Journals24
Newest
This was inspired by =StringOfLights Journal. Along with other wildlifers as well.
Sorry for the length. I was checking the primary literature and doing some research and came across some interesting stuff. Had to get it all down. I hope that this will help strengthen some arguments for the pro wolf side. I am trying to educate, that is my goal.
Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery. The History and Possible consequences of delisting
Mitchell Gritts
In 1995 and 1996 the initial stages of the Gray Wolf reintroduction began. This was the culmination of years of planning on the USFWS's part. To gain acceptance of their reintroduction plan the USFWS proposed that a total of 300 individuals, 100 in each of the three participating states (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) as a target for the reintroduction. These numbers were not based on any scientific research or data. They were the opinions of the people in charge during the planning stages, and what they felt would be an acceptable level. The reintroduction was an extremely unpopular idea, especially in Idaho, in 2001 the Idaho governor emphatically stated that he would kill the first wolf when the species was delisted, the beginning of the second eradication of the species in his state.
A 2001 and 2005 census estimated the population to be at 550 individuals and 1300 individuals respectively. In 2008 the USFWS declares that the population has reached and far exceeded the proposed numbers of 300 individuals. The only data that the USFWS recovered was the basic demographics, nothing on the genetic connectivity or health of the population. This prompted the Bush administration to delist the species in 2008. In July 2008 the US District Court in Montana reinstated the ESA listing (Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall) stressing that the delisting was declared illegal under 1994 recovery plans (genetic connectivity between the populations, the Yellowstone population had limited dispersal from the other two.). The federal court allowed the USFWS to reevaluate the plan. The USFWS proceeded to change the recovery plan to 450 individuals and proposed the new iteration on 14 January 2009. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declared that the recovery goal was met, and without seeking public opinion or scientific inquiry continued to delist the species. On 4 May 2009 the delisiting became effective.
Since the ESA became law there have been 9 species that have been declared endangered then delisted, brown pelican, gray whale, arctic peregrine falcon, American peregrine falcon, Aleutian Canada goose, Columbian white tailed deer, grizzly bear, bald eagle Virginia flying squirrel and the gray wolf. As part of the delistment process all of these species, except the gray wolf, meet one of two criteria: a) 1000 or more breeding pairs b) recolonization of the majority of it's historic range. 6 of 9 of these species met both of these. The gray wolf proves a definite exclusion to all other delistments undertaken by the USFWS. The Gray Wolf has recolonized only 6% of it's historic range, and only has 83 breeding pairs. This is a far cry from the success of the other delistments, e.g. the brown pelican, 17,000 breeding pairs and 100% of its range, the bald eagle 10,000 breeding pairs and 100% of it's range, or even the grizzly bear 500 individuals (no skewed Ne, which I'll describe later) and 68% of it's historic range, the remaining 32% of that is likely California and Oregon where grizzlies haven't been since the early 1900's.
The historic range of Canis lupus in North America extends from Alaska to Central Mexico, and from the Sierras to Appalachia. In the Lower 48 the population has been diminished to a small population of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in New Mexico or Arizona and the 3 populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (the populations in Idaho and Montana are relatively well connected, while the one in Yellowstone is not well connected, so almost 2 populations).
Some of the heaviest opposition has come from ranchers and hunters, which are worried about livestock depredation and increased pressure on game animals. In 2007 Stronena surveyed ranchers and revealed that equal numbers of ranchers are worried about brucellosis transmissions from wild elk as they are about livestock depredation from wolf populations.
This revelation is certainly a lack wildlife ecology education on the part of the USFWS and state agencies. In 2008 biologists determined that wolves were responsible for 214 cattle deaths, 355 sheep deaths, 28 goat deaths, 21 llama deaths, 10 horse deaths and 14 dog deaths. Van Camp in 2003 found that 3% of all livestock losses were due to all native predators combined. He also found that in 2002 the 108 wolves in Montana were responsible for .000008% of total livestock losses. In 2001 total livestock losses by predators numbered 14,200. Wolves were responsible for .005% of those deaths (83 total), 60% were by coyotes and 9% by dogs.
In 2004 Francis reported that coyotes and domestic dogs cause far more livestock depredation than do wolves when they co-occur. Berger 2008 and Fuller &Keith 1981 state that wolves help to suppress coyote populations and increase the amount carrion incorporated into a coyote's diet. This ecological dynamic could actually reduce the total number of livestock depredation rather than increase it.
