currently exists in most states. It ties the funding to a very explicit special interest group. It is not, as they claim, a reinvesting of funds but a diversion of those funds from an industry that has nothing to do with wildlife, other than destroy its habitat. At least with hunters and anglers, they have a vested interest in a small percent of the wildlife resource. But here, this funding comes from a source totally devoid of any connection with wildlife, other than see it as an impediment to their operations. 

This source would also tie this funding to another dying horse. As stated in their propaganda, wildlife FUNDING is in crisis. Contrary to their misconception however, it is not because Americans are becoming disconnected with nature. The truth is MORE Americans are reconnecting to nature. Wildlife watching has increased from 29 to 32% of us just in the last five years! We are spending more time watching, feeding, studying wildlife than ever before! It is just that fewer and fewer of us are hunting them and because hunters conveniently tied game agencies to license fees, revenues to these game agencies are declining. 

Unfortunately, linking wildlife funding to oil and gas is just tying it to another declining industry. The current momentary blip in oil and gas production is due to the present fracking rage that cannot continue. Even the industry knows there are limited amounts of oil and gas that can be fracked.  And they can't frack it fast enough, mainly to sell it as fast as they can overseas. Just how long will it be before that oil and gas also runs out and those revenues decline? Additionally, many predict fracking will soon be banned as we realize that injecting billions of gallons of toxic waste into the ground is not such a good idea. In all cases, it can be safe to say that revenues from oil and gas drilling will start to decline long before "future generations share in this wealth"  and wildlife funding will again be in crisis. What do we do then?

The second choice, using existing (NOT NEW) tax revenues, would first of all place the funding of state wildlife in the hands of all the people in the state, not just a specific self-interest group. It would allow all of us to reinvest revenue gained from our actions back into the most popular use of wildlife…watching them! And there is a LOT to reinvest! Just considering wildlife watching fishing, and hunting, state and federal tax revenues generated exceed $39 billion. Earmarking or reinvesting only 3% of those revenues to state wildlife action plans would equal the amount this panel wants to extract from oil and gas…but no strings attached and in perpetuity! Some states have already started this by either earmarking a part of the general fund or a small part of sales tax revenues and surprise surprise, they have additional resources to use, for all wildlife! So, it can be done and is being done. It is also a sound investment with an estimated $9 return on $1 invested. Would not those industry types see the soundness of this already functioning system?

Given these options, which did this dignified panel choose? Did they, as they so loftily state chose to: "…allow a greater number of citizens to be investors in fish and wildlife conservation"? Did they choose to make wildlife management all inclusive, as the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation dictates? Where all citizens pay? Where all citizens would then have a say? Did they choose to make the funding sustainable over time?

Given that over 57% of the panel represents either hunting, angling, or energy interests, it is not surprising that the answer is a resounding…No. Their decision reflected their desire to keep most citizens from the wildlife table. Their decision was designed not to allow more citizens to reinvest in wildlife but to switch from one biased dying industry, hunting and fishing, to another biased dying industry, oil and gas!

There are so many things wrong with this decision, I don't know where to start. First, again, am I the only one who sees major problems with putting the wildlife of this nation in the hands of the oil and gas industry? Remember, the current mentality is: those who pay get to say. I do not see that changing. We have seen with hunters and anglers a feeling of entitlement to have the bulk of the say over wildlife because they pay to directly support game agencies. Will not the oil and gas industry also feel the same entitlement? After all, they are paying the bills! Also remember that for hunting and fishing, revenues are tied to licenses sold, which have led to the single minded "more fish in the creel and more game in the bag" management goals to maintain those revenues. Will there not also be the same pressure to "manage wildlife" so as to not interfere with maintaining or increasing the cash cow from oil and gas extracting? When decisions are made regarding where to frack or not relative to its impact on a wildlife species, especially a non-hunted one, do we seriously think that they will be made in favor of that species? If so, we are more naïve than we think.

