Blanding's Turtle

Blanding’s turtle

Emys blandingii

While working at Blandford nature center, I had the opportunity to help out a turtle biologist, who works at the local zoo. He came out every week to set up 5 or so hoop net traps, and we would check them every hour. Toward the beginning of the summer it was still too cold for most of the species, we mostly caught painted turtles, then we would process them and put them back in the water. What he was mostly interested in was the eastern box turtles, which we would not catch with the hoop nets, though the land stewards would keep an eye out when we were walking the whole park, and would send him pictures of their plastron, so that he could at least keep track of how many there were in the park, because each species has unique markings on the underside of their shell.

Processing the turtles usually consists of weighing the turtle, then taking measurements of the plastron and carapace (lower and upper shell), both horizontally and vertically. Then we would mark the species we found by filing into their carapace, in specific areas to be able to later identify the species. This process is called shell notching.

https://boxturtle.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/marking_2.jpg

One day, while turtle trapping we came across a rare find, a Blanding’s turtle, he guessed was at least over 80 years old. Though the shell was covered in moss and leeches, he was in very good shape. We were sure it was a male before checking the tail, because he had his breeding claws, as my hands can attest to very well. Also due to the males having a slightly concaves plastron.  The Biologist was so excited to process it, the shell notching ended up being ABC, while most of the painted turtles were somewhere around KBE. After weighing and taking several measurements of the carapace and plastron (upper and lower shell) we set the breeding male back into the water and watched it disappear into the murky water.

The only other time I have seen one of these turtles was in captivity in Blandford Nature Center, her name was …, and had to be in captivity because she had a cracked carapace.

The Blanding’s turtle is now restricted to the north eastern part of America, and low in numbers. The largest portion of this species nests around the Mississippi river, and around the great lakes. It is difficult for this species to recover quickly after catastrophic events-like their recent loss or degradation in wetland habitats-due to low reproductive rate (females are sexually mature at age 8, while males need to be 12) and high juvenile mortality rate (predated by raccoons, skunks, owls, and foxes.

The Blanding’s turtle was classified as an endangered species in Minnesota in 1984.

Typically, only found toward Erie in PA.

Though in Michigan, they are more commonly in the lower peninsula, and treated because of wetland degradation and road mortality.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7166.html

They are a large to medium sized turtle that are easily identified by their yellow throat and yellow flex through their shell. Males will have a slightly concaved plastron, but both sexes will have a domed carapace. While the plastron will be mainly yellow with black or dark blotches, distinctive to each individual. Similarly, to the box turtle, it has a hinged plastron, though it does not close completely around the head. They are a very timid species, though is a very gently species and rarely attempts to bite.

Unlike other species of turtles, the Blanding’s turtle is used to staying under water for up to an hour if threatened, and can survive in cold water. Still a cold-blooded species, they can hibernate at the bottom of a cold lake, and stay in the mud layer underwater for the whole winter.

Why should you care about the Blanding’s turtle? Just because there are other species like this one out there does not mean that this one should just be forgotten. Having had a close and personal encounter with this breed I wish others to be able to see them, and enjoy them as much as I do. They are unique in personality and in genetics, and should not go extinct. Look out for turtle crossing signs and do your best to help this species hold on.

  

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ARAAD04010

http://www.paherps.com/herps/turtles/blandings_turtle/

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12145_12201-60647--,00.html

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/indiana/journeywithnature/blandings-turtles.xml?redirect=https-301

The War on Coal Continues (The Revolution Was Not Televised)

Pennsylvanians were bombarded with the rhetoric of our age in 2016, much like voters in Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wyoming: the ‘war on coal’ will be over! A Trump Administration will mean the end of ‘job-killing regulations.’ Businesses like coal will flourish again. But you’d be hard pressed to find any evidence of that in the budget they dropped this month, in any of the many executive orders they’ve published, or, indeed, in anything they’ve announced since the election. Indeed, as coal giants like Peabody shed massive legacy debts (including many miners’ pensions) through their bankruptcies and bide their time, all indications are that the ‘war on coal’ has simply entered a new phase—miners and their communities notwithstanding. In short, there’s not a damned thing the Trump Administration will do about it. This post explains why.
 
Cheap Natural Gas, Brought to You By . . . No ‘Job-Killing Regulations’

When the Obama Administration finalized the first-ever restrictions on new natural gas wells’ methane emissions in June 2016, it marked a turning point in the history of shale gas development since the hydro-fracturing revolution began a decade ago. For it was that (relatively lax) Clean Air Act rule regulating methane as a greenhouse gas from fracked wells which, for the first time, subjected such operations to the typical “media” pollution statutes that have come to define America’s basic environmental playbook. Before that, fracking had been getting a free pass—and profits in gas production showed as much. The Safe Drinking Water Act had never applied to well fracking. It was specifically and quietly cut through by the ‘Halliburton Amendment’ back in 2005 which barred application of that statute’s basic underground well injection standards to fracking.

