Hi, everyone! I’m honored to have Corey ask me to be an occasional Beat Blogger for 10,000 Birds. Those of you who read my blog, Julie Zickefoose, know that it’s a shiny happy place. But I got a letter from a friend in Tennessee that made me grind my teeth, and I wanted to alert the good legions here to a developing situation. The more birdwatchers know about it, the better.**
Many birders are unaware that Sandhill Cranes, those stately pewter-gray icons of primeval wildness, are shot for sport and food all up and down the Central Flyway of the U.S. I remember where I was standing when I found out that mid-continental Sandhill Cranes are considered a game bird, and could be shot in every state where they occur except Nebraska. It was on a raised dike at New Mexico’s Bosque del Apache NWR, and on hearing gunshots near one of Bosque’s borders I asked around with refuge personnel. Yes, they’re hunted in New Mexico, right outside the refuge boundary. Wait a minute. We’re here celebrating the Festival of the Cranes, while they’re being killed just over the refuge border? Knowing that the millions of snow geese were being hunted was one thing, but learning that cranes are on the list of hunted species was another. Seeing men with blinds and decoys waiting to shoot the cranes as they skeined over, trying to reach the refuge, took the realization to yet another level. It has taken years for me to think about this in any but the most primal of ways.
One hunter I corresponded with said he’d shot them over decoys once, but wouldn’t do it again. Too easy, he said–they come right in. Where’s the sport in that?
I thought I had it wrestled to the ground, even wrote an article for Bird Watcher’s Digest about the whole thing. (You can hear me read it on Bill Thompson’s podcast, This Birding Life, here.) When several hunters wrote to congratulate me on how “balanced” my take was, I thought I might have evolved to a point where I could embrace crane hunting as well as crane watching (I’m definitely in the blind with the birdwatchers on this one).
And then along came that letter from my conservationist/activist friend Janet McKnight, announcing that Tennessee is contemplating launching a hunting season on Sandhill Cranes. And I de-evolved, but for good reason, I think. It seems that for 17 years, the state wildlife officials planted as much as 750 acres of feed crops in order to encourage large flocks of sandhill cranes to linger for thousands of appreciative viewers at the 6,000 acre Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge in Meigs County. More than 50,000 Sandhill Cranes stop to feed while migrating during the fall and winter between Wisconsin and Florida. Tennessee started a festival around the event, just for wildlife watchers. The cranes liked the superabundant food, and a lot of them decided to hang around and spend the winter in Tennessee. The state’s response? Cancel the 17-year-old annual festival, and propose a hunting season on cranes.
To me, this is like giving a child a baby rabbit as a birthday present, and then when Harvey proves to be a bit too much to care for, bumping him off in front of her. It’s bad PR. It’s bad wildlife management. If it’s an attempt to resuscitate the slowly dying sport of hunting, it’s ill-advised, and unlikely to have the desired effect. In fact, it’s bound to be an extremely polarizing move, sending the anti-hunting and the hunting crowds even farther apart philosophically. You don’t feed, encourage and celebrate a large, lovely, charismatic species for 17 years, attracting thousands of devotees who travel each year just to admire it, and then turn around and kill it in front of them.
Tennessee’s ill-advised feeding program (750 acres of feed crops planted just for them??) interrupted the cranes’ natural migratory behavior. And their solution is to cut back somewhat on the feeding, (400 acres) and start killing cranes. What’s wrong with this picture? Pretty much everything, in my opinion. Has it occurred to the state wildlife managers not to feed them at all? To fold up the groaning board and let them move along their migratory route as they used to? Do they really need to open a season on sandhill cranes?
So I’ve spent the last couple of days composing a letter to be sent to six Tennessee wildlife and agricultural officials, registering these and other thoughts. I don’t know if it’s going to have any impact on the state’s final decision. You never know that when you write a letter. But I wanted you to know this plan was afoot; I wanted you to know, as most birdwatchers do not, that Sandhill Cranes are a game bird in almost all the states where they breed or migrate. And rather recently so. If this seems wrong to you; if shooting a crane is unthinkable to you; if shooting a bird that, if it’s lucky, is able to fledge only one colt a year seems like a bad idea, please write these Tennessee officials with your views. If you’re moved to act–even to email these people–I’d be grateful, and so would the legions of Tennessee birders and nature lovers who think there’s something very wrong with this picture, too. I feel strongly that a Sandhill Crane is worth infinitely more to the planet flying shoulder to shoulder with its family, purring its haunting, sonorous song, than thudding broken and bleeding into a cornfield, and I hope you do, too.
**UPDATE: As of Tuesday, October 19, Mike Chase had received exactly ONE letter in protest. And that was from Janet McKnight. He called her to thank her for writing. My screed should arrive today. So then he’ll have two letters of protest. This is a well-publicized thing–better now, thanks to 10,000 Birds. And yet even Tennessee’s birders remain silent–perhaps happy to passively enjoy birds without bothering to question their state’s management choices. Birders, if you don’t act, you’ve no room to complain about the outcome of this proposal. Think about training your binoculars on a family group of sandhill cranes kiting into a cornfield, hearing shots, and seeing two crumple to the ground. If that thought bothers you, WRITE.
Here are the addresses:
Michael Chase, TWRC Chairperson/PO Box 50370/Knoxville, TN 37950 email: mike.chase@tn.gov
James Fyke, Commissioner, TDEC/21st Floor, L&C Tower/401 Church St./Nashville, TN 37243
Dr. Jeff McMillan/1705 Edgemont Ave./Bristol, TN 37620 email: jeff.mcmillin@tn.gov
Mr. Terry Oliver, Commissioner, TN Dept. of Agriculture/Ellington Agricultural Center/PO Box 40627/Nashville, TN 37204
Eric Wright/1587 Highway 91/Elizabethton, TN 37643 email: eric.wright@mapeswire.com
Julie, I don’t even know what to say. I am sitting here, tears running down my face in disbelief. How can shooting a Sandhill Crane possibly be viewed as sport? Even more disturbing, how could anyone even imagine shooting a bird of this stature?
I will write letters and send emails to all. I will also investigate, unless you can elaborate, in which states “hunting” Sandhill Cranes is allowed. If California is one, I will start a personal crusade to try to change it here.
We live on the Pacific Flyway and the cranes fly right over our house during migration. The sound of their primordial calls is enough to stop me in my tracks, no matter what I am doing, to look up and watch as they fly by. Of course we have Sandhill Crane Festivals here too and the folks involved in these events, I’m sure, would be horrified to discover what you have found out about this situation in Tennessee.
As soon as I possibly can, I will also write a post on my blog and trackback to this post and link to as many other articles I can find on this subject. Also posting to Facebook and Twitter would be a great way to spread the word.
Do you know when the vote will be taking place in Tennessee? Also could you elaborate on who these people are and what their affiliations are, i.e. TWRC and TDEC, etc? Feel free to send me an email to Larry@TheBirdersReport.com with more information and thank you for bringing this tragedy to our attention!
I’m not opposed to hunting for food, but I do oppose hunting when it is used as a sport only. This scenario of setting the cranes up for viewing and then killing them is disturbing. I don’t enjoy birding near hunters either.
Minnesota recently proposed and approved a hunting season on Sandhill cranes as well.
Thank you, Larry. I think the first, outraged,gut reaction to learning that some people consider sandhill cranes targets is the one to go with in the case of Tennessee’s proposal. It seems so unfair to make the cranes suffer for bad wildlife management decisions. Here’s an excerpt from my Bird Watcher’s Digest article. Bear in mind that hunting is completely unregulated in Mexico, which is why American “sportsmen” love to go there to kill doves, waterfowl and cranes. Who knows how many cranes die uncounted there? And now we must add Minnesota to the list. And, if birders stay silent, Tennessee. Presently, around 20,000 cranes are shot in the U.S. every year. We don’t know how many are killed in Canada and Mexico.
” In the U.S., sandhill cranes are legally hunted in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. In Canada, cranes are hunted in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and in Mexico, they’re hunted in nine northern and central states. Kansas implemented its season as recently as 1993. Bag limits vary, but most states have daily bag limits of three birds per hunter, or a total of six in the hunter’s possession. To be in the presence of these birds, to know that they may have kept the same mate for decades, to know that each one can find its relatives in the throng of birds by voice alone…and then to think that in every Central flyway state where they occur except Nebraska, there are hunters setting out decoys, waiting in blinds to shoot them…the jagged edges of these thoughts rubbed like broken bones in my mind. ” From “Love and Death Among the Cranes,” Bird Watcher’s Digest, Nov/Dec 2009.
I’ve asked Janet McKnight to enlighten us on what the acronyms mean. Thank you for caring. JZ
Julie,
I have no words to thank you, or to convey the gratitude that goes deep, deep into my heart for what you have done here. I believe you to be the most gifted writer on the planet, and if anyone’s voice can give the sandhill cranes a chance, it is yours. You honor the cranes with the gift of your words. Bless you, Soul Sister.
Amazed and grateful,
Janet
I am not sure what I find more disturbing: the fact that there is a legal hunting season for cranes or the fact that there are hunters out there who actually make use of their legal right and actually shoot cranes. It takes a lot of emotional numbness to kill a crane for fun.
Larry, “TWRC” stands for Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission. Mike Chase is the Chairman.
TDEC stands for Tennessee Department of Conservation. James Fyke is the Commissioner.
Jeff McMillan is also affiliated with TWRC, as is Eric Wright. I wish I had email addresses for all of them, to make it easier for everyone, but never underestimate the power of a stamped letter. They speak even louder in these cyberdays than emails, as they’re getting so rare.
Janet, namaste.
Thank you Julie for the follow up info. I have learned that the public comment period to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency will be open until January 19, 2011. This should give us some time to get the word out to everyone we can possibly contact to write in and, I agree, written letters make more of an impact than emails and doing both is even better, even if they have the same content.
I am only slightly relieved to find that Sandhills are not shot in California.
Does anyone actually eat the cranes that are hunted?
What happens to them after they are killed?
In my research for the article and a chapter on the subject in my upcoming book, I found a Texas hunting outfitter who described sandhill cranes as “Ribeye in the Sky.” Ahh, Texas–the state that, along with North Dakota, accounts for 88% of the sandhills shot on the Central Flyway. Way to reduce a glorious bird to its essence. I would think that a sandhill crane, planing slowly in for a landing over decoys and bait, is about as hard to hit from a blind as a cow would be.
I’ve heard sandhill described as being “better than filet mignon”, so yes, it is eaten by many who hunt them. I wouldn’t know as I would be unable to kill one.
I am by no means anti-hunting, but I’m utterly repulsed by the myopic and blatantly ignorant stances of the hunting lobby. The absurdity of this Tennessee issue (feeding for 17 years, then slaughtering) is probably lost on those folks. I haven’t looked at the data on sandhill population dynamics and ecology, so I can’t speak to whether hunting in certain areas with scientifically agreed-upon limits is something worth fighting or not. Regardless, allowing Tennessee to do this is setting a precedent that hunting is not a noble tradition of humankind sustainably taking from the wild for sustenance, but a sport that legitimizes the manipulation of entire ecosystems to satisfy the hunger for meat and machismo. That anthropocentrism sickens me. I shall be writing to Tennessee today. I hear rumors that a plan is afoot for a sandhill crane harvest here in Michigan. Don’t you love that euphemism – harvest?
Thanks, Julie!
Being able to reach thoughtful people like you all with this message fills my heart. Thank YOU, Kirby. Just a little “meat” for your table: The sandhill crane has the lowest recruitment rate of any bird now hunted in North America–one colt per year if a pair is lucky. There is good evidence that shooting in Texas is driving a unique Canadian prairie population of lesser sandhills to extinction–just because they happen to pass through the part of Texas that has the most crane hunting. Forget distinguishing between races of sandhills from a blind…we’re extremely lucky if a hunter can tell a sandhill from a migrating whooping crane in the dim light of dawn. Ancillary kill is a big problem when you’ve got an endangered species lookalike that migrates with the hunted species. That alone should serve to show game managers that sandhill crane hunting is a bad idea–especially in Tennessee! where whooping cranes pass through in numbers.
It is not harvest. We didn’t plant the crop.
Thank you, Kirby, for writing. Thanks to everyone.
Thanks for bringing this issue to the attention of the birding community, Julie. I understand that state wildlife agencies are hurting in this bad economy, and that adding an interesting new target to the list of legal game is one of the traditional means of bolstering revenues, but I agree wholeheartedly that the scenario as described is certain to make enemies where wildlife desperately needs allies. The populations of Sandhills stopping over in Tennessee may be large and healthy enough to absorb some hunting pressure, but by pulling a literal bait-and-switch scam like this on the cranes, the vast non-hunting majority of the public (95% in TN according to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation), and tourism interests in the area, the TWRC is shooting itself and the hunting community in the foot.
It’s that family thing that bothers me about crane hunting vs. waterfowl hunting. At the risk of sounding anthropomorphic, adult Sandhills are devoted parents. Pairs almost always fly and roost with the colt or colts between them, seldom more than a few feet apart. This relationship lasts for up to 10 months while the young learn migration routes, safe feeding and roosting areas, how to avoid predators, etc. Colts that lose their parents or get separated from them will not be accepted into other families, making them more vulnerable to predation. The sight and sound of an orphaned colt separated from the flock and whistling in vain for its parents is heartbreaking.
One issue we disagree on is planting crops especially for cranes. This longstanding practice has helped to keep Sandhill populations healthy and mitigate conflicts between cranes and farmers. As long as it’s done on existing croplands and not at the expense of other habitats and wildlife, I’m okay with it.
Wow, unbelievable! I didn’t realize that they opened the season on sandhill cranes – especially in MN. I’m from Minnesota and I don’t remember seeing all that many sandhill cranes (at least in the central and northern areas). One of my favorite seasonal bird activities is seeing the cranes in Nebraska! Too bad, I will definitely be writing in.
Bravo, Julie! Thanks for shedding light on this horrific occurrence!
I would be against the hunting of cranes IF I saw that the numbers of them were being reduced. You didn’t have any information in your blog about that. I love them and was very excited to hear the first wintering cranes flying over the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center while I was helping with the fall sale. And I’ve camped where I’ve watched the cranes fly out from their watery roost to feed at dawn. But, at the same time, I realize we cannot support much greater numbers of cranes in a lot of places. And raising the numbers with artificial feeding is the worst sin of all as the animals will overpopulate a food area.
You also mentioned geese. In Texas, we are extending the snow goose season, to try and limit their population explosion. They are eating out habitat and impacting other animals. Deer are doing the same thing and I believe hunting deer is the next best thing to re-introducing wolves. And because of artificial feeding, most Canadian geese no longer migrate. We are lucky to find one flock in places they used to be common when we do the Christmas counts. At the same time they have become dirty, urban pests further north.
From my experience with hunters, I believe any species they hunt is usually the better for it. The hunters pay for duck stamps – and also pay again by buying hunting equipment which is taxed for wildlife -which provides habitat for both ducks and other birds such as waders and shorebirds. And the limits allowed for any hunted species are based on the years numbers. So some ducks are protected from being hunted but still benefit from the fees generated from hunters.
I used to be seriously involved in the Sierra Club, and if I had not been able to build relationships with hunters, we would not have been able to achieve many of our goals, including getting the forest service to stop clear cutting.
