The funnel of fury that passed through Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in late April left thousands of people reeling with personal losses of property, pets, and even lives. The terrifying tornado destroyed homes, businesses, and entire communities. A different environmental tragedy struck the Midwest as record-breaking floods breached levees of the country's mightiest rivers. Floods and tornados can be devastating from a human perspective, and people must be our first and foremost concern. But some have asked, how do such natural disasters affect native wildlife?
The answer is simple. The overall impact on natural ecosystems and wildlife communities is minimal in the long run. Although the local impacts of two-story high flooding or 200-mph winds are evident immediately, all species native to an area had ancestors that were able to weather similar extremes of wind and water. With us today are the species that have persisted because former generations faced similar weather phenomena and survived.
Although temporarily gone from wind-ravaged or flooded areas, birds and other animals will soon return. Native trees that have disappeared will soon be replaced by seedlings of the same species. Although of small consolation to a homeless family or the owner of lost or damaged property, no native species of plant or animal will be lost because of tornados or floods.
We do not perceive wildlife as suffering the devastating effects from floods and tornados in the same way as people because we measure impacts differently for wild animals than we do for ourselves. With people, and even with our pets, we empathize with each individual who suffers. We have all seen photos or videos of someone stranded atop a house in the floodplain of a swollen river, people examining a pile of wood, metal, and paper that was once their home, or police searching for a missing person beneath a collapsed building. Even the rescue of a pet can make national news. And most people relate personally and with empathy to each incident.
In contrast, with wild animals we hear a few stories of the plight of individuals, but for the most part we focus on how a population or the species itself fared. Wrens and robins unquestionably were killed or displaced from many local communities in Alabama by tornados. But no species of bird was irreparably impaired. Other individuals of each species will eventually return, emigrating from surrounding unaffected areas.
On another scale, few animals have "personal property" that can be lost in a tornado or flood. All a coon or turtle has to do is survive. Their home is where they choose to be at any particular moment. One group of animals with structural assets are birds with nests, and indeed this spring's natural disasters have eliminated many a family of bird. But birds are resilient. In the long run, more nests will be built and more eggs will be laid, eventually even in what are now destroyed habitats. Among other property losses by wildlife, beavers lose dams and lodges due to powerful flooding. But in the nature of beavers, they simply set about repairing the damage as soon as water levels decline, and their life goes on.
Despite the worst weather-related natural disasters the world can offer--floods and tornados, as well as hurricanes, droughts, and forest fires--the ancestors of all our native wildlife evolved to deal with them. None of these phenomena ultimately affect healthy populations of wildlife. And of course no wildlife affect the weather.
But humans are different. Personal lives can be permanently altered by the vagaries of weather. And we are different in another way in that we influence some natural disasters. Damage from some floods can be attributed to the configuration and structural integrity of levees, dikes. and dams. We are responsible for some out-of-control forest fires because we have suppressed natural burning patterns. Are we also responsible for dramatic climate changes brought about by carbon dioxide emissions emanating from industrial countries like ours? The wildlife doesn't care, but should we?
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
About Me
Antiques and biodiversity, a solution to ‘spousal entrapment‘
| By Whit Gibbons
An ecologist friend recently asked for advice about how to deal with a situation involving his wife. He said he knew I had once faced the same problem and he hoped I would have some helpful suggestions for him. Imagine my disquiet as I waited to hear what kind of marital difficulty he thought I might provide a solution for. Turns out his wife wanted him to go with her to visit several antique stores--and I did have a solution. Several years ago, I had even written a column about how I solved the problem now facing my friend.
Here is how I dealt with having to accompany my wife on a two-day expedition to explore antique stores: I conducted an ecological study of biodiversity in the wilds of the antique shop habitat. The biodiversity I found in the 21 antique stores we visited was astonishing.
Feeling a bit like Walter Mitty, I decided to approach the study in the spirit of an ecologist beginning a species survey and environmental assessment. For each store, which I defined as a "habitat," the objective was to determine the kinds and abundance of species and to identify the factors responsible for their presence or absence. Within the first 15 minutes of wandering around, I had recorded on my survey list a dozen Indian elephants, an American armadillo, and an African hippopotamus.
