 |
 |
WindStar Wildlife Garden Weekly e-Magazine |  |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome to
By Tom Patrick We have been working on these two services since last fall. Cary Snowden of SquareCompass.com is our new webmaster and is located in Salt Lake City, UT. I’ll let you do your own exploring on the site but I do want to point out some of the new features:
You may be asking yourself the question “What is a blog?” It sounds nasty--like something you wouldn’t want in your home. At least that’s what I thought at first. I later found out that blog is short for weblog. Okay! “A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author or the web site. “ I sure hope that doesn’t mean that the blog will look like me! I can see visitors to the blog dropping like flies. But, after further reflection on the matter, I came to the conclusion that if WindStar’s American Wildlife Blog represents the personality of our new website and WindStar Wildlife Institute, it will be fine. Just to make sure, we decided to use the services of John Jantsch of Duct Tape Marketing, the blog guru for small businesses, Kansas City, MO to set-up our blog. It replaces the “Wildlife Habitat Forum” on our former website. The reason for the switch is because a blog format is easier for our visitors to share their wildlife observations and experiences. Plus, there is an opportunity to share your favorite nature photographs. Anyone can contribute to the blog plus, we also have about a dozen or two WindStar blog reporters throughout North America to keep the content interesting--we’ll tell you more about them later. We hope that you will visit the blog regularly and contribute whenever you have something to share with other nature lovers. Check out all the new features. If you aren’t currently a member in good standing, you’ll want to be, so you can access the member-only services. Drop us a note at wildlife@windstar.org and tell us know what you like or don’t like and how we can improve them.
IN THIS ISSUE, we have a major feature on how Grizzly Bears should be managed in this country. After editing it, I came across the following article by Scott Shalaway that I knew you would enjoy, too. Scott poses an interesting question in a recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Question: Answer: Though in life bears are big and dangerous, cartoons and books have turned them into lovable, cultural icons. For a dose of reality, Scott recommends two DVDs he recently discovered. "Grizzly Man" (2005, $27.98, 104 minutes, directed by Werner Herzog, rated "R") is the sad, dark tale of Timothy Treadwell, a young man who seemed determined to both live and die with wild Grizzly Bears. This film describes how he accomplished both. For 13 summers, Treadwell lived among wild Grizzlies in Alaska. He studied them and filmed them, and much of this compelling documentary consists of Treadwell's own footage of the bears. He was obsessed with Grizzlies. At times it seems he either thought he was a bear or wanted to be one. In any case, he learned the hard way how foolish he was. Nature lovers will enjoy Treadwell's amazing footage of the bears. In one scene, a large Grizzly is fishing in a deep pool of water. Repeatedly it dives headfirst and only its massive hind feet dangle above the surface. The image of a giant, hairy pearl diver came to mind. Many other times he gets what seems to be dangerously close to his subjects. When Treadwell talks, sings or chastises the bears, he clearly believes that he is one of them. Others will enjoy "Grizzly Man" as a case study of human behavior. It's a classic case of loving animals to death. Treadwell so loved these bears and so wanted to protect them that he caused the sacrifice of two Grizzlies when authorities shot them to recovery what was left of his and his girl friend's bodies. (It reminds Scott of domestic animal lovers who take in so many dogs and cats they can't afford to responsibly care for them. Animal welfare professionals even have a term for these people-- animal hoarders.) One word of warning: the film's R rating stems from several extremely foul-mouthed rants Treadwell launched against enemies of his bears. It's certainly not fit for young children, but these tirades help the viewer understand Treadwell's perspective. "Grizzly Man" is a fascinating, disturbing, and, at times, mesmerizing cautionary tale certain to captivate anyone who enjoys the great outdoors. "Project Grizzly" (1996, $19.95, 72 minutes, directed by Peter Lynch, not rated, but beware of some course language), which Scott says he stumbled upon when ordering "Grizzly Man," offers a much lighter tone. Troy James Hurtubise is a Canadian Grizzly enthusiast who, after a close encounter with a Grizzly Bear, aspires to be a "close-quarter bear researcher." He believes the best way to study and understand bears is up close. He's quickly bored by Black Bears at city dumps; he wants to go face-to-face with Grizzlies. It sounds a little goofy, but this is a guy who shaves in the back country with a razor sharp Bowie knife. To achieve his goal, Hurtubise builds a Grizzly-proof suit of body armor. It stands more than 7 ft. tall, weighs 147 pounds, and is made of chain mail, titanium, internal air bags and high tech plastics. The highlights of "Project Grizzly" are the ways Hurtubise tests his body armor. He's battered by a pick-up truck traveling 30 mph; he's thrown off a cliff; he's pulverized by a 300-pound log; and he's beaten by burly bikers with baseball bats. Incredibly, the armor withstands each test. Unlike Treadwell in "Grizzly Man," Hurtubise has more respect than love for his subjects. Though he says he won't carry a gun to defend himself, his support crew is armed. Just in case, though, Hurtubise carries two large knives. Scott says Project Grizzly is a comic documentary with many scenes that beg to be watched again and again. But it lacks a big pay off-- there's no showdown between man and bear. To Scott, this way a disappointment. He suggests a better title would have been "Project Grizzly Armor."
