| A unit of Lasting Forests
evolving since March 30, 1999 |
|
A Total Forest Management Plan
|
|
|
The wildlife program of The Trevey is probably unique. It is a system itself, but it, at least, is special. Most people understand and relate well to wildlife, but few understand wildlife resource system management. It cannot be explained in detail here, but links are available for key topics (for example, game, fur-related systems, wildlife law enforcement, and estimating the numbers of animals in a population). Comprehensive multi-species and life-group management are encouraged but some people prefer species specific management. Herein, more than 60 units are available briefly describing such management.
The Roles of Wildlife
Being able to answer "why?" is reasonable for the landowner as well as for the resource manager.
Wildlife can be a measure of land health. Abundant populations, both of species present as well as their separate density, are indicative of an inter-related, well-balanced community of diverse plants and conditions. Wildlife seems to integrate a variety of environmental and other factors and displays their functions to the practiced observer. In this role, wildlife is a monitor, a sensing device by which land sickness can be detected and cured by skillful management.
Wildlife can provide important recreational and economic dimensions for individuals and businesses by providing hunting opportunities. Hunting depends on abundant amounts of a variety of game that can be pursued in reasonably pleasant surroundings. Game can be a foundation for the economy of some regions.
Wildlife provides many people with inspiration for songs, poems, legends, and works of art. I adds meaning to many human activities.
Wildlife is a part of the natural character of land. A woodland without birds is likely to seem starange and unnatural. Wildlife can provide a sense of natural completeness to areas.
Wildlife can add color, motion, the enexpected, and a variety of songs and sounds to the environment. They are estehtic components.Observing an animal for the first time or in a particular environment can provide great pleasure for people.
Not only hunting, but other forms of recreation are based on or enhanced by wildlife. Birdwatching, photography, and hunting dog trials are some other forms. Wildlife adds untold extra benefits to hiking and camping.
The ecological functions or services of wildlife include:
Key concepts are:
During improved management of most areas, efforts need to be made to minimize effects of disturbance and adverse changes on fish and wildlife populations. These efforts include:
Water
Some of the above concepts apply to stream and pond fisheries. Wildlife in Virginia, about half of the species, have requirements for water (other than for drinking). Adequate amounts of water of sufficient quality are needed in a timely manner. Any interruption in presence or flow of water or any threshold that is passed in the quality of water can destroy a population. As with land animals, absence of a species from a sample from the area does not prove it is not there (or has disappeared if once there). Long-term invasion of desirable and useful habitat are critical concepts. In some cases a log dam, off site, may be more harmful to a fish population than an onslaught of sediment after a storm. It is essential for rational evaluation of both fisheries and terrestrial animal population changes that emphasis be placed on:
There is great appeal to the phrase "Nature knows best." It has religious and metaphysical roots, a personification of the world and a creator. It is not appealing for me to try to deny this appeal that is so prominent in writings about the environment and outdoor experiences. The entire concept of wilderness and of the American park is one of space without people, of the unworthiness of people in the context of such grandeur, majesty, and beauty. The concept of letting ecosystems function as they will, naturally, is now a part of the nation's psyche and suggesting an alternative will be difficult. The work is not that of suggesting, but of insisting on rational grounds for an alternative. This paper is not some mere academic exercise. The paper is an essential component of the Lasting Forests Concept. There is a sadness to the effort to make the change from "Nature knows best" to "intensive management", not unlike that of the feeling that went with dropping old ideas about the causes of the common cold or the existence of Santa. With replacing the sadness can come the happiness of gaining new insights and enlightenment about reasons for being and the role of humans on Earth. The argument will not be accepted by everyone. An expanded and refined argument is needed. [A published "dialog" as part of a distinguished set of books, papers, and electronic media is recommended for later development.]
Present Condition
The system (the total land volume - the air above the land, to the groundwater and relevant geological depths of the ***acre area) has already been changed by logging, warfare, mining, intensive grazing, and road building. Extra-site factors of climatic change, air pollution, and radioactive fallout have changed the area. Predators have been removed; animals introduced; diseases of plants introduced; some species have become extinct and native people, present in the area for at least 10,000 years, have influenced it in evidently profound ways. The influence may have been in yet-unperceived ways. Changes have been made in the natural structure, functions, and relations of the area. To "walk away" and let natural conditions and functions operate would allow an unpredictable result. The future condition is now unpredictable, not due to lack of knowledge, but due to at least 20 major cross-currents of effects already in operation and some not present before "settlement", say 1600 AD.
