Visitor Counter

hitwebcounter web counter
Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions. This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization. Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

Subscribe via email to get updates

Enter your email address:

Receive New Posting Alerts

(A Maximum of One Alert Per Day)

Monday, March 26, 2012

A good friend helps us follow up from yesterdays Post on the complete disregard of scientific protocol being adhered to by the Idaho Fish & Wildlife Commision regarding its management of Wolves--IGNORING THEIR OWN BIOLOGISTS FINDINGS ON HOW MANY WOLVES EXISTED IN THE STATE PRIOR TO BLASTING THEM AWAY THIS PAST AUTUMN AND WINTER--An autocratic Commission instituting policy that has nothing to do with reality!



Ken Cole says:  (From Ralph Maughan's website)
I sent this message to Commissioner McDermott and Director Moore this evening. I cc'd Brian Kelly of the USFWS as well.
———————–
Dear Commissioner McDermott and Director Moore,
The other night, before accepting testimony of the public at the Commission meeting, Commissioner McDermott asserted to me and the rest of the public attending the meeting that there were 1200-1600 wolves in Idaho and at least 250 wolves in the Panhandle Region alone.  I would again like to reassert my strong concern about these comments and ask you to provide any documentation for these assertions.
I have examined the most recent annual report issued by your own department which states that the year-end estimate for 2011 was 746 wolves. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual11.pdf

  Since the end of 2011 there have been an additional 167 wolves killed in the hunt, 17 others killed illegally (3) or by the cooperative efforts of IDFG and WS (14),  and presumably several more have died and have not been documented.  This additional mortality lowers this number to somewhere below 562 wolves.

Contained on page 93 the 2011 annual report, issued by your own department, is an explanation of how the estimate is derived.
APPENDIX A. POPULATION ESTIMATION TECHNIQUE USED TO DETERMINE WOLF POPULATION NUMBERS IN IDAHO 
From 1996 until 2005, wolf populations were counted using a total count technique that was quite accurate when wolf numbers were low and most had radiocollars. Since then, we have used an estimation technique that is more applicable to a larger population that is more difficult to monitor. This technique has been peer reviewed by the University of Idaho and northern Rocky Mountain wolf managers. This technique bypasses the need to count pups in every pack, and instead relies on documented packs, mean pack size (from number of wolves detected for those packs where counts were considered complete), number of wolves documented in small groups not considered packs, and a percentage of the population presumed to be lone wolves.



















This technique differs slightly than that used since we initiated this estimation method, in that beginning in 2010 we used a total count of wolves for those packs where we had a high degree of confidence that we observed all pack members, and applied the mean pack size (statistical mean is used when number of packs with complete counts ≥20, otherwise median pack size is applied) to the remaining packs (with incomplete counts), rather than using the mean or median pack size for all packs. Mathematically this technique is represented as: 
 Minimum Wolf Population Estimate = [# Wolves counted in documented packs with complete count + (# Documented packs lacking complete count * mean [or median] pack size) + (# Wolves in other documented wolf groups of size >2)] * (lone wolf factor) 
where; 
# Wolves counted in documented packs with complete count = 109 
# Documented packs lacking complete count = 85 
the number of documented packs that were extant at the end of 2011 was 101, 
complete pack size counts were obtained on 16 of them, leaving 85 packs with counts that 
were presumed incomplete, 
Median pack size = 6.5 
median pack size was calculated using only those packs (n = 16) for which complete pack counts were obtained in 2011, 
# Wolves in other documented wolf groups of size >2 = 2 
"total count" for those radiocollared wolves in groups of 2-3 wolves that were not 
considered packs under our definition, 
lone wolf factor = 12.5% 
a mid value from a range derived from 5 peer-reviewed studies and 4 non-reviewed papers 
from studies that occurred in North America and were summarized and reported in 2003 
(Mech and Boitani 2003, page 170). 
Using this technique, the 2011 wolf population estimate is 746 wolves, a decrease of ~4% from the 2010 corrected wolf population estimate: 
((109 + (85 * 6.5) + (2)) * 1.125 
(109 + (552) + (2)) * 1.125 
(663) * 1.125 = 746 


















As you recall, I challenged Commissioner McDermott on the assertions he made to the public and we had what could be termed as a heated discussion. Please refer me to any documentation that explains your asserted 200-300% increase in the estimated number of wolves in Idaho.  I am at a loss to find this information anywhere on the Idaho Fish and Game website.  I was, however, able to find an article published on March 8, 2012 in which the IDFG big game biologist, Jon Rachael was quoted as saying there were approximately 577 wolves in the state.  http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/08/3477061/idaho-gov-otter-want-more-federal.html

I have been tracking the progress of the wolf hunting and trapping numbers in Idaho in a spreadsheet and assembled a graph to illustrate the various sources of mortality that has been reported publicly.  Surely the mortality that has been reported is an underestimate which does not account for undocumented mortality due to natural or illegal killing of wolves.  I would hazard to guess that the actual number of wolves killed since April of 2011 is in the range of 550 rather than the reported 480 or so.















I think it is highly unprofessional that you seem to disregard the judgements of your own staff about the number of wolves in Idaho.  More concerning is that you seem to believe these assertions and base your management decisions on totally unsubstantiated numbers.  I am disheartened that you have increased harvest in many parts of the state and, along with the rest of the Commission, have chosen to completely disregard the concerns that many citizens expressed at Wednesday night's meeting.

It appears that Idaho doesn't even need to pay our highly skilled biologists to count wolves and conduct monitoring because we now have commissioners who can pull an estimate out of their back pocket and make management decisions based on those estimates.

Again, please refer me to the valid estimates of wolf populations made using peer reviewed protocols which substantiate the claims made to the public on Wednesday night.

I look forward to your early reply.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Some good news for our wildlands and the people who live on them.....A new program called WORKING LANDS FOR WILDLIFE has been created by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service............The program will incentivise forest owners, farmers and ranchers to set aside parts of their land to protect the New England Cottontail Rabbit, the Southwestern Flycatcher, the Gopher Tortise, the Golden Winged Warbler the Bog Turtle, the Sage Grouse and the Lesser Prairie Chicken.......When we utilize taxpayer money for the good of the "Commons", I am all for it!!!!

Wildlife on working lands get a leg up

High Country News
by: Heather Hansen, who is an environmental journalist working with the Red Lodge Clearinghouse /Natural Resources Law Center at CU Boulder, to help raise awareness of natural resource issues

Rural landowners in the West, and in several states back East, just got a big incentive to protect seven vulnerable species on their property. Working Lands for Wildlife, a new partnership between the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was announced last week.








The program aims to dole out $33 million to ranchers, farmers and forest landowners who sign on to restore high-priority habitats for the greater sage-grouse, lesser prairie-chicken, bog turtle, golden-winged warbler, gopher tortoise, New England cottontail and Southwestern Willow flycatcher.

Sage Grouse








The money is being channeled from the Wildlife Habitats Incentives Program, which is offered under the 2008 Farm Bill. There is a total of $2 billion worth of conservation programs in the bill, which is set to expire this fall. The Senate Agriculture Committee is in the midst of hearings on the next farm bill but progress has been slow in confirming which programs will be funded going forward and which ones will get the ax.

Working Lands for Wildlife shares the cost of conservation, offers technical expertise, and assures private landowners who make the effort to protect any of those seven species that they will not be penalized if the actions they take are unsuccessful. They are also promised “regulatory certainty” that no further conservation requirements will be imposed on them, should the species later land on the endangered species list.

Lesser Prairie Chicken







This last point is particularly appealing to landowners in Western states who may have flycatchers, prairie chickens or sage grouse on their acreage. The latter two species have been the focus of some legal and political smack-downs in recent years as they inch toward federal protection.

The survival of the greater sage grouse, which lives in 11 Western states, depends upon conserving large, unbroken blocks of sagebrush habitat on private and public land which is also, unfortunately, prime grazing land for stock.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) found itself in hot water recently when a federal court in Idaho held that the agency violated environmental laws and policies when it approved status quo grazing. The BLM flouted the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, said the court and, when it comes to the sage grouse, “it is grazing that must yield.” (Similar cases challenging grazing on U.S. Forest Service land are currently pending.)

New England Cottontail








In an effort, in part, to avoid an Endangered Species Act designation for the grouse, the BLM is in the throes of a landmark planning effort to protect and to recover it. The plan now includes 20 national forests and grasslands and interest in expanding the area has been so strong that the public comment period was extended through March 23.

Launching this program now was wise for several reasons. First, 75 percent of all species federally listed as threatened or endangered exist, at least in part, on privately-owned land. Second, by focusing on working farms and ranches, this appropriation takes some of the momentum out of the popular accusation that conservation oppresses small business owners. It may, for that reason, have a chance of surviving budget cuts.

Third, the initiative is an expansion of a similar effort that was launched last year, targeting the sage grouse in particular, that has been largely successful. Over those 11 states that the grouse dwells, ranchers have used brush management and prescribed grazing to boost cover for nesting birds on 1.3 million acres of sagebrush. Those efforts alone are projected to increase the grouse population by 8 to 10 percent. If Working Lands for Wildlife improves the condition of those seven starter species, the agencies plan to expand it to include others.

The drawbacks of the plan are two-fold. Focusing on private land may shift the conservation focus away from the incendiary subject of grazing (not to mention energy development) on public land, and how it impacts sensitive wildlife.

The BLM, which lords over roughly 245 million acres of public lands, manages livestock grazing on 157 million acres of that. Nearly 18,000 permits and leases, which are often valid for 10 years, have been sold to ranchers who graze mostly sheep and cattle. By some estimates, livestock grazing overlaps almost exactly (91 percent) with the sage grouse’s current habitat on federal land. And, in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and Utah, a quarter of the hen’s habitat lies within a few miles of oil or natural gas development.

The second problem is that federal conservation funds are ever dwindling and, given the magnitude of the threats to species by private use of public land, could those Working Lands for Wildlife funds be better spent? Perhaps buying out permits and leases from livestock and energy developers willing to abandon their claims on public lands would get wildlife more bang for the buck in the long run.

Speaking at the Conference on Conservation last week, where he emphasized the importance of community-driven preservation efforts, President Obama quoted the philosophical environmentalist, Aldo Leopold. “Conservation is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution,” he said. Whatever the right answers are to wildlife preservation, it’s clear at least that the status quo is not working. Instead, minds must open and creative solutions to species decline must be found.

