Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Science is a wonderful thing. As time moves on, in a single direction, Science, as an endeavor, corrects past misunderstandings. Unfortunately, corrections seldom hit the headlines. Rather, corrections slowly backfill our store of knowledge eventually coming to the fore, at first in odd places, and finally become generally accepted.
Last October I wrote an essay here entitled “About those claims of declining bird populations due to ‘climate change’“ . The popular press and environmental activists were making wild claims about declines of bird populations over time. The bottom line of the essay was that changing land use, and the persistent drought in the southwest, was generally responsible.
(Well, that and free-roaming domestic cats who wreak havoc on ground- and low-nesting birds in urban and suburban areas.)
My sons are hunters in the area known as Upstate New York – generally, any part of New York state north of the NY/NJ megalopolis. When I visit in the summer, I get a hunting license so I can tag along with them while they walk the wild woods of the Catskills. Getting a hunting license means I also get a copy of the current year’s “New York: Hunting and Trapping Official Guide to Laws and Regulations”. In this years edition, we find on page 74 an article titled “The Young Forest Initiative”.
(Yes, I know, I am supposed to tell you about the birds…I’m getting there.)
The Young Forest Initiative is designed to handle a particular environmental problem in New York State: the lack of forest clearcutting has resulted in a serious decline of some species of birds and small mammals that require young forests – sometimes called transitional forests. The article leads with:
“DEC’s [Department of Environmental Conservation] Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources (DFWMR) recently launched the Young Forest Initiative to considerably increase habitat management on Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) for wildlife that need young forests. Important game species like American woodcock, ruffed grouse, and snowshoe hare all rely on this disturbance-dependent habitat, as do many at-risk species such as New England cottontail, golden-winged warbler, and many charismatic and well-known songbirds such as brown thrasher and eastern (“rufous-sided”) towhee. Population declines of these species are attributed to a lack of habitat that they require for foraging, cover, nesting and raising young. To address this issue, the goal of the YF Initiative is to create, restore and maintain habitat on WMAs so that 10% of the forested area can be considered young forest.”
What has caused this loss of habitat?
“Historically, natural disturbances such as fire, flooding, insect outbreaks, or environmental engineering by beavers, as well as human-caused events like logging and farmland abandonment, created young forests. Decades of suppression of these natural processes and changes in human land use have resulted in a landscape that is largely mature forest.”
To correct this lack of young forest, the DEC says:
“ Today, active land management is required to maintain young forests throughout New York’s landscape. DFWMR is working with the Division of Lands and Forests to ensure that there is ample habitat for young forest-dependent species. Forest regeneration cuts — such as clearcuts, shelterwood cuts, and seed tree cuts, as well as salvage operations following natural disturbance — are one of the tools that land managers use to create a diversity of habitats and forest age classes.”
The bottom line is that the shift away from clearcutting to harvest timber and create pastureland and farm fields, along with suppression for forest fires and, in many areas, removal of “pest beavers” to prevent their dam building which floods the property of rural homeowners, as happens in my area of the Catskills, has resulted in the seemingly good situation of New York state having “mostly mature forests”. However, a homogenized environment is not what wildlife needs. It needs all kinds of habitat niches – including clearcut and burned over areas, beaver-dam created meadows as well as mown hay fields and highway roadsides and fence line hedges.
Here in New York State we find the following situation: “New York state is 63 percent forested — forests cover 18.9 million acres of our 30 million total acres. Much of this land is privately owned and managed for wood or pulp. Most of the land owned by the state is forested.” Of that almost 19 million acres, only 350,000 acres are considered “old growth” (containing a natural succession of trees, oldest being 180 to 200 years old). For us here in New York, that means that the clearcutting of the 1800’s and 1900’s removed most of those 19 million acres of trees. In my area of the Catskills, forests were removed for building materials, both local and to build New York City, to access bluestone deposits (made into sidewalks and curbing for NY City), burned for charcoal, and to create endless, almost continguous, pastureland for sheep and cattle. In fact, in my particular area near the Catskill Park, one finds nearly all the woods are crisscrossed with old stone fences that once separated fields and pastures and whole woodsy neighborhoods are built on tailing piles from old bluestone quarries.
All that change – from mature forest clearcut to make to pastureland, later abandoned back to young forest and, in many areas now, back to mature mixed hardwood/softwood forest – produced magnificently varied habitats for wildlife here. As I highlighted in last October’s essay, the recent declines in some species – remember, most species are increasing – are due to land use changes such as the abandonment of marginal farmland and pastureland – but another change has been in the slowdown – almost a complete stoppage – of the clearcutting forested areas.
Now with the Young Forest Initiative, New York’s DEC is initiating clearcutting five and ten acre plots to restore the natural balance to the environment, making living and breeding spaces for the wildlife that needs transitional and young forest habitats to be successful. Their goal is to have 10% of their managed forests in the process of transitioning from clearcut to young forest to mature forest, all at varying stages over time.
