Hunting

I find that a lot of people struggle with the concept of hunting. I posed the question to some friends, and to a man they agreed that it is completely unnecessary to shoot an animal when there are domestic meat sources; in other words, the supermarket. I wonder how many animals go through feed lots every day, and how many of them aren't quite dead when the butchering process begins. I tried to talk ethics, but my friends were having none of it. The argument went that I had only asked about hunting, not the ethics of slaughterhouses. Oh, okay, I guess in that case it's something we shouldn't even take into consideration then. I was rather hoping when I started that discussion that it would be a thoughtful discussion considering all the issues instead of strictly a courtroom, 'just the facts ma'am' argument.
Biologists use hunting as a tool to control populations. The argument against that is that eventually populations will exceed available habitat and then a bunch of individuals will die. Fine, but that's an awful lot of waste. Scavengers can only consume so much meat at a time. Then it's up to bugs and bacteria. Lately a major concern among biologists have been that there are not as many people out hunting. (I am, unfortunately, among them. I do not trust my left hand to safely stabilize a rifle while shooting at, say, waterfowl.)
I think a common misconception about hunting is that people think it is solely about killing without remorse. My friends who hunt say that it is always sad when they kill an animal. In fact, I think if you are not sad there is something wrong with you. A hunt can easily be ruined by those who have no respect for their prey (or other hunters). My dad has actually cut hunting trips short because he got sick of the 'hunters' he kept running into. Once, having hiked all the way through 6-Mile Gap and up a hill and waiting quietly, he was just drawing a bead on an elk when 6 guys on ATVs came roaring up the other side of the mountain and started shooting willy-nilly into the herd. This frightened the elk off, of course, and may well have injured an animal or two. Had a game warden been around, they may well have been cited.
Some hunting 'methods' are blatantly illegal. For example, Wyoming Game and Fish officials once took a couple of British tourists to court for using hounds to hunt antelope (I still have trouble believing they really believed that harassing wildlife like that over here was okay. Didn't they check the regulations first?). One couple wrote indignantly to the Wyoming Wildlife Magazine about having seen a bunch of hillbillies herding antelope along with their pickups and picking them off. The couple vowed never to return to the state because of that. The editor replied that he hoped they had taken license plate numbers and reported what they saw because that sort of behavior was a direct violation.
For a lot of hunters, hunting is not just about the meat. A survey taken in Idaho showed that a lot of people went hunting to spend time outdoors with their friends and families. Going hunting does not guarantee that the hunter will come back with anything. Thus, the hunter should be prepared to have a good time being outdoors, hiking, and honing tracking and orienteering skills.
For many, hunting is a spiritual thing. This is a rather unique point of view that comes to us from the Native Americans. The natives routinely thanked the spirits of the animals they killed. The Ojibwe of Wisconsin and Minnesota believe that they are doing a favor to the spirit of the animal they consume by eating it. This year my dad spent the entire season looking for an elk, and was finally presented with the perfect shot on the last day of the season. In these cases he feels the animal has given itself up.
Hunting is definitely not for everyone. However, it is unfair for those who don't hunt to vilify those who do (or at least those who do it legally). Think about how death is inevitable for a cow in a feed lot, but not necessarily so for elk or deer with a means of escape. I don't think I can emphasize enough the fact that a hunt will not always be successful.
By the way, wild meat is healthier than meat off the feedlot.

