the wildlife professional 2007 winter issue

Winter 2007

Wildlife Corridors

Safe Wildlife Practices

Hunting for Balance

EXPLORING

Diversity IN THE PROFESSION

3More online at wildlifejournals.org© The Wildlife Society

6 Editor’s Note8 Letters11 Leadership Letter

REGULAR FEATURES

12 Science in Short Recaps of current research relevant to wildlife managers and conservation practitioners

14 State of Wildlife Highlights of wildlife-related management challenges and achievements worldwide

18 Today’s Wildlife Professional Judd Howell: Life in a research refuge

FEATURE STORY

20 Exploring Diversity Examining the role of minorities in the wildlife profession

ROTATING FEATURES

Plans and Practices26 Wildlife corridors: A consensus-building approach

Health and Disease30 CDC guidelines on safety in wildlife management practices

Education36 An innovative wildlife program for minority students

Commentary38 A personal view of diversity

Review40 A critique of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting

45 The Society Page News and happenings from The Wildlife Society

47 Gotcha! Photos of wildlife and humans submitted by readers

More Online!This publication is available online to TWS members at wildlifejournals.org.

Clicking on the mouse icon boxes throughout this issue will link to related online content.

Winter 2007

26

Credit: iStockPhoto.com/VFKA

30

Credit: CDC

20Credit: Darrell J. Pehr/New Mexico State University

© The Wildlife Society4 The Wildlife Professional, Winter 2007

The Wildlife Professional (ISSN 1933-2866) is an offi cial publication of The Wildlife Society (TWS) and a benefi t of membership. Our goal is to provide timely, readable, and relevant news and analyses of issues and trends in the wildlife profession. For information on TWS membership, the Society, and other TWS publications, please contact The Wildlife Society headquarters (address below) or visit the TWS website at www.wildlife.org. The views expressed in this magazine are not necessarily those of The Wildlife Society.

COVER: Field biologist Julie Sinclair, wearing a powered air-purifying respirator, latex gloves, and disposable gown, weighs a white-footed mouse

(Peromyscus leucopus) during a hantavirus investigation in West Virginia.Credit: Dr. Darin Carroll

Vol. 1 No. 4

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD*Science AdvisorsJonathan Adams The Nature ConservancyDan Ashe* U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePhilippa J. Benson The Wildlife SocietyRichard B. Chipman* USDA, Wildlife ServicesRaym Crow Chain Bridge GroupMike Frame U.S. Geological SurveyCarlos Galindo-Leal* World Wildlife Fund, MexicoVal Geist* University of CalgaryMichael Hutchins* The Wildlife SocietyMatt Hogan AFWADoug Inkley* National Wildlife FederationCynthia Jacobson Alaska Dept. of Fish and GameWinifred Kessler* USDA Forest ServiceDevra Kleiman* National Zoological ParkEric Kurzejeski* Missouri Dept. of ConservationJ. Drew Lanham Clemson UniversityCristina Mittermeier ILCPTony Mong University of MissouriJohn Organ* U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceTheresa Pickel Allen Press Tom Ryder Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.Anthony Rylands* Conservation InternationalJames Sanderson Wildlife Conservation NetworkSue Silver Ecological Society of AmericaArt Smith SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and ParksAdrian Stanley The Charlesworth Group (USA) Inc.Judy Stokes* NH Fish and Game DepartmentEric Taylor* U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceJohn Wiens* The Nature ConservancyJiang Zhigang* Chinese Academy of Sciences

TWS STAFFMichael Hutchins Executive Director/CEOPhilippa J. Benson Director of PublishingSandra Staples-Bortner Director Conf. & MembershipLaura Bies Assoc. Director, Government Affairs

Kathryn Sonant Managing EditorDivya Abhat Science WriterKatherine Unger Science WriterJane Pelkey Offi ce & Finance ManagerYanin Walker Operations Manager Earl Wyatt Database Administrator & IT CoordinatorRuxandra Giura Web Content DeveloperShannon Pederson Subunit & Certifi cation CoordinatorLisa Moll Conferences & Membership AssistantAmy Clanin Finance Assistant

TWS GOVERNING COUNCILW. Daniel Svedarsky PresidentThomas M. Franklin President-ElectBruce D. Leopold Vice PresidentJohn F. Organ Past President

Thomas A. Decker VT Dept. of Fish and WildlifeWilliam G. Minser University of TNAlan Crossley WI Dept. of Natural ResourcesThomas J. Ryder WY Game and Fish Department Bruce Thompson NM Dept. Game and Fish Ellen Campbell Northwest Section Donald A. Yasuda USDA Forest ServiceRichard K. Baydack University of Manitoba

CONTRIBUTOR GUIDELINESThe Wildlife Professional accepts suggestions and submissions for content in our regular features and rotating departments.

Email all inquiries to [email protected] or mail them to headquarters’ address below.

Copyright and Permissions: Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of any article published by The Wildlife Society for personal or educational use within one’s home institution is hereby granted without fee, provided that the fi rst page or initial screen of a display includes the notice “Copyright © 2007 by The Wildlife Society,” along with the full citation, including the name(s) of the author(s). Copyright for components of this work owned by persons or organizations other than TWS must be honored. Instructors may use articles for educational purpose only. To copy or transmit otherwise, to republish or to use such an article for commercial or promotional purposes requires specifi c permission and a possible fee. Permission may be requested from the TWS Editorial Offi ce (address below).

SUBSCRIPTION AND ADVERTISINGThe Wildlife Professional is a benefi t of membership in The Wildlife Society.

Membership categories include Individual, Student, Family, Retired, Institutional, Life, and International. For rates and benefi t information please email Lisa Moll at [email protected] or use the contact information listed below.

For advertising rates and information, contact Onkar Sandal, 785-843-1234 ext. 218 or 800-627-0326 ext. 218, [email protected]

COMMENTARY

EDUCATION

ETHICS IN PRACTICE

HEALTH AND DISEASE

HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONNECTION

LAW AND POLICY

PLANS AND PRACTICES

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

REVIEWS

TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY

WILDLIFE IMAGING

The Wildlife SocietyHeadquarters:5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814-2144 P: (301) 897-9770 F: (301) 530-2471 [email protected] www.wildlife.org

Rotating feature departments include:

Application mail at periodical postage rate is pending at Bethesda, MD and additional mailing offi ces. POSTMASTER: send address changes to

The Wildlife Professional P.O. Box 1897, Lawrence, KS 66044-8897

SUBSCRIPTION RATE: $64.00 for individual membership in TWS

6 The Wildlife Professional, Winter 2007 © The Wildlife Society

Got Something to Say?

Are YOU a Wildlife Professional?

If so, then submit

suggestions, outlines, or draft articles

for consideration in this magazine!

is YOUR vehicle

for discussion and debate about issues in

wildlife conservation, science, and management.

Submit today [email protected]

Year One: Done. In 2007, The Wildlife Society (TWS) launched this magazine, brought new technologies into headquarters, and revived our long-ailing website. A new Canadian section was born and updated membership services and publication designs have taken off, driven by new staff at headquarters and new editorial leadership of The Journal of Wildlife Management and Wildlife Monographs. A year of great change for TWS, indeed, and in these times, much needed.

In a world largely focused on changes provoked by today’s many and horrible wars, some leaders have nonetheless been successful in shining a steady and unavoidable light on the plight of the planetary infrastructure, its creatures, and the ecosystems we share. Print and other media are rich with debate about science-based management and conservation of biodiversity and the environment, and both public and corporate attention are honing in on these issues. As awareness grows, the professionals involved in decision-making are also more in the public eye. Societies such as TWS are, therefore, increasingly looked to not only for the creation and distribution of sound science, but also as resources for and refl ections of the professionalism of wildlife managers, researchers, and policy makers. Equipped with updated tools and communication technologies, TWS is now better able to both represent and engage wildlife professionals and the public we serve.

This issue of The Wildlife Professional includes an exploration of a long-standing demographic characteristic of TWS, that is, as a Society historically comprised primarily of white males—although this trait is slowly changing. Along with an overview article by staff writer Katherine Unger, TWS members J. Drew Lanham of Clemson University and William Stone and Yong Wang of Alabama A& M University have written about experiences and possibilities for diversifying the ranks of wildlifers (see pages 36 and 38). Creating and maintaining open discussion of how we can and should work to increase diversity within TWS is, I believe, as critical to the growth of the profession as conducting and publishing wildlife science and policy.

The fi rst three issues of The Wildlife Professional have received compliments and complaints, a notable critique being that there hasn’t been enough direct representation of the views of TWS members. I’m pleased to say we are fi nally getting unsolicited submissions from members, but we’re eager for more (see ad at right). We hope readers note that recent issues have had articles including citations and references, ones readers can link to directly online. We are looking forward to more submissions from members along these lines, whether on management practices, wildlife science, or other topics and issues (see Guidelines for Contributions at www.wildlife.org). Keep those cards and letters coming and talk to you again in 2008.

Philippa J. Benson, [email protected]

Credit: Ben Xu


Dear Editor,I enjoyed reading the latest issue of The Wildlife Professional, especially the article on the toxicology databases. However, I was confused while reading the feature article, “Oh Canada,” by Katherine Unger. In a single paragraph the author uses three distinct phrases to describe the native people of Canada. The fi rst phrase is “aboriginal peoples.” Then the terms “indigenous peoples” and “native groups” are used to refer to presumably the same group of people. This use of language seems confusing at best and misleading at worst. These words actually can have distinct meanings and the choice of wording should be carefully considered and maintained throughout the entire article. This magazine presents thoughtful information and should maintain a high level of clarity.

Douglas R. Stephens, Environmental AnalystBrightFields, Inc.

Dear Editor,First, congratulations on a fi ne new magazine. Here’s hoping you will keep its content true to its title.

In regards to the article, “The Future of Public Trust” in your Summer 2007 edition, I’d like to point out that the ‘public trust’ doctrine, as the underpinning doctrine of wildlife conservation, is not the “… greatest model of effective conservation worldwide…” as claimed by the authors. That wildlife “… cannot be owned by people but instead is held in trust by the government for the benefi t of all citizens,” is a model utterly dependent on functional, democratic, fair, clean government, as prevalent in the fi rst or “western” world.

But in perhaps half the world, the third or “develop-ing” world, government is not anything like that, if not the opposite. Consider the world’s second largest and second most populous continent making up 24 percent of the world’s land area, comprising 46 separate nations, precious few if any of which enjoy democratic, fair, clean government. This is Africa. Where wildlife already is being decimated, except

where it is under private ownership on private land producing a strong revenue fl ow from ecotourism and hunting, and in the case of tribal landholdings additionally producing food and by-products for cash or barter-based village economies.

Already in some southern African nations, there is more land dedicated to wildlife and a greater portion of the national wildlife “herd” under private, including tribal, ownership than there is under the remnants of a government operated public trust national park system introduced in the colonial era. There is no question that the doctrine of private ownership, coupled with a “use it or lose it” practice, is currently how Africa’s wildlife is being saved in many places. In South Africa, wildlife as a primary form of land use covers approximately 17 percent of the country’s surface area. Of this, approximately fi ve percent is in the form of national and provincial (i.e. government) parks. The rest, some 12 percent, is under private ownership!

Pat R. Condy, D.Sc., Executive DirectorFossil Rim Wildlife Center, Texas

Dear Editor,I am writing in response to the letter in the Fall 2007 issue of The Wildlife Professional submitted by conservation biologist Jonathan Stober in response to your article, “The Future of the Public Trust Doctrine.” I respect his opinions, but feel his criti-cisms of the public trust doctrine are off base. I feel he missed the one huge point that defi nes the PTD with regards to wildlife and that is: Private landowners do not own the wild animals that occupy their lands.

I think it is imperative to understand that the found-ing principles of the PTD are not about “command and control” but rather the insurance that a private landowner cannot treat wild animals on his or her land as property. What follows from this is the avoidance of situations where a private landowner can put up a fence and literally prevent normally free-ranging animals from continuing to do so, in essence depriving you of your right to see and enjoy those animals. Such a system can and will become an aristocracy where only wealthy landowners can truly enjoy America’s resources.

K. Marc PuckettVirginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Vol. 1 No. 3Fall 2007

Please send letters to:

Editor, The Wildlife ProfessionalThe Wildlife Society5410 Grosvenor Lane Suite 200Bethesda, MD 20814 [email protected]

Letters may be edited for publication. Click on signature to link to full text.

Vol. 1 No. 2Summer 2007

More letters to the editor are availble online atwildlife.org


Heeding the Call

M y nephew wants to be a lawyer. I’m very disappointed, although I expect his parents are pleased. As a child,

Matthew repeatedly declared that he would be a “herpetologist in Australia” and I looked forward to another biologist in the family. Now he’s in college, has changed his focus completely, and I wonder what went wrong.

This is just one example of the current lack of prospective wildlife professionals, but I’m concerned. Is our profession competing well for top-notch undergraduates and graduates? So many sharp young students seem drawn to computer sciences, investment banking, law … careers far removed from wildlife biology.

