The Wildlife Professional 2007 Summer Issue by The Wildlife Society

Summer 2007

The

Future of

Public

Trust Getting a Grip on Chronic Wasting Disease Compassionate Conservationists Behold the Giants

Summer 2007 6

Editor’s Note

Letters

Leadership Letter

REGULAR FEATURES

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

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

16 Today’s Wildlife Professional Richard Reading: Passionate People Manager

Credit: David Kenny

FEATURE STORY

18 The Future of Public Trust Wildlife leaders John Organ and Shane Mahoney look at the status of the Public Trust Doctrine

ROTATING FEATURES

23 Law and Policy Lackluster budgets in recent years threaten future wildlife management Credit: John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS

28 Professional Development Cornell University’s Bruce Lauber and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Eric Taylor report on results of a survey of federal wildlife professionals

32 Health and Disease

Wildlife professionals struggle to effectively manage chronic wasting disease

37 Human-Wildlife Connection Wildlife hits some snags with wind power

42 Ethics The Wildlife Society’s Executive Director/CEO Michael Hutchins discusses the slippery slope of using compassion to promote conservation Credit: iStockphoto.com/Erickson

45 The Society Page News and happenings from The Wildlife Society

47 Gotcha! Photos of wildlife and humans submitted by readers

More Online! Gray text and the mouse icon in this print version indicate that related content is linked online. This publication is available to TWS members at wildlifejournals.org.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Vol. 1 No. 2

The Wildlife Professional (ISSN 1933-2866) is an official publication of The Wildlife Society (TWS) and a benefit of membership. Our goal is to provide timely, readable, and relevant news and analyses of issues and trends in the wildlife profession. For information on TWS membership, the Society, and other TWS publications, please contact The Wildlife Society headquarters (address below) or visit the TWS website at www.wildlife.org. The views expressed in this magazine are not necessarily those of The Wildlife Society. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

EDITORIAL STAFF

*Science Advisors

Philippa J. Benson Kathryn Sonant Divya Abhat Katherine Unger

Jonathan Adams Dan Ashe* Philippa J. Benson Richard B. Chipman* Raym Crow Mike Frame Carlos Galindo-Leal* Val Geist* Michael Hutchins* Matt Hogan Doug Inkley* Cynthia Jacobson Winifred Kessler* Devra Kleiman* Eric Kurzejeski* J. Drew Lanham Cristina Mittermeier Tony Mong John Organ* Theresa Pickel Tom Ryder Anthony Rylands* James Sanderson Sue Silver Art Smith Adrian Stanley Judy Stokes* Eric Taylor* John Wiens*

The Nature Conservancy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Wildlife Society USDA, Wildlife Services Chain Bridge Group U.S. Geological Survey World Wildlife Fund, Mexico University of Calgary The Wildlife Society AFWA National Wildlife Federation Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game USDA Forest Service National Zoological Park Missouri Dept. of Conservation Clemson University ILCP University of Missouri U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alliance Communication Group WY Fish and Game Conservation International Wildlife Conservation Network Ecological Society of America SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks The Charlesworth Group (USA) Inc. NH Fish and Game Department U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Nature Conservancy

SUBSCRIPTION AND ADVERTISING The Wildlife Professional is a benefit of membership in The Wildlife Society. Membership categories include Individual, Student, Family, Retired, Institutional, Life, and International. For rates and benefit information please email Lisa Moll at lisa@wildlife.org or use the contact information listed below. For advertising rates and information, contact Rhett Dubiel 785.843.1235 ext.212, email: rdubiel@acgpublishing.com

Rotating feature departments include: Director of Publishing Managing Editor Science Writer Science Writer

TWS STAFF Michael Hutchins Jane Pelkey Laura Bies

Executive Director/CEO Office & Finance Manager Assoc. Director, Government Affairs Sandra Staples-Bortner Director Conf. & Membership Yanin Walker Operations Manager Earl Wyatt Database Administrator & IT Coordinator Ruxandra Giura Web Content Developer Shannon Pederson Subunit & Certification Coordinator Lisa Moll Conferences & Membership Assistant Amy Clanin Finance Assistant

COMMENTARY

EDUCATION

ETHICS IN PRACTICE

HEALTH AND DISEASE

HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONNECTION

TWS GOVERNING COUNCIL John F. Organ W. Daniel Svedarsky Thomas M. Franklin Robert D. Brown

President President-Elect Vice President Past President

Thomas A. Decker Bruce D. Leopold Gary E. Potts Thomas J. Ryder Bruce Thompson Winifred B. Kessler Marti J. Kie

VT Dept. of Fish & Wildlife MS State Wildlife & Fisheries IL Dept. of Natural Resources WY Game & Fish Department NM Dept Game & Fish USDA Forest Service CA Dept. of Water Resources

LAW AND POLICY

CONTRIBUTOR GUIDELINES The Wildlife Professional accepts suggestions and submissions for content in our regular features and rotating departments. Email all inquiries to editor@wildlife.org or mail them to headquarter’s address below.

PLANS AND PRACTICES

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

REVIEWS

TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY

Copyright and Permissions: Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of any article published by The Wildlife Society for personal or educational use within one’s home institution is hereby granted without fee, provided that the first page or initial screen of a display includes the notice “Copyright © 2007 by The Wildlife Society,” along with the full citation, including the name(s) of the author(s). Copyright for components of this work owned by persons or organizations other than TWS must be honored. Instructors may use articles for educational purpose only. To copy or transmit otherwise, to republish or to use such an article for commercial or promotional purposes requires specific permission and a possible fee. Permission may be requested from the TWS Editorial Office, (address below).

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

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

COVER: Richard Reading holds an immature cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus), the subject of a collaborative study between the Mongolian Academy of Sciences and the Denver Zoo. Credit: David Kenny

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

More online at wildlifejournals.org

his second issue of The Wildlife Professional is the next step in our efforts to provide innovations to help bring our members–from students, to working professionals, to retirees–together as a community of professional practice. To start, we’ve beefed up our masthead page to include copyright and permissions information, an overview of all the rotating department columns we’ll have in the magazine, and full listings of The Wildlife Society Credit: Ben Xu headquarters staff. We’ve also added two new rotating departments: “Education” and “Plans and Practices.” We are eager to publish articles about education to better meet the needs of students at all levels, as well as faculty working to improve how they teach the skills needed for science-based stewardship of wildlife and habitat. With the “Plans and Practices” department, we offer a forum for practitioners to share their experiences as they once did in the Society’s now defunct journal, the Wildlife Society Bulletin, albeit in a somewhat different writing style. Authors of “Plans and Practices” articles will be able to include detailed information about their activities, along with links to other resources such as published management strategies or peer-reviewed science.

Another new feature in the print version of the magazine will give readers a clearer indication of where we’ve added links to additional information in the online version of the magazine. In this issue, and henceforth, text elements will be printed in a gray rather than a black type when they have associated links in the online version. So, if we had a link to the Keep Me Wild program run by the California Department of Game and Fish, the words “Keep Me Wild” would be printed in gray rather than black. This would let readers know that if they went to the magazine online, they could link to additional information related to the Keep Me Wild program. We’ve also added more information to our Science in Short department. For every issue of the magazine, our Science Advisors (see masthead) recommend what they feel are the most important recently published peer-reviewed articles that wildlife professionals should know about. Of the complete list of suggestions, the magazine’s editorial staff selects seven to publish in print. Now, in the online version of the magazine, we’ll also provide a bibliography of citations of all the articles recommended by Science Advisors, including those we could not fit into print. In addition, we will link to a summary table of contents that consolidates and links to all of the last quarter’s article abstracts from The Journal of Wildlife Management. We’ve also added an additional page to “The Society Page,” to disseminate more information about the Society’s many and varied activities. This information, along with the revamped Wildlifer newsletter and our new website (to be launched mid-summer), will increase the frequency with which members get Society news. We’ll continue to develop new features to the magazine as we grow and evolve, and will always welcome input and feedback from readers. Send your thoughts and comments to editor@wildlife.org.

Philippa J. Benson, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief 6

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Dear Editor,

Vol. 1 No. 1

I have had the pleasure of reading the first issue of the new TWS publication, The Wildlife Professional. Not only is the new magazine intriguing on its own merit, but it is especially notable to have an article that includes quotes from and photographs of staff members from the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in the first issue. It is always a pleasure to witness new ideas and innovation as encouraged in your magazine. The publication takes chances and seeks to encourage its scientists and managers to articulate their views—something I think is becoming more necessary as time goes on. Congratulations.

Scott D. Wright, Ph.D. President, Wildlife Disease Association and Branch Chief, Disease Investigations, USGS National Wildlife Health Center

Dear Editor,

Letters may be edited for publication. Click on signature to link to full text. Please send letters to: The Wildlife Professional The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 editor@wildlife.org

and appreciate the purposes and mission that they have been employed to serve, and how their decisions will affect and reflect upon the mission and purpose of their agency. People need to look into the mirror and ask themselves, “Why am I here; why am I in this position; why am I doing what I am doing; and, is what I am doing genuinely promoting the interests of wildlife conservation and management?” Only too easily do people become lost in the bureaucratic “jungle,” and, in the process, lose whatever grasp they might have had on the basic fundamental prospective. Sincerely,

S.N. Luttich Wildlife research and management biologist, Geneva, Nebraska

Dear Editor,

First, The Wildlife Society is to be commended for having decided to publish The Wildlife Professional. If future editions prove comparable to the first issue, few problems should be encountered.

In reference to the “Graying of the Green” article: I have spent the last three years as a non-permanent wildlife biologist for a federal agency, and I find the idea that my generation lacks ambition and is not capable of filling the shoes of the previous generation disheartening.

In regards to your article, “The Graying of the Green Generation” (TWP 1/1), while attempting to appreciate the value and loss or fading of institutional knowledge as the older generations retire from the government agencies that have the mandate for managing and conserving wildlife and renewable biological resources, unfortunately, in many instances, the “Peter Principal” has only been too easily revealed to be only too alive and well among the senior administrators and managers, which causes one to question whether the loss may ironically only be a blessing in disguise.

While reading the article, I began to wonder if the “crisis” will really be all that critical after all. There is no doubt that the field has changed, and it is no surprise that wildlife professionals who have been in their jobs for 30 years look at new hires and think, “They just don’t know as much about stuff as we did when we were their age.” Current agency professionals need to accept and welcome the different skill sets of new applicants rather than seeking to hire carbon-copies of themselves.

Many of the senior level administrators and managers in the wildlife profession have been promoted into their capacities for many, if not all, the wrong reasons. Directors are often promoted to direct but are unable to envision, much less explain, the direction they are taking. If asked to define and explain wildlife management and conservation, many would be lost for an answer and, if not lost, reluctant to explain for fear of provoking policy conflicts. If this characteristic is not corrected, yes, the wildlife profession will gradually lose respect. Employees at all levels—from the technicians in the field, to the mid-level managers, to the office receptionists, to the senior policy managers—have to understand

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

Thankfully, the end of the article spent a whole paragraph on the idea that maybe the “crisis” will not be a disaster and might even allow for some “innovative management.” The rest of the article I felt was written by baby boomers for baby boomers who cannot imagine how life will go on without them after they are gone. It is entirely possible that the description of the National Park at the beginning of the article will be a reality, however, this will be due ultimately to a lack of funds rather than a lack of enthusiastic and well-trained natural resource professionals.

Jon Waite Bozeman, Montana

Wildlife, Wikis, and Web 2.0 By Dan Ashe

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness … it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness … we had everything before us, we had nothing before us …. ” —Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Considering conservation leadership today, this opening passage of Charles Dickens’ timeless novel, A Tale of Two Cities, leaps to mind. Our profession has perhaps never faced such challenges and opportunities. Our response to these times will reveal the potency or the puniness in our leadership. The information era within which we live makes this the best of times. The 20th century has brought with it more knowledge about the nature of the world than in all preceding history. We now have near instantaneous access to an almost infinite breadth of information and similarly powerful tools for communicating within and between professional circles, as well as with the public. That technological prowess, however, also makes this the worst of times. We are challenged by spatial and temporal scales of change that are difficult to comprehend, let alone alter, driven by climate change, landscape conversion and fragmentation, water use and allocation, globalizing economies, and genetic engineering. The sheer volume of information available to us is itself a wellspring of light and darkness. Though we may be able to mobilize mountains of data, we can be overwhelmed by the speed and scope of constantly emerging and evolving electronic media—blogs, wikis, MySpace, YouTube—which can assemble and move information and misinformation to shape public opinion. We stand on the doorstep of an age of wisdom or one of foolishness. As leaders, we will prepare our profession to turn this challenge into opportunity … or not. To be human is to be nostalgic about the way we were raised. As wildlife professionals, we can be nostalgic about the way we were taught, the manner in which we were mentored, how we developed and published information, or the path we forged to build and maintain collegial networks. Even more deeply, we can be nostalgic

about how we developed our personal connection to nature. Today, however, parenting, teaching, learning, mentoring, publishing, networking, and even the ways in which people connect to nature are changing rapidly and fundamentally. As we chart the future course for our profession, and our organizations, are we looking forward and defining a vision based on the ways that people will parent, teach, learn, mentor, work and touch nature (even if that touch is electronic) or are we looking backward through a warm, nostalgic halo of the way it was for us and the way that we think it should be?