The Clean Water Act generally excludes ground water from its protections and, thus, well fracking that happens to toxify underground aquifers was largely invisible to it. Finally, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s Subtitle C standards for safe disposal of hazardous wastes exempts oil and gas well development and production (so-called E&P) wastes.

Indeed, the Clean Air Act, which for over forty years has regulated the emission of hazards like sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and other conventional air pollutants (many of which the average fracked well spews into the air), is implemented by way of state plans derived from computer-modeled emissions factors. And those models, hard to calibrate and even harder to update on the fly, never built in the expected well-related emissions in places like Bradford, Susquehanna and Washington counties—never calculated what all the other emissions of those pollutants plus fracking’s contributions would mean for local air quality. As those models improved and fracking’s contributions became less invisible to the state’s clean air implementation plan, serious problems began to emerge.

Then the June 2016 rule on methane emissions at wells went final. In truth, the methane standards were (and remain) relatively easy to meet. But that is the point. Coal’s loss of market share to cheap natural gas over the last decade has been due in no small part to gas’s free (environmental) pass. While coal mining’s technological evolution from pick and shovel to ‘mountain top removal’ has placed it squarely at odds with anyone who likes mountains, cheap natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units which burn cheap-to-produce shale gas have made it the market leader. Gas sets the market price per megawatt—and Donald Trump isn’t going to do anything about that. Is Scott Pruitt’s EPA going to ratchet down on fracked wells’ SO2 or VOC emissions? The first thing he did as Administrator was to withdraw the information collection aimed the Obama EPA had issued to existing wells and their emissions.

Stone Ages Don’t End Because Stones Grow Scarce

Fossil fuel development is known to historians of the oil age as the ‘resource curse.’ Petro-states like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Libya, or Kazakhstan all thought they were in the business of economic development. They all viewed the mining, production, and sale of the oil as an economic stepping stone: a way to clothe, educate, shelter and enrich their people, supporting the institutions of civil society that would eventually become the economic engine when the oil ran out. They all imagined themselves transitioning to a fate like Norway’s: oil wealth subsidizing a high standard of living for all without dominating and polluting the wider political economy (like how much to spend on education, health, environment, etc.). Yet none of them succeeded. Indeed, they’ve grown poorer as most of the economic value of the resource production was added elsewhere—or simply spirited out of the jurisdiction. The highest paid workers were and are imported and leave when their job is done. The technological know-how involved flows quickly to the next payday. Of course, that toxic hole in the ground stays where it was dug—like the fish kills in the local rivers. Depleted or poisoned aquifers stay put. The lung cancers stay local and the animosities engendered by the have/have not economy worsen. The good news is corporate dividends enrich the investors regardless.

When Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced her “pause” on new federal coal leases (mostly in Wyoming) in January 2016, 20+ years of reserves under existing contracts kept producing. But the report that Jewell somehow got together before leaving office this January painted a grim picture: 42% of the nation’s thermal (i.e., electricity generating) coal comes from federal lands and most of that is tied up in no-bid contracts, undervalued leases, and deals nobody understands. What was also clear is that coal is no longer the energy bargain it once was. With renewables quickly falling in price-per-kilowatt hour, their grid-competitiveness is a surer bet than coal’s.

Voters in America’s coal states had to have known in the back of their minds that the ‘war on coal’ wasn’t going to be over. They didn’t think they had the inside track to becoming the next Norway. But I wonder how many figured out that the defense of coal as an energy source today is rather like fighting to keep losing. With so many other, better possibilities in the global marketplace, coal energy will be able to compete only where corners are cut, environmental, health and safety precautions are ignored, or legacy debts are written off. That’s not greatness. It’s stone cold madness.

MARINER EAST 2 PIPELINE GOING THROUGH LAKE RAYSTOWN

By: Luke Benzinger

For my first blog post, I have chosen the mariner east 2 pipeline that will be running west to east in the state of Pennsylvania. The reason for me choosing this topic is because I have a camp in the Raystown area that could be affected by this pipeline.

WHAT IS THIS PIPLINE?

 1

The gas company, Sunoco, has been planning a pipeline that would go straight across Pennsylvania. Sunoco logistics says, “Our Mariner East project transports NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shales areas in Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Eastern Ohio to destinations in Pennsylvania, including our Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the Delaware River, where they are processed, stored and distributed to local, domestic and waterborne markets” (1).  Sunoco has already started work in the Raystown area due to a compressed schedule, so that Raystown’s summer economy is not affected by the work. They are also battling with the Indiana bat mating season. The one thing that is a problem for the pipeline company is that they have to drill underneath of the lake in order to follow their projected path. However, this pipeline would be running next to the pre-existing pipelines already drilled beneath Lake Raystown.

 

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS DUE TO PIPELINE

During the summer, Raystown lake acquires most of its profits due to the influx of vacationers, boaters, bikers, and fisherman. The pipeline could negatively affect this due to the cutting of trees that lead to the idea that the area isn’t as pristine as it used to be. Due to the removal of the trees some birds also may not frequent the area that they used to, so birders could be affected by this pipeline as well. The continuous hillsides of the lake will also be disrupted by the pipeline, therefore making the view less pleasing. Raystown is known as the largest landlocked lake in Pennsylvania, which would be a shame to mark a place such as this. The 7-Points Marina, which is where the pipeline is projected to be laid, is a major place of economic growth in Huntingdon County.