As a baby boomer, I see a major philosophical shift from when I entered the profession. Many of us boomers were the youth of “Earth Day” and the awakening environmental consciousness, idealists determined to save the planet. Now, highly regarded careers focus on power and money. Many of us were rural kids who liked to hunt and fi sh. Now, our population is increasingly urbanized and non-hunting. A large cadre of professional wildlife biologists hired in the ’70s is at retirement age. Will we have the number and quality of new professionals to take our place—to be sharper, more skilled, and better trained than we were?

To partially answer this question, I continue to be amazed and pleased at the number and quality of student presenters at The Wildlife Society’s annual conference. However, I suggest that we, as an organization, might do more to attract the sharpest young people to our profession. We should not leave it to chance that bright students choose wildlife management as a career. Perhaps we need to start earlier outreach to younger audiences—high school and junior high, perhaps even grade school. Wildlife biology, in all its aspects, should be visible as an attractive career choice—a presence at career days, on the web, and in magazine articles directed at young people.

Opportunities to promote our profession are numerous, diverse, and limited only by our imagination. Some potential actions may work best at the national level while others must rely on chapters or individuals. Please take some time to

consider what you or your chapter can do to encourage young people in your local area to consider wildlife biology as a career choice.

In addition to the number and quality of student presenters at the TWS conference, I am also amazed and pleased at the large number of women in attendance. It seems only a short time ago that I was the only female at TWS chapter meetings or interagency biologist meetings. But in reality, that was longer ago than I wish to think about, and an increasing number of women have chosen careers in wildlife biology. I’m glad to see this.

Our profession does not appear to do as well in refl ecting ethnic diversity. I can count on both hands the number of Asian, African-American, Native American, and Hispanic wildlife biologists that I know personally. I don’t think that my range of contacts is much different from most TWS members. Our organization and profession certainly does not mirror the general North American population, nor does it necessarily need to do so. However, greater diversity will bring new perspectives to the profession and an improved ability to relate to the public we serve. Again, early and frequent contact with young people can emphasize that the wildlife profession is a viable and rewarding career path for students from all backgrounds.

I myself was a city kid, had never met a wildlife biologist, and did not clearly understand what one did. I had no role models other than the comic strip character Mark Trail and “Sheena, Queen of the Jungle,” a Saturday morning television show. I picked wildlife management from a graduate school catalog because the courses sounded interesting. Choosing a career in wildlife biology was plain chance and good luck.

I believe that we can do more in a deliberate way to reach out to and attract new professionals who are both top quality and diverse in background. As an organization, we should consider actions at a national level that will aid in attracting a cadre of sharp young wildlife biologists. As individuals, we should look for opportunities to serve as mentors and encourage bright young people from all backgrounds to consider wildlife biology as a career. We have been so fortunate in our career choice, how could we not share that good fortune with others?

Ellen Goetz Campbell, retired from the Alaska Region of the USDA Forest Service, is the Northwest Section Representative on TWS Council.

By Ellen Campbell

Credit: Philippa Benson/TWS


Back From the BrinkIn a rare “good news” conservation story, scientists from the University of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department describe the successful implementation of the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) recovery program in the American West. Starting with seven founder individuals in 1987, the program has since placed many of the 4,800 captive-bred ferrets in several prairie habitats to reestablish wild populations. Looking specifi cally at the Shirley Basin, Wyoming reintroduction site, Martin Grenier and colleagues report in Science (v. 317/5839) that the ferret population grew from fi ve individuals in 1997 to 223 in 2006. Grenier and his team attribute the growth to a high survival rate in the fi rst year of life and a healthy reproductive rate, giving hope to other attempts to bring species back from the brink of extinction.

Fewer Deer, PleaseIn regions where wildlife managers have employed culls to reduce overpopulated white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginia-nus) populations, success has been measured in the short term, with few follow-ups to see whether population reduction persisted. Now, a report in The Journal of Wildlife Management (v. 71/5) documents a controlled public deer hunt that reduced and maintained a deer population over several years. Led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s John McDonald Jr., the authors present the results of a hunt on the Quabbin Reser-vation in central Massachusetts (a 160-square-kilometer area) that achieved its management goal—four deer per square kilometer—and maintained this deer density over time. Unlike many other hunts, hunters were not required to take antlerless deer, but antlerless deer made up over half of the harvest during each of the 14 years covered. The authors conclude that successful deer manage-ment requires clearly stated long-term goals and plans. Keeping stakeholders informed of the need for high culling rates in the population maintenance phase following the initial reduction also appears critical to success.

Water FallingLas Vegas, Nevada is a desert town booming with life, and life needs water. At least two requests from governmental and private sources for new groundwater aquifers are currently under consider-ation in the region. According to an analysis in BioScience (v. 57/8), these aquifers would draw crucial water away from a 130-square-kilometer area. The authors, led by James Deacon of the University of Nevada, contend that tapping these groundwater stores would lead to reductions in the water table, spring discharge, wetland area, and streamfl ow. The water shortfalls could affect “20 federally listed species, 137 other water-dependent endemic species, and thousands of rural domestic and agricultural water users in the region,” the researchers write. They emphasize that strategically increasing water conservation by implementing new technologies would allow growing metropolitan areas to access water without compromising wildlife and other natural resources.

Reprinted with permission from AAAS

Credit: TWS Credit: I. Baez (USDA)/AIBS

See this department online at wildlifejournals.org to link to the article abstracts from last quarter’s The Journal of Wildlife Management and to link to all of the articles recommended by TWP’s Science Advisory Board.

13More online at wildlifejournals.org© The Wildlife Society 13

Credit: Jack Berryman Institute

© 2007 Royal Society

Credit: TWS

© Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

No Peace From GeeseRather than directly culling nuisance wildlife, some managers have instead employed hazing to coax animals towards areas where hunting keeps populations in check or to move animals from areas of high potential confl ict with humans to lower confl ict habitats. In a study in the journal Human-Wildlife Confl icts (v. 1/2), Robin Holevinski of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and her colleagues attempt-ed to measure the success rate of persis-tent harassment on 768 banded geese in one urban area and one suburban area, some of which also had radio transmitters and individually coded neck bands. The scientists then subjected the geese to a battery of hazing techniques, alone or in combination: border collies, kayaks, lasers, pyrotechnics, strobe lights, a radio-powered boat, and a goose distress call. Border collies seemed most effective in dispersing geese—the dogs successfully drove geese away from a given area over 90 percent of the time. Yet hazing only partially helped to reduce local geese populations; just 13 percent of hazed geese were killed by hunters within two years of the study.

Not Birds’ Best Friend A stroll in the woods with your loyal dog may seem like a pleasing way to spend an afternoon. But a paper in Biology Letters (v. 3/6) reveals that birds are not pleased by Fido, even when he’s on a leash. Researchers Peter Banks and Jessica Bryant of the University of New South Wales conducted their studies along 90 woodland paths near Sydney. Half the paths were frequently used by dog-walkers; the other half banned dogs. They tested three scenarios along the trails: one person walking a leashed dog, one or two people walking, or no one walking. Banks and Bryant found a 35 percent reduction in diversity and 41 percent reduction in abundance of birds directly following a dog being walked. Humans walking alone resulted in less than half as much disturbance as dogs. The authors believe birds view dogs as potential predators, and suggest that the impact of dog-walking be carefully considered in areas of conservation concern.

Blown AwayWind energy is often heralded as a clean, emissions-free way to wean us off of fossil fuels. However, as The Wildlife Society reports in its latest technical review, Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, wind energy can have uninten-tional effects on wildlife. The authors present information on world energy demands, wind energy development and technology, state and federal permitting processes, wildlife fatalities, habitat alteration, issues surrounding monitoring and research methodology, and information needs. They note the lack of information on which to base decisions regarding siting of wind energy facilities, wildlife responses, and mitiga-tion strategies. To date, most research at wind facilities has been short-term; longer-term studies are needed to elucidate patterns and develop models to estimate fatalities and evaluate possible habitat fragmentation and other impacts. Available from TWS bookstore.

Lacey’s FailuresForemost among the tools the United States has to avoid the ravages of introduced species is the “injurious wildlife provision” of the Lacey Act (1900). But is this piece of legislation suffi cient? A team from the University of Notre Dame headed by Andrea Fowler reports in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (v. 5/7) that while the Lacey Act has prevented potentially disruptive species from entering the United States, it has often proved ineffectual at limiting the spread of species already present in the country at the time of listing. The average time between proposing a species listing and an actual decision has risen to nearly fi ve years, and only four species have been listed as “injurious” since 1992, while many other invasive species have been allowed to enter the country. The authors recommend that the Lacey Act be revised to include a time limit on the listing process, to conduct mandatory risk assessments for all imported species, and to prohibit the possession of listed species.


North AmericaNews and events affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals from across North America

SoutheastARKANSAS — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has released a draft of the fi rst-ever recovery plan for the ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis). Once residing in forested habitats throughout the Southeastern U.S. and Cuba, the ivory-billed woodpecker was feared extinct for 60 years. This changed in 2004 when research-ers claimed to have sighted the bird on multiple occasions in the Cache River Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas. Since then the FWS, along with organizations including the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and Audubon Arkansas, has been documenting and reviewing evidence of the wood-pecker’s presence in the United States. The 185-page draft focuses on determining the woodpecker’s habitat and increasing existing populations to the point of delisting it from endangered to threatened, and ultimately off the Endangered Species list. So far, state searches have been organized in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Geor-gia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SouthwestARIZONA — In November, a wildlife biologist at the Grand Canyon National Park died of what authorities believe to be the pneumonic plague (Yersinia pestis). Experts believe the biologist became infected while performing a necropsy on a mountain lion (Puma concolor). Pneumonic plague, primarily a disease of animals, can be spread to humans through the bite of a rodent fl ea or through direct contact with an infected animal. Symptoms include fever, headache, chest pain, cough, and bloody saliva. Although an average of one to two human cases of plague are reported annually in Arizona, there were no reported human cases in the state from 2001–2006. The spread of pneumonic plague from person to person is rare and was last reported in 1924. Source: National Park Service

n See related article on page 30

NortheastVERMONT — The New Hampshire Department of Environ-mental Services and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resourc-es have issued a warning that invasive algae Didymosphenia geminata (aka “didymo”) has been seen for the fi rst time in the northeastern United States. Authorities in Vermont and New Hampshire posted notices instructing people to check their shoes, clothes, and fi shing equipment for the algae—also referred to as ‘rock snot’ because of its unattractive appear-ance—after leaving the water. Didymo can bloom into thick mats that cover the bottoms of streams and rivers. Although the algae eventually die off and decompose, the mats persist on the river bottom, suffocating aquatic plants. These highly invasive algae may impact water bodies by altering food web structures as well as the hydraulics of streams and rivers. Source: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

Authorities in Vermont and New Hampshire posted notices instructing people to check their shoes, clothes, and fi shing equipment for the invasive algae Didymosphenia geminata.

Credit: NH DES, VT DEC


North CentralILLINOIS — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has designated 13,221 acres of land in Illinois, Michigan, and Wis-consin as critical habitat for the endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfl y (Somatochlora hineana). The lands are comprised of wetlands that are an important breeding and foraging habitat for the species. The Hine’s emerald dragonfl y was classifi ed as endangered in 1995 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Habitat destruction, largely due to urban and industrial development, poses the greatest threat to the dragonfl y. Under the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the FWS before embarking on any activities that may affect critical habitat, including water and food necessary for the recovery of the dragonfl y. The projected costs of implementing the recovery plan are estimated at $13.2 million over 20 years. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Central Mountains and Plains UTAH — Biologists at the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources expressed concern over the fi rst known population of Ameri-can bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in the Uinta Basin in the northeast corner of the state. The population—believed to have been introduced into the Roosevelt Golf Course pond approximately three years ago—has now moved to other areas of the golf course and around the nearby valley. Numerous populations of the American bullfrog have been found across the state for a number of years; however, scientists are concerned with the latest discovery because of the presence of the native species of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in the area. Introduced populations of bullfrogs are aggressive and can disrupt healthy ecosystems by competing with native frogs and toads for food and habitat, qualities that have made bullfrogs a prohibited species in Utah. Source: Utah Department of Wildlife Resources

Northwest MONTANA — Reports from parts of central and southeastern Montana confi rmed the presence of severe cases of a disease known as bluetongue in September. At that time, sheep producers in 16 counties were restricted from moving their sheep after test results confi rmed bluetongue in those locations. Hundreds of sheep and antelope in Montana were said to be infected with the virus, which is spread by a biting midge that transmits the disease from one animal to the next. Sheep, whitetail deer, and antelope are particularly suscep-tible to the disease, which often results in death. Typically, cold weather contains the disease, but unusually warm weather in Montana this year seems to have prompted the rapid spread of the disease. During the state’s fi rst frost in October, offi cials lifted the quarantine. Bluetongue does not affect humans; however its economic effects on farmers can be serious. Source: Montana Department of Livestock

Western

SANTA CRUZ ISLAND — In August, the National Park Service (NPS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) announced the successful eradication of the introduced wild boar (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island. Large populations of feral pigs on the island once posed a threat to the endangered island fox (Urocyon littoralis) and nine rare plants. Additionally, the pigs attracted the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), which hunted the island fox to near extinction. This feral pig eradica-tion effort is the second largest in the world and cost the NPS and TNC close to $5 million. Offi cials destroyed approximate-ly 5,000 pigs, employing several tools such as walk-in corral traps and aerial and ground hunting. The decision came after several years of scientifi c assessments of alternative options, including the use of contraceptives, which proved to be ineffective in eradicating the entire population. While the last Biologists are concerned about the fi rst known population of American

bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in the northeast corner of Utah. Introduced populations of the American bullfrog can compete with native populations for food and habitat.