The concern of the hunters towards the ungulate populations is most certainly due to the lack of ecology education. Wolves account for roughly 10% of elk deaths. The National Academy of Science concluded that wolf populations could only effect adult prey populations of they were the dominant predator at all life stages of the prey. Wolves only account for 17% of elk calf mortality, where as bears account for 58%. In Idaho Elk harvest rates were higher in 2005 than they were before the reintroduction occurred. Some of the management units in Idaho have had to institute cow (female elk) hunts to effectively reduce populations that are near the carrying capacity of the habitat. Elk mortality due to wolves is largely compensatory to other natural causes of death. Especially the fact that wolves generally target diseased or elderly prey individuals, which strongly plays in the favor of the ranchers who fear brucellosis. When wolves target diseased elk, that elk is less likely to make it's way to a ranch to infect livestock.
A 2008 USFWS interagency report states that Idaho has a target population of 500 individual, Montana 400 individuals and Wyoming 300 individuals. The report did not specify the meaning of "target". We can assume that the delistment will cause an increased harvest rate; all populations are currently above these numbers. Idaho, who was extremely against the listing in the first place, has a harvest rate that will reduce the population to the legal limit, 150 individuals and 15 packs, in 3 years. If the population drops below 150 individuals the species will be relisted under the ESA.
Bergstrom 2008 ran a rudimentary population viability analysis with a starting population of 1500 individuals, a conservative harvest rate without regards to sex or age and incorporated standard wolf life history traits (sex ratio, litter number…etc) 100% of the 10,000 simulations resulted in a decline to extirpation within 10 years. This proves to be even more troubling when we consider the sex ratio and effective population size of gray wolves. The common life history trait is that there is 1 breeding pair per pack. The alpha male and female. This means that the effective population size (Ne) is not the actual population size, but the number of individuals actually breeding in the population. The 1500 estimate for total population size comes to about 83 breeding pairs in the entire range. If the number is ever reduced to the legal limit of 450 individuals the effective population size will be around 22 individuals. A reduction like this would result in a considerable bottleneck. Would a target population size of 1200 individuals be enough for the population to survive stochastic events or leave connectivity relatively intact?
Michael Soule, the uncontested father of conservation biology, has proposed a theory of an ecologically effective population size, and trophic cascades of keystone species. The reintroduction of wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem has caused an overall improvement in the health of the ecosystem. Riparian habitat and aspen forests have been restored because of the introduction of wolves. Because these two habitats have improved songbird assemblages have increased as well. Wilmers and Getz go as far as saying that wolves act as a slight buffer against climate change. Soule describes that the ecologically effective density of wolves is 16 wolves per 1000km^2. At this density the wolf population has the largest positive effect on the habitat. Improved habitat means better habitat for every organism that uses it, even ungulate populations. The reintroduction area is 277,377 km^2, which means that the area can effectively, and safely, contain a metapopulation of 17,000 individuals. A population size this large will insure long-term survival of the species in North America. A population this large would be able to be hunted at considerable levels as well, thus pleasing hunters, and raising money for the states. A population this large would also guard against the species ever having to be relisted.
This is an optimistic outlook of the situation. Most are rather grim and pessimistic because of the history of hostility local communities have held towards wolves. Due to a lag in most biological systems, hunting down to the legal limit may actually cause extirpation of the population. Considering the US taxpayer and non profit organization's (NPO's) have invested 30 million dollars into the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf it is of great economic importance to prevent the relisting of this species.
Reference:
JB Bergstrom et al. 2009. The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf is not Yet Recovered. Bioscience 59(11):991-1001
BV Weckworth et al. 2010. Phylogeography of wolves in PNW. Journal of Mammalogy 91(2):363-375
R Van Camp. 2003. Lethal Controls: The Fate of Wolves in the Northern Rockies. Alliance for the Wild Rockies
Government Commities, EIS, Interagency Reports. I can forward upon request.
ME Soule. 2005. Strongly Interacting Species: consevation, management and ethics. Bioscience 55:168-176
Sorry for the length. I was checking the primary literature and doing some research and came across some interesting stuff. Had to get it all down. I hope that this will help strengthen some arguments for the pro wolf side. I am trying to educate, that is my goal.
Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery. The History and Possible consequences of delisting
Mitchell Gritts
In 1995 and 1996 the initial stages of the Gray Wolf reintroduction began. This was the culmination of years of planning on the USFWS's part. To gain acceptance of their reintroduction plan the USFWS proposed that a total of 300 individuals, 100 in each of the three participating states (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) as a target for the reintroduction. These numbers were not based on any scientific research or data. They were the opinions of the people in charge during the planning stages, and what they felt would be an acceptable level. The reintroduction was an extremely unpopular idea, especially in Idaho, in 2001 the Idaho governor emphatically stated that he would kill the first wolf when the species was delisted, the beginning of the second eradication of the species in his state.
A 2001 and 2005 census estimated the population to be at 550 individuals and 1300 individuals respectively. In 2008 the USFWS declares that the population has reached and far exceeded the proposed numbers of 300 individuals. The only data that the USFWS recovered was the basic demographics, nothing on the genetic connectivity or health of the population. This prompted the Bush administration to delist the species in 2008. In July 2008 the US District Court in Montana reinstated the ESA listing (Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall) stressing that the delisting was declared illegal under 1994 recovery plans (genetic connectivity between the populations, the Yellowstone population had limited dispersal from the other two.). The federal court allowed the USFWS to reevaluate the plan. The USFWS proceeded to change the recovery plan to 450 individuals and proposed the new iteration on 14 January 2009. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declared that the recovery goal was met, and without seeking public opinion or scientific inquiry continued to delist the species. On 4 May 2009 the delisiting became effective.
Since the ESA became law there have been 9 species that have been declared endangered then delisted, brown pelican, gray whale, arctic peregrine falcon, American peregrine falcon, Aleutian Canada goose, Columbian white tailed deer, grizzly bear, bald eagle Virginia flying squirrel and the gray wolf. As part of the delistment process all of these species, except the gray wolf, meet one of two criteria: a) 1000 or more breeding pairs b) recolonization of the majority of it's historic range. 6 of 9 of these species met both of these. The gray wolf proves a definite exclusion to all other delistments undertaken by the USFWS. The Gray Wolf has recolonized only 6% of it's historic range, and only has 83 breeding pairs. This is a far cry from the success of the other delistments, e.g. the brown pelican, 17,000 breeding pairs and 100% of its range, the bald eagle 10,000 breeding pairs and 100% of it's range, or even the grizzly bear 500 individuals (no skewed Ne, which I'll describe later) and 68% of it's historic range, the remaining 32% of that is likely California and Oregon where grizzlies haven't been since the early 1900's.
The historic range of Canis lupus in North America extends from Alaska to Central Mexico, and from the Sierras to Appalachia. In the Lower 48 the population has been diminished to a small population of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in New Mexico or Arizona and the 3 populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (the populations in Idaho and Montana are relatively well connected, while the one in Yellowstone is not well connected, so almost 2 populations).
Some of the heaviest opposition has come from ranchers and hunters, which are worried about livestock depredation and increased pressure on game animals. In 2007 Stronena surveyed ranchers and revealed that equal numbers of ranchers are worried about brucellosis transmissions from wild elk as they are about livestock depredation from wolf populations.
This revelation is certainly a lack wildlife ecology education on the part of the USFWS and state agencies. In 2008 biologists determined that wolves were responsible for 214 cattle deaths, 355 sheep deaths, 28 goat deaths, 21 llama deaths, 10 horse deaths and 14 dog deaths. Van Camp in 2003 found that 3% of all livestock losses were due to all native predators combined. He also found that in 2002 the 108 wolves in Montana were responsible for .000008% of total livestock losses. In 2001 total livestock losses by predators numbered 14,200. Wolves were responsible for .005% of those deaths (83 total), 60% were by coyotes and 9% by dogs.
In 2004 Francis reported that coyotes and domestic dogs cause far more livestock depredation than do wolves when they co-occur. Berger 2008 and Fuller &Keith 1981 state that wolves help to suppress coyote populations and increase the amount carrion incorporated into a coyote's diet. This ecological dynamic could actually reduce the total number of livestock depredation rather than increase it.
The concern of the hunters towards the ungulate populations is most certainly due to the lack of ecology education. Wolves account for roughly 10% of elk deaths. The National Academy of Science concluded that wolf populations could only effect adult prey populations of they were the dominant predator at all life stages of the prey. Wolves only account for 17% of elk calf mortality, where as bears account for 58%. In Idaho Elk harvest rates were higher in 2005 than they were before the reintroduction occurred. Some of the management units in Idaho have had to institute cow (female elk) hunts to effectively reduce populations that are near the carrying capacity of the habitat. Elk mortality due to wolves is largely compensatory to other natural causes of death. Especially the fact that wolves generally target diseased or elderly prey individuals, which strongly plays in the favor of the ranchers who fear brucellosis. When wolves target diseased elk, that elk is less likely to make it's way to a ranch to infect livestock.