Credit: Lavonda Walton/USFWS

Dan Ashe is Science Advisor to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Our future must be built firmly on the foundations of the knowledge economy. Knowledge that will help future generations connect to the natural world, understand that nature is not infinitely resilient, and bring conservation to them in high definition. We shouldn’t be surprised that a documentary film—An Inconvenient Truth— is leading a global public awakening to climate warming. Wasn’t it a book—Silent Spring—that catalyzed the first public awakening to the environment? Both illustrate the power of knowledge. Our profession must embrace society’s technological prowess, especially its increasing ability to amass and shape information into knowledge that people can act upon. Wildlife professionals have an obligation to offer vision, direction, and inspiration that is forward focused. This publication, in its print and online forms, is a hopeful sign that professional societies are evolving to speak to a new generation of wildlifers, a generation that has grown and learned using new, different, and better processes and tools. Today’s leaders must prepare for success in the next era of conservation by building organizations capable of supporting this new generation. If we can do this, then as a profession, we have everything before us.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Lead on the Loose

Credit: The Wildlife Society

Hunters have been banned from using lead ammunition when shooting waterfowl. But a study by Jonathan Pauli and Steven Buskirk of the University of Wyoming in The Journal of Wildlife Management (vol. 71/1) confirms that lead still sneaks into the environment by way of recreational hunting. Recreational hunters may kill scores of prairie dogs without retrieving or burying the carcasses. As recreational hunters tend to use expanding bullets, which fragment on impact, the authors hypothesized that the carcasses may contain enough lead to poison animals that feed on the remains. To test their theory, researchers shot prairie dogs with both expanding and non-expanding bullets, and found that expanding bullets left behind as much as 150 times more lead. Many of the lead fragments were small enough to be ingested by scavenging animals yet large enough to have toxic effects to wildlife such as raptors. The authors suggest wildlife agencies should ban expanding lead bullets for recreational use.

No Fire for these Fliers

Credit: SpringerLink

In recent years the use of fire in grassland management has gained traction, with benefits that include rejuvenating vegetation and keeping ecosystems in balance. Those benefits, however, donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t extend to rare butterflies, according to a study in the Journal of Insect Conservation (11/3). Wife-husband research team Ann and Scott Swengel compiled data they had gathered over 15 years of conducting butterfly population surveys. Most of the sites they surveyed incorporated burning into their management schemes, but three sites were kept unburned for many years of the surveys. Looking specifically at three butterfly species that were locally threatened or endangered, the team found that specialist butterfly species thrived in these unburned sites. The rare species invariably fared worse in the burned sites. The Swengels also discovered burned sites took between six and eight years to recover sufficiently to allow the specialist butterfly numbers to grow again. Their results raise a concern about how rare species, especially those that rely on specific habitats and diets, may respond to burning.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

Stressed Out Elk

Reprinted with permission from AAAS

Wolves exercise a clear and direct effect on elk populations, by killing and eating them. But according to a study in Science (vol. 315/5814), wolves have a hand in controlling elk populations in another way. Led by Scott Creel, a team of ecologists and biologists from Montana State University measured the physiological responses of elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem when wolves were present in high densities. Wolf populations in Yellowstone rose significantly after reintroduction efforts in 1995 and 1996. The researchers found that in areas where wolf numbers were high relative to elk numbers, female elk had lower levels of the reproductive hormone progesterone than in areas with fewer wolves. Accordingly, elk in heavily preyed upon populations had fewer offspring than elk in populations that were more secure. The authors suggest that wolf predation exerts an indirect effect on elk populations: Threatened elk increase their anti-predator behavior, costing them energy that could have been devoted to reproduction.

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

Protecting a Changing World

Protected areas like national parks and nature reserves may not be particularly useful if climate change makes the regions too warm to support their endemic wildlife. In Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (vol. 5/3), Lee Hannah of Conservation International and colleagues modeled species distributions and estimated the effect of warming on these distributions in three regions: Mexico, the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, and Western Europe. They found that current protected areas would need to be expanded simply to meet target levels of species distribution under today’s climate. Projecting changes under a moderate climate change scenario, however, researchers concluded that these areas would need to be expanded only slightly more to protect the vast majority of species. The authors suggest that this action best be taken quickly, noting that taking climate change into account now will help realize cost savings over the long term.

Making it Better

Credit: Blackwell Publishing

It’s Getting Warm in Here

The DNA Police

Trade in illegal ivory largely ceased after the 1989 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) ban. However, in recent years there’s been an alarming resurgence in poaching and trade. A study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (vol. 104/10) details the success of a new DNA method in tracking the location of illegal elephant slaughters. Researchers led by Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington compared genetic sequences of 37 tusks seized as part of a six and a half ton illegal shipment from Malawi to a known database of African elephant DNA. They found that, contrary to the wildlife officials’ conclusion that the tusks came from a widespread area, the shipment originated from a relatively compact area of Zambia and bordering countries. Tracking the precise origin of poached animal products will help countries understand the true extent of illegal activities taking place within their borders, and will prevent countries from shedding responsibility for poor regulation of the wildlife trade, the authors write.

Some people hold science in reverence, as though it is a holy, infallible window to the truth. But actually applying science can be much messier, according to an analysis by Robert Cabin of Brevard College published in Restoration Ecology (vol. 15/1). Cabin reflects on the use of science in ecological restoration projects, specifically in tropical dry forests where he has worked, concluding that “rigid, uniform” strategies often fail to reap any conservation benefits. Instead, he notes, local knowledge, common sense, and informal trial-and-error often prevail in achieving restoration successes. So does this mean it’s time to kick out restoration scientists? Not just yet, says Cabin—a restoration ecologist himself. Their presence not only attracts funding, but enhances restoration projects’ prestige and visibility. Moreover, notes Cabin, the scientists themselves can share their findings and knowledge about a site with locals, helping to ensure lasting conservation.

Credit: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Although media outlets have sometimes painted a different picture, the scientific community has overwhelmingly consented that humans are contributing to climate change. And in February of this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a group consisting of members of the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization—published an assessment report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,” to the same effect. The panel reports with “very high confidence,” or greater than 90 percent certainty, that human activities since the Industrial Revolution have warmed the planet. One can witness these effects, the report asserts, at “continental, regional and ocean basin scales.” The initial publication was a summary for policy makers; the full report will be released later this year.

Science in Short online at wildlifejournals.org also includes bonus summaries, links to abstracts of recent Journal of Wildlife Management articles, and citations of all the articles recommended by TWP’s Science Advisory Board.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

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.

Northeast

PHILADELPHIA — Maryland’s state bird might be headed for Philadelphia. Researchers studying the effects of climate change on wildlife believe the range of the Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula) may shift northward significantly. Currently, the Baltimore oriole’s breeding range extends from Alberta to Nova Scotia and through most of the eastern and central United States, except for Florida and the Gulf Coast. In winter, the bird migrates to Mexico and South America. If current trends continue, the namesake of the famous Baltimore baseball team may disappear from the city environs by 2100. Concerns about the fate of Maryland’s state bird come on the heels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released in March, which warns of a mass extinction of plant and animals species across the globe due to climate change.

Source: EPA, American Bird Conservancy, IPCC report

Southeast FLORIDA — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that the now-endangered Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) be reclassified as “threatened.” A five-year review completed in April led the Service to conclude that the marine mammal no longer meets the Endangered Species Act (ESA) definition of endangered. To be endangered by federal standards, an animal must face an immediate risk of extinction. To be threatened, a species must face the risk of becoming endangered if protections are not maintained into the future. Current threats to the Florida manatee include loss of natural and artificial warm water habitat, mortalities related to watercraft, water control structures, and entanglement in fishing lines. In order to reduce threats to the species, federal, state, and local regulations aim to establish minimum spring flows and protect important manatee habitat. In addition, federal protections remain the same regardless of the downgrade of the mammal’s status. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Credit: Jim Reid/USFWS

The status of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) may be changed from endangered to threatened, as the FWS has argued that it no longer fits the criteria to be considered endangered. 12

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

North Central IOWA — Iowa officials are concerned about the rising number of feral swine (Sus scrofa) in the state. These wild hogs, which number about four million nationwide, can spread diseases like swine fever if they come in contact with domestic pigs, causing worry in the state with the highest pork production in the country. Additionally, domestic pigs can spread brucellosis, a disease that can be contracted by humans. Wild swine also impact farmers by upturning fields and destroying crops. Iowa officials have been working to control the rising numbers of feral swine in the state since 2004. Wildlife professionals there estimate southern Iowa has about 100 feral swine, 70 percent of which must be killed to keep the population in check. Efforts to control the feral swine population include tracking and trapping the animals as well as educating the public about the importance of policing the swine populations. Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Credit: Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network

Central Mountains and Plains YELLOWSTONE — In March, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced its decision to remove the Yellowstone National Park population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) from the endangered species list. The proposal to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was first made in November 2005, giving states more flexibility to address bear-human conflict issues. Four other grizzly populations in the lower 48 states will remain protected as a threatened species on the Endangered Species list. Grizzly bears in Yellowstone now number over 600, more than double the population in 1975, when they were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act due to habitat loss and a high mortality rate resulting from human-wildlife conflicts. To maintain the current numbers of Yellowstone grizzlies, state and federal agencies will monitor the bears closely as part of a conservation management plan and will place restrictions on further human development in bear habitat. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

In February and March, an unusually high number of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) washed onto the beaches of Galveston and Jefferson counties in Texas.

Southwest TEXAS — The carcasses of at least 70 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) washed ashore on the beaches of Galveston and Jefferson counties in February and March, an unusually high number even for the stranding season. Although roughly 150 to 200 dolphins strand over the course of an entire year along the Texas coastline, with around 50 percent of those strandings taking place from January through March, scientists were concerned by the high numbers in one month in the two counties in southeast Texas. In response to these dolphin deaths, several groups, including the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), began investigating possible causes. The Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network, a nonprofit volunteer-based organization, has taken tissue samples to test for biotoxins and traces of infectious diseases. However, running tests on dolphin carcasses can be problematic because they are often largely decomposed by the time they are washed ashore. Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network

Northwest IDAHO — In February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed that the gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in large areas of the Northwest, including Montana, Idaho, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, a small part of north central Utah, and Wyoming, excluding its northwestern corner, be removed from the Endangered Species list. The wolf population has exceeded its recovery goals since 2002 and approved state plans are in place to maintain it above recovery targets into the foreseeable future. The endangered species listing will remain in effect for wolf packs in the greater Yellowstone area of Wyoming until a state plan is approved. Last year, the FWS approved Idaho and Montana’s wolf management plans, but tabled Wyoming’s plan, which would have allowed unlimited shooting outside of national parks. Credit: Gary Kramer/ USFWS

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepares to delist the Idaho population of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) after approving the state’s wolf management plan last year. © The Wildlife Society

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Western CALIFORNIA — Game wardens shot and killed a pair of mountain lions (Felis concolor) after a 70-year-old man was attacked on a hike in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. The man survived after his wife beat off the cougar with a tree branch. Twelve attacks by mountain lions have been recorded in California since the mid1980s. Mountain lion populations have increased since the early 1970s and are estimated at 4,000 to 6,000 adults across the state. These large cats have special protection and cannot be hunted in California except by special permit, granted when sufficient evidence proves that a mountain lion has preyed on pets, livestock, or protected bighorn sheep, or has threatened people. Source: California Department of Fish and Game

Canada The Department of Fisheries and Oceans reduced this year’s harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) hunt quota below the expected numbers set out by their 2006 to 2010 management plan, to 270,000, citing poor ice conditions. Because of unstable ice in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, newborn pups ran the risk of tumbling off the cracked ice and drowning. The Canadian fisheries ministry plans to carry out their next survey of harp seals in 2008 rather than 2009 to be able to more accurately assess the impact of ice conditions, reproductive rates, and other factors crucial to the harp seal population. The ministry has also implemented stricter rules on hunters to ensure they stay within the allotted quota. Specific quotas have been set for three of six species of seals found off Canada’s Atlantic coast. Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

United States The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is expected to make a final decision on delisting the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the endangered species list by the end of June. The bald eagle has made a remarkable comeback following its protection as an endangered species in 1978. Today an estimated 9,800 nesting pairs of the bald eagle live across the lower 48 states, compared with 417 nesting pairs in 1963. If removed from the Endangered Species list, the United States national symbol would continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Its status would also be monitored by the FWS and state agencies at five-year intervals following the delisting for a total of 20 years. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mexico For the first time in five decades, a wild California condor chick (Gymnogyps californianus) has hatched in Mexico. In April, scientists discovered the condor egg in an abandoned eagle nest in the Sierra San Pedro de Martír National Park and have been monitoring the site since. The California condor is listed as endangered in the United States under the Endangered Species Act and in 1985 had a population of only nine birds in the wild. Those birds were introduced into conservation breeding programs at the San Diego Zoo’s Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo. In 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began to reintroduce the California condor into the wild; today, 135 condors fly wild. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Diego Zoo’s Center for Conservation and Research for Endangered Species

United States Millions of bees are disappearing across the country, due to a poorly understood phenomena referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). CCD has been observed in honeybees (genus Apis) in at least 24 states and may also be surfacing in Europe. Billions of dollars of crops, from apples to almonds, depend on insect pollinators, particularly honeybees. Scientists are exploring a wide range of theories about potential causes of CCD, including the possibility that a pathogen might play a role or that a chemical product might weaken the insect’s immune system. Some scientists believe agriculture pesticides such as the widely-used neonicotinoides may be responsible as well. The greatest drop in bee numbers has been in Texas and on the East Coast at 70 percent, while California recorded a 30 to 60 percent decrease. Concerned about the bees’ nationwide disappearance, beekeepers have called for government intervention. Source: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium, Congressional Research Service

Credit: Mike Wallace/Zoological Society of San Diego

A two-day-old California condor chick hatched on April 20 in the Sierra San Pedro de Martir National Park. This is the first chick produced in Baja California, Mexico since the Zoological Society of San Diego began releasing condors in 2002.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

International This section of State of Wildlife reports on news affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals outside of North America.

