the wildlife professional fall 2010

Fall 2010Vol. 4 No. 3

A Conservation Timeline

How Science Gains from Studying Game

The Role of Furbearer Management

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

SpeCiAl iSSue

The Wildlife Society2 The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010

The Wildlife Professional (ISSN 1933-2866) is a quarterly magazine published by The Wildlife Society (5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2144) as a benefit of membership. The magazines goal is to present timely research, news, and analysis of issues and trends in the wildlife profession. You can learn more about The Wildlife Society and the benefits of membership, including publications and web resources, by contacting headquarters or visiting www.wildlife.org. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of The Wildlife Society (TWS).

COVER: Rifle hunter Ron Jolly admires a mature white-tailed buck tagged by his wife, photographer Tes Randle Jolly, on their familys farm in Alabama during the January 2010 rut. The Randle Farm has participated in the Quality Deer Management Associations management program since 2005. Credit: Tes Randle Jolly

Fall 2010 Vol. 4 No. 3

Editorial advisory BoardSteve Belinda TRCPDavid Bergman USDA, Wildlife ServicesChad Bishop Colorado Division of WildlifeRobert Brown North Carolina State UniversityRichard Chipman USDA, Wildlife ServicesMichael Conner Joseph W. Jones Ecological

Research CenterHeather Eves Virginia Polytechnic and State

University Selma Glasscock Welder Wildlife FoundationSue Haseltine U.S. Geological SurveyDoug Inkley National Wildlife FederationJ. Drew Lanham Clemson UniversityScott P. Lerich National Wild Turkey FederationMeenakshi Nagendran U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of International ConservationArthur R. Rodgers Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesTom Ryder Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.Dana Sanchez Oregon State UniversityBrad Strobel Texas Tech UniversityNate Svoboda Mississippi State UniversityEric Taylor U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceJohn Wiens PRBO Conservation ScienceJiang Zhigang Chinese Academy of Sciences

suBscription and advErtisingThe Wildlife Professional is a benefit of membership in The Wildlife Society, and $20 of members dues goes toward magazine production.

Membership categories include Individual, Student, Family, Retired, and International. For rates and benefit information please email Lisa Moll at [email protected] or use the contact information listed below.

annual membership dues: $69 for individuals, $112 for families, $35 for students and retirees.

For advertising information, go to www.wildlife.org/adrates or contact Onkar Sandal, 800-627-0326 ext. 218, [email protected]

contriButor guidElinEsThe Wildlife Professional accepts suggestions and submissions for content in our regular features and rotating departments.

Guidelines available at www.wildlife.org/guidelines. Email inquiries to [email protected], or mail them to headquarters address below.

the Wildlife society Headquarters5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814-2144 P: (301) 897-9770 F: (301) 530-2471 [email protected] www.wildlife.org

commEntary

Education

Ethics in practicE

hEalth and disEasE

human-WildlifE connEction

laW and policy

plans and practicEs

profEssional dEvElopmEnt

rEviEWs

tools and tEchnology

WildlifE imaging

Rotating feature departments include:

Application to mail at periodical postage prices is pending at Bethesda, MD and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Wildlife Professional, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2144.

copyright and pErmissions Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of any article published by The Wildlife Society for limited personal or educational use within ones home institution is hereby granted without fee, provided that the first page or initial screen of a display includes the notice Copyright 2010 by The Wildlife Society, along with the full citation, including the name(s) of the author(s). Copyright for components of this work owned by persons or organizations other than TWS must be honored. Instructors may use articles for educational purposes only. To copy or transmit otherwise, to republish, or to use such an article for commercial or promotional purposes requires specific permission and a possible fee. Permission must be requested by writing to [email protected].

tWs staffMichael Hutchins Executive Director/CEOYanin Walker Operations Manager

Communications

Lisa Moore LaRoe Director/Editor-in-ChiefDivya Abhat Production Editor/Science WriterKatherine Unger Development Editor/Science WriterRuxandra Giura Program Manager, Online ServicesMadeleine Thomas Editorial Intern

Government Affairs

Laura Bies DirectorEmily Boehm InternRachael Confair InternAlexandra Sutton Intern

Membership Marketing and Conferences

Darryl Walter DirectorShannon Pederson Program Manager, Subunits

and CertificationLisa Moll Conferences and Membership

Assistant

Office and Finance

Jane Jorgenson ManagerAnkit Mehta Database and IT AdministratorVasa Pupavac Finance AssistantDanielle Prete Receptionist

tWs govErning councilBruce D. Leopold PresidentThomas J. Ryder President-ElectPaul R. Krausman Vice PresidentThomas M. Franklin Past PresidentRichard K. Baydack University of ManitobaEllen Campbell Northwest Section Carol L. Chambers Northern Arizona UniversityAlan Crossley WI Dept. of Natural ResourcesJohn McDonald U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDarren Miller Weyerhaeuser CompanyGary C. White Colorado State University Donald A. Yasuda USDA Forest Service

5www.wildlife.org The Wildlife Society

Vol. 4 No. 3

Fall 2010

22 fEaturE story Overview: The North American Model By John F. Organ, Shane P. Mahoney, and Valerius Geist

rotating fEaturEs

28 Education A Conservation Timeline

By Robert Brown

32 Ethics The Hunters Ethic By Jim Posewitz

35 Law and Policy Wellspring of Wildlife Funding By Steve Williams

39 Commentary Priceless, But Not Free By Ronald J. Regan

42 Human-Wildlife Connection A Bountiful Harvest for Science By Gary C. White and

Chad J. Bishop

48 Plans and Practices Deer Control: Hunting for Balance By Raymond J. Winchcombe

52 Plans and Practices The Scandinavian Model By Scott M. Brainerd and

Bjrn Kaltenborn

58 Plans and Practices Shades of Gray: Challenges

Linked to Hunting By Divya Abhat and Katherine Unger

64 Human-Wildlife Connection Predator Control: A Model Dilemma

By James M. Peek

66 Plans and Practices New Guidelines for Furbearer

Trapping By Bryant White et al.

72 Professional Development Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow By Richard McCabe

76 Education Safety First: Hunter Education

By Susan Langlois

80 Commentary A Personal Journey

By James E. Miller

83 Commentary Future Challenges to the Model By Shane P. Mahoney and

David Cobb

special issue: north american model of Wildlife conservation

Credit: Jim Peaco/NPS

Courtesy of Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow

Credit: Ken Logan/Colorado Division of Wildlife

22

42

72

More Online!This publication is available online to TWS members at www.wildlife.org. Through-out the magazine, mouse icons and text printed in blue indicate links to more information available online.

dEpartmEnts

6 Editor's Note 8 Guest Editorial 10 Letters to the Editor12 Leadership Letter13 Science in Short16 State of Wildlife20 Todays Wildlife Professionals: Richard Heilbrun and John Davis

88 New Feature Policy Watch

Issues relevant to wildlifers

89 Field Notes Practical tips for field biologists

90 The Society Pages TWS news and events

96 Gotcha! Photos submitted by readers

6 The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010 The Wildlife Society

Confessions of a Bambi LoverNot too long ago, I figured that hunters were a fairly homogeneous bunchmales who got a thrill from the kill, then sat around bragging about their big bucks. Some might say that such ignorance is bliss, but Ive learned that ignorance about the value of hunting is harmful to the wildlife we treasure.

Thats why were doing this special issue of The Wild-life Professional. Its meant to inform a wide audiencepolicymakers, the general public, and our own membersabout the fundamental role that hunting plays in wildlife management and in the success of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

If youve never heard of the Model, youre not alone. Its clear from con-versations with students, scientists, legislators, and many of our members that few are familiar with the tenets of the North American Model, a term coined to define principles of wildlife management and conservation that have evolved over the past century.

We can no longer afford to be uninformed. The Model has moved many species from decline to abundance, ensuring their survival. Articles in this issue explore that success. They describe the Model's evolution, explain how hunting aids conservation, and examine how unethical or misguided hunting practices threaten to undermine the Model and its goals.

We realize that by doing this single-topic issue we open ourselves to criti-cism. Some colleagues even charge that TWS is all about hunting and management, and not about conservationas if these were mutually exclusive. On the contrary, this issue shows that conservation of wildlife and habitats could not exist without the careful science-based manage-ment of populations and the funds and dedication of hunters, trappers, and anglers who work to sustain the resources they love.

Though I still couldnt pull the trigger on a deer, Id enjoy the meal of fresh venison. Id know that the deer had had a healthier lifeand deaththan the mass-produced meat I buy from the store. Id appreciate the hunters who harvested that deer, a species so overabundant in some areas that it threatens to denude forests. And Id know that the millions of men and women who hunt provide the bulk of funding for conservation, and need the rest of us to contribute.