A 2008 USFWS interagency report states that Idaho has a target population of 500 individual, Montana 400 individuals and Wyoming 300 individuals. The report did not specify the meaning of "target". We can assume that the delistment will cause an increased harvest rate; all populations are currently above these numbers. Idaho, who was extremely against the listing in the first place, has a harvest rate that will reduce the population to the legal limit, 150 individuals and 15 packs, in 3 years. If the population drops below 150 individuals the species will be relisted under the ESA.
Bergstrom 2008 ran a rudimentary population viability analysis with a starting population of 1500 individuals, a conservative harvest rate without regards to sex or age and incorporated standard wolf life history traits (sex ratio, litter number…etc) 100% of the 10,000 simulations resulted in a decline to extirpation within 10 years. This proves to be even more troubling when we consider the sex ratio and effective population size of gray wolves. The common life history trait is that there is 1 breeding pair per pack. The alpha male and female. This means that the effective population size (Ne) is not the actual population size, but the number of individuals actually breeding in the population. The 1500 estimate for total population size comes to about 83 breeding pairs in the entire range. If the number is ever reduced to the legal limit of 450 individuals the effective population size will be around 22 individuals. A reduction like this would result in a considerable bottleneck. Would a target population size of 1200 individuals be enough for the population to survive stochastic events or leave connectivity relatively intact?
Michael Soule, the uncontested father of conservation biology, has proposed a theory of an ecologically effective population size, and trophic cascades of keystone species. The reintroduction of wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem has caused an overall improvement in the health of the ecosystem. Riparian habitat and aspen forests have been restored because of the introduction of wolves. Because these two habitats have improved songbird assemblages have increased as well. Wilmers and Getz go as far as saying that wolves act as a slight buffer against climate change. Soule describes that the ecologically effective density of wolves is 16 wolves per 1000km^2. At this density the wolf population has the largest positive effect on the habitat. Improved habitat means better habitat for every organism that uses it, even ungulate populations. The reintroduction area is 277,377 km^2, which means that the area can effectively, and safely, contain a metapopulation of 17,000 individuals. A population size this large will insure long-term survival of the species in North America. A population this large would be able to be hunted at considerable levels as well, thus pleasing hunters, and raising money for the states. A population this large would also guard against the species ever having to be relisted.
This is an optimistic outlook of the situation. Most are rather grim and pessimistic because of the history of hostility local communities have held towards wolves. Due to a lag in most biological systems, hunting down to the legal limit may actually cause extirpation of the population. Considering the US taxpayer and non profit organization's (NPO's) have invested 30 million dollars into the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf it is of great economic importance to prevent the relisting of this species.
Reference:
JB Bergstrom et al. 2009. The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf is not Yet Recovered. Bioscience 59(11):991-1001
BV Weckworth et al. 2010. Phylogeography of wolves in PNW. Journal of Mammalogy 91(2):363-375
R Van Camp. 2003. Lethal Controls: The Fate of Wolves in the Northern Rockies. Alliance for the Wild Rockies
Government Commities, EIS, Interagency Reports. I can forward upon request.
ME Soule. 2005. Strongly Interacting Species: consevation, management and ethics. Bioscience 55:168-176
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
On the Verge of Summer
3 min read
I have two finals left, then I am off until late August! I am beginning my summer, sadly, without a car. In late March my car broke down beyond repair. I am extremely disappointed, but what can I do? I think the time away from my camera will be good. Maybe I will approach things differently now. Who knows?
Anyway, I am going to have a big summer:
A week in Utah in June
A week and a half in Germany and Austria in July
A week or two driving from North Carolina to Seattle, then Reno. With stops in Glacier, Colorado, or North Utah, North Cascades or Olympic. I can't decide which places to go?
Any suggestions?
Also, I have an extremely flexible job now with 3 days off in a row. I plan on doing a lot of backpacking and having a lot of all around fun with the camera: rock climbing, kayaking, surfing maybe. I am hopefully going to get some great action shots! All around just a ton of fun this summer.