Credit: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Credit: Tim Cashatt, Illinois State Museum

Habitat destruction poses a great threat to the endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfl y (Somatochlora hineana).


the fi rst time in history, IUCN has begun to assess the status of ocean corals; of the Galápagos corals, three species have been listed as threatened. The report cites humans as either the direct or indirect cause for the decline of most species; habitat destruction and degradation were the key reasons for the loss in population numbers. Although the total number of species in the world is unknown, estimates range from 10 to 100 million across the world. Approximately 1.7 to 1.8 million species on the planet are named today. Source: The World Conservation Union

GeneralFor the fi rst time since 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated a guide to the regulations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The update clarifi es and provides easy-to-use guides to international trade requirements regulated by CITES. The updated regulations are also aimed at making procedures more comprehensible for international travelers. More than 3,000 species of animals and plants receive varying degrees of protection under CITES. International trade in CITES is overseen and regulated by 172 countries, includ-ing the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Source: CITES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

feral pig was believed to be eliminated in 2006, scientists have continued to monitor the area to ensure no traces of the population were left behind. Source: National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy

CanadaALBERTA — In an attempt to reduce the number of long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) deaths along a key highway in the Waterton Lakes National Park in southern Alberta, Parks Canada has invested $40,000 in building four tunnels under a 600-meter section of the main road. Research shows an annual mortality of 10 to 44 percent for salaman-ders making the journey to and from their breeding ground at Waterton’s Linnet Lake. The long-toed salamander population is believed to have declined by 90 percent since the early 1990s, largely due to vehicle mortality. The salamander tunnels, which will be the fi rst of their kind in Canada’s national parks, will resemble a miniature version of the under-passes used to facilitate the movement of bears and elk across highways. The tunnels are scheduled to be built in spring 2008. Parks Canada has set aside an additional $90,000 for installation and post-construction studies to monitor the success of the project. Source: Parks Canada

GeneralThe World Conservation Union (IUCN) released in September its 2007 Red List of Threatened Species, an evaluation of the state of the planet’s plants and animals. Of the 41,415 species on the IUCN Red List, 16,306 are threatened with extinction, 785 species are considered extinct, and 65 species are found only in captivity. The assessment showed a decline in the western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) population—due mostly to the Ebola virus and commercial bushmeat trade—moving them from the Endangered to the Critically Endan-gered list. The total number of birds on the IUCN Red list this year was 9,956, of which 1,217 are listed as threatened. For

For comments or suggestions, or to submit news briefs for the State of Wildlife section, contact Divya Abhat at [email protected].

Credit: Parks Canada

Parks Canada will build four tunnels under a 600-meter section of the main road to reduce the number of long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) deaths along a key highway in the Waterton Lakes National Park in southern Alberta.

Credit: Stephen Francis/TNC

Large populations of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on Santa Cruz Island once posed a threat to the endangered island fox (Urocyon littoralis) and nine rare plants.


categorized eight species of turtles found in NWFP as “protected species” under Pakistan’s Wildlife Act of 1975. The Wildlife Department also plans to study the turtles’ population and general biology. Turtle export is a booming industry as turtle meat is considered a delicacy in many countries. The spotted pond turtle (Geoclemys hamiltonii), and the crowned river turtle (Hardella thurjii), both found in the region, are included in The World Conservation Union’s list of Internationally Threatened Species. Source: North West Frontier Province Wildlife Department

Southeast AsiaBORNEO — A study released in August by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) reported that the population of the Borneo pygmy elephant (Elephas maximus borneensis) is under threat from habitat loss and forest fragmentation. The elephants depend on forests located on lowland river valleys—terrain that is also ideal for commercial timber, oil palm, and rubber plantations. Over the last four decades, 40 percent of forest cover in the Malaysian state of Sabah in northeast Borneo has been lost to intensive logging. The state govern-ment of Sabah on Borneo set aside 300,000 hectares of elephant habitat during the fi rst year of the study, which began in 2005. The signing of the Heart of Borneo Declaration by the governments of Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia is expected to result in the protection of additional elephant habitat. Current numbers of the Borneo Pygmy elephant are estimated at only 1,000 individuals.Source: World Wildlife Fund

EuropeSPAIN — Spanish authorities lit controlled fi res in Castilla-y-Leon in Central Spain in an effort to destroy a plague of approximately 750 million voles (Microtus agrestis) in this major grain area. According to the farm union, the small fi eld mice had infested 980,000 acres of land and destroyed 40 percent of all the harvest on irrigated land before moving on to beet and potato crops in the region. Although specifi c reasons are unknown, experts believe the plague may be a result of a mild winter. The infestation was also related to 17 human cases of tularemia, or rabbit fever, a bacterial disease transmit-ted to humans while handling infected rodents. Damage to the crops is estimated at $40 million. The European Union permits the burning of land in exceptional cases only.Source: Offi ce of Agriculture, Castilla-y-Leon

InternationalNews and events affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals from around the world outside North America

AustraliaQUEENSLAND — The Australian Government has created a 135,000-hectare reserve in northern Queensland in honor of the late “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin. The Irwin family will own the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve—once the Bertiehaugh Pastoral Station—and will manage it as a nature reserve in line with international conservation guidelines. The government has spent $6 million Australian (approximately $5.3 million in U.S. dollars) to develop the reserve that is home to a wide array of wildlife, including the orange-footed scrub fowl (Megapodius reinwardt) and the endangered northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus). The Australia Zoo will set up a scien-tifi c research center on the reserve in collaboration with the University of Queensland and other organizations. The center will be designed to help scientists research native species on the reserve. Irwin, a conservationist and wildlife enthusiast, was killed by a stingray (Dasyatidae) while making a docu-mentary fi lm last September. Source: Australian Government: Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Australia Zoo

AfricaDEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO — In August, another mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) was found dead in the Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), bringing the total number killed this year to 10. A few weeks after several killings in July, rangers in the park arrested two traffi ckers trying to sell a juvenile gorilla for $8,000. Offi cials are investigating specifi c motives behind the killings, while it’s clear that the decade-long civil confl ict and resulting human suffering is the overarching cause for instabil-ity and unrest in the region. The Congolese Park Service is monitoring the area, with the funding and support of organiza-tions like the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, UNESCO, and Wildlife Direct, which is partnered with the London and the Frankfurt Zoos. Today, approximately 700 mountain gorillas survive in the wild, of which 380 are in Virunga and 340 in the Bwindi forest in Uganda. Mountain gorillas are listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List.Source: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund

South AsiaPAKISTAN — The Wildlife Department of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP) has banned the hunting of fresh water turtles in the region. In August, the Department


Life in a Research Refuge JUDD HOWELL takes a global approach to wildlife management

O ne day in the spring of 1980, Judd Howell called the California Academy of Sciences to ask about the breeding phenology of

Heermann’s gulls (Larus heermanni) on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco. “The curator of birds at the time said, ‘They don’t nest in the United States,’ and I said ‘Would you like to come and see them?’” Howell recalls. Soon they learned they were seeing one of the fi rst-ever nestings of Heermann’s gulls in the United States.

That year, Howell began documenting Heermann’s gulls’ nesting attempts on the West Coast and learned more about Point Diablo—now Hawk Hill—in San Francisco as a focal point for other migratory birds. Howell was serving as a natural research specialist in the National Park Service (NPS) at the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA) at the time and decided to set up an observatory to monitor raptors on the West Coast. “There were a lot of banding programs on the East Coast but not that many developed in the West at the time,” Howell says. In 1983 he teamed up with Williston Shor, a falconer in Cape May, New Jersey, founded the Golden Gate Raptor Banding Program, and recruited 10 people to help with bird banding within the fi rst year. However, they soon realized they needed more staff and resources for a project this ambitious, so they integrated with the

San Francisco Zoo’s raptor exhibit program and trained 93 volunteers to work with hawks. “From that evolved the banding and volunteer program,” Howell says. By 2000, the Golden Gate Raptor Banding Program had banded nearly 16,000 raptors and remains one of the fi rst and largest volunteer efforts at the GGNRA.

A decade after they founded the Raptor Banding Program, Howell was transferred to the National Biological Service as station leader and research ecologist for the Golden Gate Field Station. Between 1990 and 1997, Howell was a Principal Investigator with teams from Earthwatch, an international nonprofi t that provides volunteers with the opportunity to join research teams across the world. Two years later, he became a research biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) still stationed at GGNRA and in 1999 was hired as a research manager at the USGS Western Ecological Research Center in Sacramento, CA. In 2002 Howell was made the seventh Director of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC).

Trains, Planes, and WildlifeThe PWRC, one of 17 research centers in the United States run by USGS, is a prominent international research institute for wildlife and the environment and home to the U.S. Bird Banding Laboratory.

Current Position Director of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Favorite Book The Aubrey/Maturin series by Patrick O’Brian

Favorite Aspect of Job Helping scientists get the resources to do their job and watching them be successful

If I Were in Charge of the World I would spend a lot more time having people focus on natural resource issues and take a step back from all of the issues that engage us in confl ict.

Quote to Live By “The world itself is nature. The sun, the moon, they are nature. Even if there were no more animals, nature would still be here.” —Dalai Lama

By Divya Abhat

Judd Howell looks into an eastern screech-owl (Otus asio) box at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.



The PWRC also manages the National Biological Survey Unit at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. The Center is involved in over 140 projects, which range from studies on the coastal and wetland ecosystems to migratory bird surveys.

Today, Howell’s offi ce is a testimony of the work that has taken him across the world, from the Kruger National Park in South Africa to marine islets in France. Anchored to Howell’s desk is a model of the HMS Beagle, reminding him of an upcoming trip to the Galapagos Islands. A trio of black-necked crane paintings that Howell brought back from a recent visit to China hangs in the far left corner of the offi ce. Howell always aspired to be a widely traveled scientist, and science and travel are a signifi cant part of Howell’s job at the Center. “Right now one of the more exciting projects we’re working on is this satellite telemetry of migratory waterfowl in Asia,” Howell says.

On a typical day at PWRC, Howell is immersed in meetings with senior scientists, administrative offi cers, and project leaders. As director of the Center, Howell is involved in managing and overseeing signifi cant research projects across the United States. One such project is the Center’s captive breeding program for the endangered whooping cranes, which began from 12 eggs that were collected from the wild in 1967 and evolved into a fl ock of 44 adults. Howell is also instrumen-tal in establishing partnerships across the world for research programs that deal with issues within a global context. He has also long been a part of a project that studies plant and animal biodiversity and compares ecosystems between Europe and the western United States.

The Early YearsIn college, Howell started by pursuing a mechani-cal engineering degree and then dabbled in modern languages and political science. “That didn’t work out very well so I went into the service [U.S. Coast Guard].” Two years later in 1971, a more focused Howell returned to college “thinking life sciences would be a good place to start.” With a bachelor of science in zoology from Montana State and a master of science in zoology from Arizona State, Howell got an opportunity to work fulltime as a zoologist conducting endangered species surveys in Wyoming and Nebraska. “People actually paid me to go to the fi eld and do this work and I fi gured, why do anything else? It’s like dying and going to heaven.”

In 1993, Howell completed a PhD in wildlife ecology from the University of California at Berkeley. “That set the stage to go on and do additional research and get into research manage-ment and be where I am now,” Howell says.

Directing the FieldHowell’s vision has often been met with the challenge of the ebb and fl ow of resources refl ect-ing the reality of budget cutbacks. He joined the fi eld starry-eyed, and believes persistence is the only way to counter the limited supply of resources and establish successful practices in wildlife. “You have to realize that it’s going to cost a certain amount of money and you really need to be able to hang in there.”

As head of the Research Center as well as an adjunct professor in the Wildlife Department of Humboldt State University, Howell’s long-term plans include bringing in the mid-career and young scientists who will be the leaders of the Center in the next 20 years. He enjoys mentoring graduate students to develop the necessary skills required in the fi eld and being in a position to support his peers. He commends not only international but also local efforts to sustain research in wildlife management. “I sit here and look at my scientists at the Research Center and literally I’m in awe of them because of where they are and what they’re doing.”

Divya Abhat is a science writer for The Wildlife Society.

President George W. Bush greets Judd Howell (right) and Patuxent Wildlife Refuge manager Brad Knudsen (center) during his visit to the Research Refuge to highlight migratory bird conservation.

Credit: Ed Grimes/ USFWS

Credits: iS

tockPhoto.com

/MartM

artov/domin23/G

eoPappas/P

ixHook/izusek/B

olot/AK

2/AlesVeluscek/M

anuWe

Expl o


By Katherine Unger

According to government fi gures, North American wildlifers are predominantly white and male, although women are slowly growing in numbers. While the fi eld has achieved tremendous accom-plishments under a somewhat homogenous leadership, what might the state of affairs now be if a greater diversity of ideas and backgrounds had been involved in pushing wildlife science, manage-ment, and conservation forward?