 2

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS DUE TO PIPELINE

The pipeline could cause a host of problems including hindering the Indiana Bat mating season or even a possible gas leak into the lake itself. Even though they are planning for the project to be paused during the breeding season so that they don’t interfere with the population. Another problem with this pipeline is that they have to take out trees to provide future access to the pipeline for inspection. Taking out these trees would then create a lack of habitat for other species. Also, there would most likely be a hard edge which is not very appealing at a habitat management standpoint. The hard edge limits the regeneration and species found in a typical hardwood forest, which then creates a lack of biodiversity in that area. Finally, if there is an underground leak below the lake there could be a massive die off in the fish species that are stocked for sport fishing purposes. These fish play a major part in the recreation at Lake Raystown.

 3

CONCLUSION

This pipeline could cause major damage to, not only, the economy of the surrounding area, but also to the local wildlife populations. To me this pipeline seems to be more of a threat than a help due to all the damage and possibilities of massive problems. As an avid user of Lake Raystown I would prefer to see the area left alone as it has been. This is one of my favorite lakes to fish and if a spill or leak were to happen, I personally know some charter guides that would be out of a business. Therefore, I believe this pipeline should not be running underneath Lake Raystown.

WORKS CITED

Pictures

1: http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106029-another-pennsylvania-court-rules-against-landowners-challenging-mariner-east-pipeline

2: Luke Benzinger

3: Luke Benzinger

Information

1: Sunoco Logistics, Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) Segment,

http://www.sunocologistics.com/Customers/Business-Lines/Natural-Gas-Liquids-NGLs-Segment/257/, 2 March 2017

Why Understanding and Communicating about Policy Matters to Me (and it should to you)

When Ms. Mueller asked me to be a guest blogger for FOR 242, I really struggled with what to write about.  I feel as though you know so much about me and I have taught you much of what is in my wheelhouse already.  After three semesters, aren’t I one of the last people you would want to hear from?  I had even drafted a page and a half on how species status (endangered, threatened, game, furbearer) is determined in PA before I tossed the whole thing in the Computer Recycling Bin.

As I started to write, it became clear that it might be valuable to a take a few minutes to talk a little bit about me – those things you probably don’t know.  After all, how we perceive things are just an accumulation of all of our experiences.  It affects who and what we are.

My dad was born on a farm outside of Blacksburg, VA and grew up in rural Maryland.  My mom was raised in the mountains of West Virginia.  Before Kindergarten we moved to Virginia where I grew up in a lower-middle class suburb of DC – it was a mostly black and immigrant community, I was certainly in the minority growing up, but I didn’t recognize that at the time.  My parents are exceptionally good and honest people.  My mom came from a steel mill family – my grandmother spoke five languages at home because of the all immigrants at the local Catholic church which was the center of my mother’s world.  My mom is gifted with numbers, but wasn’t given any career guidance as a woman, and worked as a part-time typist so that she could spend most of her time at home with my sister and me.  My dad was no stranger to hard work with a farming background and two teachers as parents.  He also happened to be brilliant at math and a gifted economist and political scientist.  Growing up inside the Beltway, I talked politics before I could read.  He could have made five times the money he made working for the government with his skillset, but my father was a firm believer in regulation.  He sacrificed a lot, and faced a lot of resistance, because he believed strongly in reigning in corporate wrongdoing.  My dad’s love and understanding of policy was second only to his love of the outdoors.  He was an avid outdoorsmen and competitive marksman.  Some of my earliest memories are shooting with my dad or playing with snakes with him the backyard.  Despite the rather urban setting, within walking distance of my house was a large County Park with a large forested area, boardwalk and wetland.  Rivalling any of the PA State Parks, I spent hundreds of hours exploring Huntley Meadows with my friends in my youth.

My grandmother (and grandfather) at my parents' wedding. She didn't know it, but she was sick here.

Three key events formed a strong interest in environmental policy and regulation.  The first, which actually occurred eight months before I was born, was the death of my mom’s mother.  Due to unregulated working conditions and exposures at the steel mill, where she only worked for a short period of time before she had children, she died at the age of 46 from an aggressive cancer.  We still don’t know if it started in her breasts or lungs, but it ravaged her body.  She was one of the first women to have a radical double mastectomy.  Unlike the careful mastectomies of today, in a panic over the aggressiveness of the cancer, they literally just sliced her breasts off.  She died shortly after.  In my late teens I was rocked by the death of my parents’ best friend.  He had contracted mesothelioma from his work at the mills.  He was bought off for a pitifully small amount and died painfully, but mercifully quickly.  I know that my parent’s strong pro-Union, pro-healthcare, and pro-environmental regulation stances, which they still echo today, comes partially from those two events.

