Conservation: Two Management Strategies In Africa.

 

 

Remember this: Interference can be a beneficial or negative occurrence. Depends on how you approach things. Pack your bags….we are going in the AOFH time machine.

 
"Apart from the hostile influence of man, the organic and the inorganic world are...bound together by such mutual relations and adaptations as secure, if not the absolute permanence and equilibrium of both, a long continuance of the established conditions of each at any given time and place, or at least, a very slow and gradual succession of changes in those conditions. But man is everywhere a disturbing agent. Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discords. The proportions and accommodations which insure the stability of existing arrangements are overthrown." (Marsh 1874:34)~George Perkins Marsh~

 I was thinking about the world if homo sapiens did not exist, refrained from participation, and now that people were present in the reality of Nature, what effect could humans illicit. These are easily asked questions with complicated answers based on all the available information since Homo sapiens could chisel or paint on a rock. Much of this information lays dormant on book shelves in Academia. Its sits there yet we do not revisit or learn from its intelligence. Why? If you think of the world in reoccurring cycles then why can the same event but not a perfect recreation happen again or to a different extreme?

The main concept I mulled over was Nature in the absence of human intervention exists in a state of balance which changes very little over long periods of time. My personal opinion is the wobbly effect of the Earth where it is constantly trying to right itself when negative forces oppose it. Because of this Nature is constantly in flux due to the actions of organisms on the environment and each other.

 If one reviewed natural resource management, balance or equilibrium is the state where there is no net change in a system. If a natural state is self-regulating and is truly at equilibrium but then deviates away from the balance then the system would compensate a change and move back to a steady state.

I wondered where I could find an example of human intervention or lack thereof in regards to resource management on wildlife landscapes that were contrary to expected outcomes. These outcomes depending on the influence of potential factors thought to kick Nature out of balance (such as human intervention) or what seemed to be back to a balanced state (leave Nature alone) only to find the ecosystem became more out of control.

Management strategies of National Parks have always been of interest. Management strategies have consisted of: leaving the natural area alone and preserve the landscape and animals, manipulate the ecosystem through a utilitarian approach, and the watch theory; you appreciate the existing ecosystem or tear the ecosystem apart mechanism by mechanism.

The example exists in history between Kenya's Tsavo National Park and Krueger National Park if you compare management styles of its resources. Let us jump in the time machine and take a closer inspection.

 Let us consider Krueger National Park.

At the time of this inspection Krueger was a fenced area. The following is in regard to the time in question and not the present day. Present days affords a much greater area.

 "The Krueger National Park is a 22,000 km square north to south, oblong-shaped area along a south (800 mm) to north (400 mm) summer rainfall gradient in the northeast of South Africa. It is underlain by basaltic and granitic basement rocks, which influence the vegetation. The eastern basalt areas are open to woodland savannas with a dense shrub and grass layer with mopane (Colophospermum mopane) dominant in the north and marula (Scleocarya birrea) and knobthorn (Acacia nigerscens) in the south. (Gertenback 1983) the entire park is fenced, and numerous boreholes and dams provide additional drinking water for wildlife." (Ray 209-10)

 At one point in Krueger National Park, managers pursued preservation management using the hands-on approach. To control the balance of Nature workers intervened by culling herds, groups, or individuals. Deep wells and dams were constructed to provide a water source; water being an essential requirement for life. There was also the practice of burning vegetation to propagate new growth, soil nourishment, seed germination, and browse facilitation or control. Management of wildlife and the landscape also controlled disease.

Let us consider Tsavo National Park.

Tsavo National Park consists of designated East and West locations. The surface is flat and covered with low dry vegetation on the east. In the west park there are height, dry plains and ancient lava fields. Lava fields are usually good sources of soil enriching nutrients. There is natural occurring springs.

We have arrived in 1948 and travel back and forth between the late 1960s. Tsavo was deemed a national park. In 1963 hunting was banned. In Tsavo there was vegetation, rhinoceros, elephants and other animals. Local people were evicted and the area was used solely for wildlife viewing for safari. Now I might add here that this ritual of evicting locals from the land to turn the property into a reserve, animal corridor, or national park seems to be a habit of African governance. We see this today in the Masaai or you could swing a read to Loliondo problem of leasing an area for hunting to foreign entities. There is also the issue of monitoring or ending hunting for eco-tourism (which I wonder if you revisit Tsavo in 1963). Of course there is always the impending issue of human habitation.

 Managers of the Park’s resources took the hands-off approach of letting nature take its course. Eventually wildlife consumed all of the food. With this lack of sustenance mortality rates increased on the part of the species dwelling in the park. Managers of that period argued Die-off was a natural occurrence of Nature’s progress. Managers continued minimal intervention. An ensuing drought made conditions worse. Animals associated with trees died and land became grass. This grass caused grazing species to increase. Managers realized eliminating people and letting nature take its course led to dramatic alterations of landscape and wildlife instead of propagating a stable ecosystem as hoped for.

