The Wildlife Professional Spring 2007 Issue by The Wildlife Society

Spring 2007

The

Graying of the

Green

Facing the retirement gap

Border security trumps wildlife How close is too close? Building online communities

Spring 2007 2

Editor’s Note

Letters

Leadership Letter

REGULAR FEATURES

Science in Short Recaps of current research relevant to wildlife managers and conservation practitioners

11 State of Wildlife Highlights of wildlife-related management challenges and achievements in North America and around the world

Credit: John Jave

15 Today’s Wildlife Professional

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner: From the Ground Up

FEATURE STORY

18 The Graying of the Green Generation Science writer Katherine Unger explores the ramifications of the upcoming wave of retirements of top-level wildlife managers and conservation experts

ROTATING FEATURES

24 Law and Policy The Wildlife Society’s Associate Director of Government Affairs Laura Bies analyzes the Secure Border Fence Act and its potential impacts on wildlife management

Credit: Jim Peaco/NPS

29 Health and Disease

Avian flu outbreak spurs an increase in wildlife research

34 Human-Wildlife Connection Wildlife Biologist Val Geist discusses how professionals grapple with habituating wildlife

38 Review Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man is a must-see

40 Tools and Technology ConserveOnline brings collaborative web tools to conservationists Credit: Milo Burcham

42 The Society Page News and happenings from The Wildlife Society

43 Gotcha! Photos of wildlife and humans submitted by readers

More Online! This publication is available online to TWS members at www.wildlifejournals.org. Look for the mouse icon throughout this issue to find topics with related online content.

wildlife.org

Vol. 1 No. 1

s this first issue of The Wildlife Professional goes on press and online, we find ourselves in volatile times. Earth scientists now proclaim in unison that global warming is real and that human activity is the likely primary driver. The United States is at war abroad, and at home is building walls along our borders while welcoming new citizens and nurturing innovation as never before. Within these changing national, global, and human dynamics, people and wildlife are coming ever closer, making more frequent contact, on more intimate biological levels.

Philippa J. Benson, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief STAFF Kathryn Sonant, Managing Editor Katherine Unger, Science Writer Divya Abhat, Science Writer Yanin Walker, TWS Correspondent

Credit: Ben Xu

Members of The Wildlife Society (TWS) are, as they have been for generations, at the forefront of assessing and addressing the challenges of managing wildlife in a human-dominated world. The publication of The Wildlife Professional, however, marks a shift in our 70-year history as we embrace the possibilities of new publishing technologies. With our print and online resources increasingly intertwined, we are expanding beyond communicating tested methods of sound and science-based wildlife stewardship to facilitating the invention and use of new communities, collaborations, and techniques for managing the human-wildlife interface. Professional managers of wildlife in this century and beyond will work across an ever broadening range of disciplinesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;many outside the natural sciences. Each issue of The Wildlife Professional will give readers comprehensive overviews of topics that influence their work, such as scientific research, law and policy, health and disease, tools and technology, ethics, and education. The online version will allow readers to dig deeper into details and data, enabling the magazine to be a central part of the changing nature of TWS as it becomes an active mechanism for, rather than a reflection of, the work of its members. I am hopeful that readers will find this first issue of The Wildlife Professional enjoyable, engaging, and provocative. I welcome all feedback, and look forward to shaping this magazine and the accompanying information resources of TWS to allow its members to transform wildlife management and conservation in North America and around the world.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Adams, The Nature Conservancy Dan Ashe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Philippa Benson, The Wildlife Society Raym Crow, Chain Bridge Group Mike Frame, U.S. Geological Survey Carlos Galindo-Leal, World Wildlife Fund, Mexico Val Geist, University of Calgary Matt Hogan, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Michael Hutchins, The Wildlife Society Doug Inkley, National Wildlife Federation Cynthia Jacobson, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Winifred Kessler, USDA Forest Service Devra Kleiman, National Zoological Park Eric Kurzejeski, Missouri Department of Conservation J. Drew Lanham, Clemson University Christina Mittermeier, International League of Conservation Photographers Tony Mong, University of Missouri John Organ, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Teresa Pickel, Alliance Communication Group Tom Ryder, Wyoming Game and Fish Anthony Rylands, Conservation International James Sanderson, Wildlife Conservation Network Sue Silver, Ecological Society of America Adrian Stanley, The Charlesworth Group Eric Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service John Wiens, The Nature Conservancy

The Wildlife Professional is an official publication of The Wildlife Society. Our goal is to provide timely, readable, and relevant news and analyses of issues and trends in the wildlife profession. Visit wildlife.org or contact The Wildlife Society to subscribe.

5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814-2144 P: (301) 897-9770 F: (301) 530-2471 tws@wildlife.org wildlife.org

Philippa J. Benson, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

John F. Organ, President W. Daniel Svedarsky, President-Elect Thomas M. Franklin, Vice President Robert D. Brown, Past President COVER: Balancing on a cliff face, doctoral student Travis Booms of the University of Alaskaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Fairbanks bands a gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) nestling as part of a larger avian influenza testing effort. Credit: Josh Spice (TWS photo contest winner)

wildlife.org

Dear Editor,

In the pages of this new magazine I anticipate a forum for new ideas and lively debate. When it comes to wildlife, the nation is solidly multipartisan. We all want to see a thriving diversity of ecosystems and habitats protected and managed wisely for all citizens to enjoy. I believe that watching wildlife is America’s true passion and its most enjoyable pastime, and there are many sporting constituencies that support conservation in our wild and protected landscape. I strongly support the efforts of wildlife professionals who have worked so diligently to augment and honor our heritage of natural habitat and noble creatures.

I commend The Wildlife Society for having the insight to develop a magazine for wildlife professionals, a communication vehicle that is sorely needed. As a former Secretary of the Interior, I understand the many complex issues that are facing your profession, ranging from the struggles to find sufficient funding for wildlife management and conservation programs to the many challenges of conserving wildlife and their habitats in a human-dominated world. Wildlife professionals must be informed about a broad range of fast-paced changes to be able to bring their collective scientific expertise to the table when important policy decisions are being made. We cannot make informed decisions about the future of wildlife and wild places in the absence of credible scientific information and sound policy analyses.

Our nation faces formidable challenges as we mobilize our citizens to protect and enhance our natural resources. American ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit must be encouraged as we seek new technologies and new solutions to environmental problems. The Wildlife Professional promises to clarify the key issues in an epoch where the environment is an urgent priority. Cover of Promotional Issue

As The Wildlife Professional gains traction it will surely provide an intellectual lift as we grapple with an expanding menu of creative solutions to long-standing environmental problems. A unified nation, embracing innovation and prepared for unprecedented commitments of private and public resources, will win the race to restoration and revitalization. However, our ability to succeed will depend on powerful ideas, discipline, and fortitude, virtues that have served our nation well throughout our history. I am grateful for the opportunity to study the creative contents of a magazine that offers the benefits of scholarship, insight, and hope. America is comprised of a mainstream of conservationists who demand clean air and water, safe and accessible recreational resources, healthy forests and wetlands, and bountiful rivers, lakes, and oceans. Your magazine speaks volumes for this massive constituency, and I wish you every success. Sincerely,

Newt Gingrich Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1995 – 1999

I write you now to address the thousands of dedicated individuals who protect, study, manage, and conserve our wildlife resources, both here in North America and abroad, and to applaud the aspirations you have for The Wildlife Society’s new magazine, The Wildlife Professional.

Given the many significant challenges that lie ahead, my wish is for The Wildlife Professional to directly address the difficult and sometimes controversial issues that face wildlife managers and policy makers. At the same time, the magazine and the Society it represents should stay true to their core principles in presenting fair, balanced, and science-based information. I am hopeful that the magazine and its readers will tackle important issues of the day, among them how wildlife and habitats may be affected by oil, gas, and biofuels development; introduced species; the commercial wildlife trade; and the effects of climate change. Since many of these issues are caused by the expansion of human populations and economies, I am equally hopeful that you will address the human dimensions of natural resources management and conservation, and include the perspectives of economists, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists. In my capacity as Secretary of the Interior, I had an opportunity to work and interact with many wildlife professionals and have enormous respect for their dedication, knowledge, and hard work. The challenges facing your profession and the natural world are daunting, making it all the more important that decision making is rooted in sound science. The Wildlife Professional must provide its readers with balanced and timely information as quality fuel for the important debates we must have. I am very happy to support the inauguration of this effort. Sincerely,

Bruce Babbitt U.S. Secretary of the Interior, 1993 – 2001 4

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

wildlife.org

TWS and the Wildlife Professional By John Organ

Credit: Bill Zinni/USFWS

John Organ is president of The Wildlife Society and chief of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration for the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

As The Wildlife Society (TWS) celebrates its 70th anniversary, we are faced with challenges reminiscent of the year it all began. 1937 presented overwhelming hurdles to wildlife conservationists. The nation was in the midst of an economic depression, habitat degradation spawned by the Dust Bowl resulted in a steady decline in wildlife populations, and, across the ocean, divergent ideologies threatened our insularity. Today, the problems faced by wildlife conservationists are at least as daunting. Human populations have expanded rapidly across North America and around the world and consumption rates of resources have increased. Budgets for wildlife protection and management are shrinking at alarming rates. Most alarmingly, a large proportion of the veteran leaders in wildlife management will be retiring within the next five to 10 years, with dwindling pools of trained professionals rising in the ranks to take their places. We are at a crossroads where we must not only reevaluate the tools and techniques we have available to manage wildlife, but we must reconsider the very nature of wildlife management.

Looking Back In the 1930s, wildlife conservation and management was becoming recognized as a formal discipline. Although wildlifers had been meeting annually for many years, it was not until Aldo Leopold, Arthur Allen, and others began giving presentations in the late 1920s that interest shifted from game breeding to broader topics of wildlife ecology and management. Leopold and a distinguished group of wildlife conservationists were asked by the American Game Institute—now Wildlife Management Institute—to draft a policy to guide wildlife conservation. The 1930 American Game Policy laid out a broad vision, acknowledging that existing conservation programs were inadequate to stem the declines in wildlife populations. The policy called for a program of restoration implemented by scientifically trained professionals with a stable funding source. The policy also declared it was time for wildlife management to “be recognized as a distinct profession and developed accordingly.” The subsequent establishment of university programs and the Cooperative Wildlife Research Units, funded by the Pittman-Robertson

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, gave life to the policy. However, wildlife conservation and management still lacked a nucleus—an organization to establish professional and ethical standards and promote communication. In 1935, Ted Frison, director of the Illinois Natural History Survey, encouraged several colleagues to discuss forming a national professional society. The group met at the First North American Wildlife Conference in Washington, D.C. in 1936, and one year later, The Wildlife Society was born.

Looking Forward Foremost among the reasons for establishing TWS was the conviction that professional standards needed to be established and maintained, professionals subscribing to these standards needed to be affiliated, and a journal of wildlife management needed to be established so professionals could communicate with each other. Seventy years later these needs are still at the forefront, and wildlife professionals and conservationists alike have become reliant on TWS to serve them in these capacities. As the challenges of 2007 differ in nature and degree from those of 1937, so do the needs of wildlife professionals. TWS is committed to evolve with the needs of its members and to be the indispensable resource for the wildlife professional. To this end, we are developing new standards—in certification, education, ethics, publications, and policy— to meet the needs of a diverse profession. We are improving the content and delivery of our scientific publications (The Journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Monographs, Technical Reviews, and others) to ensure they will remain the premier outlets for wildlife science. Most significantly, we are also rapidly modernizing our entire communications infrastructure to allow our members to get more useful information to help them make science-based decisions about wildlife management and policy. This inaugural issue of The Wildlife Professional is but one step towards fulfilling the vision set forth 70 years ago. It is unlikely the founders of TWS could have envisioned the potential of communication in the electronic era. TWS is positioning itself to take full advantage of this potential to meet your needs and to advance the conservation of wildlife worldwide.