This issue doesnt aim to glorify hunting. It does aim to debunk stereo-types and misperceptions (like those I once held), to clarify the role of hunting in conservation, and to explain that role within the context of the North American Model. The Wildlife Societywith its highly diverse membership of hunters, non-hunters, and conservationists of all stripesbelieves that only a diverse coalition of concerned stakeholders can ensure the future of game, non-game, and endangered species and their habitats. By supporting the Model and its principles, anyone who cares about wild-life can stand together on common ground.

Lisa Moore LaRoe [email protected]

Credit: Ruxandra Giura

The Wildlife Society wishes to thank the following organizations

for their financial and in-kind support of The Wildlife Professional.


GUEST EDITORIAL

Hunting as a Wildlife Management Tool

I vividly recall the harvest of my first animal, a gray squirrel, when I was 13 years old. I fondly remember the smell of gunpowder, the heart-thumping excitement, and the face of my dad, punctuated with a broad smile and joy in his eyes. At that time, I only anticipated the gratification of contributing to the next meal of fried squirrel and could not imagine how that event in the hills of northwestern Kentucky would help inspire in me a deep passion for all things wild, eventually shaping my career.

In the ensuing decades I have often found myself defending hunting, even to other wildlife profession-als, many of whom now enter the profession without a hunting background. Those of us who have such a heritage are dismayed to see the continued decline in hunting participation, and realize that acceptance of hunting as a management tool may be an unintended victim of this trend.

Hunting is, in fact, an essential tool for wildlife management. As the original lever behind the North American conservation movement, hunting embod-ies the three pillars of wildlife managementhabitat, wildlife populations, and people. In the United States, it also serves as the primary tool for funding conserva-tion via the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (FAWRA), the Federal Duck Stamp Program, and state license fees. Without such funds, state wildlife and conservation programs might not exist.

Participation in hunting also motivates many people to actively support conservation, particularly habitat conservation. The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), for example, has engaged members, private organizations, and government agencies to enhance and conserve nearly 14 million acres of wildlife habitat since its inception in 1973 (NWTF). Similar hunting-based conservation organizations, including Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, have col-lectively conserved tens of millions of acres of habitat and annually devote millions of dollars for wildlife conservation. Within our free-market system, private landowners can lease their land for hunting to generate income, a motivation for land stewardship. Though the goal of all these efforts is directed at improving habitat for hunted species, nongame species also benefit from the healthier ecosystems (Miller 2010).

Most biologists are familiar with potential prob-lems regarding overabundant game populations. Over-browsing, for example, can cause disease, mal-nutrition, and habitat degradation, as well as impact ecosystem functions. Hunting can help curtail these problems by maintaining game populations at ap-propriate ecological and cultural carrying capacities. Keeping populations of animals such as black bears, Canada geese, and white-tailed deer at sustainable levels not only promotes healthy wildlife populations but also curbs conflict with humans, reduces collisions with vehicles and aircraft, and minimizes habitat and property damage. By reducing overabundant species, hunting can also reduce the need for state and federal monies devoted to wildlife population issues.

A Heritage Worth PreservingConservation of wildlife resources requires an appre-ciation of the importance of these resources to society. Yet as we become more urbanized, our connections with nature are weakened. I believe the loss of these connections may ultimately be the most serious threat to wildlife conservation. Hunting, like many outdoor activities, is a tool that engages individuals and groups with wildlife resources, creates wildlife advocates, and helps to maintain societys connection with nature.

Similar to any tool, hunting must be used ethically and in an appropriate context. Some hunters have improp-er motivations and ignore principles of sustainability or fair chase. This includes introduction of exotic species solely for hunting, as well as guaranteed suc-cess hunts conducted within enclosures, which are often nothing more than shooting opportunities, far removed from the core ethics, principles, and values of a true hunting experience.

Overall, however, regulated hunting is and should remain a valuable tool for wildlife management. Wild-life professionalswhether they hunt or notmust continue to support science-based hunting programs, speak out against inappropriate applications of this important tool, and speak up for the role hunting plays in conservation of our natural resources. The future of wildlife populations depends on people with a passionate engagement with nature. Recalling my early experience with hunting and how it sparked a life-long commitment to wildlife, I know how vital hunters will be to that future.

By Darren A. Miller, Ph.D.

Darren A. Miller, Ph.D., CWB, is Manager of Southern Environmental Research for Weyerhaeuser Company, Southeastern Section Representative of The Wildlife Society, and President of the Southeastern Bat Diversity Network.

Courtesy of Darren A. Miller

The Wildlife Society10 The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010

DellaSalla et al. (Summer 2010 letter) should be familiar with the foundation paper (North et al. 2009, USFS PSW-GTR-220) upon which our article (Spring 2010) is based. In their letters online text they write, The North et al. article relies on just the Moonlight fire to character-ize fire regimes[and] is not scientifically credible. This is incorrect and intentionally

misleading. Even a cursory reading of North et al. (2009) would show that the management recom-mendations are based on a synthesis of more than 200 studies published in national and international journals. Furthermore, since one of the letters authors (Hanson) reviewed and contributed ideas to our 2009 paper (see acknowledgments), it is disingenuous at best to state that the management strategies are based on a single fire.

It would seem that DellaSalla et al. are the ones with a singular focus since our article is titled Harnessing Fire for Wildlife, not just for the spotted owl. Along with others (Spies et al. 2010), we disagree with DellaSalla et al.s belief in the benign effects of high-severity wildfire on spotted owls. However, even if the authors were correct, how can modern wildfire burning in fuel-loaded forests, usually under extreme weather conditions, pro-duce suitable habitat for the forests diverse wildlife that evolved with frequent, low-intensity fires?

DellaSalla et al. have a strong belief in reducing the extent and intensity of forest thinning. We believe this should be balanced with an equally strong commitment to providing for the needs of all of the forests wildlife and the disturbance regimes upon which those species depend.

Malcolm North, Ph.D.USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research StationPeter Stine, Ph.D., William Zielinski, Ph.D., Kevin OHara, Ph.D., Scott Stephens, Ph.D.

Corrections and Clarifications In the field note Barcoding Hair Samples, on page 72 (Summer 2010), the number of current hair samples collected was incorrectly stated as 4,000, when it is actually 40,000.

Vol. 4 No. 2Summer 2010

please send letters to: [email protected] may be edited for publication.


Understanding Our Roots

As President of The Wildlife Society, it is my honor to introduce this special, single-topic issue of The Wildlife Professional, focused on exploring the origins and legacy of what has come to be known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and explaining the role of hunting as a key element of the Model itself.

Regrettably, few graduate students studying for ca-reers in wildlife know about the Model and its seven underlying principles, and many wildlife profession-als and policymakers have never even heard of it. This is why we are presenting this issue of our maga-zineto explain one of the worlds most successful approaches to wildlife and habitat conservation.

Only recently have wildlife conservationists come to define the seven principles (described in the feature article on page 22) as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Each of the principles arose independently in a different context as wildlife man-agement evolved in North America, many as a direct result of colonists anger over how wildlife resources were controlled in England. Rather than endorse elite control of wildlife as private property, the Models principles ensure that wildlife remains available to all, conserved for future generations.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conserva-tion wasnt written all at once like the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. Yet for wildlife, it carries equal weight, and its promi-nence as a model for wildlife conservation is now praised by nations around the globe. As important, the goals of The Wildlife Society are inextricably linked to the North American Model and its prin-ciples, such as the wise and sustainable use of our natural resources, managing through science-based knowledge, and hunting as a core conservation tool.

Understanding the Model has become even more important today as we face multiple challenges, such as finding funding for non-game wildlife management, fencing of lands, private ownership of wildlife within enclosures, and manipulation of science to support specific agendas. It is therefore

critical that all of our members understand the teachings of the Model and how it has shaped natu-ral resource policy in North America. Our members must also consistently convey the achievements of the Model as they speak before civic groups, testify before congressional panels or state wildlife com-missions, write essays and journal papers, or teach university courses in wildlife management.

The North American Model should be understood not only by members of TWS but by all natural resource groups and the public at large. It has played a critical role in how our forests, grasslands, deserts, rivers, and lakes have been managed. Thus, we need to join with our partners in the Coalition of Natural Resource Societiesthe American Fisheries Society, Society of American Foresters, and Society of Range Managementand with other conservation groups to spread the word. This issue of the magazine can help focus the message.