The third key event was a professional one.  One would think I was primed early on for an interest in environmental policy and science, but it wasn’t a straight path.  After attending a high school for science and technology, I enrolled in Biology at the University of Pennsylvania (I was a classmate of Donald Trump Jr. and Elon Musk).  I took every wildlife and outdoor-related class the University offered, but for some reason I still thought I wanted to be a veterinarian.  That dream was derailed due an incredibly sexist and inappropriate professor at the University.  I worked several temporary jobs after graduation, but after taking a couple graduate-level policy classes at a local University at night I was hired as an environmental consultant.  Most of my work was for the Environmental Protection Agency, but we frequently contracted for private companies.  One of the last contracts I worked on before I left was for a major railroad.  While a complex situation, we were basically charged with defending the company and its plans to reroute a new route (which would carry both toxic materials and create noise pollution) from a more affluent area that had gotten wind of the plans and lawyered up, to a poverty-stricken area where no one had the money, education, or time to care.  We were using real data, but the absolute lowest or highest estimates in different equations until we get the results we wanted.  Have you ever asked yourself how much your soul is worth?  I have.

By the time I had left my environmental consultant position and enrolled full-time in graduate school at Penn State, I had made a deep and sincere commitment that I was going to:

1.      understand environmental policy and regulation

2.      use solid data to make decisions about policy, even if it went against the grain or what I grew up thinking

3.      allow myself to change my mind if new data was presented to me

4.      make the communication of the importance and understanding of policy and regulation part of my life’s work

I had seen what de-regulation or lack of regulation had done to people that I loved, I was not going to allow it to happen to places where I recreate and species and ecosystems that I care about.  Given my job, on a daily and routine basis this is rather easy to do.  With even a modicum of effort, I attempt to make the traditional bounds of my job.

Sometimes though, it is harder.





Northern long-eared bat

I am the current elected Co-Chair of the PA State Mammal Technical Committee.  We have members from the Pennsylvania Game Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, private consulting, and universities.  Twice I met with the Executive Leadership for the Game Commission and submitted strong evidence-based proposals for the state listing of two bat species.  We were prepared to submit proposals for three bats, but the northern long eared bat had just been federally listed as threatened and once a species is federally listed it must be automatically added to the state list.  These proposals weren’t voted down, they were never brought to the Board of Directors, despite the fact that the proposals were partially drafted by their own biologists.  The Director serves as the pleasure of the Board and there was fear the Board didn’t want to hear anything that might anger their constituents, or more specifically, lobbyists and legislators.  One particularly powerful state Representative had railed against state-listing of species, endangered species legislation, and sent letters to logging and gas and oil extraction companies about the impact of state listing.  Every single example he used in his letter and when talking to newspapers though was from a federally-listed species.  It demonstrated that he either didn’t understand the difference between state and federally listed species (we have no control over a federally listed species and we only have four birds or mammals that are in PA) or purposefully used the wrong examples as scare tactics.  He also happens to be the force behind of the Endangered Species Coordination Act we talked about in WILDL 208w that essentially attempted to strip the state agencies of any state list.

 

The auditorium where PGC public testimony is presented (I arrived an hour early).

In March of 2016 I presented public testimony to the board about a proposal to list porcupines has furbearers (they listed them as game species several years prior because one of the board members dislikes porcupines).  Although I was reading a prepared statement on behalf of the Mammal Technical Committee, I was really speaking on behalf of the biological staff of PGC, none of which wanted the status change.  Despite being summarily dismissed by the board, I took the opportunity to remind them of their mandate to all native bird and mammal species and citizens in the Commonwealth.  While the Board still voted to list porcupines as furbearers, giving the public testimony was one of the most rewarding, and frightening, actions I have ever taken. 

 

One last note, do yourself a favor and check out the state endangered species list at http://www.pgc.pa.gov/WILDLIFE/ENDANGEREDANDTHREATENED/Pages/default.aspx .  Do you notice the northern long-eared bat, that has been federally listed as threatened since 2015 on there? No, you don’t.  Spend some time thinking about why that might be despite the requirement according to federal law.  In the end, I challenge you to think about making your own commitment regarding conservation, legislation, regulation, and policy.  Use data to make decisions, support environmental regulation and help other people understand why we have those regulations in place.

Bison in Yellowstone National Park are being killed by hunters and the U.S. Department of Livestock. The reason for this is because there is a management plan in place to reduce the number of bison within the park due to an overabundance. There have been bison distributed throughout the United States since the European settlers arrived. Bison were found even in the Eastern portion of the United States, but now have relatively small restricted ranges. Bison are by nature a migratory, and herding species. This means that they require a large amount of land to act as they are intended to. The bison we currently have are not pure bison. As a way to keep genetic bottlenecking from being a problem, ranchers have interbred bison with cattle.

