Power is out at The wildlife Society office because of severe storms in the DC metro area. Some of our services are unavailable and the phones are down. We regret any inconvenience this might cause.
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s (TRCP’s) Vice President for Policy and Government Relations and former President of The Wildlife Society Tom Frankin was appointed to the Obama Administration’s new Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council. See the full story here.
A recent item in the NY Times on a plan to remove Canada geese around NY City airports seemed to mix achieving the statewide population goal for Canada geese with a proposed local action. The proposed action around the airports is to round up geese during the summer moult and later euthanize them offsite. This population is estimated at around 4,000 geese. However, the headline makes reference to the state of New York’s Canada goose population, estimated to be around 250,000, as opposed to their population goal of 85,000. Two different things at different scales. Reading the headline would have you believe that 170,000 geese were going to be rounded up and killed in one fell swoop to achieve that population goal. The reality of the proposal is much different, though. Interestingly, the estimated legal harvest of Canada geese by licensed, Duck Stamp buying hunters in New York state has been over 160,000 the past 2 years and over 100,000 in 7 of the past 8 years.
What happens when free-roaming suburban cats and dogs get too close to mama deer? Check out this video. Too bad birds and small animals can’t fight back when attacked by feral cats and packs of feral dogs. Then we’d see a real balance of nature! Another good reason to keep your dog on a leash and your cat inside.
Feral dogs, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Uncategorized, feral cats
A new report by the Wildlife Conservation Society indicates that wild tiger populations have hit a historical low throughout their range. WCS has asked the Obama administation to step up to the plate and try to do something about this serious conservation crisis.
I, for one, find it sadly ironic that–in this country–we are debating the fate of millions of non-native feral cats that kill our native wildlife (as well as spending millions of dollars to keep each and every one of them alive)–when one of the most popular and charismatic of all wild cats may disappear from our planet forever. As far as having misdirected priorities, feral cat advocates really take the cake.
A recent article in the Seattle PI.com discusses an additional environmental cost of wind farms: transmission lines. In order to carry the energy produced by wind farms to users, transmission lines are needed. Wildlife conservationists and managers have been worried about the potential impact of huge wind towers and their blades on bats and birds, but the transmission lines can pass through and disturb sensitive species and habitats as well. That is why the siting of wind farms is critical if this clean form of evergy is to–in the final analysis–be considered a “green” form of energy. If wind farms have a substantial negative impact on wildlife and their habitats, particularly endangered or threatened species, they can hardly be considered green.
In a recent editorial on his personal website/blog (Vox Felina), Peter Wolf spends an inordinate amount of time penning a long letter to me about feral cat management. He takes issue with the fact that feral cats are a menace to wildlife and, although he is not a biologist himself, he also takes issue with the extensive and growing peer-reviewed literature on this topic that clearly indicates that they are. He even questions the veracity of the peer review process.
I thought long and hard about writing a detailed response, but frankly decided I have many more important things to do, some of which may have a direct bearing on wildlife conservation. I’m going to let other wildlife professionals respond to his letter through this blog and just simply state the following:
Dear Peter:
(1) Please do not continue to attack the science in your personal blog. Anyone can say anything they want on the Internet, whether it is valid or not, but most people know that the source of information matters. If you feel strongly that you have valid data that contradicts that of the peer-reviewed literature on feral cats, then submit it for publication where it can be evaluated by experts in the field. I note that the Society for Conservation Biology’s editors apparently rejected one of your submissions, likely due to a lack of any scientific support for its conclusions. You can continue to suggest that you are the victim of some sort of conspiracy, but we all know that is not true.
(2) You point out some of the rare problems with the peer review process. All I can say is that cases of scientific misbehavior are very rare and dealt with in the most severe manner possible. The goal of science is to seek objective truth. Scientists have strong ethical guidelines on which to model their behavior; those who cheat will likely never work in the field or be taken seriously again. That is one reason that science is among the most self-correcting of all human endeavors. Charles Darwin once said: “Great is the power of steady misrepresentation. but the history of science shows how, fortunately, this power does not long endure.” Feral cat advocates should pay particular attention to the wisdom of Darwin’s statement.
(3) There is a reason why numerous highly-regarded professional and scientific societies and conservation organizations, including The Wildlife Society, the American Society of Mammalogists, the Wildlife Disease Association, Audubon, American Bird Conservancy, and many others (even including PeTA, one of the most radical of animal rights groups) reject TNR management due to: (a) the well-documented impact of non-native feral cats on native wildlife, (b) the dangerous diseases they can spead to both humans and wildlife, and (c) the fact that the lives of free roaming cats are substantially shorter than cats kept indoors under human care.
(4) Professional biologists, ecologists and conservationists do not hate cats, as you and some other cat advocates try to portray. In fact, we have great respect for life and nature and have dedicated our entire lives and careers to ensuring a future for native wildlife and their habitats in a world dominated by human influences. We recognize that feral cats are one of those negative influences that must be addressed if our native wildlife, including many endangered species, are to have a future. TNR has not been effective in reducing the number of cats or their impact on wildlife, and it is clearly time for things to change.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife disease, feral cats, invasive species, wildlife conservation
A recent article in the Park Rapids (Minnesota) Enterprise.com by Jason Durham discusses the dangers that exotic fishing bait may pose to native ecosystems. In fact, most people are not aware that the worms in our backyards or that are used as fishing bait, especially those we know as ”nightcrawlers” and “angle worms”, are exotic species, transported from Europe or Asia. Yet, these ecological interloppers can be destructive to forests by eating the “duff”–decomposing leaves lying on the surface of the forest floor. This duff helps to prevent soil erosion and is a source of nutrients that facilitates the growth of hardwood trees.
There is probably no way that we could conceiveably eliminate these introduced worms now–they are simply too widespread. However, natural resource experts are worried about the possible introduction of even more exotic worm species into our ecosystems as the result of recreational fishing. Though worms, such as nightcrawlers, are legal to use as bait, their introduction into soil is illegal in Minnesota and other states. The basic message to anglers is don’t dump your unused bait in either soil or water.
Researchers at the Cornell University Lab of Ornithology are studying the effects of toxic contamination from the Gulf oil spill on the fecundity of migratory birds. While scientists know that toxins are detrimental to bird reproduction, they still need more data to determine to what extent these negative effects manifest further inland; for instance for migratory birds that pass through the Gulf yet breed hundreds of miles away.
In order to gather this data, researchers are asking birdwatchers across the continent to contribute by monitoring local nests and providing information to the NestWatch program. Citizen-science observations have long driven otherwise unworkable research efforts, and hopefully will continue to do so in the future.
: Nice article as for me. It would be great to read a bit more concerning that theme.
Recent Comments