Several parallels exist between examining biodiversity in antique shops and examining it in natural habitats. Both locales have features that can influence how many species occupy them. Size of the store/habitat can be important, as can a variety of intrinsic features. For example, simple ecosystems like caves and small islands ordinarily have lower biodiversity than more complex habitats such as tropical rain forests or southeastern wetlands. Likewise, antique stores can be simple environments that specialize in a single type of merchandise, such as Victorian furniture or Oriental vases. A store that sells china, furniture, silverware, clocks, and estate jewelry from a variety of cultures and eras is obviously more complex.
Indeed, the greater the diversity of items, cultures, and time periods represented in a store, the higher the diversity of plant and animal species present. One store specialized in place settings produced in China from 1760 to 1910 designed to be exported. The rose medallion pattern characteristically had colorful butterflies and birds and pink peonies. I found a dragonfly on one, and on a similar style known as mandarin I found bats and a lotus plant. But aside from these specimens, along with a few more kinds of flowers I could not identify, that was pretty much it. Low biodiversity.
Meanwhile, at a much bigger store that looked like it held the loot from a pirate ship that had been engaged in global plundering for five centuries, the biodiversity was overwhelming. Among the wild animals popping up everywhere--on furniture, plates, brass door knockers--were owls, monkeys, foxes, storks, frogs, beetles, bears, lions (lots of lions), parrots, and turtles. Rare sightings were made of snails, zebras, lizards, and cobras. Domestic species included numerous dogs and horses, occasional donkeys, ducks, and cats, even a few pigs. A botanist could probably have categorized the plant families represented. I identified ivy, grapevines, lilies, and legumes. The ecological message in all this is that wildlife is woven deeply into the artistry of many forms of antiques, with certain ones being closely associated with specific times in history.
One mystery emerged. After looking at more than 50 chandeliers, I had found only a single grapevine twining around one, plus butterflies and birds associated with another. Perhaps this was sampling bias of some sort, but the chandeliers seemed to represent a broad array of vintages, yet a sterile habitat without the life that pervades so many other art forms.
My friend agreed a biodiversity quest would be one way to endure the trip and accepted the challenge of learning more about antique store environments. On his expedition he plans to specialize in chandeliers.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
Here is how I dealt with having to accompany my wife on a two-day expedition to explore antique stores: I conducted an ecological study of biodiversity in the wilds of the antique shop habitat. The biodiversity I found in the 21 antique stores we visited was astonishing.
Feeling a bit like Walter Mitty, I decided to approach the study in the spirit of an ecologist beginning a species survey and environmental assessment. For each store, which I defined as a "habitat," the objective was to determine the kinds and abundance of species and to identify the factors responsible for their presence or absence. Within the first 15 minutes of wandering around, I had recorded on my survey list a dozen Indian elephants, an American armadillo, and an African hippopotamus.
Several parallels exist between examining biodiversity in antique shops and examining it in natural habitats. Both locales have features that can influence how many species occupy them. Size of the store/habitat can be important, as can a variety of intrinsic features. For example, simple ecosystems like caves and small islands ordinarily have lower biodiversity than more complex habitats such as tropical rain forests or southeastern wetlands. Likewise, antique stores can be simple environments that specialize in a single type of merchandise, such as Victorian furniture or Oriental vases. A store that sells china, furniture, silverware, clocks, and estate jewelry from a variety of cultures and eras is obviously more complex.
Indeed, the greater the diversity of items, cultures, and time periods represented in a store, the higher the diversity of plant and animal species present. One store specialized in place settings produced in China from 1760 to 1910 designed to be exported. The rose medallion pattern characteristically had colorful butterflies and birds and pink peonies. I found a dragonfly on one, and on a similar style known as mandarin I found bats and a lotus plant. But aside from these specimens, along with a few more kinds of flowers I could not identify, that was pretty much it. Low biodiversity.