In fact, in a conspiracy world, the earmarking of oil and gas money for wildlife can be seen as a back-door attempt by this industry to gain more influence over game agencies. Remember, much of the current conflict over wildlife species comes from the impact oil and gas development, primarily fracking, has on wildlife populations.  The funding of wildlife will switch from being influenced by hunters with the more game in the bag means more revenue to one where decisions in favor of more energy exploitation means more revenue. If people think the oil and gas industry will not wield its new-found clout to influence wildlife decisions that favor energy exploration, they are naïve at the least. Commissions will be stacked with energy favorable members, as they are now with hunting and fishing interests. Research and regulatory actions of game agencies will be biased for "more energy revenue in the bag". Again, as with hunting and fishing, the majority of wildlife will suffer as a consequence. And the general public will continue to be excluded from the decision-making table.

Why has this panel of "experts" done this? Tied wildlife funding to another special interest source that does NOT have the best interest of all wildlife or citizens in their minds? Why did they basically decide to "sell out" wildlife to the oil and gas industry? Again, it all boils down to control over how wildlife is managed. Hunters abhor the idea that the general public has a say in how all wildlife, including game species are managed. Though they themselves lack even the basic understanding of how nature works, they continually demean and try to marginalize the other 96% of us who do not hunt. They whine that public funding of wildlife agencies would inject politics into wildlife management. But politics, their politics, the politics of the minority, already constantly dominate wildlife management. And their politics is basically that no one other then themselves should have a say on what can or cannot be killed for sport. 

This is why for example the state of Idaho takes pride in proclaiming that no public funds are used by their fish and game agency. Basically this "pride" excludes the 85-90% of the citizens who do not hunt or fish. Other states dictate that only people who hunt or fish can be on commissions. They (hunters and anglers) do NOT want the rest of us to participate and they know that IF we pay, we get to say!

Tying funding of wildlife to the oil and gas industry will continue this exclusion of the general public. Only under the most credulous sense would this, as proclaimed in the panel recommendation, "allow all Americans to become investors in fish and wildlife conservation". Just how do they come to this conclusion? This money is revenue paid to the government by the oil and gas industry! Not by us! It is not our money, except in the perverted sense that it represents gouged prices we pay to the oil and gas industry at the pump or to heat our homes! It is not our money and it will not insure every citizen's right to sit at the table where wildlife decisions are made. Only in the most convoluted sense would the use of this money somehow represent an "investment" by the American people. It is more an investment by the oil and gas industry to insure they get to sit at that table…not us! 

And it is dirty money! It is money from climate changing fossil fuels, which we know is one of the growing threats to wildlife. It is money that is derived from fracking, the most disruptive and environmentally damaging way possible to extract those fossil fuels. It is money creating time bombs where large sections of this country will become permanently contaminated, including the wildlife.  It is money derived from the very process that is increasingly shown to actually harm the wildlife it is now supposed to help! Help from what…fracking?? But you can be sure it is money that will NOT be allowed to be used to document such affects. Again, it appears to be a ploy by the oil and gas industry to buy the silence of the very agencies appointed to protect wildlife from such dangers…from the oil and gas industry.

The true investment by all in the conservation of our wildlife resources would be to earmark taxes already generated by the non-consumptive and consumptive use of wildlife and truly reinvest it into the unbiased support of wildlife resources. This too is favored by a majority of those surveyed. This too would not require taxpayers to pay more. However, unlike oil and gas revenues, it would truly allow all Americans to become investors in fish and wildlife conservation.  Why? Because this is our money. The money we earned through our own labor, not by an industry contaminating the countryside. The money we spent enjoying the wildlife resources of this country and would gladly want some of it spent to conserve those resources. It is money, our taxes, that we should have a say in how it is spent. And if we designate it to be spent on wildlife conservation then we, all of us, have a right to be at the table in making those decisions that affect all wildlife. I suspect this is the reason the majority of the panel, the hunters, the anglers, dismissed this option. They don't want us at that table.

Make no mistake, apart from its flowery words, pretty pictures, and obtuse misleading statements, this blue-ribbon panel was a whitewash panel. A panel to try and maintain the status quo of wildlife conservation in this country. A panel designed to NOT allow the majority of us to invest in fish and wildlife conservation.  A panel whose main recommendation will continue and even exacerbate the crisis of our wildlife resources in this country. A panel that has sold out our wildlife resources.