So I think it is important to understand populations and also why hunters hunt.
And although we have a season on sandhill cranes in Texas, I’ve met very few people who have actually hunted them. So I think the impact is very small.
I generally try to have a circumspect view on hunting, necessary in a largely rural state where gamelands are an important part of non-game wildlife management and hunting has a strong cultural foundation, but this TN thing rubs me very wrong.
To intentionally mess with the crane’s migration to promote this festival and then to enact this literal (as was mentioned above) bait and switch is just amazingly stupid, there’s just no other word for it.
Thank you for your views, Marilyn. I was wondering when someone would raise the hunting revenue=habitat preservation flag. To cast a bit more light: Somewhere around 20,000 sandhill cranes fall to hunters’ guns in the Central Flyway every year. Texas and North Dakota account for 88% of the total take, so though you say you’ve met few crane hunters, and thereby assume their impact is very small, be assured that they are out there. 20,000 cranes represents about 6% of the total population on the Central Flyway. Annual recruitment rates of Central Flyway cranes hovers somewhere between 7.5 and 11%. That means that the cranes replace themselves with young birds at somewhere around 9.25%. As Sherri pointed out, sandhill cranes have a very long juvenile dependency period, and they need their parents for that whole year before breeding season begins again. A young crane is not necessarily a functional crane, especially if it loses a parent to a hunter.
So we can do a little math. We lose 6% of the population every year to hunters. That leaves perhaps a 3.5% buffer, mostly made up of young birds. If you’ve ever seen a large gathering of cranes, you see a pretty sobering percentage with broken legs, wings, and other injuries. High tension lines take a terrible toll over the Platte (and why the power companies don’t bury them to prevent this really bothers me). As I pointed out above, hunting is unregulated in Mexico, and there are a lot of hunters who go there just because of that–they can shoot however many birds they want, of whatever species they want, whether they’re protected in the US or not. We don’t know how many cranes die there. Accidents, illness, injury, predation…is a buffer of 3.5% of the population enough to replace all those casualties?
(I gleaned these figures from USFWS yearly take reports, FYI.)
There is no other bird in North America with a recruitment rate that low, that is being hunted. And the big push to hunt them, with more and more states coming on board, worries me. I think it should worry everyone who loves cranes, and it should also, for different reasons, give pause to those who just think of them as “Ribeye in the Sky.”
And then there are the aesthetic and ethical arguments, which Nate mentions. However you feel about hunting–great, equivocal, accepting, or that it’s a necessary evil–killing cranes on the feeding and festival grounds is not going to do the pursuit and its advocates any favors.
In guiding this discussion, I’d like people to question wildlife management decisions when they seem misguided. Because they often are. Yes, we’re told, wildlife managers go to school to study just these things, and they know best. So…somebody tell me how hunting helps prairie chickens, and how varmint hunting (“vaporizing” is the popular shooter’s term) helps prairie dogs and the intricate animal and plant communities they foster, and I’ll be all ears. Because I haven’t quite figured that out. Seems to me their populations are kept teetering on the brink, these inconvenient creatures who get in the way of the big agriculture and energy projects. We must always be vigilant for the heavy hand of financial and political interests in wildlife management decisions. I’m not sure exactly what’s going on in Tennessee, but perhaps we’re a little closer to finding out.
One issue I haven’t seen addressed is that there are a few Whooping Cranes hanging out with the Sandhills around the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge. I believe, don’t know, that these are some of the Whooping Cranes raised by Operation Migration who are now migrating on their own. Hunting Sandhills would seem to me to put these individuals at risk.
I have nothing against hunters and hunting. It seems to me waterfowl have probably benefitted by hunters conserving land and habitat and we’ve limited large predators too much. But as others have noted, it hardly seems fair to hunt the Sandhill Cranes.
Julie says I’d like people to question wildlife management decisions when they seem misguided. Because they often are.
Yes yes yes. I grew up in Missouri, and still have a good relationship with some folks from the Department of Conservation there. Good birders and dedicated conservationists in a department that’s legitimately a point of pride for the state and I still keep an eye on it even though I don’t live there anymore.
But there’s a season on Ruffed grouse in Missouri. It’s year-round! And they had to close it this year because there weren’t enough Ruffed grouse for people to shoot, shockingly enough. There’s also a season on Sora and Virginia Rails with a bag limit of 25 (there’s one in North Carolina too, as well as Moorhen/Gallinule season). King Rails in Missouri are a protected species in the state. I don’t know about you all, but I consider myself a pretty good birder and I’d have trouble identifying a flushed rail on the fly in the time it would take to pull the trigger. How many state protected King Rails are incidentally taken during Sora season? Why is there a Sora season in the first place when they’re widely regarded as terrible eating?
These are legitimate questions to ask of state game agencies and I urge all birders to take Julie’s advice and look into the decisions they make. You’ll no doubt be surprised, and not necessarily in a good way.
Thanks for taking up the issue with the cranes. I’m thankful to Janet for bringing it to my attention also. I have printed 5 letters, you’rs included and have also posted the addresses of the commissioners for concerned folks to contact. If the proposal can be slowed down there is a chance. Once the proposal is adopted into the game laws there isn’t a prayer in the universe to reverse the decision. Everyone must unify on this one. It is the most senseless, unbelievable proposal I have ever heard of for the management of wildlife. It isn’t really for the wildlife. It’s obvious what the intentions are. Thanks Julie.
I just linked to this from my blog so my tiny audience will learn about it. I saw my first Sandhill Cranes this summer and was awestruck by them. Feeling very sad reading this post, Julie. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
This is appalling and and so sad. Thank you, Julie. I didn’t know…
I have hunted sandhill crane…and eaten them… and I view eating their meat as a spiritual experience like taking the sacrament in Catholic ritual… I did it once.
I live on the llano estacado, where many of the world’s sandhill cranes winter, and spend contemplative time watching them land at a salina in a glorious winter sunset, moved to tears by their clarion calls…
and I have counted them for 100 Audubon Christmas counts beginning when I was 5 years old…
Heartbreaking…thank you, Julie. I’ll start writing letters today.
A good summary of the situation is here:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/oct/16/sirloins-in-the-sky/?print=1
Isn’t this a violation of the Migratory Birds Act?
Julie,
Thank you for bringing this to the attention of us bird watchers. I sent emails off in protest to the poeple on your list. Bird watchers are much more numerous than hunters. Canceling the festival and keeping bird watchers away will badly hurt the local economy.
I urge everyone who is second guessing with great criticality, to get on Google and educate themselves about the competence of TWRA’s wildlife managers and the success they have had in the restoration of once decimated populations of eagles, turkeys, ducks, deer, and bear. If you have no idea how to answer the following questions, then perhaps your criticism carries no weight with those of us who do know the answers: What is the increase in the deer population since 1940, and why? What is the increase in the black bear population since the 1970’s, and why? Who is responsible in allowing anyone to bring eaglets down from Canada, raise and release them? Who protects all the species of bird and beasts that we enjoy so much? Who enacts regulations to protect Tennessee’s wildlife populations from disease, gathers actual field samples and works to prevent our wildlife’s decimation? Who has purchased tens of thousands of acres of wetlands and who manages them for the benefit of all? Who has international and interstate programs in place to protect and manage bird habitat, wetlands and waterways? WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS? WHO ACTUALLY PUTS THEIR FEET IN THE FIELD AND DOES IT? Do you know the success record of TWRA in managing game programs, bird and beast? Are you prepared to put your preconceived notions and miniscule data collection, gathered via internet instead of hard field work up against decades of astounding success by those who actually do the work?
Lest we judge TWRA’s intent too harshly, we need to look at facts which are independent of confirmation bias.
I don’t hunt cranes, and never will. I like those big birds and don’t understand why someone would get a thrill out of killing one. But, as I am not attempting to tell anyone how to spend their money and leisure time, I will not criticize a proven organization and tell the sportsmen who pay for it ALL how to spend their days.
If you do not know the answers to all the above, then you are a victim of TWRA’s failure in one area, and that is inadequately educating the public. But you must also realize that TWRA is a small agency with little manpower to cover a large state with such diverse habitat. That TWRA has done so much with so little, is a testamonial to their dedication and abilities. I see it first hand. I have worked for TWRA for well over 20 years. I am biased in that I know what the answers to all those questions are.
I’m from Illinois, which also is a state in the Eastern Flyway of the Greater Sandhill Cranes. I travel to view & photograph this grand species, from Wisconsin,Illinois,and Indiana. I too am very much against the hunting of the Greater Sandhills in the Eastern Flyway states. Wisconsin is also considering a Sandhill hunt. They are using the approach of crop destruction as their main leverage to get this hunt approved. Sandhills do nest in Wisconsin and are there in great numbers when the corn crop is planted. We have very few nesting Sandhills here in Illinois. So, the crop destruction is not an issue here or Indiana, since the majority of Sandhills just past through on there spring and fall migration.
I would greatly appreciate any information on how we can voice our dissaproval of such hunts. It seams to me most of these decisions are made behind closed doors or ones that are not made known to the vast majority of citizens that should have their voices heard also.
I understand that dollars are the main goal of such a hunt in these finacially troubled times. But we as birders and nature enthusiasts deserve to have our voices heard also. Our dollars and votes count too. Anyone, please pass along to me the proper channels to direct our voices and petitions to the proper authorities that can make a difference. Together in numbers, we can make a difference.
Thanks,
Steve E Patterson
Illini Images
Oglesby,Il
http://www.flickr.com/photos/illini-images/
Steve, thanks for asking how you can get involved. These decisions are not entirely made behind closed doors. Go to http://www.tnwildlife.org and get the information on the sandhill hunt theory and available information. There is a schedule of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission meetings. The TWRC is the ruling body of TWRA, made up of NON-TWRA individuals. They are not employees, but are private sector individuals who are appointed by the governor to serve multi-year terms. They function as the public’s representatives, the go-between which negotiates all matters which TWRA is involved in. They are YOUR representatives. While TWRA personnel are involved in protection, enhancement, and research, the TWRC coordinates what TWRA’s biologists and program managers want to do with the wishes of the public.
The addresses of those members have been made public on several sites, and are also available on the http://www.tnwildlife.org site.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency enacts no programs which are not approved in advance by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission.
At the meetings, the biologists will present their reasons and research. Afterwards, members of the public are invited to go forward and speak, and make their case. The TWRC makes the final decision, not TWRA.
I have attended some of the TWRC meetings and have seen instances where a person will stand alone with a request, and the TWRC will rule in favor of him. Civility, logic, and facts will get you heard.
But, remember that, unlike the disparaging remarks made by Julie Z, about wildlife managers learning things in school (as though that is where it ends), you will have to discuss your case to commissioners who have heard a case presented by experienced wildlife managers, with many years of experience, reams of data they have collected, and a successful track record.
TWRA’s wild turkey recovery in Tennessee is one such program, often called “one of the greatest wildlife recovery success stories on record.” As one poster on this site indicated, those animals which are hunted benefit the most. Show up at the TWRC meeting with facts. Emotions carry little weight; everybody has a tear duct.
Thanks Paul. I’m an Illinois resident, so I will not be attending any meetings of TWRC. At no point would I demeanor the efforts of any biologists or conservation dept. of any state. We owe a lot to what they do. Although I do not hunt,except with my camera. I do buy a hunting license, along with a duck stamp every year. I’d also be willing to buy a license just for observing wildlife if the moneys could be used properly to protect the same wildlife that hunters hunt. I believe many birders and outdoor enthusiasts would do the same. I understand that it takes money to manage wildlife.
It sounds like Tennesee has the TWRC to speak for the general public and not just hunters. Here in Illinois, we could use such an organization. But as you may very well know, the state of Illinois has a problem handling our money and conservation departments are near the bottom of the list as far as importance. I understand that through studies by biologists, that the Eastern Flyway of the Greater Sandhill Cranes could support such hunts. But at the same time, it may not. We do have the Gulf oil spill to contend with this winter for our migratory birds. Biologists & conservation departments at the federal level have made a difference in the numbers of Greater Sandhill Cranes in the Eastern Flyway, along with many other organizations including the International Crane Foundation. These organizations are directly responsible for saving the Whooping Cranes from extinction. EXTINCTION! These same Whooping Cranes WILL be effected by such a hunt for Sandhills. Indiana know’s this to be true even with out a hunt.
I for one, do not want to sit idle and possibly take away opportunity for future generations to have the same benefit of seeing these Great birds, as I have had and hope, to continue.
By no means do I have but the greatest respect and admiration for all conservation departments. I thank them for all that they do,have done, and hopfully continue to do.
Steve E Patterson
Hello Steve,
Thanks for your support of those who are in the field at all times of year, working at low pay to support and promote wildlife of all kinds, game and non-game. You many find the following site of interest: http://www.state.tn.us/twra/nongame.html
On that site, click on Watchable Wildlife. There is a lot of bird information there which you and other readers may enjoy. TWRA has a large non-game program, with much emphasis on the protection of non-game birds. There are several programs in place which allow those who support birds to make tax deductible contributions. The web site details the amounts earned and spent toward habitat (land) purchases and improvements which benefit birds. To mention one which comes to mind: All of my vehicles sport Watchable Wildlife license plates which show my support for our non-game projects. The proceeds go into those TWRA projects. One of my license plates has a bluebird, one a wild turkey, the other a black bear. I am proud to show that not only do I work for TWRA, but actively support the non-game programs.
TWRA owns and manages tens of thousands of acres of wildlife management area lands, statewide, which are open to wildlife observers, year round (except on hunt days, and a few restricted days during critical breeding times when human traffic would disturb the animals). There are trails, remote roads, fields, streams, and lakes which bird watchers are encouraged to use. We charge no fees for these opportunities. State and Federal park and forest lands add to the places birders and other observers of wildlife are welcome.
TWRA encourages and wants everyone to enjoy what nature has provided, but we also realize that hunting (and fishing) have always been an American tradition, and that those activities are important to a tremendous number of our citizens. If it weren’t for the support of those interested in non-game species, hunters, and fishermen, there would be little in the way of wildlife species for anyone to enjoy. Certainly, TWRA as we know it, would probably cease to exist, and with it would go the law enforcement protection of wildlife.
Everyone needs to be sensitive to the wishes of others. Too many times in my career I’ve seen factional groups try to destroy the system by attempting to deny others their rights to recreational pursuits. We are all different, with differing interests. Nobody is promoting killing enough Sandhill cranes that it would harm the population. Wild turkeys are a good comparison. TWRA’s biologists and wildlife managers took a population which was practically gone in this state, and with the help of hunters’ funds, restored it to a flourishing population. Rare is the week when a person driving a Tennessee highway will not see a wild turkey. Now and then, they are even seen in the middle of large cities. I had one fly into the side of my truck one afternoon. Tennessee went from an almost completely decimated population to a viable, huntable population of these birds. In 2004 for instance, 34,000 turkeys were taken by hunters in this state. (I don’t have the latest figures handy at the moment, but they’re equally impressive.)
The turkey population continues to thrive and increase, every year. I’m guessing there was a bit of opposition to that, also. Letting those hunters who paid for the program kill a few for the table each year keeps the program alive. Buying, planting and maintaining food plots, trapping and relocating turkeys to areas where they may not be numerous, population surveys, harvest and health data collection -they’re all part of the management plan.