Meanwhile, at a much bigger store that looked like it held the loot from a pirate ship that had been engaged in global plundering for five centuries, the biodiversity was overwhelming. Among the wild animals popping up everywhere--on furniture, plates, brass door knockers--were owls, monkeys, foxes, storks, frogs, beetles, bears, lions (lots of lions), parrots, and turtles. Rare sightings were made of snails, zebras, lizards, and cobras. Domestic species included numerous dogs and horses, occasional donkeys, ducks, and cats, even a few pigs. A botanist could probably have categorized the plant families represented. I identified ivy, grapevines, lilies, and legumes. The ecological message in all this is that wildlife is woven deeply into the artistry of many forms of antiques, with certain ones being closely associated with specific times in history.
One mystery emerged. After looking at more than 50 chandeliers, I had found only a single grapevine twining around one, plus butterflies and birds associated with another. Perhaps this was sampling bias of some sort, but the chandeliers seemed to represent a broad array of vintages, yet a sterile habitat without the life that pervades so many other art forms.
My friend agreed a biodiversity quest would be one way to endure the trip and accepted the challenge of learning more about antique store environments. On his expedition he plans to specialize in chandeliers.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
Who got the Wild South Conservation award?
| By Whit Gibbons
Wild South is a nonprofit grassroots organization based in Asheville, N.C. As the name suggests, its focus is on natural habitats in the South, wild ones at that. In fact, its mission is "to inspire people to protect the wild character and natural legacy of the South."
This year Wild South's Roosevelt-Ashe Society Conservation Award for Outstanding Journalist in Conservation was given to someone who is most deserving at many levels. I am especially pleased that the recipient of the award is someone I have written about twice in the last decade as a protector of the environment: John Wathen of Tuscaloosa, Ala.
The namesakes for the Roosevelt-Ashe conservation awards are Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, and W. W. Ashe, a botanist at the University of North Carolina in the early 1900s. Both were ahead of their time in the contributions they made to forest conservation. The Roosevelt-Ashe awards are given in eight different conservation categories, including the one for outstanding journalist.
Wathen received the award for his outstanding research and public media communications regarding the environmental situation following the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although that endeavor was somewhat different from those I wrote about in earlier columns, in some ways John's award-winning work in the Gulf was simply an extension of his longstanding environmental efforts 200 miles upstream from Mobile Bay, where a small tributary, Hurricane Creek, enters the Black Warrior River on its way to the Gulf of Mexico.
John Wathen has done a commendable job of putting Hurricane Creek center stage and then shining a spotlight on it. A video on the Friends of Hurricane Creek website (www.hurricane-creek.org) shows him in a canoe with his dog Smokey Joe as they travel along the beautiful creek, "the crown jewel of Alabama." His environmental message comes through loud and clear, with no mistaking whom he views as perpetrators of habitat destruction and degradation. "As you head downstream, you paddle through steep canyons and high rock bluffs with spires that extend along the banks. As beautiful as they are, it's unfortunate that a lot of these rock bluffs have been undermined for the coal and [then] . . . abandoned." He goes on to say, "There's still a great deal of active strip mining in the watershed tearing down our mountains and pushing the rubble over into the valleys. . . . Our streams look like bleeding messes."
As John Wathen, says, our natural streams "are not just industrial waste conduits. They are the life and blood of the earth, and they must be protected at all cost." He does not indict just the coal mining industry for irresponsible environmental behavior. On the video he notes that "as bad as the coal mines are for the watershed, there's more trouble downstream." Here he transfers blame to the Alabama Department of Transportation, which he says is "known as the single largest contributor of sediment to the state's waterways."
Paddling along the part of the creek known as the M-bend, he points out that ALDOT is trying "to put a four-lane bridge through this section of the creek where I am . . . now." "This section" of the creek is a stretch of unsurpassed beauty that will never be the same if bridge construction is allowed to go forward. John believes that construction sediment in public waterways, bridges that spoil extraordinarily beautiful sites, and other destructive environmental practices are unacceptable. Perhaps his efforts will eventually inspire a public outcry loudly and vehemently protesting the ruin of that portion of their natural heritage.