The management plan is calling for a reduction in the Yellowstone National Park bison herd by 900-1,300 animals. The current size of the bison herd is between 5,000 and 5,500 bison in the park. The way that the U.S. Department of Livestock is removing the bison, is by public hunting and capturing the bison in pens. The captured bison are then shipped and slaughtered at butcher shops. Currently over 570 bison have been removed from the park. When the bison migrate out of the park, they are intercepted by pen traps, which collect the bison in corrals until they can be moved.

Now my opinion on this matter straddles both sides of the fence. I feel that it is very necessary to manage the bison herd in Yellowstone, because if the population gets too high, then the bison herd not only risks becoming susceptible to overcrowding and disease, but also loss of habitat. What I mean by that is since bison feed on grasses and such, they are consequences of over feeding in areas, especially for riparian zones. Riparian zones are areas that are located along waterways. One case that has been of interest, concerning this article is that of the elk feeding along these riparian zones. Elk were feeding on so much of the vegetation along creeks and rivers, that erosion began to occur. Erosion was caused by loss of root structure, which held the soil in place. This affects not just the vegetation, but also the fish in the creeks and rivers and the water quality. Since the reintroduction of wolves to the park, the elk population has been kept in check, the quality of the waterways increased, and erosion has been kept at bay.

I believe that the bison herds should be permitted to have a larger range and freely move in and out of the park without concern of being trapped. But on the other hand, I also see that it is necessary to keep control of the population of bison within the park. It’s a tough decision on what the correct method or methods are to accomplish this goal. I think that to have the bison transferred to other suitable locations where they could be used to spread the size of the bison population in the United States.

Citations

The Yellowstone Insider. Over 570 Yellowstone Bison Killed So Far This Season. Sean Reichard.   February 21, 2017. http://yellowstoneinsider.com/2017/02/21/over-570-yellowstone-bison-killed-so-far-this-season/ Accessed March 1, 2017

The Yellowstone Insider. Nearly 1000 Yellowstone Bison Killed So Far This Year. Sean Reichard. March 2, 2017. http://yellowstoneinsider.com/2017/03/02/nearly-1000-yellowstone-bison-killed-so-far-this-year/ Accessed March 1, 2017

Baiting and Supplemental Feeding of Game Wildlife Species

By: Dustin Zetwick

Since early history humans have baited animals to capture or harvest them. Thousands of years ago humans depended on wildlife for survival. Baiting is still used today whether it is for hunting, trapping, or viewing. Baiting wildlife for capture and reintroducing a species where it once was has been very successful.  Many people have different opinions on this subject of baiting wildlife whether or not it is for hunting. Many believe it is unsporting and unlawful to hunt while having the advantage of bait. Others believe that baiting does not give you an advantage by saying it is just a food source in the environment. Most states allow hunting over bait, each state has specific rules and regulations. Some states allow baiting prior to the hunting season and only a few do not allow any feeding during anytime.

Baiting and or supplement feeding wildlife has positives with it. If a wildlife agency is trying to do research and test a species for a disease then using bait to attract that animal and capture it is only benefiting that species and potentially other species. Bait can be used to lure in a nuisance animal into a trap and safely relocate the animal without causing harm to itself or anyone else.

Baiting and or supplement feeding can cause several wildlife and management issues. One of the biggest concerns is the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease and Tuberculosis. The feeding of wildlife can cause them to be less scared of humans and this can be especially dangerous if people are feeding bears. Bears can lose fear of humans and get used to being fed and they may begin to hang around your home and eventually they may cause property damage or can harm people.

The feeding of deer can cause more harm than good. Deer are a foraging animal and if there is a consistent use of bait it can reduce their home range and natural movement, it may cause them to become nocturnal. Many land owners want to help the deer herd during harsh winter months so they will feed them. In the west corn is usually abundant through the winter months from fall harvest in fields so their stomachs are used to it. Corn used as a food source in the east can actually kill deer in the winter months because a deer’s stomach is designed to take in woody material. If large amounts of corn are all of a sudden brought in, the deer’s stomach may not be able to adjust to the new food source and it can shock its system and cause death.

Figure 1

If people decide to feed the best way to do it is by slowly introducing the new food source in small amounts. The use of food plots is not considered to be baiting or supplement feeding. They are an additional food source that can be beneficial because they provide nutrition and a deer’s stomach is still adjusted to a higher energy food source. Alternatives to baiting are providing natural food sources for wildlife with doing cuttings that will allow the buds from trees to be consumed. Cutting will provide openings and in the growing season will produce new seedlings which provide a food source. Prescribed burning is another way to improve the habitat and allow for new seedlings to grow. The question I will leave for you is should the use of baiting and supplemental feeding be allowed or outlawed? (Approved by Council March 2007. Expires October 2017)

Work Cited

Baiting and supplement feeding of game wildlife species.2007. The Wildlife Society. the wildlife society http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PS_BaitingandSupplementalFeeding.pdf  Accessed 1,Mar. 2017

"Don't Feed the Deer: How Corn Can Be a Killer." Field & Stream. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2017. <http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/whitetail-365/dont-feed-the-deer-how-corn-can-be-a-killer?page=0%2C1>.