Good luck in your bird watching and other outdoor endeavors.
the festival should not have been cancelled…that was totally wrong…and I would love to know the reason… It makes the issuance of hunting permits appear to be the reason for canceling the festival, as if hunting interests won in the battle against birders. I hate that — for it is crass manipulation of people, to create polarization between camps that should and often do work together.
The Pittman-Robertson tax that every gunowner pays has done more for habitat, preservation of species, and more than all other conservation organizations… 70+ years of tax money has paid for many wildlife refuges, parks, and educational projects.
I think the issue (and the letter writing campaign) should focus on the continuation of the festival… not the proposed season, for that makes enemies of hunters who are best kept as partners…
The festival should be held. The first speaker at the festival should be the fool(s) that canceled it, offering an apology for their spectacularly stupid act. The best sportsman writer (outdoor magazine writer) of Tennessee should be the second speaker, so the birdwatchers might hear some of the good that hunters do, and hear part of the reason why hunting is an acceptable form of behavior. The third speaker should be someone from TWRC to tell the story of the recovery from 1000 birds to 42,000 birds — that is something to celebrate.
The fourth speaker should be someone from the International Crane Foundation, who talks about the wonders and glories of cranes, and of their work concerning all species of crane– and the festival should be a fundraiser for them. Challenge the hunters and birders to have a contest to see who can raise the most money for cranes…
Other speakers should include naturalist writers of the region — those folks who do the most to educate the people of Tennessee about their flora and fauna. I remember seeing a great documentary on all of the world’s species of cranes… that film should be shown at the festival, too…If there is any American Indian group that still has a crane dance, they should perform at the festival.
As far as manipulating the populations of cranes,or other organisms… we do that all the time, both purposefully, and accidentally… we have populations of blackbirds and gulls and other birds that far exceed what was present when the Indians ran the country, because of our crop fields and dumps. Every invasive exotic species of plant is another example of our manipulation… (and Canada Geese and park and golf course grass, as mentioned)
(In the ecological scheme of things, humans are a disruptor species on a grand scale: we are part of the world, not separate from it, not better than it, not worse than it.)
We spend an amazing amount of money to preserve the California Condor, which is a relict of the Pleistocene megafauna days, and we do prescribed burns to help the Kirtland’s Warbler, and do lots of other manipulation to help other species in need, which goes a little way to absolve us of our sins of ignorance and greed that causes species declines…
Great article Julie and I think this is a great conversation that is going on. If you don’t mind, I would like to take a moment to point out the straw men that have been erected and knocked down in this comments section.
First off, no one here questioned “the competence of TWRA’s wildlife managers and the success they have had in the restoration of once decimated populations of eagles, turkeys, ducks, deer, and bear.”
What has been questioned is the specific decision to allow hunters to kill Sandhill Cranes in Tennessee, a species that is only staying in Tennessee in such large numbers because it has been lured in by hundreds of acres of crops.
Second, no one is questioning that some species have had remarkable comebacks thanks to good wildlife management. Of course, that is pretty much the purpose of wildlife management agencies so making a big deal out of it is like congratulating the DMV for issuing lots of driver’s licenses.
Third, birders find it great that turkeys have come back. It is the rare birder who demands that turkey hunting be stopped, and I have seen no such comment here. Again, the comeback in the population of turkeys is thanks to good wildlife management. But how was is that the turkey population got so low to begin with that it required managing?
Fourth, no one has questioned that hunters pay taxes and that the money goes to conservation. Folks who don’t read this blog regularly might be surprised to see that we have repeatedly begged for field guides and binoculars to be taxed for the same purpose.
I think everyone can agree with Paul Shaw’s statement above: “Everyone needs to be sensitive to the wishes of others. Too many times in my career I’ve seen factional groups try to destroy the system by attempting to deny others their rights to recreational pursuits.”
Hopefully, Paul and others can understand that people who attend a crane festival do not wish to see them shot out of the sky and that hunting cranes in this context does “deny others their rights to recreational pursuits.” Where is there evidence that the hunting community had the wish to hunt cranes in Tennessee? Was there grassroots pressure for this to happen? Julie lays out the numbers for the Sandhill Crane population and she is spot on in pointing out that the total number hunted is cutting close to the point that the overall population could suffer. How low would it have to get before Tennessee would stop the hunt? How many Whooping Cranes, which come through Tennessee, would have to be accidentally shot before the hunt would be stopped?
Wildlife watchers flocked to a festival for cranes that is now canceled so hunters can shoot them. That is bad for wildlife, bad for cranes, bad for hunters, bad for conservation, and just plain sad.
Thank you, Mr. Shaw, and my friend Burr Williams, for thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. I’m very glad to learn more about the extensive work of TWRA in helping re-establish both vulnerable nongame and game species in Tennessee. And I’m sorry if I offended you, Mr. Shaw, in my admittedly broad-brush take on the situation. When trying to move a sometimes frustratingly inert population to action, a writer sometimes has to use a blunt object, applied with considerable force.
Hunting the burgeoning cranes of Tennessee may not actually be “bad wildlife management,” in my own unfortunate choice of words. Canceling a popular festival dedicated to observing a charismatic species and then proposing a hunting season on that bird is, any way you cut it, bad people management. Burr, thank you for your very thoughtful suggestions on how Tennessee might attempt to bring the two camps back together in the future.
Those birders who, like my husband and I, purchase and proudly wear a duck stamp on our binoculars, and encourage other birders to do likewise at the many festivals we work nationwide, are indeed contributing to habitat preservation, *just like hunters and anglers do.* The movement to get birders to buy duck stamps is mushrooming. So it is increasingly inaccurate to use the well-worn assertion that hunters pay for it all. Wildlife watchers and photographers contribute too, every time we check into a motel or walk into a restaurant near a birding site; every time we buy a duck stamp with no intention of shooting anything.
We birdwatchers are admittedly used to free entertainment, and as such tend to be a rather passive lot. This post was an attempt to wake a few people up, in Tennessee and elsewhere. I’m delighted with the discourse that followed. I think we all need to be careful, on both sides of the fence, to honor each others’ right to voice both opinions and objections. Birders have every right to speak out about crane hunting, and I hope they will. Whether birders will ever be as organized, research-driven and goal-oriented as wildlife management agencies like TWRA and its loyal employees is doubtful. Whether we have a snowball’s chance of impacting TWRC’s eventual action by our voices is also an open question. It depends how many of us are moved to write the commissioners, and whether we can show that there is real cause for concern behind our aesthetic and emotional objection to killing cranes. The potential ancillary kill of whooping cranes is a serious concern, one unlikely to be fully addressed by an ID brochure mailed out to hunters. Hunters may be able to recognize certain targeted species, but I’ve been dismayed by their collective ignorance in being able to recognize and identify the legions of other birds that also come into their sights.
Mr. Shaw, you mention turkeys: we have seen a similar explosion in wild turkeys in Ohio, aided by stocking of wild-caught birds by our ODNR. It has been distressing to see their impact on the native ruffed grouse populations, which have virtually disappeared in southeastern Ohio as packs of turkeys plow through the understory, eating and scraping grouse habitat out from under the smaller birds. I’m not sure that the superabundance of turkeys is a universally great thing, but it does give the eastern coyotes something else to eat. As for drawing a parallel between turkeys and cranes, there’s a reproductive gulf between the two. Turkeys lay about a dozen eggs a year; their reproductive potential and recruitment rate far outstrips that of sandhill cranes, which lay a two-egg clutch, and are lucky to raise one colt to fledging each year. Their family dynamics, as Sherri Williamson points out, are complex, and an orphaned crane colt is at a potentially fatal disadvantage.
Should the sandhill crane be a game bird? That is for everyone to decide. They’re just passing through Tennessee–they don’t belong to any one state on the flyway. They belong to us all.
Thanks, everyone, for contributing to a vital discussion. Birders, recognize your right and obligation to unite and speak out. You have a voice–use it. You have nothing to lose but your passivity.
OK. I’m getting so many emails it will take me a century to read and respond to. This is indicative of a very concerned and interested birding community. I will continue my efforts and do what I can. It’s an interesting endeavor. However, I sincerely hope these concerns are being written to the commissioners of TWRA also. They need to hear them and quickly. Let me make a wild statement that many will not agree with. But, I’ll put it out there. What if TWRA put a block on their hunting license labled “birder”. Would birders buy a license and check that box? The hunting license is a document that proves a person paid his share for the privilage to hunt. In reality it is not a hunting licence. Part of its purpose is proof that those funds were collected by TWRA and provides an accountability for the money collected. The dollars go directly to support all the things TWRA undertakes in the name of wildlife and propagation. Think of it as a Wildlife license. Anything one wants to call it. Buy purchasing the license; a person is supporting the cause of wildlife. By checking the box labled “birder” an accountability can be measured indicative of the non hunters who support the common cause. In essence; the birders have gained their voice in programs and policy. And they can be counted. The result is hunters and birders supporting the same animals they both love and all species will be better served with the very increased revenue. What cha think?
Excellent! Wish all states would do exactly that. More money for management and equal rights to all that contribute. How do we get this done?
Steve E Patterson
Now you’re talking, Gary. I’ve forwarded a link to this discussion to Paul Baicich, co-author of the Birding Community E-Bulletin and champion of getting birders to buy duck stamps. He’ll doubtless have something substantive to say about your proposal. We are not without financial contributions, a voice and influence in the conservation world. We just need a way to be counted, to resoundingly answer the well-worn and inaccurate assertion that hunters have to pay for all our lookee-lookee fun.
I just read the comments after the brain storm Idea I came up with of purchasing hunting licenses. Believe it or not; this idea, the more I contemplate it, is would really work as a means of birder contrabution. Birders would have to learn to get over the term “hunting” license. It is a term and nothing more. I believe the purchase of such licenses would eliminate any polarization between the two factions, hunters and birders, that may currently exhist. However, we must not get off the focus of the proposed crain hunt or be distracted from that concern. The idea of hunting license purchases would be a giant step in eliminating the polarization that exhists between the hunting and birder communities. (the big picture) And, I believe the idea is suitable enough and practicle enough to present to TWRC for discussion.. They have nothing to lose and a lot of revenue to gain. A lot. Birders also have a lot to gain. Equal consideration and hearing concerning practices affecting their beloved birds. Only now, they would not have to listen to statements like the hunters fund all of it. The playing field would be level. The purchasing of the license “is not” buying the right to speak or disagree. Birders have that now. The purchase of the license must be viewed as a willingness of the purchacer to help and contribute his share to assist TWRA with its stewardship responsibilities. It has to be looked upon that way. Dignity and respect can be the only result for the birders. And; their voices will be a little bit louder and their conserns should fall upon a more attentive audience. And TWRA will have a lot more money to service “OUR” wildlife resources. It’s a win, win. That’s all I can say about it. The idea can be presented to TWRC and TWRA. But, how does one go about getting an idea out to bird clubs for a general concensus of the idea? Clubs are individual organizations as I see it with no common thread connecting them accept the love of birds. I don’t know how to do it but, the hunting license idea should be presented to bird clubs throughout the state to test the acceptance of the idea. If the result is positive; I believe I can have it presented to TWRA and TWRC for discussion and analysis. It costs nothing to present the idea. No action results in status quo. Active participation and presentation of this idea could change the face of birding and the relationship of hunters and birders in this state forever. And you could achieve something to be proud of and more importantly; our wildlife programs would be enhanced greatly; and that is what we all are about I believe.
Julie,
Thanks for providing this site for discussion. No offense is taken in your comments about wildlife managers and their hard working data collectors and field workers. We have a thick skin. And, as we are using public funds, we should be watched and held accountable.
I also want everyone reading this to understand that I am NOT acting as a formal representative of TWRA. I am writing as a private, wildlife-loving, outdoorsman who happened to choose the welfare of wildlife as a vocation. After 5 years of higher education in the field which included 4 years of employment with the USFWS, and a stint in the military and in private industry, I have been lucky enough to work for TWRA for a couple of months shy of 24 years, and have enjoyed every minute of it, especially the interactions of the like-minded people I meet. Opinions vary, far and wide, on many topics.
Like everyone, heredity and environment have formed me, experience and education have tempered me. All contribute to my opinions.
There is a good book by Doug Markham called “Rocket, Boxes and Pens, a history of wildlife recovery in Tennessee.” It’s informative, easy reading; I recommend it for those interested in that topic. It is still available on the internet book sites and in some book stores (mine came from Books a Million).
I was disappointed, also, to hear about the festival’s cancellation. It is a temporary cancellation, and if you’ll read the Morgan Simmons article at
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/nov/10/17th-crane-festival-canceled/
you will learn why. The biological reason seems to agree with the concerns of Julie and a lot of others with entries on this discussion board. Sure, the partying will not go on as much, and fewer funnel cakes will be sold, but those activities are not the ultimate goal. I urge Mr. Burr Williams to read the article, as it will answer his questions. (It was not for the reason you guessed.)
I think Gary Loucks has an interesting line of suggestions which are worth looking into. (Corey, you don’t have to pay a dadblamed TAX to contribute! Whew! Are we Americans not taxed enough already?)
It is human nature for most of us to dislike being told what to do. Mandatory things irk us, especially those of us who love the outdoors.
Yes, we will willingly pay our taxes, to avoid jail time. But it remains a mandate, and we are prone to dislike the process. It leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Who present loves the IRS? Raise your hands!
What? I see nothing out there!
Who present loves Friends of the Smokies? The Nature Conservancy? Aha!
I see hands all over the place!
Voluntary things give us cause to celebrate our participation. We do more and accomplish things far exceeding what a mandate (TAX) would require us to do. Volunteering gives us that warm and fuzzy feeling of satisfaction in the cause.
Volunteer work and projects are alive and well in this country, for good reason. We are free people, with a free voice, and with representation.
All of you who participate in this site’s discussion are part of that American spirit. Hearing a variety of opinions and keeping an open mind is good for the soul and the process of compromise and construction, no matter the endeavor.
We can disagree, but meet on common ground. Here are some observations I have made, based on decades of exposure to controversy and the battles which can ensue:
1. In a controversy, if everyone leaves satisfied, it is an unusual and rare outcome, and usually means that the only controversy was that there was misunderstanding of each side’s position.
2. If half the people leave completely satisfied, it means there is another half of the citizenry which is completely dissatisfied, and the process has failed.
3. But, if everyone leaves saying, “Well….there is a little problem here, but I can live with it,” the objective of satisfying a plethora of opinions has done about all it can do. A concensus has been reached among a tremendous diversity of personalities and opinions.
There was once a rookie skydiver who, upon jumping from a perfectly sound airplane, discoverd that his parachute was tangled, and not opening. As he hurtled toward the ground, he saw another man coming the opposite direction! The other man was going skyward at an incredible speed! The skydiver frantically called out, “Mister! Do you know anything about parachutes?”
“NO”!” the upward soaring man replied. “Do you know anything about Coleman stoves?”
Both had the same interest, but were coming at it from different directions.
Here is Morgan Simmon’s article which appeared in the Knoxville News Sentinel, yesterday, concerning the festival and the biology behind the event’s temporary change of schedule. I urge all of you who wish to become better educated on this occurrence to read this article to the end. He did a pretty good job of explaining it.