Either out of naiveté or engrained biases or, worse yet, intended design, the recommendation of this blue-ribbon panel, if followed will continue to doom the care of our wildlife resources to a small handful of citizens with personal agendas regarding how wildlife are mismanaged. The majority of us will still be left out in the cold as will the majority of the wildlife in this country. We can do better that that, we must do better than that. It is time we the people, all the people, take charge of and financial responsibility for our wildlife. The only way that can be done is if we all reinvest tax dollars WE pay, not the oil and gas industry, from the wildlife activities that we support. Only then can we truly "help ensure that current and future generations share in (our wildlife) wealth".

John Laundré


ABOUT JOHN LAUNDRE:

John is the co-author of the landmark ecological paradigm known as THE LANDSCAPE OF FEAR

 "In predator-prey relationships it's not the actual killing that has the most influence on prey behavior -- it's living in constant fear"

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


PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE BLUE RIBBON 

CONSERVATION FUNDING PANEL

The Blue Ribbon Panel will reimagine a 21st century model of funding conservation that bridges the funding gap between game and nongame species.

Under the leadership of the co-chairs--Bass Pro Shops founder John L. Morris and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal--the Blue Ribbon Panelists represent the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy industry, conservation organizations and sportsmen’s groups.

The Panelists will work together over the course of a year to produce recommendations and Congressional policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species. 

Download FAQ

Download Report #1 (Short Report): Recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining Fish & Wildlife Resources

Download Report #2 (Long Report): Recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining Fish & Wildlife Resources

Check out the Video of the Press Conference releasing the recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining Fish & Wildlife Resources

Download a brochure about the Blue Ribbon Panel

The Blue Ribbon Panelists 

[updated 2/19/16]

Dave Freudenthal--Blue Ribbon Panel co-chair, former Governor of Wyoming
Johnny Morris--Blue Ribbon Panel co-chair, Founder and CEO, Bass Pro Shops
Kevin Butt--General Manager and Chief Environmental Officer, Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc. and Board Member, Wildlife Habitat Council
Richard Childress--CEO and Chairman, Richard Childress Racing Enterprises
Jeff Crane--President, Congressional Sportsman's Foundation
Bruce Culpepper--Executive Vice President, Human Resources & Regional Coordination, Shell Americas
John Doerr--President and CEO, Pure Fishing, Inc. and Board Member, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation
Jim Faulstich--Owner, Daybreak Ranch and Vice Chairman, Partners for Conservation
John Fitzpatrick--Director, Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Co-inventor, eBird
Greg Hill--President and CEO of Exploration and Production, Hess Corporation
Rebecca Humphries--Chief Conservation Officer, National Wild Turkey Federation
Dr. Stephen Kellert--Professor Emeritus of Social Ecology and Senior Research Scholar, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Board Member, Bio-Logical Capital; Founding Partner, Environmental Capital Partners
Jennifer Mull--Chief Executive Officer, Backwoods Equipment, Inc. and Board Chair of the Outdoor Industry Association
John W. Newman--CFO and Treasurer, LLOG Exploration Company, LLC and Board Chairman, Ducks Unlimited
Michael Nussman--President and CEO, American Sportfishing Association
Margaret O’Gorman--President, Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) and Board Member, Stewardship Action Council
Glenn Olson--Donal O’Brien Chair in Bird Conservation and Public Policy, National Audubon Society (NAS) and Member, North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) Council and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Advisory Council
Collin O’Mara--President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation
Connie S. Parker--CEO and Founder, CSPARKERGROUP and Board Member, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and the Wildlife Foundation of Florida
Charlie Potter--CEO, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation and Founder and Chairman, Great Outdoors, LLC
Steve Sanetti--CEO, National Shooting Sports Foundation
John Tomke--President, Ducks Unlimited de Mexico and Chair, Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council
Jeff Trandahl--CEO, National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
Dr. James Walker--Vice Chairman of the Board, EDF Renewable Energy and Board Member, American Wind Energy Association
Dr. Steve Williams--President, Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) and Board President, National Conservation Leadership Institute; Board Member, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Bob Ziehmer--Director, Missouri Department of Conservation
Michael Bean-- Ex Officio Member, Principal Deputy Asst. Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, US Department Interior
Ronald Regan-- Ex Officio Member, Executive Director, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