South America

South Africa

PERU — In February, researchers discovered a long-whiskered owlet (Xenoglaux loweryi) in the Area de Conservación Privada de Abra Patricia, Alto Nieva, a private conservation area in northern Peru. This pocket-sized owl was first discovered in 1976 and hadn’t been spotted in its natural surroundings until now. Researchers have little idea of the size of the owl’s population but estimate it to be in the low hundreds, and the species is considered endangered by BirdLife International. The owl is only found in a small area of the 600-acre nature reserve established in 2006 by American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and its partner, Asociación Ecosistemas Andinos (ECOAN). ABC and ECOAN are actively working to expand habitat protection for the long-whiskered owlet to 10,000 acres. Source: American Bird Conservancy

Australia To address the threat of Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD), a contagious cancer affecting a large proportion of the wild population of devils in Tasmania, the Tasmanian government is exploring the possibility of establishing a healthy population of Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) on some Tasmanian islands that are not already affected by the disease. Before taking any action, however, the government will carefully assess the strategy for potential risks and benefits. DFTD, characterized by the appearance of facial tumors on the animal’s face, can be transmitted between animals, usually by biting. So far, the fatal disease has spread across 56 percent of Tasmania, resulting in a 41 percent decline in average Tasmanian devil sightings from 1992 to 2005. To monitor populations of the world’s largest surviving carnivorous marsupial, diagnose DFTD, and identify management options, the Tasmanian state government has established the Devil Facial Tumor Disease Program. Current devil numbers are estimated to be between 20,000 and 50,000. Source: Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania

The South African government is considering the option of culling its elephants to manage growing populations in Kruger National Park. As populations of the African elephant (Loxodonta africana) expand on already scarce land and resources, human-wildlife conflicts as well as conflicts with other animal species are increasing. In addition, elephant overpopulation can wreak havoc on ecosystems, as numerous elephants can destroy vegetation. The status of the elephant varies significantly across Africa, with total populations numbering between 470,000 and 690,000. While elephants continue to be endangered in some regions because of a high rate of poaching and ivory trade, populations are secure and expanding in other parts of the continent. The South African National Parks and the South African Environment Ministry will take into account the views of scientists, conservation organizations, and other experts before coming to a final decision on potential culling. Other measures to manage the growing populations include range expansion, contraception, and the more expensive method of translocating the animals to under-populated areas. Source: WWF South Africa

Southeast Asia TAIWAN — In April 2005, more than one million purple milkweed butterflies (genus Euploea) flew from the south to the north of Taiwan. En route lies the National Freeway, a section of which Taiwanese authorities decided to close off this year to protect the butterflies from traffic. In addition, the Taiwan Area National Freeway Bureau installed ultraviolet lights under the national highway bridges to help direct the butterflies and reduce fatalities from oncoming vehicles. A special task force was set up by the freeway authorities to organize these measures—feats previously unmatched across the world. The mass migration of butterflies usually occurs between March and April. This year authorities and residents planned to hand out bookmarks to celebrate the phenomenon as well as print a postcard with a purple milkweed butterfly postmark to inform the world of Taiwan’s efforts. Source: Taiwan Government Information Office, Republic of China, Taiwan Area National Freeway Bureau

Conservationists rediscovered the tiny long-whiskered owlet (Xenoglaux loweryi) in Peru.

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

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Promoting Collaborative Conservation RICHARD READING

By Kathryn Sonant

understands the power of chocolate and passionate people management Current Position Director of Conservation Biology at the Denver Zoological Foundation Favorite Aspect of Job Observing animals in the wild and observing the development of young conservation biologists Favorite Books Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond and The Song of the Dodo by David Quammen If I Were in Charge of the World I would make chocolate free! And I would set aside the majority of the world as areas where nature receives the first priority. Quote to Live By “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” — Mohandas Gandhi

Credit: B. Namshir

Reading prepares a recently captured red fox (Vulpes vulpes) to be radio collared for a study of small carnivores in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia.

ichard Reading believes the secret to successful wildlife conservation lies in the balance between working with animals and working with people. As director of conservation biology at the Denver Zoological Foundation and a passionate conservationist, he’d love to spend every day in the field working to protect endangered species and training colleagues and students to do the same. However, after 23 years as a wildlife professional, he’s learned that’s only half the battle. “To really get things done, if you really want to conserve wildlife, it requires dealing with people and social and political issues. The key to successful wildlife management is people management.”

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

In his role at the Denver Zoo, Reading may oversee 60 to 75 wildlife conservation and research projects throughout the world at any given time. Current projects include conserving wildlife corridors in greater Yellowstone National Park, developing assisted reproductive technologies for cinereous vultures at the Denver Zoo, studying conflicts between zebras and lions in Kenya, and tracking the disappearing boreal toad (Bufo boreas) in southeast Alaska. Reading also advises graduate students at various universities, including the University of Denver, where he is an associate research professor. His three Yale graduate degrees in wildlife ecology and environmental studies and his participation in hundreds of research projects in social and ecological sciences have led him to a position where he has a far-reaching impact within wildlife conservation. Reading’s time is evenly divided between field projects, advising, and administrative management of the Foundation’s conservation and research department and its many projects. Yet as much as he believes that office time is essential, his passion is spending time outside in the field researching animals with his staff and students. His field activities include animal captures, radio tracking, and behavioral monitoring. Reading often reminisces about the years he

spent long hours every day monitoring wildlife populations in Mongolia’s national parks, yet, while he misses it, his choice to serve as an administrator is intentional. “I think the hard work you do in the office and in the meetings is where the real benefits to conservation pay off. Building capacity and putting programs and legislation in place—that’s really gratifying.” Reading’s main focus is the grasslands of the United States and Mongolia, working on the conservation of species such as argali sheep, cinereous vultures, wild camels, prairie dogs, and black-footed ferrets, as well as landscape planning on grassland systems. “Most people don’t know it, but the grasslands are the most threatened biome on the planet,” he says. “In the United States we don’t even have a national park focused on grasslands.” Reading currently travels three to four months each year, and half of that time is spent in Mongolia, where he lived for two and a half years before joining the Denver Zoo. He likens the country to Montana as it was 150 years ago, with undeveloped areas of grassland, spruce pine forests, mountains, and plains. “It’s a wide-open country with the lowest population density in the world,” he says. Mongolia is very aggressive about conservation and is working towards the goal of protecting 30 percent of its land base. “The local people are pushing the hardest for new parks, which is in contrast to the United States, where you often have conflict with local people,” says Reading. “It’s great to work in that kind of environment.”

The success in Mongolia, according to Reading, is an inspiring example of managing both wildlife and people. When he first went to Mongolia, 3.5 percent of the country was protected, and now after 13 years of capacity building, meetings, and training, 15 percent of the country is national park, bringing it halfway to its goal. “Several projects have been passed along and we’re just providing financial and technical assistance at this point, and they’re doing all the work,” he says. “That’s what we want.” Through the Denver Zoological Foundation, Reading is working to recreate the collaborative efforts of Mongolia in other projects around the world. Zoos, he says, are reinventing themselves as primary conservation and education organizations, and are working closely with government agencies and non-governmental organizations. He believes it is this interdisciplinary approach between biological and social sciences that offers hope for the future. “We should not be surprised when efforts that focus largely on biology and ecology fail to adequately address the ecological crisis,” he says. “That shouldn’t engender hopelessness, but a more determined commitment to conservation. It leaves the door wide open for the next generation of wildlife biologists interested in improving the success of our conservation efforts.” Kathryn Sonant is Managing Editor for The Wildlife Society.

Reading spins blood from argali (Ovis ammon) using a solar-powered centrifuge at a research station in Mongolia—part of an effort to screen the mountain sheep for disease. Credit: David Kenny

More online at wildlifejournals.org

The

Future of Public Trust The legal status of the Public Trust Doctrine

By John Organ and Shane Mahoney

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

ankind has a deep-rooted reverence for wild animals. Throughout history, we have both feared and depended upon wildlife for our survival. Not surprisingly, wild animals are also a focus of our art and spirituality. Although humans value all kinds of animals, the range and depth of our emotions for wild animals are particularly pronounced, perhaps because of the innate mystery of our encounters with them, so often furtive and fleeting. In North America, the historic importance of wild animals has been sustained by laws rooted in the premise that wildlife cannot be owned by people but instead is held in trust by government for the benefit of all citizens. One reason the North American model of wildlife conservation has been hailed as the greatest model of effective conservation worldwide is that it rests on a bedrock philosophy: Wildlife is a public resource, one that is held in trust. Today, however, what came to be known as the Public Trust Doctrine, and with it the North American model of wildlife conservation, are under siege. Increasing privatization of wildlife (where landowners restrict access to wildlife for personal profit), a boom in the establishment of game farms raising wildlife for sale, the animal rights movement, and other trends are continually eroding the underpinnings of the Public Trust Doctrine. These developments threaten the legal mechanisms that allow for the protection and conservation of wildlife as a public resource. To protect the Public Trust Doctrine, conserva-

Deep Roots of Public Trust An 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case resulted in the Public Trust Doctrine. The ruling denied a landowner’s claim to exclude all others from taking oysters from particular mudflats in New Jersey. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in determining that the lands under navigable waters were held as a public trust, based the decision on his interpretation of the Magna Carta (A.D. 1215). The Magna Carta, in turn, drew upon the Justinian Code—Roman law as old as western civilization itself: “By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind — the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shore of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and the buildings, which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.”

More online at wildlifejournals.org

tion practitioners must consciously revisit its foundations so they can better understand its benefits, as well as the risks that citizens face if wildlife is not robustly protected by public ownership and government trust.

The

Future of Public Trust The roots of the Public Trust Doctrine in Roman law are, of course, more complex than this simple, eloquent statement. The Romans recognized an elaborate hierarchical system where property either belonged to the gods, to the state, or to individuals. Each type of property had a special status and had to be treated in a certain way. Romans also recognized common property (res communis) which could not be privately owned. This category included wildlife (ferae naturae) and, in fact, nature as a whole (res nullius). Under this system wild animals could only be owned when the animal was physically possessed, most typically when killed for food. While the English incorporated the substance of Roman civil law in drafting the Magna Carta, they also provided their own cultural perspective. English common law disliked the notion of “things” without owners, so the king was given vested ownership of public resources. As a result, under the English legal code, wildlife and nature were legally owned by the king, although not for his private use. The king was a trustee of natural resources, a custodian with special responsibilities to hold properties in trust for the public. The American colonies worked under English law until independence, a transition which voided the king’s role as trustee of communal property. The colonies thus lacked a specified trustee for governing natural resources until an 1842 Supreme Court ruling (Martin v. Waddell) that gave individual states public trustee status. And though Canada modeled much of its legal system after Great Britain, Canada, too, opted for the same basic policies governing wildlife as did the United States. The courts continued to refine the American idea of the Public Trust Doctrine in the decades following Martin v. Waddell. In 1896, the Supreme Court clearly articulated the theory of state ownership of wildlife (Geer v. Connecticut) and made the first explicit reference to wildlife as a public trust resource. Since the Geer decision, the courts have continued to rule on the extent of the Doctrine’s applicability. At the same time, the idea of public ownership of wildlife began to be enshrined in state constitutions and in statute. Although many aspects of Geer have been subsequently overturned, the idea of wildlife as a public trust resource has been sustained and become crucial to the conservation of wildlife in North America.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

Public Trust is … Although both are pillars of the wildlife conservation movement, neither the ancient concept of public trust nor the modern North American Public Trust Doctrine has been exclusive to wildlife. The issue of the Public Trust Doctrine re-emerged in 1970, with the writings of Joseph Sax, a Harvard-trained legal scholar. In his article The Public Trust Doctrine in the Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, Sax describes the four fundamental concepts that form the legal basis for public trust of natural resources. He declares that the Public Trust is: Common law. At present, very few legal codes articulate the Public Trust Doctrine. Instead, issues related to public trust resources are ruled upon by judges, and are thus “judge-made law.” These laws evolve as they are interpreted through court decisions. State law. Laws concerning public trust resources differ from state to state: There is no single law that articulates the fundamental rights of all citizens to access and share public resources. (That being said, the trustee status of states in regard to wildlife is transferred to the U.S. federal government when wildlife falls within parameters of the United States Constitution in dealing with particular issues related to international treaty-making, commerce, and federal-owned property.) Property law. State laws that assert property rights over public resources are invoking the rights embedded in the philosophy of the Public Trust Doctrine— that certain kinds of property, like wildlife, are public property. A Public right. Trust property is owned by the public and held in trust for the benefit of the public. Anyone who is a member of the public can claim rights to such property.

What’s at Stake For millennia, human societies and cultures have almost universally held that wild animals should remain wild and be owned by no one. But in recent years there has been a steady increase in enterprises seeking to privatize or commercialize wildlife. These efforts by individuals or corporations create profound legal and philosophical

dilemmas. On one hand, every citizen, as a member of the public, has a right to access and use wildlife, as wild animals belong to the public as property in trust. On the other hand, landowners expect to be able to control access to the land they own, pay taxes on, or manage. The current status of the Public Trust Doctrine puts public rights, property law, and the very notion of “the commons” at loggerheads with private property rights and the quest for profit derived from wildlife, whether personal, corporate, or even communal. Several core issues are riding on the direction the law takes in addressing these tensions. First, if stewardship of wildlife is taken out of the public domain and placed in private hands, the role of professional wildlife managers, particularly those employed by governments, will be weakened. If government employees charged with managing wildlife cannot put management practices into place and implement them across the landscape, their ability to actually manage wildlife populations will be cut off at the knees. A lack of authority to oversee wildlife populations has potentially devastating implications—from losing the capability to accurately monitor wildlife populations or track the spread of disease, to being unable to properly enforce protection of sensitive habitats and species. Second, if the strength of the Public Trust Doctrine deteriorates, the public’s acknowledged connection to wildlife could erode with it. In other words, a weakened Public Trust Doctrine, in law and practice, would result in a diminished ability of citizens to look at a scene of nature and know, unequivocally, that all the elements of the environment in their view are part of their citizen inheritance. Such a change in perception could impact the very core of how experiences in nature, such as fishing, hunting, hiking, birding, and more, are valued by the public at large. Third, and immensely troubling, is the reality that if wildlife and its habitat are not protected under a strong and sound public trust system, the public will not have the ability to challenge, and therefore influence, management decisions. The Public Trust Doctrine, in its ideal form, provides the public with a legal right that can be enforced against the government. Challenges made by members of the public have been crucial in the development of management actions that sustain natural populations as well as human economies. Eroding the Public Trust Doctrine could lead to courts becoming more hesitant © The Wildlife Society

Credit: iStockphoto.com/Degany

Tourists flock to observe majesty on public land—the regular eruptions of Yellowstone National Park’s Beehive Geyser.