Closer Isn’t Always Better Some ecologically conscious developers have tried to lessen the impact of exurban sprawl by clustering houses close together and designating the surrounding land as protected conservation space. Now, a new study in Conservation Biology (v.10/5) questions the eco-friendly nature of clustered housing. A comparison of typical housing developments and clustered subdivisions revealed that they harbor a similar amount of plant and animal species—both much less than in undeveloped areas. Scientists say clustered housing needn’t be eliminated as a conservation strategy, but applying “more rigorous ecological guidelines” in their development might help increase their conservation value. Credit: Blackwell Publishing

Hunting Criteria

Credit: The Wildlife Society

Elk are a popular hunting target for wolves and humans alike. But while wolves pursue very young and very old elk, humans may be culling the most reproductively valuable individuals in populations, according to a study in the Journal of Wildlife Management (v.70/4). Comparing the characteristics of elk killed by hunters in Yellowstone National Park between 1996 and 2001 with data from wolf-killed elk from 1995 to 2001, researchers found that human hunters selected female elk that were 6.5 years old on average, while wolf-killed elk averaged an elderly 13.9 years old. With wolf populations within the park increasing, the researchers say their results indicate that hunters may be having a greater impact on elk populations than wolves, kill for kill, because humans target the younger and more reproductively active individuals. To compensate, the authors suggest that game agencies consider reducing elk harvest levels.

Containing the Gypsy Moths Perhaps one of the most familiar—and destructive—invasive species in North America is the gypsy moth. Reporting in the journal Nature (v.444/ 7117), a team of biologists have proposed a rhyme and reason for this species’ rapid spread across the United States. They found that the moths have radiated in a

“pulsed” fashion, thanks to accidental transport by humans and the moths’ need for dense populations in order to grow and spread. The invasion could be controlled, the authors suggest, if landscape managers attempt to contain populations beyond and near the edges of the spread’s frontiers before the moth communities grow large enough to launch satellite populations.

In Praise of the Farm Bill

Credit: The Wildlife Society

Roughly half of the land in the United States is in private hands and thus outside the jurisdiction of federal conservation efforts. The Farm Bill, first authorized in 1985, was put in place to encourage conservation on these private lands. A report by U.S. Department of Agriculture wildlife biologists in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (v. 34/4) provides an overview of the provisions and successes of the last four Farm Bills. The legislation has provided cost-sharing, technical assistance, and financial incentives to landowners to promote conservation and habitat protection. The authors advocate a boost in scientific research to gauge the impact of the Farm Bill programs and to assess where greater efforts would reap the most significant benefits for wildlife.

Credit: Nature Publishing Group

wildlife.org

Hotspots Only Lukewarm

The Climate, it is A-Changin’

Those on a mission to save biodiversity have taken to talking about “hotspots”— geographic regions thought to be the richest and most significant repositories of living things on earth. But are hotspots all they’re cracked up to be? In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (v. 103/51), researchers plotted the distributions of 4,818 non-marine mammals and broke down their ranges into regions of 100 square kilometers. These geographic “cells” were then analyzed for three measures of biological importance: species richness, the number of restricted-range or endemic species, and the measure of threat — such as from human population density or habitat conversion to agriculture. Surprisingly, the most highly ranked regions from each of these three categories only overlapped in 1 percent of cases. The authors say that conservation biologists and managers must now question the wisdom of prioritizing hotspots over other global conservation needs.

Through changes in migration patterns, distribution, and behavior, wildlife provides one of the most compelling signs that climate change is not an elusive future event—it is upon us. In a synthesis of 866 papers published in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics (v. 37), Camille Parmesan writes that global warming is already influencing wildlife, calling this “a clear, globally coherent conclusion.” Parmesan details how range-restricted species such as those that thrive in coral reefs, on mountain tops, or in polar regions have been changing their behavior to cope with climate change — if they can. In cases where they can’t, some species, such as highland amphibians and tropical corals, have already succumbed to warming climes, reinforcing the need to control greenhouse emissions without delay.

Credit: Annual Reviews

Re-wilding North America

Corridors to Diversity

Reprinted with permission from AAAS

A new study confirms what many biologists have long suspected: Corridors may be a key to increasing diversity between two nearby patches of habitat. Patches of experimental habitat of longleaf pine forests on USDA Forest Service land in South Carolina were used to compare how plant diversity changed over time. The patches differed in shape but were identical in area and were either connected to other patches by corridors or were isolated. From 2000 to 2005, connected patches retained more native species than isolated ones, and this difference grew over the duration of the experiment, researchers reported in Science (v. 313/5791). Further analysis showed that corridors boosted the growth of native species while suppressing the takeover of invasive exotics, making corridors a useful tool for preserving native vegetation and wildlife.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Reprinted with permission from Elsevier

Lions and tigers in North America? Oh my. In Biological Conservation (Vol. 132, No. 2), a group of biologists reflect on a previously published proposal to introduce large Asian and African mammals, from elephants to cheetahs, into protected areas of North America. It had been claimed that such an attempt would rebalance ecosystems that haven’t rebounded from the massive Pleistocene extinctions, perpetrated mainly by humans, that befell megafauna on the North American continent. In the new consideration, researchers offer reasons why this “re-wilding” might not be an agreeable idea. Among the arguments against letting lions loose, the biologists assert that human-wildlife conflicts would increase and native ecosystems could be disrupted. The limited pool of resources available for conservation, they say, are better directed towards other efforts.

wildlife.org

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

North America 6 1

In the United States, Canada, and Mexico, wildlife issues are ever-present, from the most tightly populated urban areas to utterly remote regions where humans’ touch can hardly be seen. This section of State of Wildlife reports on wildlife-related events in The Wildlife Society’s seven North American regions.

Northwest WASHINGTON — The Department of Fish and Wildlife in Washington State has been working hard to keep up with rapidly expanding moose (Alces alces) populations in its eastern regions. With numbers of moose in Spokane and Kootenai counties approaching an all-time high, moose-vehicle collisions and associated costs have also increased, along with other inevitable conflicts that arise when large animals establish residence in populated areas.

In an effort to address the problems inherent in the rising population, state authorities have been handing out more moose hunting permits every year. They handed out 100 moose permits last year, an increase from three in 1997.

United States The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently declined to include the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) on the endangered species list. The bird’s dwindling numbers are blamed on losses to breeding, migrating, and wintering habitat caused by agricultural conversion, logging, and urban development. The population of the blue migratory song bird is estimated at half a million and is declining annually by 2 to 4 percent. The decision followed a petition filed in 2000 by the Southern Environmental Law Center and 27 other regional and national conservation organizations. While the cerulean warbler is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits the illegal killing of migratory birds, listing it as an endangered species would have led to closer scrutiny of acts such as clear-cut timbering and mountaintop mining that threaten the species’ survival. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Credit: Barth Schorre

Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) populations are declining at 3 percent every year, according to the Breeding Bird Survey.

Logging in recent years has created clear-cut forestlands, which now sprout small shrubs and young trees—an ideal habitat for sustaining moose populations. However, experts predict that moose numbers should stabilize and then steadily start to diminish as the clear-cut forests and other areas begin to grow into more mature forests. Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

North Central GREAT LAKES REGION — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has announced the removal of the western Great Lakes population of gray wolves (Canis lupus) from the federal list of threatened and endangered species, and in a separate action is proposing to remove the northern Rocky Mountain populations of gray wolves from the list. The western Great Lakes delisting action, effective March 12, reflects the success of gray wolf recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. Gray wolf populations in the region are near 4,000, far exceeding the numbers required by the species’ recovery plan. The Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources have developed plans to guide the future management of wolves in these regions. They, along with tribal natural resources management offices on Indian reservations, will now be responsible for the protection of wolves, hunting and trapping concerns, and the long-term health of the populations. For more information see www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife.org

North Central CONTINUED MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN — In March 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency approved the temporary use of a bird repellant that will prevent sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) from eating corn seeds soon after planting. During the last two decades, waning populations of sandhill cranes have been recovering in the Midwest, in large part from foraging on newly planted corn. The recently approved repellant contains the organic ingredient Anthraquinone (AQ) that occurs naturally in several plants, fungi, lichens, and insects. Cranes detect the ingredient on corn seeds and avoid it, instead foraging for waste grain and other foods in the same fields. As waste grain and many types of beetle larvae can potentially damage crops, allowing sandhill cranes to feed on these alternatives may further benefit corn crops. Source: International Crane Foundation, Arkion Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison Entomology Department

Credit: Crane Wu

A new repellant may deter sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis)—the most abundant of the world’s crane species—from pestering Midwestern farmed corn.

Southeast GEORGIA — In the town of Americus, homeowners and wildlife managers alike have been concerned by the growing populations of Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis). Several Mexican free-tailed bats, along with some big brown bats and evening bats, have sought shelter in two dozen buildings, sometimes leaving their malodorous signs behind in abundance. To rid homes and buildings of these unwanted guests, the Wildlife Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has plans to hand out bat boxes for capture and relocation. State officials are also addressing the bat abundance with educational efforts, spreading the message that although bats can pose risks to human health in the form of rabies and histoplasmosis, they also provide an important ecosystem service by curbing insect populations. Source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources

FLORIDA — The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is currently assessing whether the Florida alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) should still be included on the state’s protected species list, where it is now listed as a “species of special concern.” The alligator’s numbers have risen to one million across the state, causing some people to wonder if it would be more appropriately listed as a game species. Hunters, private landowners, and state officials have been working together to broaden the management tools used to control alligator populations. For example, the 2006 hunt season was extended to a full 11 weeks, yielding over 6,000 animals. A new idea, which would allow greater flexibility in managing alligators on privately held lands, is being explored. Some critics remain cautious of too many changes, citing concerns that more hunting could compromise the species’ crucial role in maintaining wetlands, and that inexperienced homeowners should not be allowed to handle nuisance alligators themselves. Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

FLORIDA — A juvenile whooping crane (Grus americana) was the sole survivor of a group of 18 that fell victim to massive storms that hit central Florida in early February. The 18 cranes, led south by ultralight aircraft from Wisconsin late last year, were being kept at the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. The Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership found the juvenile whooping crane alive after biologists with the International Crane Foundation picked up radio signals from a transmitter on the bird near the pen site.

Credit: Jim Ozier/Georgia DNR

Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) populations have increased significantly in Americus, Georgia, prompting the construction of bat houses to draw the animals away from human residences.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Over the last few decades, the whooping crane, once very close to becoming extinct, has been making a comeback because of sound conservation efforts by various government agencies and other organizations. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Northeast

Canada/Alaska

NEW YORK — Suburban bowhunting is a vital tool for deer managers in New York State. Some areas of the state are experiencing increasing pressure from development, leading to an interspersion of deer habitat within suburban and outlying areas. In an effort to manage the deer population in inhabited areas, lower the number of deer-vehicle collisions, and reduce deer impacts on habitat, New York has liberalized antlerless hunting opportunities. While several municipalities have restricted the discharge of firearms, in some cases hunters are permitted to use archery equipment. Bowhunting is considered the most cost effective means of deer removal in developed areas. Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Southwest ARIZONA — In January 2007, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) activated the nation’s first-ever wildlife electric crosswalk, aimed at reducing wildlife collisions that might occur at one end of a new fencing along one of its state roads. The fencing was erected to funnel animals toward existing underpasses and bridges in the middle and at the far end of the stretch of highway, where they can avoid becoming involved in one of more than 400 elk (Cervus elaphus)-vehicle collisions that occur each year. The crosswalk, a project by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the ADOT, uses infrared cameras to detect movement of large objects and trigger flashing warning signs at the crosswalk. Success will be measured by tracking vehicular speeds, reviewing video tapes and sensors, tracking the wildlife-vehicle collision rate, and assessing the effect of fencing on elk permeability using GPS telemetry.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is proposing to list the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. According to the proposal, receding sea ice, used as a platform to hunt for prey, is threatening the bear’s populations. Polar bear populations in the western Hudson Bay in Canada have shown a 22 percent decrease in numbers. While Alaskan populations have not shown a significant decline, studies have shown that bears in both places have lost weight. Over the next year, FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey will work to better understand the status and future of the species. The information compiled in the process will be used to determine whether the species will be listed in the Act. Polar bears are currently protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as well as international treaties involving countries in the animal’s range. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

For comments or suggestions, or to submit news briefs for the State of Wildlife section, contact Divya Abhat at divya@wildlife.org.

Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department

Credit: Norris Dodd/Arizona Game and Fish Department

A flashing sign at the nation's first-ever wildlife electric crosswalk alerts motorists of nearby elk. wildlife.org

International This section of State of Wildlife reports on news affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals from regions around the world outside of North America.

Africa DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO — Conservationists have warned that poachers could completely wipe out the hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius) population in the northern portion of Virunga National Park of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 400 of these massive animals were slaughtered for meat and ivory in one month alone. Although this park was home to more than 22,000 hippos in the 1980s, one of the densest populations of the Nile hippo on the African continent, recent estimates puts the number at about 900 individuals. Civil conflicts raging in and around the national park are cited as causes for uncontrolled poaching; militants in the area are also thought to have killed buffalo, elephants, and other animals, and have also attacked conservation rangers and their families. In December last year, Congolese rebel fighters were accused of killing two silverback gorillas in the southern sector of the Virunga National Park. In January, conservation group Wildlife Direct reported that the rebels had agreed to stop killing the rare primates. Source: World Wildlife Fund

Asia CHINA — The third EcoSummit will be held in May 2007 in Beijing. This global meeting brings natural and social scientists together with the policy-making community to improve understanding and management of ecological systems and environmental problems. The EcoSummit, previously held in Denmark and Canada, is attended by ecological organizations, ecologists, and practitioners on ecological sustainability issues around the world. It enables all delegates to participate through working groups, symposiums, planned oral presentations, and scientific field trips. The meeting will be followed by a seminar on writing and publishing in environmental and ecological sciences, co-taught by editors of The Wildlife Society and the U.S. Ecological Society. Source: EcoSummit 2007

INDIA — India’s capital city, Delhi, boasts old historic forts, temples, and for a few decades now, hordes of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Monkeys are viewed as sacred by the country’s Hindu population and are therefore fed and encouraged to remain in the city. This has made it harder for authorities to get rid of the animals. These monkeys now roam freely across the city and have proved to be a menace. Some government offices have now “employed” langur monkeys to scare away the macaques from the premises. Plans to transfer the monkeys to the forests of Madhya Pradesh have been put on hold. In February 2007, the Delhi High Court ordered authorities to consider relocating the monkeys to a reserve outside the city. Experts argue that even under the best conditions, displaced animals have a low survival rate, as urbanized monkeys may no longer be able to survive in the wild. Source: Wildlife Trust of India

Southeast Asia BORNEO — Now you see it, now you don’t. Of the 52 species discovered last year on the island of Borneo, the Kapus mud snake (Enhydris gyii) was one of the most amazing discoveries. This brown “chameleon” snake can turn white within minutes. Other discoveries, compiled in a World Wildlife Fund report, include 30 fish species, two tree frog species, 16 ginger species, three tree species, and one large-leafed plant species. Many of the new species were found in the Heart of Borneo, a 220,000 square kilometer mountainous region covered with equatorial rainforest in the center of the island. Borneo’s forests, however, are under constant threat of being cleared for rubber, oil palm, and pulp production. At a United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity meeting held last March in Curtiba, Brazil, the three Bornean governments —Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, declared their commitment to support an initiative to conserve and sustainably manage the Heart of Borneo. Source: World Wildlife Fund

CHINA — The baiji (Lipotes vexillifer), a rare, white dolphin, is feared to be extinct after an international expedition failed to find a single individual during the course of a six-week search of 2,200 miles of its habitat on the Yangtze River. The dolphin, referred to by the Chinese as the goddess of the Yangtze, is nearly blind, relying on sonar to find its food. The species is thought to have been threatened by overfishing, river pollution, and high ship traffic, which may have interfered with its sonar. Baijis are a subspecies of the humpback dolphin and are believed to have been in existence for 20 million years. Source: World Wildlife Fund 14

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

United Kingdom LONDON — In November 2006, the Metropolitan Police launched an initiative against illegal trade in endangered species in London, focusing on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) made from endangered species. Although most TCM is legal in London, some products made from species like tigers, rhinos, bears, Musk deer, and Saiga antelope continue to be sold illegally. Go to www.operationcharm.org for more information. Source: Wildlife Crime Unit – Metropolitan Police Service

From the Ground Up

By Pamela Thompson

BRIDGETTE FLANDERS-WANNER brings a biologist’s perspective to the conservation efforts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Huron Wetlands Management District in South Dakota Current Position Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota; President, South Dakota chapter and Secretary of the Biometrics Working Group of The Wildlife Society. Favorite Aspect of Job The work variety, mental challenges, and creative freedom. Last Book Read An assigned reading for the TWS Leadership Institute: Thinking Like a Manager Favorite Animal How can anyone possibly pick a favorite? They’re all so amazing. Quote to Live By “The trouble with resisting temptation is that you may not get another chance.” — Edwin Chapin Most important issue in wildlife conservation Short-term: The 2007 Farm Bill; Long-term: Invasive species and development. Greatest influence on my career My graduate advisor, Dr. Gary White, and retired USFWS biologist and mentor, Len McDaniel. How long a TWS member Since 2001

Credit: John Jave

Assisting in the rehabilitation of injured birds like this Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is just one of the tasks that Bridgette Flanders-Wanner juggles from day to day.

rom one day to the next, Bridgette Flanders-Wanner may be checking bald eagle nests, conducting greater prairie chicken lek counts, collecting data on waterfowl pairs, or talking with middle-schoolers about the value of bugs in the ecosystem. Understandably, Flanders-Wanner, a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Huron Wetlands Management District (WMD) in South Dakota, has a hard time describing an “ordinary” day. “It’s much better to walk through a typical year than a typical day, because there is so much variety,” she explains. From March until the first significant snowfall, Flanders-Wanner’s job engages her in a wide array of fieldwork and data collection. One of her responsibilities entails surveying various types of birds, particularly migratory species, and their habitat. The resulting data is used to establish baselines for population monitoring as well as to measure wildlife response to management treatments. In the fall, she develops baseline vegetation maps using GPS and GIS to compile

geospatial data that will support biological planning and management. In winter, she and other district staff go indoors, she says, “to write grants, plan the next field season, and most importantly, summarize and analyze data to help the management staff make decisions based on sound biological information.” Flanders-Wanner is the Huron WMD’s first and only staff biologist. “It’s been exciting,” she says, “in that pretty much everything I do is inventing something entirely new for this district.” Her unique position allows her great freedom and creativity in planning field projects and incorporating biological perspectives into land-use planning decisions. Although bird monitoring is central to Flanders-Wanner’s work, vegetation and habitat surveillance is critical as well. Grazing is often a key issue in decisions about what grasses should be managed and what should be left untouched in order to conserve the land. “In South Dakota, cattle are our conservation.” Alternative land uses in the region, such as farming, would pose a greater wildlife.org

threat to grassland habitat that is essential to many migrating bird species, FlandersWanner says. Originally from a small town in North Dakota, Flanders-Wanner grew up ranching and farming. Though her upbringing gave her an early connection to animals, she did not know much about their biology. That knowledge came when she took an undergraduate course in wildlife management at North Dakota State University, where a multitude of broad, basic techniques were taught. She went on to get a master’s degree in wildlife biology from Colorado State University, then returned to the Dakotas to work in two WMDs and a National Wildlife Refuge. During two summers she participated in the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP) on Valentine National Wildlife Refuge in Nebraska, which not only gave her practical knowledge and skills, but also funded her graduate research. “Afterwards, as a former SCEP student, I studied under a biologist as a trainee for a couple of years, which allowed me to get the experience I needed for my current position,” she says. Although Flanders-Wanner is still in the early stages of her career as a wildlife biologist, she often finds herself in a position to mentor young people interested in the field. Her crew of two biological technicians and two rotating Student Conservation Association interns provides ample opportunity to develop both teaching and leadership skills, and of course they also offer monitoring support. “At the end of the summer we’ve collected so much more data than I could ever

Flanders-Wanner shows children what biologists do during a bird banding event at the Huron Wetlands Management District. Credit: Mike Carroll/ The Huron Plainsman

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

dream of collecting if I were to work on my own.” The experience is also helpful for the interns, who sometimes get offers of contract employment at the end of the summer. Since 2001, Flanders-Wanner has been an active member of The Wildlife Society (TWS), where she now serves as president of the South Dakota Chapter and secretary of the Biometrics Working Group. She was also chosen last year to be one of 10 early career professionals to participate in the first class of TWS’s Leadership Institute, an opportunity that allowed her to meet other young biologists from all over the country at the Society’s 13th annual conference in Anchorage, Alaska. Participating in the Leadership Institute “added a whole new aspect” to attending the conference, she says, allowing her to get to know colleagues in wildlife management as well as members of TWS Council. There are so many aspects of her job that Flanders-Wanner loves, she finds it difficult to name just one. “Obviously there’s nothing more amazing than those days that we can get out early and do a shorebird or breeding bird survey—those are really great moments.” But what she really appreciates about the job is its changing, challenging nature. “One day I may be helping an injured raptor, and the next day I could be teaching sixth graders about invertebrates,” she says. “Freedom, creativity, challenge, and variability make this job really fulfilling for me.” Pamela Thompson was an intern at The Wildlife Society in 2006.

wildlife.org

The year is 2016 and you’re

planning a vacation to a national park. You’re looking forward to enjoying the outdoors, hiking in the backcountry, and admiring wildlife. But the scene that greets you at the park’s gate leaves you dismayed. The visitor center is closed and locked, leaving you without access to informational brochures and maps. There are no rangers to point out a pleasant hiking path, to give an educational lecture, or to update you on current conditions. Invasive plants have smothered out native ones everywhere the eye can see. An exploding population of white-tailed deer has eaten out the understory of the forests, eliminating sources of food and shelter for insects, small mammals, and birds. This is not the pleasing wilderness you were expecting; it’s chaos.

Graying Green Generation The

of the

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

By Katherine Unger

hile this may seem like an extreme vision of the future, it could become a reality as the wildlife profession loses one of its most valuable resources —its people, and, more specifically, its leaders —to retirement.

The so-called “graying of the green” workforce has caught the attention of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, universities, and federal and state agencies around the country. While some groups are preparing vigorously for the coming demographic shift, there is a pervasive worry that confounding factors—like a shrinking budget for natural resources, decreasing numbers of students in traditional wildlife management programs, and a pendulum swing in academia towards non-applied fields such as conservation biology and ecology—may undermine efforts to hold onto institutional memory and maintain a vibrant workforce.

Boom…Then Bust? That the “baby boomers,” numbering around 80 million and pulling in the highest average incomes of any previous generation, have tremendous influence over everything they touch is hardly a surprise. They’ve been shaping the economy, the political landscape, and the environment for more than half a century. Likewise, it’s no secret that their retirements will leave a gap in the field of wildlife management and conservation. “People had been talking for years about this expected exodus of baby boomers, but there weren’t any real numbers to go along with it,” says Steve McMullin, an assistant professor of Fisheries and Wildlife at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. In 2004, McMullin was charged by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies with the task of surveying state fish and wildlife agencies to see just how many workers in different specialties were planning to retire in the next five to 10 years. The study had more than 5,000 respondents from 39 state agencies. The results, if not shocking, were sobering. Of all the employees in the agency functions of fisheries, wildlife, law enforcement, and information and education, 47 percent said they planned to retire by 2015. Even more dramatic were the expected retirements for those individuals in leadership positions in their agencies. Of this group of higher-ups, normally defined as state agency directors, deputy directors, bureau chiefs, and regional supervisors, 77 percent expected to seek retirement by 2015. “For many of the state agencies this was kind of a slap in the face,” says McMullin.