The Work of Many HandsMy hope is that the North American Model will become as familiar to wildlife professionals as Aldo Leopold, widely considered the father of our profes-sion. When I was an undergraduate, Leopolds Game Management and A Sand County Almanac were required reading. These classic texts have had a pro-found impact on wildlife professionals and on natural resource management, and Leopolds teachings echo throughout the principles of the North American Model. Yet the Model does not reflect the contribu-tions of just one individual, but the collective thoughts and actions of many who shared one common goal: to conserve this nations natural resources for perpetuity.

From hunters and anglers to U.S. presidents, from conservation leaders and congressmen to the courts, many groups and individuals have shaped the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. I am confi-dent that this special issue of our member magazine will serve as an important resource for professionals and the public at large by shedding light on the his-tory, motivations, challenges, and future of the North American Model, one of the greatest wildlife conser-vation success stories on Earth.

By Bruce D. Leopold, Ph.D.

Bruce D. Leopold, Ph.D., is President of The Wildlife Society and Head of the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture at Mississippi State University.

Courtesy of Bruce D. Leopold

The NorTh AmeriCAN moDeL of WiLDLife CoNservATioN


Credit: springer reprinted with permission from AAAs

Lizards Feeling the HeatIf temperatures become so high that liz-ards hide in the shade rather than mate or forage for food, they risk dying out. A new study in Science (v. 328/5980) suggests that this may be whats causing declines of some lizard populations in Mexico. Researchers led by Barry Sinervo of the University of California, Santa Cruz sur-veyed 48 species of spiny lizards in Mexico and report that 12 percent of local popula-tions have disappeared since 1975, even though many had lived in protected areas. The team notes that the environment had remained largely unchanged except for a raised temperature. To demonstrate how such a warming could impact lizards, the scientists placed a device designed to mimic the thermal properties of a basking lizard in various sites to record tempera-tures in the sun. They found that where lizards had disappeared, spring tempera-tures exceeded the maximum level that lizards could tolerate for up to 13 hours each day, leaving barely enough time for lizards to consume sufficient calories to survive, much less find time to reproduce. The researchers also developed a model, validated by observed extinctions on four continents, to project how climatic warm-ing may impact other lizard populations. The model also indicates that 20 percent of lizards globally may face extinction by 2080a sign that many lizards arent just feeling the heat, theyre dying from it.

Drive Hunts Unsettle BoarsDrive hunts, whereby hunters and a team of dogs chase boars (Sus scrofa), are popular in Italy and other European countries, where boar populations are increasing. Boars can be agricultural pests, so hunting is a useful means of reducing wildlife-farmer conflicts. But researchers led by Andrea Monaco of the National Wildlife Institute in Bologna, Italy wanted to see whether such inten-sive hunts could cause long-term instabil-ity among boar populations by forcing the animals out of their preferred range. The biologists tracked 20 radio-tagged boars in 10 family groups before, during, and after drive hunts over two years. The authors report in the European Journal of Wildlife Research (v. 56/3) that boar resting ranges grew during the hunting season and distances between resting sites increased. They observed that family groups driven by hunters more than twice in a month were more likely to aban-don their former territory, and a family group that had been chased five times in a month remained 15 kilometers away from its old territory even after the hunt-ing season ended. The authors conclude that repeated and intensive drive hunts elicit spatial instability in boar popula-tions and should be avoided, as displaced boars may move toward agricultural areas where they might cause conflict.

Wandering CatsRoaming feral cats feast on native wildlife, particularly birds and small mammals. Some areas use trap-neuter-release (TNR)whereby cats are sterilized and kept in unconfined coloniesto curtail the growth of feral cat populations. However, many researchers debate the effectiveness of TNR, and few had studied how sterilization affects cats movements and home ranges. Reporting in the Journal of Mammalogy (v. 91/2), Darcee Guttilla and Paul Stapp of California State University have found an answer. For two years they monitored 27 radio-collared cats, 14 of which had been steril-ized, on Californias Santa Catalina Island. The researchers had anticipated that sterilized cats would have smaller ranges because they would not seek mates. Yet there was no difference in home range size between the sterilized and intact cats. Although the cat colonies were in areas of human habitation, Guttilla and Stapp found that the cats often traveled between colonies and undeveloped, natural habitat in the islands interior. These findings suggest that cats from TNR populations still pose a threat to native wildlifeon Santa Catalina and elsewhere.

Credit: Allen Press


Perching Birds Get the Flu The avian flu virus known as H5N1, or bird flu, has killed millions of domestic poultry and hundreds of humans in the last sev-eral years. Massive monitoring programs have implicated ducks and shorebirds as reservoirs of flu, but few researchers had studied whether passerinessongbirds and perching birdscould also be important carriers of flu. Reporting in BMC Infectious Diseases (v. 10), a team led by University of California, Los Angeles ecologist Thomas B. Smith describes the analysis of 13,046 swab samples collected from 225 species of birds in 41 states between 2005 and 2008. The researchers found low-pathogenic avian flu virus (not known to be deadly to humans) in 22 passerine species, which was the largest number of flu-positive species in 11 orders tested, including waterfowl. A geographic model of disease also indicates that Plains states and the Pacific Northwest are at the greatest risk of future bird flu outbreaks. The findings may mean that seemingly unlikely birds, such as finches and thrushes, should be monitored along with waterfowl to detect potential threats to human health.

Predators and the Bottom Line In 2005 alone, Wyoming ranchers lost 4,000 cattle and 25,000 sheep to predators at a cost of nearly $4 million. To determine the impact of such predation losses on an individual rancher, Benjamin Rashford and colleagues with the University of Wyomings Department of Agriculture and Applied Eco-nomics studied a representative cattle ranch in western Wyoming. Using a mathematical model, they tested a variety of scenariosincluding calf mortality, lower calf wean-ing weight due to stress from predators, and increased variable costs such as hay or veterinary services. As the authors report in Rangelands (v. 32/3), variable costs had little effect on the bottom line. But if a ranch lost just 4 percent of its cattle to preda-tors, it would lose money three out of every ten years. If the ranch lost 10 percent of its cattle, it would risk folding. Reduced wean-ing weights made a ranchs financial security even more precarious. A mere 5 percent reduction in weaning weight, for instance, could result in negative profits four of every ten years. The authors note that economical-ly efficient predator control activities, such as employing more herders, could decrease mortalities and boost weaning weights.

Living with ChytridFor amphibians, the chytrid fungus is like kryptonite: It has wiped out populations around the world. Yet some infected popula-tions have persisted for more than a decade. Ecologist Cheryl Briggs of the University of California, Santa Barbara, led a five-year study to find out why. Her team tagged 392 mountain yellow-legged frogs (Rana sier-rae and R. muscosa) in Californias Sierra Nevada, then sought to recapture them. Re-porting in PNAS (v. 107/21), they found that frogs lost and regained chytrid infections, and their infection status didnt correlate with survival. Researchers also developed a model to see if fungal loadthe amount of spores in a frog populationaffected population persistence. At sites where frogs with chytrid persisted, adults had low levels of fungus, but tadpoles and sub-adults had much higher levelsa sign that tadpoles may act as a reservoir of infection. The authors suggest that managers might help populations survive an initial chytrid outbreak by applying antifungals, reducing population density, or removing tadpoles.

Climate, Agriculture, and GodwitsClimate change affects wildlife directly by altering habitats or allowing warm-climate diseases to spread. But warming tempera-tures can also change how humans use land, with indirect impacts on wildlife. In Ibis (v. 152/3), David Kleijn of the Netherlands Wageningen University and colleagues present a case study of this indirect climate effect by examining how climate change and changes in farming practices in the Netherlands interact to affect the black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), a declining grassland-breeding shorebird. The research-ers amassed data on temperature, pasture mowing dates, chick hatching dates, and arthropod abundance. Their analysis showed that mowing dates advanced 15 days from 1982 to 2005 as temperatures warmed, yet godwit hatching dates remained unchanged, meaning chicks were more likely to hatch after much of the farmland had been mowed. This change means that not only could young chicks be killed by mowing, but they could hatch with reduced access to tall grassestheir preferred foraging habitat. The authors recommend that strategies to conserve agricultural species must now factor in the effects of climate change on land use.

Credit: Allen Press

Credit: John Wiley & sons, Ltd.

Credit: BiomedCentral

Credit: 2010 National Academy of sciences, U.s.A.