"This land," as Woody Guthrie reminds us, "belongs to you and me." Our natural habitats do indeed belong to the people - to you and me. Organizations such as Wild South work to instill "a reverence for our public lands and the native natural life they support." I applaud individuals like John Wathen, people who are committed to realizing that vision, and organizations like Wild South that give such people the recognition they deserve.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
What are pit vipers?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 | By Whit Gibbons
Last week I answered a question about coral snakes. The following addresses the major group of venomous snakes found in the South - pit vipers.
The Southeast has five species of pit vipers. All five - three kinds of rattlesnakes plus the copperhead and cottonmouth - are found in parts of every coastal state from Louisiana to North Carolina. Each species is distinctive in behavior, habitat, and venom capabilities, but all have one common characteristic, a heat-sensitive pit located on the side of the head between the eye and the nostril. A pit viper uses the pit in total darkness to detect the presence of warm-blooded prey such as mice or rats and to strike that prey with unerring accuracy.
The Southeast has five species of pit vipers. All five - three kinds of rattlesnakes plus the copperhead and cottonmouth - are found in parts of every coastal state from Louisiana to North Carolina. Each species is distinctive in behavior, habitat, and venom capabilities, but all have one common characteristic, a heat-sensitive pit located on the side of the head between the eye and the nostril. A pit viper uses the pit in total darkness to detect the presence of warm-blooded prey such as mice or rats and to strike that prey with unerring accuracy.
The pit viper that typically bites the most Americans every year is the copperhead. That's the bad news. The good news is that copperheads have one of the mildest venoms, being determined in one study to be only 1/10th as potent drop for drop as that of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. As far as I am aware, despite bites by copperheads to hundreds of people over the years, no one has died from the bite of a wild copperhead. Although a copperhead bite usually causes minimal damage to the victim, a trip to the hospital or doctor's office is still advisable.
Copperheads are quite abundant in some localities. However, their presence often goes unnoticed because of body coloration. Dark brown crossbands on a lighter brown background provide very effective camouflage when the snake is coiled on a ground cover of fallen leaves. At least two harmless snakes, banded watersnakes and corn snakes, are often mistaken for copperheads because of similar banding and coloration, but only copperheads have crossbands that resemble the shape of an hour-glass. Copperheads are common in the mountains and also in many coastal areas, but they can show up anywhere within their extensive geographic range in the eastern United States. Interestingly, the species is absent from all of the Florida peninsula and most of the panhandle.
The cottonmouth is the copperhead's closest relative and by far the most common venomous U.S. snake associated with water. The bite of a cottonmouth can be serious, but the snake's aggressiveness is overrated. Many bites from cottonmouths occur after someone has picked the snake up, and most of the snakebite cases I know of with these species have been to herpetologists who did just that. Hard to blame the snake for that outcome.
Of the three southeastern rattlesnakes, the smallest is the pygmy; a large one is only two feet long. The largest is the eastern diamondback, which can reach almost eight feet. The third species, called canebrake rattler in the Coastal Plain and timber rattler in the mountains and most other areas, can be more than six feet long.
What are the chances that a hiker, hunter, or other outdoor nature enthusiast will encounter and be bitten by a pit viper? And what about children? Children should be taught never to pick up any snake without supervision by a knowledgeable adult. They should learn to enjoy snakes by watching them. Of course, the same advice would apply to most adults, as many U.S. snakebites occur because someone picked up the snake. People who see a snake and then simply observe it from a safe distance (a few feet away) virtually never get bitten. And if you do encounter a snake in the Southeast, the odds are 10 to 1 that you need not be concerned. More than 50 species are harmless compared to only five that are pit vipers.
How can you identify southeastern pit vipers and what should you do if someone is bitten? The book "Snakes of the Southeast," published by the University of Georgia Press, has numerous color photographs of all southeastern snakes and is the most authoritative nature guide on the topic. Here's the advice given for snakebite victims: "The best snakebite kit is a set of car keys, a cell phone, and a companion" to get you to the hospital.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.
What Do We Know About Coral Snakes?
| By Whit Gibbons
Every spring I receive many questions about venomous snakes from people throughout the Southeast. Answers to some recent questions will be provided in this and next week's columns.