Blue Ribbon Panel National 

Co-Chairs:
John L. Morris, Founder and CEO, Bass Pro Shops
Dave Freudenthal, former Wyoming Governor

Up until 2013-14 when University of Alberta Researchers began their current Black Bear population density study of the region, there had been no updating of the bruins status since 1993............It is quite likely that the 40,000 Bllack Bear estimate of 1993 is significantly down du to fractionalization and urbanization of core bear habitat.............."Hunters in the Province are allowed to annually kill 12% of the Bears, a reasonable hunter kill % provided the population is not in a total freefall(20+% annual hunter kill will begin to dampen otherwise healthy bear populations)"............. "On private lands, road densities are highest and black bears can be hunted year‐round"............."On protected lands, road densities are lowest, and hunting is prohibited"............ On public lands(mixed use ) under the jurisdiction of the provincial government (Crown lands), seasonal hunting is permitted............"During the two year span of 2013-14, University of Alberta Researchers found that Black bear densities for females and males were highest on protected parkland and lowest on Crown lands"............."Sex ratios were female‐biased on private lands, likely a result of lower harvests and movement of females out of areas with high male density".............."Since private, protected land is acting as a spatial refuge for female black bears, the results of this research suggest the need for active management on Crown lands where black bear densities are lowest"..........."In particular, harvest and management differences by land tenure, such as road densities, should be targeted"............."For example, grizzly bear densities were higher in British Columbia where motorized vehicle access was restricted"

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://phys.org/news/2019-02-black-population-years-safer-habitable.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYAioTNDA2ODU3NjQ2MjUxMDMwMTYzNTIaNTZkMWU3ZjE5ZThmOTk5MTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNF56ZrYSErtjE251LE61ooDjK2E2Q

First study of black bear population in 30 years identifies need for safer, habitable public land in Alberta

February 7, 2019 by Katie Willis, University of Alberta

A new study by University of Alberta biologists shows black bear populations are lowest on Crown land and most dense on national park land, followed by private land, highlighting issues for management and conservation efforts.

Scientists analyzed black bear DNA, collected from hair samples left behind after the bears rub against objects like trees and power poles, to identify individuals and get an estimate of overall populations on public and private land. Credit: Ryan Peruniak





The 3,600 km2 study area is in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains and is bounded by Highway 3 to the north, British Columbia to the west, the United States–Canada border to the south, and Highway 2 to the east (Figure 1). The area includes WLNP, which borders Glacier National Park (GNP), USA. The area is a mix of land‐cover types: conifer forest (29%), agricultural (22%), native grassland and cultivated fields (16%), shrubland (16%), and deciduous forest (11%). Agriculture is the primary industry (Statistics Canada, MD of Pincher Creek, 2011 Community Profile).

"We might have thought that Crown land would host more black bears," said ecologist Mark Boyce. "However, many bears appear to have been displaced onto private lands, likely due to excessive use of Crown land for recreation, like quadding, camping and motorbiking."

In the study—the first comprehensive analysis of the black bear population in Alberta in more than 30 years—researchers used bear hair samples collected from trees, power poles and fences to identify individuals by DNA and then estimate population size.

"There are a number of possible reasons why density differs by land tenure, such as mortality risk from humans and the availability of foods," said Annie Loosen, who recently completed her master's degree under Boyce's supervision.

Surface densities derived from top‐performing male and female black bear spatially explicit capture–recapture models in southwestern Alberta (2013–2014)

"Private lands in our study are mainly agricultural lands, which can also be attractive to black bears, especially stored and standing grain," she added.

"In Alberta, this is particularly problematic because landowners can hunt or give other hunters permission to shoot a black bear on their land at any time of year without restriction."

Supporting policy

The findings support recent decisions limiting off-highway vehicle use in Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park, explained Boyce.