Of course these two differing styles of reserve management at the time was a very good indicator of how varied the approach of caring for a natural area could pose in the way of methodology, action, and function once plans are applied. These two different modes of approach were designed with the idea of maintaining habitats and species in a particular area but the forethought of thinking in turns of immediate or long term outcomes depending on the different approaches did not seem to be a consideration except on the part of the Krueger National Park. The approach of getting involved with the ecosystem and nurturing the landscape, water sources, and animals in an appropriate way in regards to the long term function of a whole was the better plan. Nature has seen a competition of sorts for bacteria, animals, and plants where too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. In this case whoever is the mightiest can tromp all over other players in a much bigger game without realizing how important the minute species are…namely decomposers.

 The overall goal of managing a resource is to maximize production of featured species through a utilitarian approach in regard to conservation. Conservational biology makes decisions on use, management, or protection in order to prevent depletion and insure the complete ingredients in ecosystems, refuges, reserves or any habitat with inhabitants will continue. High rates of use, waste, and lack of regard for restoration should not be considered if it is overexploited to an irreversible end.

When I reflect on the two different reserve management style while excluding the present day situation it is interesting to see how letting Nature take over and tend her business versus human intervention could widely vary.

I thought about George Perkins Marsh’s comment but thought this may be true if man has no care one way or the other for ecosystems or ecosystem inhabitants. Given the expertise of managing a reserve for the betterment of the landscape humans can be very beneficial if not encouraging of life itself. Of course there are times when through trial and error such as the above Krueger-Tsavo case that you have to do a little indirect experimentation without knowing it to see what options are available. A good example is Edison and his light bulb. Man is a disturbing agent in the negative sense but in the positive sense that in his ability to disturb humans can recognize impunity if they wish, correct, and regulate an ecosystem for the benefit of self and other forms of life. Nature on the other hand can take care of a lot of things if you wish to view Nature as an organic omnipotent being with powers but then when upon inspection you view individuals in a system that become for lack of a term “lawless”; Nature has a harder time regulating the individual. On the other hand the best laid plans and efforts do not always give the predicted results. We can see this in terms of the effect poaching has had on rhinoceros. Even with the advent of patrols, laws, and conservation efforts animals are still being removed for local and international gain even at the expense of extinction. That would take replacing illegal money-making schemes with a legal lawful enterprise that would relegate the need to exploit jeopardized animals through alternative jobs for people that are poachers. Find them another way to support their family or themselves but then people can be callous. or just like to live on the edge of death. 

I did think after reviewing this that it will be interesting to watch the issues going on in Africa such as leasing property to foreign entities for hunting, evicting people to make way for corridors and national park areas, national park management in the face of poaching and changing land areas. Also what effect this will have on the ecosystems that exist around these issues. Granted there are plenty of issues not stated here but as a work in progress to see what will work and what will not might either end in headache or and adventure. Either way……I hope nothing is lost and I’ll be watching.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Literature Cited:
Weddell, Bertie Josephson. Conserving Living Natural Resources In the Context of a Changing World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Print.

Jusina C. Ray, Redford, Kent H., Steneck, Robert S., Berger, Joel. Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Washington, DC. Island Press, Inc. 2005. Print. pgs. 209-210.






 

Keystone XL Pipeline and Wildlife: Investigative Huntress Reports.

Remember this: As a hunter, when there is a potential threat to the quarry you hunt, find out what is at stake to disappear, or lower your standard of hunting. No quarry, no hunt.

With this post I am using this link as sourced material:
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/draftseis/index.htm

The whole purpose of this blog is to investigate hunting issues or concerns. The theme of hunting is born out of the realization that to hunt you need quarry, areas to hunt, necessary tools, and compromised/uncompromised conditions. What if there existed a foreseeable question as to the health, welfare, and longevity of one of those attributes? Mainly quarry. 

What hunter/huntress would not want to have a vested interest in that topic? Here you have the opportunity to join up with non-hunters that believe that wildlife, habitat and your environment is worth safe-guarding. There are no enemies here. What you do is let the world know your concerns that way if someone in the XL pipeline sector doesn't keep up their maintenance schedule, or overseeing the line they can't cry foul. I question what person wants to go down in history as the 'most hated president' either but we have had some real contenders for that title. 

The above photo illustrates there is an existing pipeline from Canada at Winnepeg, but after the pipeline generates itself out of Calgary's area that would mean the pipeline from Calgary to Winnepeg could be closed because why have two pipelines pumping to the same destination? If that pipeline were to close that would mean that Canada would have less ground line for the pipeline if something were to happen excluding the damage in the Tar Sands Region. 

Even if the Enbridge Northern Gateway (which in this is proposed and I have yet to check) doesn't go through that would mean most of the transfer across country would be done on American soil at TransCanadian benefit. If that is the case maybe they should be getting charged for that so we can pay off our national debt? Either way if TransCanada's faux oil pipeline ship should run afoul on American soil will there be any restitution for the damage to our once pristine land while Canada doesn't suffer other than the damage it has already done to itself or monetarily?

Can you imagine if some kind of war broke out and someone opened a match on that thing to watch it burn a line across America? Love speculation. What better way to screw a country by dividing it with a pipeline? An unassuming bomb? Interesting or as Johnny Cash put it 'Ring of Fire' which could do a loop back to Winnipeg from Alberta.

With this post I wanted to disclose which quarry would be in trouble if things were to go South on any given part of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.  Mind you wildlife does not have any concept of boundaries. Wildlife has no concept of legal ownership through survey of a piece of property that is registered at the tax office by a citizen.