Q. I hear a lot about the danger of rattlesnakes and copperheads in the South but no one provides much information about coral snakes. Are they really different from the other poisonous species?
Q. I hear a lot about the danger of rattlesnakes and copperheads in the South but no one provides much information about coral snakes. Are they really different from the other poisonous species?
A. Snakes qualify as one of the world's most fascinating group of creatures with which virtually everyone is familiar. A snake on a playground will nearly always attract a bigger crowd than any bird, with the exception of, say, an ostrich or an albatross. People are intrigued with snakes of every size, in part because we know that some of them are potentially dangerous. Yet only six of the 52 species that occur naturally in the southern United States east of the Mississippi River are venomous. Of the remaining 46, all have teeth, and a few will bite if picked up but even these can be considered harmless.
To most people, the words "venomous" and "poisonous" are synonymous. The technical distinction is that venom is injected into the bloodstream; poison is typically injected or absorbed through mucous membranes. As far as I know, no snakes are poisonous to eat, although I have only tried a few so cannot speak with certainty about all of them. The copperhead, cottonmouth, and three kinds of southeastern rattlesnakes, all venomous, are known as pit vipers. The heat-sensitive pit is located between the nostril and eye. If you are using the presence of this pit to determine if a live snake in the woods is venomous or not, you are probably too close to the snake. The coral snake is distinguished from the pit vipers in several ways. Nonetheless, despite many people's misconception, coral snakes have hollow fangs in the front of the mouth with tubular connections to venom sacs located in the head, as do pit vipers.
Coral snakes are the only North American snakes in the cobra family. The type of venom they inject, generally referred to as neurotoxic, is distinctively different from that of most other U.S. snakes. The venom affects the nervous system and results in muscle paralysis. As the venom effect progresses through the body, the muscles of the diaphragm can become paralyzed, resulting in difficulty in breathing. If that difficulty continues, the result can be fatal.
From a human safety standpoint, southeastern coral snakes are small, rare, and unlikely to bite a person unless picked up, which no one other than a herpetologist should do. An accidental bite from an unseen coral snake is a truly rare event. The greatest likelihood of a coral snake bite is to a child who might pick up a brightly colored red, yellow, and black snake because it is pretty. The eastern variety, which is one of the 70 species of coral snakes found in the Americas, is found in the Coastal Plain from Louisiana to the Carolinas and throughout Florida.
Despite the potency of coral snake venom, a victim has plenty of time to get to a hospital. According to the book "Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere" (2004; Cornell University Press) even "the onset of symptoms usually begins during the first 2-6 hours following a bite" and "may require 48 hours to reach the maximum effect." Ample time would be available anywhere in the country to reach a medical facility.
I have firsthand knowledge of two eastern coral snake bites (to a young girl and an adult male); both of them had happy endings. Each person was bitten on the finger. Numbness and paralysis slowly progressed up the arm; the attending physician told me the man could not feel a needle stuck into his hand. When each victim was given coral snake antivenin, the process immediately reversed itself and the paralysis gradually disappeared. Why the man picked up a coral snake in the first place is a question he will now be able to answer for the rest of his life.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.
To most people, the words "venomous" and "poisonous" are synonymous. The technical distinction is that venom is injected into the bloodstream; poison is typically injected or absorbed through mucous membranes. As far as I know, no snakes are poisonous to eat, although I have only tried a few so cannot speak with certainty about all of them. The copperhead, cottonmouth, and three kinds of southeastern rattlesnakes, all venomous, are known as pit vipers. The heat-sensitive pit is located between the nostril and eye. If you are using the presence of this pit to determine if a live snake in the woods is venomous or not, you are probably too close to the snake. The coral snake is distinguished from the pit vipers in several ways. Nonetheless, despite many people's misconception, coral snakes have hollow fangs in the front of the mouth with tubular connections to venom sacs located in the head, as do pit vipers.