"A Whitetail Buck's Favorite Wild Foods [PICS]." Wide Open Spaces. N.p., 02 Dec. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2017. <http://www.wideopenspaces.com/whitetail-bucks-favorite-wild-foods-pics/>.

Traps, Trapping, and Furbearer Management

By: Colton Treaster

http://www.furfishgame.com/featured_articles/Archived/2009-03/trapline_03_09.php

Trapping furbearers has been a way of life for some families for generations, it might be the only income that a family has if they are living where they do not have the opportunity for another job or if they are trying to make a living just off the land. Trapping isn’t just to make money either, it helps out other populations of animals too. Trapping has been viewed by some people as inhuman or not ethical because of the traps used or just overall killings of the animals. Without trapping we could be overrun by many different predators and start seeing significant declines in other animal populations.

Why is trapping being frowned upon by most of the public population that are non-trappers? Basically the public is just looking at the animal that is caught in the trap, they are seeing the animal being physically held back and some will say that they are suffering while being held in the trap. Many people oppose the foothold trap saying it hurts the animal and it suffers, or what if you catch a non-target species, it now has a broken foot and you cannot release it because it will not be able to survive. The answer to that is yes that can be true but trapping is heavily regulated and the traps have to have specific specifications to them, not saying injury can’t happen but it is less likely with the trapping regulations. There needs to be a way to help the public understand trapping and hopefully give them some insight on what the benefits are.

To educate the public on trapping I think we need to implement a more public approach and hold programs to educate people more on it. Yes we do have the trapping course you have to complete before you can trap but I think there needs to be a program that is focused on what trapping is and what the benefits of trapping are to present to the public who might not know what trapping truly is other than just catching an animal in a trap. We need to promote how the traps have been improved and explain other ways and methods furbearers can be taken. I know that people even though with seeing what trapping is all about will still not accept it but as long as we present them with the information and what trapping really involves they might not oppose it as much. If we talk more publically and maybe come up with programs or even a short promotional video that tells the truth about trapping, we can get more people to accept it.

I have been talking about the benefits of trapping a lot in this so what are the benefits of trapping? Trapping animals has many benefits, it can be used as income, a hobby or ways to control animal populations in your area along with a way to study wildlife. Wildlife biologists use trapping as a way to monitor the population of animals in an area and how healthy they are. They look for diseases in the population and if the population is healthy enough to be trapped that year or if a management plan needs to be put in place. Trapping has been used to protect endangered species from becoming extinct by lowering the predator population due to trapping and hunting. Another benefit trapping has is all the proceeds that are collected by the sales of trapping and furbearer licenses are put back into improving wildlife and their habitat, it is one of the ways the Pennsylvania Game Commission is funded. It maintains a healthy population of the animal also, with less animals in the area you do not have to worry about sick animals because of competing for food sources and starvation is not a factor in how the animals are dying.

In conclusion trapping is not a bad thing or should be frowned upon, it is actually beneficial to the animals and the habitat. Trapping just gets a bad reputation because people talk without knowing what the actual facts and what trapping actually does in a wildlife management practice. What I suggest to get people to understand the art of trapping is to have programs that explain what is all involved in trapping and what the benefits are of trapping. This will not change everyone’s opinion on the topic but it might help them understand more than they did before. Through public education we can help the general public understand more than they did and although it might not produce an influx of trappers going out it will help with knowledge and practice of trapping.

Colton Treaster

Citation

"Traps, Trapping, and Furbearer Management." The Wildlife Society (n.d.): n. pag. The Wildlife Society. Web. 2 Mar. 2017.

http://www.furfishgame.com/featured_articles/Archived/2009-03/trapline_03_09.php

Utah Winter and Shed Hunters Stress Cervid Species

By: Taylor Gillette

Winters in Utah bring a hefty snowfall creating a deep snowpack. Currently in Utah the snowpack is reaching record levels. Winter by far is the most stressful season in the life of a cervid. With the deep snowpack and lack of food all cervid species reach their peak stress levels. In most states avid outdoorsman take part in shed hunting. Shed hunting is the act of going into the field and searching for antlers that have been dropped by cervids. Some states like Utah have specified shed hunting seasons. Utah’s season generally runs from February 1^st – April 15^th and to participate in this recreational activity you must complete an antler gathering ethics course. The purpose for these “shed” seasons is too give the animals time away from the human presence that they see at all other times in the year.

Due to excessive snow accumulation and risk of losing more of the cervid population than normal, Greg Sheehan the director of wildlife resources signed an emergency order to close shed hunting throughout the state until April 1^st. The temporary closure on shed hunting will aid in giving the cerivd populations more down time to keep their stress levels from peaking because of that human presence.