The warmest and least snowiest Winter in the the Northeast in the past 100 years is a plus for some creatures and a potential disaster for others............A onetime aberration in weather patterns can be handled by most creatures,,,,,,,,,,,The scary thought is that the violent changes in weather will become more the norm in future years............Who and what will be able to adapt quickly enough to endure?

A Low Snow Winter’s Winners and Losers
by Madeline Bodin
Northern WoodlandsMagazine

This past winter is on pace to have one of the lowest snowfall totals(in the Northeast) in 100 years – just as last year’s snowfall total was one of the highest ever recorded. A winter with so little snow has its share of winners and losers. Skiers and snowmobilers lose. Hikers, and even golfers, win. People who don’t have garages to park their cars in win big.

The same is true in the natural world.

White-tailed deer are well-known winners in a winter with little snow. “A winter like this is great from a deer’s perspective,” says Kent Gustafson, deer project leader for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.

In northern New England, white-tailed deer are at the northern end of their North American range. So not only do more deer survive the winter, but healthier does produce healthier fawns, so more fawns survive.

white tail deer
Moose, on the other hand, are at the southern edge of their range in Vermont and New Hampshire and find warm winter temperatures stressful. Winter ticks are another big source of winter stress. During bad years, heavy tick infestations of up to 70,000 ticks per animal can turn this majesty of the north into a thin, bald ghost.

It’s the snow and cold in fall and spring that are key to winter tick populations, says Kristine Rines, the moose biologist with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Ticks quest for moose in September or October, and early snow can mean fewer ticks. Conversely, if there’s no snow into December, ticks benefit.

What may save the moose in this low snow winter is last year’s high snow. There was snow and cold in April, meaning ticks couldn’t lay their eggs as proficiently. Rines says that there may have been fewer ticks questing for moose through the warm and snowless fall and early winter.

While we have to wait and see winter’s effect on deer and moose populations, unusual fluctuations in local bird populations were evident everywhere this winter. The “irruptions,” or occasional influxes, of snowy owls (like Harry Potter’s Hedwig) and pine siskins likely had nothing to do with the unusual weather, says Chris Rimmer, director of the Vermont Center for Ecostudies in Norwich, Vermont.

Moose in Winter woods








Weather probably did have something to do with the tundra swans on Lake Champlain, as the open water and the balmy temperatures resembled their usual wintering grounds in the American South. The weather also probably contributed to the unusually high numbers of robins that stuck around this winter.

“Robins have been the big story this winter,” says Rimmer, “and I don’t think there is any doubt that weather has played a large part in their historic (at least in recent memory) abundance.”

A wealth of berries and a bumper crop of beechnuts meant that we saw a lot more of black bears this winter too, says Andrew Timmons, bear project leader for New Hampshire Fish and Game. “Bears hibernate to deal with the lack of food,” he says. While breeding females need to den to have their cubs, males and non-breeding females can roam all winter if there is food. And roam they did. “People were seeing bear tracks well into December,” Timmins says. Timmins expects bear hibernation season to be over early this year, and that’s what Jim Andrews, director of the Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas, has already seen with frogs and salamanders.

Andrews observed frogs and salamanders migrating from their wintering spots in the woods to their mating grounds in a swamp in Salisbury on March 8 this year. That’s the earliest he’s ever seen a migration in Vermont. Unlike bears, something – perhaps the length of the day – prevents migrating amphibians from wandering in midwinter, even if there are warm rains. “The ones that made that mistake died out a long time ago,” Andrews says. Vernal pools depend on melting snow so they may not fill in a low-snow year. But it would take several years of low snow to wipe out the population of amphibians breeding at a particular vernal pool, Andrews says.

Spring peepers live for about three years, so as long as the snow or rain returns within that time, the population will survive, he says. Wood frogs live four or five years, and spotted salamanders live for 20 years. Those patient amphibians might offer a lesson to those unhappy with this winter’s lack of snow (and perhaps a warning to those who thrived): Just wait until next year.

Madeline Bodin is a writer living in Andover, Vermont.

In latin, the word Tellurian means 'ONE OF THE EARTH/AN INHABITANT OF THE EARTH".........The Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game refuses to see the Wolf as tellurian,,,,,,,,instead a boogey monster reponsible for all evils befalling men...........After conducting their March 21 meeting where they heard testimony regarding the flaws in this just concluded Wolf hunting and trapping season, "it is obvious that the IDFG Commission doesn't want to listen to its own biologists"..... "They made this clear when they arbitrarily decided to manage for 518-732 wolves in their 2008 plan against the recommendation of their biologists to manage for the then current population of around 800"..... "They made it even clearer when they rescinded the 2008 plan in December of 2010 in favor of some vague number above 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs".... "What is the point of having a staff of biologists if the commissioners just invent wolf population estimates?".... "Should we trust them when the Commission chairman pulls a population number out of the back of his pants?"--Ken Cole; The Wildlife News

ID Fish and Game Commission Gets an Earful but Increase Wolf Hunting and Trapping Anyway

By On March 23, 2012 · 28 Comments

Testimony heavily against current hunt levels, but commissioners completely reject suggestions-

Boise, ID. Wednesday night (March 21) the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission met at its headquarters. In attendance were approximately 40 wolf advocates and a handful who were on the opposite side. 39 people testified. Over 30 were against continuing the wolf hunt.














The relative balance was immediately apparent. Just before opening the meeting to testimony Commission Chair, Tony McDermott asked that the people who were about to give their testimony to be considerate. This might have been prompted in part because of his own introductory remarks. McDermott made the controversial and unsubstantiated claim that there were 1200-1600 wolves in Idaho, with 250 wolves in the Panhandle Region alone. On the official record just a week before IDFG's own big game biologist Jon Rachael said there were about 577 wolves remaining in Idaho after the lengthy hunting and trapping season. McDermott's sudden 200-300 per cent population inflation unsettled the audience.

Commissioner McDermott also said Idaho Fish and Game is committed to managing wolves for asustainable and viable population somewhere above 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves. His comments were ambiguous as to what this actually meant.



















Many of the people who then gave testimony spoke favoring a reduction of wolf killing from the present level in Idaho. The speakers were emphatic that the Fish and Game Commission was not conducting responsible wolf management. Many testified they were concerned that the goal of managing for only 15 breeding pairs of wolves and 150 wolves would not maintain a viable population. There was also considerable expression for safety of pets and non-target wildlife given the large number of traps and snares in place across the landscape. They were also very concerned about the torture of wolves which could be in traps for up to 72 hours. As if to underscore the concern, the very next day a photo of an Idaho wolf with circular blood trail in the snow went viral.

One common theme of those who testified was that the Commission does not adequately consider the feelings of the general public. A man representing Friends of the Clearwater gave a passionate speech about this, and suggested that the entire mission of the IDFG be revamped to take the concerns of the public at large into consideration. He suggested that their funding structure be revamped with their funding to come from a state sales tax and general funds rather than hunting licenses and tag fees.
It is an axiom of wildlife management that reliance on hunting and fishing licenses and related fees strongly pushes the agency toward management for game species rather than wildlife in general and also generally against management for more than a low number of large and medium sized predators.
Ken Cole, who is one of the editors of this on-line newspaper, challenged the assertions

Back to the the days of poison, kill and trap Wolves to extinction?












Commissioner McDermott made in his opening remarks. Cole recounted McDermott's claims and asked him to consider the unchallenged, official facts. He said the commissioner had no basis for the numbers he had presented, and that if you look at the number given in the official annual wolf report (released March 1, 2012) and subtracted the number reported killed in the hunt and trapping season since Jan. 1, the result is about 560 to 575 wolves. McDermott had claimed 1200-1600 wolves without citing any evidence for the much higher numbers.

Cole turned to Jon Rachael and asked the department's big game biologist what proportion of the wolves killed in the hunt wore radio collars. He couldn't answer. Cole said it underscored his feeling that the IDFG is not adequately considering the toll that hunting and trapping has taken on the wolf population in Idaho because of their lack data in addition to the large disconnect between the reported scientific facts and what the Commission feels.














The Commission was reminded that they did not listen to their own biologists when setting the original population objectives contained in the 2008 IDFG plan which had adopted the objective of maintaining 518-732 wolves. Then they even abandoned that population objective in favor of managing for a vague number of wolves to be determined by unspecified methods somewhere above 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.

Cole reiterated there was absolutely no reason to trust the IDFG Commission to manage wolves properly when the chairman of the Commission made totally unsubstantiated claims.

Attending the meeting the next day (the day after the testimony), the commissioners discussed what they had heard. According to reports from the public who listened, Commissioners had no sympathy for any of the testimony presented and felt the public is clueless. They thought that science was on their side. Pleas for not reducing wolf population down to 150 were ignorant (chairman McDermott: "The public is full of misinformation. They need to understand a need for balance between wolves and ungulates"). Gary Powers said "Idaho is not Yellowstone. We don't have a problem with over-browsed aspen". Powers apparently felt that benefits of wolves were limited to vegetation in Yellowstone Park, not Idaho.

Commissioner Randy Budge said the public is polarized and he hoped that the public involvement meeting coming up could get "both sides" together to "get to know each other." By getting to know the other side, he said, people would be better able to come to consensus on controversial issues. However, he followed by saying that "the commission could never get anything done if the public looked like that group last night."









It was obvious that those who testified were more diverse than the white, middle-aged hunters who sat on the Fish and Game Commission.
There was no sympathy for the large number who passionately opposed trapping. It was not discussed, and McDermott even remarked that trapping was their most effective tool to control wolves. One of the commissioners did say that trapping was only a two-month season so it should not be a hardship on the public.

The Commission released its new wolf rules for the 2012-13 season.
  • Gray Wolf
o Increase bag limit to five each for hunting and trapping in the Panhandle, Palouse-Hells Canyon, Dworshak, Lolo, Selway and Middle Fork wolf zones.
o Extend the season on private land in Panhandle zone.
o Add a trapping season in Units 19A and 25.
o Increase harvest limit in Southern Mountain zone from 25 to 40.
o Increase season length in Beaverhead and Island Park zones to close on January 31.