Coral snakes are the only North American snakes in the cobra family. The type of venom they inject, generally referred to as neurotoxic, is distinctively different from that of most other U.S. snakes. The venom affects the nervous system and results in muscle paralysis. As the venom effect progresses through the body, the muscles of the diaphragm can become paralyzed, resulting in difficulty in breathing. If that difficulty continues, the result can be fatal.
From a human safety standpoint, southeastern coral snakes are small, rare, and unlikely to bite a person unless picked up, which no one other than a herpetologist should do. An accidental bite from an unseen coral snake is a truly rare event. The greatest likelihood of a coral snake bite is to a child who might pick up a brightly colored red, yellow, and black snake because it is pretty. The eastern variety, which is one of the 70 species of coral snakes found in the Americas, is found in the Coastal Plain from Louisiana to the Carolinas and throughout Florida.
Despite the potency of coral snake venom, a victim has plenty of time to get to a hospital. According to the book "Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere" (2004; Cornell University Press) even "the onset of symptoms usually begins during the first 2-6 hours following a bite" and "may require 48 hours to reach the maximum effect." Ample time would be available anywhere in the country to reach a medical facility.
I have firsthand knowledge of two eastern coral snake bites (to a young girl and an adult male); both of them had happy endings. Each person was bitten on the finger. Numbness and paralysis slowly progressed up the arm; the attending physician told me the man could not feel a needle stuck into his hand. When each victim was given coral snake antivenin, the process immediately reversed itself and the paralysis gradually disappeared. Why the man picked up a coral snake in the first place is a question he will now be able to answer for the rest of his life.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.
Let's Begin America's Great Outdoors Initiative
Sunday, April 3, 2011 | By Whit Gibbons
President Obama has announced the creation of a community-based conservation plan, a program called America's Great Outdoors Initiative. The goal is to "achieve lasting conservation of the outdoor spaces that power our nation's economy, shape our culture, and build our outdoor traditions." The initiative seeks to get people, especially young people, outdoors on a more regular basis so they can appreciate the importance of the nation's lands and waters.
The much-needed reinvigoration of outdoor appreciation should include an understanding of the need for our natural environments to coexist with farming, ranching and other agricultural endeavors. We need to rekindle an appreciation in Americans, especially young ones, for hunting, fishing and other activities that put families and friends outdoors. Getting youngsters away from computers and other electronic devices for a few hours a week or month would be in society's best interest.
The much-needed reinvigoration of outdoor appreciation should include an understanding of the need for our natural environments to coexist with farming, ranching and other agricultural endeavors. We need to rekindle an appreciation in Americans, especially young ones, for hunting, fishing and other activities that put families and friends outdoors. Getting youngsters away from computers and other electronic devices for a few hours a week or month would be in society's best interest.
America's Great Outdoors Initiative gives farmers, ranchers and private landowners an opportunity to contribute by offering support for those who "help protect rural landscapes and provide access for recreation." Likewise, revenues from oil and gas removal will help protect parks, green spaces and wildlife habitats, as well as promote recreational activities at the sites. The idea is to move our country in a direction that creates "a 21st-century conservation ethic . . . for environmental stewardship" that connects us "to our historic, cultural, and natural heritage."
The president's plan is intended to develop local, community-level conservation and recreation agendas. Surveys taken across the country revealed that among the steps needed to accomplish the goals of the program were accessible parks, including "a new generation of great urban parks," or green spaces for children, and restoration of rivers to revitalize communities. The ideas presented on the Great Outdoors website at http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/ should receive widespread support.
The site invites comments on any aspect of being outdoors and on the many issues involved with outdoor activities. Some links lead to debates among people who favor outdoor activities but do not always agree on the details, such as whether mountain bikers who pay fees should have greater access to certain trails than do hikers who pay no fees. On another topic, someone noted that "one of the things that drives me crazy as a hunter and hiker . . . is the overgrazing on Forest Service lands." Should the federal government be subsidizing cattle ranchers rather than opening up the lands for camping, hunting or bird-watching?