Fundamentals
Whether people use "principles" or" fundamentals" or "essentials" has been a persistent problem in communication some of the basic understandings about wildlife. People still generalize about the wildlife that they want, so the following sections mention general ideas about how to increase the large animals. Users of The Trevey will want to remember:
| Costs - The argument by designers of The Trevey is that the landowner will probably make more net profit from the land by using The Trevey than by not using it. The result may not be maximum profit because that is only one simple objective and The Trevey attempts to deal effectively with over 25 objectives at the same time ... over a long, clearly stated time. |
The Balance
The "balance of nature" is a pleasant concept and it is useful in biology classes for teaching to show the relations of things, how a change in one part of a system causes change in another part. "Equal and opposite forces" is a phrase used at about the same time as the above phrase during educational programs. The result is the misconception of balance and equality in natural systems. In known systems, say a large elk population of a large region, the measure of that population (say for simplicity, number of animals and ignoring health, age, or size) is highly irruptive, as shown below at the left in Fig. 1.
 |
| Figure 1. Expected change in total elk population size in a large region under wilderness or natural conditions is shown at the left of the graph. The elk population (the system performance measure) is irregular under normal conditions, but when the manager gains control (at the vertical line), the system is less variable and remains within manager-specified bounds. Even under superior control, excessive deviations may occur due to climatic change, fires, or combinations of small forces. |
|---|
There are high peaks when elk calves are abundant and there are "lows" when parasitism and disease are rampant and food supplies "wiped out." There may be blizzards or droughts but these are not the "cause" of the declines; they only change the depth of the decline.
The declines are caused by the animals themselves and the changes in the food supplies. They literally eat themselves into a decline. They consume food faster than it can reproduce. When there is no food, many (but not all) die. When the foraging pressure on plants is removed by these deaths, then the plants re-grow. The elk then have food; reproduction increases and the ups and down continue in the curve. This is not a "cycle", not some smooth, regular biological pathway regulated by the sun or moon but by changes in food (lightning fires on different soils produce varying food in different-sized areas in irregular periods). The total elk population responds to total elk food.
Today, not only fires, but all of the above factors already listed influence the total elk population. There are both on- and off-site forces at work There is not a constant elk population, one in balance with its environment, stabilized by the forces of Nature.
Predators (e.g., the mountain lion) cannot control a deer or elk population. They have been reduced by people in the past but they are very much a function of the number of elk calves and deer. They, like elk, follow the trend in their food supply. Of course, lions kill elk, but the relatively small numbers and reproductive capacities deny a balance. Influence, yes; balance, no.
There is a rough "Rule-of-10" operating in natural systems. When 10 units of energy in food (e.g., shrub "browse") changes form (is eaten and changed into an elk), there is a loss of 9 units. A thousand units of energy available for the plant results in 100 units available for the elk, which then results in 10 units for the lion. The consumers of lions are few; relatively speaking. There is not much energy left for others to consume.
Bison: An Example
Bison are migrants. Some groups of people (like those now in some countries) also define themselves as migrants. They are nomadic. They "follow" the herds. Bison consume plant production in an area and move on to the next nearest spot where there is food. They live in peril of drought and competition from the next nomadic group. The distance to the next "good spot" must not be too far (based on the energy stored and the cost to get there safely, with minimum losses, and with ample water). There were trails (a type of stored energy or animal information system) and herd leaders (robust old animals with genetic traits for memory and leadership) that allowed herd efficiencies. Any losses (to hunting, disease, etc.) could endanger an entire herd group and the people dependent upon it. There was an early ability of people to live with these herds and to take (at great risk and expense) a few animals. Firearms changed that natural condition that existed over 10,000 years. It can now be seen as stable because of the enormous size of the area and the nomadic nature of the bison and its associated people (a continental nomadic predator-prey relationship) unstabilized by fire, drought, blizzard, and insects.