Beautiful Vs

I like Canada geese. Whenever they fly over I have a yearning to travel, or at least to go where they're going. I actually studied them during college. Every night I stood on a bridge over the Cedar River and counted them for an hour, half an hour before and half an hour after dark. I recorded temperature, wind speed, wind direction, how many geese there were initially, and who went where when. It took a while for the regulars on that path to get used to having me there, but eventually they cozened to the notion that I was studying the geese and not planning to jump into the water.
It surprised me to discover that not everybody felt warm and fuzzy aboiut the geese. "What do you want to study them for?" my Spanish professor asked. "They're dirty. And little children in the park pick up the goose poop and put it in their mouths." The town of Waverly, Iowa is just one of the millions of towns possessed of a rather large resident Canada goose population. The area is agricultural and the weather fairly mild, so the geese have food, water, and roosting spots within a 6-mile radius. Sounds like a pretty good setup to me. What would you do if you were a goose?
There are 13 (or 11 depending on the classification you use) subspecies of Canada geese, and in all instances the resident population are comprised of Branta canadensis maxima, the giant Canada goose. They used to migrate, but all that changed seventy or eighty years ago. It might surprise you to discover that while giant Canadas are abundant to the point of being pesky now, in the 1920s they were endangered.
Early colonists and pioneers were fascinated by these intangible high-flying birds, their endless Vs trailing across the sky. Of course, they hunted the birds, and some hunters started keeping decoy flocks. Injured geese were taken in by a hunter, their wings were clipped, and they were set out on lakes to lure in migrating birds. In 1934 this practice was made illegal, so some hunters kept their flocks and cared for them until the geese died, while other hunters let their flocks be adopted by local parks.
At about the time conservationists were trying to restore the subspecies, but they went about it in exactly the wrong way. The geese were kept outside in fenced enclosures to acclimatize them and given food and water. Not surprisingly, when the tops were taken off these enclosures the birds stayed right where they were. They had never migrated before in their lives, and they had everything they needed right where they were. Why mess with a good thing? Geese learn by example, so when eggs hatched the chicks saw that their parents weren't migrating, so neither did they.
And so we come to today, and we think the geese are pests. Who was it caused by? Humans. It's sort of like cities expanding into areas with mountain lions and blaming the lions for invading our territory when it was the other way around. We made this bed, feather or otherwise, so we have to lie in it.
Oh, and the outcome of that experiment? Two-years' worth of data showed that the overall goose population in the area did indeed increase during the migration season (end of September to mid-November), but the special hunting season that was instituted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources didn't even make a dent in the resident population. Once the geese figured out what the shooting hours were, they came in to the river earlier than before. And that just goes to show that Canada geese are pretty smart. I was a little worried that by the time I finished the project I'd be sick of geese, but I wasn't. I still enjoy watching them migrate or trying to estimate the size of a flock.

Ready, set, change!

Hooray ethanol! It's the answer to all our problems! *eye roll* Frankly, I got a bit of a chill yesterday when I heard that Bush is calling for so much biofuel by the year 2020. How are we going to produce all that fuel? Where do we draw the line? Let's start producing tons of switchgrass and cheatgrass for biofuel at the expense of wildlife habitat. According to Ducks Unlimited, duck habitat has already been depleted in North Dakota. In a worst-case scenario, are we going to start harvesting native prairies and woods to supply our greed for energy? Sounds like we're just trading one problem for another. Besides, the price of wheat and corn will increase--great for the farmers, not so much for those of us who are just barely scraping by. The high price of corn in Mexico has led to protess from the Indian and mestizo populations. And what happens to best practices for farming? Will any field be left fallow for a year anymore? The problem with not rotating crops or planting all the fields every year is that the plants eventually strip the soil of nutrients. I continue to be amazed that GM has done such a good job of keeping the story of the electric car quiet. If it were me, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops (and possibly going to jail, but that's a sacrifice I'd gladly make). For all 3 of my readers out there, if you haven't seen 'Who Killed The Electric Car?' you should rent it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't make use of biofuel, but I am saying we can't rely on it as our sole source of clean energy.
The EPA--ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency--is trying to keep California from implementing its new emissions standards. The lawyer's argument: "Global warming is a global problem, not just a California problem, so California shouldn't implement these standards." What a weak argument. You can hear the same type of argument on any school playground across America. It's the 'we're not doing it, so they can't either' defense. Newsflash to the administration--we live in a grownup world where we use grownup arguments. Good on Governor Schwarzenegger for his plans to sue.
CAFE standards have finally been increased (to 35 mpg by 2020--why not now?), but Detroit was dragged along with that unwillingly. They had identified higher CAFE standards as legislation to be fought tooth and nail. Why? I thought higher fuel standards and cleaner fuel were good for all of us. The only thing I can think of is that they are lazy. They don't want to put their noggins to work and break out of the box. It seems to me that the richer they are, the less they want to change or try to make life easier for the rest of us. The richer they are, the less they care? What a scary thought!