If wildlife and its habitat are not protected under a strong and sound public trust system, the public will not have the ability to challenge, and therefore influence, management decisions. to recognize the public’s right to enforce the doctrine against the government.

The Future of Public Trust For the Public Trust Doctrine to be an effective wildlife conservation tool, the public must understand that wild animals, regardless of whose property they are on, belong to everyone. Furthermore, the government as trustee must be legally accountable for preventing the squandering of the trust resource. Finally, the Doctrine must be up to date, with provisions for modern resources and conservation practices—even those which may have not been considered by the original architects of the public trust. For example, Roman law established precedent for the modern view that wildlife is owned by no one, but they could not have conceived of modern concerns over species extinctions and needs for active management of wildlife. Unfortunately, recent court proceedings portend a tempestuous future for the Public Trust Doctrine. In Normal Parm, et al. v. Sheriff Mark Shumate (2006), for instance, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana declared it was criminal trespassing for the public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters of America. This ruling makes illegal all recreational boating, fishing, and waterfowl hunting on navigable waters, unless conducted in the main channel More online at wildlifejournals.org

The

Future of Public Trust beyond the laws that it has already inspired? And a further question must be asked: What needs to be done to ensure the Public Trust Doctrine survives the next 165 years and beyond?

Credit: J. Schmidt/NPS

Bison were victims of the tragedy of the commons, shot in hoards as Americans moved west. A concerted conservation effort has returned them to places like Yellowstone National Park.

of the river or with the permission of all riparian landowners along the navigable river. Traditionally, the Public Trust Doctrine had been interpreted to allow public access to the entire river, from bank to bank. In Kramer v. Clark Wis. (Ct.App., Dec. 21, 2006), the Wisconsin state court of appeals held that a nonprofit group seeking to preserve the wildlife and natural resources of Richland County did not have standing to challenge the county’s practice of granting rezoning petitions. The court declared that the state Public Trust Doctrine does not confer the right to challenge “any government action that arguably impacts any natural resources in Wisconsin.” In Wisconsin, the doctrine has never been applied beyond the context of direct infringement of the public’s rights in navigable waters, and the court has directed that it cannot be applied to wildlife. These decisions may reflect the courts’ difficulty in distinguishing between government’s general obligation to act for the public benefit and the additional, and perhaps greater, obligation it has as trustee of certain public resources. For example, in upholding its obligation to act for the public benefit, a court may consider the current situation of a case under review as relevant to a conservation or resource-use decision, but not factor in its trustee responsibility to perpetuate these resources for future generations. The question remains, 165 years after Martin v. Waddell: Does the Public Trust Doctrine have any judicially enforceable right 22

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

A first step in solidifying the Doctrine may be to revisit the statutory charters of state and provincial fish and wildlife agencies. The codes that govern the disposition of fish and wildlife should be explicit, not only in defining these resources as property of the jurisdiction, but also in mandating the responsibility to maintain these resources for the benefit of present and future generations. Despite inevitable regional and cultural variability, the underlying tenets of the public trust should be consistent and easily interpreted. Where there is doubt, or room for dispute, agencies should immediately revise their charters to clarify and exercise the core principles of public trustee responsibilities in wildlife conservation. Codifying the Public Trust Doctrine in this way will be crucial to ensuring it remains a vital tool for the protection and management of wildlife in North America. In future decades, will citizens continue to have free access to enjoy wildlife in traditional as well as emerging pursuits? Will governments preserve biodiversity for future generations? Will wildlife remain wild? The answers to these questions will depend significantly upon people’s awareness of their innate share in the ownership of wildlife, and in their shared responsibility for it. Government trustees can help secure the Public Trust Doctrine by increasing public awareness and by increasing government responsiveness to the needs and desires of all citizens, democratically enshrined and democratically discharged. 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. Shane Mahoney is Executive Director of the Institute of Biodiversity, Ecosystem Science and Sustainability at Memorial University and the Executive Director of Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For a bibliography of additional readings on laws and policies relating to the Public Trust Doctrine and links to court cases, see this article online at wildlifejournals.org.

Slash and Burn THREADBARE BUDGETS WEAKEN THE FABRIC OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Wildlife professionals often talk excitedly about their research and conservation work, its potential implications, and the future directions their work could take … if they only had more money. These days, however, concerns about budgetary constraints seem to overpower the usual enthusiastic chatter. The lack of adequate funding for wildlife conservation and science is so prevalent, in fact, that many fear wildlife and their habitats may suffer irreversible damage, which even a future inflow of funding may not be sufficient to assuage. Why the fiscal pessimism? The list of supporting evidence begins with the high profile cost of warfare. The war in Iraq swallows something on the order of $255 million taxpayer dollars each day, and the Department of Homeland Security now has a budget of $42.7 billion for fiscal year 2007. Federal disaster funding following hurricanes Katrina and Rita removed another $100 billion from the federal reserves. Of course, more pedestrian budgetary necessities also persist, from cost-of-living salary increases for federal government employees to the billowing costs of keeping government vehicles running, lights lit, and heat on in buildings from small town halls to capital cities across the country. Even some of the most critical federal agencies, like the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education, have felt the pinch. On a pure numbers basis, however, agencies supporting wildlife management and natural resource conservation have suffered some of the hardest hits, and President Bush’s 2008 budget request suggests more may be forthcoming. Many agencies are now making do with flat budgets as a continuing resolution kept fiscal year 2007 funding levels even with 2006 levels. And some agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, will have to cope with smaller budgets in 2008 than they had in 2006 (see chart). Steven Williams, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) and current president of the Wildlife Management Institute, notes that FWS has faced finely sliced cuts here and there in recent years. “When that accumulates over six budget cycles,” he says, “it really has an impact.”

By Katherine Unger

Doing More With Less “Our refuges, our wildlife management activities on federal lands, and our key state initiatives like State Wildlife Grants and the Landowner Incentive Program all suffer in this kind of budget climate,” says Laura Bies, The Wildlife Society’s associate director of government affairs.

Credit: John and Karen Hollingsworth/USFWS

America’s first National Wildlife Refuge, Pelican Island, has been forced to put many of its visitor services on hold because of funding constraints. © The Wildlife Society

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Refuge Compromises

Credit: Denis Mudderman

Wildlife biologist Lowell Deede stands on a collapsed main trail in Minnesota’s Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge, where a full-time maintenance worker position was lost due to funding cuts.

Bies leads efforts by the Society to encourage federal and state legislators to appropriate funds to support wildlife management and conservation. “Until our leaders make funding natural resource programs a priority, wildlife professionals will continue to be forced to do more with less, and our wildlife and habitat may pay the price.” Following is an examination of how limited funding has touched selected spheres of wildlife management, including the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), where members of the public can access protected areas for recreational pursuits from fishing to photography; natural resources law enforcement, which can make or break efforts to conserve wildlife; and states’ budgets for wildlife management, many of which have been a source of political contention for decades. An analysis of this scope leaves many other serious funding shortfalls unexamined. But one may observe how these few examples have brought and will continue to bring about deeply felt, real-world changes, often revealing themselves in places where wildlife management meets the day-to-day lives of the public.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

The NWRS is one of the most publicly visible parts of FWS. It oversees 545 separate refuges that together encompass more than 96 million acres of land and are visited by about 32 million people each year. These visitors participate in activities ranging from bird watching to hiking to hunting. Although funding for the NWRS increased by nearly 40 percent from 2000 to 2004, mainly to support operational costs, funding has been essentially flat since then. And maintaining such wild places isn’t cheap. For the past several years, the NWRS has been accumulating an astounding maintenance backlog that the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) advocacy group estimates at over $2.5 billion. According to a FWS budget officer, 174 field stations saw increases in their budget above inflation between 2001 and 2005, while 112 stations had flat or declining budgets, accounting for inflation. To compensate for these budget losses, many refuges allowed vacancies to remain open following an employee’s retirement or departure for another job. The end result, says Jon Andrews, chief of refuges for the Southeast Region, was that some refuges were severely short-staffed, while others were relatively well-off. Because some of the largest expenses in the system are due to salaries, Andrews says that eliminating positions is the most streamlined way to cut costs. Between 2004 and 2006, 64 NWRS field positions and four regional office positions were eliminated in the Southeast Region, and the new plan suggests cutting as many as 88 more full-time employees—which would result in a 20 percent staffing reduction over the past few years. “At some point this is going to show up in what kind of opportunities we can provide to the public,” Andrews says. The Southeast Region’s refuges were the first to develop a workforce plan, and the other regions have followed. According to CARE, the plans will force NWRS to reduce hunting lotteries, decrease biological monitoring, limit activities such as schoolchildren’s field trips to refuges, or, in some cases, close refuges altogether. Some refuges have already been shuttered. In the last year or so, NWRS has been “trying to share the pain,” says Andrews, by balancing staffing levels among all refuges, rather than have certain units bear the brunt of the shortages. One strategy has been termed “complexing refuges”:

The staff for certain refuges has been eliminated or moved to a neighboring refuge, whose management staff theoretically assumes responsibility for managing their own refuge as well as the one that has been closed. In practice, however, complexed refuges are akin to winter clothes in mothballs—they will be in a state of hopeful neglect, waiting for brighter budget days to come to be fully operational.

FEDERAL BUDGETS, FISCAL YEARS 2006 – 2008 4,500 4,000

FY06

3,500

FY07*

3,000

FY08*

2,500 2,000

Protecting the Protectors In contrast to the heavily used and visitorfriendly refuges, the results of investment in natural resources law enforcement are not always as visible. The officers don’t have the same recognition as the intrepid scientists protecting charismatic wolves or graceful migratory birds; rather they often work behind the scenes, ensuring that an exotic frog species does not penetrate the United States border and drive precious native species out of existence. Wildlife law enforcement officers are being asked to fulfill increasingly diverse roles and to handle more daunting challenges than ever before. Perhaps one of the most important roles they play is in ports and along borders. “More people are traveling, more goods are coming and going,” says Benito Perez, acting chief of law enforcement for FWS. At these potentially vulnerable spots along borders, officers assess imports and exports to guard against the black market trade in wildlife. They also must take into consideration international treaties concerning the trade and sale of wildlife, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and various migratory bird treaties. Officers’ responsibilities extend to almost every other area of conservation. They must ensure that hunting takes place only when and where legal licenses permit it, that protected wildlife habitats are not destroyed, and that proper forensic evidence is used to solve crimes involving wildlife. In addition, they must respond to and investigate the various everyday crimes that occur on protected lands. With a steadily increasing population and a world that is getting no safer, security and enforcement of laws is a high priority for federal agencies in general. The budget for FWS law enforcement has made small gains over the past few years, from $56.1 million in 2006 to a

1,500 1,000 500 0 FWS

USGS

BLM

NPS

Source: Office of Management and Budget; Graphic: TWS

Discretionary spending for some wildlife management agencies has been flat or declined in the last few years, comprising their ability to carry out important research and management work. See figures for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), and the USDA Forest Service (FS). *These figures are estimates.

request of $57.6 million for 2008. Yet the service has only just over 200 special agents—down from a high of roughly 240 in 2002. Law enforcement in other Interior agencies has also been affected. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) law enforcement, which looks after 264 million acres of public lands, has also seen a small decline in funding from 2006 levels. The agency has approximately 200 officers, some with ranges that cover 1.8 million acres. The National Park Service had been struggling in recent years, but President Bush gave the agency a boost in his fiscal year 2008 budget request to gear up for the 100th anniversary of the parks, coming up in 2016. A 2006 survey of 37 of the largest parks by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees concluded that law enforcement levels were so weak that visitor safety was endangered.

States Struggle to Make Ends Meet States, too, depend in part on that shrinking pile of federal dollars to manage and conserve wildlife locally. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program was started in 2000 to divvy out funds to states based on their area and population in order to manage species that are not already

More online at wildlifejournals.org

classified as endangered or threatened. States are also able to give federal money to private citizens through cost-sharing programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP), and the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), which encourage landowners to preserve and enhance their property to benefit wildlife (see feature article, p. 18). Other funding sources are apportioned under the Federal Aid for Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act) and the Federal Aid in Sport and Fish Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson Act). These amendments levy a tax on hunting and fishing equipment, which is then apportioned to individual states based on a formula taking into account the number of licensed sportspeople in the state and the geographical size of the state. These forms of federal assistance don’t let states off the hook financially. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants are only given as a reimbursement to projects that have already been completed. And, states must provide funds to pay for 25 to 50 percent of the projects’ costs. “If you don’t have money to do business on a regular

basis, where are you going to get the money to get this match?” says Daniel Zekor, federal aid coordinator for the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC). For some states, the only way of obtaining these matching dollars is by selling hunting and fishing permits. But with participation in such activities declining and needs for wildlife management and conservation increasing, many states are struggling to make ends meet. New Hampshire’s Fish and Game Department receives only a tiny fraction of the state’s general fund, amounting to less than 0.2 percent of the department’s overall budget of $27 million. The agency supports 78,000 hunters, 267,000 fishermen, and 766,000 wildlife watchers who either live in or travel to the state to enjoy its natural resources. Liza Poinier, an information officer for the department, notes that while income from fishing and hunting permits has remained flat in recent years, expenses such as salaries, gas, and health insurance have risen dramatically. In the last couple of years the department has kept 11 employee vacancies open—a significant number, given that full-time staff number roughly 200. An attempt to get a cut of taxes assessed on

Credit: Missouri Department of Conservation

Planting trees to beautify public spaces is made possible by the public funding devoted specifically to the Missouri Department of Conservation.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

hotels and restaurants was turned down by the state legislature in March. Currently, the department is searching for a variety of ways to stay financially viable, from auctioning off a small number of moose permits to requiring purchasers of canoes or kayaks to contribute an extra $10 towards the department’s budget. “We are working to educate people on the fact that this is it, we’re not joking around,” says Poinier. “The agency will be crippled if we don’t find some other funding source.” States such as Missouri, however, are in a much more comfortable position. In 1976, the MDC succeeded in getting a ballot initiative to obtain a dedicated funding source. After a long campaign, it succeeded in winning a sales tax increase of 0.125 percent, for the sole use of the department. “What this means to us as an agency is incredible,” says Gene Gardner, wildlife program administrator for the MDC. In the 30 years since the measure was passed, it has brought $1.8 billion to the agency, with a projected revenue in fiscal year 2007 of $103 million. With the MDC receiving only $22 million in federal aid and $30 million from permitting, the sales tax percentage has become an indispensable part of Missouri’s wildlife management budget.