After a couple days retrospect, Ken Cole told me. "It seems that the IDFG Commission doesn't want to listen to its own biologists. They made this clear when they arbitrarily decided to manage for 518-732 wolves in their 2008 plan against the recommendation of their biologists to manage for the then current population of around 800. They made it even clearer when they rescinded the 2008 plan in December of 2010 in favor of some vague number above 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs. What is the point of having a staff of biologists if the commissioners just invent wolf population estimates? Should we trust them when the Commission chairman pulls a population number out of the back of his pants?

By Ralph Maughan. March 24. 5:25 PM

Saturday, March 24, 2012

While California needs lessons on balancing its budget and handling the influx of illegal immigrints, it is "Dean of Professors" of all the 50 States as it relates to wildlife management.........Both Puma and Coyote hunting and trapping are illegal(some exceptions, but generally true) and now members of the State Legislature are seeking to ban the hunting of bobcats and Black Bears with hounds.......The AMMOLAND.COM blogsite and THE CALIFORNIA OUTDOOR HERITAGE ALLIANCE are harshly critical of this effort ......I think they are sorely off base with their sentiments..........The "FAIR CHASE DOCTERINE" which America supposedly endorses as it relates to hunting wild animials is clearly in favor(in my opinion) of not allowing baiting, the use of hounds, night hunting with spotlights and other "LAZYMAN SHOOTING TACTICS" that unduly tilts the odds in the hunters favor.........Shouldn't hunters be stalking game with their wits rather than expecting a so-called "layup" kill?,,,,,,,,,We have the high powered weapons and scopes,,,,,,,,,,,,isn't that enough advantage over our prey?

California Legislature Takes Aim at Banning Dogs for Hunting Bears and Bobcats.
Hunting Dogs
HSUS Sponsors Bill to Ban Bear and Bobcat Hunting
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance

Hounds tree a Black Bear
SACRAMENTO, CA --(Ammoland.com)- The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has joined forces with Senator Ted Lieu and Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg to introduce Senate Bill 1221, legislation that would outlaw the use of dogs for hunting bears and bobcats in California.

A Bobcat that was treed by hounds








This misguided legislation not only threatens the long-standing tradition of hunting these species with hounds, but would set precedent placing all other types of hunting with dogs in serious jeopardy.
In addition to this concern, COHA is committed to ensuring that all natural resource management decisions – including method of take – are appropriately made by the California Fish and Commission, in public forum and based on the best available science.

Hounds tree a Bobcat







COHA will work with our member organizations – including the California Houndsmen for Conservation and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance – and our individual members to defeat this blatant anti-hunting measure. Stay tuned to future Field Wires for more information and how you can assist COHA in this effort.
Hounds after chasing down a Black Bear






    About:
    The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA) is a partnership of conservation organizations, outdoor industry, other related interests and individuals who support science-based wildlife management and the preservation of our hunting rights in California. COHA is a 501(c)4 Political Advocacy organization dedicated solely to influencing legislative, regulatory and administrative policy decisions which promote wildlife conservation and our outdoor heritage. For more information about COHA, visit www.outdoorheritage.org.

    South Dakota Pumas continue to pioneer into Oklahoma with a 2nd road kill occurring Southwest of Oklahoma City in November of 2011.......Of course, the knee jerk reaction from biologists with the Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation is that the State is "to largely populated to be suitable mountain lion habitat"..........We doubt that statement..........What is true is that so far only male Pumas have made the 500 to 600 mile journey from South Dakota and therefore a breeding population does not appear to exist in Oklahoma at this time

    Another Hills lion killed in Oklahoma
    By Mark Watson bhpioneer.com

    "Fortunately someone had seen it hit or something and contacted the game wardens," said Erik Bartholomew, a furbearer biologist for the wildlife department of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.Wildlife officials further determined that it was a wild lion, as it contained porcupine quills in its stomach.










    This isn't the first time that a Black Hills lion was killed or captured in Oklahoma.
    In 2004 a lion was killed by a train near Red Rock, Okla. — a straight-line distance of about 670 miles and the longest recorded dispersal of a lion. In April 2011, a female lion from the Black Hills was captured by Tulsa Zoo officials and later taken to the zoo. "We get reports of lions all the time, but we verify them only two or three times a year," Bartholomew said.

    Although there are some remote parts of the state conducive to the large predators, Bartholomew said Oklahoma is largely too populated to be suitable mountain lion habitat."We have no indication of any breeding happening," he said.

    Deer are a staple of the Puma diet






    John Kanta, regional wildlife manager with the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, said they have recorded a number of long dispersals from mountain lions, typically sub adult males."We had one with a malfunctioning collar show up in Saskatoon, Canada," Kanta said.

    Saskatoon is located in southern Saskatchewan. A report published in 2010 showed six of 24 collared lions from the Black Hills dispersed greater than 250 kilometers, and other long-range dispersals were recorded. Those were mainly males, but females were recorded in Wyoming and Montana.







    Bartholomew said other Black Hills lions have been found in Missouri and other parts of Oklahoma, including the latest one that was killed."We have no idea of the path he used to get to Oklahoma," Bartholomew said. "However, with him being killed near the South Canadian (River), he likely was following the river where their primary prey — white-tailed deer — would be in high abundance."
    Bartholomew said Friday he was responding to reports of a lion photographed on a trail camera in Osage County, located in northern Oklahoma, and added that lions carry a negative stigma in the state and people, given the opportunity, will shoot the animals. "We don't want to see that happen," he said.

    South Dakota closed its mountain lion hunting season on March 1 after 73 lions were killed. The state set a 70-lion quota, but hunters were still in the field when the 70th lion was shot.Kanta said biologists are "crunching numbers" to evaluate the population. The GF&P wants to lower the lion population in the Hills to about 150-200 animals. Kanta said officials are projecting the population will be lowered from 2011, but it is still too early to tell.

    TheTennessee Wildlife Resources Agency estimates that there are roughly 3500 to 5000 Black Bears calling the "Volunteer State" home.....This is a true comeback from virtual extirpation 150 years ago............From their historical stronghold in the Smoky Mountains, the Bears have spread out and can now be found across the State...........Multiple surveys have shown that a large majority of Tennessee humans enjoy having Bears as part of the local fauna.............There is a hunting season in sections of East Tennessee with a decsion on other sectors in the offing..........

    BEARS SPREAD ACROSS TENNESSEE
    Written by he Tennessean
    As spring blooms in Tennessee, the state's fast-growing population of black bears comes out of hibernation and begins foraging for food, giving people a chance to see these fascinating creatures up close.

    But try to make sure it's not too close, said Daryl Ratajczak, resident bear expert at the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency in Nashville and chief of the wildlife division. "There are going to be bears all over the place because we had a record year for cubs," he said. Wildlife officials believe Tennessee's bear population is higher today than at any time in the past 150 years, with about 3,500 to 5,000 black bears, including about 1,800 in parks, said Brian Ripley, a TWRA manager.

    And the population is spreading beyond the Great Smoky Mountains, with bears now plentiful on the Cumberland Plateau and especially in the Big South Fork River and Recreation Area north of Cookeville and Crossville.The bears have grown so much in the Cumberland Plateau that wildlife officials are considering opening the area for bear hunting.





    The expansion west means more bears have made their homes on the edges of Middle Tennessee, closer to Nashville, said Ed Carter, executive director of the Wildlife Resources Agency.
    "At any time it's possible to have a bear going through any part of the state," Carter said. "We had one we called Running Bear that went through three different states, and then through several Middle Tennessee counties."

    One was caught outside a major shopping mall in Memphis last fall, Ratajczak said. It had come into the state through Fayette County after traveling through parts of Alabama and northern Mississippi.
    "Usually, we leave them alone unless they start getting into trouble," he said. "This one was getting into Dumpsters, so we tranquilized it and moved it to the mountains in East Tennessee."

    That growth in bears prompted TWRA to conduct a survey this year, which found most Tennesseans support having bears in the state. Although it can still be rare to see a bear, the TWRA also has increased efforts to make sure people know how to be safe if they do encounter one."If you see one, enjoy the moment, because it doesn't happen very often," he said. "But it's important to keep them at a distance," said Ratajczak, who moved to Tennessee in 1997 just to get involved with bears.

    Plateau sees influx
    Dan Hicks, information and education coordinator for the Wildlife Resources Agency's Region III in Crossville, said part of the boom in the Cumberland Plateau's bear population came from a relocation program by the state and federal government in 1996, in which 14 bear sows were captured in the Smokies and released in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area.











    Hicks was part of that program, and he tracked the relocated bears for several years after they were turned loose in their new habitat to study their behavior."All the females that had cubs or were pregnant stayed in the park," he said. But not all of the expansion on the Plateau came from those relocated bears, Ratajczak said. Some have come from East Tennessee, and others have moved down from the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky.

    "The population is growing because they have been protected," he said.
    Bears in state and national parks are off limits to hunters, and there also are some bear preserves in the Smokies.Some have ventured out, though, Hicks said."We've had a bear hit on Interstate 40 in Cookeville, and there was a 300-pound bear on I-40 in Cumberland County."

    While most of the males roam outside their dens during the winter, the females and their new cubs will begin emerging in early April, according to the experts."They will be coming out any day now," said Dana Dodd of Nashville, president of the board of the Townsend, Tenn.-based nonprofit Appalachian Bear Rescue center.

    Confrontations rare
    Tennessee's largest populations of the big, fuzzy critters are in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cherokee National Forest in East Tennessee.Bears normally are shy around humans and prefer to run the other way when they see, hear or smell a human, Ratajczak said.

    Although rare, bear-human interactions sometimes go horribly wrong.
    There have been two fatalities from black bear attacks in East Tennessee since 2000, and bears have become a nuisance in many areas where they've encountered food left out by humans, Carter said.
    "Statistically, a fatality or even a bear attack is very rare because black bears generally are pretty adapted to people and don't cause problems," he said. "They are generally shy, so if you make enough noise they are going to move off before you get there."

    "We're removing natural habitat, so wildlife is getting displaced and bears are getting closer and closer to people," he said. "Then the bears get acclimated to people, and if there is ever an injury to a person, the offending animal has to be euthanized. Sometimes it's not the bear's fault. But once the encounter has occurred, it puts us in an awkward situation."