Certainly, tradition has played a role. American wildlife conservation and management, much like the history of the United States itself, has been dominated by white men from the get-go. Since 1871, the Fish and Wildlife Service (and its former incarnations) have been only twice led by women. Out of the 59 presentations of the Aldo Leopold Award, The Wildlife Society’s most prestigious honor, only one woman and two Hispanics have been recognized—and that’s counting Aldo Leopold’s half-Mexican son, A. Starker Leopold.

Today, those few minorities in the ranks feel the burden (see Commentary, p. 38). “There are instances where I go into a meeting and I will be the only African-American in that room,” says Phadrea Ponds, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. “I have to represent my agency, my issue, my race, my gender—I have a lot that’s going on with me.” Similarly, research scientist Fidel Hernandez, of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University at Kingsville, laments, “Most of the conferences I go to I’ll start mingling … at fi rst I don’t notice it, but with time I slowly realize that I’m probably the only Hispanic there, out of 300 people.”

The NumbersToday, the numbers speak for themselves. Within the permanent government workforce, demograph-ics are regularly tracked. The table below shows how the breakdown of permanent employees in the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) compares to the total National Civilian Labor Force (NCLF).

Outside government agencies, numbers of minori-ties in the wildlife profession are more diffi cult to assess, partly because the sensitive and sometimes ambiguous nature of demographic data means that many organizations fail to collect it. A survey of three peer organizations to The Wildlife Society (TWS)—the Society for Conservation Biology, the Ecological Society of America (ESA), and American Fisheries Society—reveals that only ESA has analyzed demographic data collected from its members, and only partially, at that. The numbers they have reveal a similar trend to that seen in the federal government—fewer women than men, fewer Asians and Hispanics than Caucasians,

Why do so many wildlife professionals look alike?

I N T H E W I L D L I F E P R O F E S S I O N

l oring Diversity

PERCENTAGE OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES DOI USDA NCLFAsian-American/Pacifi c Islander 2.2 2.3 3.8Hispanic 5.2 6 10.7African American 5.9 10.9 10.5American Indian or Alaska Native 12.3* 2.4 0.6

*includes Department of Indian Affairs employees

Sources: Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, 2000 U.S. Census data

See related articles in this issue on pages

36 and 38


and very few African-Americans and Native Americans.

TWS currently has no reliable demographic data on its membership but is beginning to track trends. Executive Director Michael Hutchins says, “Explor-ing issues of diversity is critical to the future of our profession and the future of wildlife resources. We must both represent and engage the concerns, talents, and traditions of all whose lives and livelihoods are interwoven with wild places and wild creatures.”

Barriers to DiversityThe low numbers of minorities in the wildlife profession can be partially explained by obstacles that may lie along the path towards becoming a wildlife professional: limited early access to wildlife experiences, a lack of educational opportunities, questionable social support, and economic realities.

Charles Nilon is an African-American who grew up in Colorado with easy access to the wonders of nature. “I was in Boy Scouts, I liked the outdoors,” says Nilon, now professor of fi sheries and wildlife at the University of Missouri. “But it wasn’t until I got into college that I realized you could major in wildlife.” he says.

For Ponds, cultural differences in the value placed on the wildlife profession became abundantly clear when she declared that she was switching her major from pre-med to wildlife. Her parents “both just hit the roof. They couldn’t understand how

I would make any money, what kind of career I would have,” Ponds recalls.

Simply enough, money is a common barrier for some minorities to becoming involved in the wildlife profession. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Education, minorities account for a disproportionate number of high school and college dropouts, a reality that may be driven by a pressing need for income. Of all ethnic groups, Native Americans are, on average, by far the poorest in the United States, and have a 14.4 percent high school dropout rate, according to U.S. Department of Commerce data. Of those who enter college, only 38.6 percent graduate in six years, according to a report by Education Trust. African-Americans don’t fare much better; their numbers are 10.4 percent and 40.5 percent, respectively.

Despite these varied obstacles to joining the ranks of wildlife professionals, many from minority populations have worked through the challenges and are now changing practices, perspectives, and leadership in the fi eld. Their stories offer models for growing the number of minorities in the profession.

Different PathsFor minorities, like others, there’s no single road to the destination of the wildlife profession. Some started off in urban settings, without any meaning-ful exposure to nature, and developed a passion for natural resources later in life. Others transitioned from another fi eld of science to study wildlife. Still others grew up hunting, ranching, or fi shing, seeing wildlife in action.

Exploring Diversity

Fidel Hernandez, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Texas A&M University at KingsvilleResearch Scientist, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research InstitutePresident, Texas Chapter of The Wildlife SocietyKingsville, TexasResearch interests: Upland game bird management, habitat management, and population dynamicsGreatest infl uence: Dr. Dale Rollins, my graduate advisor for my master’s degree

Phadrea Ponds, M.S.Human Dimensions Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological SurveyFort Collins, ColoradoResearch interests: Public perception, knowledge, and values as they are related to natural resource management policies and practicesGreatest infl uence: Drs. Benjamin Tuggle and Hiram Lee


Fidel Hernandez, for example, grew up on a ranch in western Texas, a fi rst-generation Hispanic born of Mexican parents. “Working cattle and rounding-up livestock” were part of his upbringing, and he and his brothers grew up connected to the natural world. Hernandez earned a B.S. and an M.S. in biology before going to Texas A&M University for his doctorate in wildlife science. He now serves on the faculty at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, where about 67 percent of students are Hispanic. Despite the school’s small size (6,000 students), it has one of the largest wildlife programs in the state. Hernandez, however, is interested not just in promoting the wildlife fi eld but “in helping minori-ties pursue a higher education in general,” he says.

Phadrea Ponds’s story is quite different. After exploring medicine as a possible career at Gram-bling State University, she realized it wasn’t for her, but wondered what to do with her amassed biology credits. Her advisor, Benjamin Tuggle, now Regional Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Region, encouraged Ponds to explore wildlife biology. She says he pointed her in the direction of studying human dimensions of wildife because he saw that she “had the potential to deal with people’s issues as they relate to wildlife.” Interestingly, Ponds says the fact that Tuggle is, like her, African-American, had little to do with the inspiration he gave her. He had what Ponds feels is the critical ingredient of a real mentor, that is, “a genuine desire to see you succeed.”

For Seafha Blount, a member of the Yurok tribe of northwestern California, nature was a given part of childhood. “I was taught about our connection with

the environment from a young age,” she says. Now a student at the University of Arizona, Blount says the school’s active clubs for Native Americans were part of what drew her to study there. “I do see a lot more natives now and that really does make a huge difference for me,” she says. In the midst of earning her master’s, Blount isn’t sure if she’ll pursue a doctoral degree in wildlife biology or a degree in environmental law. One way or another, however, she hopes to return to the Yurok reservation to work. “As a tribal member I feel that obligation to give back.”

The ChallengeThe diverse paths taken into the wildlife profession begs the question: When is a profession or an organization “diverse enough?” A broad defi nition of workplace diversity may include a consideration not only of race and ethnicity, but also of age, gender, sexual preference, economic status, and beyond. TWS’s Hutchins underscores the con-straints professional societies have in attempting to increase diversity: “Clearly, more diversity is called for in the ranks of wildlife professionals. Given our many goals to improve the profession, we are now grappling with how to build resources that can help us effectively reach out, engage, and retain as diverse a membership as possible.”

The federal government is an equal-opportunity employer and has set a self-imposed goal to have the demographic breakdown of the federal work-force more closely refl ect the population at large. In recent years, some sectors of the government have reached this goal. Government funding also plays a critical role in supporting programs aimed

Seafha BlountMaster’s candidate, University of ArizonaTucson, ArizonaResearch interest: Long-term response of the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis) to post-fi re conditionsGreatest infl uence: My mom, who has worked in tribal environmental departments since I was a child

Charles Nilon, Ph.D.Professor, University of MissouriColumbia, MissouriResearch interest: Impacts of urbanization on wildlife habitats and communitiesGreatest infl uence: My Ph.D. advisor, Dr. Larry VanDruff


at serving minority groups interested in careers in the sciences or, specifi cally, natural resources management and conservation.

At New Mexico State University (NMSU), (where half of the students are minorities) for instance, associate professor Martha Desmond has used government funds to give her wildlife students hands-on fi eld experience. An exchange program between NMSU and the University of Chihuahua in Mexico gives students international exposure. Supported by the USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, the program provides a $350,000 grant to allow students from the two universities to collaborate with the U.S. Forest Service in a broad-scale project to monitor burrowing owl populations.

Schools that cater to specifi c ethnic groups, like Historically Black Colleges and Universities (see Education, p. 36), Hispanic-Serving Institutions like NMSU, and tribal colleges, have worked to offer programs in wildlife science and manage-ment. Outings and hands-on activities have also proved effective in recruiting and maintaining minority students in wildlife programs. Desmond believes another big part of making wildlife study

attractive is in the marketing. Typically, an agricultural school like NMSU might not appeal to urbanized students, Desmond says, so the university has made changes such as creating a conservation biology major in cooperation with their biology department, and is also considering changing the name of the Fisheries and Wildlife department as well as the agricultural college.

Sometimes logistical obstacles must be addressed to make it feasible for students to attend wildlife classes. Kent Jensen saw the necessity of access while teaching at a tribal college in South Dakota. With the help of a National Science Foundation grant, the college was able to provide Native American students with the fi nancial support necessary to major in wildlife science. The details of implementing such a program were sometimes unexpected, as many of his students were single mothers in their late twenties with children to care for. “It was a whole range of things, providing day care … very mundane kinds of things that you don’t think you’re going to be doing when you go into studying wildlife,” says Jensen, now an associate professor at South Dakota State University. He explains that too many barriers exist to expect many Native Americans to leave their homes and

Exploring Diversity

Dana SanchezDoctoral candidate, University of IdahoMoscow, IdahoResearch interests: Spatial and population ecology of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis)Greatest infl uence: My hard-working parents and my mentor, Paul Krausman

Nate SvobodaWildlife Biologist, Little River Band of Ottawa IndiansMaster’s candidate, Central Michigan UniversityManistee, MichiganResearch interests: Developing and implementing habitat and population models, working with Native communitiesGreatest infl uence: Dr. Edward Louis, a researcher at Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska

Martha Desmond, Ph.D.Associate Professor, New Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces, New MexicoCurrent research interest: Avian ecology, specializing in birds in grassland systemsGreatest infl uence: Tom Vawter, my undergraduate advisor at Wells College in upstate New York


families to pursue a wildlife degree. “If we really want to get serious about having really top notch wildlife management on reservations, we need to get serious about taking the education to them.”

Part of bringing education to the tribes, says Nate Svoboda, a wildlife biologist for Little River Band of Ottawa Indians tribe in Michigan, may involve rethinking how information is presented. Svoboda notes that Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is not only useful in furthering understanding of natural resources, but is a critical aspect of some tribes’ cultural identity. Svoboda suggests TEK be implemented into college wildlife curricula. “I think that’s almost essential if you want to keep native people involved.”

As the new chair of The Wildlife Society’s Ethnic and Gender Diversity Working Group, Dana Sanchez, a doctoral student at the University of Idaho, hopes to market the wildlife profession to schoolchildren at impressionable ages, in addition to reaching out to older students and professionals. She believes this approach would draw in a broader cross-section of students who could bring an array of talents, from communications skills to scientifi c expertise to an interest in policy work. In recent years, the working group has recognized individu-als and organizations working to promote ethnic and gender diversity in the profession with the Diversity Award, awarded in 2007 to Raul Valdez, a professor of fi sheries and wildlife sciences at NMSU. The Native Peoples’ Wildlife Management Working Group also hopes to spread its message of promoting communication between native peoples and wildlife agency employees. This exchange began in earnest after the group hosted a sympo-sium at the 2006 TWS Annual Conference in Anchorage, Alaska.

Benefi ts of DiversityConsidering the reasons why diversity is lacking in the wildlife profession is far from an academic exercise. As many studies have observed, the demographic make-up of the United States has changed dramatically in recent decades. The Census Bureau projects that today’s so-called “minorities” will overtake the non-Hispanic white majority in approximately 2050. Texas, Hawaii, California, and New Mexico are known as “major-ity-minority” states, where non-Hispanic whites are in the minority.

Texas A&M University’s Hernandez believes that there is a driving need to market the wildlife profession and the importance of wildlife in general

to diverse audiences. “If people aren’t informed and don’t have a connection to nature,” he notes, “apathy may arise regarding wildlife and conserva-tion laws and policies, because they won’t be able to relate.”

Richard Wadleigh, Native American liaison for the USDA-APHIS, has a different take on the need for a diverse workforce. He cites studies led by the late human development scholar, Daniel Jordan of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, on the importance of including diverse perspectives when addressing intricate issues. “One of the things that he found was that the most any one person—because of their culture and the barriers that they’ve picked up in their lives—the most anybody could understand of these truly complex issues facing us in the world today is 25 percent.”

In other words, no one person can fully compre-hend a problem; multiple perspectives are not only desirable, they are necessary. The wildlife profes-sion will always need fresh perspectives to generate creative solutions to problems, from restoring endangered species to solidifying conservation laws and policies. “What I’ve learned is, diversity within a culture is not only a nice thing, it’s not only a good thing to have because everyone should have a fair shake,” says Wadleigh. “But for me it’s a driving passion, because without it, we’re never going to solve the issues.”