In the section in the link 4.6.3.1 Big Game Species it is as quoted, "Construction of the proposed Project could impact hunter success rates with the Project area. Hunting could be adversely affected due to construction activities occurring during hunting seasons, primarily due to the displacement of big game animals from construction and noise disturbances. Once the proposed pipeline is constructed, harvest rates could potentially increase after construction because of increased access by hunters using the pipeline ROW to access remote areas (Comer 1983). In addition, big game species that use a cleared ROW could be more likely to be hunted than animals in forested habitat. Increased hunting along cleared ROWs in the fall hunting season has been documented elsewhere (Crabtree 1984)."

If this is likely then it makes it to easy to hunt an animal because you are sitting on a pipeline which could result into a barrier to fence them in thereby possibly obliterating 'fair chase'. On the other hand if human disturbance stresses out the slow breeders then there might be some concern with taking animals during a season due to low birth rates. Something to consider.

Big Game Animals Possibly affected:
Pronghorn Antelope
Bighorn Sheep
Elk (as of the time of this impact study it was noted there was a re-establishment program going on) in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.
American Bison (States that there is no free-ranging bion in the propsed Project route.)
Mule Deer
Whitetail Deer

Note quoted on Big Game Species 4.6.3.1 from above link:

"Construction activities could result in increased agitation, physiological stress, and use of sub-optimal habitat. Animals can become physiologically stressed when energy expenditures increase due to alarm or behavioral avoidance (Lutz et al. 2011). These responses are often attributed to interactions with humans or activities associated with human presence such as traffic and noise. Physiological stress diverts time and energy away from critical activities such as foraging and resting, both of which are important to maintain or improve fitness (Gill et al 1995,  Frid and Dill 2002).
Construction of the proposed Project may alter migration routes and displace wildlife from preferred habitats (Sawyer et al. 2006) by creating barriers that hinder migration and use of these  habitats (Sawyer et al. 2009)" 

"In the northern portions of their range, white-tailed deer, mule deer and elk may aggregate or yard during winter in stream bottoms, on south-facing slopes, or in other areas where snow accumulations are reduced. In Nebraska, where the proposed pipeline ROW has been modified to avoid the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality-identified Sand Hills Region, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn are principal big game animals that occur along the proposed Project route."

"The proposed Project has been designed to avoid impacts to many state and federally managed areas within the vicinity of the Project area. In Nebraska, all state-managed Wildlife Management Areas that provide protected habitats for wildlife have been avoided. These areas are all more than 500 feet from the proposed Project centerline."

I sat back and pondered thoughtfully if Ranger X was going to go out and sit the Wildlife down and explain to them that there will be no migration off of Wildlife Managed Areas. I wondered to myself does a Bison or an Elk really understand the '500 yard rule'? I then wondered in what land I was walking because I then contrived if the oil should come out of that pipe was there a command that TransCanada had taught pipeline oil to 'stay put there on the ground and not move'?

Moving on.

Below is a list of assorted animals. Glance down through it and see if you hunt any of these.

Small game and furbearers:
Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)
Mountain Cottontail (Sylvilagus muttallii)
Coyote (Canis Latrans) ~on the fence with this one.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Squirrel (Sciurus spp.)
American Beaver (Castor canadensis)
American Mink (Neovision vision)
Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis)
American Badger (Taxidea taxus)
Black Tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus)
Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
Common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)
Eastern Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger)
Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius)
Franklin's ground squirrel (Spermophilus franklinii)
Gray fox (Urocyon vinereoargenteus)
Long tailed weasel (Mustela nivalis)
Mink (Mustela vision)
Nutria (Myocaster coypus)
North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum)
River Otter (Lontra canadensis)
Spotted Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus spilisoma)
Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans)
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
Thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus)
Virginia opossum (Dipelphis virginiana)
White-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii)

Small game and furbearers would suffer:
Nest/burrow destruction
Abandonment
Loss of young
Foraging/Cover habitat
Displacement
Could fall into open trench during pipeline construction causing injury or death
Could be attracted by change in ground temperature


Birds Possibly Affected :
Hawks
Eagles
Turkey Vulture
Osprey
Ducks/Geese
Chimney Swift
Nighthawks
Plovers Killdeer
Gulls, Terns
Sandpipers, Snipe, Woodcock
Dovers
Belted Kingfisher
Cuckoos
Kestrels, Merlins, Falcons
Common Loon
Northern Bobwhite
Upland Game Birds (Pheasants, Grouse, Turkey)
Cranes
Coots and Rails
Rock Pigeon
Snow Goose
Sharped Tailed Grouse
Northern Bobwhite
Greater sage-grouse
Gray patridge
Mourning dove
American woodcock

Migratory and Non-Migratory birds affected by:
Destruction of nesting area
Nest or burrow abandonment
loss of eggs or young
death
Habitat loss
Alteration
Fragmentation
Degradation of habitat after revegetation due to spread of noxious and invasive species, noise, or human presence.
Communication pump stations tower collisions/guy wires

Possible Fish Affected:
Brown trout
Mountain Whitefish
Rainbow Trout
Burbot
Channel Catfish
Smallmouth Vass
Walleye
Crappie
Sauger
Shovelnose sturgeon
Sunfish
Yellow Perch
Bait fish

I also wanted to see what this draft stated were the Environmental Consequences of construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the proposed project: Page was left blank. Why? Its a draft come on. We want to know.