By Hair or By ScatResearch on reintroduced gray wolf (Canis lupus) populations in the northern Rocky Mountains has relied mainly on radio telemetry, a highly informative but invasive and expensive technique. Hoping to find a more efficient tool for long-term monitoring, a team led by Jennifer Stenglein of the University of Idaho tested the accuracy of wolf hair and scat genetic sampling in central Idaho over two years, reporting their results in JWM (v. 74/5). The team collected samples in areas they predicted to be wolf rendezvous sites based on vegetation, topography, and other characteristics. They then analyzed the DNA using microsatellite loci. The genetic analysis identified a total of 122 individual wolves, more than four and a half times the number of radio-collared wolves in the same area. Researchers only needed to capture, or obtain a sample from, the same wolf 1.7 times for an accurate population estimate. The authors note that randomly selecting just half to three-quarters of all likely rendezvous sites and sampling for DNA could reduce the time and costs of analysis while still producing an accurate population estimate.

Coyote CreepIts well known that coyote (Canis latrans) popula-tions have expanded their range in recent decades, even reaching areas where they are not native, such as some parts of the southeastern U.S. In a commen-tary in JWM (v. 74/5), John Kilgo of the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station and colleagues discuss several observations that suggest that coyotes may be the reason for declining white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) recruitment, or survival of fawns to adulthood, in the Southeast. An increase in coyote numbers in South Carolina between 1997 and 2006, for example, mirrors a decline in the estimated statewide deer population during the same period. Further studies at the Savannah River Site (SRS) have revealed that fawn-to-doe ratios dropped sharply from before 1990 to the late-1990s and early-2000sjust when the coyote population at the site is

believed to have become established. Additional stud-ies from both SRS and Alabama point to fawns being an important food source for coyotes. Though the authors note that several of their lines of evidence are correlations and dont prove causation, the obser-vations warrant further research into the impact of coyotes on deer populations.

Discouraging PerchingIn wide open spaces like the sagebrush steppe of the Intermountain West, power lines provide raptors with attractive places to perchwhich is bad news for prey. Some scientists suggest that power lines may be part of the reason that prey species like greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) are in trouble. Re-searchers Steven Slater and Jeff Smith of HawkWatch International wanted to see if perching deterrents such as spikes on power-line structures could keep raptors away. At sites in southwestern Wyoming, they recorded raptor presence, behavior, and any nearby prey remains at power lines equipped with deterrent devices that had been erected two years prior. They also studied control sites where power lines lacked de-terrent devices. Reporting in JWM (v. 74/5), they note that over the course of a year they observed raptors or ravens 13 times more often on power line structures without perch deterrents than on structures with intact deterrents. They also found 97 percent fewer single prey items and 87 percent fewer grouped prey items at the deterrent sites. The authors suggest that managers should consider the availability of other perches in the surrounding landscape, and weigh the considerable financial costs of installing perching de-terrents, just one of many tools available to conserve threatened species.

Credit: TWs

From The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM)

see this department online at www.wildlife.org for a complete list of articles recommended by TWPs editorial Advisory Board.

Credit: TWs

Cruise Ships Make Seals SplashClose to one million visitors each summer take a cruise in Alaska. This cruise ship traffic, which has steadily increased since the 1980s, is disturbing harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), according to a report in JWM (v. 74/6). Researchers from NOAAs National Marine Mammal Laboratory led by John Jansen took observations of harbor seals from the decks of cruise ships entering or leaving Alaskas Disenchantment Bay from May to August 2002. They watched to see how adults and pups that were hauled out on ice on the tidewater glacial fjordsimportant habitat for

pup-rearing, breeding, and moltingreacted to pass-ing or approaching ships. The team found that once a ship came within 500 meters, seals were increas-ingly likely to flush into the water. At 200 meters, 77 percent of seals would enter the water. Flushing into the cold water of Alaska has significant implications for seal pup survival, the authors note. While pups normally spend approximately 40 percent of their time in the water, an increase to 50 percent could put them in an energy deficit. To prevent seals from hav-ing to expend extra energy, the authors say that cruise ship regulations must be updated.


SoutheasternfLoriDAThe U.s. fish and Wildlife service, NoAAs National marine fisheries service, and the florida fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission developed a plan to excavate approximately 700 sea turtle nestsmost of them threatened loggerheads (Caretta caretta)from beaches along the Gulf of mexico to floridas Kennedy space Center. rescue personnel had to carefully collect the eggs by hand and place them in sand-filled containers. fedex drivers then transported the containers in air-conditioned fedex trucks 500 miles east to a temperature-controlled warehouse at the space Cen-ter. As hatchlings emerge, rescue teams release them along floridas east coast, where the turtles can swim into the Atlan-tic ocean without encountering oil. Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

virGiNiAThe southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austrori-parius) may be the latest victim of white-nose syndrome (WNs), a deadly fungus that has killed nearly one million bats across the eastern United states and in parts of Canada. in may, biologists with the virginia Department of Conservation and recreation captured an infected myotis bat in virginias Pocahontas state Park. The batwhich died soon after its cap-turetested positive for Geomyces destructans, a fungal agent that causes skin infections in bats affected with WNs. Biolo-gists are carrying out additional tests to determine whether this

rare myotis species, found in only a few counties in southeast virginia, may be affected by WNs. Source: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

NorthwestoreGoNBiologists with UsDAs Wildlife services recently used carbon dioxide to euthanize 109 nuisance Canada geese (Branta canadensis) after the birds layered a local park in Bend with goose droppings. The meat from the birds was served at local food banks. Growing populations of Canada geese in the region have been a cause for concern for several years, lead-ing park district officials to try several non-lethal measures to disperse the geese, including hazing, paintball guns, the use of dogs, and other scare tacticsall to little or no avail. The problem is costly: in 2009, officials in the Bend Parks and rec-reation District spent $22,000 on goose-related clean-ups and maintenance. Source: Bend Parks and Recreation District

WAshiNGToNPolice officers and biologists with the Wash-ington state Department of fish and Wildlife were recently forced to remove 10 black bears (Ursus americanus) from Long Beach Peninsula, where the animals had become habituated after being routinely fed. A resident notified authorities, com-plaining of a high concentration of bears in the neighborhood. investigations revealed that most of the bears were fed by one resident, who had spent approximately $4,000 in one year on dog food for the wild animals. of the 10 bears, officials had to euthanize five that were dangerously habituated to people and therefore couldnt be effectively relocated. The meat from the euthanized bears was donated to a neighborhood food pro-gram, and the remaining five bears were relocated to the mount rainier area. Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

North AmericaNews and events affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals from across North America

Northeast

Southeastern

Southwest

Northwest

Western

Canada

North CentralCentral Mountains and Plains

rescue personnel at Bon secour National Wildlife refuge carefully move a sea turtle nest, located too close to the water, out of harms way. A few days later, personnel began the process of relocating nearly 70,000 turtle eggs from beaches along the Gulf of mexico over to floridas east coast, where the hatchlings could be safely released.

Credit: UsfWs/ strawser


moNTANAin July, state and federal wildlife officials eutha-nized a female grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) after she mauled three campers, killing one, in separate incidents at the soda Butte campground near Cooke City, montana. Based on interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelinesan agreement between eight state and federal agenciesofficials are advised to remove grizzly bears that display unprovoked aggressive behavior toward humans, or cause substantial human injury, in-cluding death. The grizzlys three yearling cubs were sent to Zoo montana. The case didnt end there, however. A few days after the bear was killed, montana fish, Wildlife & Parks investigators followed up on rumors that a photographer baited wildlife near the campsite sometime prior to the attacks. officials are looking into that, and several other tips. Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

NortheastvermoNT, NeW YorKin an effort to protect Lake Cham-plains sport fish and colonial nesting waterbirds, state officials from vermont and New York are devising a management plan to control the burgeoning population of double-crested cormo-rants (Phalacrocorax auritus), non-native birds believed to eat too many of the lakes fish, strip leaves from trees, and destroy ground vegetation with their guano. if the plan is adopted, wildlife officials will build on existing management measures, such as destroying the birds nests or oiling their eggs, to further reduce the cormorant population. Due to similar habitat concerns, vermont officials also plan to reduce the number of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) on Young island from 5,000 to 300 birds. Source: Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

North Centralohioin July, the ohio Department of Natural resources organized a course for landowners, hunters, and other wildlife professionals interested in the intricacies of deer manage-ment. A partnership between the Quality Deer management Association and oDNrs Division of Wildlife, the farmer and hunter Quality Deer management Cooperative shortcourse provided tips and techniques for farmers and hunters to reduce deer crop damage and balance deer sex ratios. it also offered sessions on improving hunter-landowner relationships and de-veloping deer management cooperatives. Participants learned about huntohiofarms.coman online match program that links landowners with hunters based on online profiles, hunting preferences, and farmland features and availability. speakers also covered management topics such as antler growth and genetics, culling, and hunter management. Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources

miNNesoTAfor the first time in almost a century, min-nesotans will be allowed to hunt sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) in the far northwestern part of the state. The sandhill crane hunting season will run for 37 days beginning in the first week of september, with a daily bag limit of two birds and a possession limit of four. hunters will be required to buy a $3.50 permit and use non-toxic shot to harvest the birds. hunted since 1961 in other central flyway states, such as Kansas and oklahoma, the midcontinent population of sandhill cranes is estimated at more than 450,000. Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

The double-crested cormorant, a non-native species in New england, has been disturbing nesting habitat for other waterbird species on Lake Champlain. To curb the problem, agency officials in vermont and New York are developing a management plan that could result in more aggressive control of the lakes cormorant population.