Constrained to an area, even as large region, bison are like elk and are a function of their food supply. Several seasons of good rains can produce great forage, thus reproductive increases can be great; a large population will exist; range forage will be heavily "cropped" preferred plants will disappear leaving unpalatable or low-nutrient plants; plant communities with special butterfly populations in meadows will decline; erosion will increase; riparian vegetation will be hit hard with streambank loss; siltation will increase; fish will suffer; bison will die and decline in size and appearance; disease will hit; migration pressure will cause problems for surrounding area landowners. Bison will move into the forested areas and compete for food of the elk. Forest regeneration, especially on the winter range, will be impossible due to the combined effects of bison, elk, and deer grazing/browsing. This is a well known sequence. There is no balance, only major ups and downs in many systems all related to each other.
The Lasting Forest Concept includes the premise that these major, irregular fluctuations will occur, that they are natural and have occurred in pre-human conditions, even during pre-settlement times with the presence of people in North America. People in the prairies were nomadic as were the bison. Perpetual migration was a way, a natural way, that they both found to reduce (but not eliminate) the extremes in the fluctuating curves of population size.
Migration of large populations, certainly not that for bison,is no longer feasible. Even enormous areas of the U.S., remains too small for large and growing bison herds to exist without the herd causing major changes to the rangeland, forests, and streams. It will display the major peaks and troughs in its population curve. These limits are rarely desirable. Excesses, by at least some measures, are at least as beneficial as detrimental to some part of the ecosystem . . . and to people. The peaks produce expectations that cannot be fulfilled and human frustrations. They can produce disease, damage, and the losses already described. In contrast, the population lows produce losses to people expecting sustained recreation and observation opportunities; depressed local economies; and losses in all systems dependent on their sources or structures.
The Lasting Forests Concept includes "intensive management", a component stating the need for regulation, control, intervention, monitoring, adaptation - all related to a realistic, legal, desired level of performance of the animal system. Fluctuation will still occur, but it will be within stated or desired limits. There may be deviations, totally unwanted, but out of managerial control (e.g., vast fires). The evaluation procedure of the Concept contains the elements of an approximate objective, upper and lower bands of tolerable deviation, and a scoring procedure grounded in fundamental feedback theory of biology. The population system can be described with the negative feedback model of
Pt+1 = R* - (1.0 - K(Pt - R*)
R* is the desired population level, the target. Pt is the population at some time, t (such as now), and Pt+1 is the population in the next period after time, t (such as next year at this same time). The results may appear as toward the right in Fig 1.
K is the amount of control that the manager can bring over the difference between where the system is (Pt) and where it ought to be (R*).
A system which is unregulated, one without significant K (which is expression of money, ideas, expertise, equipment, resources, etc.), one without adaptive ability or that of self-regulation, can destroy itself. Land and resource systems cannot be allowed to destroy themselves when humans are dependent upon them. Endangered and threatened species have reached very low points that are shown on the previous curves. Range abuse has occurred with over-populations of animals. Fishing areas,unregulated, have become filled with many small fish. Excessive, short-term buildups of certain species have been disastrous (alligators, rattlesnake populations, urban non-migrating Canada geese in the Eastern U.S., rabies events, gulls at airports).
Relative stability of an animal resource can be achieved by managing a of whole set of animals. These are often described as being within an "ecosystem" but a straightforward, simple analysis can be sufficient. If a wild animal eats several types of food, it can survive, even if one food supply disappears. A very selective, one-food-type animal population can change radically.
Control or suppression is needed for some populations, protection or enhancement needed by others - all at different times, places, and sub-populations at or near a desired abundance, all intensively managed to provide sustained profits and life-quality at low cost for the people of the world.
We start with the concept of managing a set of large animals (as compared to insects and micro-organisms). We manage individual species, not all animals. The individual needs are too particular. We cannot manage them all, together, with singular techniques. We have to do "species-specific" management (later we shall discuss life-group management).
Part of the problem of wildlife management is that there are too many animal species (over 150 in any area of Virginia). They are too different and varied and some only spend part of the year on or near the area. When someone says that they want to manage wildlife, they usually mean that they want to increase a select group of animals, perhaps one or two species of game animals. Others may want many ducks (of un-named species) and have no interest in upland game such as the ruffed grouse. Some people want songbirds but not bats, skunks, vultures, or groundhogs ... and certainly not Norway rats ... all of which are wildlife.
| Wildlife in The Trevey means populations of wild or semi-domesticated large animals, including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. It reluctantly excludes all plants, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and insects, even the butterflies. Progressively changing, staff tend to discuss wild flora and wild fauna and are increasingly inclusive of all forms of life, both as the resource being managed and as the agents of such management. |
Confusion does exist about the meaning of wildlife and it is likely to persist. The definition, however clarified, influences how funds are allocated, how agency authority and responsibility is separated, who is responsible for certain law enforcement, and who is responsible for education and its associated funding (e.g., about flowers or butterflies, crayfish or land snails, or about semi-domestic deer or boar in a large fenced area.)