This pattern is similar in the federal government: individuals occupying high “grades”—the loftiest ranks of government—are precisely those workers with the most years of experience, and are thus quickly approaching retirement. Marshall P. Jones, deputy director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), notes that the Service’s Directorate, consisting of the eight highest career positions in the Service, has lost two people to retirement just in the past year: David Allen, who was director of FWS’s Pacific Region, and former National Wildlife Refuge Chief Bill Hartwig. In years past, says Jones, the FWS would have had at least five or six worthy applicants for these prestigious positions. Now, he says, "we're lucky that we've had one good candidate." Why the dwindling numbers? Budget cuts have forced agencies like FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey to slow down hiring. But another, more subtle problem in developing natural resources leaders is that many current workers don't seem to be driven to fill the larger shoes of departing managers. McMullin’s survey of state workers revealed that few employees were interested in taking courses to improve their leadership skills, just over half desired to be promoted, and only a third said they were willing to move to a state headquarters for a job change. Various reasons have been cited for workers’ diminished ambition, from wishing to remain in the field, to placing greater emphasis on personal time, to a growing number of two-career couples, which can limit a family’s ability to move for one spouse’s promotion. This lack of interest in advancement shouldn’t be accepted without a fight, cautions Rick Lemon, director of the FWS’s National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. He believes workers often fail to seek out leadership training because they haven’t been encouraged to do so. Few individuals are motivated to take a course to improve their skills in negotiation or communications. It’s the job of supervisors to push their employees to strengthen these areas, says Lemon. “Sometimes you have to twist their arm to make the hard moves.” Indeed, two analyses of FWS succession planning identified strong mentoring as a key element of leadership development. “Managers have to be involved in career development," says FWS deputy director Jones. "They should be active, engaged, hands-on."

wildlife.org

The

Graying of the Green Generation In With the Young For mentoring and job training to have any effect on “green” leadership, however, agencies must already have a sufficient wildlife workforce in place from which leaders can be chosen to move up in the ranks. Filling that pool requires an outpouring of talented and inquisitive graduates of wildlife management programs. Unfortunately, these numbers are not what they used to be. In a study of student enrollments in natural resources programs, Terry Sharik and Kathy Earley of Utah State University found that 2003 numbers are roughly equal to 1980 enrollments, despite overall student numbers rising during that time period. Steve McMullin, who teaches in a program with a traditional focus, says that even those students who do take traditional wildlife biology courses aren’t necessarily going to consider working for federal or state wildlife agencies when they graduate. More and more, he says, students are interested in working for wildlife rehabilitation centers, zoos, and nonprofits. “It’s maybe one or two out of 10 students who express interest in management agencies as a career,” he says. Some schools are realigning themselves to adapt to these changing interests, replacing traditional programs with more interdisciplinary majors, such as conservation biology and environmental studies. One school that has undergone such a shift is Kansas State University (KSU). Samantha Wisely, a professor in the biology program and faculty adviser to KSU’s student chapter of The Wildlife Society (TWS), joined the faculty in 2003. “Prior to my arrival there was a precipitous decline in wildlife and fisheries majors,” she says. To combat this trend, KSU added a conservation biology option to their biology division to supplement the wildlife and fisheries programs already in place. Previously, completing the wildlife and fisheries major meant that students fulfilled almost all of the requirements to become a certified wildlife biologist by TWS. The certification process requires a wellrounded tablet of coursework and expertise in wildlife management, biology, and ecology, as well as physical sciences, mathematics, and communications. Now, rather than fulfill all of these requirements, KSU’s wildlife, fisheries, and conservation core requires more broadly focused courses like population biology and physiology. The traditional “-ologies,” like mammalogy and ornithology, have been dropped from many undergraduate programs, partly to hold onto 20

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

students who have been drawn to the major by an interest in conservation rather than a desire to manage game species of wildlife. “It’s a name game,” says Gary San Julian, a professor at Pennsylvania State University. “Do we get more students if we say it’s a conservation biology program or do we get more as wildlife management or wildlife science?” Another part of the problem is financial: Money for anything oriented towards wildlife management is hard to come by. The costs of the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and Homeland Security have soaked up government funds, frequently leaving natural resources agencies strapped for cash. After hiring is frozen, cuts to training and travel budgets often follow closely behind. Also, the “-ologies" don't support as many jobs as they used to, says San Julian. Positions for species-specific managers have been cut significantly, he says. "One of the unfortunate consequences of the emphasis on ecosystem management is the species baby has been thrown out a little bit with the bathwater." This dearth of funding has trickled down to academia. What money remains tends to be funneled towards academic programs dealing with endangered species and conservation, as opposed to programs that teach technical skills required in management of game species. That doesn’t leave much funding to support students’ access to summer field courses and internships. Without those practical, hands-on experiences, San Julian says, students may be less inclined to pursue a major, or a career, in wildlife science. “Population dynamics and ecology and things like that—that’s ok,” he says. “But if you ask the students, they like the idea of being able to get out there and see what tracks look like or actually [learn] how you drive a boat.” These skills are not only enjoyable for students to learn, but can also bolster students’ resumes when it comes to applying for management jobs.

Transitioning Into the Future Not everyone sees this shift towards interdisciplinary fields and conservationoriented studies as a bad thing. David Blockstein of the National Council for Science and the Environment notes that “the skill set of natural resources professionals is very different from what I learned when I was in [an undergraduate program] 30 years ago.” Although some fear that broad programs won’t adequately prepare students for the reality of fieldwork, Blockstein suggests that the face of the profession is

changing to emphasize the skills that are being taught, like communication and negotiation. “Clearly there will continue to be the need for those kinds of people who have the kind of training that I had myself,” he says. But today, he believes, “managing wildlife is as much about managing people as just knowing your population biology.” Sometimes the new approaches to wildlife science are pursued in the lab as opposed to the field. As Western medicine focuses more and more on genetic and molecular techniques to solve problems, wildlife science has followed suit, using genetics, molecular biology, and other focused strategies to study wildlife. George Amato, director of conservation genetics at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), notes that reductionism, or the tendency to approach scientific issues on a small scale, is a useful approach but one that is fraught with philosophical potholes. Although new technologies allow scientists access to an incredible volume of information, he points out that “one of the challenges will be to not simply lose sight of the endangered forest, as we genetically characterize every single tree.” While new generations of wildlife students use genetic markers to track and distinguish populations, it remains necessary to have students with expertise in natural history and management practices, students who are then able to do something tangible to manage the wildlife that has been studied. “There really is a significant role for applying emerging technologies for conservation,” Amato says. But the applications need to be “in the context of a program that’s designed to have a measurable impact.” Additionally, there must be incentives for students to choose career paths in traditional wildlife work. One consideration is certainly the likelihood and ease of getting a job. Federal and state agencies, while offering job security and the promise of promotions throughout one’s career, also come with a complicated bureaucracy and a lack of personal contact in applying for positions. Graduate student Betty Wieck of the University of Nebraska at Kearney says she applied to several agency jobs. For each she received a letter saying either “not enough experience” or “not enough education.” This in spite of the fact that she had worked at a state fish hatchery one summer, at a zoo another, and helped a graduate student with research during a third break. Instead of launching herself into the working world, she continued on at the University of

Credit: Carl Zitsman/USFWS

Above, FWS’s National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, WV. Below, Wildlife professionals in leadership training at NCTC.

Credit: Brian Jonkers/USFWS

Nebraska to get a master’s degree, in the hopes of being a university lecturer. Much of the onus is on the agencies themselves to become better at outreach to students. One tactic is to get representatives from the agency right into the universities. Utah has employed that strategy, placing a researcher from the Utah Department of Natural Resources into the classrooms of Utah State University. “That person teaches classes and also does recruitment for the agency,” says Sally Guynn of the Management Assistance Team, which provides educational programs for state agencies and others in leadership and communications training. The federal government, too, places its employees in universities, utilizing Cooperative Research Units. These individuals can not only serve as a liaison between the federal government wildlife.org

The

Graying of the Green Generation valued,” Guynn notes. Unlike baby boomers, she says, who might have placed more emphasis on finding a stable career path, younger generations are less afraid to jump from job to job, and will therefore demand to be treated fairly if they are to stay in a position. And just because those boomers are reaching 55 or 60 doesn’t mean they need to be kicked out of their offices. Guynn notes that “we need to not be so ‘Stepford’ in the way we look at retirement.” Offering flexible work schedules, part-time arrangements, or consultant positions are possible compromises that could help maintain institutional memory even as retirees leave their full-time positions.

Credit: Ryan Hagerty/USFWS

Wildlife professionals learn to incorporate new technologies into their work.

and students in wildlife or science-oriented programs, they can also help interested students in other programs realize that careers are open to them in wildlife professions. And once they get there, says Guynn, they should be treated better. Many of the members of the baby boom generation in the wildlife profession are so-called lifers. In a survey of state agencies conducted by Penn State’s San Julian, the average time in service from retiring employees was 27 years. Guynn says the tendency of natural resources professionals to stay in the field for the long haul has led to a culture lacking in positive feedback. “Passion is a two-edged sword,” says Guynn. “We kind of have this expectation that people don’t need to be thanked.” New hires, therefore, “are expected to work their butts off—everybody does.” Creating a more welcoming workplace where individual efforts are recognized and rewarded, says Guynn, might lure more young people into the profession, and keep them there. “A lot of Generation X-ers won’t stay if they’re jerked around or if they’re not

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

The NCTC has also seriously considered the issue of retiring boomers. They’ve tried to address the gaps they see in the rising workforce by encouraging FWS managers to send their employees to train in leadership and communications courses. A program the NCTC has developed, called Stepping Up to Leadership, has been successful at boosting workers into higher level positions. The training exposes participants to leaders in various disciplines, from the FWS to the business world, with the goal of improving natural resources professionals’ ability to lead. Rick Lemon notes that 60 percent of individuals who have participated in this program have moved into new positions. With luck and planning, this wave of turnover in the wildlife profession will not leave a flattened environment in its wake. The fact that so many boomers are departing needn’t be seen as “just negative,” says Guynn. “It’s also a positive.” With many older workers leaving, it puts the agencies in a position of being able to start afresh, building new policies, emphasizing new skills and going forward with innovative management plans, Guynn notes. “We may choose to do a lot of things differently.” Katherine Unger is a science writer for The Wildlife Society. For more information on retirements in the wildlife profession, including full survey results and NCTC’s course offerings, see article online at www.wildlifejournals.org.

wildlife.org

Bordering on Disaster NEW HOMELAND SECURITY LEGISLATION JEOPARDIZES WILDLIFE

By Laura Bies

Wildlife professionals across North America must navigate through challenges every day, working around the impediments of shrinking budgets, aging equipment, and shortages of staff. However, wildlife professionals working on the United States-Mexico border are faced with a set of new problems different from those of many of their colleagues. Their problems? Walls. Miles and miles of walls. In December 2005, the House of Representatives passed a border enforcement bill, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437). The following May, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611). Both proposals call for varying amounts of wall, fence, and vehicle barrier construction along the border between the United States and Mexico. In September 2006, it became clear that the chances of passing comprehensive immigration reform in the dwindling days of the 109th Congress were slim, so instead of delaying action, Congress in-

Specially designed fences such as this one in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona prevent off-road vehicle traffic but do not impede wildlife. 24

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

cluded the fencing provisions of the House bill in another, shorter piece of immigration legislation, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (H.R. 6061). The Secure Fence Act, which passed both the House and Senate in October 2006, was signed into law by President Bush, who noted, â&#x20AC;&#x153;We have a responsibility to enforce our laws. We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious [sic].â&#x20AC;? Absent in the legislation, however, was a provision for financing the construction, although it does require that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have funds in place by the end of 2008. With these laws in place, wildlife professionals working along the U.S.-Mexico border must now do their work in the midst of intense debates not only about the potential impact of physical barriers on the welfare of wildlife populations, but also about immigration policy and human rights, and about the limits of power invoked to protect homeland security.

Credit: Mary Kralovec

Homeland Security Leads the Way In 2005, President Bush also signed the REAL ID Act into law. Section 102 of the Act contains a landmark provision giving the Secretary of Homeland Security, a position currently held by Michael Chertoff, the power to waive any and all federal laws to expedite construction of fences and barriers along the border and to remove any obstructions to the detection of illegal immigration. According to the Act, “notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.” Such power to waive all federal laws is extraordinary. “I’m struck by the REAL ID waiver,” says Stephen Mumme, professor of political science at Colorado State University and an expert on environmental policy in border regions. “It’s absolutely, categorically, definitively unprecedented. This is the first time in American history we’ve put so much power over domestic law into the hands of a single administrator.” The lack of public concern regarding an unprecedented waiver of federal law is surprising, notes Mumme. “People need to be appalled.” The provision allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt from any federal law fence construction or other activities in the vicinity of the Mexican and Canadian borders. “The waiver authority is quite sweeping,” says Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a government watchdog group. Bass notes that implementing the law could sideline everything from environmental impact statements to prevailing wage requirements to civil rights protections. “It is surprising that Congress would give away its legislative powers to someone in the Executive branch,” says Bass. The Act does require that the DHS publish its decision to waive federal law in the Federal Register, although notification is not required until after the decision to waive a law is final.