:
17th crane festival canceled
TWRA worried additional food affects migration
By Morgan Simmons
Monday, November 10, 2008
The most popular wildlife viewing event in East Tennessee may have grown too big for its own good.
Each winter the Cherokee Heritage and Sandhill Crane Viewing Days Festival attracts thousands of birdwatchers to the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge in Meigs County, where more than 50,000 sandhill cranes stop to feed while migrating during the fall and winter between Wisconsin and Florida.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, which manages the wildlife refuge, has canceled the upcoming festival due to budget cuts and concerns that too many cranes are overwintering at the refuge and not migrating farther south.
The TWRA provides corn and other crops to the sandhill cranes to assure that a large flock is available for viewing when the festival rolls around. In recent years, the event has been moved back from late February to late January because, increasingly, the cranes have been eating all the food.
This would have been the Cherokee Heritage and Sandhill Crane Viewing Days Festival’s 17th such event in a row. In past years, the Southeastern Tourism Society has placed the festival on its list of top 20 events.
TWRA officials say they plan to resume the festival next winter with additional funding and organizational help from the Tennessee Wildlife Federation, a non-profit organization that works to enhance wildlife. Biologists also want to see how the absence of supplemental feeding on the refuge this winter affects the sandhill cranes’ numbers and migration pattern.
Meanwhile, the Meigs County Tourism Council is planning a scaled-down Sandhill Crane Viewing Days Festival on Saturday and Sunday. From 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturday, a shuttle to the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge will leave from the Birchwood Elementary School on State Route 60 near the viewing area.
Although the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge is closed Nov. 1-Feb. 28, visitors are welcome to view the cranes all winter provided they stay within the refuge’s fenced-in wildlife viewing area overlooking the fields.
Located at the confluence of the Hiwassee and Tennessee rivers, the area has been drawing sandhill cranes for thousands of years, according to archaeological evidence. Prior to the festival in February, an aerial count placed the number of sandhill cranes at the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge at more than 20,000 birds. Also counted were nine whooping cranes, a federally endangered species.
The 6,000-acre refuge was created primarily to benefit ducks and geese. The area and its upkeep are paid for through Tennessee hunting and fishing license fees as well as a federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition earmarked for wildlife restoration.
In recent winters, the sandhill cranes have outnumbered waterfowl on the refuge. Instead of flying to their nesting grounds in Florida, a portion of the flock now remains on the refuge, depleting food supplies and spilling over onto private farms.
This year, instead of planting 750 acres in crops to feed wildlife, TWRA plans to plant 450 acres. Dan Hicks, TWRA’s region three spokesman, said that should be enough to feed the cranes without artificially holding them through the winter.
“We think the birds need to migrate south and not be held back by an overwhelming food source that make them fat and lazy,” Hicks said.
Biologists want to determine the best time to hold future crane viewing festivals based on the greatest numbers of cranes on the refuge absent the extra food.
They’ll also be observing changes in the flock’s migration pattern.
Last summer the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission voted to cut TWRA’s 2008-09 budget by approximately $4.5 million. The commission also voted not to increase the cost of license fees, the agency’s largest source of revenue.
Hicks said the price tag for feeding the cranes for the festival has grown too steep, given fuel and seed costs.
“We simply don’t have the funding anymore,” Hicks said. “But given the biological concerns, we might be looking at this strategy even without the budget cuts.”
Organizers say they expect the next sandhill crane viewing festival to be bigger and better than ever.
Michael Butler, executive director of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation, said the event could strengthen ties between birding enthusiasts and hunters, two factions that traditionally have had little in common.
“We’d like to see it become a large wildlife festival with cranes as the primary draw, but with all interested wildlife groups coming together to showcase their support for conservation,” Butler said. “The days of separating wildlife into categories like game and non-game are over. It’s all about working together to protect as much habitat as we can.”
I think that article appeared in 2008. Maybe it was a reprint? Here is a more recent article by the same guy (from this month) that refers to the cranes as “sirloins in the sky” and mentions the TWRA’s justification of crop destruction as a reason for the hunt, a non-reason, really, seeing as the US F&WS issues permits to those who have nuisance cranes damaging their crops.
There is also this one which points out that cranes are “in desperate need of hunting.”
Julie suggested that I chime in on this fascinating thread. It has gone in many directions, but except for a final word on cranes, I will comment on only one element: birders buying the “Duck Stamp.”
Since the mid-1930s waterfowl hunters (and others) have secured more than 5.3 million acres of Refuge System habitat using over $750 million of collected Stamp funds. Since the mid-1950s close to 98% of each stamp (today costing $15 each) is spent on securing Refuge System habitat, held for the birds but “owned” by the citizens of the United States. This is a kind of “mitigation” fund for hunters, but it is also a “conservation fund” for everyone who buys a stamp. Indeed, since 1977, the stamp has by law officially been titled “The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp.” (Still too many people continue to use the old misnomer, “Duck Stamp.”) One nifty thing about the Stamp is that major portions of the funds have gone to acquire grasslands, not simply wetlands. (Another grand thing about the $$$ is that the fund can’t be “raided” by Congress, used for any other purposes.) Some of my favorite NWRs for birding have been acquired mainly by Stamp dollars (and mostly, we need to remind ourselves, by waterfowl hunters). Here are just 10 of those favorite refuges and the percentage of the property that has been acquired through Stamp investments:
Bosque del Apache in New Mexico 99.2%
Pea Island in North Carolina 99.2%
Bombay Hook in Delaware 95.1%
Santa Ana in Texas 94.9%
Okefenokee in Georgia 88.2%
Anahuac in Texas 87.5%
Ottawa in Ohio 86.4%
Laguna Atascosa in Texas 86.0%
Edwin B. Forsythe in New Jersey 84.3%
Blackwater in Maryland 77.6%
Pretty impressive, no?
So, birders didn’t “buy” these refuges, nor did the lion’s share of the acquisition dollars come from the general public through federal income tax dollars.
The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp is appropriate for EVERYONE who values wetland and grassland habitat, not just waterfowl hunters. It’s a way for birders, hunters, and general conservationists to support a mutual effort, regardless of any other minor differences. (And birders have far more in common with waterfowl hunters than differences.)
Four final points:
1 Sandhill Crane hunters acquire STATE licenses or permits to hunt cranes. They are NOT currently required to hold a Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp. Frankly, I think they SHOULD be required to do so. These cranes cross State lines and use the same wetland and grassland habitat secured through Stamp dollars. Any change, however, would require a complicated alteration in the Federal law, but it’s not impossible. (Note: some crane hunters may also be waterfowl hunters, so they may already hold a Stamp.)
2 As Julie suggested, LOTS of birders are buying AND DISPLAYING the stamp these days. It’s encouraging to see this voluntary effort, one which benefits far more species than waterfowl! A number of state organizations and bird observatories (e.g., GOS, WSO, BSBO) are selling the Stamp. If anything, the movement needs to spread.
3 You can see a fine discussion on the general subject from Jeff Gordon’s blog from later August:
http://jeffreyagordon.com/2010/08/are-birders-really-buying-92-of-duck-stamps-sold/
4 There is a listserv of Stamp-supporters (about 40% birders, 30% hunters, 20% FWS staff and Refuge Friends, and 10% general conservationists.) ). If you want to see what is being said about Stamp promotion and education, just ask to be added to the listserv by contacting Patrick Woolford: pwoolford@refugeassociation.org
Thanks for bringing me into this conversation, Julie!
PJB
I’m following this blog closely and I’m noticing something that is interesting. It appears that the comments from the birding community are slightly shifting to present some proof of the support they have extended through the desire to pay tax on things like binoculars, purchasing duck stamps etc. All noble ideas. And by the way; Duck stamps or (conservation stamp) purchases do indeed work. The cost of $14 or $15.00 pays for good value. However; we are concerned with the cranes in Tennessee and, of course, all birds in tennessee. I noticed that the funds from the conservation stamp went toward the purchase of refuges (ten named) none of which are in the state of Tennessee. Some probably are. But the ones named aren’t. We don’t want to get into a conest of who did what with how much. As my last comment on it; investigate how much land acquisition TWRA has purchased for our wildlife with the hunting licenses. It is staggering. We need our dollars directed to the birds and resources in “Tennessee.” The contributions to out of state wildlife causes is commendable, certainly. But, Stay focused here folks. #1. this proposed crane hunt “will” happen. 2. Birders need to organize their efforts and loby for repeal of the new legislation that put the cranes on the hunting list. Furthermore; they need to present a strong position as to why they feel they should not be harvested and back it up with data. (a shame to shoot a pretty bird won’t get it done.) 3. Birders need to express their wishes to TWRC and back their sentiments up with a sincere desire to contribute to the organization responsible for the habitat of the birds of Tennessee. Moneys collected will help not only birds but, all the critters in this state.
Hunters are paying nearly $28.00 for a combination hunting and fishing license. For them to purchase a bird stamp on top of that for an additional $14.00 is really asking a lot. And, how much of that $14.00 stays in Tennessee for the betterment of our wild birds? All the hunting license fees are directed for the cause of wildlife in this state. The only way I can see to advance the birding cause is to (willingly) direct funds into the agency held accountable for the health of our wildlife. A tax on this or that won’t get it. There are ample reasons why that won’t work and it’s too lengthy to go into here. I’m not saying forget the conservation stamp. That can be purchased by anyone who wishes. But, to contribute dollars to TWRC/TWRA in the same amounts, or near amounts, as the hunters do in this state will get the elevate the birders cause to the top of the ladder at elevator speed. There’s power in that. Focus, focus, focus and think it through. I am so concerned about the cranes I would bleed for them if possible. I can see no other way to create forward movement. Organization, common cause, civility and dollars are the answers. And, I hope the commissioners at TWRA have been covered up with letters of concern. Do you think they are?
Cory; What are you refering to with the comment about “a few straw men?” That’s a new one for me. What’s a straw man? I’m sure its a complimentry term.
Paul, I’m proud to pay my taxes as long as the burden is fairly distributed (it’s currently not, making the richer richer and the poor poorer than ever before), because I’m proud of the good things my taxes support: our national parks, interstate highways, environmental and consumer protection, domestic and international aid, education, the arts, etc.
That’s one reason it’s so insulting to be told that I don’t support this or that state wildlife agency unless I buy a hunting/fishing license. As a responsible, wildlife-loving citizen, I want to financially support programs that benefit wildlife and habitats. If you don’t use the taxes I pay to support agencies responsible for those programs or give me some other way to pay my fair share, you don’t have any room to criticize me when my money goes to the feds and nonprofit organizations instead. (It’s a fallacy that only hunters and anglers support such agencies, but I won’t take up space here to address that.)
Volunteerism is a wonderful thing–most of my employers couldn’t have gotten by without the dedication of dozens of volunteers. Sadly, your original rant about who “put their feet in the field” failed to acknowledge non-hunters representing the Tennessee Ornithological Society and American Eagle Foundation whose volunteerism and donations were critical to the success of the Bald Eagle reintroduction. Is your point about the IRS and The Nature Conservancy that people like it better when fees aren’t mandatory? Of course they do, but what percentage of hunters and anglers do you think would pay license fees if they were voluntary?
Back to cranes. We have a hunting season here in Arizona, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that it’s necessary. Our wintering crane populations have grown with the growth of irrigated agriculture and protection of wetland roosting habitat, from 4200 in 1978 to over 40,000 last winter. There’s no conflict with farmers, because the cranes convert waste grain and crop pests into tons of nutrient-rich guano and leave before the spring planting. Many farmers love having cranes around and take a dim view of hunting them. Some of the hundreds of “NO HUNTING” signs have “SANDHILL CRANES” written across the bottom, and we’ve heard stories of hunters stopping at farms to ask if there are any cranes around and being told, “Uh, no cranes here. Try So-and-So’s place across the valley.”
Even where crop depredations are a problem, they’re a poor justification for allowing general sport hunting of a species when, as Corey pointed out, depredation permits would target the trouble spots. And of course ending the feeding program would go a long way toward dispersing the flocks southward and reducing the “problem.” The states south of Tennessee don’t appear to allow crane hunting, and I’m sure their economies could use a boost from ecotourism.
This year Arizona Game & Fish will make 399 crane hunting permits available, allowing the take of up to 1179 cranes (about 2.9% of last winter’s population). News reports indicate that Tennessee has a similar number of cranes but intends to distribute 733 permits for 3 cranes each. That’s up to 2199 cranes, or ~5.5% of last winter’s population. You can see why a biologically literate person, regardless of what they think about hunting, might be concerned over this disparity in light of cranes’ slow reproductive rate and complex social structure and the likelihood of hunt-related mortality beyond the official “harvest” (especially with a bunch of hunters who have never hunted cranes before).
Another difference is that Arizona hunters who are drawn for a crane permit must purchase a crane tag for $22.50. If the press coverage is correct, TWRA plans to give away crane hunting permits while complaining that it can’t afford to keep feeding cranes?? Pardon my bluntness, but this is just jaw-droppingly stupid. It also looks really bad (either incompetent or duplicitous) to invest substantial resources into recovering Sandhill Crane populations with no mention of making them a game species, then respond to success by promoting the idea that the species is “in desperate need of hunting.”
There’s a saying in Belize, a country where watchable wildlife is a vital part of the economy and the culture: You can only skin a jaguar once, but you can skin a tourist a thousand times. According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, wildlife watchers outnumber hunters in Tennessee by a 3-to-1 margin, and numbers of hunters continue to decline. It’s unfair, shortsighted, and unsustainable to keep asking more and more from the shrinking hunting minority when many more residents and visitors enjoy the same resources and could help support the agencies responsible for their management.
If TWRC is to maintain its effectiveness in managing and protecting Tennessee’s wildlife, it will need the financial support of wildlife watchers. To get that support, it will have to cultivate their good will. It should go without saying that proposing a new hunting season for a very popular and highly watchable bird does not generate good will.
One last gripe: If oil interests in Congress hadn’t hijacked the original Teaming With Wildlife proposal, state agencies might now be funding their nongame, endangered species, and watchable wildlife programs with federal excise taxes on binoculars, cameras, field guides, bird feeders and seed, etc., and maybe birders and other wildlife watchers would no longer be treated like the red-haired stepchildren of the outdoor recreation community.
Sheri,
You have some valid points and strong opinions. So,what are you going to do to effect some of them?
Someone as well informed as you knows that the intent of the original plantings at Hiwassee were to benefit geese and ducks, not cranes. But cranes showed up in droves and have got to be managed in some way. TWRA did not intentionally bait these birds in with the idea of creating a problem. That is a misconception which has spread like wildfire among people who would rather gripe than look up the readily-available details. Criticism is easier. That refuge was intended to be a waterfowl, duck and goose refuge. Extra mouths showed up and proliferated. Your cognitive reasoning is flawed. Reducing the number of mouths to feed will reduce the costs of upkeep for the cranes as well as the intended species of ducks and geese. Limiting plantings will help the cranes move along their migration routes with more normalcy (as some of you readers have stated you would like to see happen). The permits are not given away independent of hunting licenses. They are given out by way of a drawing, but only after a license has been purchased.