Some people do not like to hunt (even experience great displeasure knowing about those that do so). Some prefer to simply view wildlife as "wildlife", not as "game." A deer, for example, is not game for most of the year. Rather than discussing "non-game", a non-word, we emphasize wildlife as part of a total system. The animals emphasized are songbirds, the raptors (hawks, falcons, and owls), the shrews, mice, and chipmunks; snakes; toads and frogs; salamanders ... all of the animals. Management for butterflies (for they too are wildlife) is treated in a separate section. (Few resource specialists include butterflies (or any insects); they are rarely part of the scope of activity of state fish and wildlife agencies.) Plants are treated in other sections because common use of the word "wildlife" connotes animals. We prefer wild flora and fauna but there is not widespread agreement with using that phrase.
Some people may desire to have the same wildlife in the same place forever. This is impossible without high cost and intensive management. A diverse wildlife complex can be available for a large area where change does occur, but it is scheduled so that the same animals are present but in different places because change has occurred. Other wise, landowners may benefit from whatever Nature delivers. This hands-off and acceptance strategy is risky, capable of high pest damage events and long periods without benefits from highly-regarded animals. This strategy hardly reflects the capability of modern land management. No land use activities are "certain." Only limited control can be gained, partially due to our lack of knowledge, but also due to chance occurrences of storms, disease, floods, and other known but largely unpredictable phenomena of nature.
Experts have suggested that management be done by "guilds," groups of animals that behave in much the same way (e.g., forage) or live in the same areas. This strategy has not worked; animals are too diverse.
Where possible, a life group approach will be used. This is a group within a species. For example, since wild turkey broods eat insects (mostly) and adults eat grain, it is important to manage for these 2 groups, not just, on average, for "turkeys." They need to be treated as if they are two "species" with very different requirements and strategies to meet their needs.
The wildlife staff of The Trevey seeks to do life group management. This requires strategies, for example, to manage torkey poults (as if they were a separate species) for they have far different life requirements than turkey adults. To "manage for turkeys" is too general; the species requirements are too broad. There is no reason to stick to the name alone as if the taxonomists were in charge. They named creatures based on adult physical characteristics. The wildlife manager needs to work on all aspects of an animal's life history ... all life stages ... to assure long-term success. Some insects, for example, have several (3-4) life stages. The requirements -- food, temperature, plants ... (about which the manager must know) differ for each stage. A doe deer with a fawn has entirely different food and water requirements than a male deer. Frogs have three very different life stages (eggs, tadpoles, adults). Managers can readily respond to meeting the needs of each sub-population, the life group.
| Life Group Management |
|---|
Bird Watching and hunting are conspicuous and well-known "wildlife" things. "Saving endangered species" runs close to these other two topics of interest. The Trevey staff has developed an expanded concept of the resource that includes its use, services, functions, essential role, and potentials now provided by large free-ranging animals. (Managing wild plants is discussed in another section.)
Occasionally within texts and journal articles about wildlife management there are discussions of "non-consumptive"dimensions of wildlife management (typically bird-watching but almost anything that is not hunting or trapping... a non-word). The Trevey staff discuss
| Collateral |
|---|
The components include guiding and related services, lodge construction and maintenance, construction and sale of items such as bird houses, feeders, and pools; hikes and catering; photography including supplies, blinds, shows and contests; field trips; personal equipment,books, and clothing; tours; signs; painting; sculpting; camping; writing; and many other activities discussed under "Ranging". All of the activities of the deer resource management system may be included.The point ( only one of many), is that many benefits can be derived from the resource and many are hardly known. If the resource is not present in proper abundance, then the benefits cannot...will not... be derived. Even if the resource is present and abundant, abundant and profitable benefits will only be derived if there is effective management. Managers need not manage the animals, or the plants, but they must manage the total system if the full benefits of the faunal resource are to be derived. The animals and the plants, the total surround, must be managed together well if the resource is to produce profits consistently, every year, over time...perhaps 150 years or more. The management turns out to be that of the flow of benefits, not just of additional animals each year.