We hates them, Preciousss, yes we does!

OK, maybe hate is too strong a word. There are legitimate uses for ORVs (like plowing a driveway or getting scientific equipment into the backcountry, or even packing out big game meat), but these can still be accomplished by legwork. Of course, if you live 2 miles from the road and can't get your car up to your house you might use a snowmobile, but that's a different story. I prefer to get things in on my back if I can. My legs don't break down in the field, but even if they do I know how to fix them (sit down for a while!). I figure that if I'm going to be an outdoorsperson, I should take all the lumps that come with that, like crawling over broken talus and granite). Some people don't feel that way, and I'm afraid I struggle sometimes not to consider those people weak. I know that many people in the older population use ORVs to get out in nature or go hunting, and while I really don't have a huge problem with that I also get frustrated. There comes a time in every man's (or woman's) life when he or she doesn't function as well as 20 years ago, but instead of acceptance they go out on ATVs. That sounds really uncharitable, I know, but having been forced to accept the reality of my situation (i.e. there are some things I'll never be able to do) I feel that others should learn to do the same. That's it for philosophy. Here are some more of my arguments.
With global warming as prevalent as it is and with gas prices so high, I don't understand the allure of snowmobiling for fun. That's like driving around in your car for fun, except ORVs are not dogged by the same sorts of regulations as cars and are dirtier. That's not to say they aren't slowly improving as far as emissions go, but if they are so great then rangers at the entrance to Yellowstone Park wouldn't complain about the exhaust fumes.
ORVs (snowmobiles in particular) are really loud. They can be heard at distances of up to 6 miles. Being out in the woods on a Sunday afternoon, I'd rather hear the silence than the whine of a snowmobile. In some cases I am out on my skis on those wintry afternoons, and have to jump out of the way of one of those machines every 5 seconds and breathe in the exhaust as it powers past. Cross-country skiing is a dying art, it would seem.
If ORV users actually stayed on designated trails rangers might not have such a problem with them. Unfortunately, a lot of drivers think an ORV gives them license to go anywhere. We are told that these people are the exception rather than the rule, but I doubt we'd hear an outcry if it weren't a problem. These vehicles can pack the ground down to 6 feet, which might not seem like a big deal except that then there are a lot of burrowing critters (besides earthworms) that can't dig down into or through the packed area. Trails are designated for a reason. Going off-trail damages a lot of habitat that can take years to undo or may never be undone. It may take a wetland 50-100 years to recover, and that's only after one event.
I have read irate letters to the editor from ORV users who claim that they don't bother wildlife at all. My junior year of college I was watching the morning news and a woman was busy saying how the bison don't mind the snowmobiles at all, while at the same time watching a video that showed 10 bison stampeding to get away from a snow machine. Sound like a contradiction?
I have mostly concentrated on snowmobiles and ATVs because they are the biggest sellers in my state, but other things such as dune buggies and air boats aren't any better; different ecosystem, same sort of damage. I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this entry, but it is my opinion; you don't have to share it. However, a lot of environmentalists feel the same way, but can't say much because the agencies they work for won't allow them to talk about anything controversial. I am under no such restrictions at the moment, so I will jump at the opportunity to express my thoughts.