Coping Mechanisms With so little money to go around, it’s hard to look for the positives, but people like Defenders of Wildlife’s Executive Vice President Jamie Clark see a silver lining to the difficult budgetary situation. The Bush administration “has just absolutely gone after the environmental budget,” says Clark, and that helps rally the troops, generating more fervor for environmental issues. “It’s always good to have villains because people get upset,” says Clark. “I mean, probably some of the best fundraising in the environmental community happened during [the term of former Secretary of the Interior] James Watt.” Another positive spin on the difficult budget situation is that constraints can sometimes coax out creative coping mechanisms. “Stress can bring out the best in people,” notes Marshall Jones, recently retired deputy director of FWS. “We don’t want to give people ulcers,” he says, “but we can use this to encourage innovation.” One example, told to Jones by the Secretary of the Interior’s chief of staff, illustrates this creativity under fire to an extreme degree. On the

Credit: NAU Park Ranger Training Program

Law enforcement officers, like this one in Big Bend National Park in Texas, often cover broad ranges, handling responsibilities from controlling illegal immigration to conducting search and rescue operations.

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, located on the grounds surrounding the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, limited funding cut into a basic need. The refuge carried out necessary prescribed burns, and thus needed a fire truck to keep flames under control. But no funding was available for this purpose. Instead of calling it a day, the refuge employees decided to build their own truck. They found an old truck someone was trying to get rid of, and water tanks were donated by members of the community and welded onto its sides. “It probably didn’t meet OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standards,” Jones says with a smile. But that is beside the point. Innovative thinking of this kind will certainly be an integral part of overcoming budget constraints. But to bolster these ideas and enact high quality wildlife management and conservation, adequate funding is a necessity. Katherine Unger is a science writer for The Wildlife Society.

For links to the federal budget request, refuge workforce plans, and information on cost-sharing programs, go to this article online at wildlifejournals.org.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Values and Functions of Scientific Societies MEMBERSHIP, PARTICIPATION, AND PERCEPTIONS OF USFWS AND USGS-BRD WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS By Eric J. Taylor and Bruce Lauber

Courtesy of Eric Taylor

Eric J. Taylor is the Regional Refuge Biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska.

Credit: Nancy Connelly

Bruce Lauber is a Senior Research Associate in the Human Dimensions Research Unit at Cornell University.

Despite professional workload, administrative burdens, and declining budgets, wildlife biologists—like professionals in other fields—do what they can to maintain and enhance their professional expertise. They may join scientific societies, or attend seminars, workshops, short courses, and conferences. They might also read scientific literature and monitor listserves and databases via the Internet for the latest research, management, or policy news. Regardless of the time allotted to these kinds of activities, most agree that engaging in professional development activities is crucial over the course of a career. In June 2004, The Wildlife Society (TWS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Discipline (USGS) signed an agreement to promote excellence in wildlife science, policy, and education by increasing the exchange of scientific information, advancing professionalism, and supporting continuing education for wildlife biologists and managers. Because involvement in scientific societies is one way to maintain and enhance scientific knowledge, we conducted an Internet-based survey of USFWS and USGS employees to: 1. assess membership and participation in scientific societies, particularly TWS and the American Fisheries Society (AFS) 2. identify the professional needs met through participation in scientific societies 3. assess the importance and relevancy of TWS and AFS publications, conferences, certification programs, and policies 4. identify factors that influence membership and participation in TWS and AFS Here, we discuss the preliminary results of this survey. Two manuscripts with complete descriptions of levels of participation and

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

factors that influence involvement in scientific societies are being prepared for The Journal of Wildlife Management. The survey was conducted in May 2006 via the Internet, and was sent to about 3,800 USFWS employees across six programs: endangered species, fisheries and habitat conservation, refuges, migratory birds, federal aid, international affairs, and law enforcement. Simultaneously, we surveyed 900 USGS employees in 17 Science Centers and 40 Cooperative Research Units. USFWS and USGS survey recipients included wildlife biologists with expertise in migratory birds, endangered species, refuges, habitat conservation, forensics, and international affairs as well as other professionals working in fisheries, coastal restoration, state wildlife grants, economics, botany, genetics, forestry, law enforcement, statistics, freshwater ecology, and marine biology. The response rates were remarkably high as 74 percent of USFWS employees and 68 percent of USGS employees completed the survey—an indication that employees in both agencies were very interested in professional development needs, including participation in scientific societies. Wildlife biologists comprised 69 percent of the USFWS respondents and 39 percent of the USGS.

Professional Needs of USFWS and USGS Employees USFWS and USGS employees were asked to rank the importance of each of 12 possible professional needs. For USFWS, the most important needs were strengthening their scientific knowledge (75 percent considered this “very important”); keeping informed of new research methods, results, and their management implica-

tions (65 percent); and keeping informed about natural resource policy issues (59 percent). USGS employees’ highest priorities were similar but not identical with strengthening scientific knowledge (88 percent), sharing research results and their management implications with other professionals (85 percent), and keeping informed of new research methods, results, and their management implications (83 percent) at the top of their list.

PROFESSIONAL NEEDS OF USFWS AND USGS EMPLOYEES Professional Need

FWS USGS

Strengthen my scientific knowledge Keep informed of new research Keep informed of natural resource policy Network with other professionals Influence natural resource policy Support others in my profession Develop leadership skills Demonstrate commitment to profession Share my research results with others Solidify my opinion through discussion Enhance credibility in my profession Enhance credibility outside my profession 1

751 65 59 58 52 47 47 46 45 40 40 36

88 83 42 60 34 46 32 41 85 39 47 29

Percentage stating professional need was “Very Important”

Membership in Scientific Societies Overall, about 50 percent of USFWS wildlife biologists and 91 percent of USGS wildlife biologists belong to at least one scientific society. Based on membership, TWS was the most important scientific society to USFWS and USGS wildlife biologists.

MEMBERSHIP IN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES BY USFWS AND USGS WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS The Wildlife Society Society for Conservation Biology American Ornithologists Union Cooper Ornithological Society Ecological Society of America Any Scientific Society

FWS (%) USGS (%) 19.3 52.2 7.7 23.7 4.7 28.6 3.1 24.1 1.5 24.5 50.2 91.4

We found that both USFWS and USGS wildlife biologists joined TWS in particular to meet a variety of their professional needs, among the most important being staying informed of new research and management implications, strengthening scientific knowledge, and networking. USFWS wildlife biologists also joined TWS to help them stay informed of natural resource policy. Sharing research results and management implications with other professionals was an important reason for joining TWS among USGS wildlife biologists but not for those in USFWS. Although the reasons USFWS and USGS wildlife biologists cited for joining TWS were similar, levels of participation of TWS members in Society activities varied both within and between agencies. For example, subscription rates to the management-oriented journal the Wildlife Society Bulletin (which ceased publication in 2006) was approximately the same for TWS members in USFWS (62 percent) and USGS (67 percent). However, more TWS members in USGS (78 percent) received The Journal of Wildlife Management than TWS members in USFWS (52 percent). For TWS members, twice as many USGS wildlife biologists (64 percent) as USFWS (30 percent) had attended the national annual meeting between 2001 and 2005, and twice as many in USGS (44 percent compared to 22 percent) considered the meeting very important. The proportion of USGS wildlife biologists (60 percent) presenting at the annual meeting was almost five times that of USFWS (13 percent). Similarly, a greater proportion of TWS members in the USGS participated in TWS national level activities, such as serving as an officer and working on a committee. At the same time, however, more TWS members who worked for the USFWS participated in TWS chapters.

Certification Since 1977, TWS has offered a Professional Certification Program to further advance its mission of excellence in wildlife stewardship. The proportions of wildlife biologists who were Society members with some level of certification varied between USFWS and USGS. In the USFWS, 29 percent were Certified Wildlife Biologists and six percent were Certified Associate Wildlife Biologists. In the USGS, 18 percent

More online at wildlifejournals.org

were Certified Wildlife Biologists and three percent were Certified Associate Wildlife Biologists. Over half (52 percent) of USFWS TWS members and nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of USGS TWS members were not certified and have no intention to apply for certification. TWS members in both agencies do not believe certification increases the probability of professional advancement. In fact, TWS members in the USGS indicated that they do not believe certification enhances credibility in the profession or is supported by USGS, and think that certification is irrelevant to their position.

Factors Correlated with Membership in TWS TWS membership increased with level of education in both USFWS and USGS. A larger proportion of wildlife biologists with doctoral degrees were TWS members than wildlife biologists with Master’s or Bachelor’s.

Wildlife biologists from both agencies were much more likely to be members of TWS if their supervisors and coworkers were members.

SUPERVISOR AND AGENCY SUPPORT OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING WORK Activity

Supervisor

Agency

FWS USGS FWS USGS

Collaborating on scientific studies Conducting scientific studies Presenting at scientific meetings Attending scientific meetings Reading scientific literature Publishing government documents Belonging to scientific societies Publishing in peer-reviewed journals Organizing workshops Leadership in scientific societies Participating on committees Becoming certified Working on position statements 1

511 43 45 50 43 34 22 24 25 13 13 9 10

85 87 80 73 60 49 49 86 50 39 33 8 9

51 44 40 40 47 45 25 31 21 14 12 10 12

89 92 78 57 62 69 49 90 50 44 32 10 19

Percentage encouraged or strongly encouraged to undertake activity

TWS MEMBERSHIP AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION TWS Membership (%) FWS USGS

Bachelor 11 —

Master 25 38

Doctorate 35 61

The youngest wildlife biologists (26 to 35 years old) in USFWS and USGS were least likely to be members of TWS. The proportion of USFWS wildlife biologists that were TWS members generally increased with salary. TWS membership also varied by position: two-thirds (66 percent) of the USGS research grade-evaluated wildlife biologists belonged to TWS compared to 31 percent of USGS wildlife biologists in other positions. USFWS employees stated that USFWS neither encouraged nor discouraged membership and participation in scientific societies. However, USGS employees were more likely to believe their agency supported membership in scientific societies as well as a variety of related activities such as attending and presenting at scientific meetings, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and organizing workshops.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

The survey asked respondents to indicate the importance of various factors that could constrain their membership or activities in scientific societies. In both agencies, wildlife biologists primarily felt restricted by their current workload, and those in USFWS also felt that the cost associated with attending meetings and the lack of agency support for their participation were constraints. The lack of agency support for attending meetings was a concern that surfaced repeatedly during interviews with USFWS biologists. The higher proportion of USGS wildlife biologists belonging to scientific societies, and their greater involvement at the national level is likely due—in part at least—to the agency’s mandate to conduct and publish research. Over half (61 percent) of the USGS wildlife biologists in our sample were research grade-evaluated scientists, a job description that does not exist in the USFWS. The higher level of society membership in USGS is likely also because of a higher average degree of education. Education is positively correlated with society membership, and more USGS wildlife biologists had doctoral degrees (71 percent) than USFWS wildlife biologists had

Master’s and doctoral degrees combined (57 percent). However, USGS had a higher percentage of wildlife biologists joining TWS than USFWS at all education levels. Acknowledging these differences, one might reasonably ask if the levels of participation we report would be acceptable to either agency, or do the agencies want to consider steps to encourage and facilitate greater participation. The USFWS policy on membership and participation in professional societies states that “… membership, involvement, and participation in professional societies are … important for the purposes of maintaining and enhancing our capabilities in professional resource management.” While USGS has no formal policy on scientific society involvement, Jim Fleming, Deputy Chief, USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units and Rick Kearney, Wildlife Program Coordinator, emphasized that USGS not only encourages, but expects its scientists to participate in scientific societies, related to their professions.

What’s Next Because our results and the interpretations of their meaning are preliminary, we are reluctant to recommend specific actions for the USFWS and USGS to take if increasing employee involvement in scientific societies is a priority. However, our data demonstrate that USFWS and USGS employees participate in TWS to maintain and enhance scientific knowledge, keep informed about new research and its management implications, network with professional colleagues, and demonstrate their commitment to the wildlife profession. We expect that USFWS and USGS directorates may feel that meeting these professional needs is critical to attain their missions. If employee engagement in scientific societies is a priority to federal agencies, what steps might be considered to increase employee memberships and participation? Guidance should be informed by our understanding that membership and involvement are positively correlated with peer and supervisor membership in scientific societies and with supervisor and agency support, but that they are constrained by workload. Therefore, if increased membership and involvement in scientific societies are deemed priorities, our preliminary recommendations are:

1. Federal agencies should develop official policies that provide explicit guidance to their employees and their supervisors toward membership and all aspects of participation in scientific societies. 2. Supervisors should encourage and support their employees to join and participate in scientific societies by creating a culture where reading scientific journals, publishing, attending local and national scientific conferences, and participating in other professional activities are expected and recognized in the workplace. 3. The USFWS should establish a process for employees to attend national and international conferences that is transparent and serves to promote scientific excellence and employee development. 4. The USFWS should require an advanced degree for all new employees who conduct or supervise scientific activities for the USFWS, or who compile and translate scientific information into formats used by USFWS management. The responsibility to increase participation of federal employees in scientific societies does not rest entirely with agencies. Unless scientific societies address current and relevant interests of the profession for which they were founded, we cannot expect that changes adopted by federal agencies will attain their full potential. To that end, our future publications will also report USFWS and USGS perceptions of TWS publications, the annual conference, and other membership services to provide TWS the opportunity to address their needs.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

Wasting in the Wild UNDERSTANDING THE PERPLEXING CHALLENGES OF MANAGING CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE By Katherine Unger

Though a mention of mad cow disease is likely to strike fear in the heart of an average citizen, a related malady may well inspire more dread in wildlife managers, hunters, biologists, and landowners in the central portion of North America: chronic wasting disease (CWD). The interdependence of deer and human recreation in large pockets throughout this region has made managing CWD particularly complex. CWD appears to move slowly in wild populations but ravages infected individuals in less than two years. Scientific solutions to management problems have, in some cases, eluded wildlife professionals struggling to address this challenge to the resource. And aside from dealing with the practical and scientific concerns for wildlife, managers must also negotiate the concerns of humans who have a vested interest—recreationally, financially, and emotionally—in those animals at risk.