In subsequent sections we make brief comments relating to the wildlife foursome:
as they differ among the gross landuse categories of
- feeding
- breeding
- resting
- nesting
General Work on The Trevey: A Plan for Planning
The Trevey as an integrated land and resource management plan will state, in measurable concepts, the objectives of fish and wildlife management for owners or responsible agents on that property and relate those objectives to others for the entire enterprise. Objectives will be stated in terms of benefits from fisheries and wildlife desired for human land and resource users. The goals will each be assigned, using the best feasible method, a rank, weight, or level of importance. Each goal will also be assigned, using the best feasible methods, the social risk of failing to achieve that goal. A specific planning horizon shall be stated, e.g. 50 years. The costs of inventory and planning are essential components of the planning effort and need to be included in the plan itself.
A statement will be included about the schedule for review and potential change in the list of these objectives, their weights, risks, and substitution potentials. The objectives must be somewhat stable. A 3-year review is suggested.
Projects, programs, and work in progress and expected to be done will be listed and each will be related to how it influences achievement of the above goals. A separate wildlife plan is not recommended but all action programs (e.g. utilities, roads, and planned timber operations) must display at least plus, neutral, or minus influence on the objectives.
Recognizing that almost every activity on a forest or every change effects some species of fish or wildlife, wherever possible a consequence table (showing at least plus, neutral, or minus changes) on the fish and wildlife species of the forest should be included.
Since normal vegetation changes and growth also result in population changes, a display of net change is desirable.
A statement of how benefits produced and experienced will be monitored must be stated. While animal population changes may be monitored, and correlations with benefits made, the intent of this guideline is to assure that the user benefits stated in the goals are monitored.
Each management plan should assess the significance of fish and wildlife on that unit of the forest, including the adjacent region. This assessment shall include a historic summary, evaluation of current status, and projections of anticipated future trends. The assessment shall include consideration of biological, social, and economic values.
Regulation of resident populations of vertebrate animals is a fundamental responsibility of the State, but the land manager needs to be realistic about the actual work needed to do so locally. This responsibility is shared with the Federal government for certain migratory species which cross state and national boundaries.
The plan shall be coordinated, perhaps with advisors and related agencies, with related plans of agencies.
So-called "integration of wildlife and fish management with timber management" is especially significant. Area must be shown as they changes over time (at least 5 year increments) according to wood harvesting plans for the forest. Where no harvests are made, then change in potential wildlife species suitability (in area of habitat) must be shown. These potential productions will be weighted by the importance measures used in stating objectives
Where extreme lows or highs are indicated then these must be justified and detailed plans presented for ameliorating losses, damages, or citizen dissatisfaction.
Habitat (or faunal space) productivity or its potential for wildlife or fish will be influenced by species composition, basal area, site, age distributions, and management practices such as site preparation, regeneration, and thinnings. Each of these must be encompassed in the previous computations and displays of longterm potential wildlife species densities in potential habitats.
Lists of species of the plants and animals of each area have been provided from field work and the state data base. These species lists should include all known vertebrate animal species, and all vascular plants. Additional species may be added when considered appropriate. Subspecies and varieties are to be considered as separate species or taxa (life groups). Habitat, distribution, and population data should be added when feasible. In many cases it may take decades to develop these lists into a substantial inventory.
It is not possible to maintain accurate data on the population status of all wildlife and fish species of an area. However, continuing records of observations must be maintained on a number of more important species.
Some species may be called indicator species. These indicator species will include:
For each indicator species, a specific plan element shall be prepared to show what general habitat management measures are planned, where they will be applied, how they stated management goals.
All population information shall be gathered by the most accurate census techniques which are available and suitable to the species and the area. Personnel making such counts shall be identified, methods used shall be documented with specific references to scientific and technical literature, and a statement shall be made evaluating the accuracy and reliability of the results obtained. Periodic census efforts are needed to determine population trends and to monitor the effects of the management program. Census data shall not be made part of the integrated land and resource management plan, but shall be maintained in suitable files.