    Hunters bag 583
    Hunting is allowed in some of Tennessee's eastern counties, and last year, 583 bears were taken by hunters - a state record.Some farmers, hunters and others have complained about the growing population in the north Cumberland Plateau and requested that area to be opened to hunters, as well.
    To begin consideration of that idea, the TWRA conducted a Tennessee Black Bear Public Opinion Survey statewide this year, which found that bears are quite popular - even in areas where they don't normally exist.

    "The bears are very important," Dodd said. "They bring a lot of tourism to the state."
    The study found 87 percent of Tennesseans support having bears in the state, while only 6 percent oppose them. It also found that 54 percent believe that the current bear population is about right, while 23 percent think it is too low, and 5 percent believe it is too high.

    To gauge public opinion in the north Cumberland Plateau area, particularly with regard to the possibility of a hunting season, the wildlife agency has scheduled two public hearings next week. They will be at 6:30 p.m. Thursday in the York Institute cafeteria in Jamestown and 6:30 p.m. Friday at the Pickett County Courthouse in Byrdstown.

    Information about the hearings can be found on the wildlife agency's website at news.tn.gov/node/8551.State officials and hunters defend the idea of hunting as a way of managing the bear populations in the state, although whether the north Cumberland Plateau has enough of the animals yet to allow hunting remains to be determined, agency officials said.

    But hunting was one of the reasons for the relocation of the bears to the area, Hicks said.
    "We put those bears up there to grow the population to hunt," he said. "That was one of the goals of the project. We're getting complaints now, so we know they have expanded. I don't think we would want to put an estimate on how many are there right now, though."

    The agency could take as long as two years to make a decision on opening the area to hunting, Hicks said.

    Meanwhile, bears are thriving, and Appalachian Bear Rescue, near Great Smoky Mountains National Park, continues to take in orphaned and injured cubs and nurse them back to health, Dodd said.
    The rescue group "does not have an opinion" on the idea of bear hunting, Dodd said, even though the concept is controversial."Our mission is to rescue the cubs and raise them until they are strong enough to put back into the wild," she said.







    "We also do a lot of black bear education with school groups and people of all ages, to help people understand bears and live with them."The group now has 35 cubs in residence, she said. Human contact is strictly limited so they don't become acclimated to people.
    Keeping people safe around bears is a key goal of the rescue group and the wildlife agency.

    "Most people say they want bears in their areas, but not in their backyards," the agency's Carter said.
    "And the best way to make sure they stay out of people's yards is to make sure there is no human or pet food there for them to eat."

    And for those who hunt the animals, the payoff comes in pounds of bear meat - as well as mounted trophies and even bearskin rugs, he said.

    Friday, March 23, 2012

    Another sighting of a Puma in Ontario??? Take a look for yourself at the picture below........."By the way it moves, by its long rope-like tail I would say that it's a cougar," said Darcy Whiteside, a spokesman for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, the ministry responsible for that province's land and wildlife stewardship..... Whiteside showed the video to an Alberta government biologist familiar with the species, who said: "It moves like a cougar, its tail is like a cougar's. It's a little darker than what a cougar would be, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't one...... Darkness can vary, and it depends on how the video is white-balanced."..... Whiteside cautions that there are also house cats that share a similar appearance....... According to the biologist, if the cougar in the video is authentic the grass in the video would be approximately 30 cm high............Note that earlier this week we reported on Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources biologist Rick Rosatte's peer reviewed article declaring that EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THE PRESENCE OF COUGARS IN ONTARIO, CANADA.........More evidence coming to the fore daily or is this sighting just a large "Tabby'?

    Video suggests wild cougars have returned to Ontario
    By Ross Fitzgerald, Postmedia News ottawacitizen.com


    Derek Peasley is convinced this is a cougar near his home in Carleton Place, Ont., 30 kilometres west of Ottawa.

    Photograph by: Pat McGrath , Ottawa CitizenOTTAWA — A shaky hand-held video of an animal prowling through a backyard in Beckwith Township near Carleton Place, Ont., could offer the latest evidence that wild cougars have returned to Ontario.


    Derek Peasley was at home cleaning his upstairs bathroom when he saw "a huge cat" in his backyard just before Christmas, right before the snow fell. He rushed downstairs and grabbed a pair of binoculars. "When I looked through the binoculars, I know what I saw," said Peasley. He said the creature he saw was maybe 50 metres away when he put down his binoculars and started filming."I got the video going, he was probably about 100 metres away, and that's what it was, a cougar." Peasley said wild animals are no stranger to his backyard, but that he "was shocked to see something so big."

    After the animal wandered out of his yard, Peasley said he warned a school down the road to make sure its students would be safe. Later, he went into the woods adjoining his property to try to get another photo of the large cat, but to no avail. He also contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources, but he said that they did not follow up on his report of a sighting A spokesperson for the ministry could not immediately be reached for comment. Some experts who have viewed the video found no conclusive proof that the animal it depicts is definitely a cougar, and not some other animal. Others are more encouraged.

    After the animal wandered out of his yard, Peasley said he warned a school down the road to make sure its students would be safe. Later, he went into the woods adjoining his property to try to get another photo of the large cat, but to no avail. He also contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources, but he said that they did not follow up on his report of a sighting.

    "By the way it moves, by its long rope-like tail I would say that it's a cougar," said Darcy Whiteside, a spokesman for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, the ministry responsible for that province's land and wildlife stewardship. Whiteside showed the video to an Alberta government biologist familiar with the species, who said: "It moves like a cougar, its tail is like a cougar's. It's a little darker than what a cougar would be, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't one. Darkness can vary, and it depends on how the video is white-balanced." Whiteside cautions that there are also house cats that share a similar appearance. According to the biologist, if the cougar in the video is authentic the grass in the video would be approximately 30 cm high.

    Officially, cougars were considered to have been wiped out by the early 1900s across all of Eastern Canada, but a recently published four-year study confirmed that though the big cats remain elusive, they are once again living wild in Ontario.

    . .Officially, cougars were considered to have been wiped out by the early 1900s across all of Eastern Canada, but a recently published four-year study confirmed that though the big cats remain elusive, they are once again living wild in Ontario.

    Is the rare Western Fisher a denizen of Glacier National Park?.........A new study is to commence using bait stations and camera traps to determine if the elusive Fisher still calls Glacier home......Old growth woodlands with significant horizontal cover is the habitat that this "porcupine specialist" covets..........Unfortunately, Porcupines are themselves a rare sight in the Park so that raises the odds against there being a Fisher population..............However, in Olympic National Park in Washington State, a Fisher reintroduction program has so far been successful with the Fisher Cats dining on squirrels, beavers and birds in the absence of "Porkies"

    Glacier National Park fishers to be counted

    JESSICA HOFFMAN
    cdpress.com




















    Every year, Glacier National Park biologist John Waller gets about a half-dozen reports from people who claim to have seen a fisher in the park. But the reports don't come with photos. A few years ago Waller tried setting up some "hair traps" in the park in hopes of snaring some fisher hair in wire brushes, but to no avail.

    Now the park will give it one last go. Through a $20,000 grant from the Glacier National Park Fund, a park-wide fisher survey using bait stations and camera traps will try to, once and for all, see if there are truly any fishers in Glacier National Park.

    The fisher is a cousin to the pine marten and the wolverine. It's larger than a marten, although its fur is usually darker. Fishers have a long tail and a mink-like appearance - they're about the size of a cat.
    The park study will take place in winter months to avoid conflicts with bears, Waller noted. The fisher inhabits old-growth forest and likes large trees and downed timber. They're known as a porcupine specialist - one of the few animals adept at killing and eating the spiny creatures.

    Glacier National Park was home to many porcupines in the 1950s. The Hungry Horse News once prominently displayed a vehicle surrounded by a cage to keep porcupines away. Porcupines like to chew on salty tires and brake lines of vehicles.But in recent decades, porcupines have dwindled in the park, and sightings of them are few and far between.

    Waller said he doesn't hold much hope for finding fishers. He cited years of wolverine studies in the park using bait and camera traps that never turned up a fisher when the two species' habitats overlap.

    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey has an ongoing effort to reintroduce fishers in Olympic National Park, in Washington. To date, about 90 fishers have been released in there. The animals were live-caught in British Columbia and transported to the park from 2007 to 2010, said Kurt Jenkins of the USGS.

    Jenkins said the new population has shown signs of settling in, and fishers are denning and showing natural reproduction. Olympic National Park, however, doesn't have porcupines. The fishers there eat snowshoe hares, squirrels, mountain beavers and birds, Jenkins said

     

    We agree with Mark Weckel of the Mianus River Gorge Preserve in Westchester County, NY regarding the fact that it is a good thing that Coyotes are present in NYC......."What happens is that when there’s a top predator, it will help control other levels of the food chain"........"There is no count yet of coyotes in New York City"......." It’s a challenge"....: “We’re moving to a new phase where we’ll collect genetic samples from their feces,” ....."For now, all that the researchers know is that the coyotes’ densities are fairly low"-------And wherever they do stake out a home, Coyotes "earn their keep" by dining on rodents and small mammals of all kinds

    Coyotes in New York City: A Bonus?
    By SINDYA N. BHANOO
    greens.blog.nytimes.com

    Researchers declined to disclose the location but said they had cameras in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens.In March 2010, a wild coyote led the police on a chase through Lower Manhattan. The vagabond was ultimately caught in a parking lot in TriBeCa.





    It was just one of many coyotes that have wandered into the city over the years. At least four others were sighted the same year, in Harlem, near Columbia University and in Central Park. They’ve also been seen in Los Angeles, Chicago and in the Boston area.

    Coyote with captured squirrel







    The growing presence of these top predators in New York City has piqued the interest of researchers, who say that coyotes in human territory might not be such a bad thing.

    Coyote with captured mouse








    “What happens is that when there’s a top predator, it will help control other levels of the food chain,” said Mark Weckel, an ecologist and doctoral student at the City University of New York.

    Coyote with captured rodent









    Mr. Weckel is also the director of research and land management at the Mianus River Gorge Preserve. He and his colleagues are trying to track the migratory patterns of coyotes through New York City and beyond.

    “Coyotes in the Northeast have been moving eastward over the past 100 years,” he said. “Our real interest is where are they going and how are they getting there.” He suggests that the coyotes of New York City made their way over from the Adirondacks. And with the help of students from the High School for Environmental Studies in Manhattan, Mr. Weckel has been capturing the city’s coyotes on camera for two years.