The Science of Wasting Chronic wasting disease falls into a category of afflictions called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs, which are also known as prion diseases. Mad cow disease, or bovine spongifom encephalopathy (BSE), is perhaps the most infamous of these. Others include scrapie, a disease affecting domestic sheep and goats, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), a human ailment occurring naturally in approximately one in one million individuals each year, one form of which has also been linked to eating beef from BSE-infected cows. Prions are not bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites, but rather a misshaped form of a protein that is normally found in mammals. Most, but not all, scientists agree that this inanimate clump of amino acids can cause infectious disease just like our more familiar “germs,” probably by

A cervid farm in central Wisconsin, where this elk was photographed, was a known source of spread of CWD to wild white-tailed deer. Credit: Josh Spice

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

starting a chain reaction that converts normal prions to the disease-causing form. Prion diseases typically attack neural tissue and, in the later stages of the disease, cause holes to form in the brain (hence “spongiform”). With CWD, diagnosis is usually confirmed by examining the brain or lymph nodes of dead specimens. Recently, however, tests involving tonsil biopsy have begun to allow scientists to test for the disease in live animals. Like other prion diseases, CWD always results in death. So far, only four species, all cervids, have been diagnosed with CWD in the wild: whitetailed deer, mule deer, elk, and moose. Infected deer can appear normal at first. But as a CWD infection progresses, deer typically lose weight, drink and urinate more, drool excessively, have a blank facial expression, lose their fear of humans, and become isolated. The disease typically kills within 18 to 24 months.

The First Spark CWD was first identified in a mule deer in 1967 on a wildlife research facility in northern Colorado. In 1978 scientists categorized the infection as a TSE. Over the next two decades the disease was found in the wild, and certain states began surveillance efforts in the 1980s. To date, the disease has been found in wild or captive animals and is chronicled on websites in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Although all of these states and provinces have had to navigate the challenge of managing CWD, the emergence of the disease in Wisconsin has been particularly telling of the thin line wildlife managers must walk between pleasing people, managing financial concerns, and protecting the resource. Surveillance for CWD began in the state in 1999, with reassuringly negative results. Then, in the fall of 2001, three deer shot near Mount Horeb in southwestern Wisconsin tested positive. “All hell broke loose with that discovery,” says Scott Craven, an extension wildlife specialist and professor of wildlife biology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “People were immediately frightened because of the association, at least in people’s minds, with BSE [mad cow disease].”

Credit: Jerry Davis

Researchers have tried new methods of sampling lymph nodes to test for prions, such as removing a piece of a live deer’s tonsils, though these methods may not be cost effective in the long term.

Upon discovering the prion diseases of mad cow disease and scrapie in domestic livestock, wildlife and agricultural officials made containment a number one priority. When BSE was discovered in British cattle herds in the late 1980s, the British government ordered the culling of nearly 200,000 cattle and banned the export of cattle to other countries. And ever since scrapie was diagnosed in the United States in the 1940s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has implemented programs for surveillance, eradication, and herd certification to prevent potentially grave economic losses of sheep and goat flocks. Unique to CWD, though, is one uncomfortable question: since CWD has not been proven to pose a threat to human health or livestock populations, why are managers working so hard to control the disease? Couldn’t Wisconsin stand to lose some deer? The answer is not straightforward. In Wisconsin, deer are central to the state’s $1 billion hunting industry and estimated 700,000 hunters. These factors and others—such as the large proportion of hunting land in private hands, and the significance of the dairy industry in Wisconsin— complicate the already tricky situation faced by wildlife officials.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

CUMULATIVE CWD POSITIVE LOCATIONS OF WHITETAILED DEER IN WISCONSIN AND ILLINOIS

Credit: Wisconsin DNR

State wildlife officials in Illinois and Wisconsin have rigorously tracked the precise locations where chronic wasting disease-positive deer were hunted.

“When we first learned about the disease it was kind of an all hands on deck thing for wildlife people in the southern part of the state,” says Alan Crossley, the Chronic Wasting Disease project leader for the Wisconsin DNR. Almost immediately, the department began a multipronged approach to the disease, incorporating science, management, and a good dose of PR. In the spring of 2002 the department broadened and intensified surveillance efforts, soon identifying a region surrounding the Mount Horeb site, not far from Madison, which test results indicated might contain all the cases of CWD in the state. The region spanned over 400 square miles and supported roughly 17,000 deer. The DNR, says Craven, “immediately adopted a firefighting model, which later came back to haunt them.” In this model, the disease was seen as a fire, able to throw out sparks and start other blazes. The main aim, then, was to gain control before secondary outbreaks took hold, by eradicating all the deer in a central, 210-square-mile area.

A Failed Rallying Cry The core area is one of Wisconsin’s most popular hunting regions, and the proposed culling created some unexpected bedfellows. Animal rights supporters, for instance, joined with

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

Credit: Wisconsin DNR

Hunters indicate the precise position of their deer kills to help Wisconsin DNR officials track the location of CWD-infected animals.

hunters who feared that thinning deer herds would compromise their hunting prospects. For hunters, notes the University of Wisconsin’s Scott Craven, the prospect of killing as many deer as possible “goes up against a very fundamental belief drilled into hunters for generations: You don’t kill what you can’t use.” Tempering these critics and encouraging landowners and hunters to educate themselves about the disease were and remain top priorities for the DNR. The DNR’s Alan Crossley says the department has gone to great lengths to raise public awareness about CWD using an array of techniques, including information hotlines, frequent public surveys, newsletters mailed to hunters and landowners in the CWD management area, and periodic public meetings. But education only goes so far. Killing thousands of deer is too large a job for the DNR to take on alone. To enlist the public’s help in culling populations, the department has used various measures to encourage hunting: Landowners in the defined “disease eradication zone” receive special open licenses to hunt on their own land, the traditional nine day hunting season has been lengthened, and hunters are given the chance to “Earn a Buck”—receiving a license to kill a male deer if they first shot an antlerless deer.

“I can’t really fault them,” says Jerry Davis, a landowner in the CWD eradication zone, of the Wisconsin DNR’s response to the disease’s emergence. “Many people—hunters and landowners and politicians—have been criticizing how they’re dealing with this but I don’t see them putting forward many answers or suggestions.” Davis, a former science teacher and freelance journalist, has also been able to look on the bright side. Cutting the herd down on his lands has alleviated some of the damage committed by deer. “I think our trees are doing better,” says Davis. “I’ve been seeing less damage on our pines and white oaks and red oaks.” In Wisconsin in 2006, 29,316 deer were tested for the disease and 188 were found to be positive, with positives scattered across 12 southern counties. Although the overall prevalence rate is low (0.6 percent), Crossley notes that prevalence in the core CWD area has remained steady since 2002, at 5 percent for does and 10 percent for bucks.

Science Marches On In the meantime, scientists have been investigating CWD from many angles. “Really a key question that we need to understand is what the relationship between animal density and disease transmission is,” says USGS’s Michael Samuel. If CWD is a density-dependent disease, like tuberculosis, then culling the herd would be a sensible management strategy. But certain aspects of CWD indicate that disease transmission is more complicated than that. For one, bucks have been shown to have infection rates twice as high as does. Samuel notes several potential explanations for this difference: Bucks have a larger range than does, they cavort with more individuals, and during the fall rutting season they often sniff and come into contact with areas where another buck has licked or urinated. More recent findings further complicate the picture of TSEs—a 2006 study by Icelandic and American researchers in the Journal of General Virology suggested scrapie prions could potentially be maintained in soil in an infectious state for as many as 16 years. If the same holds true for CWD prions, a deer might be able to contract the disease without even touching an infected animal. That could call into question the wisdom of culling herds to control CWD, when the infectious agent lives on beyond its host.

One question of particular interest is whether CWD is transmissible to other animals, humans in particular. Since 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has investigated several cases of suspicious brain diseases occurring in people who hunted deer or consumed venison regularly. Some of these cases were concluded to be diseases other than Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), but some occurred in unusually young individuals. Still, researchers concluded there was no proof to link CWD and CJD. In a 2004 paper in Emerging Infectious Diseases, a team of researchers noted that CWD prions converted normal human proteins to an infectious state in a laboratory environment. This conversion, however, took place very inefficiently, suggesting that the humans contracting CWD in nature is improbable. Another investigation which exposed transgenic mice with human prions to CWD demonstrated that none of the mice contracted the disease, while mice with elk prions did become infected. Still, as Michael Miller, a wildlife veterinarian with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, says, “Never say never. That’s a dumb thing to be saying in any biological system.” The uncertainty about the safety of CWD-infected meat extends to the CDC, which indicates that CWD seems to pose little risk to human health; at the same time, the CDC’s recommendations state that meat from infected deer should not be consumed. Experimentation in non-human animals has proceeded in a more straightforward manner, and has so far shown that CWD seems restricted to cervids. Researchers have gone so far as to inject infected CWD prions into cows’ brains; even then cows contract CWD at a low rate. In more natural experiments, cattle that shared drinking troughs with and were held in pens adjacent to infected elk have never developed a case of CWD. These experiments give some researchers confidence that CWD should not pose a great concern to either human health or the well-being of commercially raised livestock, though deer farmers in states where CWD has been found have legitimate concerns about the potential for their animals to contract the disease from a wild source. Unfortunately, some of the most basic questions about the disease have yet to be fully addressed, like how the disease is transmitted. An October 2006 paper in Science demonstrated that

More online at wildlifejournals.org

infectious prions could be found in the saliva of CWD-infected deer. Lead author of this study, Edward Hoover of Colorado State University, says saliva could be a major vehicle for transmitting CWD within deer populations. With this new piece of knowledge, he says, “we know better where to look for the disease, and how to develop more sensitive methods to diagnose it.”

Management Responds Wildlife managers are using these and other scientific conclusions to refine management strategies in the hopes of slowing the spread of this wildlife disease. There have been calls to end baiting and feeding, for instance, as it brings together large groups of deer that would not otherwise interact. Targeted culling of young bucks—the demographic with the highest infection rates—could also prove useful in controlling the spread of the disease. A “National CWD Plan” was implemented in 2002 to help

WISDOM ON WASTING Status of knowledge: • Probably not a threat to humans or to commercial livestock • Seems to only infect cervids • Appears to be transmitted horizontally, possibly an environmental source • Saliva and blood are potential routes of transmission Best practices: • Surveillance and monitoring to track the disease’s spread and prevalence • Reducing deer populations may help lower transmission rates • Avoiding baiting and feeding could reduce opportunities for transmission • Monitoring interstate and international trade of cervids • Give hunters and landowners incentives to submit deer for testing • National CWD Plan puts forward guidelines for states, federal agencies and tribes For current updates, managers should go to: • State wildlife agency websites • CDC website — www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cwd/ • USDA website — www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/ • CWD Alliance website — www.cwd-info.org/ Precautions for wildlife professionals and hunters: • Get animals tested for CWD • Don’t consume brain, spinal cord, eyes, spleen, tonsils and lymph nodes • Wear gloves when butchering and handling dead animals • Avoid shooting or handling animals that are behaving oddly or appear sick or emaciated • Take bones out of meat • See precautions from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

states, federal agencies, and tribes keep a lookout for and cope with the threat of CWD in wild and domestic animals. The USDA is now in the process of developing a program whereby deer farmers can get their herds certified CWD-free. “It’s a carrot and stick approach,” says USDA Senior Staff Veterinarian Dean Goeldner. “Eventually [deer farmers] are going to have to be part of this certification program to move animals interstate.” While the disease has been known for nearly four decades, the Wisconsin outbreak has led to an overwhelming concern and outpouring of research in North America and elsewhere. Colorado’s Michael Miller cautions that it’s possible to pay too much attention to CWD. “We keep getting distracted with the latest disease du jour,” Miller says. “If we’re going to understand the ecology of these problems and how they’re going to affect the resource we need to understand them in the long term.” This kind of focused attention has financial costs as well. An October 2006 audit of the Wisconsin DNR’s efforts to control CWD revealed that there has been little success, despite a $26 million investment in managing the disease. Some scientists estimate that decades could pass before prevalence rates begin to fall. Science on the disease is moving forward, helping wildlife professionals revise old management strategies. But even with scientists making progress and managers coming up with innovative containment strategies, successfully controlling CWD may involve a bit of good fortune. Just two years ago, the disease was found in two captive deer herds in a new state: New York. Managers there leaped into action, culling suspected positive herds and doing heavy surveillance work. Only two positives were found in the wild, at the beginning of their efforts, with none found since. “They may just have gotten really lucky and caught it early,” says the USDA’s Goeldner. “I think you’re going to need that kind of luck if you’re going to be successful in managing this disease.” Katherine Unger is a science writer for The Wildlife Society.

To link to the latest science on CWD, information about state and federal plans to manage the disease, and safety precautions, see this article online at wildlifejournals.org.