The Bottom Line:
The current view of environmentalists seems to be that change itself is bad, that it is our duty to preserve things the way they are today (or return them to the way they were “when I was young”, or “in my grandfather’s day”). This view slops over into the reports of such groups as the Audubon Society which cries disaster when bird populations are found to be changing — decreasing in some areas – when in fact, bird populations are doing what they always do, they change in step with the changes of their environments.
New York state’s Department of Environmental Conservation has a better idea – stop preventing change, initiate change to improve the environment for native species. Rather than decry clearcutting and the harvest of trees, step up clearcutting, it is not destruction but creation, to make room for species that need those re-growing young forests to prosper.
How cheering to find common sense and applied science overruling the madness of “Stop Everything” we hear so often from the overwrought but under-thinking.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy: This essay is not about Global Warming, Global Cooling, Carbon oxides, or Climate (changing or not). I am not generally qualified to respond to questions about those subjects and won’t do so.
I will be happy to answer your questions about the essay above or the original essay last October. I like birds.
Anyone foolish enough to take the bait to talk about my opinions on free-roaming domestic cats and their effect on bird and small mammal populations should be prepared to suffer the consequences (chuckle…)
I look forward to reading your comments shared here.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Getting back to the rump of the essay: I think that the current ecological wisdom is that mosaic landscapes provide a wider range of habitats and support a greater variety of wildlife forms that monocultures.
That particular piece of wisdom has been known for years but I’m glad that its been rediscovered again 🙂
KIP,
Your link leads to the USG site, but the podcast has been disconued…no videos available anymore.
“The USG Podcast Server was decommissioned on June 30, 2015. You can only download any materials you have archived prior to June 30.
After July 31, there will be no access to the USG Podcast Server.
If you have questions, please contact your campus PCS Administrator”
No kitty cam views anymore!
Mr. Hansen,
As an occasional poet, I am advocating for the abandonment of the straight-jacket of grammatically correct (GC) language use, when called for by such a fine circumstance as I see here.
“How cheering to find common sense and applied science overruling the madness of “Stop Everything” we hear so often from the overwrought but under-thinking.”
Oughta be *overwrought and under-thought* I say, and damn the torpedoes ; )
Reply to JohnKnight ==> *overwrought and under-thought* — now that’s poetry!
http://nationalferalcatday.org/
Menicholas don’t waste all of our time with you misinformation! Estimates of bird mortality from wind mills is more than three orders of magnitude lower than EACH of the following sources: buildings, powerlines, cats, automobiles, and pesticides. There are many scientific studies that have looked at this one citation is below. Peter Marra is a coauthor on a recent paper in Frontiers in Ecology (behind a pay wall) that shows the same thing (link below the Erickson paper).
http://beta.dialight.com/Assets%5CApplication_Notes%5CSignaling%5CObstruction%20Lighting%20Bird%20Strike%20Study.pdf
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/110251
The “cats kill billions of birds annually” so-called study is a load of crap. It’s estimated that there are between 10 billion and 20 billion birds in the US over the course of a year, including migratory birds “passing through.”
If cats kill between 15% and 30% of the breeding pairs every year, and native predators including the exploding population of hawks take their fair share, why do we still see 10 to 20 billion birds every year?
The study has been debunked – it’s as poor a study as some of the global warming studies I’ve seen, and almost as bad as Cook, et. al. The “researcher” has had it in for feral cats for a long time, and it’s been shown that his methodology for coming up with population numbers and frequency of bird kills is ridiculous.
Please note that ferals are only part of the “free roaming domestic cat” population – there are a lot of “barn cats” in farm country which are not feral, and there’s still way too many irresponsible “cat owners” who think they should “put the cat out” at night. The idiots who think they should kill whatever cat they see wandering around are as likely to be killing someone’s pet as a feral.
Update re: Feral Cats ==> As much as I hate to throw gasoline on the feral cats issue—-
I think the Aussies have it right.
The problem is that too many Aussies think that domestic cats should roam freely, leading to the massive feral cat population there. They should change their perspective on cats as pets, and keep them in the house or tied up in the yard, instead of looking at them as “occasional pets” who come around when they feel like it. The only thing the Aussies “have right” is that the domestic cat is an invasive species as far as native Australian wildlife is concerned. What they have wrong is the same thing all too many “cat owners” in the US and elsewhere have wrong, and that is that the way to control the feral population is to spay or neuter your pet cats, and keep them in the house – anything else is irresponsible.
Having a wholesale slaughter of free-roaming cats in a country where family pets are, unfortunately, more often than not allowed to freely roam won’t fix anything, because the freely-roaming, fertile “pets” will quickly re-establish the feral population, and will very likely lead to the demise of thousands of otherwise-beloved family pets.