    Coyote pup with captured rabbit







    Jason Bonet, 16, one of the students who is helping to set up the cameras and to log images, says he has installed about 15 cameras throughout the city’s parks. Every month, the images are retrieved. The coyotes are “rare — but not extremely rare,” Jason said. “I’ve seen about three or four.”

    Coyotes live in small packs of three or four and are territorial. As their populations grow, they naturally need to spread their range. Mr. Weckel expects that the coyotes of New York City will continue moving east and soon make their way to Long Island.

    The coyote expansion might be a good thing, some reason, because the animals prey on a pest that most New Yorkers tend to hate: rodents. Coyotes may also be competing with other animals like raccoons for food resources. This may help dampen an overpopulation of raccoons, Mr. Weckel said.

    Still, park lovers fearful of encountering a coyote needn’t worry much, he said. The animals live deep inside places like Van Cortlandt Park and Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx. “These areas we are working in are technically New York City, but they aren’t the skylines you’d imagine,” Mr. Weckel said. “And we’re working deep off the trails, places where you’d think you were in the middle of Catskills.”

    A reminder: it’s important that park visitors who do encounter coyotes never feed or engage with them, said Sarah Aucoin, the director of the Urban Park Rangers program for New York City’s parks department. “Coyotes exist throughout the nation and the region, and are common in many urban areas – including Los Angeles and Chicago, as well as in New York City’s nearby suburbs,” she said in a statement. “As with all wild animals, coyotes should be observed and enjoyed from a distance, and never fed or handled by the public.”

    There is no count yet of coyotes in New York City. It’s a challenge: “We’re moving to a new phase where we’ll collect genetic samples from their feces,” Mr. Weckel said. For now, all that the researchers know is that the coyotes’ densities are fairly low. And it’s unlikely that one will be wandering near Times Square anytime soon, he said.

    More about the coyote-tracking project can be found in the current issue of The Wildlife Professional.
    .

    Thursday, March 22, 2012

    The great singer/songwriter Joni Mitchell hit the nail on the head in her classic 1970 song, BIG YELLOW TAXI-----"SO THEY PAVED PARADISE AND PUT UP A PARKING LOT"...............Do those "parking lots" roads and other infrastructure act as limiting agents to most animals?.....While not all creatures are equally impacted, "The net, cumulative effect of roads is to diminish the native diversity of ecosystems everywhere"...... "Habitats in many different places around the would are invaded by virtually the same set of cosmopolitan weeds"..... "Regions gradually are homogenised - they lose their "character"...... "Every place of similar climate begins to look the same and most ecosystems are incomplete and missing the apex of the food chain"..... "The end result is an impoverishment of global biodiversity"--Reed Noss PhD

    A ROAD TO NOWHERE.............TO WHAT DEGREE IS A COUNTRY ROAD LIKE THIS ONE A  DETERRENT TO WILDLIFE CROSSING AND MIXING WITH FELLOW CREATURES ON THE OTHER SIDE?
    Big Yellow Taxi - lyrics by Joni Mitchell-1970

    So they paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    With a pink hotel
    A boutique
    And a swinging night spot.
    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
    They paved paradise
    Put up a parking lot.

    They took all the trees
    Put 'em in a tree museum
    And they charged all the people
    An arm and a leg just to see 'em
    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
    They paved paradise
    Put up a parking lot.


    Hey farmer
    Put away your DDT
    Give me spots on my apples
    But leave me the birds and bees
    Please
    Don't it always seem to go
    You don't know what you got 'til it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And they put up a parking lot.

    Late last night
    I heard the screen door slam
    And a big yellow taxi come and took away my old man.
    Don't it always seem to go
    You don't know what you got 'til it's gone
    They paved paradise
    Put up a parking lot.

    Joni Mitchell performing in 1974(top) and current day(bottom)

























    The Ecological Effects of Roads

    By Reed Noss, PhD


    The following article previously appeared two years ago in "Killing Roads" under the name "Diamondback". It remains the definitive summary of the effects of roads on biological diversity. An extensive bibliography was prepared for the piece and is available from PAW NET (PAW NET, 117 Main St., Brattleboro, VT 05301, 802-257-4878 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 802-257-4878 end_of_the_skype_highlighting) for $3.00. It is an indispensable tool for activists. [but see note at end]
    graphic: road submerged and overgrown




    Despite heightened recognition (by informed people) of the harmful effects of roads, road density continues to increase in the US and other countries. Federal, state, and local transportation departments devote huge budgets to construction and upgrading of roads. Multinational lending institutions, such as the World Bank, finance roads into pristine rainforest, which usher in a flood of settlers who destroy both the rainforest and the indigenous cultures. Public land-managing agencies build thousands of miles of roads each year to support their resource extraction activities, at a net cost to the taxpayer. The US Forest Service alone plans to build or reconstruct almost 600,000 miles of roads in the next 50 years. Most public agencies disregard the ecological impacts of roads, and attempt to justify timber roads as benefiting recreation and wildlife management. Even when a land manager recognises the desirability of closing roads, he or she usually contends that such closures would be unacceptable to the public.

    Grizzly crossing road






     This article will review some ecological effects of roads, with emphasis on impacts to wildlife (broadly defined). My concern is with all roads, from primitive logging roads to four-lane highways. Although the effects of different types of roads vary, virtually all are bad, and the net effect of all roads is nothing short of catastrophic. The technical literature that pertains to this topic is vast, and an entire book would be needed to summarise it adequately. Consider this only an introduction, or an "executive summary" of a massive tragedy.

    Direct effects, such as flattened fauna, are easy to see. In contrast, many indirect effects of roads are cumulative and involve changes in community structure and ecological processes that are not well understood. Yet, these long-term effects signal a deterioration in ecosystems that far surpasses in importance the visual and olfactory insult to us of a bloated deer by the roadside.

    Direct Effects

    Roadkills

    The above statement notwithstanding, roadkill can have a significant impact on wildlife populations. The Humane Society of the US and the Urban Wildlife Research Centre have arrived at a conservative figure of one million animals killed each day on highways in the United States. When I-75 was completed through a major deer wintering area in northern Michigan, deer road mortality increased by 500%. In Pennsylvania, 26,180 deer and 90 bears were killed by vehicles in 1985. These statistics do not account for animals that crawl off the road to die after being hit. Also, roadkill statistics are invariably biased toward mammals, against reptiles, amphibians, and probably birds, and do not include invertebrates at all (who wants to count the insects smashed on windshields and grills?).
    Lynx crossing road

    Vehicles on high-speed highways pose the greatest threat to wildlife. Unpaved roads, particularly when "unimproved", are less dangerous. Roadkill usually increases with volume of traffic. In one Texas study, however, mortality was greatest on roads with intermediate volumes, presumably because higher-volume roads had wider rights-of-way that allowed better visibility for animals and drivers alike. Increases in traffic volume do result in more collisions on any given road, and in our profligate society more people means more cars on virtually every road.

    Florida is a rapidly developing state with more than 1000 new human residents each day and over 50 million tourists annually. Primary and interstate highway mileage has increased by 4.6 miles per day for the last 50 years. Hence it is no surprise that roadkills are the leading known cause of death for all large mammals except White-tailed Deer.
    Coyote crossing road

    Roadkills of Florida Black Bear, a subspecies listed as threatened by the state, have been rising sharply in recent years, from 2-3 per year in the 1970s to 44 in 1989. Many of the bears are killed on roads through public lands, in particular the Ocala National Forest. Seventeen Florida Panthers, one of the most endangered subspecies of mammals in the world, are known to have been killed on roads since 1972. Since 1981, 65% of documented Florida Panther deaths have been roadkills, and the population of only about twenty individuals is unlikely to be able to sustain this pressure. An average of 41 Key Deer, a species listed as Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, were killed on roads yearly from 1980 through 1986, and 57 were killed in 1987. Roadkill is also the leading cause of mortality for the American Crocodile, also an Endangered species, in south Florida. The Florida Scrub Jay, a Threatened species, has been found to suffer considerable mortality from collision with vehicles, and researchers have concluded that these birds cannot maintain stable populations along roads with considerable high-speed traffic.

    Snakes are particularly vulnerable to roadkill, as the warm asphalt attracts them; yet their carcasses are seldom tallied. Herpetologists have noted dramatic declines of snakes in Paynes Prairie State Preserve near Gainesville, Florida, which is crossed by two four-lane highways. This preserve was once legendary for its diversity and density of snakes, but no more. Similarly, a study of south Florida herpetofauna by Wilson and Porras attributed declines in many snakes to the increasing road traffic in that region.
    Coyote crossing road


     Roadkill is a classic death-trap phenomenon. Animals are attracted to roads for a variety of reasons, often to their demise. Snakes and other ectotherms go there to bask, some birds use roadside gravel to aid their digestion of seeds, mammals go to eat de-icing salts, deer and other browsing herbivores are attracted to the dense vegetation of roadside edge, rodents proliferate in the artificial grasslands of road verges, and many large mammals find roads to be efficient travelways. Songbirds come to dustbathe on dirt roads, where they are vulnerable to vehicles as well as predators. Vultures, Crows, Coyotes, Raccoons, and other scavengers seek out roadkills, often to become roadkills themselves.

    Road Aversion and other Behavioural Modifications

    Not all animals are attracted to roads. Some have learned that roads bring unpleasant things, such as people with guns. Species that show road aversion exhibit decreasing densities toward roads. Various studies report that Turkey, White-tailed Deer, Mule Deer, Elk, Mountain Lions, Grizzly Bear, and Black Bear avoid roads. When these animals are disturbed by vehicles, they waste valuable energy in flight. Other studies show conflicting results, which usually can be explained by differences in road use. Certain bird species also have been found to avoid roads, or the forest edges associated with roads. In the Netherlands, researchers found some bird species to be displaced up to 2000 meters from busy highways.
    Puma crossing road
    The American Elk is one of the best-studied species with respect to road aversion. Elk avoidance of roads is clearly a learned response (they do not avoid natural edges), and is related to traffic volume and hunting pressure. In western Montana, Jack Lyon found that Elk avoid areas within 1/4 - 1/2 mile of roads, depending on traffic, road quality, and the density of cover near the road. According to work by Jack Thomas in Oregon, a road density of one mile per square mile of land results in a 25% reduction in habitat use by Elk; two miles of road per square mile can cut Elk habitat use by half. As road density increases to six miles of road per square mile, Elk and Mule Deer habitat use falls to zero. Elk in some areas have learned that roads are dangerous only in the hunting season, and do not show road aversion in other seasons. Other studies suggest that Elk avoid open roads, but not closed roads. Where hunting pressure is high however, even closed roads may be avoided because so many hunters walk them.