Figure 1

Shed hunters do not always search for sheds ethically. There are instances where shed hunters are cited for trespassing, taking sheds out of season, and the list goes on. To find sheds one must look where the cervid species are located. That being said most of the time the cervid species is still in the area when hunters are out searching for the antlers. The species will feel that “pressure” that the shed hunters will put on the animal and exert unnecessary energy to flea from that human presence. Shed hunters have different strategies and techniques depending on the scenario, for example there is spot and stalk shed hunting which is when a hunter follows the animal until they drop their antlers, hunters will just hike around areas that a cervid species are typically found in during the winter months, and there are hunters that use antler traps if they are legal in their state. Antler traps are theoretically designed to entangle the antlers and force the animal to drop them. The listed techniques for shed hunting add an extraordinary amount of stress to these animals that adds on to their stress levels from a hard winter. 

The director of wildlife resources stated, “We support shed antler gathering”.  The purpose of this closure is not to take away activities that the public enjoys but it is in place to ensure the safety of the wildlife and to be able to preserve the sport of shed hunting for further generations. The public has very mixed feelings towards the season closure. A fair amount of individuals believe that they should be able to hunt for sheds no matter the conditions and will argue that shed hunting does not impact the stress levels of the animals anymore than hikers and skiers do. Some individuals will side with the state of Utah agree that the harsh winter increases the stress levels and that shed hunting will impact that stress level even more.

            

                                 Figure 2                                               Figure 3

Literature Cited

                     Emergency shed hunting closures in Utah. 2017. Brady Miller. GoHunt https://www.gohunt.com/read/news/emergency-shed-hunting-closures-affect-utah#gs.iQHfi7k Accessed March 1, 2017

                     Statewide shed antler closure. 2017. Utah division of wildlife resources. Utah DNR https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1989-shed-antler-closure-expanded-statewide.html  Accessed March 1, 2017

Photographs

                     Figure 1           Taylor Gillette

                     Figure 2           Taylor Gillette

                     Figure 3           Taylor Gillette

New Implements to PA 2017-2018 Hunting

By: Jake Felix

Going out in the woods to try and hunt white tail deer in Pennsylvania could be a lot different this fall. There is a new bill going through legislation right now that could make it legal for hunters to use semi-automatic weapons to pursue game in the state of Pennsylvania. This is a huge deal for multiple reasons. It is also very controversial. There are hunters all over that have mixed feelings on the matter.

MY THOUGHTS
Personally, I like the idea of hunting with semi-automatic weapons for a limited number of species, such as predators and groundhogs. When it comes to hunting deer with the weapons, I’m not so sure how I feel. When it comes around to rifle season for deer in Pennsylvania, I do not know of many people that do not go into the woods for the day and try to kill a bruiser. I know that there is a lot of people in the woods during these two weeks, and giving some people semi-automatic weapons to use could make these two weeks treacherous. The reason that I like the idea of the use of semi-automatic weapons for species like coyotes and foxes is because you rarely see other people when you are hunting for them. There are not as many people in the woods during these seasons, so the possibility of an accident is a lot less likely.

OTHER HUNTERS’ THOUGHTS
To other hunters, it appears that they have the same thoughts as me. I have talked to friends and family about their thoughts on the possible bill to be passed. Some of the people I have talked with are all for the passing of the bill, but most of the people do not completely agree with it. The people that would be happy with the bill being passed are ones that already own a semi-automatic weapon. The majority of the people I’ve spoken with are against the use of semi-automatic weapons for deer hunting. They like it for predator control and pest control, but feel it is almost unethical for people to use these firearms with species such as deer and bear. These against the bill also feel as though it poses a threat to other hunters in the woods.

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
If you are a fellow hunter or even someone that just enjoys walking and being in the woods, this bill could pose a new threat to you. This is putting weapons could be more dangerous than your grandpa’s .30-.30 rifle in the woods during all hunting seasons. This could put you and your companions in greater danger.
All in all, I strongly think you should look more into this bill and see exactly what you think. I am not saying that I am against the bill by any means, but I believe that they need to rethink the thought of allowing every game animal to be hunted with a semi-automatic weapon without testing it first. I feel that they should ease into the use of these firearms instead of going full throttle first and letting them be used for hunting every game animal.

1. Nale, Mark. "Pennsylvania Game Commission proposes big changes." Centredaily.com. N.p., 18 Feb. 2017. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.
<http://www.centredaily.com/sports/outdoors/article133668439.html>.
2.
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/P1000765.jpg

Is Hunting Bears Really A Challenge Anymore?

H.J.Res.69 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to "Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska".

On February 16, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 225 to 193, and passed H.J. Res. 69. This bill proposes to allow hunters to harvest wolf pups in dens, bears in dens during hibernation, and to shoot bears from aircrafts in Alaska's wildlife refuges. H.J. Res. 69 has now moved to the Senate, and is waiting further review. This bill would overrule the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ban on these hunting practices, and if passed would make Congress the only the only ones capable of changing this legislation  (HSUS₁ 2017).

[1]

H.J. Res. 69 was authored by Don Young, Alaska’s representative, and received the majority vote from republican lawmakers. It has been claimed republicans did this for the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Safari Club, and hunting guides and outfitters. Thankfully 10 republicans in the House of Representatives had the courage to vote against H.J. Res. 69. Now it is in the hands of the Senate and President Trump to decide what happens now to H.J. Res. 69. I personally hope the Senate and President have enough intelligence to leave wildlife management in the hands of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and state wildlife agencies, and to see that these are unethical methods of hunting (HSUS₂ , NBC 2017).