Grande to the Gulf of Mexico. Nearly half of the U.S. land along this border is federally owned and includes national wildlife refuges, national parks, and national forests. This federal land, as well as the private land along the border, contains many unique ecosystems that are home to a diverse array of spectacular wildlife. According to Jenny Neely, southwestern representative for Defenders of Wildlife, there are dozens of endangered species living along the border, including jaguar, ocelot, and lesser long-nosed bats. Elizabeth Slown, acting assistant regional director of External Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), says that although the actual number of endangered species living along the United States-Mexico border is difficult to conclusively verify, the estimates developed by Defenders of Wildlife sound reasonable to her. The Secure Fence Act requires construction of double steel walls along approximately 700 miles of the United States-Mexico border, to be built in five segments in regions that are known for significant levels of illegal border crossings. In all, these walls—complete with floodlights, surveillance cameras, and motion detectors—would cover nearly a third of the border with Mexico, fencing almost all of the Arizona border and large portions of California and Texas. About 100 miles of the border are already fenced, mostly with welded panels of corrugated

Which Walls Where? The United States-Mexico border stretches nearly 2,000 miles, running from San Diego, California, eastward across the northern end of the Baja Peninsula, across the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, to El Paso. From there, it follows the Rio

Fences designed to block human movement may also hinder ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) border crossings.

Credit: Tom Smylie/USFWS

wildlife.org

LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED BORDER FENCES ALONG UNITED STATES AND MEXICO’S PROTECTED AREAS

Credit: J. Strittholt/Conservation Biology Institute

DATA SOURCES: U.S. protected areas— Conservation Biology Institute Mexico protected areas— World Database of Protected Areas Proposed border fences— courtesy of The Nature Conservancy

steel once used in the Army’s portable landing strips in Vietnam. Much of this fencing is near urban areas, such as San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and Nogales, Arizona. In other areas, however, the border is delineated with a simple six-strand barbed wire fence. Along some stretches, vehicle barriers, made up of vertical posts connected by one continuous horizontal rail, stop vehicle traffic but allow humans and animals to pass through. Often placed on federal lands, these structures are more wildlife-friendly and have even earned kudos from natural resource managers for protecting habitat from damage caused by illegal off-road vehicle traffic. One rail and wire barrier is currently under construction at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge where, according to Refuge Manager Mitch Ellis, the Fish and Wildlife Service supports the construction because the design limits habitat

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

damage from vehicles without impeding wildlife passage. John Hervert, a wildlife biologist with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, notes that rail and wire barriers have helped to protect other areas, such as pronghorn habitat in southwest Arizona. These vehicle barriers do stop cars; however they do little to prevent the passage of people on foot. The porousness of these barriers makes them less effective than solid walls at controlling illegal human traffic and, therefore, less popular with Homeland Security and Congress. Although vehicle barriers are used in some border locations, solid walls and fences seem to be preferred in high traffic areas. Immigration legislation enacted over the past few decades has encouraged rapid construction of these solid structures, which prevent border crossing of wildlife as well as humans.

Potential Impacts of Fences on Wildlife More walls and fences could have serious effects on wildlife populations along the border, with the severity of the impact depending on the species, the location, and the health of the population. The possibility of negative environmental impacts worries wildlife professionals like Steve Spangle, field supervisor for the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office of FWS, who, he says, has “great concerns about the total impediment of wildlife across the border.” For many species, a solid wall such as the 15-foot steel walls proposed by Congress could bar movement between habitats in the United States and in Mexico. Such an impediment would likely have population-level impacts. According to Phil Rosen, a research scientist with the University of Arizona, walls can create genetic barriers, preventing interbreeding between U.S. and Mexican populations in species such as the desert tortoise. Debbie Sebesta, district biologist for the Nogales District of the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, agrees, adding that the construction of a solid wall runs the risk of limiting movement of larger species such as jaguars. Although several male jaguars have been seen in the area recently, jaguars were assumed to be extinct in Arizona until 1996 and there is still no known breeding population in the state. And construction of the mandated wall “closes the door on any potential for jaguars inhabiting our region north of the border,” says Matt Skroch, executive director of the Sky Island Alliance. Pronghorn antelope that inhabit eastern Arizona and western New Mexico are another population that might fare poorly with fenced ranges. At present, there are about 100 of these speedy creatures in the southwestern United States and approximately twice that in Mexico, all of which have been able to move freely across the border. Unable to jump fences taller than six feet, their movement would be severely limited. Splitting this fragile population could create genetic “bottlenecks” and limit diversity in the years to come. Another threat to the pronghorn, in addition to the wall itself, is the phenomenon known as “squeezing the balloon,” says Spangle. If additional walls are installed in other areas of Arizona, such as along the Goldwater Range, illegal vehicle and foot traffic will be pushed further out into the desert, likely increasing pressure on the already tenuous pronghorn populations.

On the other hand, walls in some places may have positive impacts. Hervert of Arizona Game and Fish Department says, “There’s tremendous habitat damage due to the open border.” He argues that while a wall will certainly impact border wildlife, it may be the only way to protect that wildlife and habitat from the overwhelming effects of illegal border crossings. Gerry Perry, the southeast regional supervisor for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, adds, “There’s disturbance in wildlife habitats 24/7. Whatever effect we might have from a fence would pale in comparison to the effects of thousands of people moving through [the area]. Even if the border is sealed so that terrestrial wildlife has difficulty moving across the border, it may be for the better.” There is some hope that if solid walls are constructed, design modifications can allow at least some small species to pass through or under the walls. Of course, little can be done to allow passage of larger animals such as jaguars without also allowing human passage. Whatever concerns wildlife managers may have, however, the consequences of walls on border wildlife are not well studied or well understood. Mary Kralovec, chief of resources at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona, notes that the park staff does not have much data about the possible effect of a wall on the park’s wildlife, although there is already a vehicle barrier in place. Kralovec speculates that the monument’s coyotes, bobcats, pronghorn, and reptiles could be affected by a barrier that precludes wildlife movement across the border, but no conclusions can be drawn without support from properly collected data. Glenn Frederick, district biologist for Sierra Vista District of the Coronado National Forest says that while a wall could affect the migration of amphibians across the border, that potential has “not been evaluated in a lot of detail.”

Some fences may be constructed in such a way as to allow species like the desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys deserti) and the sidewinder rattlesnake (Crotalus cerastes) to slip under them.

Credit: NPS photo

wildlife.org

Some scientists fear that a fence may negatively affect populations of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) in the Southwest United States.

Wildlife managers are, however, starting to collect data on populations, habitat preferences, and other factors that can be used to assess the potential impact of barriers on the health of wildlife populations. In addition, federal agencies are beginning to work together to improve their relationship with Border Patrol. For example, Dale Bosworth, chief of the Forest Service, and David Aguilar, chief of Border Patrol, recently met to develop a strategy to work collaboratively in securing the border while at the same time minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources. “There’s a fundamental disconnect between homeland security and the rest of the policies—social and environmental—that occur in border areas, and in the nation at large,” says Colorado State’s Mumme. “We need to connect the dots between security and the environment. They’re going to impact each other.” Regardless of combined efforts, extensive construction of impenetrable walls along the United States-Mexico border risks irreparably harming some of the fragile wildlife populations that live in the unique environments along the border, both through habitat damage from wall construction and the prevention of migration and genetic flow. The task of balancing pros and cons remains: Is the construction of walls that may effectively reduce illegal border crossings by immigrants worth the cost of curtailing the 28

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Credit: Curtis Carley/USFWS

movement of wildlife across natural landscapes? Is the strength the nation may gain in securing its borders with walls worth the potential cost of building without regard to federal regulations that were set in place to protect wildlife and its habitat? “Homeland security and illegal immigration are certainly legitimate concerns, but then so is the survival of the many native wildlife species that inhabit our border lands,” says Michael Hutchins, executive director of The Wildlife Society. “Wildlife does not recognize the artificial geographical boundaries that we impose on the landscape, and its future depends on unencumbered movement from one country to the next. Erecting a barrier between Mexico and the United States may be the simplest and most expedient solution to the illegal immigration problem, but is it the best way to ensure our nation’s security or preserve its wildlife heritage over the long-term?” Laura Bies is associate director of Government Affairs for The Wildlife Society.

See this article online at www.wildlifejournals.org for links to laws and policies that relate to the U.S.-Mexico border fence construction.

Wildlife in the Limelight AVIAN INFLUENZA SPURS NEW INTEREST IN ANIMAL BIOLOGY

Millions of dead chickens can’t be wrong. Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza is one of the deadliest flu viruses to ever come along. As this issue goes to press, more than 200 million domestic chickens have died from the infection or been put to death for fear of spreading the disease. And while it’s hard for many people to muster sympathy for animals that regularly end up on our dinner plates, H5N1 has had other victims as well. Of the 277 or so humans the virus has infected, 167 have died—a 60 percent fatality rate. But there is a third category of victims: wildlife. In spring 2005, Chinese officials reported a die-off of more than 6,000 wild waterfowl and migratory birds had occurred at Qinghai Lake in Central China. According to a report in the journal Nature, the dead included nearly 1,500

bar-headed geese (Anser indicus), migratory marathoners that summer in Central Asia, cross the Himalayas, and winter in India. In late 2005, waves of avian death struck Mongolia, Russia, and Kazakhstan, all thought to be caused by highly pathogenic H5N1 avian flu. By early 2006, isolated and smaller die-offs were seen as far west as Germany.

By Katherine Unger

In the early stages of the outbreak, some disease trackers saw wild birds as a potential threat, believing that they could act as effective carriers of the virus and transport it around the world. “An unfortunate part of the international response to H5N1 is that wild birds were immediately blamed without any good scientific proof,” says Robert Cook, vice president for wildlife health services at the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). The general consensus among wildlife biologists is that

Alaskan birds, such as this golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nestling, have been a target of avian flu testing in the United States. Credit: Josh Spice

wildlife.org

this type of flu is primarily a disease of poultry— domesticated fowl. Yet a limited understanding of the virus’s epidemiology leaves wild birds’ role in spreading the disease an open question.

is inevitable, while others believe that routes of disease transmission such as illegal food and pet trade are far more likely than migrating birds to bring the virus to new lands and populations.

Suddenly, wildlife is in the limelight. The potential agricultural, public health, and economic impacts of a flu pandemic would be tremendous. Zoonotic diseases—those which are passed between humans and animals— comprise more than 60 percent of all known infectious diseases, among them HIV/AIDS, rabies, and mad cow disease. The seriousness of the avian flu threat has convinced many people that the health of wildlife, domestic animals, and humans are more intricately intertwined than they may seem. Understanding the animal side of the equation—which species carry the disease, which are susceptible, where they move, and with what other species they share their habitat— could be vital to tracking the spread of avian flu, or the next zoonotic threat.

Where Do They Go?