The first thing many will ask is how such an initiative will be paid for; how will it affect the economy? Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack addressed the issue in part, saying, "America's farmlands and woodlands help fuel our economy and create jobs across the rural areas of our country. This plan seeks to work in partnership with landowners, conservation groups, states and others to conserve our working lands and our public lands and to reconnect Americans." The long-term economic value of a program that engenders new appreciation of our natural environment will more than pay for any short-term costs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar noted that the program was based on "practical, common-sense ideas from the American people on how our natural, cultural, and historic resources can help us be a more competitive, stronger, and healthier nation. Together, we are adapting our conservation strategies to meet the challenges of today and empowering communities to protect and preserve our working lands and natural landscapes for generations to come." Clearly, this is a long-term perspective. When we think of the environment, natural habitats and native wildlife we should always take a comprehensive, long-term view not a myopic, short-term one.
Today's children spend half as much time outside as their parents did. Also, many Americans live in urban communities without access to safe, open, green spaces. You do not have to be an ecologist or an environmentalist to know that having a society that has drifted away from its environmental roots is not good for the economy, the environment or the country itself.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
The president's plan is intended to develop local, community-level conservation and recreation agendas. Surveys taken across the country revealed that among the steps needed to accomplish the goals of the program were accessible parks, including "a new generation of great urban parks," or green spaces for children, and restoration of rivers to revitalize communities. The ideas presented on the Great Outdoors website at http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/ should receive widespread support.
The site invites comments on any aspect of being outdoors and on the many issues involved with outdoor activities. Some links lead to debates among people who favor outdoor activities but do not always agree on the details, such as whether mountain bikers who pay fees should have greater access to certain trails than do hikers who pay no fees. On another topic, someone noted that "one of the things that drives me crazy as a hunter and hiker . . . is the overgrazing on Forest Service lands." Should the federal government be subsidizing cattle ranchers rather than opening up the lands for camping, hunting or bird-watching?
The first thing many will ask is how such an initiative will be paid for; how will it affect the economy? Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack addressed the issue in part, saying, "America's farmlands and woodlands help fuel our economy and create jobs across the rural areas of our country. This plan seeks to work in partnership with landowners, conservation groups, states and others to conserve our working lands and our public lands and to reconnect Americans." The long-term economic value of a program that engenders new appreciation of our natural environment will more than pay for any short-term costs.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar noted that the program was based on "practical, common-sense ideas from the American people on how our natural, cultural, and historic resources can help us be a more competitive, stronger, and healthier nation. Together, we are adapting our conservation strategies to meet the challenges of today and empowering communities to protect and preserve our working lands and natural landscapes for generations to come." Clearly, this is a long-term perspective. When we think of the environment, natural habitats and native wildlife we should always take a comprehensive, long-term view not a myopic, short-term one.
Today's children spend half as much time outside as their parents did. Also, many Americans live in urban communities without access to safe, open, green spaces. You do not have to be an ecologist or an environmentalist to know that having a society that has drifted away from its environmental roots is not good for the economy, the environment or the country itself.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
Why Don't Hawks Fight Back?
| By Whit Gibbons
Q: A pair of red-tailed hawks has nested near our house for years. Several times I have seen one or both of them harassed by crows. I watched a five-minute dogfight today with the hawk just trying to get away. It was very entertaining, but puzzling. Why do these large raptors let the crows that are less than half their size and without their weapons harass them?
Q: I have seen crows pester a couple of big hawks. Sometimes the hawks just sit on a tree branch and let the crows fly around and make a lot of noise. Sometimes they fly away, with the crows chasing them. Would the hawks act differently if they had a nest with babies in it?
Q: I have seen crows pester a couple of big hawks. Sometimes the hawks just sit on a tree branch and let the crows fly around and make a lot of noise. Sometimes they fly away, with the crows chasing them. Would the hawks act differently if they had a nest with babies in it?
A: Very good questions about a commonly observed phenomenon called mobbing, in which several smaller birds harass a larger predatory bird. Why would a red-tailed hawk, bald eagle or great horned owl let a bunch of smaller birds, like crows, pester it? And why would a smaller bird take the risk of attacking these large predators? The answer, as is usually the case when animal behavior and ecology are involved, is complex. Some explanations seem relatively straightforward whereas others are more speculative.