The huge concentrations of these birds are an invitation to disease outbreaks, which is a huge concern. Other species suffer that fate with regularity; cranes are no exception. I can tell that you have never been to that refuge. If you are ever in the area, I invite you to do so. The wing to wing proximity of thousands of birds is incredible and a fantastic sight to behold. But it reeks of potential problems for the birds. Read TWRA’s report and plan. If you have any detailed questions, why don’t you write TWRA (TWRA manages and protects Tennessee’s wildlife, not TWRC) and ask them, directly? Debate them, if you wish. Ask them questions (but wait, they are straw men, too; what do they know? Maybe you could get all your information from Corey, as he is anything but a straw man, having a tremendous amount of experience in wildlife management). However, I am sure you will find that they are accomodating people, despite being ignorant straw men, and have a knowledge base you can draw upon, and will readily give you all the information you want. They are NOT anti bird watchers. Go to our non-game and bird site and see what TWRA’s interests are. Talk to our guys, go to our site, then, when you are sufficiently satisfied, gripe with a vengeance if you wish. You will gripe with knowledge.
I will put our wildlife professionals’ opinions, abilities, and track record (not gained by riding a subway in the Bronx, sorry but it will just have to do) up against each and every one of those who post on this site. Challenge them in a calm, deliberate debate; I’ll buy the popcorn and sit back for a fine show. Because you are “biologically literate” then perhaps you’ll state your case quite intelligently. If you really want to support your opinion, I invite you to travel to the TWRC meetings and state your case. You may win. I’ve seen private individuals present reasonable arguments and walk away quite happy with the result. By the way, TWRC does not manage and protect our wildlife, TWRA does. TWRC is the ruling body over TWRA, the citizen’s representative group, none of whom work for TWRA.
When I made my “boots in the field” comment, I made it with good reason, and stand by it. But, I will readily and happily include all organizations who also have field workers who actually do something. We have a few citizens groups which show up and help in our fisheries projects, and they are fine folks. Their boots are in the field and I include them as being one of us. I did not realize that you would expect me to list each and every organization out there, and defend them, too. I was solely defending our hard working professional wildlife workers against a comment by Julie.
You will not win your case by arguing with me. I am not in charge of the issue. I am a private citizen trying to provide this blog site with some information you will find useful, while refusing to accetp unfounded criticism of those I have known for decades. Criticism by some, like yourself, who live so far away that there is no way you can know what actually goes on here, and are forced to rely on news reports and rumor. I am trying to shed some light for you and others to see by. You will not win your case by stating what is done with oil companies, federal tax issues, comparisons to Arizona or folk sayings in Belize. You will not win your case with contention and joining forces with those of limited experience who childishly accuse us of being straw men.
I have dealt with public “issues” many times and have found that it is invariably those who gripe the loudest know the least, and are most reluctant to consider the other side of any issue. Emotion rules their processes and potential. Are you going to be one of those people? Or are you going to rationally and calmly work to better the resource through self education and compromise. Hunters are not going away. Fishermen are not going away. If you could possibly organize and ban hunting and fishing, all wildlife as you know it will suffer greatly; many species will disappear from the earth. The programs which are in place, nationwide, and certainly in Tennessee are there in most part by the support of those two groups, like it or not. Get them against you, and your cause will be so deep in a hole you’ll never see daylight.
I have tried to rationally present the case which crane lovers have to deal with. Read it in that light. I have stated in my first post that I, personally, do not understand the thrill of shooting a crane. I love to see them when they fly over my house in the evening. I hear them coming from far away, run outside and look upward. But I will not deny the rights of free Americans because of a personal bias which would blind me to the biological facts. Will you? Cultivating good will goes both ways.
Do you want to alienate me, and those like me who have dedicated our entire lives to the betterment of wildlife? What will that gain you?
I have avoided dismantling some of your points, and almost all of Corey’s, because you both have every right to your opinions, and some of your points are well taken. This site is full of die hard anti-hunters and biased opinions from those who don’t understand that hunters and pro-wildlife programs which were enacted by hunters are doing a lot of good. They would deny the light of day if a supporter of hunting told them the sun was rising.
I hear a lot of gripes and talk, but see little to no action by birders to accomplish what they want. I hear a lot of talk about what you do NOT want others to do: A stated goal of denying hunters of their rights.
Hunters are bird watchers,too. No hunter ever told you, or anyone else, to stop watching and enjoying birds. Yet you will tell the very group which brought you these cranes in such great numbers to stop hunting. What group is the side which is so negative on compromise? It isn’t the hunter.
Compromise is the only way to handle this issue, or you will be beating your head on the proverbial brick wall and will find bird watchers alienated beyond belief.
I am a bird watcher, too, and you’re getting mighty close to shoving me to the opposite side, despite my being mighty hard in the favor of the cranes. Get your attitude in the right place. Try to work with others who actually have some clout. Get busy. Organize and write legislators, commissioners. You have the right. If wildlife watchers outnumber hunters (and many hunters, being bird watchers, are numbered among those who are wildlife watchers, too, so the numbers are a bit skewed, aren’t they?) then where are the funds to support the cause? If there are three times as many watchers, then it would take only a third of the donations which are made by hunters to match the effort. But where is it? If we were dealing purely with numbers of people, it would work out just fine. But it is more than that, isn’t it? If mere numbers of watchers amounted to squat, this entire issue would not exist – you’d be in control. You would be able to deny free Americans their rights to pursue activities you don’t agree with and feel rather smug about it. But what would that do for your cause, except to alienate groups?
There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from sending funds, to any and every cause you wish to support. I gather that you do that.
I never told or suggested to anyone that they should buy a hunting license, although it is a way to get the money directly to a program. Taxation of items only get a small percentage of the tax to a wildlife agency. There are many costs involved in taxation funds which create inefficiency. Sure, donate to whatever fund you want; I’m not in the business of running your check book. Be proud to pay your taxes. Nothing prevents you from writing an extra check to the IRS. Do it, if that’s your bragging point, and more power to you. They will accept it.
I donate to my favorite wildlife and conservation organizations, just like you do, and have for 40-plus years. We are all trying to do our part.
Your comment: “It’s unfair, shortsighted, and unsustainable to keep asking more and more from the shrinking hunting minority when many more residents and visitors enjoy the same resources and could help support the agencies responsible for their management.”
I agree! I’m glad to read that you have a soft spot in your heart for the hunters. Maybe there is hope after all.
Happy birding.
Whoa. Shootout at the Hiwassee Refuge. Somebody get a hose.
Just to clarify: Corey put a Wiki link when he invoked the term “straw men,” probably anticipating that it would be misinterpreted. He’s not personally denigrating anyone by using the term, and certainly not saying that hard-working wildlife managers are full of stuffing. A straw man argument, to quote Wikipedia, is ” an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Position Y is the “straw man.”
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
That’s right, little Sheri with your flawed cognitive reasoning and with your emotions ruling your processes and potential, why don’t you let reasonable ol’ Paul tell you how to make your arguments?
After all, he is just trying to save the poor cranes from disease and the poor misguided birdwatchers from alienating their supporters. Let’s all gather around Paul so that we may see by the light he is shedding to help those of us too far from Tennessee to have an opinion that he considers valid.
when a person resorts to such behavior, Corey, no one listens…
Burr, I hope you are referring to Paul’s behavior.
After all, if someone comes into another person’s house and insults the other guests without merit it is the host’s responsibility to stop the behavior. Paul has come onto this blog and used very condescending language vis a vis Sheri and everyone else here who is anti-Sandhill Crane hunt. I turned his language back on him, which is more respect than he gave others when he invented arguments people were not making in order to knock them down, decided to take offense earlier when none was given, and acted as the very definition of a concern troll.
Before people get offended at the use of the term “concern troll,” here is the definition: “A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of ‘concern,’ to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don’t really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.”
I think when Paul gives advice he is “insincere and condescending” and I find that rude. And I am not nice to people who are rude (I guess that is the New Yorker in me).
An overview of one informed naturalist’s opinion on the hunt, plus a number of letters from other wildlife watchers (including mine) are gathered here
Give them a read. Pick what you like from the many arguments posted at this link and here, in the comments section. Add your own unique observations. Just WRITE.
10/25/10 I read a comment on here that is incorrect and driven by emotion. This is exactly what birders don’t needto focus on. Proving we do this or that is a waste of time. Remember; the crane hunting proposal is the focus. The immediate quandry with the cranes has instigated thought about how birders can strengthen their numbers and have more say in the control of what happens by breaking down barriers that seperate them from the organized hunters. I’m more guilty than anyone for straying away from the immediate issue of crane hunting. Here is a statement I just read, and it is incorrect because it was written out of emotion:
That’s one reason it’s so insulting to be told that I don’t support this or that state wildlife agency unless I buy a hunting/fishing license. As a responsible, wildlife-loving citizen, I want to financially support programs that benefit wildlife and habitats. If you don’t use the taxes I pay to support agencies responsible for those programs or give me some other way to pay my fair share, you don’t have any room to criticize me when my money goes to the feds and nonprofit organizations instead. (It’s a fallacy that only hunters and anglers support such agencies, but I won’t take up space here to address that.)
The issue we are talking about is located in Tennessee. The agency we are focusing on is in Tennessee. The cranes we are focusing on are in Tennessee. The killing of the cranes will occur within the confines of Tennessee. The funds we expend toward wildlife in our state needs to be directed to Tennessee. No one is saying birders are not paying hard earned money toward wildlife causes. Focus on this state and our resources. It is commendable and heroic to support wildlife organizations throughout the country. I do also. I am a wolf supporter big time. But I buy a hunting license in Tennessee every year and I don’t hunt. I don’t hunt at all. I swerve my car on the road to miss a butterfly. Duck stamps are a wonderful way to support wildlife. Does “all” the money stay in Tennessee? Don’t know. I doubt it. What portion of moneys go to government for the operation of their projects? In my case; save the wolf. Very little, probably be less than 4% actually goes to the wolf’s habitat or pays for studies about the species. Where’s the rest go? It goes to loby groups who buy support in Washington. Taxes require government manipulation and legislation. Thats the way it is. Taxes are a legal means of collecting funds and are “all” government controlled and directed. I’ll say this one more time. We need birder support in this state and we need them to become a strong, organized group of people willing to work hand in hand with TWRA. And, we need “all” the dollars to stay within the borders of Tennessee. That method of support can only come through the purchase of hunting licenses and birders organizing in the state. Period! As a note and I’ll repeat myself: A (hunting license) is simply a politically correct name. It is called a hunting license because people who desire to use the resource for that purpose buy the license. If there were no hunters, and birders were the prevelant buyers; it would be called a birding license. “All” the revenues go to Tennessee based operations governed by TRWC and TWRA for the betterment of “Tennessee Wildlife.” That includes cranes. And an organized birding community who buys hunting (birding) licenses will have an enormous impact on what programs are instituted and what programs are not. Stop bantering, I implore you; lets get out of this “feel sorry for the cranes” attitude and start thinking positively. The emotional issues are obvious. This crane hunt is an opportunity to become organized and change the face of birding in this state and strengthen our loved birds and wildlife in general. And above all; we can and will stop the next crane hunt. I’m not going to post here anymore as I am passionate about the outdoors and wildlife and am an action person. I like to grab ideas, investigate them and impliment an action plan. An issue attacked emotionally will result in failure. Attack the issues with passion and intelligence and common sense and you, we, will prevale. If I can help I certainly will but not until I see some unity in this endeavor to help the cranes. I have the name and contact information for the Chief Of Wildlife in this state and am ready and willing to present a position to him for the birders if that is a wish. Who am I? Just a guy who dearly loves the outdoors and not particularly articulate. I am, however, supercharged about this crane hunt. I have been doing some homework. This hunt will happen. It will. Lets make it the last one that ever gets on the books. Thanks for allowing me to post here.
Author: CoreyComment:That’s right, little Sheri with your flawed cognitive reasoning and with your emotions ruling your processes and potential, why don’t you let reasonable ol’ Paul tell you how to make your arguments? After all, he is just trying to save the poor cranes from disease and the poor misguided birdwatchers from alienating their supporters. Let’s all gather around Paul so that we may see by the light he is shedding to help those of us too far from Tennessee to have an opinion that he considers valid.
This comment is ridiculous and uncalled for. Now I understand why birders are not unified and never will be. Good luck folks.
I don’t want the focus to be drawn away from the birds and the issues, which, as Julie neatly summed up to me in an email, are:
1. TN has been feeding cranes and holding a festival around them for 17 years.
2. The crane population exploded and a bunch of birds stopped migrating farther south.
3. Their solution is to keep feeding, cancel the festival, and open season.
4. What’s wrong with this picture?
None of that has been refuted but we have had a lot of sound of fury. If my tone has offended I apologize but I will not apologize for the content of my comments which I stand by.
The first day Julie posted this blog post I wrote an email to everyone for whom she provided an email address. It read:
“Dear Sirs,
I was shocked and appalled when I learned that the fine state of Tennessee is considering opening a hunting season on Sandhill Cranes. I am not, by a long-shot, anti-hunting. In fact, I support hunting, especially of White-tailed Deer which are wreaking havoc in the ecosystems of the northeastern United States. But I can’t wrap my head around a state planting 750 acres of land for cranes to feed on, starting a crane festival, and then canceling the festival in order to shoot cranes.
The first time I saw a Sandhill Crane was a couple of years ago in New York State, where Sandhill Cranes rarely venture. Watching it fly through the air was a great moment for me as a birder and it disturbs me that if I should see such a sight in Tennessee that there is a chance, if a hunting season is opened, that such a gorgeous bird would be shot from the sky. I understand that other states allow crane hunting but this does not mean that Tennessee has to follow suit.
Please do not open a hunting season on Sandhill Cranes. Let them fly freely and work to promote their beauty as a way to encourage visitors to come to Tennessee.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope that in the near future we can announce on 10,000 Birds that Tennessee has decided not to have a Sandhill Crane hunt so that we may encourage our thousands of readers to visit Tennessee to enjoy a festival celebrating Sandhill Cranes.
Sincerely,
Corey Finger”
It bothers me that words have been put in my and others’ mouths and I reacted strongly. I know Julie is taking the high road on this issue and I hope others aren’t put off by my comments.
1. TN has been feeding cranes and holding a festival around them for 17 years.
2. The crane population exploded and a bunch of birds stopped migrating farther south.
3. Their solution is to keep feeding, cancel the festival, and open season.
4. What’s wrong with this picture?
Here’s what is wrong with this list:
1. TN has been feeding ducks and geese, and the cranes showed up. The original idea was a duck and good refuge.
2. correct.
I will continue…the message went out with a “shift” button for some reason. It’s an old keyboard.
Here’s what is wrong, and right, with this list:
1. TN has been feeding ducks and geese, and the cranes showed up. The original idea was a duck and goose refuge.
2. correct.
3.Feeding, as stated in a TWRA crane management site, was actually reduced in the hope the cranes would move on, earlier. Festival dates were moved to account for this. They wanted people to have some birds to look at when the festival was going on.
Straw man, Corey, is an insult in this part of the country, and was long before Wikipedia came on the scene. It means someone who is a fake, without substance to back up their opinions.
You stated your intent to “knock down some straw men,” instead of putting your case on the table in a polite way. When you come out of the gate insulting people, you may expect retaliation. However, if you read the my post which followed, you will see that is not the case.