                                     [2]

                                                 [3]

Currently, Alaska has two bear seasons in the spring and fall for both black bears (Ursus americanus) and brown/grizzly bears (Ursus arctos); a hunter is currently allowed to use bait as long as they are following the regulations of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). Both of these bear species hibernate in winter dens during the winter months in high alpine areas. Black bears typically have 1-2 cubs (averaging 2), and females do not sexually mature until about 3-6 years of age. Grizzly/brown bears have 1-4 cubs (averaging 2) every three years, and females do not sexually mature until 5 years of age. Also, during the winter months male of both species do not enter hibernation as early as the sows that are pregnant, and if conditions are not that harsh males can be active off and on or even the entire winter. ADFG has different seasons and permit hunts for bears, including subsistence hunting (hunting for food); they are responsible for managing wildlife species and dictating hunting seasons and regulations in the state of Alaska (ADFG 2017).

[4]

Now, on federal wildlife refuges USFWS is responsible for managing wildlife species, but the state agencies dictate hunting seasons and regulations for each state. So in theory but ADFG and USFW should be working together, since the majority of Alaska’s public lands are federally owned.

Mr. Young and his supporters claim the USFWS is being dictated on what to do by the ADFG on what to do, and that they are practicing “intense management” on their predator species. There argument in support of H.J. Res. 69 is that the federal government should dictate what happens on federal land. The supporters of this also claim that the majority of Alaskans support this piece of legislation, when every source I have found states otherwise. Most sources state that the Alaskan residents are concerned about this legislation because they are afraid it will affect tourism; most people come to Alaska to view the wildlife, and if the populations of bears and wolves decrease, they are concerned tourism will decrease due to this. Tourism is a huge part in the Alaskan economy so I can see how this would be a huge concern for the Alaskan residents (HSUS₂ 2017).

[5]

Besides the concerns of tourism and ethical hunting practices, there has been no mention on how this will be implemented, and what the impact would be to the bear and wolf populations. Mr. Young has failed to provide any scientifically evidence to support his claim on this issue. As I stated earlier black bears do not sexually mature until 3-6 years of age and average 2 cubs every 2-3 years, while brown/grizzly bears sexually mature around 5 years of age and average 2 cubs every 2-3 years (ADFG 2017). Knowing this I would like to know if anyone has looked at how H.J. Res. 69 would affect black bear and brown/grizzly bear populations, since this would allow hunters to harvest bears in hibernation dens, shoot bears from aircrafts, and trap and kill bears in steel leg-hold traps.

Since it takes such a long time for these bear species to sexually mature and they have a low reproductive rate compared to other bear populations, I am very concerned that this legislation would be detrimental to the black bear and brown/grizzly bear populations. If the Senate and President Trump for some reason pass H.J. Res.69, I am interested to see how this is implemented. Since, if pregnant sows and sows with cubs get harvested heavily then their will not be a high recruitment rate of the populations. Also, bears would have to survive at least 3 years to have the chance to reproduce. Knowing this I’m concerned that this would be the downfall to the Alaskan black bear and brown/grizzly bear populations.

[6]

I would like to leave you all with this “do you classify this as ethical hunting, and do you think Alaska Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services should dictate hunting seasons and regulations?” If you agree with me that H.J. Res. 69 is unethical and lacks scientifical evidence to support it I encourage you to contact your local senator to express your concerns and view(s). I guess we will have to wait and see what the Senate and President Trump have to say about H.J. Res. 69 to see what is in store for Alaska’s black bear  and grizzly bear populations.

Citations:

Alaskan Department of Fish and Game [ADFG]. 2017. ADFG <homepage. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/>. Accessed on 1 March 2017.

Shankar, D. NBC News [NBC]. 2017. House overturns obama-era law to protect alaskan bears and wolves.< http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-overturns-obama-era-law-protect-alaskan-bears-wolves-n722481 >. Accessed on 1 March 2017. 

The Humane Society of The United States [HSUS₁]. 2017. THSTUS: A Humane Nation - U.S. House sanctions killing hibernating bears, wolf pups in their dens on federal refuges in Alaska.

.< http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/02/help-stop-congress-cruelty-wolves-grizzlies-alaska.html?credit=blog_post_021617_id8790 >. Accessed 1 March 2017.

The Humane Society of The United States [HSUS₂]. 2017. THSTUS: A Humane Nation - Urgent: Your help is needed to help stop congress from sanctioning cruelty to wolves and grizzly bears on refuges in Alaska .<http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/02/help-stop-congress-cruelty-wolves-grizzlies-alaska.html?credit=blog_post_021617_id8790>. Accessed 1 March 2017. 

[1]: Alec Baker

[2]: https://youtu.be/rfyu3wDLVhk

[3]: Alec Baker

[4]: Alec Baker

[5]: Alec Baker

[6]: Alec Baker