Katherine Unger is a science writer for The Wildlife Society.

New Mexico State University student Jamie Joe holds a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) captured as part of a summer-long research project.

Credit: Darrell J. Pehr/New Mexico State University

For links to government demographic fi gures, studies on diversity, and information about minorities in the wildlife profession, read this article online at wildlifejournals.org.


Learning Like a Mountain

T his is a story about scientifi c discovery, good intentions, failures, and learning. I gave a version of this story as the keynote address

at the 2007 TWS Western Section meeting, themed “Thinking like a Mountain.” The title refl ects the fact that I am a slow learner who has yet to think like a mountain, as Aldo Leopold advocated in his famous essay.

My experience conserving wildlife corridors began in 1988, when I started a fi ve-year study of moun-tain lions (Puma concolor) in southern California. At the time, I had no intention of studying corri-dors and no idea that conserving connectivity would become a dominant theme of my scientifi c and professional career.

My fi rst scientifi c discovery was grim: Mountain lions were on the road to extinction in every southern California mountain range. As the encirclement of each mountain range became complete, each mountain lion population would wink out, one by one. I also discovered that it didn’t have to end that way. In 1990, mountain lions were still moving between mountain ranges. If they could continue to do so, they could survive in every linked mountain range. More importantly, by radio-tagging cubs, I learned that these animals would fi nd and use narrow, highly disturbed corridors through urban areas. I imagined how successful corridors would be if we designed them to facilitate movement by animals. Not just mountain lions, but also badgers, jackrabbits, bighorn sheep, arroyo toads, steelhead trout, and even plants and invertebrates.

Working for a ConnectionAs a recipient of these scientifi c insights, I felt obliged to bring them to the attention of manag-ers. I published scientifi c papers on my fi ndings, but I knew that wasn’t enough. So for several years, I fought against proposed highways and housing developments that would sever corridors in my study area. I wrote scathing critiques of environ-mental impact reports and testifi ed at hearings on proposed projects. I wrote letters to the editor and helped reporters craft news stories. I was twice plaintiff in a lawsuit. Typically I’d end up with a

few mitigations that left the corridor worse off, but perhaps not as bad off as it would have been. Reacting to proposals to destroy connectivity is like fi ghting a one-way ratchet: Sometimes you’ll stop a bad action, sometimes you’ll reduce the impact on connectivity, but you’ll never permanently protect or restore a corridor.

This work had to be done and I’m glad I did it. But fi ghting development proposals is not a strategy for success. A victory may stop one bad project, but next year there will be another pro-posal, just as bad, on the same piece of ground. It took me seven years to fi gure out that we could only win if we moved beyond reacting to bad proposals and put forward a positive proposal for a connected landscape.

The breakthrough came in 1998 when I worked with 15 conservation biologists to develop the “South Coast Regional Report,” which identifi ed 10 areas critical to connecting the major wildlands of southern California. Instead of gasping at maps of the latest development that would sever connec-tivity, we created a map refl ecting our positive vision for the land. I was so excited that my hand trembled when I was fi rst asked to help draw lines on the map. Instead of simply trying to slow down the rate at which things worsened, fi nally I was working for a conserved landscape—I had a ratchet that worked in the right direction.

Lead by Serving I admire my colleagues on the “South Coast Regional Report,” and I treasure my memories of our effort. But ultimately the report was a fi ne positive vision that collected dust. The problem was not its vision, but the fact that the authors were 15 PhDs who wanted to help the befuddled manage-ment agencies. While I’m sure we did help some managers think about a positive vision for a connected wild system, many managers saw that our map failed to connect some important wild-lands. If they had been part of the process, they might have agreed with our priorities, but instead they’d been handed a map and told to “make it happen.” Worse yet, most managers, already forced to read the mountain of paperwork from their own

By Paul Beier

LESSONS ON CONSERVING HABITAT CORRIDORS

Paul Beier is a Professor at Northern Arizona University’s School of Forestry in Flagstaff. He conducts research in wildlife ecology and conservation biology with a focus on conservation planning at landscape scales.

Courtesy of Paul Beier


agency, didn’t even have time to pick up the Regional Report. It gathered dust and the press ignored it. I had failed. Instead of telling manag-ers, “Trust me, I’m a scientist,” I needed to say, “I trust you to identify needs for connectivity; I’m ready to work with you to develop sound and fair ways to meet those needs.”

In November 2000, a nascent NGO named South Coast Wildlands gave me the opportunity to go back and do it right. South Coast Wildlands and fi ve co-sponsors invited 250 people to map a connected conservation landscape for California. The workshop included a few scientists but was dominated by managers, all of whom were con-cerned about the increasing isolation of the lands and populations they managed. These people knew more than I did about what was important. They loved the land as much as I did. They were pas-sionate about creating a landscape that was more than the sum of its parts, because they owned the parts. The resulting “Missing Linkages” report, released in August 2001, included a map of 232 potential linkages in California, and instantly became the primary reference book on connectiv-ity issues for agencies, consultants, and corridor advocates in California. On the release date, almost every daily newspaper in the state carried a positive front-page story on the report. This good press was directly related to the collaborative nature of the workshop. When a newspaper called the offi ces of their local wildlands, they found someone who had been at the workshop and was eager to point out which local linkages were at risk and why it was important to the readers of the paper.

Collaborating Skills Turning the 232 potential linkages into conserved corridors required prioritizing them and develop-ing detailed conservation plans for selected areas. In August 2001, 10 days after the release of the statewide “Missing Linkages” report, South Coast Wildlands invited representatives from 12 state, federal, and private conservation groups to discuss how to prioritize areas and develop plans for the 69 potential linkages in southern California. At the meeting, we (I was now part of South Coast Wildlands) did not mention that we had no budget, no offi ce, and no legal status. As it turned out, our miniscule size became our strength. We walked into the meeting prepared to negotiate anything—except the goal of conserving and restoring connectivity. We had a list of a dozen priority linkages and a proposed analytic ap-proach, but they were all on the table. When our

Female mountain lion and cub move through the Santa Ana mountains.

partners suggested we hold another workshop to identify the top priority linkages, we enthusiastically agreed. When they suggested changes to our approach and what each report should contain, we again agreed.

We walked out the door with pledges of fi nancial support, which soon snowballed. Within weeks, we held a prioritization workshop, which produced a list of 15 priority linkages that partially overlapped our original list of 12. Instead of relying solely on scientists to prioritize linkages, we invited every interested party to the workshop. After participants saw the priorities resulting from the fi rst weighting scheme, they argued to change the weights. It took hours, but at the end of the day, each participant agreed that the fi nal criteria were better than the scheme each of us had advocated at the start of the day. And everybody owned the fi nal priorities.

At every juncture, we had another workshop. As a scientist, I took a while to embrace the

Credit: Donna Krucki

Cre

dit:

iSto

ckP

hoto

.com

/VFK

A


idea of inviting non-scientists to participate in scientifi c issues. But science is nothing more than an approach to knowledge that is transparent, evidence-based, logical, and open to correction. No assumption or logical chain in ecology is so esoteric that a manager can’t understand it. A scientist who wants to be effective simply must invite managers to participate in the science. Science is improved by having managers challenge our assumptions and offer alternative evidence and alternative interpretations of the evidence. In every case, the result was better than what I could have invented on my own. I now see that my role in conservation is to insist on scientifi c rigor, consis-tency, and honesty, and to radically trust our partners to grapple with the scientifi c issues and set the agenda.

Leadership is not “getting others to follow.” Leadership is engaging diverse people to develop fair, sound, transparent and comprehensive solutions to diffi cult problems. If South Coast Wild-lands had produced 15 linkage plans on its own, the plans would have attracted some interest and then been placed aside. Instead, we asked all interested stakeholders, “How can we help all of you identify and protect the most important wildlife linkages in southern California?” The stakeholders became partners. They threw money at us. When our reports were complete, they rushed to implement them. Ironically, they gave us more authority than we asked for—precisely because we didn’t ask for it but instead offered to serve.

If you’ve ever experienced “workshop burnout,” you may cringe at the idea of endless workshops. The key is to make sure that the goal of each workshop is clearly defi ned, and to explain what it is—and what it isn’t—to every invitee. Not all stakeholders need or want to attend every work-shop. In one paragraph, you can provide enough information to let each person decide whether to attend. If you can’t say it in one paragraph, your goal is not clearly defi ned. Some workshops will be large, others small, but each will have the right people engaged in the task at hand. Invite appro-priate skeptics, real-estate developers, and other potential opponents, and let them invite them-selves. Such openness demonstrates that your process is transparent, honest, and inclusive. You have nothing to lose and much to gain by inviting anyone who wants to advance the scientifi c rigor of the conservation plan and its implementation.

No Species Left BehindHistorically, most linkage plans have been devel-oped to serve the movement needs of one or two focal species, typically large carnivores. In contrast, each of our linkage plans was designed to serve the needs of at least a dozen focal species, sometimes including plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and fi sh.

I encourage all conservation planners to use many focal species. We want to conserve not only populations but also their evolutionary potential, which requires gene fl ow and ability to respond

Credit: Paul Beier

Credit: Clint Cabanero, South Coast Wildlands

ABOVE: The 15 main wildlife linkages in southern California RIGHT: Lisa Lyren (USGS), Randy Botta (Calif F&G) and Kristeen Penrod (South Coast Wildlands) at a workshop to identify focal species for linkage designs in San Diego County in 2002.

Los AngelesRiverside

San Diego


to climate change. With imperfect knowledge of which species most need connectivity, the best strategy is to have a large group of focal species that serve as a collective umbrella for all species, natural patterns, and ecological processes we want to conserve. Our focal species included area-sensitive species because they’d be fi rst to disap-pear when connectivity was lost, habitat specialists because they would most need closely interspersed patches of each vegetation type, and barrier-sensitive species because they would dictate how to manage roads, fences, lighting, pollution, and domestic animals in the linkage. Corridors de-signed for multiple species will be most similar to functioning ecosystems, rather than narrow gauntlets a few animals might use with a bit of luck.

Large carnivores best serve biodiversity if they are part of a large group of focal species. Many are habitat generalists and are able to move quickly through a long corridor that would never be useful to a habitat specialist such as a tree squirrel. Perhaps more important, successful implementa-tion of a “carnivore corridor” could have a negative umbrella effect because conservation investors will become less receptive to subsequent proposals to provide corridors for less charismatic species.

Beyond Crossing the RoadA linkage plan is not just about getting animals across the road. Conserving land will not create a functional linkage if major barriers are not made permeable; an excellent crossing structure will not create a functional linkage if the adjacent land is

A linkage plan is not just about getting animals across the road.

urbanized; and an integrated land acquisition-highway mitigation project could be jeopardized by inappropriate practices such as predator control, fencing, or inappropriate artifi cial night lighting. Plans should address all these issues. Suggestions to engage human residents as stewards of the linkage should be included. Although coercive measures are unlikely to be successful, collabora-tive measures should be effective, just as they were in other aspects of linkage design.

And don’t be afraid to fail. Many of you are engaged in conservation plans as ambitious as mine. If you are thinking big in terms of species, partners, vision, and issues, you are bound to fail sometimes, and some failures may put you back to square one. As Andrew Knight said, conserva-tionist practitioners must embrace failure as the rich source of our learning. We have much to learn from each other.

Special acknowledgement goes to Kristeen Penrod, Dan Silver, Claire Schotterbeck, Geary Hund, Rick Rayburn, Gordon Ruser, Connie Spenger, and David Myers.

For more information on wildlife corridors, go to www.scwildlands.org, www.corridordesign.org and oak.ucc.nau.edu/pb1/.

Plans are underway to connect wildlife ranges between the Santa Susana and San Gabriel mountains.

Credit: Paul Beier


Minimizing Infectious Disease Risks in the Field

M ost of us who chose vocations related to wildlife biology did so because we love being outdoors and close to wildlife. The

risks of conducting wildlife studies are numerous and range from skin cancer associated with sunburn to being mauled by a bear, yet we willingly accept those risks as part of the price for doing what we love. Indeed, the more we discover about nature the more risks we become aware of. This is especially true in relation to infectious diseases associated with wildlife. Of the 175 diseases that were described as “emerging infectious diseases” in 2001, 75 percent of them are zoonoses—diseases that are transmitted between vertebrate animals and humans (Taylor et al. 2001). Fortunately, the “emergence” of these diseases does not mean that wildlife biology is becoming more dangerous. Although a few of these diseases may be truly new or, at least, new to certain geographic areas (e.g., West Nile virus encephalitis in the Americas), most have been around for thousands of years but were not recognized until recently. Our new knowledge of the existence and of the natural history of these diseases enables us to take precautions to avoid them.

The hazards associated with wildlife studies have been partially addressed from several points of view, ranging from specifi c disease agents (e.g., hantaviruses) to museum collections to the respon-sibilities of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (see bibliography). Because hazards are numerous and risks vary according to the geo-graphic location, the research subject, the method-ologies applied, and the degree of invasiveness of sampling required, no single source can provide all the answers. In the end, it will be the individual

investigator and his/her institutional safety professionals who are responsible for extracting the relevant information from the available literature, balancing it with an ample portion of common sense, and devising an appropriate safety plan for each investigation.