TWRA’s intent, as I understand it from resources available to all of you, is to return a portion of the resource (cranes) to those who pay for it by allowing a hunt, to thin out the population enough that disease does not decimate it, and to reduce crop damage.
This is the basics. I’m guessing that a detailed presentation by those immediately in charge of the project can add to it.
Anti-hunters will not agree with it. So be it.
@Paul says 1. TN has been feeding ducks and geese, and the cranes showed up. The original idea was a duck and good refuge.
That may have been the original intent 17 years ago, but that horse is long out of the barn.
At the point where TWRA starts feeding cranes to encourage them to stay, even if they subsequently reduced said feeding, and created a festival specifically to take advantage of the crane movement, they’ve cast their lot with the cranes. It’s not the hunting that bothers people (though for some that’s an issue) it’s the fact that TWRA canceled that festival so they could hunt the crane population they’ve artificially managed for 17 years.
If TWRA was truly concerned with crop damage or disease or “thinning the population” they’d just stop feeding cold. The cranes would move on to find food elsewhere and get where they need to go sooner. But instead they’ve decided to keep feeding AND shoot the cranes. How convenient for the hunters.
Anti-hunters (and yes, that’s a straw man in the original sense that Corey intended because I am not anti-hunting but I am anti-this) will oppose because they’ve effectively been removed from the equation. And this even when there’s a strong argument to be made that the festival goers have been paying for the “resource” just as much as people buying hunting licenses. That’s the issue. That TWRC claims to be making decisions for wildlife when they’re really making decisions for hunters. Period.
Whenever a discussion about hunting develops on this blog we are always told what wonderful people the hunters are for kindly paying to blow birds out of the sky, as if wildlife only exists because of their munificence. And they get really pissed when other readers disagree. I’m never sure quite what members of the hunting lobby expect when they come on to a blog co-owned by three birdwatchers who don’t hunt? Phrases like “is to return a portion of the resource (cranes) to those who pay for it by allowing a hunt” is just antagonistic to a lot of the people who visit the blog and is bound to cause the mildest of birders (and I don’t suppose anyone would count me as one of those) to recoil. And I don’t understand? Personally I’ve seen cranes in the UK, Europe, USA, Canada, Korea, Japan, and India – I’ve seen them in crowded roosts, I’ve seen them hunted, I’ve seen them driven off land, and I’ve seen them peacefully feeding. A lot of well-travelled birders have, and patronising people like me by saying I don’t understand because I don’t live in Tennessee is just irritating even though it’s expected. I do think civil argument is preferable to name-calling of course, but honestly, if hunters come on here they should expect a little robust rebuttal of some of their fondly-held beliefs. Corey, Julie we’re always asked to apologise to hunters when we get emotional about conservation – I don’t believe we should, no hunter has ever apologised to me for killing the birds I live for. Yes, facts and accuracy is important, but so is emotion, and I will never apologise for ever feeling that a wild bird is more than just a resource. Not an important contribution to the debate, but if anyone who knows me expected me to be silent for much longer they – er, don’t know me.
I’m a bit surprised to find so many people who appear have no idea about the meaning of the widely-used phrase “straw man argument” (btw, the term did not originate with wikipedia, it’s been around for much much longer than that; wikipedia just provides a convenient summary). Corey’s use of the phrase was completely legitamite: he was not saying that Paul was a straw man; he was not saying that Paul’s arguments were straw men; he was saying that Paul was inventing straw man arguments (e.g. people questioning the competence of the TWRA when nobody had done so). So let’s stop pretending that he was insulting anybody.
Paul: to be honest, I came into this argument pretty anti-crane-hunt (no, not against hunting in general, I’m only talking about this particular situation). Some of your arguments have softened my opposition somewhat. Your attitude, however, has squandered most of that goodwill. You claim to be the one speaking from authority with cold hard facts and data, but it seems clear to me that you have as much personal passion at stake in this argument as anyone else. Can we all try to refrain from ad hominem attacks.
A) Corey’s use of the ‘straw man’ concept is correct. If someone else chooses not to understand it, that’s their problem. He was quite obviously not setting out to insult anyone by using it. It’s a very old rhetorical concept, FYI.
B) When are we going to move on from the outdated idea that only ‘factual’ and ‘non-emotional’ arguments have merit? All morality originates in emotion (e.g. the latest findings of cognitive linguists like George Lakoff etc.) and only emotional cripples and psychopaths can (arguably) argue from a ‘non-emotional’ standpoint. By all means go ahead and accuse someone of getting facts wrong if they have done so, but please don’t pointlessly attempt to insult others by accusing them of coming from an ’emotive’ standpoint.
C) Surely it’s in the interest of birders to lobby for the creation of a “birders’ stamp” that is distinct from a traditional duck stamp? At the moment those birders who purchase duck stamps are doubtless being classed as hunters, and thus contributing to an overstatement of hunters’ contribution to conservation.
Cheers
Adam
Nate’s comment:
“If TWRA was truly concerned with crop damage or disease or “thinning the population” they’d just stop feeding cold. The cranes would move on to find food elsewhere and get where they need to go sooner. But instead they’ve decided to keep feeding AND shoot the cranes. How convenient for the hunters.”
If feeding is stopped, then ducks and geese, an equally important population and the original intent of the refuge, would suffer.
Feeding was reduced (amount of acreage planted) to help the cranes move along their southward route earlier than they had been (food runs out, they move on).
This would reduce crowding and problems associated with that.
Festival (why has this become an issue?) times were altered until the response of that reduced feeding could be determined and to ensure people had some birds to look at when it was going on.
NO bird hunting of any kind is allowed on Hiwassee refuge.
Adam’s comment:
“A) Corey’s use of the ’straw man’ concept is correct. If someone else chooses not to understand it, that’s their problem. He was quite obviously not setting out to insult anyone by using it. It’s a very old rhetorical concept, FYI.”
Point well taken. It’s a difference in interpretation in this part of the country, a difference which made his intent not so obvious. Corey, please accept my apology for jumping you on this. I will refer to my regional semantics handbook in the future. Likewise, I may be able to round up a copy for you. 🙂
To address Adam’s point B. Emotions are good in that they drive one to get involved, but detrimental if/when they blind you to the views and rights of others, and cause one to avoid looking any deeper into an issue. Confirmation bias is a common result. It is in this instance that purely emotional responses are criticised.
Nate’s point C: “At the moment those birders who purchase duck stamps are doubtless being classed as hunters, and thus contributing to an overstatement of hunters’ contribution to conservation.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if that is true. Likewise, those tallies of birders are also infused with hunters who are avid bird watchers. Bird watching is fun, educational, as cheap as you care to make it, and a fine year round activity. People of all types enjoy it. Survey wording is extremely important.
Very interesting discussion ongoing here. It really seems to highlight the divisions between birders and hunters. It is certainly unfortunate that a long running festival was cancelled. I would argue that a hunting season and birding festival do not have to be mutually exclusive. These seems to me no reason that this has to be a zero-sum argument. The concentrations of birds that interest me as a birder invariably also attract hunters. In setting up a zero-sum equation (either hunters win or birders wing) in Tennessee, everyone loses. Instead of calling for a ban on crane hunting, and intimating that one must be heartless to shoot a crane, why not find ways to hold a joint birding/hunting festival. Maybe this is a one of a kind opportunity to engage both sides of the avian conservation community in the same setting. For years bird enthusiast have been enjoying the benefits of the artificial feeding. I notice that the outcry did not occur during the last 17 years when this artificial situation caused the birds to alter their natural migration pattern. It seems to me that from a purely ecological standpoint this decision by TWRA is the correct one. Eliminate the feedings, restore the population to more natural levels through controlled hunting and the Tennessee crane population will return to something closer approximating the normal for the region. As birders we should appreciate the effort to restore a semblance of balance to wild populations and the elimiation of artificial feeding and hunting are two of the tools managers use. Let us keep in mind that wildlife is a managed resource no different that forest or water. Managers strive to balance a host if issues with each decision including public enjoyment, hunting, population/ecosystem health, and department budget needs. Knee-jerk emotional portraits of wounded cranes and short-sighted laments about the losses of birding festivals serve only to portray birders as selfish. Besides just because there is no festival doesn’t mean a person can’t go look at the cranes in Tennessee. Since they’re still being fed, it’s unlikely that the cranes are going to disappear.
FYI properly prepared sandhill crane is an amazing dish.
As a non-hunting non USA resident who in all probablility is unlikely to visit Tennessee in his life (nothing personal – Tennessee; I’d love to but it’s sadly unlikely to happen)I arguably don’t have a horse in this race so I’ll simply say this. I’m about as pro-hunting as UK conservationists get but I find myself tremendously sad and upset at the thought of Matthiessen’s “Birds of Heaven” being shot. We in the UK have very, very few cranes because a long time ago (in the days when hunting cranes would be difficult due to technology) we managed to kill them all, I hope everyone in the world gets the chance to see lots of safe, happy cranes just once away from a hunting environment and enjoy them in a way I have yet to in my home country. This festival sounds like a perfect example of that. It also sounds like an economically quantifiable loss for the state if it is cancelled.
The box on duck stamps licenses (forgive me if I use the wrong terminology here) for birders to tick sounds like a great idea. There should also be other boxes for the other possible uses too be it herping, butterfly collecting, duck shooting, goose shooting or even, much as it saddens me, crane shooting.
Charlie,
Your contribution to the debate is useful. Welcome to the party.
I’m not sure you were referring to me, but as I am the current target, I would like to clarify something.
I am not a hunter. In my spare time I fish, canoe, watch and photograph wildlife and wild flowers, attempt to paint and draw a few birds (owls) within my abilities, hike, etc. For 33 years, I have owned some acreage which I do not allow anyone to hunt on, despite routine requests made. It is full of bird houses and winter haven brush piles, and unimproved areas to provide natural habitat and forage. When the warblers come through, I sit on my upper porch in the deep woods, next to a clearing, and have a ringside seat, thumbing through my bird guides with one hand, binoculars in the other. The long porch is lined with hummingbird feeders all summer. I have, like you, tried to resuscitate and “fix” injured birds when I see them. I named the wooded ravine in front of my secluded house “Owl Hollow” decades ago, leaving nesting trees standing. The darkness echos with their sounds in the spring and fall.
During hunting season (now) when guns are booming around my place, it remains a reliable, safe refuge. All of this typical stuff for people like us. Please do not think that I am approaching this issue as a crane hunter. I’ve tried to make that clear in previous posts.
I’m trying to recall if I’ve seen a post by a hunter on this site. Maybe there was one, but I don’t remember it.
Having worked in the wildlife field for 27 years (one federal agency, one state, one University), I do see their side of it, and recognize their rights and contributions. While I can keep them off what I own, I will not deny them their rights elsewhere. Perhaps my most contentious view among this crowd is that I readily admit that wildlife has benefitted from hunting and fishing programs. That and the use of terms which have been the standard in wildlife management since who-knows-when.
Some people object when the politically correct word “harvest” is used. Others balk even more when this word is converted to “kill.”
It puts wildlife professionals between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
Thanks for your input. I enjoyed reading your post.
Paul: Glad to see that you’ve calmed down. You seemed to be in a manic phase in your early comments, and it’s awfully hard to communicate with someone in such a state.
I probably should have mentioned this earlier, in an attempt to head off the predictable patronizing comments, but I was born and raised in Texas, a major state for crane hunting (and hunting in general), in a family that hunted and fished. I was a crack shot with a .22 back in the day, but I never learned to like killing things. I still enjoy fishing, catch and release only unless it’s an invasive exotic species, in which case I’ll kill it to protect native species. I’ve also got a degree in biology (major course work in ecology and natural history), have been a conservation professional for 22+ years, and was a conservation volunteer for 15 years before that.
I have volunteered for the annual Sandhill Crane census here in Arizona and support the work of the Arizona Game & Fish Department in other ways both personal and professional, including the state income tax checkoff, the lottery that supports our Heritage Fund, and correcting misunderstandings about its programs among non-hunting birders and wildlife watchers. I supported and promoted the state’s promising nongame Wildlife Passport program until it became obvious that the agency itself wasn’t supporting it.
My rhetorical skills were honed debating with male relatives and their buddies around campfires and poker tables lit by Coleman lanterns, where I heard and learned to rebut all the traditional arguments in defense of hunting, including “We have to kill them or they’ll a) die of disease, b) die of starvation, c) get killed in gruesome ways by predators, d) kill other animals in gruesome ways” (refresh my memory – which side is it that eschews emotional arguments?).
I know quite a few people who both hunt and bird, and I do believe that many hunters sincerely love their quarry (and feel deeply conflicted about killing something they love). Unfortunately, in my experience they’re vastly outnumbered by slobs with guns who give hunting a bad name, including some of my kinfolk. There are bad apples in the birding community, too, but again in my experience the proportions are reversed.
Without this information, it’s perhaps understandable that you read far more emotion in my statement about crane hunting in Arizona than was actually there. Cranes are hunted in Arizona. It’s a fact. A lot of people don’t like it, myself included, but I can deal with it as long as the laws are obeyed/enforced and no one shoots a crane in front of me or my groups (which is a great way to create anti-hunting activists – so much for T. Ludwick’s combination birding/hunting festival). I trust AGFD biologists to manage the hunt to minimize impact on the population, and they have a long track record of success in doing that.
Which raises an important question about the situation in Tennessee: If thinning the population is a valid justification for the hunt, why take so few cranes? Is reducing the population by ~5% really going to make a difference to crop depredations and/or disease transmission? Or is this just painting a wildlife management face on a gift to the agency’s traditional constituency?
We have a longstanding, well-attended crane festival in Arizona that’s held weeks after the end of crane season when the cranes have relaxed a bit. AGFD is one of the sponsors of this festival, but one of the agency’s most popular programs of all time is a watchable wildlife event focused on hummingbirds. Despite the extremely large numbers of hummingbirds attracted to feeding stations in Arizona, no one has seriously suggested that we open a season on them to thin them out. If overcrowding doesn’t justify hunting hummingbirds, and state wildlife agencies aren’t promoting hunting of European Starlings, Brown-headed Cowbirds, and Rock Pigeons – birds that are genuinely overpopulated and damaging to agriculture – why would it justify hunting cranes? Is it too much to ask that TWRA be honest about its motivations and not treat the general public like credulous children?
This proposal would look a lot more legitimate if 1) the season was scheduled to coincide with the farmers’ spring planting season to address the depredation issue, and 2) TWRA was charging a fee for crane permits as Arizona does to generate revenues to support the agency (on top of regular license fees, of course – did you really think otherwise, Paul?).
T. Ludwick: “Knee-jerk emotional portraits of hunters as saviors of wildlife and comments about how cranes taste serve only to portray hunters as selfish, insensitive, and confrontational.”
Fixed that for ya. Too bad, too, because you made some good points that could have been better received if not for that final remark.
Gary wrote: “Here is a statement I just read, and it is incorrect because it was written out of emotion:”
What? Something can’t be incorrect simply because it “was written out of emotion.” (Hypothetical Person: “I love you!” Gary: “You’re incorrect.”)