I read the Potential Impacts on Wildlife in Section 4.6.3.1:
"Construction of proposed Project would have direct and indirect, and temporary (short-term and long-term) and permanent impacts on wildlife resources. Direct impacts could occur due to the vegetation removal or conversion, obstructions to movement patterns, or the removal of native habitats that may be used for foraging, nesting, roosting, or other wildlife uses. (Barber et al. 2010). Indirect impacts to wildlife are difficult to quantify and are dependent on the sensitivity of  the species, individual, type and timing of activity, physical parameters (e. g. cover, climate, and topography) and seasonal use patterns of the species (Berger 2003). Short term impacts on wildlife would occur during construction and may extend beyond construction activities. Disturbed habitats may not be returned to former levels of functionality for up to 3 years following restoration efforts (Baun 1998), but long-term impacts on wildlife could extend through the life of a project and possibly longer for those habitats that require many years to be restored (Harju et al. 2013). Permanent impacts would result from construction of aboveground facilities that convert natural habitat to land used for pipeline operations, and where operational maintenance of the right-of way (ROW) permanently alters vegetation characteristics (Braun 1998).
The proposed Project could affect wildlife resources through the following:

• Habitat loss, alteration and fragmentation;
• Direct mortality during construction and operation;
• Indirect mortality because of stress or avoidance of feeding due to exposure to construction and operations noise, low-level helicopter or airplane monitoring overflights, and from increased human activity;
• Reduced breeding success from exposure to construction and operations noise and from increased human activity; and
• Reduced survival or reproduction due to less edible plants or reduced cover."

Listed of the Disturbances:
(~12, 696 acres of various habitat)
7744 acres of grassland/rangeland
40 acres of upland forest habitat
636 acres of wetland habitat
58 acres of forested wetlands
156 miles--150 temporary access roads
20 miles-41 permanent access roads.
80 acres each---*Building four or more construction camps
6.3 acres of grassland and developed land for a pump Station in N. Dakota
15.2 acres of grassland for a pump station in Kansas.
X amount-Pubic lands
X amount-Private lands
29 acres of forested wetlands converted to non-forested habitat due to ongoing ROW maintenance.
X amount -Access roads that increase human activity that affect Elk, Moose, Deer, Carnivores, small mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles (people do love to eat rattlesnake).
Slow-growing sagebrush inhibited by increased foraging by wildlife for browse.
Loss of shrubland and wooded habitat which moose and other animals eat.
High noise levels at site pumps which can mask wildlife communication whereby impuning reproduction during breeding seasons.
Nest abandonment
Decreased wildlife reproduction.
Vibrations detected in the soil surrounding roadways or construction
~285 acres of undeveloped habitat permanently lost due to construction of aboveground facilities
 Now I read this but near the end it says that "total habitat loss due to the pipeline construction would likely be small in the context of available habitat because of its linear nature. Restoration is suppose to follow construction with reseeding but areas of native vegetation could be converted to non-native species which could reduce the value of habitat for wildlife."

Moving on to Fragmentation.

"Fragmentation of wildlife habitat would result from the proposed Project. Fragmentation is the splitting of a large continuous expanse of habitat into numerous smaller patches of habitat with a smaller total habit area, and isolation within a matrix of habitats that are unlike the original (Wilcove et al. 1986). Habitat fragmentation has two components:
1)reduction in total habitat area;
and
2) reorganization of areas into isolated patches (Fahrig 2003.)
Habitat loss generally has adverse effects on biodiversity; fragmentation typically has a lower magnitude effect (relative to habitat loss) that may be either beneficial or adverse (Fahrig 2003).
The effects of habitat fragmentation are dependent on many variables including original habitat structure, landscape context, predator communities, and susceptibility to nest parasitism (Tesksbury et al. 1998) Habitat fragmentation effects are typically most pronounced in forested and shrubland habitats and are generally reduced for pipeline corridors because of their sides can be narrowed in sensitive habitats, vegetative cover is re-established in temporary working areas, and there is minimal human disturbance during operations (Hinkle et al. 2002) During construction, however, pipelines can be significant barriers to wildlife movements (Hinkle et al. 2002). After construction, pipeline corridors may be used as travel corridors by coyotes, deer, raccoon, and many other species.  The following are wildlife habitat fragmentation issues relevant for pipeline construction and operation:

• Reduction in patch size of remaining available habitats;
• Creation of edge effects;
• Creation of barriers to movement
• Intrusion of invasive plants, animals and nest parasites;
• Facilitation of predator movements;
• Habitat disturbance; and
• Intrusion of humans (Hinkle et al. 2002).

Pipeline construction would remove vegetation including native grasses, shrubs, and trees creating an unvegetated strip over the pipeline trench and the adjacent construction areas.

Subsequent re-vegetation may not provide habitat features comparable to pre-Project habitats, and restoration of wetlands in arid regions is not always successful (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] 2004). Removal of vegetation increases the potential for the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive plants that have little use or value for wildlife and that displace native plants, resulting in degraded wildlife habitat values."