Although the natural environment poses a variety of physical and chemical hazards, we limit our review to infectious disease hazards to wildlife biologists with special emphasis on zoonotic diseases. It would be impractical to address all of these infectious diseases, or even the 800 zoonotic diseases, or the 130 or so “emerging” zoonoses. Instead, we briefl y describe the principal diseases and their prevention, and provide references and links to online sources or articles for those inter-ested in acquiring additional details. More infor-mation about most of the diseases mentioned in this article can be found on the CDC website. See the A-Z index of diseases.

General ConsiderationsIt is important that fi eld biologists familiarize themselves with the specifi c disease hazards of the region in which they will be working so that appropriate prophylactic measures, vaccines, and medicines can be obtained. These may include vaccines for yellow fever, rabies, hepatitis A and B, tetanus, typhoid, meningococcal meningitis and Japanese encephalitis; prophylaxis against malaria and traveler’s diarrhea; and carrying a water fi lter and a fi rst aid kit. Before leaving home for an international trip, we recommend consulting a physician who specializes in travel medicine. A regional guide to infectious disease threats and recommended vaccines can be found on the WHO website or consult the CDC “Yellow Book.” For a collection of important and useful information concerning the location you intend to visit, consult the CDC traveler’s health site.

Although in this article we emphasize the appropri-ate choice and use of personal protective equip-ment (PPE), even the most careful use of PPE in the fi eld will be of little value to the biologist who returns at the end of the day to a rodent-infested cabin. Inadequate or rustic housing at fi eld stations

By James N. Mills Ph.D., Darin S. Carroll Ph.D., Marcia A. Revelez MS, Brian R. Amman Ph.D., Kenneth L. Gage Ph.D., Sherry Henry Ph.D., MPH, RBP, and Russell L. Regnery Ph.D.

The fi ndings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the De-partment of Health and Human Service.

Dr. Mills is a disease ecologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Credit: Jim Gathany/CDC

Co-author Affi liations

Darin S. Carroll, Ph.D., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Marcia A. Revelez MS, University of Oklahoma

Brian R. Amman Ph.D., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Kenneth L. Gage, Ph.D., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Sherry Henry, Ph.D., MPH, RBP, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Russell L. Regnery Ph. D., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


or even well-developed facilities might provide a home to numerous disease-carrying hosts or vectors. Window screens or bed nets (which may be chemically treated) or tents with the netting in good repair will help protect from vector-borne diseases, including West Nile virus encephalitis in North America. Care should be taken to ensure that eating, sleeping, and working quarters are “rodent-proofed” and environments are kept clean and free of food or other attractants for rodents or other wildlife.

Environmental HazardsWater-borne diseases: Although contaminated drinking water is a frequent source of infectious disease, one does not have to actually drink the water to become infected. Boots, waders, and rubber gloves to protect exposed skin from stand-ing water may prevent infection with any of several parasitic and bacterial diseases, including leptospi-rosis. Boiling drinking or bathing water for one minute (three minutes at high altitude) will kill most disease-causing organisms. Chlorine and iodine treatment are often used, but may not be effective against Giardia or Cryptosporidium. Water purifi ers that combine chemical treatment with a micropore fi lter provide the most effective treatment. A new technology, the portable UV light pen, has the potential to provide a convenient alter-native to purifi cation systems.

Vector-borne diseases: Vector-borne diseases are those viral, bacterial, or parasitic diseases that are acquired by the bite of an infected arthropod (usually insects, ticks, or mites). Some of the most common include West Nile virus, malaria, dengue, Lyme disease, plague, scrub typhus, Rocky Moun-tain spotted fever, and tularemia. Risk of acquiring these diseases can be reduced by wearing long pants and long-sleeved shirts and using an insect repellent containing DEET. In tick-infested areas, tucking the pant legs into the socks or boots reduces the risk of tick attachment. The application of repellents to the clothing is also helpful; perme-thrin is especially useful against ticks. For addi-tional information, visit the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases website.

Directly transmitted zoonoses: The directly transmitted zoonoses include those for which human infection results from direct contact with the pathogen in host tissues, fl uids, or excretions, or from inhalation of infectious aerosols, animal bites, contact with contaminated fomites, or ingestion of contaminated food or water. Although most infections require contact with an infected host, several diseases may be acquired from environmental sources. The spores of Bacillus anthracis, which causes anthrax, and Clostridium tetani, which causes tetanus, are viable for extend-ed periods in the environment. Anthrax may be

A CDC mammalogist wears full protective equipment (powered air purifying respirator, disposable gown and latex gloves) while taking tissue samples from a bat in a Marburg virus ecological investigation in Uganda.

Credit: Chris Black/WHO


acquired by handling contaminated carcasses or hides of ungulates or through contact with con-taminated soil, while tetanus is typically acquired when C. tetani is introduced through a wound. All wildlife workers should receive the tetanus toxoid vaccine and a booster every 10 years. Wounds, especially those involving the potential introduc-tion of foreign objects or soil, should be assessed by a physician. An anthrax vaccine is available for high-risk groups, including veterinarians and wildlife workers who may handle infected animals or hides. Fungal infections such as valley fever (caused by Coccidioides immitis) and histoplasmo-sis (Histoplasma capsulatum) may be acquired by inhaling the spore-like infectious structures present in contaminated soils or in bird or bat droppings. Respirators with particulate fi lters are a recommended precaution when working in high-risk environments such as bat caves. Respirators should be fi t-tested by a safety professional to ensure they provide adequate protection.

The advent of highly pathogenic avian infl uenza (HPAI) H5N1, originally detected in Asia, has caused concern because of its potential for world-wide spread in domestic and wild bird populations and its high virulence in humans. The USGS has developed recommendations for wildlife workers and the CDC has published interim guidance for investigators involved in avian mortality surveys.

Precautions for Animal HandlingTrapping and handling wild animals increases the risk of injury to investigators by animal-infl icted wounds or those acquired from handling traps or other capture devices. Risk of disease transmission depends on the collection method, the species handled, and the type of sample being collected. Even minimally invasive handling (without collection of tissues or fl uids) involves some risk of pathogen transmission. The risk of a bite or scratch is always present, and animals may injure them-selves and contaminate the trap or net with blood

HANTAVIRUS PULMONARY SYNDROME CASES IN THE UNITED STATES

Approximate location of exposure for 465 cases of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome that have been confi rmed in the United States since the disease was described in 1993. Although the disease is most common in the western U.S., cases have occurred in 32 states, and as far east as Long Island.

Map credit: CDC Special Pathogens Branch


as well as urine or feces. Animals may then aerosol-ize these substances as they attempt to escape, especially as the investigator approaches or handles the trap or net. Common-sense precautions can help to minimize the risk of a fi eld researcher having skin or mucous membrane contact with infectious agents from captured animals. Lace-up shoes, long pants and long-sleeved shirts help prevent abrasions from briars, sharp trap surfaces or animal scratches that would breach the body’s primary defense, the skin. When handling traps containing captured animals, the animals them-selves, or their carcasses, the use of gloves, eye protection, and protective clothing is recommend-ed. Rubber or latex gloves (sometimes worn under leather gloves) offer the advantage of being impermeable to liquids, and they can be disinfect-ed. Attention should be given to the way in which traps or animals are carried in order to avoid contact of skin or clothing with blood, urine, or feces, or the proximity of traps or animals to the face where infectious aerosols are most dangerous. For example, avoid carrying stacks of traps in your arms; carry traps or hold a few bags at a time, and keep them below the waist. Ectoparasites may move from the trap or animal onto the human host. Light-colored clothing or protective clothing should be used to allow the individual to see ticks, fl eas, and other arthropods that may leave the trap or animal. Consider the direction of the wind when working with traps or animals so as to avoid the movement of infectious aerosols toward the face. Potentially contaminated capture devices, such as traps or nets, should be decontaminated with a commercial germicidal solution before storage or re-use.

Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers—A Special CaseOne group of rodent-borne zoonotic viruses is suffi ciently dangerous—up to 50 percent fatality in humans—to merit its own set of safety recommen-dations. These include the arenaviruses that cause the South American hemorrhagic fevers and Lassa fever in West Africa, the hantaviruses associated with hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) in the Americas, and hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) in Asia and Europe. These viruses may be transmitted from an infected host to humans by bite, by direct contact with broken skin or mucous membranes, or by inhalation of infectious aerosols of virus shed in urine or saliva. Most of the known hantaviruses and arenaviruses are carried by two families of rodents (as classifi ed in Wilson and Reeder, 2005). The Muridae consists of the old world rats and mice, which are associated

Field biologists tag deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) as part of a mark-recapture study in Montana. Note personal protective equipment for non-invasive procedures (half-face respirators with N-100 fi lters, latex gloves, and goggles or safety glasses).

Credit: CDC

CDC personnel free a bat from a net during a Marburg virus study in Uganda.

Credit: Pierre Formenty


with HFRS and Lassa fever. The Cricetidae con-tains the new world rats and mice, which are associated with HPS and the South American hemorrhagic fevers, and the voles, which occur throughout the northern hemisphere and are associated with a mild form of HFRS in Europe. Until 1993, there was only one recognized autoch-thonous American hantavirus – Prospect Hill virus, associated with the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and not known to cause any human disease.

In 1993 HPS, caused by Sin Nombre virus, was identifi ed in association with the deer mouse in the southwestern United States. Now, there are over 35 recognized hantaviruses, associated with an approximately equal number of rodent hosts throughout North, Central, and South America and more are added to the list each year. CDC research-ers and collaborators now treat all murid and cricetid rodents as though they were potentially infected with a hantavirus or arenavirus. Recent discoveries suggest that another group of hantavi-ruses might also be associated with another group of small mammals, the shrews (order Soricomor-pha, formerly Insectivora, family Soricidae). Although shrew-associated hantaviruses have not been linked to human disease, our knowledge of these viruses and their natural histories is scant.

Based on years of experience working with hosts of hemorrhagic fever viruses, CDC researchers developed a set of standard guidelines that they recommend be adopted whenever conducting invasive sampling (collecting blood or tissues) from potential rodent hosts of hemorrhagic fever viruses (rodents in the families Muridae and Cricetidae). These guidelines include strict adherence to the recommendations listed under “Precautions for Animal Handling” above, plus the requirement to anesthetize animals and use a special respirator when blood or tissue sampling is being conducted. This respirator should be a fi tted half- or full-face respirator with high-effi ciency particulate air (HEPA) fi lters (designated N-100, P-100 or R-100). Detailed sampling guidelines are published, and are available online on the CDC website.

Specifi c procedures such as preparation of study skins, preservation of carcasses, karyotyping, and handling and storage of tissues for hosts of hemor-rhagic fever viruses also can pose risks. Safety recommendations for these procedures are dis-cussed in other sources (Carroll et al. in press [and references therein]; Mills et al. 1995; Wilson et al. 1996).


Two groups of viruses that are most likely hosted by bats cause severe disease in humans but their natural history and mechanisms of infection in humans are still so poorly understood that specifi c handling recommendations for hosts have yet to be developed. These include the fi loviruses that cause Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers in Africa (up to 80 percent fatality in humans), and the henipaviruses that cause Nipah and Hendra virus encephalitis in South Asia and the Pacifi c. Until more is known about the mechanisms of transmis-sion of these viruses, CDC researchers and their colleagues working in affected areas have adopted the same sampling guidelines as for the rodent-borne hemorrhagic fever viruses.

Wildlife biologists are encouraged to consult with their institution’s health and safety professionals to determine the appropriate safety precautions to be used for their specifi c work. These professionals can perform an assessment of risk and recommend protective clothing, respiratory protection, and vaccinations for the activity or project. Public health scientists at the CDC and other government and non-government institutions are continuously striving to identify risks, assess their importance to wildlife workers, and develop effective and practical risk-reduction guidelines. The authors welcome comments and suggestions from biolo-gists in the fi eld.

See this article online at wildlifejournals.org for linked websites, full bibliographical information, and zoonotic diseases that pose a risk for wildlife professionals in the fi eld.


EDUCATION

Training Minorities in Wildlife Biology

T he Wildlife Society (TWS), along with federal and state wildlife agencies, has actively promoted diversity and the

recruitment of qualified minorities into the profession for decades. However, as a USDA Wildlife Services (USWS) Workforce Plan reported in 1998, “…while the USWS has tried to diversify its workforce, a significant diversity gap in the pool of qualified individuals from which to pull has contributed to the program’s inability to reflect U.S. labor force changes.” This diversity gap is typical for employers of wildlife professionals that wish to promote cultural diversity in their workforce, in large part because universities simply do not produce many minority wildlife professionals.

In a 1999 report entitled “Challenges and Opportunities for Increasing the Diversity in the Wildlife Profession and The Wildlife Society,” the Minority Affairs Committee of TWS laid out a plan to increase the pool of qualified minorities and diversify the wildlife profession. Among other recommendations, the report suggested establishing new partnerships and strengthening existing relationships with institutions of higher education, particularly Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES).

One such minority-serving institution, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University (AAMU), was recently included in TWS’s online directory of colleges and universities that offer wildlife education programs. AAMU is an HBCU with an 1890 land grant mission to train professionals, conduct research, and serve society. In 2002, AAMU became the first, and so far the only, HBCU with a forestry program accredited by the Society of American Foresters.