It is unreasonable to criticize people for not contributing to a cause if they have not been provided with a means by which to do so. How is that “incorrect”? If you made a copy-paste error and meant some other statement, please correct yourself. If you have another reason for believing that this statement is “incorrect,” please share it.
Sheri; I didn’t get involved in this crane issue to get into verbal combat. One thing though;
It is unreasonable to criticize people for not contributing to a cause if they have not been provided with a means by which to do so
In the first place I’m not criticizing for not contributing to anything. And in the second place you are provided the means to contribute if you want to. Pick up the phone and call TWRA and contribute. Or, buy a hunting license. “All the funds will go toward wildlife care.” ALL of it. People are reading things into statements and this whole discussion has been moved from the cranes to who’s right, who has better english, who can pick apart someones comments and who has and doesn’t have the facts. If everyone on this site would write as many letters to the commissioners as are here posted here; they may postpone the proposed hunt. It still is proposed. Or the issue can be emotionally bantered about indefinitely. Put some articles in the papers. Everyone! Write letters to the editors about the publics concerns. Swamp TWRA with paper. Direct efforts to the cause…mobilize friends. Get the word out. But, move the focus back to the cranes. Please, please! Think of me what you like. My concern is the cranes and their best chance is if we all “unify.” Anyone start a petition by notifying bird clubs of the desire to do so? Has anyone thought about it at all? Has anyone thought to call Hiwassi and get the local scoop from citizens and have them also write letters to the commissioners? Swamp em with paper. Thats all that can be done at this stage in the game. Sorry if I’ve offended. But I’m trying to mobilize everyone to some kind of action where it counts. Get angry with me; call me names. Don’t care. I’m doing everything I can think of to prevent this damn useless hunt! Many educated minds reading this site but I haven’t seen a suggestion. But I see plenty of criticism and short tempers. Turn all that to the commissioners and we’ll start to move forward. The cranes are waiting on us. One lost crane is one too many. If emotion is the moving force to date then, write letters expressing all the emotion you can muster. But do it quick and lay it on thick and get the letters in the mail.
I am going to support my friend Gary Loucks, an admirable and dedicated outdoorsman, honest as the days are long and as self sufficient and sensible as the pioneers who formed this nation.
We have both tried to present facts for you folks to work with if and when you try to convince members of TWRA and TWRC to come to your side.
I have seen it first hand, and so has Sheri with her vast experience in the field, I am sure: You do not stand a chance of convincing the powers in charge with made up facts and theories. They will rip you apart; they are not ignorant dolts who will be conned into believing anything which cannot be substantiated. You are going up against professionals with thousands of hours of experience, men and women who have heard it all and worked with more.
Here is my advice to you all: An organized effort, armed with solid information and a coherent approach will give you a chance at stopping the crane hunts, if that is what you want to do.
Name calling and bickering has got to stop. I am guilty of some of it, out of frustration in trying to present a fact or two for you to work with and encountering opposition at every turn. Some people refuse to be helped.
While you people fight among yourselves, Rome burns. You may turn from your bickering one day to see the prize was lost while you argued. You will rue opportunities lost, to no avail. You will see your prized cranes drop from the skies and blame everyone else, and will include yourselves in the mix.
Because I’ve worked in the field with TWRA for so long, many of you assumed that I was pro-hunt, and staked me out for attack at every turn, forcing me to defend myself, detouring from the issue of what your organization wants. Because I have been in the very organization you wish to confront, and know what I’m talking about, I have pointed out what the pitfalls of hard core opposition are, what you’ll meet up with. Tried to prepare you. I have served your group with useful information, most of which was ignored, the lines I wrote taken out of context and argued with. All sides of an issue need to have a say. Yours certainly does. I did not have to come to this site and spend a second of my time, but I chose to do so, to provide some accurate information for you to learn from and to use in your arguments for your cause. TWRA and TWRC should not waste their time listening to made up facts when the opportunity is there for the truth to be presented.
I suggest you all take advice from Sheri Williamson from now on, as she is as experienced in this field as anyone who has written in, and appears to have a level head. She can help you with advice and to mobilize. She shares in your common cause. Some of you have presented an idea or two, but none of you have run with it. A leader needs to emerge. Paul Baicich? Where are you? You have presented excellent, accurate information. You can be of insurmountable use, but your comments were not absorbed, nor commented on by this blog group.
I urge everyone who is serious about the crane hunt issue to re-read my entry of Oct 24, 2:12 a.m. That is the process of compromise which you are going to encounter at TWRA and TWRC.
I’m returning to my daily occupation of serving the wildlife in the state of Tennessee as I have for 8,550 days and counting.
Good luck to you all.
Gary wrote: “‘All the funds will go toward wildlife care.'”
Sounds like a donations pitch for a wildlife rescue group, and that’s about as far from what we’re talking about as it’s possible to get.
I’ve been through this discussion so many times over the years that I’m sick of it, but since it seems to be a new issue to you I’ll tell you why I (and many others) don’t think birders and wildlife watchers buying hunting licenses is the answer to state-level wildlife funding:
1) Those revenues are typically (and logically) funneled into programs that benefit game species and hunting opportunities more than biodiversity and/or watchable wildlife (and may even be detrimental to those broader goals).
2) Licenses purchased by non-hunters would inflate the tally of hunters, masking the ongoing decline.
I’ll keep supporting Arizona’s nongame Heritage Fund and nonprofit conservation organizations, I’ll buy a Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp after the end of waterfowl hunting season, and I’ll volunteer for AGFD as much as they’ll let me, but I won’t buy a hunting license unless and until I decide to take up hunting again (and maybe not even then, if the “right to hunt” measure passes in the upcoming election).
Gary also wrote: “Many educated minds reading this site but I haven’t seen a suggestion. But I see plenty of criticism and short tempers. Turn all that to the commissioners and we’ll start to move forward.”
Please take a few slow, deep breaths, reread the comments for the many suggestions contained therein, and reconsider whether directing “criticism and short tempers” toward members of the TWRC is the best way to achieve your goal.
Facts are important. For example, has the festival really been canceled for 2011? The article referencing that was from 2008 – do we have anything more recent than this article from Oct. 5 that says the festival is on? The negative public relations and economic repercussions of cancellation of the festival are the issues most likely to get the commissioners’ attention, because on matters of wildlife “management” they’re not likely to favor members of the general public over the advice of staff biologists and the desires of their traditional constituency.
The deadline for comments is January 18, 2011, so there’s plenty of time for concerned Tennesseans and past/future birding visitors to mount a reasoned, well-researched opposition to the hunt. An excellent starting point would be the documents linked at this page:
TWRA: Sandhill Crane Hunt Plan For Tennessee
The Tennessee Ornithological Society’s position statement on crane hunting from 2008 can be found here.
I am compelled to write yet once more. I need to answer the comment below from Sheri. Then please read my comment after:
Gary wrote: “‘All the funds will go toward wildlife care.'” Sounds like a donations pitch for a wildlife rescue group, and that’s about as far from what we’re talking about as it’s possible to get. I’ve been through this discussion so many times over the years that I’m sick of it, but since it seems to be a new issue to you I’ll tell you why I (and many others) don’t think birders and wildlife watchers buying hunting licenses is the answer to state-level wildlife funding: 1) Those revenues are typically (and logically) funneled into programs that benefit game species and hunting opportunities more than biodiversity and/or watchable wildlife (and may even be detrimental to those broader goals). 2) Licenses purchased by non-hunters would inflate the tally of hunters, masking the ongoing decline.
Answer: Sheri, I agree with part of what you say. But, you’re missing my initial point. My suggestion to purchase hunting license will channel funds in to TWRA for the betterment of all wildlife, some of which are on the game list. Where the point is missed is that when you check the new birder box on the license application; you’ve identified yourself as a non hunter and supporter of non hunting activities that TWRA is responsible for. The boxes can be counted and the funds accounted for. Three things will happen. TWRA will see a sharp increase in revenue. The second thing is they will see how many non hunters are buying hunting license. 3rd, non hunters now have clout and a very strong say in what happens to the species they care about. There is a forth. Once a government agency becomes used to increased revenue; they are very reluctant to let it go, ever. If they propose another crane hunt; you, we say “nothing doing.” “Drop the issue or we will withdraw our support and with the support goes the money.” See how fast they drop the idea of another crane hunt. It’s hard to describe a plan quickly in a forum like this but, thats my idea.
Somehow I’m here again so I’ll describe to you what my intentions and plan was for myself when I wrote the article in the News Sentiel. I used passion in that article. No facts. I have 14 news papers in mind to send three different pieces to. All emotional letters. My initial intent was to stir up the general population and pull the average citizen into the mix. Strength is in numbers. Tourists interest in cranes is fantastic. Secondly, I wanted to get an audience with TWRA, hopefully the Chief of Wildlife, and show through facts that this proposed crane hunt will polarize the TWRA from non hunnters not only in this state but the crane sensitive public from other states. I wanted to indicate that the resultant polarization as a result of the first shot gun blast will instantly erode any trust the non hunting public had in the agency to date and the agency may not ever recover from the distrust and support for the agency would degrade sharply. Thats the quick of it. I am going to do that as my part in this crane hunt. I wanted to do it knowing I could rely on support from the non hunters. It seems I can’t. I’m a loser on personal relationships but, I know how to prepare for and fight a good campaign if I’m passionate enough about it. So thats it. Thats the explanation of a wild idea that popped into my head. Stir up the public emotionally to get them motivated into action, move ahead with that backing and address TWRA and have them revoke this stupid hunt in order to retain the respect of the non hunters in Tennessee. Sorry to have offended folks. Truly am.
Sheri: I am was not suggesting that hunters are the saviors of wildlife. Merely that state and federal wildlife managers have done much for conservation. Much or our current wildlife refuge (state and federal) was funded by hunting and set aside for the preservation of game species. I mentioned how cranes taste because people actually tend to eat what they hunt. For some, it is a prime motivation. I know I when I have the opportunity I much prefer wild game to most things found in the supermarket.
I wonder if birders would be on board with ending the festival and feeding if the proposed hunt was cancelled. Are we as birders willing to put the ecological health of the sandhill crane population over our emotional connection to the birds? I realize it is hard to take emotions out of the issue, but I respectfully suggest that this is what must happen. I urge people who are against the hunt to use sound ecological principles and ground their responses in science. For instance one might ask if the proposed hunt truly represent compensitory mortality in this particular population. Or whether a gradual reduction in feeding might reduce the population levels and concentrations as effectively as hunting. As a trained wildlife manager, I assure birders that any proposed hunt was a well thought out decision by wildlife professionals. I am an avid birder but I also realize that many of the birds I enjoy are part of heavily managed populations. For good or for ill, this is the face of conservation in America. Even Aldo Leopold recognized that hunting was sometimes a viable management solution. Whether or not this is the case in Tennessee, I do not know. But it seems to me that birders should go in armed not only with a passion for birds, but also with a strong knowledge of avian ecology and wildlife management. I also suggest the following document as pertinent reading for anyone interested in the economic aspect.
http://library.fws.gov/pubs/nat_survey2006_economics.pdf
In closing, though I want to reiterate the point that just because there is a hunt does not mean birders can’t go watch the cranes. I would argue that even if the proposed hunt continues birders should continue to visit the area. It would give state managers a chance to compare the economics of hunting vs. watching first hand. Debate is healthy, but let’s not get caught up, as it seems we often do, in infighting and zero-sum arguments. Both birders and hunters have a vested interest in keeping the bird populations healthy. We just happen to enjoy the birds in slightly different ways. In the end the decisions made should ideally be based on what is best for the CRANES, not what we as birders or hunters want for ourselves.
Gary wrote: “Sheri, I agree with part of what you say. But, you’re missing my initial point. My suggestion to purchase hunting license will channel funds in to TWRA for the betterment of all wildlife, some of which are on the game list. Where the point is missed is that when you check the new birder box on the license application; you’ve identified yourself as a non hunter and supporter of non hunting activities that TWRA is responsible for.”
Unfortunately, this idealistic vision only works if there actually is a birder/wildlife watcher box on hunting license applications. My understanding from your original comments three days ago is that no such box exists on the Tennessee application (likewise on the Arizona application). Until it does, then it’s still a **hunting** license, and buying one will not benefit all wildlife nor give non-hunting birders, photographers, and other wildlife watchers a seat at the table where management decisions are made.
There is only one way I would get on board with promoting traditional hunting licenses to non-hunters, and that would be if every non-hunting purchaser immediately wrote VOID in big red letters across the fronts of their shiny new licenses and mailed them to the head of the agency or the chairman of the commission with an explanatory letter. If even a few dozen people did this, it might actually make an impression. Of course, this assumes that possession of a license doesn’t confer any privileges from which a non-hunter might benefit, such as entry to wildlife areas that are open only to license holders.
T. Ludwick wrote: “Sheri: I am was not suggesting that hunters are the saviors of wildlife. Merely that state and federal wildlife managers have done much for conservation. Much or our current wildlife refuge (state and federal) was funded by hunting and set aside for the preservation of game species.”
Perhaps not, but hunters as saviors of wildlife is a hoary meme that reared its ugly head in this discussion as it always does when such conflicts arise. It conveniently ignores the fact that protecting wildlife from hunters is a major key to successful management of game species. How else does one explain the thriving populations of deer and turkeys in the suburbs or the absence of bears, turkeys, and other large edible/fur/varmint/trophy species from vast swaths of intact habitats? The extirpations here in the U.S. have often been so complete as to require major human intervention to correct (wolves in the northern Rockies, grizzlies and wolverines in the southern Rockies, turkeys and pronghorns in southern Arizona), but in parts of Mexico and Central America I’ve personally observed dramatic recoveries of heavily hunted animals following reduction or elimination of hunting pressure.
“I wonder if birders would be on board with ending the festival and feeding if the proposed hunt was cancelled. Are we as birders willing to put the ecological health of the sandhill crane population over our emotional connection to the birds?”
Having had similar conversations with birders, other wildlife watchers, and hunters, I wouldn’t expect unanimous support in either camp for prioritizing the ecological health of the cranes. Some who are uncomfortable with treating wildlife like livestock fattening at a feedlot will support an end to supplemental feeding, but others will only think of their own desire to maintain what they consider a desirable status quo. It may be moot, since the landscapes in question have been massively, irrevocably altered by humans, and there’s no going back to how cranes used pre-agricultural landscapes. Even if TWRA makes what would undoubtedly be an unpopular decision on both sides, the cranes and waterfowl will surely shift their focus to neighboring private croplands. Over the long term this may reduce the carrying capacity enough to cause a substantial portion of the crane population to shift their wintering grounds elsewhere (provided there is an “elsewhere” with sufficient resources to accommodate them), but it won’t be quick or painless. To rephrase a remark Paul made, the best outcome TWRA and TWRC can hope for is to have all the stakeholders – hunters, watchers, farmers, and birds – equally pissed off at them.
Maybe I’m missing some critical information about this particular event, but I don’t see why either allowing crane hunting or ending supplemental feeding would necessitate ending the festival. As you pointed out, crane hunting doesn’t have to be incompatible with crane watching. The two activities have managed to coexist reasonably well here in Arizona since AGFD realized that the two user groups needed some isolation from one another and that the cranes likewise needed space for their exclusive use, without fear of harassment other than from the eagles that hunt them.