Behold the Giants THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WIND ENERGY ON WILDLIFE Wind is one of the world’s fastest growing sources of renewable energy, increasing 27 percent in 2006 in the United States alone. Today, over 20,000 wind turbines turn across the United States, with a total generating capacity of 11,600 megawatts (MW) generating more than 31 billion kilowatt-hours annually. Half of these turbines are modern, utility-scale turbines and the rest are older models, dating back to the 1980s. California (2,361 MW) and Texas (2,768 MW) lead the United States in wind energy capacity, while New York (370 MW) has the greatest capacity in the Eastern United States. The vast majority of wind energy facilities lie across 10 western and mid-western states and most are on non-federal land. “The wind industry is scaling up to be part of the solution to global warming,” says Laurie Jodziewicz, communications and policy specialist with the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

“Now we are doing analysis to determine if the industry can generate something like 20 percent of our electricity from wind energy, which is feasible over the next 25 years.” With global climate change now an accepted reality, policy makers, industry experts, and the public alike are re-examining wind as a clean and alternative source of energy. However, no energy source is environmentally neutral and tradeoffs come with the prowess of clean energy. Bird and bat collision fatalities have been documented throughout North America and in Europe. Recently, wildlife professionals have growing concerns about the impacts on wildlife habitat as more information is gathered about habitat loss, fragmentation, and behavioral disturbances resulting from wind energy facilities. Since the 1980s, when the impacts of wind turbines on birds were first studied, wildlife biologists and wind industry experts have become increasingly cognizant of the potential cumulative impact of

At a growth rate of almost 30 percent, wind is one of the world’s fastest growing sources of renewable energy. © The Wildlife Society

By Divya Abhat

Credit: Ed Arnett/BCI

More online at wildlifejournals.org

UNITED STATES — CURRENT INSTALLED WIND POWER CAPACITY (MW)

This map was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The distribution of wind energy across the United States shows California and Texas with the highest wind power capacity in the country.

wind facilities on wildlife and their habitat. So, despite all the positives of wind energy at present, as the industry expands so do the number of questions about how to minimize the potential conflicts between the goals of achieving clean, affordable energy and maintaining wildlife populations and their habitat.

Blown Away The impacts of wind turbines on wildlife and habitat remain poorly understood—largely because of insufficient data, but studies show some emerging patterns. For example, the Altamont Wind Facility in California is known to have unexpectedly high raptor fatality rates. The California Energy Commission reports that between 1998 and 2003, this wind energy plant caused the death of between 880 and 1,300 birds of prey annually. When Altamont’s impact on 38

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

raptors was first noticed in the latter 1980s, the findings “really woke everyone up to the potential impact on birds,” says AWEA’s Jodziewicz. However, raptor fatalities are relatively low at most other facilities that have been studied and rates are lower still at new generation wind facilities. Turbine characteristics, turbine siting, and bird behavior and abundance appear to be important factors determining raptor fatalities at wind power facilities. After the discovery of high raptor fatality rates at Altamont, scientists began to monitor all avian species collisions with the facility’s turbines and associated power lines and stabilizing wires. Results have indicated that fatalities of passerines (birds of the order Passeriformes, which includes perching birds and many songbirds)

are remarkably similar across regions in the United States, averaging around three to four birds killed for each MW of energy generated. Although today wind turbines appear to be a relatively minor source of passerine fatalities compared to other sources (e.g., collision with buildings), as turbine size increases and development expands the risks to birds may increase as well. While bat fatalities at wind facilities have been recorded worldwide beginning in Australia in 1972, the number of fatalities was generally considered to be low. Studies in the western United States reported less than two bat mortalities per turbine, per year. Findings from two facilities in 2003 (Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee and Mountaineer in West Virginia), however, raised new concerns about impacts on bats. Based on data from the Mountaineer site, researchers estimated that in a six-week period in 2004, between 1,350 and 2,000 birds were killed by the turbines. Researchers started to wonder if “we had underestimated the number of bats killed by land use,” says Scott Darling, a wildlife biologist with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.

silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans). Very little is known about populations of these species and some researchers fear the bats may face long term impacts of wind energy that aren’t yet fully understood. Bat experts have hypothesized several reasons why bats are prone to collisions with wind turbines, although none have been confirmed. Some theorize that bats view turbines as potential roosting sites, while others believe bats could be attracted to insects that may concentrate near turbines. Alex Hoar, a wildlife biologist with the

Credit: Ed Arnett/BCI

In response to these concerns, Bat Conservation International (BCI), AWEA, FWS and the United States Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) formed an alliance in 2004—the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative—to study bat mortalities in the eastern United States. Scientists with the Cooperative conducted studies at wind facilities in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and confirmed that bat fatalities were more widespread than previously thought. Since 2004, larger than expected numbers of bats have been found killed at wind facilities in mixed agriculture and forest lands in New York and, most surprisingly, in open prairie and agriculture habitats in southern Alberta, Canada, confirming that sizeable bat fatalities are not confined to forest ridges in the eastern United States. Bat fatalities are a concern for two primary reasons, according to Darling. First, bats are long-lived mammals with low reproductive rates, relatively slow rates of population growth, and a limited ability to recover from population declines. Second, fatality rates are highest for three migratory, tree-roosting bat species that travel over great distances during late summer and fall: the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) and the © The Wildlife Society

Researchers found a high mortality rate for bats like this red bat (Lasiurus borealis), found at the Mountaineer Wind Energy site in West Virginia.

Region PACIFIC NORTHWEST

ROCKY MTS. SOUTH-CENT. UPPER MIDWEST

EAST

Facility

Est. Fatalities/ MW/Year Klondike, OR 0.8 Stateline, OR/WA 1.7 Vansycle, OR 1.1 Nine Canyon, WA 2.5 High Winds, CA 2.0 Foote Creek Rim, WY 2.0 OK Wind Energy Center, OK 0.8 Buffalo Ridge, MN-I 0.8 Buffalo Ridge, MN-II (1996-99) 2.5 Buffalo Ridge, MN-II (2001-02) 2.9 Lincoln, WI 6.5 Top of Iowa, IA 8.6 Meyersdale, PA 15.3 Mountaineer, WV (2003) 32.0 Mountaineer, WV (2004) 25.3 Buffalo Mountain, TN-I 31.5 Buffalo Mountain, TN-II 41.1 Credit: Ed Arnett/BCI

Regional estimates of bat fatalities per megawatt (MW) at 11 wind energy facilities in the U.S. Estimates are conditioned on survey effort and corrections for searcher efficiency and carcass removal differed for each study; the adjusted number of fatalities estimated per turbine was divided by the number of megawatts (MW) of installed capacity. (See full table for details; modified from Kunz et al. 2007 [in press], with permission).

More online at wildlifejournals.org

FWS’s Ecological Services, says evidence of the latter theory lies in the reduced number of bat fatalities seen during strong wind conditions, when insects are less likely to be available to feeding bats. Still other biologists believe bats may be drawn to the sounds of the turbines, although there is no evidence to support this contention. Researchers are also concerned that wind facilities may have significant impacts on wildlife habitat, although data is now being collected to accurately define the extent of potential problems. Biologists working for the wind industry, state and federal agencies, and other organizations are collaborating to investigate whether species such as prairie chickens (e.g., Tympanuchus cupido) are impacted by the presence of wind turbines. However, AWEA’s Jodziewicz says, “We don’t have any evidence yet that they abandon areas near wind projects, it is just a hypothesis.” Scientists must also know how many

“Air as a habitat is a new frontier.” birds pass through the sky to understand the number of creatures that could be affected by turbines. “Air as a habitat is a new frontier,” FWS’s Hoar says. “We have over 40 years of banding data that tells us where a bird begins and ends the journey, but we need better information on how factors such as weather and topography influence that journey.” Habitat effects are also being examined in Vermont, where John Austin, a wildlife biologist with Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, notes that black bears return annually to areas with concentrations of beech trees. But, because black bears are sensitive to noise and human disturbances, they may tend to avoid climbing the trees that are located close to wind turbines. “A question we all have—particularly the wind energy industry—is to what extent will the presence and operation of the wind energy facilities disturb bears’ access to and use of those habitat features,” Austin says. “We don’t really know the answer to that question.”

One Site Will Not Fit All As the wind industry grows, researchers are picking up the pace of studying how to reduce the negative impact of wind farms on wildlife. Perhaps the most important conclusion that researchers have reached is that intensive surveys of wildlife and potential impacts need 40

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

to be done at sites both before and after the siting and construction of wind turbines. “Not only is it location, location, location,” says Dan Boone, spokesperson for Industrial Wind Action, a nonprofit organization that promotes awareness of the negative impacts of industrial wind energy development, “it’s region by region by region.” Every region in the country has different contexts in terms of habitats, species, responses and possibilities for the use of wind energy, he says. Researchers have been experimenting with various tools to collect information about the impacts of wind turbines on local wildlife. Researchers studying birds have, for example, used radar to record bird activity and acoustic equipment to measure the sound pressure levels of wind turbines. Some researchers hypothesize that curtailing operation of turbines during critical periods of wildlife activity could reduce mortality substantially. The effectiveness of “feathering” (changing the angle of turbine blades parallel to the wind so they rotate very slowly if at all) on reducing wildlife fatality remains untested, although some experiments designed to reduce raptor kills during winter are underway in California. Curtailment obviously affects turbine efficiency and production. And according to George Douglas of NREL, feathering reduces the efficiency of turbines to generate electricity. “It’s sort of a trade off,” he says. Investigations continue in the search for best practices of siting and constructing wind facilities, including the 2006 formation by the FWS and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of a collaborative to study bird and bat migration and develop tools to identify wildlife compatible sites for wind facilities. While site-specific studies are critical, at the same time, the lack of consistency in conducting these studies remains a perplexing problem for wildlife managers and wind industry experts alike. “The conundrum is you’ve got 34 different states developing wind and each state is doing its thing differently and it’s a nightmare,” Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department’s Austin says. When looked at as a whole, research on the impacts of wildlife and wind energy that is available today is a hodgepodge. There are no consistent approaches to studying the effects of wind turbines on wildlife. Data is being collected with different technologies, standards, and sampling designs. Results are being analyzed in ways that are difficult to compare. To address the lack of a big picture and the absence of standard © The Wildlife Society

research procedures, The Wildlife Society (TWS) formed a technical review committee on wind energy facilities and wildlife in January 2007. According to Ed Arnett, a conservation scientist with Bat Conservation International and Chair of the TWS committee, the committee’s work will yield a comprehensive report that will summarize information on what is known about wildlife impacts from wind energy and offer suggestions for future directions. The report will be published in early summer. Albert Manville, a FWS wildlife biologist based in Virginia, stresses that a critical step in investigating the impacts of wind power on wildlife across the country is to create research protocols that can be agreed upon and used by researchers. “The challenge is how can we develop an integrated proposal for a research protocol that is scientifically valid and consistent and could be stepped down regionally and ideally even locally so we can use the same protocol here and in the Appalachians and in California.” Other efforts to provide guidance for reducing negative impacts of wind turbines on wildlife include the recent formation of a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee announced by the Department of the Interior. The committee will work on a range of issues to improve strategies for wind energy development and will likely re-examine interim voluntary guidelines for the wind industry that were issued by the FWS in 2003. With the wind energy industry expanding rapidly to meet the world’s rising demand for energy, researchers are trying to move quickly to get a better grasp on how to minimize wildlife mortality and habitat impacts that seem to inevitably accompany wind facilities. Collaboration among stakeholders, however, can be difficult to orchestrate and funding is in short supply. With more complete data on the impacts of wind energy development on wildlife, decision-makers and the public alike will be better able to understand the tradeoffs that will be involved in wind energy development. Divya Abhat is a science writer for The Wildlife Society.

To read about studies on avian mortalities, effects of wind energy on wildlife habitat and more, go to wildlifejournals.org.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

The Limits of Compassion By Michael Hutchins

Credit: Courtesy of Michael Hutchins

Michael Hutchins is Executive Director/ CEO of The Wildlife Society.

There is a growing trend in conservation education and marketing that employs compassion for individual animals as a method to draw the public’s attention to the desperate battle underway to conserve biological diversity. In our fast-paced, human-dominated world, such efforts are clearly needed. However, there are serious and legitimate concerns regarding the use of compassion, sentimentalism, and animal rights to generate public concern for wildlife and, more specifically, about the possible implications for wildlife management and conservation policy. At first glance, compassion may seem to be a sensitive and caring world-view. It is easy to understand why the message is both compelling and attractive, especially for non-scientists. People will not take political or other actions on behalf of wild animals if they do not value them, both emotionally and intellectually. Conservation educators have long recognized the importance of teaching people about the intricacies of wildlife biology and behavior and the many threats to endangered species, their habitats, and the future of life on this planet. Generating concern for wildlife is particularly challenging in an increasingly urbanized world where many people have lost touch with nature. The lack of passionate public interest may explain why a growing number of conservationists are tugging at people’s emotional heartstrings in their efforts to grow public interest in and concern for wildlife and nature. In their 2002 book The Ten Trusts: What We Must Do to Care for the Animals We Love, wellknown primatologist and conservationist Jane Goodall and co-author Marc Beckoff argue for “a closer connection with the natural world and a more ethical attitude toward all the creatures that make up the multitude of species with whom we humans share this planet.” The stated goal of the book was to “show that teaching our children and all people compassion for other animals and respect for the places where they live will create a safer and more tolerant world.” Goodall and Beckoff emphasize that premise throughout the text, writing, “For thousands of suffering individual animals the pace of change has been too slow, but with the introduction of new measures we