Credit: Lee Karney

Three bears, fed regularly by residents of Washingtons Long Beach Peninsula, circle a plot of land in search of food. five of the 10 bears that were fed for over a year became dangerously habituated to people and had to be euthanized because of the risk they posed to neighborhood residents.

Credit: Washington Department of fish and Wildlife enforcement Program


WesternCALiforNiAThe California fish and Game Commission voted to uphold its recently instated ban on the import of nonnative frogs and turtles for fooda ban that drew criticism from san franciscos Chinese community, one of the largest consumers of frog legs and turtles in the United states. in response to protests, the state organized a reconsideration hearing in sacramento, California, which was attended by legislators, representatives from nonprofit organizations, businesses, and several members of the public. Those testifying against the ban said that it would damage the state economy and discriminate against the Chinese community, affecting its age-old cultural practice of eating frogs and turtles. Those in favor of the ban cited the critical global decline in frog populations, noting that nearly one-third of the worlds amphibian species are threatened with extinction. sta-tistics show that Americans consume 20 percent of the worlds frogs legs, and experts estimate that more than 100 million frogs are taken from the wild each year for food. Source: Center for North American Herpetology, California Fish and Game Commission

SouthwestNeW mexiCoThe New mexico Department of Game and fish conducted several public meetings in July seeking public comments on their proposal to increase the bear harvest from 400 individuals to more than 700, in time for the 2011-2012 hunting season. if approved, that increase would remain in ef-fect for the next four years. The Department also proposed rule changes, including an increase in harvest numbers for cougars, antelope, and deer, to provide more hunting opportunities, as well as address nuisance and human safety concerns. The De-partment was scheduled to report its findings and present its final recommendations to the state Game Commission by the end of August. Source: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Central Mountains and PlainsUTAhin an effort to increase Utahs declining bobcat (Lynx rufus) population, now at its lowest point since the Utah Divi-sion of Wildlife resources began collecting harvest statistics in 1983, state officials have called for several changes to current hunting regulations. for the first time ever, bobcat trapping and hunting permits will be cappedat 4,600. The new rules will also limit each trapper and hunter to three permits rather than four. Agency officials also proposed that the length of the hunting season be reduced by a week. Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

CanadaThe Canadian Parks and Wilderness society (CPAWs)responsible for helping establish two-thirds of Canadas protected wilderness areas over the last five decades

released a report in July that warned of the negative impact of small and fragmented habitat on several species in Canada. Despite the nations 3,500 protected areas, includ-ing 42 national parks, the report called for bigger parks and more protected habitat for umbrella species such as wood-land caribou (Rangifer tarandus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horriblis), and orcas (Orcinus orca), which, in turn, would help protect other species dependent on the same habitats. Noting that six grizzly bears had been killed by trains outside Banff National Park in 2007, the report also called for more wildlife movement corridors to allow animalsparticularly species that range over large areasto move safely between protected areas. CPAWs also says that government efforts to establish the Gwaii haanas National marine Conservation Area (a feeding site for orcas) and ottawas plans to create new parks to protect wild horses both fall short and must be carried out on a larger scale. Source: The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

GeneralA 12-year survey has revealed a significant decline in the franklins bumblebee (Bombus franklini), prompt-ing the xerces society of invertebrate Conservation and survey author robbin Thorp of the University of California to petition the U.s. fish and Wildlife service to provide federal protection for the species under the endangered species Act. entomologists last spotted a single frank-lins bumblebee in 2006, and scientists believe that the decline in that, along with other bumblebee species, may be due to an exotic disease that spread from commercial to wild bumblebees. Alarmed by an overall decline in wild bumblebee populations, Thorp, the xerces society, and the Natural resources Defense Council, with the support of more than 50 bee scientists, have also petitioned the U.s. Department of Agriculture to establish more stringent regulations to control the transfer of disease from com-mercial to wild bumblebees. regulations would include ensuring that bumblebees are not moved outside of their native ranges as well as the use of permits certifying that commercial bumblebees are disease-free prior to their transfer to other parts of the U.s. Source: The Xerces Society of Invertebrate Conservation

for comments or suggestions, or to submit news briefs for the state of Wildlife section, contact Divya Abhat, [email protected].


one of Taronga Zoos Tasmanian devils approaches a food-filled replica of a kangaroo in a specially designed feeding feature at the zoos new Tasmanian Devil Conservation Center. The exhibit is part of an effort to show human impacts on wildlife and landscapes.

Credit: rick stevens

IndiaLocals from the indian state of madhya Pradesh are pressuring authorities to declassify a wildlife refugethe Karera Bird sanctuary. if theyre successful, this would be the first sanctuary in india to lose official recognition. The sanctuary was created in 1981 to protect the Great indian bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps). Yet this rare bird hasnt been seen in the park for over a decade, causing some area residents to argue that the sanctuarys special status is unnecessary. most residents of 33 villages surrounding the 124-square-mile sanctuary favor a downgrade, com-plaining that sanctuary status prevents them from buying, selling, or building on the land. opponents argue that a change in status would signify a failure in conservation efforts to protect the Great indian bustard, known only to exist in four indian states and parts of Pakistan. Source: Bombay Natural History Society

Australiasydneys Taronga Zoo has a new Tasmanian Devil Breeding Center. Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) are threatened with extinction because of a widespread and contagious cancer called Devil facial Tumor Disease that has infected 60 percent of the wild population. The $1 million center was created to raise awareness of a multi-zoo breeding program launched in 2008 to help restore the species and ensure a disease-free population of devils. of 13 wildlife organizations that have signed on to the program, twothe Taronga and Taronga Western Plain Zooshave already seen the birth of 24 Tasmanian devils. Tarongas new center offers outdoor classroom sessions that explain the difficulties that devils face in the wild, particularly the threat of contracting Devil facial Tumor Disease. The illness is caused by a virus that affects the animals face and prevents it from eating, causing it to starve to death. According to reports, if experts can-not find a cure, the species could die out within the next two to three decades. Source: Taronga Zoo

InternationalNews and events affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals around the world

Generalin June, at a five-day United Nations meeting in Busan, south Korea, more than 230 delegates from 85 countries backed a proposal to create a global science policy panel on biodiversity and ecosystem services. modeled after the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the new inter-governmental science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and ecosystem services will help bridge the gulf between research and the political action needed to stop biodiversity loss. it will conduct peer reviews of scientific literature, which will serve as gold standard reports for participating governments. The new panel is expected to be formally endorsed at the UNePs Global ministerial meeting in 2011. Source: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

ChinaA recent study published in the journal Marine Biology revealed that two species of finless porpoises in Asiaonce believed to be a single speciesare genetically unique and rarely intermingle. After analyzing genes of 125 finless por-poises living around China, authors of the study discovered that a population living in the Yangtze river represents a dis-tinct genetic grouping from other finless porpoise populations. Zoologists find the results of the study particularly disturbing because of its implication for the conservation and survival of this small population of porpoises, currently estimated at fewer than 1,000 individuals. experts suggest the species be managed and conserved separately to avoid a fate similar to the Baiji dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer), a freshwater dolphin once found only in Chinas Yangtze river and declared functionally extinct in 2006. Source: Marine Biology


A City Boy Finds His Wild SideriChArD heiLBrUN hunts for a connection to nature

When he finished college in 1998, Richard Heilbrun had barely given a moments thought to hunting. But the next summer he interned at the Welder Wildlife Foundation near Sinton, Texas, and a coworker took him hunting. I just fell in love with it, he says. I had camped and hiked all my life, but here was this pursuit that was more involved and more connected to the resource than any of the other outdoor recreating that Id done.

Since then, Heilbrunan urban wildlife biologist for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)has made it his duty to inspire that sense of connection in others. Hunting has the potential to involve people in the cities with wildlife, he says.

Heilbrun himself grew up near Houston with a fam-ily that wasnt especially outdoorsy. Yet a passion for nature led him to major in wildlife biology at Texas A&M University, and to spend his summers interning for Texas Parks and Wildlife. Here was this city kid in the middle of a wildlife management area, on a tractor, painting signs, doing vegetative surveys, hiking up mountains. I loved every minute of it, he says.