February Is National By Paul Baicich A dozen years and millions of birdfeeding enthusiasts later, February
is still celebrated as the month to introduce a family friend or neighbor
to the "During this month, individuals are encouraged to provide food, water and shelter to help wild birds survive. This assistance benefits the environment by supplementing wild bird's natural diet of weed seeds and insects," according to a portion of the original resolution presented by Congressman Porter. According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's study, "Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis" (2001), this activity translates into almost $3 billion spent annually by Americans on bird food and related products. And, those numbers continue to increase, according to George Petrides, Sr., of the Wild Bird Centers of America. "More people are discovering the benefits of backyard birdfeeding. It's beneficial to the birds, and to their own enjoyment." So far, recent concerns about the Avian Influenza, West Nile Virus, and other health issues have not negatively impacted birdfeeding. "Wild birds accustomed to finding their favorite food at the feeder should not be disappointed. Fill your feeders and birdbaths. Keep them clean, keep the feed dry, and wash your hands after handling feeders," said Dick Hebert of D&D Commodities Ltd. These tips are frequently repeated throughout the bird-feeding industry, and are included in the "6 Steps To Turn Your Yard Into A Sanctuary For Birds" promotion sponsored by the Wild Bird-Feeding Industry (WBFI). Also connected to National Bird Feeding Month is a related call for birdfeeding assistance. The Wild Bird Feeding Industry's Research Foundation is searching for volunteers to participate in a study of food and feeder preferences of wild birds. "Project Wildbird" was initiated in the fall of 2005 and will continue through the fall of 2008. There are five questions raised in the study:
If you are interested in learning more, visit the WBFI website at: http://www.projectwildbird.org/exp And, if you enjoy watching your feeder, there's a great opportunity to connect with "Project FeederWatch," the ongoing effort to gather information about birds at feeders that is coordinated by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and Bird Studies Canada. --Birding Community E-bulletin
Mothballs should not be used to repel animals. Following is what EPA says on the subject: Acute exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact is associated with hemolytic anemia, damage to the liver, and, in infants, neurological damage. Symptoms of acute exposure include headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, malaise, confusion, anemia, jaundice, convulsions, and coma. Cataracts have been reported in humans acutely exposed to naphthalene by inhalation and ingestion. Cataracts have also been reported in animals following acute oral exposure. Tests involving acute exposure of rats, mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs have demonstrated naphthalene to have moderate to high acute toxicity from ingestion and low to moderate acute toxicity from dermal exposure. To respond to this subject or others or simply view messages,
go
Coyotes are getting comfy in Chicago and other cities across the country, despite the traditional belief that the mammals intently avoid urban populations, say researchers. A 6-yr. study concentrated in the windy city finds that urban coyote populations are much larger than expected, that they live longer than their rural cousins and that they are more active at nighttime than coyotes living in rural areas. Lead researcher Stanley Gehrt of Ohio State University says reduced controls on predatory animals in recent decades have led to the increase of coyote populations in some areas. The animals, in turn, have learned how best to exploit urban landscapes. So far, the animals pose little threat to humans, says Gehrt, and do provide value, such as helping control growing resident populations of Canada Geese.