In 2003, the Center for Forestry, Ecology, and Wildlife (CFEW) at AAMU developed a minor in wildlife biology which provides the necessary coursework for majors in forestry, biology, and environmental science to qualify for federal wildlife biologist positions. Aided by grants from the USDA Forest Service and the USDA Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service, AAMU has been able to offer its predominantly

African-American student body the curriculum, experiential learning, tuition and work-study assistance, facilities, and professional development experiences necessary to compete for wildlife biologist and other natural resources positions. Additional support in the form of research grants to CFEW faculty from the National Science Foundation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Alabama Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and others have allowed the fledgling program to build the capacity necessary to train wildlife graduate students who can earn masters and doctoral degrees in Plant and Soil Science.

The wildlife biology minor includes nine semester hours of wildlife management subjects and 12 hours in zoology and ecology subjects. Graduates who have completed the minor and whose majors include eight hours of botany or plant-related courses meet federal guidelines for wildlife biologist positions. Undergraduate courses in wildlife currently include Wildlife Biology and Identification, Principles of Wildlife Management, Wildlife-Forestry Relationships, and Wildlife Techniques. Wildlife Techniques is also offered as a graduate-level course with additional expectations for the enrolled students. These courses are instructed by a TWS-certified wildlife biologist.

An important strategy for success in recruiting and retaining students in our curricula is to provide hands-on field and laboratory experiences. In addition to conventional teaching strategies in the classroom, our undergraduate students have learned about wildlife management by capturing and marking wildlife, using radio telemetry to locate wild animals in the forest, estimating population sizes and home ranges of animals, observing and analyzing animal behavior in the wild, demonstrating habitat improvement methods to schoolchildren and community groups, and assisting graduate students with various wildlife research projects.

For example, since 2003, undergraduate students have directly aided in the preparation (taxidermy) of most of the more than 100 study skins used in the wildlife identification course. This experience supplemented training in vertebrate zoology and anatomy courses offered at AAMU. Hands-on

By William Stone and Yong Wang

William Stone, Certified Wildlife Biologist, is Associate Professor and Yong Wang is Professor in the Center for Forestry, Ecology, and Wildlife in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at Alabama A&M University.

Courtesy of AAMU

Courtesy of AAMU

SQN job no:0706048 Client: Wildlife Society Project: The Wildlife Professional — Winter 2007 Date: 20NOV07 Stage: FinalSize: 8.5 x 11 inches Ink: 4/4


activities may also help awaken students headed for the medical profession to the possibilities of a career path in the wildlife profession.

Using activities to attract students from other biological disciplines is not the only recruiting strategy employed at AAMU. Undeclared majors are also vigorously pursued on campus, albeit with less success, and outreach to K-12 children at schools near campus is employed to generate interest in wildlife and natural resource disciplines among minority youth. This effort is greatly aided by college students who are active in the AAMU student chapter of the Society of American Foresters and the AAMU campus ecology chapter of the Ecological Society of America. Their service projects—developing outdoor classrooms, planting trees, installing bluebird houses and nest boxes, and teaching nature activities to school children—have helped our students develop professionally while planting the seeds for the recruitment of future wildlife students.

AAMU students have also received training to teach Project Learning Tree, a national environmental education program, and related curricula. They have traveled to professional conferences to present on their activities related to outdoor classroom development and wildlife biology research projects. Exposing undergraduates to the professional community as well as to local communities not only helps increase student retention, but also provides an opportunity for tuition assistance and work-study opportunities through laboratory and fi eld research activities conducted by wildlife faculty members.

We and other AAMU faculty have learned many lessons from our experiences with training minority students in wildlife and natural resource disciplines. These include:

1. Cast a wide net while recruiting, but identify suitable candidates early in their college career so they can develop the capability and the commitment to complete the program.

2. Attract and retain bright students with experiential learning, which should focus on upper division students who have demonstrated the discipline required to complete rigorous math and science courses.

3. Encourage the formation of study groups within courses and networks of upperclassmen with lower division students to establish mentoring relationships.

4. Stress the importance of developing a professional attitude and appropriate behavior and ethics to students throughout the program.

5. Teach courses at night and on weekends to accommodate student schedules.

6. Expose students to management and research issues through direct involvement.

We have also gained more general insights into how to include cultural minorities in the wildlife profession, such as:

1. Provide wildlife programs at minority institutions in addition to attracting minority students to wildlife programs at traditional land grant institutions.

2. Coordinate with employers on job placement for graduates to assure the commitment of fi eld offi ce personnel to mentor new employees.

3. Provide a comprehensive student recruitment, retention, and employment program—a “Cradle to Grave” education strategy.

4. Gain agency commitment to workforce diversity at the fi eld offi ce level.

Our initial goal of establishing a wildlife biology minor at AAMU has been met, and we are continuing to move forward with plans for the

AAMU student Kelvin Young encounters a hognose snake on a fi eld trip as an undergraduate. Young is now working towards his master’s degree under William Stone.

Credit: Zachary Felixs

continued on page 43


A Personal View of Diversity

T he importance of diversity is a key concept in wildlife conservation. Biodiversity is the currency by which we often measure the

health or integrity of an ecosystem. Current losses in biodiversity are well documented and the focus of many of our wildlife research and conservation efforts. When certain animals disappear, whether charismatic predator or inconspicuous keystone species, natural communities lose some value. Some function or aspect of the ecological ma-chine—the “cogs” that Aldo Leopold admonishes us to keep—misfi res or is not all that it can be. Though most of us have spent countless hours pondering what diversity means in wild communities, I think it is time we consider diversity more from the human perspective, including how it might impact natural resources management and our profession into the future.

I’ve been a practicing wildlife ecologist for almost 20 years and a birder, hunter, and nature lover for most of my life. That I happen to be an African-American with these labels gives me a somewhat unique perspective and appreciation for diversity on several levels. During my career I’ve studied how diversity varies among bird and herpetofaunal communities exposed to various forest manage-ment practices. On birding and hunting excursions, I’ve had the privilege of watching fl ocks of neotrop-ical migrants arrive on the edge of southwesterly winds and been witness to the secrets of wary wildlife viewed from a deer stand on a crisp autumn morning. Appreciating different species of wildlife has defi ned my career and enriched my life. Perhaps, as Edward O. Wilson’s biophilia hypoth-esis suggests, this appreciation is something engrained in all of us.

And so we count—using well known metrics like species richness, Shannon and Simpson’s indexing method, and diversity indices—to give us some idea of the variety that exists in a given place at a given time. However, such estimates only paint a partial picture of the complexity that exists in any community. Sure, the wildlife profession currently harbors a diverse array of personalities, opinions, and even increasing gender diversity. However, through all my years of counting, I have come to realize that the ethnic diversity among North American wildlife biologists, students, and even

wildlife hobbyists (birders, hunters, etc … ) is painfully easy to assess: It is woefully low.

As I sit at most professional gatherings—among hundreds or among dozens—I am often the “only one.” At conferences, my graduate students are occasionally asked as to the whereabouts of Dr. Lanham, as I stand right there. And all too often, the members of the ladies’ garden clubs sometimes fi nd it hard to hide their initial shock when a large black man stands before them to give the backyard bird talk. My reaction vacillates between frustra-tion, anger, and amusement. Right or wrong, most folks have in their minds what a wildlife biologist does and just as likely what a wildlife biologist should look like. I and a few others, like Charlie Nilon, Phadrea Ponds, and Ray Carthy, challenge that overwhelmingly white and male expectation. More African-American, or Latino, or Native American natural resource professionals are certainly needed. Diverse perspectives in the classroom, in the fi eld, and at the boardroom table can only strengthen our efforts to manage our natural resources sustainably and with everyone in mind. However, as we concern our-selves with diversifying our workplace, we need to be even more concerned about enlightening future wildlife professionals and the general citizenry about the importance of having a diverse ethnic audience involved and engaged with the broad spectrum of natural resources issues—including wildlife conservation.

Given the rapidly changing face of America, including the diverse hues that defi ne our nation is a critical factor in how effectively we save what is left of our natural resources. Inequities in health care, education, and income are nefarious and well documented among communities of color. That these communities are also frequently and dispro-portionately affected by environmental degrada-tion—toxic exposure, polluted water, and lack of access to green and open spaces—has implications for the lives of humans and non-humans alike. Ultimately, because we are all “downstream” and somehow connected, the human and wildlife condi-tion will suffer if we don’t become more inclusive at all levels, from preschool to professional.

For most of us in the wildlife and natural resources profession, our motivations lie in a connection to

By J. Drew Lanham

J. Drew Lanham, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at Clemson University, a member of The Wildlife Professional’s Editorial Advisory Board, and a Certifi ed Wildlife Biologist.

Credit: Clemson University


wild things and to the wild places in which they dwell. The basis for our love affair with wildlife is determined, like many other proclivities, by a deep-seated innate drive—nature—and by the infl uences of our surroundings and personal experiences—nurture. I was fortunate to grow up in a rural environment with parents who farmed and taught life and physical sciences. Back then, cable televi-sion and video games didn’t interfere with the reality that lay outside. I learned about wildlife fi rsthand. Later, during my undergraduate training in zoology, a caring advisor, who just happened to be a Caucasian limnologist, saw promise in my passion for wild things and places and set my feet fi rmly on the path to the wildlife profession. Dr. Jim Schindler’s attention was the kind of exposure and mentoring that can change a life’s course.

My own experience, however, seems to be a rare exception. For most of today’s children, African-Americans among them, the music of bird song and the thrill of puddle jumping are frequently sup-planted by some exercise in virtual reality. Percep-tions of nature, then, are anything but fi rsthand, and left to the design of cable television and snake wrangling. Ignorance of the natural world and how one fi ts into it, in my opinion, narrows focus, limits choices, and perhaps relegates life’s options to a world encased in concrete, steel, and megapixels. That we leave a signifi cant portion of our popula-tion—black, white, or otherwise—so deprived, has serious implications for how wildlife will fare far into the future.

After years of wondering where the others like me were, I have come to a few conclusions. Obvious and most sobering among them is that profession-ally, we African-American wildlifers are rare birds. We do, in fact, exist, but the chances of seeing one of us are slim. Our numbers are simply not there and don’t seem to be growing. Years ago, lunch with a trio of my African-American peers meant that the rather cozy booth contained a sizeable portion of the North American population! Amused and saddened at this realization, we joked about the ecological concepts of dispersion and talked seriously about how to address the issue.

In years of trying to recruit and encourage young black students into the profession, I have met with limited success. Career fairs and recruiting trips have been the primary mode of operation, but in all those years, I have netted only one African-American graduate student thus far and seen two African-American undergraduates come through my institution with wildlife majors.

Science-savvy students of color are aggressively advised to pursue the fi elds of engineering or medicine once their talents are identifi ed—often in their middle-school years. In my experience, the advisement often excludes natural resources fi elds, which are portrayed as unrewarding and culturally unwelcoming professions. A major in wildlife or forestry is seen as a path unworthy of the most intelligent students of any color. Many schools offer engineering camps to promising minority high school students or scholarships to those majoring in engineering or pre-medicine disci-plines. Few, I believe, offer such programs or support to promote natural resources-related majors and careers to students of color.

As in my situation, perhaps the difference comes from an individual taking the time to expose a young mind to the limitless possibilities that exist in the natural world, beyond the sometimes limited view of guidance or career counselors and others ill-informed about our profession. Perhaps part of the educational process needs to be directed at that level—teaching the teachers.

And so like any diversity-related issue we face in our work-a-day world of wildlife, the numbers, infl ated to indices and massaged by statistics, often do not tell the whole story. Yes, there are way too few people of color involved at any level—citizen to hobbyist to professional—in the conservation of wildlife and other natural resources. However, I do know that the seed exists. It must be cultured more fervently and nurtured. Although the multitude of factors entering into the lack of diversity in the wildlife profession are easy enough to point out—a lack of major-specifi c scholarships or fi nancially attractive graduate assistantships, a dearth of entry-level career opportunities, and low starting salaries among them—I think that many of the failures boil down to the interdiction coming too late in the educational process to affect a meaning-ful difference in the hearts and minds of those we should seek to include.

I don’t believe that these underserved are incapable or disinterested. They are simply underexposed. There is a love and appreciation for nature in the United States that defi nes so much of who we are as a people and as a nation. That passion lies dormant and untapped in so many who deserve a voice and who might make a large difference for the future of all of us—human and animal—and should be the clarion call for action from wildlife professionals to make a difference for diversity and all of our futures.


Hunting for Balance

F ew books can boast a title this accurate, and unintentionally at that. Relentlessly political and recklessly incorrect, The

Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting aims to give readers “straight facts that bust through the rhetoric, the anti-hunting propaganda, and the media bias on hunting.”