Sagebrush is to sage grouse

A couple of years ago the sage grouse was proposed for listing on the Endangered Species Act, but was rejected. I'm not usually a person who sees conspiracies, but in this case I think it is absolutely warranted to believe that the current administration had a hand in the rejection. A lot of the sage grouse habitat in Wyoming is in the Pinedale region, where it just happens is also where there is a lot of oil and coal. If the grouse had been listed, drilling in that area would have been verboten since it is illegal to harm habitat of an endangered species. Bush and Cheney are both oil men. It all computes.
"Yes," many people say. "But we have LOTS of sagebrush." From the human point of view, we absolutely do. From the sage grouse's point of view things are a bit different. Though sage grouse have been known to nest on oil pads, they prefer to nest away from disturbance under sagebrush of medium height, and they like to be near certain grasses of a certain height. (I don't recall to a T what the ideal grass height is, but I seem to remember reading something about 18-24 centimeters.) The grouse depend on the sage for food and shelter, supplementing their diets with certain insect species. (Antelope also eat sagebrush.) This is definitely where the food chain comes in. Even if the disappearance of sagebrush doesn't outright kill the grouse, it will definitely deplete the supply of insects that young grouse feed on, starving them. With no cover, they are more vulnerable to predation. Something like this could easily wipe out an entire clutch of eggs or young birds. A man from Gillette once tried to convince me that he had seen grouse hanging out on golf courses. The implication was that if grouse spend time on golf courses then it must be suitable habitat, so we shouldn't worry. While I don't doubt that adult birds cross golf courses from time to time, that doesn't mean it is good habitat. I very much doubt there have been any grouse families raised on said courses. An adult sage grouse is savvy enough to know that there are lots of people on golf courses who might step on the eggs, and when the people have gone home at night the eggs are still vulnerable to nest predators. And, of course, there is no sage, which comprises the diet of the adult so the bird has nothing to eat. To get back to the sage the mother will have to leave her eggs to the mercy of the elements (predators, golfers, weather, etc.) and cross roads. Granted, she can fly across the roads, but there are still rushing cars and glass windshields to be dealt with.
A year or so ago a senator told me that the oil companies were trying to protect the sagebrush by putting down mats over which they drove all the equipment. I rolled my eyes and responded that 1) the mats would probably crush the sage, and 2) even if the mats didn't crush the sage, the vehicles would. One of the arguments against ORVs is that they compress soil as much as 6 feet down, and they are nowhere near as heavy as this equipment. A friend of mine recently suggested (only partly in jest) that it might be a good idea to require elected officials to take a class on the environment when they are elected. Depending on the official, I think it's not a bad idea, although infeasible.

*Sage grouse experts, please feel free to weigh in!

There's nothing wrong with eating meat

I'm having trouble with the prejudice against wolves. If I were a rancher I might be more sympathetic. After all, something that might eat your livestock and is a potential threat to your livelihood is something to worry about. However, last Thursday in the paper I read quotes like, "The government did a smart thing when they got rid of predators," or "Wolves take down an animal and only eat the heart and liver and leave the rest of the animal to rot." What? I saw a wolf kill completely stripped of all flesh in the space of a morning! It's one thing to be concerned about wolf reintroduction in connection with your livelihood, but quite another to make sweeping judgments on limited information or ignorance. In reference to the former statement, that person must have forgotten about the headaches that grazing presented to ranchers and wildlife managers not long ago.
It's odd that wolves have generated more controversy than grizzly bears since there has never been a case of a wolf eating a human, but there have been several of grizzlies doing exactly that (for instance, Tim Treadwell. Most sane people won't get that close to a grizzly, though). I guess it's a good thing for grizzlies that they are not only omnivorous, but the meat that they find doesn't necessarily have to be red (I guess meat from a grub would be classified as white). Black bears have been a problem in some areas of Idaho this year? Why? Because the Rocky Mountain area is in a drought again this year and the berry crop in the mountains lasted about 2 days before drying up, so the bears were forced into more urban areas. As with almost every type of predator, bears aren't particularly dangerous to humans unless they are surprised.
Let's not stop there--we have lots of predators around. We love our raptors, but they are predators. I know somebody who was stalked by a mountain lion. Wolverines are absolutely fearsome and very dangerous to humans. Fishers are a little smaller than wolverines, but still dangerous. Down the size scale, we have martens and weasels. Even wood rats and voles will eat meat if that's the only thing available.
Grizlies and wolves and wolverines aren't the only dangerous animals, though. I don't imagine it would be very salubrious to be run down by a bison or an elk. A couple of months ago a friend of mine was counting salmon along the West Fork of the Yankee Fork of the Salmon River and stepped out of the river right in between a pair of rutting bull moose. The moose chased her onto a rock and treed her there for the next hour and a half. She was all right, but had things taken a different turn she might not have been.
So what, specifically, is wrong with wolves? Nothing. They just had the misfortune to be thrown into the spotlight by reintroduction. In the bigger picture, what's wrong with predators? Nothing. For centuries they provided a balance in the herbivore populations. It is only since humans have ventured onto the scene and started to try to 'control' things that they have become a problem. We are afraid of them, and for good reason. We humans evolved with relatively few defenses, so if a bear or a wolf decides we look tasty, there's not much we can do to stop them from coming after us. Fortunately for us, most predators are shy of humans, and for good reason. We have guns, and we live in packs. If they enter our territory, they are vulnerable. Unfortunately for them, our territory keeps expanding, so they are sometimes forced into situations where they need to come into towns for food or starve.
I think we are afraid of predators because they show us that no matter how hard we try, short of wiping nature out altogeter we can't control it. And we don't like not being in control.