Waves of the Flu Pandemic outbreaks of influenza virus have struck humans three times since the beginning of the 20th century, in 1918-19 (the “Spanish flu”), 1957-58 (the “Asian flu”), and 1968-69 (the “Hong Kong flu”). Likewise, avian influenzas circulate constantly in wild bird populations. Most are like the flu viruses that strike humans during fall and winter months; they infect only certain groups and cause serious illness only in very young or elderly individuals, or in those with compromised immune systems. Every so often, though, a more virulent strain will evolve. Highly pathogenic H5N1 is one of these virulent and potentially dangerous strains. Some species succumb to infection rapidly. Chickens, for example, can die from H5N1 within 24 hours. The immunity of wild birds, though, remains largely a question mark. Though bar-headed geese died in China by the thousands, these birds are unlikely candidates for spreading the virus, as they likely perished too quickly to trigger a widespread infection. To be a good transmitter, the species would need to be capable of passing on the virus without immediately succumbing to it. The birds would fly around—perhaps migrating hundreds or thousands of miles—before either recovering or dying from the virus. Carriers like these could facilitate the disease’s rapid movement around the globe. Some scientists fear this movement

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

While scientists have a rough idea of bird migration routes, in many cases the specifics remain unknown, particularly in regions outside North America and Europe. Now, with the added incentive of tracking potential disease carriers, scientists are cooperating on an international scale to carefully map these routes. A program called the Global Avian Influenza Network for Surveillance (GAINS), sponsored by WCS, supports researchers’ efforts to identify and test local birds. The resulting information will be pooled in a public database, allowing an ornithologist in Madagascar, for instance, to know whether the bird species he spotted in the field might have spent the spring in Mongolia. As research progresses, however, highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 has quickly traveled around the world. In 1996, the virus was isolated from farmed poultry in China. The next year outbreaks occurred in both birds and humans in Hong Kong. As of this writing, highly pathogenic H5N1 hasn’t been found in North America. But the potential for the virus to spread from one continent to another does exist. A study in the November 2006 issue of the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases indicates that migratory waterfowl, especially mallard ducks, carried highly pathogenic H5N1 avian virus from Central Asia to Eastern Europe. Still, David Stallknecht, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, believes the possibility of a migratory bird from China carrying H5N1 over to Alaska is “a long shot.” But that doesn’t mean the North American continent is taking any chances. The President’s Pandemic Flu Plan provides guidelines for preventing, containing, and responding to a potential pandemic flu outbreak in the United States. Nearly $4 billion was allocated in 2006 towards this effort, and another $2.65 billion has been requested in addition to the $3.3 billion already allocated for 2007. The funding is shouldered by several agencies, including the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security. While most of this money is directed towards protecting human health, a substantial portion was allotted to study wild birds as “early warning” sentinels of the virus’s entry into the United States.

Surveillance programs are active in every state, but intensive testing has been focused primarily on Alaska, where many migratory birds stop over on their way over from Asia. If wild birds could survive the trip from East Asia carrying the flu virus, they would likely arrive in Alaska first. Therefore the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been budgeted $4 million to sample and test for avian flu in the country’s largest state. Deborah Rocque, who was appointed FWS’s avian flu coordinator in spring 2006, directs the testing efforts. Before Rocque started in this position, FWS partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game to identify species that should be monitored. Selections were based on whether species migrated through Asia, their population size in Alaska, and if they traveled through ecological “hot spots”—locations where many species come together to rest, feed, or nest. Twenty-six species were chosen, and sampling protocols were put in place. “From a research perspective it’s a wonderful opportunity to collect information,” says Rocque. So far scientists have collected more than 18,000 cloacal samples from Alaska alone, in some instances also taking feather samples, measuring

stable isotopes to determine what the birds have been eating, and fitting the captured birds with radio transmitters. Samples from the Department of the Interior are analyzed at the National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. Genetic screens look for avian flu viruses with an H5 or H7 protein, which are then further analyzed to determine their pathogenicity. Hon Ip is director of the USGS’s Diagnostic Virology Laboratory at the National Wildlife Health Center. “Right now it seems to be in a lull,” Ip said in September, though he notes that the virus traditionally gains strength with cooler weather, as many human flu viruses do. “We tend to be inside more, increasing the odds of transmission,” he says. “Also the virus itself likes to have cooler weather.” And for virus transmission, says Ip, “cool and damp is ideal.” There is some debate over this focused approach to H5N1 surveillance. Certain researchers feel that science could benefit if more energy went into looking at avian flus generally. “Doing a program just to look for H5N1, you’re not quite accomplishing as much as you could,” says Stallknecht. Instead, he says, a broad spectrum surveillance effort aimed at detecting all avian influenzas would teach us much more about the

USGS’s Sean Nashold uses molecular methods to test wild bird samples for highly pathogenic H5N1 avian flu at the National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin.

Credit: USGS

wildlife.org

highlighted in 1999, when a pathologist at the Bronx Zoo in New York discovered West Nile virus in crows. Now, with avian influenza on the horizon, zoos are organizing on a national level to confront this potential threat to their collections. Dominic Travis, an epidemiologist at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, has helped direct the partnerships between more than 200 Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accredited zoos and relevant institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the USDA. “The idea is to be the canary in the coal mine,” says Travis. Exotic birds and native birds often share exhibit space, making zoos a potential hotspot for disease transfer between wild and captive wildlife populations. On top of simply acting as an early warning system, Travis says, “we’re trying to study the overall ecology and what’s happening over time” to the animals in the zoo’s care, as well as those with whom they interact.

Credit: USFWS/Donna Dewhurst

A USGS biologist bands and swabs a tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus) in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, hoping to gather information from individual animals tested for avian flu.

ecology of birds and about patterns of flu transmission. However, Tom DeLiberto, national wildlife disease coordinator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services, explains that part of the national pandemic plan does provide for an analysis of samples that test negative for H5N1 avian flu. Furthermore, he says these samples can be analyzed for other varieties of avian flu as well as other zoonotic diseases, so that scientists can understand the ecology of these diseases in different communities.

Zoos on the Lookout Along with researchers at federal and state agencies, accredited zoos have also taken a leading role in the business of disease monitoring. Though zoos have long been informally involved with studying infectious diseases, including tuberculosis and salmonella, their role was 32

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Many zoos have animal populations in their collections that align with the CDC’s five criteria for a good sentinel for public health purposes: a susceptible population, a stationary population, the ability to do serial testing, the expertise to do the testing accurately, and a location to make testing relevant to other populations. Zoos have birds and other animals that are clearly susceptible (tigers and civets in Asian zoos have died from being fed H5N1-infected chickens), animals that don’t stray from their enclosures and can thus be readily accessed for testing on any given day, scientists and veterinarians with knowledge of infectious diseases, and sites that are often located in or near highly populated urban areas. In addition, zoos have together developed a policy to complement the national pandemic plan that aims to minimize the risk of infection to both zoo employees and visitors. The protocol spells out how zoos should communicate with public health organizations and the USDA, how staff would prepare the zoo should an outbreak be identified there, and how animals would be protected if an outbreak outside the premises was reported.

Protection in the Field Situations where humans and animals find themselves in close contact pose the greatest risk for avian flu to become a human disease. The hardest hit human populations have been in certain Asian countries where people sometimes live in close proximity to poultry, and where wild birds, domestic birds, and humans intermingle in live

markets. No cases of human disease have been traced to contact with wild birds, and so far, research suggests that it is physiologically difficult for humans to contract the virus. Still, wildlife professionals in the field are not immune to the risk of infection. Infected birds secrete the virus in their saliva, mucous, and feces. The virus can be passed to humans by inhalation or direct contact with mucous membranes and can survive in water for several hours. So far, nearly all cases of human infection and deaths from H5N1 avian influenza have been contracted through direct contact with infected domestic birds, though a few cases are suspected to have emerged from human-to-human transmission. But humans have contracted other, less virulent forms of avian flu from wild birds. A recent study suggests that type A avian influenzas—like highly pathogenic H5N1—can be transmitted directly from wild birds to humans. Researchers led by James Gill, a disease specialist at the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, took blood samples from 39 duck hunters and 68 Iowa Department of Natural Resources employees, most who had hunted ducks or had regularly captured and banded wild ducks and geese on the job. As a control, they also sampled blood from 350 individuals who had never had contact with wild birds. None of the control individuals had any evidence of avian flu infection. But of those individuals who had come in contact with wild waterfowl, three were found to have antibodies against avian influenza in their blood. The virus that they had been exposed to, however, was not the deadly H5N1. Instead all three reacted to the milder H11N9 virus, the researchers reported in the August 2006 Emerging Infectious Diseases. It’s not clear whether these individuals even knew that they were exposed. “We don’t have any idea if there was a big, bad infection or the sniffles, a runny nose—maybe it was even subclinical,” says Gill. He says that the risk to professionals handling wild birds comes when humans have contact with bird feces. “When you capture ducks, they get scared and will eliminate their waste all over you,” he says. If that happens to someone not wearing gloves, that could be a perfect route of transmission for the avian flu virus. “It kind of made sense to me— why wouldn’t they get infected?” says Gill. And if these hunters and researchers could contract a low pathogenic avian flu, Gill reasons, it might be just as easy for them to become infected with a more deadly viral strain, such as H5N1.

Fortunately, avoiding infection requires only simple precautions: • Wear gloves while handling live or dead birds. • Eating, drinking, or smoking should be avoided while working with birds. • Dead birds should be kept cool, clean, and dry. • Birds that are dead or appear sick should be avoided or treated with caution. • Wash hands, tools, and surfaces thoroughly with soap and water after they have contacted wildlife. • Any animal meat intended for human consumption requires thorough cooking; meat should reach 155 to 165 degrees Fahrenheit before being eaten. Further protection for wildlife workers may be near, as an early bird flu vaccine is currently being tested. Such measures could be effective in protecting wildlife professionals whose work requires close contact with wild birds. At this point it’s difficult to tell which direction the spread of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza is going. It could swell into a pandemic, encircling the globe rapidly through the longrange movements of migratory birds, illegal wildlife traffic, or infected human travelers. Or the virus might recede back into its natural reservoirs—wild birds populations—and eventually die out. In the 1970s, a single human death launched a widespread panic about the possibility of a swine flu pandemic that never materialized. Regardless of the future, the threat of avian flu could have a silver lining. Like other zoonotic diseases before—including West Nile Virus, monkeypox, swine flu and others—the current threat has prompted new research into wildlife management and health, benefiting science, public health, and conservation. “The biggest positive change is a growing sense that the welfare of wildlife, domestic animals, and people is inextricably linked,” says WCS’s Robert Cook. “If we fail to understand the environment and protect where animals live and people live then we will continue to be surprised.” Katherine Unger is a science writer at The Wildlife Society.

See this article online at www.wildlifejournals.org for links to the FWS’s sampling guidelines for avian flu, recent literature on the disease, and a real-time migratory bird satellite tracker.

wildlife.org

How Close Is Too Close? WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS GRAPPLE WITH HABITUATING WILDLIFE

By Val Geist

Credit: Bente Ryberg

Val Geist is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary.

The return of wildlife to this continent is surely the greatest environmental success story of the past century. While 19th century pioneers decimated wildlife with hunting and rampant habitat destruction, the vibrant conservation movement of the 20th century brought about the restoration of many animal populations. This development preserved the continent’s biodiversity and inspired a deepening affection for wildlife among the public, leading to a new vision of conservation. The innovative North American Model of Wildlife Conservation became the world’s only large-scale system of sustainable development of a renewable natural resource. This model is so robust that discussions still abound about its potential for global application and a basis for international wildlife treaties. The 21st Century brings new challenges. We now must learn how to live with the returning wildlife, because the rebound of these species has not been without problems. Habituation of wildlife—animals’ decreased responsiveness to humans due to repeated contact—has ushered in a host of new wildlife management challenges. For example, white-tailed deer are invading cities and suburbs, becoming both a danger and a nuisance. Their overabundance is impeding forest regeneration, in turn impacting the habitats of other creatures. Hordes of urban Canada geese are despoiling lawns in public parks, and urban coyotes are killing pets and attacking children. The reintroduction and spread of wolves has also brought some painful surprises and rousing protests from ranchers, outfitters, hunters, and administrators of wildlife and wild lands who bear the escalating costs of the growing population of these predators. Any opposition to the presence of wildlife near human populations, no matter what the origin, makes efforts to conserve it more difficult. Wildlife cannot thrive without public affection. At the same time, purposeful habituation of wildlife is a practical necessity for wildlife management. One must be close to animals to study their behavior, hear their calls, and sometimes tell one

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

individual from another. In order for wildlife professionals to do this, the animals must tolerate human presence. Habituation is not a black or white issue; wildlife managers often must strike a tenuous balance between human safety, the requirements of scientific study, and the preservation of the animals themselves.