I stopped there because I don't believe in spoon feeding people but as you can see when in consideration for the encompassing conditions of a pipeline that affect the quarry that pipeline could affect the hunter/huntress and hunting act itself.

In each state and amongst hunters/huntresses in the hunting community there is a public declaration of how much revenue the hunting sport puts back in the system of conservation toward pubic lands, private lands, wildlife refuges, wetlands, state parks, natural resources, research, habitat restoration, animal specie monitoring and welfare and jobs for people.

Where is all that going to go in the face of a series of explosions?

I would contend that every hunter/huntress should pick up a pen and paper or e-mail President Obama himself to tell him about your feelings on this. I dare not tell you what you should say. You have a mind, the power of google, initiative and where-with-all to decide if this is worth a sack of egg sucking  chicken killing dogs.

Whereby the power of your conviction for hunting is aided and abeded by non-hunters with the same goal even if the motive is different. The outcome will be the same.

If you so desire to pen your feelings you can find our good man President Obama at this website and address:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Choose in the right hand column: Write us. Read the next page and send them an e-mail.
I am sure he'd be glad to hear from you plus you'll probably receive a picture of him and the family dog.


~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Conversations between Hunter-Huntress.

Remember this: Earth is a great big fish bowl with an unnumbered amount of smaller fish bowls within it. There is a complete ecosystem to consider at all times.

As always, this is merely an investigation in the spirit of taking a closer inspection of things. There are days depending on peoples attitudes that I wonder when I became the enemy?

(This is dated information)

Part One: The Introduction:

Let me introduce the character of Hunter Bob.  Bob, in the beginning seemed to be interested in hunting. I was informed that he liked sado-masochistic sex, being bitten by a vampire, and goes back and forth with sexual innuendo to the point I finally tell him I have had people harass me before so please don't go there.

Excusing this bad behavior, I decided to give him a chance because he did hunt after all. Of course Hunter Bob has a girlfriend whom I do not know. Enter the character Huntress Christmas. In good conscience, I  decided I was not about to home wreck her happy life with Hunter Bob. I am at least somewhat noble. At some point, I am not so sure that I am talking to Hunter Bob because the verbiage used is not the same. I am suspicious that its Christmas who is trying to lure me into a sexual conversation to use against me, or maybe its her that is interested? Or it could be a trap to sully my good name? Whatever girl!

I am sure in their communities they are perceived as upstanding citizens but that all changes when people log on to the internet.

In one conversation, the person tells me they are sipping brandy while getting enraged at shit I write; my suspicion is female? I could be wrong. I know there are many woman that hide behind the pages of their men doing naughty things but hurting people needlessly is their stick. Mind you, I have never met these people and my conversation initially is based around my interest in wildlife conservation, hunting, and topics around these themes. Usually I don't out people like this but I wanted the reader to  have some kind of back story.

In this conversation, I was discussing with Hunter Bob his opinion on the problems of moose die-off in different areas. Seeing how (?he?) lived in Alaska.

Reminding myself what the definition of (die-off) is: die′-off` or die' off`, n.

a sudden decline in a natural population from causes other than human intervention. 

As I read on Hunter Bob commented, "There was no mass die off and no peritonitis, not sure where you are seeing that but if it is reference the Kenai Peninsula its bullshit" and "It is not just a matter of killing predators. That world help some but the reality is, because there has been little in the way of wildfires the carrying capacity is so low it probably doesn't make any difference."

Here I say is one of the times when its evident that there are hunters that do not give other females the respect of hunting, or knowledge themselves. Once again, I am not sure who Hunter Bob is. 

This reminded me of a fish tank. You have a fish tank with two structures inside where you have a nice peaceful fish (much like a moose) but once you buy an aggressive beta fish (lets just use it as our antagonist) that literally worries the life out of the smaller one. The smaller fish hides in its home only zipping out from time to time to eat but eventually this wears on the little fish. He really has nowhere to go because the fish tank has boundaries. When the beta finds his hideout he moves to another spot to hide again. This could go on and on until the fish dies or the owner seeing the behavior puts the more aggressive fish in another tank, feeds to the cat, or flushes down the toilet. This is a matter of limited space under duress. My thoughts on this is there is not enough time or space between prey-predator interactions where the prey isn't constantly being threatened. There is no real area of relief to move to. If the moose are moving to the sides of roads or to towns this might be a consideration.

I also thought in terms of a haunted house. If you are a very skittish individual when the ghoulies jump out you will mow down anyone in your path or climb over their head racing for the exit.

Again, think of the person who is stalked by an overzealous lover with no place to run.

Enter the Big Bad Wolf and the Bear In the Bush.

If the wolf is out on the trails eventually the wolf will come looking for the moose unless it finds another food source. When I read the predators were moving in town following the moose (I assume- which I should never do) that would indicate to me that there might be a problem with the environment they live in providing for them sufficiently.  I am not discounting the fact stress induced predation isn't a reason for the migration out of normal habitat. I want to consider other options. I have read conflicts on different bear species squatting on other bears turf which forces them out to other places. This could cause an altercation to fight over food or area. Whoever the loser is has to take a hike.