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting is duly broad but exasperatingly shallow. Frank Miniter, executive fi eld editor of the National Rifl e Associa-tion’s journal American Hunter, credits hunters with selfl essly upholding the nation’s social fabric and our glorious economy, at least when not distracted by protecting the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Narrative terrain encompasses 14 chapters thematically grouped into “The Humane Case for Hunting,” “Hunting as Conservation,” “America’s Real Environmentalists,” and “Hunting for a Future.” The call to hunt is fi rst buttressed with breathless tales of animal attacks on humans. Every chapter contains footnotes, mostly inter-views and press accounts, but also some citations from our Society journals. Insets and edge notes break up the monotony of a volume lacking illustrations or photos. The anecdotes vary from amusing to annoying, but they can be instructive too. I was surprised at the scope of Florida’s alligator-caused human fatalities. But since an especially heinous gator attack happened on September 11, 2001, my ignorance can hardly be blamed on the media’s anti-hunting conspiracy.

Arguably, the strongest chapter is Hunting’s Reformation, a brief sketch of U.S. hunting from colonial excess through and beyond the era of game restoration. The book’s erratic successes, as when deer are cleverly indicted as nature’s deadliest crea-ture, are diluted by the contradictions—and worse—elsewhere. In the course of posing a very intriguing hypothesis—unhunted bears in protect-ed areas carry out most human attacks—Miniter offers as evidence a recent horrifi c fatality of a young camper in Tennessee (p. 56). But that attack occurred inside the Cherokee National Forest where bear hunting with dogs is famously allowed.

Beyond errors of fact and omission, irrational confl ation is the book’s incurable defect. Benefi ts of lethal control and hunting are often described

interchangeably. Hunting won’t prevent a jet turbine from crossing paths with a gull or cormo-rant (p. 142). And it might be a good idea to ponder just how well Pennsylvania’s deer harvest has benefi ted forest regeneration in that common-wealth so far. Most tiredly, with the exception of chapter nine where “some environmentalists carry guns,” Miniter assumes that animal welfare activists equal environmentalists equal conserva-tion groups equal anti-hunting. Miniter argues that environmental groups are at fault for keeping predators on the Endangered Species list because wildlife offi cials did not warn outdoor enthusiasts about a rogue grizzly habituated to gut piles from hunter-killed elk (p. 45). Huh? To my knowledge, no conservation group opposed delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly on the grounds that it would be hunted. Several hailed delisting as a conservation success; those expressing caution feared removing protection too early might lead to what nobody wanted, an onerous re-listing. A superior test of how national conservation organizations react to

By J. Christopher Haney

J. Christopher Haney is Chief Scientist and Vice President of Conservation Science and Economics at Defenders of Wildlife.

Credit: Krista Schlyer

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting (ISBN 1596985216)By Frank Miniter, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 258 pp.

Used with permission from Regnery Publishing, Inc.


bear hunting can be validated by noting their general lack of response to renewed black bear hunts in Miniter’s backyard of New Jersey and nearby Maryland.

By way of disclosure, I work for one of the several non-profi t conservation groups impeached by the author for plotting to deprive hunters of due recognition for maintaining wildlife viability. Because I also hunt in several states each year, imagine my surprise to learn of my organization’s participation in this plot.

Let there be no mistake: Hunting needs promoters. It is an outdoor pursuit fallen on some lean times. While these demographic trends might cheer hunting’s opponents, all outdoor recreation is in jeopardy from our couch potato addiction to electronic entertainment. And the decline in hunting has potentially broad-reaching consequences: reduced funding for wildlife management, less land dedicated to conservation, over-browsing of vegetation, and higher auto insurance rates. Against that sobering reality, a book devoted to hunting advocacy deserves our considered inspection.

At least Miniter is an equal-opportunity confl ator. In his view, gun-rights activists are shooting sports enthusiasts who share a common cause with game hunters (p. 226). Stakeholder research tells us that what seem to be cohesive groups of consump-tive resource users turn out to be quite distinct. Given that, for most species in this country, hunting ceased being a conservation risk early last century, it is inconceivable how this book so misses the stance of wildlife conservation organizations toward hunting today. The Nature Conservancy allows hunting access on its private lands. The Sierra Club awards hunting trips as contest prizes. The Wilderness Society specializes in federal land protection for recreation, including hunting. Defenders of Wildlife, where I work, boosts the National Wildlife Refuge System used by hunters, when not working on species so dangerously imperiled (or maybe just poor-eating) that hunting is neither a problem nor a solution. And the National Wildlife Federation is not remotely anti-hunting (p. 75), an accusation Miniter levies repetitively at those who support predator restoration.

More than mere polemic, hunting is science and poetry too. Lacking any of the latter, what did this book really aim to achieve? Regnery launched the Politically Incorrect Guide To… series in response

to an elitism that it saw coloring today’s policy and media discourse. Given that the publisher is an outlet for movement conservatives like Coulter, Horowitz, and Maulkin, one cannot expect this book to be fair and balanced. It seeks to infl ame its base, using language such as “If you fi nd this outrageous, you should know…” (p. 39). So if you’re looking for a hunting reference to frame a course in game management, it’s best to keep searching. Still not convinced? Try to fi nd any relevance to hunting in the following: “… if residents of D.C. had the right to bear arms in self-defense, some the [sic] 165 D.C. rape victims of 2005 could have driven off or killed their attackers” (p. 222).

Ironically, this volume might attract true believers at the outer margins of both fringes: those who, out of political necessity, seek an intrigue that would deprive them of a sacred privilege, or those with passionate anti-hunting sentiments curious enough to peer at their opponent’s arguments. The rest of us, in the vast, boring center, can shake our heads and do something constructive … like traipse through a fi eld on a frosty, cobalt day in late November, primed with hope for a vertical burst of pheasant wings.


future. A colleague in aquatic ecology is helping us to develop a minor in fi sheries and aquatic ecology that we expect to be approved in 2008. We are also working to build the graduate program by broadening curricula and acquiring more wildlife faculty. Together, these actions will help us offer a quality curriculum in wildlife management. Reaching these goals will necessitate signifi cant assistance from the USDA and other federal and state partners. But once they are accomplished, we will have provided a source of qualifi ed minority wildlife professionals that agencies can draw upon to meet their workforce needs in the future.

Training Minorities in Wildlife Biologycontinued from page 37


The Wildlife Society wishes to thank the following organizations

for their fi nancial and in-kind support of The Wildlife Professional.


James E. Miller Receives Aldo Leopold AwardThe Wildlife Society’s (TWS) highest honor was bestowed on James E. Miller at TWS’s 14th An-nual Conference in Tucson, Arizona, in September. Miller, an educator and an advocate for wildlife conservation and habitat enhancement on private lands, has been a TWS member since 1963. He was a founding member, twice president of the Arkan-sas Chapter, and president of the National Capitol Chapter. In addition, he helped form the Virginia Chapter, served as Southeast Section Representa-tive, and in 1998 served as TWS President.

As National Program Leader for Wildlife and Fisheries in the USDA Extension Service’s Natural Resource Unit, Miller infl uenced the development of fi sh and wildlife policies within the USDA and shaped the conservation provisions in several itera-tions of the Farm Bill. Now retired from the USDA and Mississippi State University, Miller still leads TWS technical reviews, organizes and hosts sessions at national and international meetings, and is an instructor in the Conservation Leaders for Tomor-row program.

New Canadian SectionTWS has formed a Canadian Section and elected its fi rst lead-ers. Section Representative on TWS Council is Rick Baydack; President is Arlen Todd; Presi-dent-Elect is Jack Dubois; Vice President is Martyn Obbard; and Past President is Evelyn Merrill. The Canadian Section of TWS

will provide a unifi ed voice for wildlife profession-als, while remaining strongly affi liated with the U.S. Headquarters. The two countries share a border and many wildlife habitats and populations, as well as common challenges, issues, and opportunities.

TWS 14th Annual ConferenceNearly 1,500 wildlife professionals and students gathered in Tucson in late September for TWS’s 14th Annual Conference. A provocative plenary session sparked debate on conservation challenges across the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian borders. Symposia, workshops, papers, and posters focused on topics such as climate change, wind energy devel-opment, managing wildlife diseases, and communi-cating science to the public.

TWS Student Chapter Newsn TWS welcomes three new student chapters: Eastern Illinois University,

University of Delaware, and Austin Peay State University, TN

n Sizzling Summer Student Recruitment Campaign Winners:

1st place — University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point2nd place — California University of Pennsylvania (PA)3rd place — Sul Ross State University (TX)4th place — University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign5th place — University of Wisconsin – Madison

n Student Travel Grants:

The following TWS student members presenting technical papers or posters received travel grants of up to $500:

Andrea Barknecht, Iowa State UniversityPeter Blank, University of MarylandErik Blomberg, University of Rhode IslandDaniel Chranowski, University of ManitobaRichard Erickson, University of Wisconsin—Stevens PointThomas Gorman, Virginia Tech UniversityJessica Homyack, Virginia Tech UniversitySarah Hurteau, Northern Arizona UniversityPhilip Jones, University of South DakotaJanet King, University of Wisconsin—Stevens PointJesse Lewis, University of IdahoMatthew Reiter, University of MinnesotaDana Sanchez, University of IdahoJonathan Wiens, University of ManitobaBenjamin Zuckerberg, SUNY

If you have any questions or comments about TWS Subunit News, please contact Shannon Pederson, Subunit and Certifi cation Coordinator, at [email protected].

James E. Miller (right), 2007 Aldo Leopold Award winner and Past President of TWS with Richard Miller, a TWS member for nearly 70 years, at the 2007 TWS Annual Conference.

Credit: Katherine Unger/ TWS

Rick Baydack


Opportunities to network and socialize were abundant, from meetings of TWS’s working groups, to alumni receptions, to the student-professional mixer, to a retired members’ gathering at the International Wildlife Museum. Conference attendees enjoyed fi eld trips to explore nearby deserts, canyons, and mountaintops, and the beauty of the Sonoran ecosystem was a welcome setting for the farewell barbecue at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum.

In MemoriamC. W. (Bill) Severinghaus, 90, passed away at his home in Edinburgh, New York, on July 6, 2007. A founding member of TWS, Severinghaus became an Honorary Member in 1987. He was an interna-tionally recognized authority on the biology, life history, management, and population dynamics of the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), having spent over 40 years conducting research in the United States and Canada.

Online JournalsSubscribers to The Journal of Wildlife Manage-ment (JWM) now have online access to all back issues of JWM, the Wildlife Society Bulletin, and Wildlife Monographs. Non-subscribers can access electronic articles for a fee. For more information go to wildlifejournals.org.

Working Group NewsThe Wildlife Diseases Working Group was granted offi cial status on September 22, 2007.

AwardsThe following awards were presented at TWS’s annual conference in Tucson (see wildlife.org for more information):

Student Chapter of the Year: Sul Ross State University (TX)

Student Chapter Advisor of the Year: Rebecca Goggans (Oregon State University)

Chapter of the Year: Alaska

Quiz Bowl Winner: Humboldt State University (CA)

Donald H. Rusch Memorial Game Bird Research Scholarship: David A. Miller

Diversity Award: Raul Valdez

Jim McDonough Award: John R. Morgart

Conservation Education Award: Milton Friend

Wildlife Publication Awards:

Editorship: Steven C. Amstrup, Trent L. McDonald, and Bryan F. J. Manly

Book: Milton Friend

Article: Steven W. Buskirk and Joshua J. Millspaugh

Monograph: Dennis L. Murray, Eric W. Cox, Warren B. Ballard, Heather A. Whitlaw, Mark S. Lenarz, Thomas W. Custer, Terri Barnett and Todd K. Fuller

Group Achievement Award: Habitat Conservation Trust Fund

TWS Fellow: Gordon Batcheller, John W. Connelly, David C. Guynn, Jr., Richard M. Kaminski, Jerry R. Longcore, Terry Messmer, Wayne R. Porath, and Merlin Shoesmith

Special Recognition Service Award: R. Ben Peyton

Honorary Membership: D. Lynn Drawe and R.J. Gutierrez

The Wildlifer Is Available ElectronicallyTWS now automatically sends members The Wildlifer electronically unless they specifi cally request a print copy. Contact Lisa Moll at [email protected] or (301) 897-9770 about subscription changes.

The presidential gavel is passed from John Organ to Dan Svedarsky at TWS’s 14th Annual Conference. Svedarsky is now TWS’s President, while Organ assumes the Past-President position.



Credit: John J. Cox/Songdog Photography

These meerkats (Suricata suricatta) at the Louisville Zoo in Kentucky were huddled together to stay warm on a cool day. This image was entered in the mammal category for the TWS Photo Contest.

Send your high-resolution photographs to [email protected], or mail to TWS headquarters.

Credit: Eric PostCredit: James Beasley

This snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) image, which won a prize in the Birds category of TWS’s Photo Contest, was taken about 12 miles east of Kangerlussuaq, West Greenland. An unusually high number of snow buntings appeared there in summer 2007, possibly due to a massive outbreak of noctuid moth caterpillars in the area in 2005.

Driving between study sites, the photographer – a graduate student at Purdue University – came across a mother opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and several young that had been hit by a car. As he went closer, this baby opossum came running out of the bushes squawking at him. The photographer managed to snap a quick photograph before the baby caught up to him! The image won the people’s choice award in the TWS photo contest and placed third in the student category.

the wildlife professional 2007 winter issue

Documents

wildlife managers

wildlife societyrichard

wildlife servicephilippa

photos of wildlife

wildlife society tws

wildlife society headquarters

wildlife professional

innovative wildlife