Harvest density (individuals/1,000 km2) for male and female black bears the year prior to non‐invasive genetic sampling in southwestern Alberta (2013–2014). Wildlife management unit (WMU) 400 is on Crown land and WMU 303 and 302 are on private land

"Our results reinforce the decision to protect core habitats in provincial parks. We are keen to learn the response by both grizzly bears and black bears to increased protection on Crown land."

The researchers also recommended ongoing monitoring of black bear populations to document the outcomes of policy changes.

The study, "Land Tenure Shapes Black Bear Density and Abundance on a Multi‐use Landscape," was published in Ecology and Evolution.

 Explore further: Bears avoid trails with motorized recreational activity, study confirms

More information: Anne E. Loosen et al. Land tenure shapes black bear density and abundance on a multi-use landscape, Ecology and Evolution (2018). DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4617 

 

   

All of us who have put up birdfeeders in Winter(and Summer) feel that we are doing something to enhance the avian biodiversity of our neighborhoods, farms and ranches..............As has been documented again and again for at least a decade, this supposed "kindness" likely puts birds at risk via transmission by a plethora of diseases, easier attacks by predators(including our pet cats) and flying into windows at the feeder site..................."Feeding birds is not necessary for their survival ---"Stephen Kress, vice president for bird conservation at the National Audubon Society".............."Poor garden feeder hygiene, droppings accumulations and stale food are promoting the transmission of illnesses between garden birds as the animals repeatedly congregate in the same location, coming into contact with species they would not usually interact with in the wild"............"You and I can combat these diseases by regularly disinfecting feeders and feeding sites and rotating the position of feeders on your property"

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-birdfeeders-bird-health-safety.html

When managing birdfeeders, think bird health and safety

February 5, 2019 by Dean Fosdick

Feeding birds in winter is one of the nation's most popular wildlife-watching activities, yet many ornithologists say it's often more rewarding for people than for birds. And it might even put wild birds at risk.

This Oct. 4, 2014 photo taken near Langley, Wash., shows a Northern Flicker feeding at an oversized suet feeder built especially for woodpeckers. Some birds are more aggressive eaters than others so it's wise to feed at different locations using different kinds of seeds and feeders. (Dean Fosdick via AP)

"Feeding birds is not necessary for their survival except in extreme weather conditions," said Stephen Kress, vice president for bird conservation at the National Audubon Society. "Feeders can definitely help them get through that kind of weather."

Most birds are insect eaters and aren't attracted to backyard feeders. "For those birds, I recommend planting natural habitat and native plants," Kress said.

Besides, birds who do eat seed "will be more likely to come to feeders if there is some cover nearby. They'll be able to feed and dodge back into the safety of shrubbery."

The most common error people make when managing bird feeders is incorrect placement—putting them in locations where birds are frightened by foot traffic, vulnerable to predation by cats, or at risk of flying into windows.

"If a feeder is within 3 feet of a window, it's better," Kress said. "If a bird is spooked, it won't be killed when it strikes the glass. And keep your cats indoors so they can't stalk vulnerable birds and animals."

Learn which bird species frequent your area so you can avoid feeder wars and understand the pecking order.

"Some birds are more aggressive at feeders," Kress said. "Their eating habits are such that they can consume a lot and not leave much for the others."

One answer to that is to feed at multiple locations using different kinds of seeds and feeders. Nyjer seeds, for instance, attract goldfinches, while tube feeders with wire covers prevent large birds from entering.

Pay attention to seed quality and freshness. Unprotected seed left too long in feeders will turn moldy, and mold can kill foraging wildlife. Refresh your feeders every few days and clean them frequently by soaking in a solution of 10 percent bleach.

"You can feed more effectively and efficiently by using black-oil sunflower seeds, as it is the preferred seed by most feeder birds," said Adam Rohnke, a senior Extension associate at Mississippi State University. "An added benefit is reducing waste seed (on the ground) from seed mixes which can attract rodents."

"Boost the number and diversity of bird species by providing different types of feeders to resemble their natural feeding behaviors," Rohnke said in an email. "For example, ground-dwelling birds such as doves, towhees and others prefer low platform feeders because they feed on the ground."

Along with black-oil sunflower and nyjer seeds, feeder-friendly birds like suet (woodpeckers, jays, songbirds), fruit (orioles, bluebirds, waxwings) and mealworms (robins, chickadees, wrens).