I read that habitat was not a limiting factor but if you don't keep up with the area of the habitat, and the quality of the habitat to the ratio of the volume of animals living off of it then the habitat itself will not be able to sustain a certain quality or number of wildlife. If the habitat is not being monitored and utilized with the best interest of the quality of the soil, the water, the foliage, and the air in addition to the animals/fish but taking into consideration the needs for each species during rotation of seasons. This is going to be a problem especially if Mother Nature is being extremely cruel at times. Supplemental habitat initiatives should be considered. Its like building a house. Your foundation sucks the house is going to eventually fall to wrack and ruin or turn into a money pit.

I wanted to say to some degree this was a management of resources problem but I have known incidences where you can have two different management practices that seem to work but the one that you would think is the better choice fails miserably. My other thought was the numbers seemed to lie but if you have invasion of X amount of animals from a place they inhabit to a place of human inhabitance that is not their normal area of occupation I would wonder why? If the moose moves does every other predator follow? If so why? Is moose the only food source? If that is so what has happened to the small game animals or the medium sized ungulates? Where is the desperation coming from or going to? Or are the moose under limited habitat being unintentionally domesticated?

I would wonder if this is the natural tendency for moose to move from areas of high predation to low but when they move this becomes an issue of lack of good quality habitat because human populations have taken up that area. I am also considering predation at all times. I pondered on earlier readings of the lack of moose in Minnesota and how there seem to be a migration up into North Dakota. It could be possible Moose just moved on to 'better pastures and quieter times'. I considered the geography of Kenai especially in the area of Soldotna or even across this area to the pass that links the land mass to the bigger area someways from Anchorage.

Certainly by the comments at the bottom where the bears are noted to invade school areas people are of course not interested in sharing that space with them because you can't really control a bear. We could reference the article previously posted on my google page about the bear in Switzerland that was removed by death because it wasn't migrating back over to Italy fast enough to find a mate and bother people. Even as the article states in the beginning that the moose is dwindling and the predators are thriving the ultimate outcome is the predators will die eventually from lack of food unless they start snagging farm animals or people. Let's face it Kenai, Alaska is a limited area after that everything moves outward. If you sat down with a map of this place and figured out how much actual acreage you could use for food sources to animals, terrain that is for passage without food on the ground, and human habitation, how much space could the wildlife actually live on? Something to consider but we know that its the constant movement from place to place as the distribution and diversity matter. To many in one spot could trim it down like a herd of goats.

I looked over on this website under management:

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Wildlife_profiles/profile_moose.htm, as quoted, "Areas that provide large amounts of nutritious browse benefit moose. Forest fires induce significantly more nutritious re-growth than that produced by a chain saw. In the absence of fire, clear-cuts provide browse in abundance. Large clear cuts (more than 100 acres) don't benefit moose as much as smaller, dispersed cuts. Islands of uncut softwood and hardwood within large clear-cuts are utilized by moose in the winter. Moose use clear-cuts until the plants grow beyond their reach, in 10-30 years. They avoid dense re-growth that restricts their movement and visibility. Beaver flowages are used frequently by moose. Aspen or willow in a range of successional stages is valuable. A mosaic of upland mature mixed wood (primarily hardwoods with a softwood component), regenerating clear-cuts or burned areas, and wetlands offers good moose habitat."

Let's take into the consideration of habitat or even the landscape of the Kenai Peninsula.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/kenai-peninsula-landscape-radically-altered-typhoon-storms

It has been seven months since a typhoon which in this article 'radically-altered' the landscape of the Kenai peninsula. Could this be a factor in the food sources of the moose? I would think if foliage was damaged or destroyed this would be a consideration or at least something to consider. I live in a Hurricane Alley of sorts that goes up to Nags Head which frequently gets hit over and over ad nauseum. People generally tend to forget about such things and believe their lives go back to normal because their way of life continues but is it the same for wildlife? You have soil erosion, foliage and tree damage, water pollution, dead animals, debris, flooding etc. I would think time better served would have been toward the fact that if there was existing data on life on the Kenai before the typhoon then what is it like seven months later. Is it getting better, sustaining, or is there something terribly wrong that no one thought could happen. Are the people of Kenai in some way suffering still from a natural disaster? Can this be a consideration for the present state of the wildlife? In this article there is more concern with property damage than the long sustaining damage to the land. Natural disasters destroy a lot of the ecosystem variables or to a relative degree greatly displace them. This could be altering pollination patterns, destruction of wildlife food resources, wildlife death, and other factors to be considered.

 
What else in the way of environmental factors could be going on? Animals have a way of knowing weather conditions. Think Japan here. I found this:

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2013/01/05/massive-earthquake-m-7-7-struck-near-alaska-tsunami-warning-in-effect-for-alaska-and-british-columbia-coasts/

I then thought what about that prescribed burning? I love refuges. Always have. Always will.

I found this:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=74525

This wildlife refuge is noted to be 1.92 million acres.