An American Conundrum Wildlife that seeks human proximity—those that habituate or become tame or assertive —are common in the North American landscape. Indigenous species that survived late Pleistocene extinction are products of two million years of severe predation by a multitude of large, specialized predators. This was not the case in Eurasia where, it seems, Pleistocene herbivore populations were controlled by limited food resources rather than predation. The lack of continued exposure to predation may be part of the reason that no roe, red, or fallow deer are seen invading European suburbs and cities, as do North America’s deer, elk, pronghorns, mountain sheep, and peccaries. Similarly, brown bears and wolves do not descend upon towns in Europe, as black bears and coyotes do across America. No European capercaillie or black cock becomes tame like North American wild turkeys or blue grouse, and while raccoon dogs may be numerous in Asia, they are not seen thriving in cities, as do the North American raccoons. However, not every animal that tolerates humans is habituated. Some have progressed further down the line to become tame, losing the savage edge they were born with. Whereas habituated animals may simply ignore a human being in their presence, a tame individual has accepted the human as a normal social partner—that is, it treats humans as it would a member of its own species. Some scientific studies require animals to be habituated, so that they behave normally when researchers approach and observe them in their natural environment. Other types of study, however, depend on having tame animals, so researchers can handle them or observe them at extremely close range.

Although many scientists, myself included, have not formally studied the phenomenon of habituation, countless among us learn to understand its complexity in the course of the scientific study of animals. For example, researchers and students alike have read studies on how to make wildlife more tractable, from the seminal work on social relations of wolves by Jerome Woolpy and Benson Ginsburg, all the way to the exploits of Grizzly Adams. But when it comes time to figure out what to do when being followed by bands of mountain sheep, or how to cope with persistent morning attacks of bighorn rams, academic readings aren’t much help. Instead, wildlife professionals develop wit and instinct from experience, and wisely seek to avoid repeating the bad experiences of others by sharing information with friends and colleagues who have worked in close quarters with free-living or captive wildlife. One way or the other, many wildlife professionals wind up learning about habituation and taming of free-living wildlife. This knowledge is useful when studying animal behavior and also must be considered when managing how wild animal interact with people.

Understanding why habituated animals are dangerous requires some exploration of the psychological basis for habituation. A fundamental characteristic of all living beings is the instinct to search for predictability. Predictability in an environment permits an organism to live at the lowest possible energetic costs, while allowing it to conserve energy and nutrients for reproduction. Maintaining security, likewise, seems a universal goal of living things. An animal must act to protect itself against predators, parasites, and pathogens to prevent its untimely demise prior to reproduction. Over the course of their lifespan, individual animals must behave in ways that balance security with predictability. A creature cannot run from every potential danger as this would increase the cost of living and, in turn, reduce energy available for reproduction. An individual must, therefore, assess potential danger and judge its risk in order to minimize the high cost of escaping. Such costs can be direct—such as those associated with running and climbing, or indirect—such as abandoning an optimal feeding area in exchange for remaining close to secure escape terrain.

Habituation as a management technique or research tool, however, does not come without controversy. It is true that there is no replacement for being in the presence of an animal when seeking to understand the details of its biology and behavior. We certainly would not have known nearly as much as we do about chimpanzees, for example, had Jane Goodall not allowed the animals she studied to grow accustomed to her presence. Yet new technologies, like GPS and DNA testing, can help gather some of the same information that close observation can. These techniques are often less invasive and avoid one of the greatest dangers of habituation: compromising human safety.

The Value and Danger of Habituation Unfortunately, habituated animals—those who have developed a psychological patience with our presence—are potentially much more dangerous than non-habituated, or “wild,” animals, because habituation is a state of unconsummated interest on the part of the animal, expressing itself as tolerance of and even an attraction to humans. Animals that have progressed beyond habituation to taming may in fact become very dangerous once they include humans into their social circle. One discovers such pitfalls through hands-on habituation and taming.

Credit: Bill Byrne/MassWildlife

Peekaboo! Black bears (Ursus americanus) can become a nuisance when fed—deliberately or inadvertently—by humans. Habituated bears frequently damage property in their search for food and can, in rare cases, resort to violence.

wildlife.org

Prelude to Attack In systematically taming free-living wildlife, animals often first become habituated to humans, a process that begins when a creature tolerates humans at a distance. Over time—a process launching from the first few critical minutes and often then stretching into days—an animal may allow closer and closer approaches by humans, learning that the observer does not pose an apparent or immediate threat. The difference between habituation and taming, however, can be revealed quite dramatically when an animal suddenly turns the tables and closes the distance to explore the observer. With the distance closed, and if the setting allows, the human can proceed gingerly into the realm of taming, conditioning an animal through positive reinforcement such as food or salt. Thus habituation progresses to taming via the animal’s own initiative as it consummates its curiosity about the observer and accepts the strategic bribery of positive feedback in foodstuffs or other pleasures.

Wildlife Attacks • From 1909 to 1988, only eight human deaths due to mountain lion attacks were reported. But in the period between 1988 and 2006, 13 human deaths have been reported, and many more pets have been killed. • Forty-one coyote attacks on humans occurred in California between 1988 and 1997, according to data collected from the California Department of Fish and Game, the USDA Wildlife Services, and other sources. Another 48 attacks took place between 1998 and 2003. Prior to the attacks, coyotes often intensified their contact with humans by attacking pets, approaching humans holding pets, and frequenting neighborhoods and children’s playgrounds. Cougars in Colorado In his 2004 book, The Beast in the Garden, journalist David Baron documents an escalating series of cougar attacks that took place near Boulder, Colorado, in the 1980s and 1990s. Cougar sightings on neighborhood streets increased first, and next attacks on pets were reported. A German shepherd was among those killed. The cougars then began attacking humans. Baron’s account climaxes with the story of a high school athlete who was stalked and killed by a mountain lion less than a half mile from his suburban high school. Baron calls into question many commonly held notions in this book—for example, that only malnourished cougars attack humans—and sheds light on the conflict between the green movement and the reality of what living in nature means. Picture-Perfect Wildlife Though it has some negative consequences, habituation allows for a favorite pastime in America’s national parks: wildlife viewing. Habituated bears, elk, and other animals often feed or stand sedately near visitors who madly take photographs and often cause the “animal jams” for which Yellowstone National Park has become infamous. Without habituated wildlife, fewer people may be enticed to enjoy the nation’s natural spaces, decreasing appreciation for nature as well as the revenues needed to protect these areas.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

The next step in exploration between wildlife and humans, which can happen even after years of total tameness, is when an animal suddenly challenges the observer socially with a display of dominant behavior. Clearly such a shift in the dynamic of a relationship can result in a dangerous situation, especially if the human behaves inappropriately. Working at close range with animals requires that the observer can either anticipate or trigger these exploratory contacts and be in a position to exploit—tame the animal so it accepts what the observer does—or avoid them. Habituation need not progress to taming; deliberate negative conditioning is best if the aim is to instill fear of humans in the animals. Negatively conditioned animals are usually not very dangerous, as they tend to keep their distance from humans and flee when approached. Largebodied species should probably be negatively conditioned when they approach an observer so they learn that getting close to a human is associated with a painful or unpleasant experience. No person, experienced with wildlife or not, can handle a serious attack by an elk, grizzly, or even a buck deer. While habituating animals can serve as an invaluable technique for study and management, these animals are extreme safety risks for all involved. An animal that has become accustomed to humans can turn from indifferent to aggressive at the drop of a hat. Remaining acutely aware of habituated animals is an ongoing concern when working in the field; the observer must be able to interpret danger signals correctly. A failure to do so can result in injury or death. Particular behaviors and characteristics of wild animals warn observers that they are dealing with habituated or tame animals. Carnivores that feign civility should be given special attention and extra distance. Predators, for instance, often pay noticeable attention to and may even follow an observer. A pack of wolves near my home on Vancouver Island, Canada, began to seek out human dwellings and to confront humans, horses with riders, pets, and livestock. Nearby on Vargas Island, local wildlife managers learned of another pack of wolves that had become gradually habituated to humans in their proximity. The wolves had not merely approached people, but had sniffed, licked, and nipped visitors in parks. Their behavior progressed to hesitant attacks that were successfully warded off until they attacked a camper in the open at night. Fellow campers beat off the wolves and saved the man, who was taken to the hospital where he received

Credit: Jim Peaco/NPS

Animals that are used to being around humans, like this elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park, may see humans as their equals and try to challenge them—sometimes in dangerous ways.

50 stitches on his face and scalp. The next victim was not so lucky; a few months later, a 22-yearold university student was apparently killed by four wolves in Saskatchewan. Other animals show inclinations toward aggression in subtle ways. In ungulates and bears, for example, the dominance display is the most important signal to watch for. Unlike primates, who tend to send communication signals faceto-face, most terrestrial vertebrate communication focuses on the broadside of the body, and direct eye contact is averted. In these tangential displays of dominance the animal approaches indirectly, circling the object of its interest. The human observer, uninitiated in interpreting these indirect approaches, may think an animal walking slowly past is not paying attention, and therefore is not a threat. In fact, in the context of a tangential dominance display, the person who looks away, or ignores the animal as it passes, may trigger an attack out of sheer inattention. Maintaining eye contact with an animal, on the other hand, represents a challenge, and often prevents an attack from taking place. Anyone who spends considerable time with wildlife must remember that as we observe any animal at close range, that animal also observes us. In fact, brazenness on the part of humans can deter attacks more effectively than may have yet been chronicled, just as fearfulness may attract aggression. There is something to the folklore that animals can “smell” fear, although it may have more to do with animals’ interpretation of human behavior. In short, when large mammals show an interest in a human observer, or perform the first, faint dominance display, it is time to leave—not in rushed retreat, but through

measured and feigned indifference, strategically creating distance with immovable objects such as trees, stumps, and big rocks, at the earliest signs of potential pursuit. Such visual barriers make it less likely that displays and threats will escalate to physical contact and aggression.

The Fear Factor? Wildlife habituation is, quite certainly, a problem of the times. With expanding suburban sprawl and increasing populations of ungulates and large predators like mountain lions and coyotes, more and more people are finding the animals that they once traveled for miles to seek out and observe are now in their backyards. Homeowners as well as wildlife professionals need to know how to respond to the many and varied signs of warning from habituated and tamed animals that share our highways and towns. The reality is that habituated animals can and do become troublesome or dangerous and lack of understanding about wildlife behavior is a major contributing factor. Although many techniques can be drawn upon to respond to this growing situation, one approach may be to consider more vigorously employing the psychological conditioning of fear, in its best manifestations. We must work to systematically link human presence with stimuli to which predators cannot possibly habituate; in doing so, we push them away and thus protect them. If we manipulate wildlife’s innate fear of humans, it will be to our mutual advantage.

To access a bibliography of publications on wildlife habituation, see this article online at www.wildlifejournals.org.

wildlife.org

Grizzly Man: The Life and Death of a Misguided Wildlife Lover By Michael Hutchins

Watching the film Grizzly Man is like watching a car wreck—while the sights are disturbing, you often find yourself unable to look away. Released in late 2005, this 50-minute, R-rated (for language) documentary about the life and work of Timothy Treadwell has all the elements of a Hollywood blockbuster: a charismatic protagonist who is both heroic and sensitive; a quest for personal growth and enlightenment; pursuit of a noble and worthy cause; and, last but not least, murder most foul. Of course, the “murderer” in this case is a large, hungry carnivore, also known appropriately as Ursus artos horribilus, the grizzly bear, and the victims are Treadwell and his girlfriend, Amie Huguenard. Directed and narrated by the well-known German director Werner Herzog (Aguirre, The Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo), the film is a study in contradiction and a sobering reminder of the harsh realities of nature. Treadwell, described on the DVD jacket as an “amateur grizzly bear expert and wildlife preservationist,” spent 13 summers in Katmai National Park, Alaska, observing, filming, and trying to protect the bears that he loved. In the film, he roams among the giant carnivores unarmed, often approaching and interacting with them, even touching them on occasion. He speaks to the bears in a soft, friendly voice, reassuring them that he will do them no harm. He frequently expresses the wish that he could throw off the shackles of his human existence and become a bear. Among the most touching and yet troubling scenes are his interactions with a family of red foxes that, after years of habituation, have now begun to behave like domestic dogs, enjoying a good pet, rolling over to play, and checking for morsels of food in Treadwell’s hand—quite appealing to a public desperately hoping to make a personal connection with nature, but an abomination for those who seek to keep wild animals wild. The film provides some insight into Treadwell’s complex psyche; he failed as an actor, experienced depression and addiction, was in trouble with the law, and had numerous unsuccessful

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Credit: Lions Gate Entertainment

relationships. Treadwell appears to seek comfort and meaning in his life thorough his interaction with and protection of wild creatures. The film builds a case that Treadwell created an elaborate mythology about himself and the animals he photographed. For example, Treadwell promoted himself as a solitary adventurer who lived for months alone in the bush, when, in fact, he was often accompanied by Huguenard and others. He promoted his quest to protect wildlife, but conducted his work in a national park, where the law already protects grizzly bears and other species. He characterized the massive predators as gentle creatures that were “misunderstood” and believed that his presence was protecting the animals from poachers. Treadwell’s spontaneous on-camera narratives and the window they provide into his character—both his strengths and weaknesses—are fascinating portrayals of human psychology and one of the most alluring aspects of the film.