By Clay Evans How to expand the Grizzly's range, perhaps? Scientific study of a creature our rapacious, fearful, gun-totin' culture nearly erased from the planet? Don't be absurd. Once a species has sufficiently "recovered," there's but one obvious next step: Start killing them! (photo) The Grizzly's threatened status (in the lower 48 states) has long prevented it from being hunted under the Endangered Species Act. But now that bear numbers have crept above 600 in Yellowstone-- a 300 percent increase in 30 years--some people think we ought to start blowing them away. Keep in mind that bears are not a "game" species, killed merely for sport. And, as author David Quammen eloquently argued in the Jan. 18 New York Times, it's not as if Yellowstone is teeming with Grizzlies. "So long as Yellowstone is an island, growing smaller every year, we shouldn't delude ourselves that its Grizzlies have 'recovered' in any but the most tenuous and misleading numerical sense," he writes. Meanwhile, the current issue of National Geographic presents a photograph of a "disappointed" American "sportsman" in camo, squatting in the snow while his Russian guide looks over a female bear shot in Kamchatka. You see, the brave hunter wanted to kill a big male - never mind that the bears' numbers are dwindling. I'm not anti-hunting. I used to hunt--deer, pheasant, ducks. I understand that hunting overabundant game species, whether elk or Canada Geese, helps balance the ecosystem (since our Western forebears drove most predator species into near oblivion). But trophy hunting is a "sport" only for men (mostly) with insecurity issues, if you know what I mean. And for much too long, we've allowed such "sportsmen" to dictate American wildlife policy, including trophy and predator hunting. Take Alaska, where a judge halted the state's "wolf control program" Jan. 17. This program has been on- again, off-again since at least the early 1990s, justified by the mathematically ridiculous assertion that the state's 7,000 to 11,000 wolves eat too many of its millions of caribou, moose and other game species. (Another judge last week overruled and the hunt is back on) In reality, the wolves pose no threat to Alaskan ungulate populations. "Wolf control" is about giving a few twisted macho men a chance to blow away a wolf--from an airplane. Real fair fight, but then, most predator hunting is equally cowardly. The judge halted the program because Alaska didn't provide the scientific justification for slaughtering wolves. Gee, what a shock. The truth is, hunting is declining in the United States. Between the mid-1990s and 2001, the number of hunters dropped by 7 percent to about 13 million, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which also projects that by 2025, there will be fewer than 10 million hunters. On the other side of the ledger, non-hunting outdoor enthusiasts are on the increase. And that means it's time for non-hunters to make their voices heard on issues like hunting Yellowstone Grizzlies, killing Mountain Lions in Colorado or slaughtering wolves for no good reason in Alaska. It's time those of us who want to preserve the whole ecosystem and ensure that we will have true wild places to pass on to future generations started exercising our considerable political clout, instead of continuing to cede power to a shrinking minority of hunters, who live in fear that we'll figure out we've outnumbered them for years. Wildlife is a public concern, not the province of the few. This doesn't, and shouldn't, mean the end of legitimate hunting. But if all the mountain bikers, cross make their voices heard, it will mean the end of a small, self-interested minority dictating wildlife and environmental policies to the rest of us. EDITOR’S NOTE: And yet it is the hunters and the fishermen that pay for wildlife management. In most states, the wildlife program is funded primarily by hunting and fishing fees. To change this policy, you have to find the money elsewhere.