To make it through my short bought of unemployment I had to sell a good portion of my camera gear: 70-200, flash, 50mm, 180 macro. But maybe having only the 24-70 will do me some good. It will be a challenge to use all of my creativity to get photos with just the one lens (probably not to difficult in reality). I just purchased some ND's form teamworkphoto.com. Drewyboy had recommended them. I should get them within the week. I am looking to buy the Nikon 17-35 at some point this summer along with a new computer system (iMac w/27" screen, CS4 (discounted from my school
), and some new backpacking gear (I'm going super-light and trying to keep my camera set up as it is, a real challenge).
I decided to start a blog this summer to record my activities. I like to think of it as a guide of outdoor things-to-do in Reno. It is called Recreational Outdoor Adventure Manual, Reno, or ROAMreno. It can be found at roamreno.wordpress.com. There is only the one post, but as summer wears on I will fill it up.
I am without subscription because I can't justify the costs at the moment. But I am sure that at some point I will decide to fork over the cash.
Anyway, I am going to have a big summer:
A week in Utah in June
A week and a half in Germany and Austria in July
A week or two driving from North Carolina to Seattle, then Reno. With stops in Glacier, Colorado, or North Utah, North Cascades or Olympic. I can't decide which places to go?
Any suggestions?
Also, I have an extremely flexible job now with 3 days off in a row. I plan on doing a lot of backpacking and having a lot of all around fun with the camera: rock climbing, kayaking, surfing maybe. I am hopefully going to get some great action shots! All around just a ton of fun this summer.
To make it through my short bought of unemployment I had to sell a good portion of my camera gear: 70-200, flash, 50mm, 180 macro. But maybe having only the 24-70 will do me some good. It will be a challenge to use all of my creativity to get photos with just the one lens (probably not to difficult in reality). I just purchased some ND's form teamworkphoto.com. Drewyboy had recommended them. I should get them within the week. I am looking to buy the Nikon 17-35 at some point this summer along with a new computer system (iMac w/27" screen, CS4 (discounted from my school
), and some new backpacking gear (I'm going super-light and trying to keep my camera set up as it is, a real challenge). I decided to start a blog this summer to record my activities. I like to think of it as a guide of outdoor things-to-do in Reno. It is called Recreational Outdoor Adventure Manual, Reno, or ROAMreno. It can be found at roamreno.wordpress.com. There is only the one post, but as summer wears on I will fill it up.
I am without subscription because I can't justify the costs at the moment. But I am sure that at some point I will decide to fork over the cash.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Daily Deviation
2 min read
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Zion
3 min read
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Duck Stamps and Conservation
6 min read
When most non-hunters think of hunting, they think of atrocities. But in reality, hunting is an extremely useful wildlife management tool. In 1934 the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act introduced the Duck Stamp. Much like a trout stamp a duck stamp is required to hunt ducks. But you don't have to hunt to buy a duck stamp. A duck stamp is actually one of the easiest ways to make sure that your money goes directly to wildlife conservation. A 2009-2010 duck stamp cost $15 and, here is the great part, 98%, or $14.70 goes directly into purchasing wetlands. Just recently 11.5 million dollars of duck stamp money was approved for the purchase of land near 6 refuges:
Great Dismal Swamp NWR, North Carolina – 51 acres for wintering waterfowl
San Bernard NWR, Texas – 1,454 acres mallard, gadwall, and northern pintails
Silvio O. Conte NWR, New Hampshire – 80 acres to preserve and protect important migratory waterfowl habitat
Grand Cote NWR, Louisiana – 265 acres to protect and enhance seasonally and permanently flooded wetlands for wintering waterfowl.
Tualatin River NWR, Oregon – 225 acres to manage for wintering waterfowl and tundra swans
North Central Valley WMA, California - 388 acres for waterfowl and other migratory birds.
To date, 5 million acres of wetland have been protected with the 650 million dollars raised because of duck stamps.
For all of you birders out there, this may be the one place to put your money, and get the most bang for your buck. As you can see, this stamp not only allows the hunting of these birds, but also the conservation and preservation of them. I have already purchased my duck stamp, and I am not even a hunter. Here is the link www.duckstamp.com/mm5/
Another great organization is Ducks Unlimited www.ducks.org/. They are another organization that many hunters are a part of, but they also do an amazing amount of conservation. They restore important habitat all over America for waterfowl. They also have good section dedicated to waterfowl biology and habitat for all or you avian photographers.If you are interested in donating money, or joining Ducks Unlimited here is a link www.ducks.org/support/. Again, much of you donation will go to conservation, not their overhead cost to run the organization. They donate 88% of every dollar donated.