The tragic, if predictable, ending to Treadwell’s story is that he and Huguenard were both killed by a bear in October 2003. The documentary details the grisly discovery of what was left of their bodies and the subsequent killing of the ursine suspect by wildlife agents. An audiotape found at the scene revealed that even in the jaws of death Treadwell tried to save Huguenard by encouraging her to run away. She died trying to save his life, striking the bear on the head repeatedly with a metal frying pan. Viewers never hear the soundtrack, however. Herzog becomes very distressed, nearly breaking down in tears while listening to the tape that inadvertently recorded Treadwell’s and Huguenard’s last moments. Herzog abandons his role as observer and director and becomes perhaps too personally involved with his subjects, thus compromising his objectivity as well as the flow of the film. It is rare for documentary filmmakers to appear in their own films, let alone to exhibit emotional distress. Treadwell, whose charisma and dedication gained him many loyal friends and made him a national celebrity, is portrayed in a mostly positive light in the documentary. He speaks to school and community groups about the importance of bear conservation, and some colleagues interviewed for the film paint him as a conservation hero. But as more than one interviewee—including Herzog himself—points out, Treadwell crossed a line that exists between humans and large predators and he suffered the predictable consequences. Good teachers

educate through example and, by this measure alone, Treadwell’s work could be interpreted as a failure. Not only did he interfere with nature to the extreme, he habituated wild predators to humans and in the process made them potentially more dangerous. Grizzly People, an organization founded by Treadwell, states on its website that one should never get closer than 100 yards to bears, something that Treadwell did regularly. His bravado and sentimental view of nature are frequently demonstrated in the film, and, ironically, cost him not only his own life, but those of Amie Huguenard and one of the bears he professed to love. Herzog sends a message about the growing problem of wildlife habituation, yet he might have taken a stronger position to deter others from following in Treadwell’s footsteps. Instead he challenges viewers to form their own opinions on this complex issue. Despite minor problems with direction, Grizzly Man is a must-see for all wildlife professionals. It is an excellent example of the paradoxical and often tenuous relationship that exists between grizzly bears and humans. Like Treadwell, most conservationists hope that grizzly bears and other large carnivores continue to exist, but regardless of his laudable intentions, Treadwell’s approach was clearly misguided. Large predators should not be treated like domestic animals and, perhaps in the end, that is Treadwell’s most valuable lesson. Michael Hutchins is Executive Director/CEO of The Wildlife Society.

wildlife.org

Opening Access: New Tools for Conservation By Jonathan S. Adams

Credit: Chase Photography

Jonathan S. Adams is a conservation biologist, writer, and program director at The Nature Conservancy. He is coauthor of The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation Without Illusion and coeditor of Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States.

Imagine that you are having chest pains. Concerned, you go to a team of doctors and they recommend a new procedure. When you ask on what basis they selected the specific treatment, the doctors cannot offer any evidence in favor of their recommended protocol; they only cite a poorly controlled study and mention that the method worked with another patient or two. How confident do you feel about your doctors’ decision? Unfortunately, this scenario bears more than a passing resemblance to how many conservation practitioners must make decisions, particularly those without access to a variety of current scientific literature or to the most current information technologies. While good medical practice increasingly demands that doctors have solid evidence for choosing a particular intervention, conservationists far too often must make choices on the basis of woefully incomplete information. This situation is puzzling because there is a growing body of information and expertise in the sciences of wildlife conservation and ecosystems management, much of it outside the realm of peer-reviewed literature. These resources include reams of biological data, documented field experience, lists of experts, and thousands of publications and resources related to policy, education, and training. The unfortunate truth is, however, that the majority of this information sits in little-known cyberspace silos, available but unused. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of websites holding invaluable data and publications have been created on local, state, and federal levels. They have been reviewed and used by their creators, yet are unable to be found, critiqued, or utilized by others. A myriad of relatively new efforts are afoot to address this conundrum. Most are anchored in the use of the Internet to link conservation

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

practitioners to the dispersed information resources that can help them more effectively solve conservation and wildlife management problems. These resources are being developed by virtually every kind of potential user group, among them members of government agencies, academic communities, conservation organizations, and businesses. One such effort is ConserveOnline (www.conserveonline.org), an evolving, webbased, experimental project designed to foster changes in the way conservationists share and use information in their daily work. In collaboration with several other organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) created this online information-sharing initiative in 2000 and launched a revamped site in 2005 using open-source software. This year, supported by a grant from Oracle, ConserveOnline will be upgraded with state-of-the-art search capabilities, integrating the site into existing online databases and providing access to digitized libraries of conservation materials, including those of the American Museum of Natural History, the World Conservation Monitoring Center, and the World Conservation Union. The purpose of ConserveOnline is to provide a free platform for online collaboration among conservation and wildlife scientists and practitioners around the world. It allows users to create shared workspaces that they may not be able to do otherwise. The creators of each working group set parameters for use and membership, allowing information—from databases to publications —to be affordably produced and disseminated in ways that take advantage of new technologies. Since 2000, ConserveOnline’s number of registered users has more than tripled and the number of available documents has increased five-fold. The site is currently used by thousands of natural resource managers and conservationists, from a team of researchers

interested in forest landscape restoration to a group working on a strategy for federal public lands in Colorado. ConserveOnline provides services that many individuals and organizations cannot afford on their own, like mechanisms to back up data, tools to find useful software, and means to publish electronically. It offers access to thousands of publications and documents, including many in Spanish and Portuguese, from dozens of organizations and hundreds of individual researchers and practitioners. ConserveOnline embodies the principles of the Conservation Commons (www.conservationcommons.org), acooperative effort of non-governmental organizations, international and multi-lateral organizations, governments, academia, and the private sector, to improve open access to data, information, and knowledge related to the conservation of biodiversity. This goal may seem straightforward, but it raises questions of access and ownership of data and publicationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;issues under fierce debate among scientists, academics,

librarians, university administrators, government officials, and publishers. In some professions, such as biophysics, astronomy, and genetics, scientists and practitioners have worked together to demand that collaboration is standard practice. ConserveOnline strives to help conservation science move in a similar direction by providing an infrastructure for professionals to share information more openly and affordably than can be done when working in isolation. ConserveOnline and Conservation Commons are part of a broader effort to bring about a cultural shift in conservation, enabling wildlife professionals to benefit from each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collective experience. Just as medical treatment is expected to be based on evidence and expertise, we also can learn from the mistakes and success stories of others. For more information about ConserveOnline, visit www.conserveonline.org or write jadams@tnc.org.

WEB-BASED RESOURCES FOR CONSERVATION The National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) (www.nbii.gov) is a broad, collaborative program designed to provide increased access to data and information on the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biological resources. The NBII links diverse, high-quality biological databases, information products, and analytical tools maintained by NBII partners and other contributors in government agencies, academic institutions, non-government organizations, and private industry. Conservation by Design (www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/cbd/) Nature Conservancy to help practitioners following Conservation by Design parameters determine where to work, what to conserve, what strategies to use, and how effective they have been. The site provides links to tools, resources, and case studies. Conservation Evidence (www.conservationevidence.com) is a UK-based Internet resource launched to improve practical conservation through the publication of an online journal of peer-reviewed case studies of conservation management intervention. The site also publishes summaries of published papers, reports, and articles that document the effectiveness of conservation interventions. Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation (www.cebc.bham.ac.uk) was established to support decision-making in conservation and environmental management through the production and dissemination of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of management and policy interventions.

wildlife.org

TWS’s Leadership Institute a Success The Wildlife Society’s (TWS) new Leadership Institute celebrated its first year of success during TWS’ 13th Annual Conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in September 2006. It was established to address the upcoming shortage of leaders in the wildlife profession as more than 75 percent prepare to retire in the next decade. The group’s goal is to cultivate the next generation of promising individuals to lead TWS and the wildlife profession into the future. “The Institute is designed to enhance leadership knowledge and skills and groom leaders to help resolve the many conservation and management challenges that lie ahead,” says TWS Executive Director/CEO Michael Hutchins. During the conference in Anchorage, the 10 participants attended Council meetings, participated in mentoring activities with Council members and Hutchins, and shared ideas about how leadership can be developed at all levels and by all individuals within an organization. The participants will be tracked in coming years in order to assess the program’s success. In addition, feedback from the first year’s participants is being used to develop this year’s program. The pilot program was funded by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and matching funds from TWS’s endowment fund.

Credit: Laura Bies

Participants in the Leadership Institute observed the Society's leadership in action at TWS’s annual meeting in Anchorage.

The New Wildlifer The newly redesigned Wildlifer newsletter is in an engaging 12- to 16-page format and will now be available online. Readers will get summaries of member news, linked to further text and details. All members will receive the Wildlifer only in electronic form unless a print copy is specifically requested by contacting Lisa Moll at lisa@wildlife.org or (301) 897-9770 by April 30. Members will receive quarterly email blasts with a link to a PDF of the newsletter on TWS’s evolving website.

TWS Asserts a Position on the ESA

By choosing to read online, you’ll conserve the natural resources used to print. You’ll also help TWS’s budget by savings in printing and mailing costs. And in its new online form, you’ll be able to quickly access additional information of interest to you.

TWS Council approved a position statement on the Endangered Species Act at its September 2006 meeting. The statement asserts TWS’s support of efforts to improve the Act’s effectiveness, to enhance funding for the Act, and to encourage partnerships in order to carry out the Act’s provisions.

TWS to Form Canadian Section The Wildlife Society Council is scheduled to approve the formation of the Canadian Section in late March of this year. The bylaws should be approved by TWS Council this spring. All regions of Canada will be included in this new section. The Canadian Section will focus on programs, issues, and policy that are largely Canadian in content, and will also provide a platform for members to represent the Canadian voice in the North American sections.

Currently, the Society has 35 position statements, with four more—on topics including the Farm Bill and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation—in draft form awaiting the incorporation of comments from members.

Join us at The Wildlife Society 14th Annual Conference September 22-26, 2007 in Tucson, Arizona Across the Borderline: Challenges and Opportunities for North American Wildlife Conservation

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007

Paul R. Krausman Receives Aldo Leopold Award The Wildlife Society’s highest honor was bestowed on Paul R. Krausman at the 13th Annual Conference of The Wildlife Society in Anchorage, Alaska, in September 2006. Each year TWS recognizes an individual whose career has been “of undoubted significance to the cause of wildlife conservation." This year’s committee unanimously agreed to award Krausman, a professor, research scientist, and the associate director of the Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Arizona. Krausman has authored or co-authored 178 journal articles, 47 papers in conference proceedings, and 23 book chapters. He has received numerous awards and honors, including many from The Wildlife Society. He has served on various TWS committees for 30 years and has been both editor in chief and associate editor of the Journal of Wildlife Management, and has served as guest editor and associate editor of the Wildlife Society Bulletin. He is currently editor of Wildlife Monographs.

The eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) is nonvenomous, but that doesn’t mean it’s docile. It is apt to bite and release a foul-smelling musk when frightened, as this snake did when the photographer picked it up. Credit: Ted Swem

Credit: TWS photo contestant Josh Spice

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) use their strong talons to snatch fish from the water.

Left, the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska supports a healthy population of brown bears (Ursus arctos). Threats to its habitat and human encroachment have made the bear a “species of special concern” in the state. Below, gloriously colorful collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris) can run quickly on their hind legs in chase of prey, but often prefer basking calmly in the sunlight. Credit: TWS photo contestant Milo Burcham

Credit: TWS photo contestant Milo Burcham

wildlife.org

The Wildlife Society wishes to thank the following organizations for their financial and in-kind support of the launch of

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2007