Invaders!

Aliens, lots of aliens! Big ones, small ones, furry ones, green ones, and they're all growing and demanding nutrients! How did they get here? We brought them, of course. Invasives come in plant and animal form. One of the best known water invaders in the east is Eurasian water milfoil. Reed canarygrass grows everywhere, from roadside ditches to upland prairies. Everybody has had run-ins with the Canada thistle, which is classified as a prohibited noxious weed by the USDA. Some people grow purple loosestrife in their front yards. The zebra mussel is so prolific that entire areas of Lake Superior have at one time or another been considered dead zones due to lack of oxygen. Idaho is having problems with the New Zealand mud snail. There are several species of nonnative fish in our waterways. In short, invasive species are here to stay.
Invasive species should not be confused with nonnative species. Sure, nonnative species compete with native species for habitat, but invasive species have proven to be much more effective. My area of expertise is with invasive plants, so that's where I focus this discussion.
Invasive plants are fast-growing plants that outcompete native plants. They take up nutrients from the ground so quickly that they deprive native seeds of a crack at the same nutrients. Because of their fast growth-rate they may shade seeds in need of sun to germinate. These plants aren't going anywhere, either, because they have no natural predators. Usually they have low nitrogen contents relative to other more palatable (tasty) plants. Deer aren't particularly fond of brose with high concentrations of, say, tannins, because of the bitter taste. A general rule of thumb is the higher the nitrogen concentration, the tastier the plant. Some plants, like the Canada thistle, secrete poison from their roots that kill the plants around them. And because of all these things the invasive plant spreads rapidly. While I was doing my graduate work I had one study plot virtually taken over by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) leaving only a few hardy stems of fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). A spring project in the university biology department was to go over to the preserve and hand-pull pounds and pounds of mustardgrass.
A lot of invasive and nonnative species are introduced when they are brought over on ships or hybridized (interbred) with certain crops. It is almost impossible to find weed-free hay anywhere in the United States. The hay is shipped over without anyone realizing it has interbred with something else and that there are likely stalks of that something else hidden in the bails. Some things, like teasel and purple loosestrife, are brought on purpose. Teasel forms a thick hedge, and was used as a living sheep fence. Purple loosetrife was considered an ornamental flower (and amazingly enough, sometimes still is).
It doesn't seem like we should worry about the problem of invasive species until (as with so many other things) we consider the ramifications. In some cases invasive species change the soil chemistry, which may make it harder to grow crops, harder or impossible for native plants to grow, and therefore more difficult for animals to forage since the invasive plants aren't as nutritious. Some, like teasel, are nealy impenetrable for animals or have root systems that make burrowing difficult. Because they are by definition invasive, they will eventually take over the landscape. What really wants to wade through a sea of Canada thistle on a hike? And of course, the circuit wouldn't be complete if we didn't bring good old global warming into the mix. Studies have shown that a warmer earth favors monocultures. Am I saying these monocultures will be of invasive plants? No. However, given the tendency of such species to take over a given area ahead of the native ones, it is a good possibility.