Do not feed wild birds anything salty (whole peanuts, crackers, potato chips) or food that could choke them (plain bread, fats).

Provide a steady supply of clean water but shop around for shallow birdbath designs. Most are too deep for birds, Kress said.

Placing a few large stones in a birdbath can provide perches.

"Hummingbirds like to bathe in leaves, so spray large leaves to attract them," Kress said.

More information: Online: For more about feeding birds, see this Stanford University fact sheet: web.stanford.edu/group/stanfor … s/Feeding_Birds.html

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

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/12/garden-bird-feeders-help-spread-disease-among-wild-birds

Garden bird feeders help spread disease among wild birds.....Some previously rare illnesses are becoming epidemics in some bird populations, scientists say

Patrick Greenfield; 3/12/18

A 35% drop in the population of breeding greenfinches in the British Isles since 2005 illustrates why disinfecting feeders is key to protecting the birds. Photograph: Alamy

Garden bird feeders are contributing to the spread of serious diseases among wild birds, scientists have warned, causing previously rare illnesses to become epidemics in some populations.

Poor garden feeder hygiene, droppings accumulations and stale food are promoting the transmission of illnesses between garden birds as the animals repeatedly congregate in the same location, coming into contact with species they would not usually interact with in the wild.

A study by the Zoological Society of London, the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), and Fera Science analysed more than 25 years of wild bird health data, including the RSPB’s Big Garden Birdwatch, and found dramatic changes in some British bird populations, which scientists believe could have been caused by disease spread at bird feeding sites.“We’re calling on everyone who feeds wild birds to be aware of their responsibilities for preventing disease.

 Simple steps we’d recommend include offering a variety of food from accredited sources; feeding in moderation, so that feeders are typically emptied every one to two days; the regular cleaning of bird feeders; and rotation of feeding sites to avoid accumulation of waste food or bird droppings,” said Kate Risely, from BTO.

The study analysed data on the protozoan parasite responsible for finch trichomonosis, which has caused a 35% drop in the population of breeding greenfinches in the British Isles, falling from 4.3m to 2.8m birds since the disease emerged in 2005.

Gardeners can combat the disease by regularly disinfecting feeders and feeding sites, and rotating the position of feeders in the garden.

Paridae pox and passerine salmonellosis were also analysed by scientists.

The study’s lead author, Becki Lawson from ZSL’s Institute of Zoology, said: “Our study shows how three of the most common diseases that affect British garden birds have changed both dramatically and unpredictably over the past decade, both in terms of the species they affect and their patterns of occurrence.

“Both finch trichomonosis and Paridae pox have emerged recently, causing disease epidemics affecting large numbers of birds, while passerine salmonellosis – previously a common condition – appears to have reduced to a very low level. These conditions have different means of transmission – so deepening our understanding of disease dynamics will help us develop best practice advice to ensure that feeding garden birds also helps to safeguard their health.

Coyotes historically have been described as having golden-brown colored eyes...............Recently Blue-eyed Coyotes have been photographed in central and northern California(Sacramento, Santa Cruz and Point Reyes)............"Researchers think the phenomenon is the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation, likely one that appeared a few generations ago".............."The new blue-eyed coyotes may be descendents of the original mutant".............."Blue eyes could be disadvantageous to coyotes, making the animals more visible to predators and possibly increasing light sensitivity".........."But the trait might be cropping up more frequently now because selective pressures on coyotes have eased off as humans have killed or otherwise eradicated their predators, like wolves and mountain lions"................"Transient coyotes, which leave or are forced out of their family groups, may be responsible for spreading the trait among California coyotes"............."These lone canines tend to traverse large geographic ranges until they are accepted by another pack or form their own"............"But there needs to be much more research before people make wide-ranging pronouncements about what’s happening"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rare-blue-eyed-coyotes-spotted-california-180971383/

Rare Blue-Eyed Coyotes Spotted in California

Brigit Katz; jan 30, 2019

Coyotes’ eyes are consistently golden-brown, so researchers have been surprised to learn of five California coyotes with piercing baby blues

When wildlife photographer and guide Daniel Dietrich snapped a picture of a blue-eyed coyote in Point Reyes National Seashore, experts were shocked by its brilliant blue peepers. Eye color tends to be consistent in wild animals; among coyotes, that color is golden-brown.