    Grizzly Bears also may be displaced by roads. In British Columbia, Grizzlies were found to avoid areas within 1/2 mile of roads. A study in the Cabinet Mountains of northwestern Montana determined that the mean distance of Grizzly radio-telemetry signals from open roads (2467 m) was significantly greater than the mean distance from closed roads (740 m). Other studies have found that Grizzlies avoid areas near roads, especially by day, even when preferred habitat and forage are located there. This is particularly alarming, because in Yellowstone National Park, which has the second largest Grizzly population in the lower 48, roads and developments are situated in the most productive Grizzly Bear habitat Natural movements of Grizzly Bears may also be deflected by roads, as Chuck Jonkel has documented in Montana. In other cases, however, Grizzlies may use roads as travelways, particularly when they find off-road travel difficult due to dense brush or logging slash. Grizzlies have also learned to exploit the hastened growth of forage plants near roads in spring. Similarly, the abundance of soft mast such as Pokeberry and Blackberry along road edges attracts Appalachian Black Bears in summer. Any advantages associated with roads for either bear species are outweighed by the increase in sometimes fatal (usually for the bear, unfortunately) encounters with humans.
    Bobcat crossing road
    Wild animals can become habituated to roads. Thirty years ago, for example, bears in Yellowstone, the Great Smokies, and other parks often sat along the roadsides and picnic areas waiting for handouts from tourists. When parks disallowed handouts and relocated habituated hears, the attraction subsided. In any area where animals are exposed to frequent human activity, habituation can be expected. This is not necessarily a desirable response, however. Although animals that are attracted to roads and vehicles do not waste energy reserves in flight response, some of them become aggressive toward people. Aggressive behaviour of habituated animals has been noted in bears, Mule Deer, Elk, Bighorn Sheep, Bison, and other species. Conflicts occur most often when humans approach animals closely in order to feed or photograph them. A few years ago in the Smoky Mountains, a bear reportedly chomped on a baby's face when a parent held it close for a kissing photo - the baby's cheek had been smeared with honey. Such encounters usually result in relocation or killing of the "problem" animals, though the real problem is human stupidity. Studies of Grizzly Bears in Montana and British Columbia have found that bears habituated to human activity especially moving vehicles, are more vulnerable to legal and illegal shooting.

    Fragmentation and Isolation of Populations
    Wolf crossing road
     Some species of animals simply refuse to cross barriers as wide as a road. For these species, a road effectively cuts the population in half. A network of roads fragments the population further. The remaining small populations are then vulnerable to all the problems associated with rarity: genetic deterioration from inbreeding and random drift in gene frequencies, environmental catastrophes, fluctuations in habitat conditions, and demographic stochasticity (i.e., chance variation in age and sex ratios). Thus, roads conrtribute to what many conservation biologists consider the major threat to biological diversity: habitat fragmentation. Such fragmentation may be especially ominous in the face of rapid climate change. If organisms are prevented from migrating to track shifting climatic conditions, and cannot adapt quickly enough because of limited genetic variation, then extinction is inevitable.

    In one of the first studies on habitat isolation by roads, D.J. Oxley and co-workers in southeastern Ontario and Quebec found that small forest mammals such as the Eastern Chipmunk, Grey Squirrel, and White-footed Mouse rarely ventured onto road surfaces when the distance between forest margins (road clearance) exceeded 20 meters. The authors suggested that divided highways with a clearance of 90 meters or more maybe as effective barriers to the dispersal of small mammals as water bodies twice as wide. Earlier work in Africa had shown that tortoises, and young Ostrich, Wart hogs, and African Elephants, had difficulty crossing roads with steep embankments. In Germany, Mader found that several species of woodland carabid beetles and two species of forest-dwelling mice rarely or never crossed two-lane roads. Even a small, unpaved forest road closed to public traffic constituted a barrier. All of these animals were physically capable of crossing roads but appeared to be psychologically constrained from venturing into such openings.

     In Ontario, Merriam and co-workers found that narrow gravel roads were "quantitative barriers" to White-footed Mice in forest fragments; many fewer mice crossed roads than moved an equal distance in the forest alongside roads.

    Expect that the barrier effect of roads would be less severe in more open habitats, where the contrast between the road and adjoining habitat is less. Yet, a study by Garland and Bradley of the effects of a four-lane highway on rodents in the Mojave Desert found that rodents almost never crossed the road. Of eight species captured, marked, and recaptured, only an adult male Antelope Ground Squirrel crossed the entire highway. No roadkills were observed, suggesting that few rodents ever ventured onto the highway.

    Animals far more mobile than rodents and beetles may hesitate to cross roads. In the Southern Appalachians, Brody and Pelton found that radlo-collared Black Bears almost never crossed an interstate highway. In general, the frequency at which bears crossed roads varied inversely with traffic volume. Bears appeared to react to increasing road densities by shifting their home ranges to areas of lower road density. The power of flight may not override the barrier effect of roads for some bird species. Many tropical forest birds are known to be averse to crossing water gaps no wider than a highway. Further research is needed to determine if these species react to road clearings as they do to water gaps.

    Thus, populations of many animal species divided by a heavily travelled road may be just as isolated from one another as if they were separated by many miles of barren urban or agricultural land. Larry Harris and Peter Gallagher, writing in a recent Defenders of Wildlife publication on habitat corridors ("Preserving Communities & Corridors" available from Defenders, 1244 19th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036; $10 each), put the road fragmentation problem into proper perspective:
    "Consider this triple jeopardy: At the same time that development reduces the total amount of habitat, squeezing remaining wildlife into smaller and more isolated patches, the high-speed traffic of larger and wider highways eliminates more and more of the remaining populations."
    To the extent that various plant species depend on road-averse animals for dispersal, roads fragment plant populations as well.
    Elk crossing road

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     Pollution

    Pollution from roads begins with construction. An immediate impact is noise from construction equipment, and noise remains a problem along highways with heavy traffic. Animals respond to noise pollution by altering activity patterns, and with an increase in heart rate and production of stress hormones. Sometimes animals become habituated to increased noise levels, and apparently resume normal activity. But birds and other wildlife that communicate by auditory signals may be at a disadvantage near roads. Highway noise can also disrupt territory establishment and defence. A study by Andrew Barrass found that toads and tree frogs showed abnormal reproductive behaviour in response to highway noise.

    Vehicles emit a variety of pollutants, including heavy metals, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, all of which may have serious cumulative effects. Combustion of gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, and wear of tires containing lead oxide, result in lead contamination of roadsides. Although unleaded gasoline now accounts for more than half of all gasoline used in the US, lead persists in soils and the food web for long periods. In Kansas, lead levels in roadside soils and vegetation in the early 1980s were two to three times greater than from near roads with similar traffic volumes in 1973 and 1974, when the use of unleaded gasoline was 42% lower.

    Many studies have documented increasing levels of lead in plants with proximity to roads, and with increases in traffic volume. Plant roots take up lead from the soil, and leaves take it up from contaminated air or from particulate matter on the leaf surface. This lead moves up the food chain, with sometimes severe toxic effects on animals, including reproductive impairment, renal abnormalities, and increased mortality rates. Food chain effects can switch between aquatic and terrestrial pathways. Lead concentrations in tadpoles living near highways can be high enough to cause physiological and reproductive impairment in birds and mammals that prey on tadpoles. Less is known about the effects of other heavy metals, such as zinc, cadmium, and nickel. Motor oil and tires contain zinc and cadmium; motor oil and gasoline contain nickel.

     These metals, like lead, have been found to increase with proximity to roads, and with increasing traffic volume and decreasing soil depth. Earthworms have been found to accumulate all these metals, in concentrations high enough to kill earthworm-eating animals. These roadside contaminants can be carried far from roads by wind and water. lead contamination has been noted up to 100 miles from the nearest metropolitan area.

    The maintenance of roads and roadsides also introduces a variety of pollutants into roadside ecosystems. Americans like their roads free of ice and dust, and their roadsides free of weeds. The effects of herbicides on wildlife and ecosystems have been poorly studied, but anyone who has witnessed the destruction of wild flowers and other plants along roadsides (even through parks) for the sake of tidiness has cause to complain

    Black Bear crossing road
    Highway de-icing programs are notorious sources of saline pollution. In the early 1970s, it was estimated that 9-10 million tons of sodium chloride, 11 million tons of abrasives, and 30,000 tons of calcium chloride were used in the US each year for highway de-icing. As noted above, many animals are attracted to this salt and end up as roadkills or at least get a dose of the salt's toxic additives, including cyanide compounds. Drainage of salt-laden water from roads into aquatic ecosystems may stimulate growth of blue-green algae; the chloride concentration of major water bodies near urban areas has been found to increase by as much as 500%. Furthermore, sodium and calcium ion exchange with mercury releases toxic mercury into these Systems. The cyanide ions from rust-inhibiting additives are extremely toxic to fish.

    In many rural areas, waste oil from crankcases is sprayed onto unpaved roads for dust control. A 1974 study estimated that some 100 million gallons of waste oil are sprayed on dirt roads in the US each year. Only about 1% of this oil remains in the top inch of a road surface. Much of it reaches water bodies, where it coats the surface, limiting oxygen exchange and sunlight penetration and having toxic effects on aquatic organisms.

    Impacts on Terrestrial Habitats

    The impacts of roads on terrestrial ecosystems include direct habitat loss; facilitated invasion of weeds, pests, and pathogens, many of which are exotic (alien); and a variety of edge effects. Roads themselves essentially preempt wildlife habitat. A 1974 report by the Council on Environmental Quality estimated that one mile of interstate highway consumes up to 48 acres of habitat. Logging roads result in the clearing of about 50 acres for each square mile of commercial forest (i.e., 10 acres are deforested for every mile of road, and each square mile of forest averages 5 miles of road). Road construction also kills animals and plants directly, and may limit long-term site productivity of roadsides by exposing low nutrient subsoils, reducing soil water holding capacity, and compacting surface materials. It also makes slopes more vulnerable to landslides and erosion, which in turn remove additional terrestrial wildlife habitat and degrade aquatic habitats.