To clarify the last sentence/paragraph – the HUNT will likely lead to the demise of thousands of otherwise-beloved but allowed to freely roam family pets. It’s unlikely the authorities or those participating in a cat hunt would put any effort into verifying whether or not a freely-roaming cat is feral. The indiscriminate nature of such a hunt is the problem; the solution is to first educate all cat “owners” as to their responsibility, and then to set a date far enough in the future with frequent PSA’s warning cat owners to take their pets indoors and keep them there or they will be caught up in the feral massacre – if a massacre is truly the only and best way to control the feral population. There should be more humane ways to accomplish the same results.
Reply to jstalewski ==> The Aussie Solution, draconian as it may be, is exactly how the US, at least, handled the feral domestic dog problem, which is at the present well under control (for the most part).
Once it is established as a national policy, and the major effort has been made to round up existing feral populations, then the problem changes characteristics from a Big Problem to an ongoing Nuisance Problem, similar to what we have in the US with feral dogs — they are a nuisance in some areas, but local efforts generally keep the problem under control.
I think that if Pet Cat Owners are given adequate notice, they will control their pets. If they fail to control them, they risk losing them to the Cat Police.
In the States, we first required licensing and registering of dogs, and proof of rabies vaccination. Thus “beloved family pets” were generally identifiable by their collars and tags — and if swept up by the Dog Catcher, owners were notified, fined and beloved Fido returned home.
We could do the same for cats.
In truth, feral cats are a extremely destructive invasive species and we must just grit our teeth and do what needs to be done to protect the larger environment without excessive empathy for the vicious little predators. (And I like cats….)
Kip,
After I retired I worked at the local Humane Society for several years. If you really think that your idea for killing cats, feral or otherwise, is going to get traction, I double-dog dare ya to give it the old college try.
As for Australia, they also have an out of control bunny problem. But that’s Australia.
Here, stray cats are a problem, but they’re not a big problem, and as I’ve pointed out there are alternatives that would not make the hundreds of Humane Societies in the U.S. go ballistic.
Believe me, you don’t want to be seen as a kitty killer.
A cat hunt is a fever dream. It won’t happen.
The Humane Society would go ballistic, and politicians listen to them because there are plenty of cat owners who vote. And as far as individual cat haters are concerned, the local news just reported on a guy who was caught on a security camera killing a cat. He’s getting lots of death threats now, and he faces years in prison if convicted (I saw the video, and it’s hard to see how he wouldn’t be convicted). Also, don’t forget that lots of serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer started out as cat killers.
Regarding the argument that cats kill more birds than windmills, that’s a worthless comparison. There are more windmills being built all the time, and they kill raptors. Cats kill sparrows, not eagles and falcons. And the sparrow population is not in any danger.
Reply to dbstealey ==> The Aussies are often ahead of America in sensible solutions.
Read these links that I just posted on Dot Earth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/australia/australia-feral-cat-cull-brigitte-bardot-morrissey.html
The feral cat issue is big environmental news in Australia re recently…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/feral-cats-australia-extinction-mammals_n_5445676.html
http://grist.org/news/feral-cats-are-literally-eating-all-of-australias-wildlife/
There are links in the articles, I think, to the journal articles that have prompted this action.
I do agree that Kitty Lovers USA will obfuscate and delay action in the US….and control the political arena — leaving the problem for a more pragmatic generation.
We might start with registration and licensing of pet cats (laws already on the books for pet dogs), vaccination tags, and ease into anti-roaming laws for cats. As the pet kitties are brought under control, feral cats will be seen as an anomaly creating an opening to handle them.
Kip, this isn’t Australia.
Cats are simply not a problem here, except maybe in a few locations.
Sure, they kill small birds. So what? You want more sparrows? You can have all the sparrows you want around here; come and get ’em! Grackles and starlings, too. And plenty of crows, but they’re too big for felix. I just wish cats were as skilled bird killers as claimed.
I’ve only rarely seen a bird that got killed by a cat, and in fact it’s been rare my whole life. It happens. But not as often as claimed, and cats kill a lot of rodents. The feral in our yard regularly leaves what little is left of mice and gophers on our patio. Good!
We have a video security system, and at night possums, raccoons, and sometimes an occasional mouse comes by. We never see those in the daytime. I wouldn’t mind it if the cat got them, too. But the mouse is the only one that has anything to worry about. And sooner or later, he’s a goner.
This issue is a tempest in a teapot; a distraction from the increasing number of windmills going up, and the raptors and other apex birds they constantly kill. And besides, there are other ways to fix the problem for anyone who’s that concerned.
When I worked at our local Humane Society, people would constantly bring in feral cats to be fixed – free of charge. This explains it. Trap/neuter/return (TNR) stops the breeding and the feral cat keeps others away. There are groups like this in every metro area. Usually no charge, but of course they’ll ask for a donation.
TNR fixes the problem better than killing the cats, because if a cat disappears, other cats will move into its territory. Now, if you like the idea of killing cats, that’s one thing. But if you want to fix the problem, there are better ways. And you won’t get the ASPCA screaming to Congress.