During his post-graduation internship at Welder, Heilbrun studied bobcats using radio telemetry and conducted scat and diet analysis. With help from su-

pervisor Terry Blankenship, he developed an idea for a masters thesis project, which he pursued under the guidance of Nova Silvy, a wildlife professor at Texas A&M. Heilbruns research revealed that using trail camera photography to perform a mark-recapture analysis of bobcats could help accurately estimate population size (Heilbrun et al. 2006).

After completing his masters degree in 2002, Heilbrun got a position with TPWD. As a regulatory biologist in Victoria, Texas, he provided technical guidance on wildlife management, mainly to private landowners. In a feat of people management, he successfully formed three cooperatives of landowners who voluntarily agreed to the same wildlife manage-ment advice, such as increasing doe harvest and not shooting bucks on their properties until they reached five and a half years.

Linking City Folks to Nature Heilbrun found working with landowners rewarding, but he also wanted to reach out to people who knew very little about wildlife. So, when a position for an ur-ban wildlife biologist opened in San Antonio in 2004, he applied and got the job. My new mission is that the average citizen needs to be informed about wildlife conservation, he says.

In this role, Heilbrun helps municipalities do regional land planning, advises landowners, and gives presen-tations to local politicians on how ordinances may be given a conservation spin. Hes found it useful to frame discussions about wildlife and habitat around topics that might be higher on a policymakers priority list. For example, instead of explaining how a habitat restoration project will benefit birds, Heilbrun might point out that replanting native vegetation will help preserve clean drinking water in an aquifer that lies beneath central Texas. I can impact hundreds of thousands of acres just talking to a couple city council members, he says.

His move back to the city didnt mean Heilbrun let go of his passion for hunting. Instead, he started a mentored hunting program through TPWD and the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society (in which Heilbrun is an active

Credit: John Davis

By Katherine Unger

At a staff development workshop in san Antonio, richard heilbrun offers shooting instruction to fellow urban biologist Lois Balin.


Mentor John Davis Conservation Outreach Coordinator, Wildlife DivisionTexas Parks and Wildlife Department

member) to teach the fundamentals of hunting to urban-ites, lapsed hunters, or hunters new to the area. He has also worked with the Texas Chapters wildlife conservation camp for more than a decade, giving high school students exposure to wildlife science and the outdoors. And each fall he leads area families in an Owl Prowl, calling barred owls. People get to be 15 feet from an owl, he says. It really brings home that idea of neighborhood nature.

Heilbrun knows not all the young people he meets will grow up to be biologists, but says thats okay, because at least theyll be more informed than they were to start. The only thing I can do is reach as many people as possible.

Katherine Unger is Development Editor/Science Writer for The Wildlife Society.

for most of his life, John Davis knew that he wanted to share his passion for nature with others. Planning to be a college professor, he earned his bachelors in biology at sam houston state Univer-sity, and his masters in biology with an emphasis in invertebrate behavioral ecology from the University of Texas-Arlington, study-ing why centipedes plugged their burrows. After finishing that degree in 1993, Davis was broke. i knew i had to do something to get some money before i made the next run at the Ph.D.

Davis took a job at a pet store in the Dallas-forth Worth area, and also started a side business designing lessons on biology and ecology for schools. he soon got a call from Texas Parks and Wildlife (for which he had conducted bird surveys over a few summers) offering a temporary survey job in West Texas. Davis jumped on it. i left thinking that i was a biologist and i was not going to live in the city anymore. i was never going back.

Yet while he was working for TPWD, Davis noticed a weird job posted for an Urban Wildlife Biologist. he was intrigued. Not only would he have the chance to educate people about wildlife and nature, but the diversity of the people i could impact went well be-yond what i could do as a college professor. so he returned to the big cityDallas-fort Worthand quickly knew hed found his niche.

Davis spent roughly 14 years as an urban biologist, where each day was anything but typical. one day in the morning i was in waders waist deep in mud and muck, planting a wetland, he says, only to go home, shower, put on a suit, and go to a city council meeting that lasted until midnight as an expert on the habitat implications of a proposed ordinance.

Davis enjoyed the diversity of his work, but grew frustrated that he didnt have much say in land-planning discussions that could have major environmental repercussions. so, in 2000, Davis began study-ing for a masters in city and regional planning from the University of Texas-Arlington. i realized i needed to understand how cities were built and how we make the decisions that make cities the way they are in order to offset the ecological problems i saw, says Davis.

he finished the degree in 2006 and immediately noticed a changenot just in himself, but in how others saw him. it was definite and stark, says Davis. People all of a sudden wanted to hear what i had to say. he was invited to speak to urban planning conferences and got more attention from city planners in his own job. he learned how to frame issues in terms of economic and social impacts. The reality is that those are the forces that are driving land use and gobbling up landscapes and fragmenting habitat, he says.

in 2008, Davis became TPWDs conservation outreach coordi-nator, in charge of five programs that connect citizens to wildlife. While he grants that the administrative aspects of the new job arent as fun as running around in the fieldmy passion is not spreadsheets and meetingshe has found a different kind of ful-fillment in his cubicle. Things that ive said or done have helped ensure that programs i care about are still supported, he says. ive gone home on those days feeling very proud of the fact that i was able to do that kind of good.

Davis says he has also gained perspective on how state agen-cies can stay relevant to their constituents, who are less and less likely to have grown up hunting. one of my fears is that agen-cies look at this problem of the declining relevance of the North American model and their response is, We have to make them like us by turning urbanites into hunters and anglers. Though Davis supports hunter and angler recruitment, he says thats not the long-term answer. Urbanites are passionate about wildlife; theyre passionate about open spaces; theyre passionate about water quality. To support those passions, he says, TPWD cant only be seen as a hunting and fishing agency. We have to be seen as a quality of life agency.

Credit: Chase fountain/Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

John Davis gives a presentation on the impacts of an urbanizing Texas population at the southeast Association of fish and Wildlife Agencies.


By John F. Organ, Ph.D., Shane P. Mahoney, and Valerius Geist, Ph.D.

Born in the Hands of HuntersThe North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

Wildlife conservation in the United States and Canada has evolved over the last

century and a half to acquire a form distinct from that of any other nation in the

world. Its a conservation approach with irony at its coresparked by the over-exploi-

tation of wildlife, then crafted by hunters and anglers striving to save the resources

their predecessors had nearly destroyed. Now a series of principles collectively

known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist 1995, Geist et

al. 2001), it helps sustain not only traditional game species but all wildlife and their

habitats across the continent. The key to its future lies in understanding its origins.

The Wildlife Society

Historical ContextThe North American Model (the Model) has deep social and ecological roots. In the early days of North American explora-tion, English and French settlers came from cultures where wildlife at various times in their histories was the private prop-erty of an elite landed gentry (Manning 1993). The explorations of these settlers were driven by the incredible wealth of North Americas renewable natural resourcesand by an unfettered

opportunity to exploit it. Today, wildlife conservation in Canada and the United States reflects this historic citizen

access to the land and its resources. Indeed, the idea that natural resources belong to the citizenry drives demo-

cratic engagement in conservation and forms the heart of North Americas unique approach (Krausman 2009).

After resource exploitation fueled the expansion of people across the continent, the Industrial Revolution brought so-

cial changes that indelibly marked the land and its wildlife. In 1820, 5 percent of Ameri-

cans lived in cities, but by 1860, 20 percent were urban dwellers,

marking the greatest demographic shift ever to occur in America (Riess

1995). Markets for wildlife arose to feed these urban masses and to festoon a new class of wealthy

elites with feathers and furs. Market hunters plied their trade first along coastal waters and interior forests. With the ad-vent of railways, hunters exploited the West, shipping products from bison, elk, and other big game back to eastern cities. The march of the market hunter left once abundant species teeter-ing on the brink of extinction.

By August 1886when Captain Moses Harris led cavalry troops into Yellowstone National Park to take over its administration and stop rampant poachingbison, moose, and elk had ceased to exist in the U.S. as a viable natural resource (U.S. Dept. Interior 1987). The Army takeover of Yellowstone is symbolic of the desperate actions taken to protect the remnants of American wildlife from total extinction. Ironically, the sheer scale of the slaughter was to have some influence in engendering a remark-able new phenomenon: the conservation ethic (Mahoney 2007).