If you love to feed, photograph, or (Coyote Pup by SuperStock)
By Craig Pittman "There is insufficient habitat in South Florida to sustain a viable Panther population," states the report released last week by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "The prospects for population expansion into south-central Florida are questionable at this time." (An adult male Florida Panther growls as he leaves his shipping container by AP) The solution: Move some of Florida's official state animal to other states--wilderness areas in Georgia and Arkansas are the leading possibilities--in hopes of building thriving new colonies there. Arkansas officials, however, already have said no thanks, according to Florida Panther experts. And the report, officially known as the Florida Panther Recovery Plan, contains no schedule for moving the endangered animals. Instead the plan calls for holding extensive public hearings and coordinating with state agencies first. Panthers have been on the federal endangered species list since the first one was drawn up in the 1960s. The animals once roamed throughout several southern states, but these days there are far more Florida Panther license plates--93,684 were sold last year--than actual Panthers. State officials estimate there are about 80 Panthers left in the wild, almost all confined to the state's swampy southwestern corner below the Caloosahatchee River. That area has seen some of the state's fastest development over the past decade. In the early 1990s, state and federal officials designated 600,000 acres of privately owned land in Lee, Collier and Hendry counties as prime habitat for the Panther. Save this land, biologists said, and the Panther might avoid extinction. But since then state and federal officials have allowed people to build throughout the panther habitat, granting permits for a new university, new churches, roads, golf courses and subdivisions. Now to get Panthers off the endangered list, the recovery plan says, the state must boost their numbers dramatically and spread them out more. The goal: three colonies of at least 240 Panthers each, half of them female, maintaining that level for at least 14 years. In theory, the plan says, that could happen by 2051. But since then state and federal officials have allowed people to build throughout the panther habitat, granting permits for a new university, new churches, roads, golf courses and subdivisions. Now to get Panthers off the endangered list, the recovery plan says, the state must boost their numbers dramatically and spread them out more. The goal: three colonies of at least 240 Panthers each, half of them female, maintaining that level for at least 14 years. In theory, the plan says, that could happen by 2051. But how can government officials triple the number of Panthers in South Florida, given the pace of habitat destruction? "That's the $64-billion question," said Darrell Land, who is in charge of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Panther section. "We know what it takes, and the Panthers are more than willing to breed. It just comes down to space." Florida does not have enough available land right now to even allow the Panther population to grow beyond its current level of 80. So tripling that number to 240 "may not be achievable," Land said. According to panther expert Andy Eller, one of the big obstacles to saving Panther habitat has been the agency that published the recovery plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The federal agency repeatedly signed off on development that wiped out Panther habitat, more than once overruling its own biologists, according to Eller. He said his bosses feared angering political contributors who might need development permits. --St. Petersburg Times
MANY people do their part helping out backyard birds during winter months. Here are some of their suggestions: “I’ve found that many birds appreciate the fresh fruit we leave for them in the winter,” writes Ron A. of St. Peters, MO. “I’ll offer apples, grapes, cherries, oranges, bananas and grapefruits—whatever’s on sale at the grocery store. I’ve learned to cut larger fruit, like apples and oranges, into 1/2-inch- to 1- inch-thick disks. This keeps the fruit from rocking and being pushed around, making it easier for the birds to feed.” (Mourning Doves are frequent feeder visitors by Tom Patrick) In Cohasset, MN, Janet M. has an easy way to make winter suet for the birds. “Collect excess cooking grease in a tin can and store it in the freezer,” she recommends. “Add eggshells, cornmeal and seeds to the can as it’s being filled. When the can is full, use a can opener to remove the bottom. Hang the can horizontally from a tree or bird feeder. It won’t take long for the birds to clean it out!” Kathy J. of Grafton, OH shares these ideas that have attracted more birds and other critters to her place in winter: String popcorn, cranberries and peanuts in the shell to make garland that can be hung from trees. Tie a string around a pinecone, smear on some peanut butter and roll it in birdseed. Hang these edible decorations from trees. Press oatmeal, raisins and dried fruit into extra pie crust dough. Bake as usual, cool and serve to your feathered and furry friends.--Birds & Blooms
================================
NEWS SOURCES
TELL YOUR FRIENDS ================================ Have an EXCELLENT Day in your WILDLIFE HABITAT! Tom Patrick ================================
LET NATURE BE YOUR LEGACY
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