 (Daniel Dietrich--)     A rare, blue-eyed coyote (

“I’ve never seen this,” Juan J. Negro, a researcher who studies animal eye color, said of the photo during an interview with National Geographic’s Callie Broaddus last year.

But it seems that the trait, though still rare, is becoming more common among the coyotes that roam through Northern California. As Noor Al-Samarrai reports for Atlas Obscura, five blue-eyed coyotes have now been documented in the region: two in Point Reyes, the other three in Santa Cruz and Sacramento.

Due to selective breeding, blue eyes are not unheard of among domestic canines. Recently, in fact, scientists were able to pinpoint a genetic mutation that may give Siberian huskies their defining baby blues. But while domestic dogs and wild coyotes have been known to interbreed, experts don’t think such unions are behind the blue-eyed coyotes in California. So-called “coydogs,” as coyote-dog hybrids are known, tend to have distinctive coat colors and facial structures—but not blue eyes, Broaddus reports in a second National Geo article.

Instead, researchers think the phenomenon is the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation, likely one that appeared a few generations ago. The new blue-eyed coyotes may be descendents of the original mutant. As Negro tells Broaddus, blue eyes could be disadvantageous to coyotes, making the animals more visible to predators and possibly increasing light sensitivity. But the trait might be cropping up more frequently now because selective pressures on coyotes have eased off as humans have killed or otherwise eradicated their predators, like wolves and mountain lions.

 Carter Cremer photo

Transient coyotes, which leave or are forced out of their family groups, may be responsible for spreading the trait among California coyotes. These lone canines tend to traverse large geographic ranges until they are accepted by another pack or form their own. But there “needs to be much more research before people make wide-ranging pronouncements about what’s happening,” Marc Bekoff, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado, tells Al-Samarrai.

Regarded as livestock-killing pests, coyotes are often the target of government culls and civilian hunts—measures that overlook coyotes’ important role in keeping small herbivores in check and are generally ineffective at reducing livestock predation. California prohibits “coyote killing contests,” and for now, the state’s blue-eyed coyotes seem to be faring well, which could mean that we’ll be seeing more of them in the future.

Henry David Thoreau called the pond life found underneath the ice in Winter "THE QUIET PARLOR OF THE FISHES"................"Beneath a layer of ice up to three feet thick, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and tiny invertebrates are going about their winter busines'"............. "For most of these creatures, this means slowing their metabolism down to survive with reduced light and oxygen"............."They move less, eat less, and breathe more slowly than in warmer months"..............."For turtles, as the water temperature goes down, their body temperature and metabolism do too"..............."Turtles lie in the mud or on top of it, barely breathing"............."During their winter dormancy (sometimes called brumation, as opposed to mammalian hibernation), they absorb oxygen from the water through an orifice called the cloaca"................"Eastern painted turtles can live for extended periods without oxygen with their heartbeats slowing to as few as one beat every 8-10 minutes"................"Frogs rest on the bottom of the pond, partially covered by leaf litter and mud".............."They don’t burrow in completely, or they’d suffocate"........... "Even with drastically reduced metabolism, they need some oxygen"............."They get it by absorbing it through their skin".............."Because of the skin’s large surface area, they manage to take up enough oxygen and eliminate enough carbon dioxide to survive"............."Dragonflies, mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and other insects overwinter as nymphs, floating along or crawling on rocks".............."Whirligig beetles swim slowly or crawl on the underside of the ice"............."There are gazillions of tiny crustaceans such as fairy shrimp, freshwater shrimp, water fleas, cyclops, and copepods, which feed on dying algae and plant matter".............Indeed, Thoreau was right: "THE PARLOR OF POND LIFE IS TEEMING WITH LIFE"

Read Full Article

The Quiet Parlor of the Fishes

by Laurie D. Morrissey

January 28, 2019

3 Comments

50119

Illustration by Adelaide Tyrol

When I’m skiing or skating across a pond, I observe the shoreline, surrounding hills, islands, maybe a woodpecker or blue jay winging its way to the opposite shore. I look up at the sky, the clouds, swirling snowflakes. But there is a world beneath my feet that I don’t see, in what Henry David Thoreau called “the quiet parlor of the fishes.”