John F. Organ, Ph.D., CWB, is Chief of Wildlife and Sport Fish Res-toration for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region and Adjunct Associate Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Coauthors

Shane P. Mahoney is Executive Director for Sustainable Development and Strategic Science in the Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Biodiversity, Ecosystem Science, and Sustainability at the Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Valerius Geist, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

Credit: Ren Monsalve

www.wildlife.org 23

Northern shovelers (Anas clypeata) take to the air over Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.

Credit: Steve Hillebrand/USFWS

24

The increasing urban population found itself with something that farmers did not have: leisure time. The challenges of fair-chase hunting became a favored pastime of many, particularly those of means. Conflicts soon arose between mar-ket hunters, who gained fortune on dead wildlife, and the new breed of hunters who placed value on live wildlife and the sporting pursuit of it.

These sport hunters organized and developed the first wildlife hunting clubs (such as the Carrolls Island Club, founded in Maryland in 1832) where hunters protected game from market hunters. Recreational hunters also pushed for laws and regulations to curtail market hunting and over-exploitation. The New York Sportsmens Club, for example, drafted laws recommending closed seasons on deer, quail, woodcock, and troutlaws which passed in 1848 (Trefethen 1975).

Pioneers in ConservationAn early advocate of game protection, Yale-ed-ucated naturalist George Bird Grinnell acquired the sporting journal Forest and Stream in 1879 and turned it into a clarion call for wildlife conservation. Grinnell had accompanied George Armstrong Custer on his first western expedition in 1874, where he saw herds of bison and elk. A decade later, in 1885, Grinnell reviewed Hunt-ing Trips of a Ranchman by fellow New Yorker Theodore Roosevelt. In that review, Grinnell

criticized Roosevelt for his limited ex-perience in the West and for presenting hunting myths as fact. Roosevelt went to talk with Grinnell, and upon compar-ing experiences the two realized that big game had declined drastically. Their discussion inspired them to found the Boone and Crockett Club in 1887, an organization whose purpose would be to take charge of all matters pertaining to the enactment and carrying out of game and fish laws (Reiger 1975).

Roosevelt and Grinnell agreed that America was strong because, like Canada,

its people had carved the country from a wilderness frontier with self-reliance and pioneer skills. With the demise of the frontier and a growing urban populace, however, they feared that America would lose this edge. They believed that citizens could cultivate tradi-tional outdoor skills and a sense of fair play through

sport hunting, thereby maintaining the character of the nation (Brands 1997).

Endorsing these ideals, influential members of the Boone and Crockett Club used their status to great advantage, helping to create some of North Amer-icas most important and enduring conservation legacies. In 1900, for example, Congressman John Lacey of Iowa drafted the Lacey Act, making it a federal offense to transport illegally hunted wild-life across state borders. Canadian Charles Gordon Hewitt wrote the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 to protect migratory birds from egg and nest collectors and unregulated hunting. And during his presidency from 1901 to 1909, Theodore Roosevelt protected more than 230 million acres of American lands and waters, doing more to conserve wildlife than any individual in U.S. history.

The Canadian effort revolved around the Com-mission on Conservation, founded in 1909 under the guidance of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier and noted conservationist Clifford Sifton, who served as the Commissions chairman and was eventually knighted for his efforts. Established to combat resource exploitation, the Commissionand its prestigious panel of scientists, academics,

The Wildlife SocietyThe Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010

Credit: Jim Peaco/NPS

Credit: National Archives

Some 40,000 bison pelts in Dodge City, Kansas (right) await shipment to the East Coast in 1878evidence of the rampant exploitation of the species. The end of market hunting and the continuing conservation efforts have given bison a new foothold across parts of their historic range, including Yellowstone National Park (above).

Born in the Hands of Hunters


and policymakerssought to provide scientific guidance on the conservation of natural resour-ces. Working committees conducted research on agricultural lands, water, energy, fisheries, for-ests, wildlife, and other natural-resource issues, eventually publishing the first comprehensive survey of Canadian resources and the challenges to their conservation.

Emergence of a Profession By the early 20th century, much of the infrastruc-ture of wildlife conservation was already in place. In the 1920s, however, leading conservationists recognized that restrictive game laws alone were insufficient to stem wildlifes decline. To help address such concerns, ecologist Aldo Leopold and other conservationists published American Game Policy in 1930, which proposed a program of restoration to augment existing conservation law. For the first time, writes Leopold biographer Curt Meine, a coherent national strategy directed the previously disparate activities of sportsmen, administrators, researchers, and landowners (Meine 1991).

Leopold and others also promoted wildlife man-agement as a profession, advocating for trained biologists, stable funding for their work, and university programs to educate future profession-als. Within 10 years many of these goals had been realized. Among them:

Wildlifecurriculum. In 1933, the University of Wisconsin launched the first wildlife management cur-riculum, a program that taught wildlife science, setting a standard for other universities.

CooperativeWildlifeResearchUnits. Federal legislation in 1935 established a nationwide network of what are now known as Cooperative Research Units, where federal and state agencies and universities co-operate in fish and wildlife research and training.

Professionalsocieties. In 1937, W. L. McAtee, Aldo Leopold, and oth-ers founded The Wildlife Society, the first professional scientific so-ciety for those working in wildlife management and conservation. Said McAtee, The time is ripe for inaugurating a professional

society to promote discourse on issues facing wildlife conservation.

Fundinglegislation. Congress passed the Duck Stamp Act of 1934 and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (or the Pittman-Robertson Act) to provide reliable funding sources for federal and state wildlife conservation. (See article on page 35.)

Though initially launched in the U.S., these initia-tives were endorsed and mirrored by Canadian policies and programs. In both nations, subsequent decades have brought expanded conservation legis-lationsuch as the U.S. Endangered Species Act and Canadian Species at Risk Actas well as partnership programs to promote and fund wildlife conservation, including the U.S. Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the Teaming with Wildlife coalition.

The Models Seven PillarsSuch key conservation laws and programs were built upon a firm foundationthe seven underlying principles of the North American Model (Geist et al. 2001). Those principles have stood the test of time, proving resilient to sweeping social and ecological changes (Mahoney and Jackson 2009). Will they stand the test of the future? That question cant be answered without a strong understanding of the principles themselves.

1. Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource. The heart of the Model is the concept that wildlife is

The Wildlife Society

Credit: Dennis McKinney/Colorado Division of Wildlife

A Colorado hunter fires a Hawken muzzle-loading rifle, a primitive firearm first used on the American frontier in the 1820s. Sportsmen today carry on the tradition begun by early pioneers and trappers, tempered by the understanding that wildlife is a public trust resource to be killed only for legitimate purposes.



owned by no one and is held by government in trust for the benefit of present and future generations. In the U.S., the common-law basis for this prin-ciple is the Public Trust Doctrine, an 1841 Supreme Court Decision declaring that wildlife, fish, and other natural resources cannot be privately owned (Martin v. Waddell). In drafting the Public Trust Doctrine, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney drew upon the Magna Carta, which in turn was rooted in ancient Greek and Roman law. A subse-quent Supreme Court Decision in 1896 regarding illegal transport of hunted ducks across a state border firmly made wildlife a trust resource (Geer v. Connecticut). Today, however, each state or prov-ince has its own laws regarding wildlife as a public trust. Those laws face potential erosion from mul-tiple threatssuch as claims of private ownership of wildlife, commercial sale of live wildlife, limits to public access, and animal-rights philosophy

which are prompting moves for model language to strengthen existing laws (Batcheller et al. 2010). 2. Elimination of Markets for Game. His-torically, the unregulated and unsustainable exploitation of game animals and migratory birds for the market led to federal, provincial, and state laws that greatly restricted the sale of meat and parts from these animals. Those restrictions proved so successful that today there is an overabundance of some game speciessuch as snow geese (Chen caerulescens) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in suburban areaswhich may warrant allowing hunting and the sale of meat under a highly

regulated regime. Such regulated hunting and trade could enhance public appreciation of hunting as a management tool by reducing human-wildlife conflicts with overabundant species. In addition, trapping of certain mammal species in North Ameri-ca and commerce in their furs are permitted, but are managed sustainably through strict regulation such that the impacts on populations lie within natural ranges (Prescott-Allen 1996). Unfortunately, trade in certain species of amphibians and reptiles still persists with little oversight, and should be curtailed through tighter restrictions.

3. Allocation of Wildlife by Law. As a trustee, government manages wildlife in the interest of the beneficiariespresent and future generations of the public. Access and use of wildlife is therefore regulated through the public law or rule-making process. Laws and regulations, such as the Migra-tory Bird Treaty Act, establish the framework under which decisions can be made as to what species can be hunted, what species cannot be harmed due to their imperiled status, and other considerations relative to public use of or impact on wildlife.