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

are gradually replacing cruelty with compassion and creating a world in which humans can live in peace and harmony with the natural world.” This concept is far from new. One of the earliest proponents of this approach was the famous German physician, theologian, and philosopher Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who won the 1953 Nobel Peace Prize for his founding of the Lambarene Hospital in Gabon, West Africa. Schweitzer was as admired for his compassion toward non-human animals as he was for his efforts to relieve human suffering. He once said, “Since youth on I have been devoted to the cause of animal protection; it gives me particular delight to find that the universal ethics of reverence for life proves that sympathy for animals, which is so often represented as sentimentality, is something which no thinking individual can avoid.” Many biologists, myself included, can relate to compassionate messages about animals on an emotional and perhaps even a spiritual level. As a wildlife scientist, I am fascinated by the many incredible ways in which animals have adapted to their respective environments. As a conservationist, I am also passionate about efforts to conserve wildlife and nature. Part of this comes from a deep love and abiding respect for wild places and wild creatures. I have also kept many pets during my lifetime and have bonded with individual animals as diverse as fruit bats, dogs, cats, turtles, frogs, snakes, lizards, and tropical fish. Like many other contemporary biologists and conservationists, I value both the welfare of individual animals and the welfare of populations, species, and ecosystems. Increasingly, however, a caring attitude about wildlife is being equated with support for animal rights, and I am deeply concerned about the current confusion in the public mind between conservation, animal welfare, and animal rights. Many people apparently do not realize that these three philosophical viewpoints can lead to very different decisions when translated into wildlife management or conservation policy. Animal rights proponents invoke the philosophy and language of the civil rights movement, arguing that sentient, non-human animals,

like disadvantaged human groups (e.g. women, ethnic minorities), have an intrinsic and inviolate right to life and liberty. Thus any human activity that harms individual animals in any way is considered unacceptable. Rights advocates argue that individual animals—not populations, species or ecosystems—should be the focus of our ethical concerns. Furthermore, they argue that sentience—the capacity to experience pain—is the only relevant characteristic needed by animals to merit full moral consideration. Animal welfare advocates tend to be more flexible in their beliefs, arguing that non-humans can be utilized by humans, even for food, as long as pain, suffering, and loss of life are minimized. Not surprisingly, the welfare ethic does not sit well with many animal rights proponents. Similarly, animal rights and conservation are largely incompatible, because what is good for conservation is not always in the best interest of individual animals and vice versa. Indeed, focusing too narrowly on the rights of individual animals may be taking us down a path that will ultimately prove detrimental to the conservation of species, populations, and ecosystems. Deer hunting is a current example of the conflict between conservation and animal rights. Deer are abundant; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently estimated that there are more whitetailed deer in the eastern United States now than when Europeans first colonized the continent. Burgeoning populations are due to many factors, including forest fragmentation (deer are a forest edge-species), agriculture, and successful management. Yet these vast numbers of deer are creating a conservation crisis of major proportions. The voracious herbivores are consuming every edible plant in sight, clearing out the understory, preventing normal forest regeneration, and reducing populations of forest insects—an important food resource for many native small mammals and migratory birds. Dense populations of deer also increase the risk of contracting Lyme disease, a potentially dangerous and debilitating affliction for humans. While rodents and birds also harbor Lyme disease, larger populations of deer mean even larger populations of the disease’s intermediate host, deer ticks. Over-population is likely also increasing the incidence of disease in deer populations. Afflictions such as hemorrhagic disease, chronic wasting disease, and parasitic infections are on the rise, which may be related to more frequent physical

contact between individuals in densely populated habitats. The behavioral and physiological stress associated with over-population and increased competition is also known to compromise an animal’s immune system, thereby increasing its susceptibility to disease. Increased competition also brings a higher risk of starvation, which can be quite common during long, cold winters. In reality, to conserve our eastern forest ecosystems and the biodiversity contained within, we probably need more deer hunters, not less. Hunters have made critical and long-standing contributions to wildlife conservation in North America, as chronicled in John Reiger’s 1975 book American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. Lest we forget, many of the great American conservationists were hunters and fishers, including Theodore Roosevelt, William Hornaday, C. Hart Merriam, and Aldo Leopold. In addition, much of the financial support for wildlife conservation in the United States—among the most successful conservation models in the world—has traditionally come from hunting- and fishing-related license fees and taxes. Some animal protection organizations, such as The Humane Society of the United States, have argued that contraception or sterilization is the preferred solution to deer overpopulation, yet this is also unrealistic. Deer are long-lived animals, and in the absence of culling, the environmental and human health problems they cause can be expected to continue until the population is reduced through natural mortality—a process that could take many years to complete. Still others believe in large predator reintroduction as a method to prevent deer numbers from getting out of hand. Yet how many people in the densely populated eastern seaboard are going to tolerate wolves or cougars in their backyards? With no one willing to make the “politically incorrect” decision to kill some urban deer, the problem continues unabated. In fact, a failure to control deer populations has resulted in a de facto culling operation; only it is Fords, Chevys, and Toyotas that are doing the killing, not guns. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that 1.5 million deer-vehicle collisions occur annually in the United States, many of which result in injuries and fatalities to both deer and people. If this is compassion at work, then there is a serious need for reevaluation. Clearly, there are many cases in which conservation and other desirable societal goals can only

More online at wildlifejournals.org

be achieved though intensive management of wildlife populations. The problem with attracting people to conservation through compassion, sentimentalism, or animal rights is that when the need for population management arises, some people are unable or unwilling to support the difficult decisions that must be made. Such dilemmas are common around the world. For example, animal rights advocates brought legal proceedings against government wildlife managers in Italy who were attempting to control populations of introduced grey squirrels through live-capture and euthanasia—widely recognized as a humane and painless method of population reduction. Grey squirrels not only displace native red squirrels, they also strip the bark from and kill native trees, thus altering entire ecosystems. The government eventually won its case, but it took so long to make the decision that the exotic grey squirrels were able to firmly establish themselves in the host ecosystem. This forced wildlife managers to shift from a short-term strategy of elimination to a long-term and considerably more expensive strategy of control. Culling of individual wild animals may also be necessary in cases where they pose a direct and immediate threat to human life. An interesting, yet tragic, recent example involved chimpanzees in the Kibale Forest in western Uganda. This case is intriguing because the species is considered endangered and some compassionate conservationists and legal philosophers have argued that great apes should be accorded the same legal rights as humans—that is, they should be granted “legal personhood.” Primatologist Richard Wrangham and his colleagues were shocked when adult male chimpanzees began hunting and killing human children in a village near their study site. The individual animals in question were subsequently killed. With people and wild animals living in such close proximity, how long would support for African national parks and wildlife conservation persist if such depredations were allowed to continue? Wrangham noted, “Though we must cherish individuals, I believe we must sometimes forsake individual or community benefits for population welfare.” Chimpanzee attacks on humans are rare, but similar problems occur with other species. For example, hundreds of people die annually from elephant attacks throughout Africa and Asia. Deaths typically occur as people attempt to defend their crops from these large, potentially dangerous herbivores. This is one reason that el-

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

ephant populations in and around national parks and equivalent reserves must sometimes be controlled. An additional argument is that elephant populations that exceed their ecological carrying capacity alter habitats by converting forests to grasslands or semi-desert, which can affect the fate of many other species that share the same space, including baobab trees, tree-nesting birds, and small mammals. As Ian Whyte, a biologist responsible for managing elephants in Kruger National Park, South Africa, once said, “You can decide if you want to run a protected area for elephants or for biodiversity. You can’t do both.” Wildlife professionals and conservationists alike must take great care not to confuse compassion for individual animals and animal rights with conservation. This focus on the individual explains why the father of animal rights, Tom Regan, has labeled any attempt to save species or ecosystems at the expense of individual animals as “environmental fascism.” It also explains why animal rights proponents have defended common and non-native animals’ “right” to life, even when they are threatening endangered native wildlife or ecosystems. In contrast, conservationists place more value on endangered species precisely because they are rare, and especially when this rarity is due to the destructive activities of humans. Many wildlife managers realize that a failure to act on behalf of populations, species, and ecosystems will render the current debate moot—for many affected species, there will be no future individuals on which to focus our ethical concerns. In the absence of human intervention, many species will end up in the dustbin of extinction, victims of well-meaning, but counterproductive, efforts to be compassionate at all costs. While I am sympathetic to any effort that results in more people valuing wildlife and nature, wildlife professionals also have an obligation to help people understand that difficult decisions must sometimes be made. These issues are complex, and when it comes to conservation, the devil is in the details, not in the generalizations. Clearly, there are limits to the use of compassion and sentimentality for individual animals as conservation education and marketing tools. An overemphasis on such simplistic messages may, in fact, make it more difficult, or even impossible, to reach our desired conservation goals. In the end, we must all decide if we love individual animals or the totality of nature.

Fly In Day: The Biggest Yet On February 28, conservationists from around the country descended on Washington, D.C. for Teaming with Wildlife’s annual Fly In Day. Teaming with Wildlife (TWW), a national coalition of 5,000 conservation organizations and businesses, including The Wildlife Society (TWS), works to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered by supporting increased state and federal funding for wildlife conservation. TWS’s Associate Director of Government Affairs Laura Bies and interns Brooke Talley and Megan Cook participated in the event, visiting the delegations from Maryland, Indiana, and California, respectively. During the Hill visits, participants focused on the State Wildlife Grants Program. The program provides annual funding for on-the-ground conservation projects in every state and territory. The President’s budget request included $69.5 million for the State Wildlife Grants program in 2008, an increase from last year’s final appropriation of $67.5 million, but below TWW’s funding recommendation of $85 million for 2008. Fly In attendees also took the opportunity to talk with their representatives about the impacts of global climate change on wildlife. Legislation directed at curbing global climate change presents an opportunity for the wildlife community to achieve the stable funding state wildlife agencies need to implement the wildlife action plans and conduct other important work on behalf of wildlife and their habitats.

TWP Launched at the National Press Club Dozens of members of the wildlife professional community came together to celebrate the launch of The Wildlife Professional at Washington, D.C.’s prestigious National Press Club on April 12. Joining The Wildlife Society’s staff were representatives of wildlife nonprofits, leaders from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, members of the scholarly publishing community, as well as many others.

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

Credit: Rachel Brittin/AFWA

The Wildlife Society was among the organizations that visited Congress to encourage support of State Wildlife Grants and other legislation providing for wildlife management and conservation.

TWS Ramps up Services to Students and Subunits The Wildlife Society (TWS) is in the process of ramping up member services, starting off with those they offer to student members. Leading this effort is a new staff member at the TWS headquarters, Shannon Pederson, who is the new Subunit and Certification Coordinator. Pederson will work closely with the student chapters to improve communication among student chapters and other TWS subunits around the country, build new online resources designed specifically for students and educators, help prepare and coordinate student conclaves, and create toolkits to promote successful student chapters. New materials will also be designed to help students and professionals successfully prepare to enter TWS’s wildlife biologist certification program. TWS’s student chapters provide powerful experiences for both graduate and undergraduate students. Student chapter members may participate in TWS meetings, presentations, workshops, conferences, conclaves, and contests. Another new opportunity available to students is the Student Professional Development Working Group, led by Interim Chair Tony Mong. Like the Society’s other working groups, this working group provides participants a forum for voicing views, defining and addressing problems, and developing leadership skills. If you want to join the 100 current student chapters and over 1,000 student chapter members, please contact Shannon Pederson at shannon@wildlife.org for more information. To find out more about the Student Professional Development Working Group, contact Tony Mong at mongt@missouri.edu.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

New Editors Announced for JWM and Wildlife Monographs

Credit: Courtesy of Michael Chamberlain

Michael Chamberlain

Recent changes in editorial management are planned to continue the Society’s record of producing high-ranking peer-reviewed publications. The Society is fortunate to have Dr. Michael Chamberlain, a Professor at Louisiana State University, taking over the reigns as Editor-inChief for the Journal of Wildlife Management, effective this summer. Dr. Chamberlain is greatly respected in the wildlife field, and has published over 55 peer-reviewed articles on topics ranging from wild turkey to black bear to northern bobwhite to ecology of mesocarnivores. Dr. Eric Hellgren has been selected to be our new Editor-in-Chief for Wildlife Monographs. Dr. Hellgren has published over 110 peer-reviewed journal articles concerning such diverse topics as ecology of collard peccary, modeling black bear habitat, small mammals, and ecology of desert lizards.

Credit: Victor Bogosian III

Eric Hellgren

TWS Council has also implemented fundamental “Principles of Governance” for our scientific publications to maintain a high level of rigor in our publications. Some examples include ensuring that our editors work within budgetary and publishing constraints, establishing where rejection authority rests, and making certain that the review process has a level of rigor commensurate with other mainstream journals. These principles will create consistency in the actions of succeeding editors and will solidify our publications’ respected position within the scientific community.

Bring Out the Name Tags! The Wildlife Society (TWS) headquarters has several new faces this year. Shannon Pederson, a local Washingtonian, joins TWS after studying at Texas A&M University and Virginia Tech. She will work with chapter officers, student chapters, sections, and working groups, as well as process certifications for wildlife biologists. Amy Clanin comes from a Peace Corps assignment in West Africa and has a background in primatology. She joins TWS as a finance assistant. TWS policy interns Brooke Talley and Megan Cook research relevant wildlife issues, write for Wildlife Policy News and The Wildlifer, and attend legislative hearings. After her internship, Talley will head to Southern Illinois University for her doctorate in zoology. Cook plans to go to graduate school in 2008 for a master’s in wildlife biology. Progress on the Web Ruxandra Giura, originally from Bucharest, Romania, comes to TWS with a background in web design and journalism. She is the new TWS Webmaster, and is the steam behind the Society efforts to redesign its website. Contact Giura at rgiura@wildlife.org. A new content management system is speeding along development of the new site. Former Webmaster Earl Wyatt remains on staff, and has now taken over IT and database management duties. TWS also bade farewell to CJ Black, who had been with the Society for 20 years. We wish her the very best in her future endeavors.

TWS Council in Portland The Wildlife Society (TWS) Council met in Portland, Oregon on March 23-24 at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Among a series of reports on Society activities, Council members critiqued the first issue of The Wildlife Professional with the TWS Director of Publications and Editor-in-Chief and received a report on involvement in professional societies by USFWS and USGS employees (see story on page 28). TWS Council approved four new position statements and initiated two new technical reviews. Full minutes of the meeting are available at wildlife.org.

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

This mournful looking soul is a Tibetan fox (Vulpes ferrilata), seen here on the Tibetan Plateau in Yeniugou (“Wild Yak Valley”), of China’s Qinghai Province. Credit: Milo Burcham

Credit: Ted Swem

Arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea) have the longest regular migration of any bird, traveling from nesting grounds in the far north (where this one was photographed, on the YukonKuskokwim Delta in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge) all the way to Antarctica and back each year. Credit: Josh Spice

Mosquitoes are oppressive in Alaska in early summer, to say the least. This unfortunate gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) nestling in Yukon National Wildlife Refuge was so preoccupied with its photographer that it neglected to brush away the roughly 50 mosquitoes on its face and the 50 more that sucked away on each of its feet! © The Wildlife Society

Send your high-resolution photographs to Editor@wildlife.org, or mail to TWS headquarters.

More online at wildlifejournals.org

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

The Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society