Beneath a layer of ice up to three feet thick, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and tiny invertebrates are going about their winter business. For most of these creatures, this means slowing their metabolism down to survive with reduced light and oxygen. They move less, eat less, and breathe more slowly than in warmer months.

Out of sight, out of mind is not the case if you’re an ice fisherman, of course. Fish remain active, although some species slow down. In the winter, warm water species such as bass move to deeper parts of the lake, where the water is warmest (about 39 degrees Fahrenheit). They stay relatively still, conserving energy and relying on fat stores they accumulated in the fall. Cold-water species such as trout, however, thrive in the cold water. In summer they like the chilly depths, but in winter they travel all over the lake. Cusk, a native species of larger lakes, actually spawn under the ice. (Cusk is a member of the cod family, also called burbot, eelpout, ling, and for some obscure reason, lawyer.) A favorite prey of cusk is crayfish, which are also active under the ice.

Turtle on pond bottom in Winter(pond iced over)

While we’re skating around on the ice, turtles aren’t doing much at all. As the water temperature goes down, the turtle’s body temperature and metabolism do, too. Turtles lie in the mud or on top of it, barely breathing. During their winter dormancy (sometimes called brumation, as opposed to mammalian hibernation), they absorb oxygen from the water through an orifice called the cloaca. Eastern painted turtles can live for extended periods without oxygen, and their heartbeats can slow to as few as one beat every 8-10 minutes.

They do move around, though. Turtle expert and author David Carroll, who has observed turtles for 60 years, says, “I’ve seen a spotted turtle moving under ice that’s as clear as a window. It’s a curious thing, because they like to be dug in to avoid otters and other predators.” Snapping turtles also are spotted moving beneath the ice, he says. “They can move in water that’s an eyelash above freezing.”

Another creature moving in the wintry water is the Eastern red-spotted newt. The orange salamanders we see in damp woodlands and on wet roads in summer are the juvenile stage of this amphibian. Red-spotted newts spend their first year in the water as larvae, using gills to breathe. For the next few years they are terrestrial, breathing through lungs and surviving winter by hibernating under leaves, rocks, and logs. As adults, they return to the water and turn olive green, with tiny black dots and a row of larger red-orange spots. Newts spend the winter resting on the lake bottom, swimming in short bursts, dining on insect larvae, and sometimes moving up to swallow a trapped air bubble just beneath the ice. If you find an ice-free area, you might see a bunch of them. Aggregations of newts around holes in the ice in springtime have been known to contain up to 100 individuals.

Frog, on pond bottom in Winter(pond iced over)

Frogs rest on the bottom of the pond, partially covered by leaf litter and mud. They don’t burrow in completely, or they’d suffocate. Even with drastically reduced metabolism, they need some oxygen. They get it by absorbing it through their skin. Because of the skin’s large surface area, they manage to take up enough oxygen and eliminate enough carbon dioxide to survive. Adult bullfrogs and green frogs sometimes swim slowly beneath the ice. In their tadpole stage, bullfrogs are active all winter. Bullfrogs take two or three years to mature, so tadpoles can be fairly large—a substantial meal for a crayfish, trout, or red-spotted newt.

There is plenty of life on a miniature scale, too. Dragonflies, mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and other insects overwinter as nymphs, floating along or crawling on rocks. Whirligig beetles swim slowly or crawl on the underside of the ice. There are gazillions of tiny crustaceans such as fairy shrimp, freshwater shrimp, water fleas, cyclops, and copepods, which feed on dying algae and plant matter.

I can picture Thoreau stretched out on the ice of Walden Pond, checking out what’s going on beneath. I’ve done the same, usually seeing only tiny white bubbles. But I know that whether I see it or not, the “parlor of the fishes” is teeming with life.

Laurie D. Morrissey is a writer in Hopkinton, New Hampshire.