From the crows' perspective, mobbing behavior may have adaptive significance in terms of survival in that a large potential predator may be driven from an area where crows raise their young because the babies might become prey for some raptors. In a situation in which a predator such as a large hawk is simply in between meals, either sitting or flying, and has no special stake in a particular location, mobbing behavior by crows could be very effective. The hawk would presumably not find the annoyance worth the effort of staying around and would move on to another area to hunt. In other words, the crows don't want the predator in the area and the hawk itself doesn't really care whether it is there or somewhere else.
In search of an answer to the question of what a pair of these birds of prey would do when harassed by crows if they had a couple of babies in a nest, I asked an ornithologist. In fact, I asked 11 ornithologists. Some are top-flight amateur bird watchers and some are professional scientists who have studied hawks or eagles. The answers I got were consistent, and surprising.
All agreed that if a red-tailed hawk reached out and grabbed a crow with its talons, that would be the end of the crow. Or as one of the professionals put it, in scientific terms, "the crow would be toast." But although large raptors have the necessary weapons, the energy cost of pursuing or otherwise attempting to catch a crow is normally not worth it. Crows are agile creatures and would be very difficult to catch in flight. So a hawk typically ignores the crows or flies away.
The answers from the bird researchers about what hawks or eagles would do if eggs or babies were in the nest were especially interesting. Statements like the following were telling. "I have never seen crows approach when young were present, but birds of prey will fiercely protect their nests." One commented, "None of our staff has ever seen crows or raccoons be predators on an eagle nest with eggs or young in it." Another said, "I don't know for sure, but when there's a nest involved, the stakes are higher and the raptor would probably fight back. The crows know this and keep their distance." Or as another put it, "When baby hawks are in the nest, the area around it becomes a no-fly zone for crows."
Observations of how hawks respond when crows use their mobbing behavior tactics are frequent. But what a pair of hawks or eagles would do if crows tried their antics when eggs or babies are in the nest remains unanswered. Ironically, the fact that such attacks seldom or never occur, may be because crows already know the answer.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
From the crows' perspective, mobbing behavior may have adaptive significance in terms of survival in that a large potential predator may be driven from an area where crows raise their young because the babies might become prey for some raptors. In a situation in which a predator such as a large hawk is simply in between meals, either sitting or flying, and has no special stake in a particular location, mobbing behavior by crows could be very effective. The hawk would presumably not find the annoyance worth the effort of staying around and would move on to another area to hunt. In other words, the crows don't want the predator in the area and the hawk itself doesn't really care whether it is there or somewhere else.
In search of an answer to the question of what a pair of these birds of prey would do when harassed by crows if they had a couple of babies in a nest, I asked an ornithologist. In fact, I asked 11 ornithologists. Some are top-flight amateur bird watchers and some are professional scientists who have studied hawks or eagles. The answers I got were consistent, and surprising.
All agreed that if a red-tailed hawk reached out and grabbed a crow with its talons, that would be the end of the crow. Or as one of the professionals put it, in scientific terms, "the crow would be toast." But although large raptors have the necessary weapons, the energy cost of pursuing or otherwise attempting to catch a crow is normally not worth it. Crows are agile creatures and would be very difficult to catch in flight. So a hawk typically ignores the crows or flies away.
The answers from the bird researchers about what hawks or eagles would do if eggs or babies were in the nest were especially interesting. Statements like the following were telling. "I have never seen crows approach when young were present, but birds of prey will fiercely protect their nests." One commented, "None of our staff has ever seen crows or raccoons be predators on an eagle nest with eggs or young in it." Another said, "I don't know for sure, but when there's a nest involved, the stakes are higher and the raptor would probably fight back. The crows know this and keep their distance." Or as another put it, "When baby hawks are in the nest, the area around it becomes a no-fly zone for crows."
Observations of how hawks respond when crows use their mobbing behavior tactics are frequent. But what a pair of hawks or eagles would do if crows tried their antics when eggs or babies are in the nest remains unanswered. Ironically, the fact that such attacks seldom or never occur, may be because crows already know the answer.
Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.
Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