    Some species thrive on roadsides, but most of these are weedy species. In the Great Basin, rabbit brush is usually more abundant and vigorous along hard-surfaced roads than anywhere else, because it takes advantage of the runoff water channelled to the shoulders, Although certainly attractive, the common rabbit brush species are in no danger of decline, as they invade disturbed areas such as abandoned farmsteads and fence rows, and are considered an indicator of overgrazing. In the Mojave Desert, Creosote Bush is another abundant species that opportunistically exploits the increased moisture levels along roadsides.

    Many of the weedy plants that dominate and disperse along roadsides are exotics. In some cases, these species spread from roadsides into adjacent native communities. In much of the west, Spotted Knapweed has become a serious agricultural pest. This Eurasian weed invades native communities from roadsides, as does the noxious Tansy Ragwort. In Florida, a state plagued by exotic plants, one of the biggest offenders is Brazilian Pepper. This tall, fast-growing shrub readily colonises roadside habitats. When soil in adjacent native habitats is disturbed by off-road vehicles, Brazilian Pepper invades. Invasion by Brazilian Pepper and other roadside exotics is becoming a serious problem in the Atlantic coastal scrubs of south Florida, communities endemic to Florida and containing many rare species. Another invasive exotic, Melaleuca, is expanding from roadsides and dominating south Florida wetlands. In southwest Oregon and northwest California, an apparently introduced root-rot fungus is spreading from logging roads and eliminating populations of the endemic Port Orford Cedar.

    Opportunistic animal species also may benefit from roads. Grassland rodents, for example, sometimes extend their ranges by dispersing along highway verges. In 1941, L.M. Huey documented a range extension of pocket gophers along a new road in the arid Southwest. Meadow voles have been found to colonise new areas by dispersing along the grassy rights-of-way (ROWs) of interstate highways. Roads also facilitate dispersal of prairie dogs. In 1983, Adams and Geis reported that more species of rodents may be found in highway ROWs than in adjacent habitats, though several species avoid ROW habitat. Birds associated with grassland or edge habitat, such as the European Starling, Brewer's and Red-winged Blackbirds, Brown-headed Cowbird, Indigo Bunting, White-throated Sparrow, Song Sparrow, and Killdeer, all have been found to increase in abundance near roads. Cliff and Barn Swallows, Starlings, House Sparrows, and Rock Doves (the latter three are exotic species in North America) often nest and roost in highway bridges. Many species of birds and mammals feed on roadkill carrion.

    Some people claim that increases in grassland, edge, and other opportunistic species near roads constitute a benefit of roads. But increased density near roads may not be favourable for the animals involved, if the road exposes them to higher mortality from heavy metal poisoning or collision with vehicles. In this sense, a road can be an "ecological trap" and a "mortality sink" for animal populations. Furthermore, the species that may benefit from roads are primarily those that tolerate or even thrive on human disturbance of natural landscapes, and therefore do not need attention from conservationists (except occasional control). Many of these weedy species are exotic, and have detrimental effects on native species.

    Edge effects, once considered favourable for wildlife because many game species (e.g., White-tailed Deer, Eastern Cottontail, Northern Bobwhite) are edge-adapted, are now seen as one of the most harmful consequences of habitat fragmentation. Especially when it cuts through an intact forest, a road introduces a long swath of edge habitat. Forest edge is not a line, but rather a zone of influence that varies in width depending on what is measured. Changes in microclimate, increased blowdowns, and other impacts on vegetation may extend 2-3 tree-heights into a closed-canopy forest. Shade-intolerant plants, many of them exotic weeds, colonise the edge and gradually invade openings in the forest interior. Dan Janzen found weedy plant species invading treefall gaps in a Costa Rican forest up to 5 kilometers from the forest edge. Changes in vegetation structure and composition from edge effects can be more persistent than effects of clearcutting, from which at least some forest types will eventually recover, if left alone.

    The Brown-headed Cowbird, originally abundant in the Great Plains but now throughout most of North America because of forest fragmentation, is known to penetrate forests at least 200 meters from edge. The cowbird is a brood parasite that lays its eggs in the nests of other bird species and can significantly reduce the reproductive success of its hosts. Forest birds, most of which did not evolve with the cowbird and are not well adapted to its parasitism, may show serious declines in areas where cowbirds have become common. In addition, many opportunistic nest predators, such as jays, crows, Raccoons, and Opossums, are common in roadside environments (partially because of supplemental food in the form of carrion) and often concentrate their predatory activities near edges. Increases in nest predation from these opportunists can extend up to 600 meters from an edge) as shown by David Wilcove using artificial nest experiments.

    A narrow logging road with no maintained verge would not be expected to generate substantial edge effects, particularly if surrounded by a tall forest canopy. In this sense, the road would not differ much from hiking trail (even trails create some edge effects, however, such as invasion of weedy plants caused by pant-legs dispersal). As forest roads are "improved," road clearance increases and allows more penetration of sunlight and wind. Edge species are then attracted to these openings. Two-lane roads with maintained rights-of-way and all interstate highways are lined by edge habitat. A forest criss-crossed by improved roads may be largely edge habitat, and its value for conservation of native flora and fauna diminished accordingly.

    Impacts on Hydrology and Aquatic Habitats

    Road construction alters the hydrology of watersheds through changes in water quantity and quality, stream channel morphology, and ground water levels. Paved roads increase the amount of impervious surface in a watershed, resulting in substantial increases in peak runoff and storm discharges. That usually means flooding downstream. Reduced evapo-transpiration within road rights-of-way may also result in increased runoff and streamflows. However, increases in streamflows in forested watersheds are not usually significant unless 15% or more of the forest cover is removed by road construction and associated activities such as logging. When a road bed is raised above the surrounding land surface, as is normally the case, it will act as a dam and alter surface sheet flow patterns, restricting the amount of water reaching downstream areas. Mike Duever and co-workers found this to be a significant problem in the Big Cypress Everglades ecosystem of South Florida. Ditches dug for road drainage often drain adjacent wetlands as well. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1962, estimated that 99,292 acres of wetlands in western Minnesota had been drained as a result of highway construction. This drainage occurred at a rate of 2.33, 2.62, and 4.10 acres of wetland per mile of road for state and federal, county, and township highways, respectively.

    Roads concentrate surface water flows, which in turn increases erosion. Megahan and Kidd, in 1972, found that erosion from logging roads in Idaho was 220 times greater than erosion from undisturbed sites. Logging roads used by more than 16 trucks per day may produce 130 times more sediment than do roads used only by passenger cars. Incision of a slope by roadcuts in mountainous areas may intercept subsurface flow zones, converting subsurface flow to surface flow and increasing streamflow rates. Water tables are almost always lowered in the vicinity of a road.

    Where a road crosses a stream, engineers usually divert, channelise, or otherwise alter the stream. Culverts and bridges alter flow patterns and can restrict a passage of fish. Channelization removes natural diverse substrate materials, increases sediment loads, creates a shifting bed load inimical to bottom-dwelling organisms, simplifies current patterns, lowers the stream channel and drains adjacent wetlands, reduces the stability of banks, and exacerbates downstream flooding.

    The impacts of roads on fish and fisheries have long concerned biologists. Increased erosion of terrestrial surfaces almost inevitably results in increased sedimentation of streams and other water bodies. Even the best designed roads produce sediment, and unpaved roads continue to produce sediment for as long as they remain unvegetated. A divided highway requiring exposure of 10 to 35 acres per mile during construction produces as much as 3000 tons of sediment per mile. In a study of the Scott Run Basin in Virginia, Guy and Ferguson found that highway construction contributed 85% of the sediment within the basin. The yield was 10 times that normally expected from cultivated land, 200 times that from grasslands, and 2000 times that from forest land. Studies in northwestern California show that about 40% of total sediment is derived from roads and 60% from logged areas. Much of the sedimentation associated with roads occurs during mass movements (i.e., landslides) rather than chronic surface erosion. Roads dramatically increase the frequency of landslides and debris flows. Studies in Oregon have found that roads trigger up to 130 times more debris torrents than intact forest.

    Increased sediment loads in streams have been implicated in fish declines in many areas. A 1959 study on a Montana stream, reported by Leedy in 1975, found a 94% reduction in numbers and weight in large game fish due to sedimentation from roads. Salmonids are especially vulnerable to sedimentation because they lay their eggs in gravel and small rubble with water flow sufficient to maintain oxygen supply. Fine sediments may cement spawning gravels, impeding the construction of redds. Increases in fine sediments also reduce the availability of oxygen to eggs and increase embryo mortality. Stowell and co-workers reported that deposition of 25% fine sediments in spawning rubble or gravel reduces fry emergence by 50%. Sedimentation also has negative effects on the invertebrate food supply of many fish. Furthermore, destruction of riparian vegetation by road construction results in higher water temperatures, which reduces dissolved oxygen concentrations and increases fish oxygen demands (a "double whammy"). If the fishing public was adequately informed of the negative effects of roads on fisheries, perhaps all but the laziest would demand that most roads on public lands be closed and revegetated!

    Indirect Effects

    Access

    The most insidious of all effects of roads is the access they provide to humans and their tools of destruction. Let's face it, the vast majority of humans do not know how to behave in natural environments. Fearful of experiencing Nature on its own terms, they bring along their chainsaws, ATVs, guns, dogs and ghetto blasters. They harrass virtually every creature they meet, and leave their mark on every place they visit. The more inaccessible we can keep our remaining wild areas to these cretins, the safer and healthier these areas will be. Those humans who respect the land are willing to walk long distances. If this is an "elitist" attitude, so be it; the health of the land demands restrictions on human access and behaviour.

    Many animal species decline with increasing road density precisely because roads bring humans with guns. For many large mammals, road aversion is not related to any intrinsic qualities of the road, but rather to their learned association of roads with danger. In other Cases, mammals may continue to use roads because they provide convenient travelways or food supply, but are unable to maintain populations where road densities are high because of the mortality they suffer from legal or illegal hunting, or roadkill.