Another great conservation organization is Nevada Bighorns Unlimited. As a Nevada resident bighorn sheep hold a special place in my heart. This organization started in the 70's and has helped rehabilitate the Desert Bighorn population in Nevada from near extinction to the largest in the contiguous US. The only state with a larger population is Alaska. I personally now the president of this organization and he is a great person. Almost every cent they raise goes directly to aiding bighorn recovery programs. They even bought, and repaired Nevada Department of Wildlife's helicopter. On their website they have many other links to similar organizations in different states. Here is the link to support them nevadabighorns.org/showPage.as….
All of these organizations are ones that all hunters have heard of, but most other people have no idea that they exist. The great thing about hunters is that they are aware of the importance of conservation, and have started these organizations. So lets do our part and help support wildlife conservation in America. The community of dA can surely become a huge help to America's conservation goals.
PS: In future journals I will attempt to find some organizations that are good for other countries and include them. If you have suggestion let me know. I am aware of WWF and those types. I am trying to find others that are more specific because, at times, they can have the greatest effects.
Some photos of waterfowl and ungulates that these organizations help protect:
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa
:thumb32477000:
Green winged teal (Anas crecca)
Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera)
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
:thumb92696177:
Great Egret (Ardea alba)
:thumb43773480:
American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana)
:thumb120037324:
Desert Bighorn (Ovis canadensis nelsoni)
Great Dismal Swamp NWR, North Carolina – 51 acres for wintering waterfowl
San Bernard NWR, Texas – 1,454 acres mallard, gadwall, and northern pintails
Silvio O. Conte NWR, New Hampshire – 80 acres to preserve and protect important migratory waterfowl habitat
Grand Cote NWR, Louisiana – 265 acres to protect and enhance seasonally and permanently flooded wetlands for wintering waterfowl.
Tualatin River NWR, Oregon – 225 acres to manage for wintering waterfowl and tundra swans
North Central Valley WMA, California - 388 acres for waterfowl and other migratory birds.
To date, 5 million acres of wetland have been protected with the 650 million dollars raised because of duck stamps.
For all of you birders out there, this may be the one place to put your money, and get the most bang for your buck. As you can see, this stamp not only allows the hunting of these birds, but also the conservation and preservation of them. I have already purchased my duck stamp, and I am not even a hunter. Here is the link www.duckstamp.com/mm5/
Another great organization is Ducks Unlimited www.ducks.org/. They are another organization that many hunters are a part of, but they also do an amazing amount of conservation. They restore important habitat all over America for waterfowl. They also have good section dedicated to waterfowl biology and habitat for all or you avian photographers.If you are interested in donating money, or joining Ducks Unlimited here is a link www.ducks.org/support/. Again, much of you donation will go to conservation, not their overhead cost to run the organization. They donate 88% of every dollar donated.
Another great conservation organization is Nevada Bighorns Unlimited. As a Nevada resident bighorn sheep hold a special place in my heart. This organization started in the 70's and has helped rehabilitate the Desert Bighorn population in Nevada from near extinction to the largest in the contiguous US. The only state with a larger population is Alaska. I personally now the president of this organization and he is a great person. Almost every cent they raise goes directly to aiding bighorn recovery programs. They even bought, and repaired Nevada Department of Wildlife's helicopter. On their website they have many other links to similar organizations in different states. Here is the link to support them nevadabighorns.org/showPage.as….
All of these organizations are ones that all hunters have heard of, but most other people have no idea that they exist. The great thing about hunters is that they are aware of the importance of conservation, and have started these organizations. So lets do our part and help support wildlife conservation in America. The community of dA can surely become a huge help to America's conservation goals.
PS: In future journals I will attempt to find some organizations that are good for other countries and include them. If you have suggestion let me know. I am aware of WWF and those types. I am trying to find others that are more specific because, at times, they can have the greatest effects.
Some photos of waterfowl and ungulates that these organizations help protect:
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa
:thumb32477000:
Green winged teal (Anas crecca)
Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera)
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
:thumb92696177:
Great Egret (Ardea alba)
:thumb43773480:
American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana)
:thumb120037324:
Desert Bighorn (Ovis canadensis nelsoni)
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In