In the bottom right hand corner it is displayed as taken from the website, " Refuge management programs on Wilderness lands are generally  limited to wildlife surveys, censuses, and monitoring. Non-wilderness areas have seen more active management, primarily through the use of prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation crushing to encourage the growth of more desirable browse for moose. The refuge is also actively involved in wildlife census and survey work through telemetry. Wolves, lynx, caribou and brown bear are species which are captured and radio-collared in order to track migration patterns, reveal locations of important food sources, and monitor to evaluate the potential impacts of human activities throughout the Kenai Peninsula, both on and off refuge lands. Refuge staff are also studying the vegetation history of the area in order to better understand the effects of both man-caused and natural impacts, including human development, natural fires and insect infestations. Perhaps the greatest challenge is management of human activities and their associated impacts in order to minimize disturbances to wildlife and their habitats." 

I wanted to know about its geography so I went here:

http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/our-geography

I looked at the bottom map. There is two national parks, one wildlife refuge, and a state park.

Look long and hard at this land mass. Learn about it.

I leave that for your own curiosity and spirit of exploration into what is going on in them there hills?

Other links you might be interested in are:

http://www.alaska.gov/

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=589

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=595

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingmaps.main

 

Conversation One: Discussion between a Man and a Woman.

Hunter Bob: You can't wait to see these moose, you have to go find them, they are more prolific than one might imagine.

February 22 at 10:47pm

Huntress: I was sitting here debating whether this is not really an albino or its like a grey variation (like grey horses that look white) or its some weird trick of DNA where in the womb its information is misread like a hiccup but filled in to make it patchy or everything was really white or grey if it crawled out the sea?

February 22 at 10:49pm

Huntress : I have moose overload right now. :)

February 22 at 10:50pm

Hunter Bob: These animals are not true albinos (if they were they would never survive in the wild) and they occur in many different forms. Often times referred to as "piebalds" there are variations of this anomaly in most game animals.

February 22 at 10:52pm

Hunter Bob: But no matter what you call them, they are gorgeous and a real delight to see when you least expect it.

February 22 at 10:53pm

Huntress: I can tell by this picture the skin is grey looking underneath. We have a lot of pied deer her and they tell them to kill them before the others. BTW, howse the moose population in Alaska these days?

February 22 at 10:53pm

Hunter Bob: Depends on where you are. On the Kenai Peninsula it sucks because wildfires are continually suppressed (the most important aspect to moose proliferation in this environment) and the fact that bears are eating well over 50% of calf production and wolves are eating the adults with unchecked abandon. And then there is he moose-vehicle collisions that account for nearly as many as the predators.

February 22 at 11:13pm

Hunter Bob: Funny that they want to kill those deer. Here types of moose here are basically considered inviolate.

February 22 at 11:14pm

Huntress: I was reading a paper on moose calves dying but I want to say it was back in 2010? It was from peritonitis.

February 22 at 11:32pm

Huntress: Oops...I did see read the part about predators, drowning, and the female moose abandoning the calves after being scared off by the biologist.

February 22 at 11:33pm

Hunter Bob: That was frankly, an unnecessary study. Everyone already knew what the results would say and in the process a bunch of calves were killed that should not have been. The problem with science is they refuse to believe the "lying eyes" of people who are actually out there and have a clue what the fuck is really going on.

February 22 at 11:36pm

Huntress: It was done as stated because of a mass die off. Lying eyes can't tell you straight off what causes peritonitis Steve but then again I doubt they would start dosing them with meds. lmao. What did they decide to do about that then? Shoot the predators to thin them out or what?

February 22 at 11:38pm

Huntress: What is your theory on the Missouri Moose disappearing? lmao.

February 22 at 11:39pm

Hunter Bob: There was no mass die off and no peritonitis, not sue where you are seeing that but if it is reference the Kenai Peninsula its bullshit.

February 22 at 11:40pm

Hunter Bob: It is not just a matter of killing predators. That would help some but the reality is, because there has been little in the way of wildfires the carrying capacity is so low it probably doesn't make any difference.

February 22 at 11:42pm

Huntress: Hold on one second. I didn't say it was in Kenai. But I was looking at a scientific paper done on behalf of Alaska Fish and Game but hold on I copy pasted it. Let me go look.

February 22 at 11:43pm

Huntress: Aye Dios. I didn't copy that one but it was under Moose Calf Mortality in Alaska.

February 22 at 11:46pm

Hunter Bob: Okay, as to the Missouri moose I have not looked at that. I have enough trouble keeping up with Alaska stuff. But my fist guess would be with the deer. They carry a brain parasite that does not effect them but will infect moose populations in close proximity and can cause die-offs. This is one reason why the two do not do well together.

February 22 at 11:57pm

Huntress: brainworm...lmao.

February 22 at 11:58pm


When you consider all of these things there might be something a little more involved in the problem than killing off the predators. Consider more than one option, parameter or Sherlockian clue. Truly asking why creatures are acting a certain way and really investigating the problem might be time well spent. You could be suffering from a previous event?  

If its for a hunting season for tourism all I can say is its your area. Suffer the consequences. If it turns out that killing off predators is going to get you a short term solution you better be figuring a long term one out while you're pulling the trigger. 

If the goal is to completely irradicate the predators and supplant humans in their wake to decide who lives and dies in a herd as a surrogate for the natural cycles of the world I am sure we can fall back on the idea that now we can clone an extinct frog. No biggie. If you are willing and able to live with being the Hatchet Man more power to you but regret is a hard thing to live with.

On the idea of women hunters, do not undervalue them or disrespect them. It may come back to bite you in the ass.