    An historical study by Richard Thiel in northern Wisconsin, supplemented by modern radio-telemetry, showed that road density was the best predictor of Grey Wolf habitat suitability. As road density increased in the study area, the Wolf population declined. Wolves failed to survive when road densities exceeded .93 mile per square mile (.58 km per square km). Similar studies in Michigan and Ontario by Jensen and co-workers, and in Minnesota by Mech and co-workers, found a virtually identical threshold level for the occurrence of Wolves. Roads themselves do not deter Wolves. In fact, Wolves often use roads for easy travel or to prey on the edge-adapted White-tailed Deer. But roads provide access to people who shoot, snare, trap, or otherwise harass wolves. David Mech found that over half of all known Wolf mortality was caused by humans, despite the "protection" of the Endangered Species Act.

    Many other large mammal species have been found to decline with increasing road access. The Florida Panther once ranged throughout the Southeast, from South Carolina through southern Tennessee into Arkansas, Louisiana and extreme eastern Texas. It is now restricted to south Florida, an area of poor deer and Panther habitat, but the last large roadless area available in its range. Problems associated with roads - roadkill, development, and illegal shooting - are now driving it to extinction. A population viability analysis has determined an 85% probability of extinction in 25 years, and a mean time to extinction of 20 years. Proposed management interventions still yield 75% to 99% probabilities of extinction within 100 years.

    Recently, Seminole Chief James Billie shot a Panther with a shotgun from his pickup truck in the Big Cypress Swamp, ate it, and claimed this murder was a native religious ritual. Billie eventually won his case, not on religious grounds, but because taxonomists could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the skull found in Billie's possession was that of a Florida Panther, Felis concolor subspecies coryi (the various subspecies of Cougar differ little from one another in morphology).
    Biologists agree that the only hope for the Panther is reestablishment of populations elsewhere within its historic range. But is there anywhere with low enough road density to be safe? The best opportunity seems to be the 1.2 million acres in and around Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia and Osceola National Forest in north Florida, recently connected by purchase of Pinhook Swamp and its transfer to the Forest Service. Experimenters testing the feasibility of Panther reintroduction in this area released 5 neutered and radio-collared Texas Cougars, a subspecies closely related to F.c. coryi, into this habitat. Within a month, one cat died of unknown causes. Two more cats were killed by hunts soon thereafter. The final two cats discovered livestock (a goat pasture and an exotic game reserve), and were removed from the wild. This setback in the Panther reintroduction program demonstrates that even one of the wildest areas in the Southeast is still far too human-accessible for Panthers to survive. Except for the wettest part of the Okefenokee Swamp, the poorest Panther habitat, the area is riddled with roads and swarming with gun-toting "Crackers" and their hounds.

    Other large mammals that suffer from road access include Cougars (western version of Fc.) and Grizzly Bears. A radio-telemetry study in Arizona and Utah, by Van Dyke and co-workers, found that Cougars avoided roads (especially paved and improved dirt roads) whenever possible, and established home ranges in areas with the lowest road densities. In southeastern British Columbia, McLellan and Mace found that a disproportionate amount of Grizzly Bear mortality occurred near roads. Of 11 known deaths, 7 bears were definitely shot and another 3 were probably shot from roads. Dood and co-workers found that 32% of all hunting mortality and 48% of all non-hunting mortality of Grizzlies in Montana occurred within one mile of a road. Knick and Kasworm recently found that illegal shooting was the primary cause of death for Grizzlies in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems, and concluded that the ability of regions to maintain viable populations of Grizzly Bears is related to road density and human access.

    Road access imperils Black Bears, too. In the Southern Appalachians, Mike Pelton has estimated that bears cannot maintain viable populations when road density exceeds .8 miles of road per square mile. Later studies found that the situation is more complicated, and is related to traffic volume and other road use factors. The primary effect of roads on bears in the Southern Appalachians is to expose them to increased hunting. Hunting with the aid of trained hounds is the major source of mortality for bears in this region, including within National Parks and other sanctuaries, and is encouraged by the trade in bear gall bladders to the Oriental market.

    The problem of road access and overhunting is often attributed to inadequacies of human ethics and law enforcement, rather than to any effect of the roads themselves. But as Richard Thiel pointed out, in discussing the Grey Wolf in northern Wisconsin, "Ultimately, the survival of wolves will depend on a change in human attitudes. Until then road densities are important in determining whether an area can sustain a viable population of wolves." We may have to wait a long time before attitudes toward Nature improve, but roads can be closed today.

    Other consequences of road access include over collecting of rare plants (e.g., cacti, orchids, and ginseng) and animals (e.g., snakes for the pet trade), the removal of snags near roadsides by firewood cutters, and increased frequency of fire ignitions. Removal of snags eliminates habitat for the many cavity-nesting and roosting birds and mammals. In the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington, for example, 39 bird and 23 mammal species use snags for nesting or shelter. Woodpeckers are among the cavity-nesting birds known to be critically important in dampening forest insect outbreak. Thus, snag removal along roadsides is an anthropogenic edge effect that may have far-reaching effects on entire ecosystems.

    Humans are suspected to cause at least 90% of wildfires in the US, over half of which begin along roads. In 1941, Shaw and co-workers reported 78% of all anthropogenic fires occurred within 265 feet of a road. In New Jersey, the origins of 75% of all forest fires were traced to roadsides. Although fire is a natural process with beneficial effects on many ecosystems, natural fires and anthropogenic fires differ in many ways. One important difference is frequency; anthropogenic fires may occur more frequently than the natural fire return interval for a given ecosystem type.

     Another important difference is seasonality. In Florida, for example, most anthropogenic fires occur in winter, whereas natural lightning fires occur in late spring and summer. Research in longleaf Pine-Wiregrass communities, which under natural conditions experience low-intensity ground fires at 2 to 5 year intervals, has determined that summer fires promote higher herbaceous plant diversity and flowering. Winter fires caused by humans tend to promote monotonous, shrub-dominated (eg. saw palmetto) communities. It is a curious contradiction that the US forest service often justifies high road densities as necessary to provide fire control, when in fact most fires begin along roads.

    Of the disturbances promoted by road access, perhaps the most devastating is development. Highways introduce pressures for commercial development of nearby land. Highway interchanges inevitably become nodes of ugly commercialism. Arterial streets encourage commercial strip development, and new rural and suburban roads bring in commercial, industrial, and residential development. Internationally funded road-building in Third World countries introduces hordes of immigrants, who quickly cut and burn the native forest. In Brazilian Amazonia, Philip Fearnside reported that road development funded by the World Bank facilitates the entry of settlers whose land claims (established by clearing the forest) justify building more roads. Thus, roads and deforestation interact in a positive feedback relationship. Roads bring settlement and development, which in turn call for more roads.

    Cumulative Effects

    So far, this article has discussed effects of roads mostly in isolation from one another. Indeed, almost all research on road problems has looked at one factor at a time, be it lead pollution, roadkill, edge effects, or access. In real ecosystems, however, these factors interact in complex ways, with long-term effects at several levels of biological organisation.

    To illustrate the complexity of possible impacts, consider this scenario: A network of roads is built into prime Grey Wolf habitat in northern hardwoods forest. Hunters flock into the area, depressing the Wolf population. Some Wolves are killed by vehicles. Eventually, the Wolf becomes extinct in this region. In the absence of Wolf predation, and with the abundance of brushy roadside edge habitat, the White-tailed Deer population explodes. Fires started by humans along roadsides create even more deer habitat. Hunters and vehicles take some deer, but they cannot keep up. The burgeoning deer population overbrowses the forest eliminating regeneration of favoured Eastern Hemlock, Arbor Vitae, Canada Yew, and a number of rare herbaceous plants. As a result, the floristic composition and vegetation structure of the forest gradually change. With reduced understory density due to heavy browsing, many warblers and other forest songbirds undergo serious declines. With Wolves gone, opportunistic medium-sized mammals ("mesopredators") such as Opossums and Raccoons increase in abundance and feed on the eggs and nestlings of songbirds, many of which nest on or near the ground, further depressing their numbers. Brown-headed Cowbirds parasitise these beleaguered songbirds within 200 meters or so of road edges. Cutting of snags for firewood along the roadsides decimates cavity-nesting bird populations. Populations of insect pests now cycle with greater amplitude, resulting in massive defoliation. The roads also bring in developers, who create new residential complexes, and still more roads. Roadside pollutants from increased traffic levels poison the food chain. The original forest ecosystem has been irretrievably destroyed.

    This scenario is fictitious, but every part of it has been documented somewhere. Because many of the animal species most sensitive to roads are large predators, we can expect a cascade of secondary extinctions when these species are eliminated or greatly reduced. Recent research confirms that top predators are often "keystone species", upon which the diversity of a large part of the community depends. When top predators are eliminated, such as through roadkill or because of increased access to hunters, opportunistic mesopredators increase in abundance, leading to declines of many songbirds and ground-dwelling reptiles and amphibians. In the tropics, predator removal can lead to an increased abundance of mammals that eat large-seeded plants, which in turn may result in changes in plant community composition and diversity (see John Terborgh's article, "The Big Things that Run the World", reprinted in Earth First!, 8-89).

    Other keystone species may be similarly vulnerable to roads. The Gopher Tortoise of the southeastern US, for example, digs burrows up to 30 feet long and 15 feet deep. By a recent count, 362 species of commensal invertebrates and vertebrates have been found in its burrows, and many of them can live nowhere else. Yet, the slow-moving Gopher Tortoise is extremely vulnerable to roadkill on the busy highways of this high growth region. Roads also provide access to developers and poachers, the tortoise's biggest enemies. But the effects of roads on Gopher Tortoises can be more subtle. Good Gopher Tortoise habitat is longleaf Pine-Wiregrass, which requires frequent summer fires to maintain its open structure. Although, as discussed above, many fires are ignited along roadsides, the net effect of roads on this habitat has been to stop the spread of fires that once covered areas the size of several counties. Those roadside fires that do ignite are mostly winter burns, which are less effective in controlling shrub invasion. As shrubs, oaks, and other hardwoods overtake this ecosystem, they shade out the herbaceous plants upon which the herbivorous Gopher Tortoise depends.

    The net, cumulative effect of roads is to diminish the native diversity of ecosystems everywhere. Habitats in many different places around the would are invaded by virtually the same set of cosmopolitan weeds. Regions gradually are homogenised - they lose their "character". Every place of similar climate begins to look the same and most ecosystems are incomplete and missing the apex of the food chain. The end result is an impoverishment of global biodiversity.