Emphasis is needed on the limits of accountability. Precise work is needed but it needs to be combined with recognition that populations (especially of small game) fluctuate widely and the causative factors are not well known. They are likely to be lack of food abundance in critical life periods, temperature extremes in the winter, intensive poaching, and abnormal mortality (such as from pollution and invasions of disease organisms).
Special emphases and advice are needed for endangered species and migratory species.
Many species of fish and wildlife are mobile and require more than one habitat type to complete their life cycle. Consequently it is not possible to manage many wildlife species by simply preparing management plans for small acreages. Therefore, it is necessary that plans be developed for large blocks of land within which all required habitat types occur. For example, the management of one unit so as to produce wildlife cover for the summer season will not be effective if all winter cover on adjacent units is destroyed. Therefore, each plan will include an analysis of how it will affect the year-long suitability of a larger region for the selected indicator species. It is also essential that statements be made of the estimated effects of spatial relation between habitat types as well as the relation between age classes of timber. xxx
Notes for inclusion/integration above:
The managerial decision is difficult for there are different demands by people; they have different views of the future; they value animals and plants and outdoor experiences differently; they certainly perceived the threats and risks of action (or failing to act) differently; and some are very willing and able to accept substitutes (seeing a bear when seeing a turkey was the mission). It is important to realize how complex and difficult are wildlife and environmental decisions. Frustrations and conflicts need to be expected. Differences of opinion need to be expected; that they occur does not imply ignorance, evil intent, or perverse or pathologic social behavior. To arrive at a decision about a plant or animal, one of several thousand on any area of the region, is very difficult.
Wildlife is to be treated as a resource. If human objectives are articulated as being "to have abundant wildlife, just because, for no particular reason" then this is viewed as appropriate because some benefits are assumed to be derived from having such abundance. Some small private sanctuaries or preserves seem to have this objective. From one perspective it can never be satisfied. "More is better." Whether more species or more animals is desired is a problem, that might be resolved by definition. More individuals will usually, with excesses over time, result in loss of one or more species (probably not intended). "More" usually, over time, results in pest or unpleasant conditions. "More" requires, invariably, more costs. The apparently-well-meant objective needs to be expressed in human and humane terms and thus we are trapped by wildlife being a resource and subject to management to achieve human objectives or stated conditions.
Other people continue to debate the issue. Is coal so deep in the ground that it can never be cost-effectively mined a resource? We think not, because it has no human value, no access, no relevance of any type.
Others debate: save the rabbits, but to do so deprives the fox. Protecting the coyote deprives the fawn. Protecting the deer destroys the young forest and any future forest for at least 30 years. To "save " wildlife, to "preserve " it, are reasonable sentiments. We believe that the reality for the landowner is an intensive, cost-effective management program to achieve a set of objectives for the wildlife resources. Because of the needs for reasonable security , and the desire to prevent public access (a landowner option) , no action to increase animals or plants is viewed as appropriate. Threatened and endangered plants in the secure area are to be preserved for all of the reasons that threatened species are protected (discussed under that topic below). On other parts of the station, difficult decisions about the gains to the public that may be derived from the station disease organisms and microscopic fish food to the so-called appealing megafauna deer and bear. On some parts of the area, difficult decisions about the gains to the public that may be derived from the land per unit expenditure of public dollars need to be faced.
Many people do not include plants as "wildlife " they restrict it to the large animals and usually discuss game species and furbearers. Other people include more animals, often using the non-phrase, "non-game, to suggest a breadth of interest that usually includes birds, snakes, lizards, turtles, and amphibians, and often small mammals. Some include butterflies but rarely go much farther in including things in the invertebrate world. Zoo animals and rehabilitated animals, rarely "wild, " are considered within the scope of wildlife.
Some people resist including mammalian pests (e.g., Norway rats) as wildlife and at the national level, Departments debate the animals that are appropriately under their influence, responsibility and control. The difficulty of definition is only noted here. It is one source of conflict and limits managers effectively allocating time and money.
Wildlife management means making decisions and taking action to manipulate the structure, dynamics, and relations of wild animal populations, their multi-dimensional space, and human populations to achieve specific human objectives by means of the wildlife resource.
The resource is conventional, the wild animal and plant entities and the goods and services they actually or potentially supply. Wild populations provide an unusual "service " called existence or bequest value, the "presence " and protected status of wildlife seems to provide benefits to some people.