4. Kill Only for Legitimate Purpose. Kill-ing wildlife for frivolous reasons has long been deemed unacceptable. The U.S. Congress passed a bill against useless slaughter of bison in 1874 (Geist 1995), and the Code of the Sportsman as articulated by Grinnell mandated that hunters use without waste any game they killed (Organ et al. 1998). Today, 13 states and provinces have wan-ton waste laws requiring hunters to salvage as much meat from legally killed game as possible. In Canada, the Royal Commission on Seals and Seal-ing recognizes that harvest of wildlife must have a practical purpose if it is to remain acceptable in so-ciety (Hamilton et al. 1998). Food, fur, self-defense, and property protection are generally considered legitimate purposes for the taking of wildlife. Other practices that conflict with this principlesuch as prairie dog shoots or rattlesnake roundupsare under increasing scrutiny (see page 58).

5. Wildlife as an International Resource. One of the greatest milestones in the history of wildlife conservation was the signing of the Migratory Bird Treaty in 1916. Noted Canadian entomologist C. Gordon Hewitt, who master-minded the treaty, saw the protection of migratory songbirds as essential to the protection of agricul-tural crops against insect pests. Affecting far more than hunted wildlife, this was the first significant

Jennifer Vashon, a biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, retrieves Canada lynx kittens for study. Her research team will measure the cats, determine their sex, collect DNA, and tag them for monitoring. Such workfunded in part by hunting license feesinforms the management of this rare species.

Credit: John Gilbert



treaty that provided for international manage-ment of terrestrial wildlife resources. The impetus, of course, was that because some wildlife species migrate across borders, a nations management policiesor lack thereofcan have consequences for wildlife living in neighboring countries. Inter-national commerce in wildlife, for example, has significant potential effects on a species status. To address this issue, in 1973, 80 countries signed the first Convention on International Trade in Endan-gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Today there are 175 parties to the treaty.

6. Science-based Wildlife Policy. Science as a basis for informed decision-making in wildlife man-agement has been recognized as critical to wildlife conservation since the founding days of North Ameri-can conservation (Leopold 1933). The subsequent application of this principle has led to many advances in management of diverse species, often under highly complex circumstances such as adaptive management of waterfowl harvest (Williams and Johnson 1995). Unfortunately, funding has been largely inadequate to meet the research needs of management agen-cies. In addition, a trend towards greater influence in conservation decision making by political appointees versus career managers profoundly threatens the goal of science-based management (Wildlife Manage-ment Institute 1987, 1997). So, too, do the divisions within the wildlife science community itself, which often splits along a human-versus-animal divide. The integration of biological and social sciences, which Leopold hoped would be one of the great advances of the 20th century, is necessary to meet the conserva-tion challenges of the 21st century.

7. Democracy of Hunting. Theodore Roosevelt believed that society would benefit if all people had an access to hunting opportunities (Roosevelt et al. 1902). Leopold termed this idea the democracy of sport (Meine 1988)a concept that sets Canada and the U.S. apart from many other nations, where the opportunity to hunt is restricted to those who have special status such as land ownership, wealth, or other privileges. Yet some note that the greatest historical meaning of the public trust is that certain interestssuch as access to natural resourcesare so intrinsically important that their free availability marks a society as one of citizens rather than serfs (Sax 1970).

Moving Beyond the ModelBedrock principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation evolved during a time when game species were imperiled and ultimately led to

a continent-wide resurgence of wildlife at a scale unparalleled in the world, as evidenced by the resto-ration of deer, elk, waterfowl, bear, and many other species. It is clear that these principles have served wildlife conservation well beyond hunted species and helped sustain the continents biodiversity, especially through the millions of acres of lands purchased with hunter dollars for habitat protection and improve-ment. Indeed, the structure of modern endangered species legislation harkens back to the old game laws, where the focus was on prevention of take.

As wildlife conservation advances into the 21st century, these founding principles should be safeguarded and improved, and new approaches to biodiversity conservation should be developed that go beyond what the Model currently provides. A U.S.-Canadian treaty securing the Model and improvements in wildlife law would be the most powerful form of protection. As we seek solutions to new challenges, we should remember that only a minority of our citizens have a passion for the per-petuation of wildlife, and among those, the people who call themselves sportsmen and sportswomen have been answering this call for well over one hun-dred years. Wildlife can ill afford to lose them in a future that is anything but secure.

This article has been reviewed by subject-matter experts.

Credit: Parks Canada

Elk in Canadas Waterton Lakes National Park are part of the international herd, which regularly crosses the U.S.-Canada border. The North American Model holds that wildlife is an international resource and should be protected as such.

For a full bibliography, go to www.wildlife.org.


Though the term North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was coined only nine years ago by Valerius Geist (Geist et al. 2001), it encapsulates centuries worth of history. What follows is a selection of some key historical events related to wildlife conservation in North Americaevents that continue to shape our at-titudes, laws, and policies concerning wildlife and natural resources today.

Early European SettlementFrom the 1500s to the mid-1600s, historians estimate that three to five million Native Ameri-cans lived in what is now the United States. They hunted mammals for food, in some cases decimat-ing large game around human population centers. After European explorers arrived, bringing infec-tious diseases with them, vast numbers of native people perished and wildlife populations began to rebound. The rebound didnt last. European immigrants

cleared land for farming, cut forests for ship building, and began hunting and trapping for European markets. As early as 1650, beavers had been nearly eliminated from the entire East Coast. Spaniards introduced domestic horses, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, which competed with grazing wildlife and carried diseases. Wildlife populations declined, and settlers blamed the loss on predators.

1630: Massachusetts Bay Colony offers a one shilling bounty per wolf killed.

1646: Portsmouth, Rhode Island enacts the first closed season on deer hunting.

The Colonial AgeAs more settlers arrived in what are now the U.S. and Canada, market hunting and fur trapping for export expanded. The French as well as Englands Hudson Bay Company took furbearers in the northeastern U.S. and Canada. And in the Pacific Northwest, the Russian-American Fur Company took seals and sea otters. Still, in the 1700s, an esti-mated 40 to 70 million bison and roughly 10 million pronghorn roamed the West.

1748: South Carolina ships 160,000 deer pelts to England.

1768: The Stellers sea cow is declared extinct.

Westward ExpansionWhen Lewis and Clark made their westward ex-pedition from 1804 to 1806, they observed grizzly bears, abundant herds of buffalo and deer, and prairie dog towns a mile square. In 1813, James Audubon recorded a passenger pigeon flock he estimated at one billion birds. Yet even by the first decades of the 1800s, trading posts were plentiful across the West, prompting trappers and remnant tribes of Native Americans to harvest animals for their valuable hides.

1832: Carrolls Island Club, the first known hunting club in the U.S., forms in Baltimore.

1833: In this single year, the American Fur Com-pany ships 43,000 buffalo hides, mostly obtained through trade with the Native Americans.

1836: Ralph Waldo Emerson publishes Nature, one of the first writings to extol the inherent value of wildlife beyond its use for sustenance and profit.

A Conservation Timeline

By Robert Brown, Ph.D.

Robert Brown, Ph.D., is Dean of the College of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University.

Credit: NCSU Media Services

MileStoNeS of the MoDelS evolUtioN

EDUCATION EDUCATION

Courtesy of thomas J. Ryder

early settlers killed wolves and other predators with abandon, blaming them for declines in game populations.

Credit: library of Congress

When Meriwether lewis and William Clark explored the louisiana territory in 1804-06, they saw abundant wildlife and untouched wilderness.

Credit: NPS

Bison fell by the thousands as pioneers and fur traders killed the animals for their thick pelts and other products.


Origin of the Public Trust DoctrineIn 1842, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a land-owners effort to exclude people from taking oysters from New Jersey mudflats he claimed as his own. The decision referred to Englands Magna Carta of 1215, noting that the document guarded the public and common right of fishing in navigable waters. This decision codified the concept of the Public Trust Doctrine, which holds that, in the U.S., wildlife and fish belong to all the people, and stewardship of those fauna is entrusted to the individual states.

1844: The New York Sportsmens Club forms and in 1848 drafts laws to regulate trout fishing and the hunting of woodcock, quail, and deer.

1854: Henry David Thoreau publishes Walden, his treatise on the solace of nature.

Collapse of the BisonRailroad expansion in the 1860s and 70s made shipping bison hides, meat, and tongues economi-caland marked a period of wildlife slaughter perhaps unparalleled in U.S. history. The annual bison kill in 1865 was one million animals; by 1871 that toll had soared to five million.

1872: President Ulysses S. Grant establishes Yellow-stone National Park, with 3,348 square miles.

1886: A census reveals th

the wildlife professional fall 2010

Documents