As always in the spirt of the hunt but also investigation.


~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Carmine on Bloodlust and Hunting Vs. Conservation.

Remember this: Everything has its dark side.

In a passage from James Carmine’s book, Hunting Philosophy for Everyone: In Search of the Wildlife, Carmine poses the argument of hunting not being conservation.  This is the following except:

“Hunting is not conservation. No hunter goes off into the woods to thin the herd. That is a lie hunters tell to mollify those who don’t hunt, and perhaps to themselves to qualm their fears about their own bloodlust. If hunting were really for the sake of conservation then early each spring we would simply use our tax dollars to pay a small army of lab technicians to go about the forests and fields with the most advanced satellite-enhanced equipment and, with relative ease, find the most fragile fawns and other animals scientifically deemed unbeneficial to the ecosystem, and euthanize then efficiently, painlessly, and silently. “(Carmine 242)

It could be said that to employ plans of conservation the hunters function in a utilitarian way. Hunters are used to address issues that conservationists may not have the man power to meet. This practice also offsets the cost of alleviating a problem though wage by relying on hunters need to track, stalk, and kill.

In the previous article I related to called Preventing the Establishment of a Wildlife Disease Reservoir: A Case Study of Bovine Tuberculosis in Wild Deer in Minnesota by M. Cartensen and M.W. DonCarlos, I surmised the necessity of the MNDNR to use sharpshooters to kill deer suspected of infection. Even though this practice was not well received over a period of time as the result of disease began to diminish people were not so against it. In the Minnesota example we do not have lab technicians going in the woods kindly putting sick animals down. Its shoot to kill without any predetermined test to prove sickness. It’s the old ‘shoot first ask questions later’ mentality. The hope here was maybe they could eradicate disease with a mass death killing. Was this hunter mentality? No. Was it conservation? You bet. Conservation has a dark side just like hunting with its good, bad, and sometimes right down distasteful but necessary.

In order to have a healthy sustainable population of deer the population had to be semi-eradicated in order for the Bovine TB to be hindered in its spread. This activity on the part of the MNDNR helped to keep Bovine TB from forming a stronghold in deer populations which would spread to others and domesticated livestock.

Once again I thought of Carmine’s excerpt and the Missouri Moose problem. Were DNR workers not fitting moose with high tech gadgetry to monitor body temperature and other pertinent data of moose physiology? It has been known that wolf populations have the random $4000 GPS and monitoring devices around their neck as well as bear.

I then thought of what Carmine said about hunters not going into the woods to thin the herd. If a hunter were to practice intentional culling that deviated from hunt-stalk activities this would imply some sort of ownership. The only way one would have ownership of wild game in America is if they ran or worked a fenced game farm where domesticated wild stock were evaluated for benefits and losses financially. This isn’t hunting. It is farming hands down. Call a spade a spade I say.

Yes hunters may see the random wounded animal whereby putting the animal out of its misery. Hunting is based on opportunity and then you pick your target if you have more than one option.

Hunting and Conservation are two different skill sets that comingle depending on the overlap of need and the situation the two ideas are applied to.

If a hunter is using conservation as his springboard platform for argument and evidence of validating the details of the hunting act then maybe they need to sit in a deer stand and get their priorities straight. Hunting and conservation can be integrated into another entity as a whole but they tend to be separate concepts with different definitions and requirements. Conservation tends to walk the line of monitoring and sustaining wildlife where hunting rides the fence as partaking of.

As for hunters ideals of bloodlust not all hunters are created equal, have the same mindset, come from the same culture, or even have the same views of death. Subtracting the fact they actuallyl do hunt one could ponder whether they have any respect for others, themselves, or decorum in general.

Blood is blood. There are several schools of thought on blood and gore in the hunting realm. Some are very adamant about being comfortable with their bloodletting while not understanding or ridiculing a fellow man for weakness and inability to perceive certain violent acts as “normal acts of nature”. Violence again each other has become so prevalent and sensationalized in the media we cringe at seeing animals doing it to one another but on the other hand some sit in front of the TV during shark week glorying in the sight of Sharks tossing seals.  Other hunters do care about not forcing visual aids off on people that would not want to see them because when it comes to social media you never know when the random boob shot is coming. I have found after actually having an intelligent conversation with non-hunting buddies that I am actually okay with not showing them my personal photos of hunting outings. My aspect of hunting is to promote life more because death is eventual and not pretty. It’s not that I ignore death. Being enamored with death and shoving it in people’s faces is almost like assault to me. There are people that get off on other people being repulsed by blood, gore, and death. It gives them an ego boost I guess that they can handle it and someone else is too fragile. This behavior doesn’t make a hunter or person is strong by no means. It just means death is on that person to the point the air he breathes is death with its sickly sweet smell. These types court death with the false illusion of adventure. If something directly threatens your life as an endeavor, it is not adventure, that my friend is a death wish.

Sometimes ideals have to be tested as to their relevance. What seems distasteful might have a far reaching benefit if no other workable option exists to resolve problems. I enjoyed getting this pot load of gold out of a small excerpt.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~
 

Sources Cited:
Carmine, James. Hunting Philosophies for Everyone: In Search of Wildlife. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons (2010). pp 242. Print.