There are many wildlife "values, " called by developers of R* Guidance, the Type II objectives. These objectives include
Negative Roles of Wildlife
There are potential negative dimensions to wildlife: disease vectors and reservoirs, crop and livestock depredation, direct threat to life and health (poisonous animals and predators); and a wide range of pest- and property-damage-related activities. The negative roles of wildlife in the greater environment, both monetary and aesthetic, should also be considered by the manager so that net effects can be evaluated.
Wildlife may cause injury to crops, feedlots, forest regeneration, grasslands, and livestock. (Whether profits are reduced or not must be decided in each case.) They may become so abundant they are destructive or intolerable near human structures. Some species may build up populations that can serve as vectors of human disease. In much of the state, rabies is a problem. Extensive habitat work can create high populations of a dominant rabies carrier - the gray fox, or raccoon.
In discussing wildlife damage, there is a big difference between the injury that animals do to trees and plants and the actual damage they cause. Damage is measured by loss of profit, or actual benefits that are forgone. Rabbits may browse on trees but unless that can be shown to reduce significantly the profits received from the final forest harvest, that is only injury, not damage. In some areas where forest regeneration is planned, mice and birds may have to be controlled to allow seeds to germinate and a plantation to start. In severe winters, girdling of tree stock may occur requiring animal reductions or wire protection for trees.
Sometimes in areas where deer have low densities, the population can build rapidly and may cause some problems with forestation.
The need for bird control will have to be monitored if compost or other solid waste is used over wildlife areas.
There are more than 25 different ways of expressing wildlife financial value 11. This is a difficult field and consensus on appropriate means of valuation has not been reached. Valuation in an hypothetical market based on expressions of estimated preferenceis outlined in the Objectives.
We hold that wildlife must be managed if the benefits to humans from the resource are to be gained over the long run. It is reasonable to suggest that "wild" means unmanaged. We take it that under conditions now existing throughout the eastern U.S., that no animals are completely and totally free from human influence. When they were so, their populations fluctuated radically in response to sweeping fires, floods, overutilization of food, and diseases. Because of both human interest in the benefits from the resource and because of direct action that they will take against harmful elements of the resource, the populations must be kept under some level of control. By management, as defined, we mean direct manipulation of any or all aspects of the system -- of each plant or of each animal population.
Many species of wildlife are supported by the ecosystems found in the area. Some of these include: lizards, snakes, turtles, song birds and ducks in the marsh and wetland areas; and game birds and mammals (i.e., bobwhite quail, raccoon, red fox, grey squirrel, skunks, and white-tailed deer, etc.) in the upland and forested areas. Additionally, many other animals inhabit these same ecosystems. At present, there are no known, Federally-listed or endangered species residents. Some species are of uncertain status.
The only serious wildlife problem concerns a significant ecological imbalance caused by excessive numbers of white-tailed deer. As in most of the eastern seaboard, natural predators of deer are no longer present. Small areas harbor unusually large groups that feed outside the site. As deer numbers increase, the environment will be less able to support a healthy population. PopuIations can severely constrained the success of forest regeneration efforts and may imposed heavy damage to ornamental trees and shrubs (and even endangered plants). This adverse pressure will not only affect deer but will also impact other species using the same habitat, as well as the habitat itself.
We are opposed to generalizing. We propose to manage each species because each has different costs, needs, benefits. No "average" response works well for many species. Using average recommendations, a form of management, sub-optimizes the benefits produced. Costs are high and, as usual, an "average"recommendations or action program may be all that will be perceived to be affordable.
Over much of the U.S. (about 20 states) there are wildlife information systems that can participate in species-specific management. Some people claim that we do not know enough to do species-specific work and they mis-use the phrase, that "we should manage at the ecosystem level." We need to manage life-group, species-by-species, for all of them, within each ecosystem (not for some nebulous aglomeration of all species. This specific management includes some preservation, some management manipulations, and some removal (as is natural) to set the stage for the continuing profound ecological process called succession.
Reference
Gill, J.A.; Sutherland, W.J.; Watkinson, A.R.1996 A method to quantity the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. Journal of applied ecology, , vol. 33, (4): 786
| Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com |
|---|
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Last revision March 6, 2003.