You also don’t have to deliberately feed cranes to make them available for viewing. Crane watchers here in Arizona have a variety of viewing options, from attending the dawn liftoff from the roost to searching out flocks feeding in nearby farm fields (our scarcity if trees ensures good views from public roads) to awaiting the cranes’ return to the roost between midday and dusk. It might require some changes in the way field trips are conducted, but surely the festival can and should continue if the other sponsors and stakeholders want it to.
“I mentioned how cranes taste because people actually tend to eat what they hunt.”
Simply saying that crane hunters eat their quarry would have been a less provocative way of introducing that idea. “Long pork” is reportedly very tasty, too, as well as an important part of various vanishing cultures, but those facts do not make its source any less offensive to most people.
Wow, lots of good stuff here…and some pretty impressive resumes too! I’ve learned so much from this discussion. I’m coming in late and there’s very little intellect I can add, so I’m not going to try; however, I’m one of those from the outside that can look at this issue from both sides. I grew up hunting with my dad. If it weren’t for hunting I don’t think I would have learned to appreciate wildlife and bird watching as I do today. My dad taught me to respect hunting and the game that I hunted. He taught me to always follow the rules and that the hunt wasn’t over after the trigger was pulled. Whatever I bagged, I was responsible for field dressing and eating when the time came. If I wasn’t prepared to do that then I wasn’t allowed to shoot. We sometimes gave away our game to less fortunate people in our area who were grateful to receive it. It’s a shame that a few bad hunters out there give the majority of others a bad name, but believe it or not, honest hunters are the first to stand up and chastise them (at least where I come from).
I very rarely go hunting now as my priorities have shifted more towards birding, photography and other forms of wildlife watching, but I do enjoy my right to hunt if I ever decide to do it again. I believe most hunters do respect the bag limits and are concerned with the future wellbeing of the game they hunt. They’re trust is put in the system that makes the rules and sets the bag limits (the REAL targets of your argument).
The point to all this is that both sides on this issue have a valid view points, and while we have a difference in opinion on how to handle it, we all seem to want the same outcome – and that’s a good thing! Peace out…
In reference to the following:
Unfortunately, this idealistic vision only works if there actually is a birder/wildlife watcher box on hunting license applications. My understanding from your original comments three days ago is that no such box exists on the Tennessee application (likewise on the Arizona application). Until it does, then it’s still a **hunting** license, and buying one will not benefit all wildlife nor give non-hunting birders, photographers, and other wildlife watchers a seat at the table where management decisions are made.
Sheri, I absolutly agree with you on the above. That was just a brain storm I had that would affect the future and really won’t help the immediate situation with the cranes now. I think tons of paper (letters) forwarded to TWRA is our best hope for the present situation. One comment on the hunting license idea.
The box for the check mark is something I envisioned in my mind as an immediate way to get the playing field level with the hunters and the general public and birders. Lets say there was an entirely different document (license) that was called a Tennessee Birder License. And, the fee was the same as a hunting license. The proceeds would be directed to “only” non game bird species of Tennessee. I can’t see a down side to that. I think it reasonable for TWRA to consider that proposal. Their “game” moneys would not be spent on cranes or non game birds. but waterfoul would be an iffy consideration that would have to be worked out. I’m not a lawyer. But there would be accountability for the money. IT GOES TO NON GAME BIRDS AND THE FUNDS COULD BE TRACKED AS COULD THE PURCHASER COUNT. We the public and specifically birders win. TWRA wins and most importantly the birds win. It’s just an idea to toss around for the distant future. We, all of us, need a hearing that is on a more level playing field that’s more even with the sportsmen. I think that concept is reasonable to consider. And, TWRA should have no problem creating the additional license. Just an idea. But, the cranes need letters sent now and the addition of a few letters in newspapers to alert the public at large would be extremely beneficial. I’ve fallen in love with the cranes the first time I saw them at Hiwassi and I feel obligated to them to do my best to speak for those who can not speak for themselves. I will talk to some TWRA contacts and make a plea based upon the idea of polorization of the agency and the public. It’s all I got to go on…………
Gary wrote: “We, all of us, need a hearing that is on a more level playing field that’s more even with the sportsmen.”
Couldn’t agree with you more. If a nongame/watchable wildlife user ID on what would otherwise be a hunting/fishing license would help level the playing field in Tennessee or some other state(s), I’m all for it.
How about an ID totally independent of the state hunting license called a “nongame/watchable wildllife user ID” that could be purchased by non hunting public and proceeds directed to non game birds of Tennessee? Fee same as the hunting license….It would be a very, very powerful tool if created properly. And non game birds would be the real winners. Just a concept. Thanks for the ID title. Its perfect. That is a way down the road idea but, think about it once in awhile. Right now we have to assure the sandhills are not made a game bird…..
Oh, I just want to have you all over to dinner. Still working on the menu, probably a hogroast. This is cool. Thank you for all your passion and brainpower, everyone.
This is my last letter to all the commissioners and will go out tomorrow morning. After that I intend to ask for a few moments with the Chief of Wildlife at TWRA, if he will allow it. Please send letters out to the commissioners super fast.
A COMMENT TO THE CRANE HUNTING PROPOSAL
Sir,
This is the second letter I have written in protest to the proposed sandhill crane hunt. I placed a letter in the Knoxville Sentinel last week and it ran in the Special Interest section of the paper. The Special Interest letter received an enormous response from both non hunters (general public) and hunters alike. Many hunters didn’t even know of the crane hunting proposal and when questioned about their anticipated participation in the hunt; many indicated they would not, and didn’t consider an enormous crane a worthy target and that they probably weren’t any good to eat. One coworker who is a hunter asked the question “who the he– dreamed that one up? The most feedback came from the public at large congratulating me on my efforts to thwart this crane hunt. The public appeared irritated at the fact that sandhill cranes would even be considered as a game bird in Tennessee. The question “why are they doing this” was asked of me over and over to whom I had and still have no answer. One customer in my store asked “what are they (TWRA) thinking? I need to say again that I oppose this proposed hunt vehemently and if the hunt proceeds as scheduled; After the first shotgun blast is heard, I predict a massive polarization between the general public and TWRA the likes of which has never existed between the two entities… In short this is just bad, bad PR. And public relations are some of the fundamentals of TWRA. You see; the Sandhills and Whooping Cranes are held high on the bird pedestal here in Tennessee. They are rated and loved as much as, and maybe more than the bald eagle. Tourists come from neighboring states to watch the cranes at Hiwassi with mouths hanging open in awe as the flock soars in and lands. The crane festival is another issue I’ll leave to others. The issue of shooting cranes is on my personal plate at the moment. I’ll keep this short as I’m sure you have been reading many emotional pleas concerning this issue.
This crane hunt is a bad idea from a public relations standpoint. TWRA is the agency charged with the responsibility of wildlife stewardship for the people. Key word here is people. Not, just for the hunters. Yes the hunters contribute the bulk of the funds. But, that doesn’t mean they have to have a “yes” answer to their every conceivable desire. Is it their desire to kill cranes? I don’t know and really it’s a moot point. For whatever reasoning that has been applied to get this hunt sanctioned; there must certainly be a scientific reason to terminate. Please do stop it and show the citizens of this state that you are not only listening to the hunting community but also are willing to respect the wishes of the citizens of Tennessee who revere the sandhill crane as the graceful bird icon it really is. I thank you sir for your attention to my words.
Gary Loucks.
Jules: Hog’s good – dibs on the ribs! Any other invasive exotics we could add to the menu? Garlic Mustard soup? Starling stew? Ceviche de White Amur?
Gary: Good letter, and good work on getting your letter published in the newspaper.
Interesting thing: I work on a showroom floor for 10 to 11 hours daily and today I interviewed customers for opinion about the crane hunt. I talked to 14 different people with hunters hats on or NRA T shirts etc. Not one even knew about the hunting proposal on cranes. And, not one said they would think of leveling a shotgun on a crane. They asked me “who would want to shoot a sandhill crane?” Get this; a TWRA employee came in for parts and I started into it with him. He didn’t know about it. He said he heard whispers of such a hunt. What is going on here? I supplied all with the commissioners addresses and even created a quick letter and printed it off for two of them who said they might write the letters. Wonder what is afoot here with this crane hunt? A good public notification program certainly wasn’t initiated the result of which is a limited time to organize petitions against the proposal. Interesting oversight. On a positive note; I have contacted people in Pennsylvania (my original state) and the commissioners will receive an additional 50 opposition letters from those contacts.
Shot in the dark, no pun intended. Absolutely no one I’ve talked to today has even heard of this proposed hunt. How can the residents of this state protest against something they are not aware of? A loop hole for the non hunter? A fair hearing is deserved to the non participating hunters in Tennessee. Postpone the hunt so all can have a nay or ya response to it. The public deserves at least that consideration. What do ya all think? Worth a try to postpone this hunt, at least for this year? I’m out of ideas and this proposed hunt is driving me nuts, in case you haven’t figured that out by now. Ideas please.
This is almost exactly what happened in Minnesota. Nobody was really aware of the proposal until the Minnesota DNR announced that the crane hunting season had been approved with seemingly very little public input on the process.
Gary, I hear you. Consider this: Not a single birdwatcher with whom I’ve ever raised the topic of sandhill crane hunting was aware it happens, anywhere. Think about the implications of that, and the fight we are up against comes into perspective. That’s why I write about it for Bird Watcher’s Digest–first, because finding out that anyone shoots cranes came as such an utter shock to me, and second, because I’d never seen it addressed in the publications aimed at birders. It’s not in TWRC’s interest to postpone this hunt. Pushing it through quietly is probably just what they’re doing. They certainly haven’t had a very long public comment period. They floated the idea with a plan already formed, to start the hunt in late 2011/2012–next fall! And we have until January to squawk about it. I have enormous respect for you, Gary, your passion and energy. Would they postpone it so you could gather more support from wildlife watchers? I can’t guess. But all you can do is ask, and what’s to be lost in asking? At the very least, you’d alert them that their attempt to push it through quietly hasn’t gone unnoticed. You go, Gary!
I meant “wrote about it.” Jonathan, it seems we should all be paying closer attention to the quiet actions of the wildlife stewards we pay with our taxes. I can’t imagine the enormous population of Minnesota birders were made aware of that situation, or, if they were, would have been fine with it. What a shame. Once instituted, repealing a hunting season can’t be an easy thing to do. I’m sure that’s part of the urgency Gary is feeling in Tennessee.
It’s not in TWRC’s interest to postpone this hunt. Pushing it through quietly is probably just what they’re
Julie; the above from you’re note. I don’t think I have the connections or the professional skill to make a stand to postpone this hunt based upon TWRC/TWRA’s limited time frame of announcement and presentation to the public. In short; they serve all of Tennessee. Ane, the public of Tennessee whether hunter or non hunter have not been properly informed about a proposed action (hunt) that affects a much loved bird that belongs to the people. Presented properly; I beleave the hunt could be postponed at least one season. That’s vital time to group and form an active unified protest to end all thoughts about it ever happening. Is there some professional out there who could present this idea to them? I will if necessary but, it’s a one shot deal and I’d want it handled right the first time. Can’t botch the attempt. Not sure I’m that person. It’s a shame folks can’t meet and sit and discuss this issue. This internet communication can be frustrating and wastes much vital time. The cranes can’t wait much longer. Whatever efforts that are to be expended must be expended now to affect a change for this hunt. I’d guess the permits are printed and the drawings have been or are soon to be completed. Fingers crossed.
I am one of the persons who got involved early in the Crane Festival at Hiwassee Refuge. I spent hours at the site educating the people who came from all over as the event became more popular, and watching the population of Sandhills grow. I also supported and have my heart leashed to the recovery of the Whooping Crane through the efforts of Operation Migration, who once thought they had a safe place to bring their Whoopers while training them where to stop for rest along their new man made eastern flyway. I was in meetings as the numbers of Sandhill Cranes grew amazingly fast, where discussions were begun and not finished of how best to manage the Sandhill population. I helped to raise funds, yes to help feed the numbers of cranes who ate more than TWRA planted so birds could be visible at the festival. I contributed any way I could, and was pleased to see that monies we raised were used to help begin the building that stands there now. I have been there through the years when we begged TWRA to help us come up with a way that Birders and nature lovers could contribute in real money to this conservation effort.
I have been told of research that indicates Indians at that very location, may have survived, in part, on the meat the Sandhills provided in the years of the Cherokee Indian Removal, for the bird numbers at the time supported the hunting. But when hunting and loss of food and habitat pushed them to less than 100 birds in the early 1900’s, it seemed there were too few to hope they would survive. A lot of years passed before there was hope of ever seeing them in the thousands. At the rate they were expanding in recent years, the flock should have grown into the hundred-thousands by now. But the growing size of the overall population has slowed.
Addressing the damaged crop theory:
They are not there during regular crop seasons. They arrive in November and leave by March except for individual lagging birds. They do not all stay over winter, although far too many do. There is an overlap in December and January of birds going North with birds coming South, ie: thier resting place.
Addressing the concentration on the refuge: they can be found in outlying areas and the density of their numbers remains around the waterways of the Tennessee River and Hiwassee River flatlands. In years gone by, we were told not to count too many of the Sandhills off the refuge, on count days, believing that it was too difficult to know if birds in the areas around the refuge had already been counted on the refuge. TWRA maintained counts taken from the air. When we look at those numbers, the way they are reported and analyzed has changed to support a hunting agenda. The way the numbers are being offered is not entirely accurate to the way they have been offered in the past. Therefore it seems to reflect a change that warrants hunting. Individuals who really look closely, can see that for themselves.
Addressing the hunting: We asked years ago for TWRA to help us understand how many birds would be too many. Since this was new to all of us, under the same umbrella of conservation, we thought, no answer could be given right away. Why were we asking? Because we knew we wanted to support the introduction of Whooping Cranes into the mix, since the conditions seemed to support a healthy environment for Cranes to flourish. We believed that a door had opened that would give opportunity to help allow a truley endangered species to survive. To provide safe haven.
A lot has been said to assure that hunters would know the difference. Some would. But to prove the point that some would not – the recent Knoxville news article had a response that mocked the idea that Whooping Cranes would migrate with Sandhills. Well, Whoopers ARE loners. But pictures on the newly realeased video by Riverwalk Bird Club, entitled “THE SACRED LAND” and found in the “CHATTANOOGAN.COM” online newspaper, (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_187119.asp or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8Two-HEeTM ), clearly shows the Whoopers among the Sandhills. I personally have made photos of the Whoopers among the Sandhills. Any frequent visitor to the refuge knows this. Now, someone might say but those aren’t wild. Well, an article released today from an interview done with Tom Stehn, who has been involved with the wild flock of Whoopers in Texas for years, has a large picture of the Whoopers there, which clearly shows in the base of the pic, Sandhills in flight along side. It is that one responder, who believes falsely that the two don’t co-exist, who would fire into a flock, believing there is no chance he could wound a Whooping Crane, that I am worried about. I fought for an opportunity to revitalize the existance of this bird because I thought it had a safe haven at Hiwassee. I made the comment today on my facebook page, that just as children are accidentally killed in the neighborhoods where violence erupts, it is inevitable that Whoopers will be in harms way. I have viewed cranes for years, and in the early morning light, when even Sandhills look white, I have strained through binoculars to be sure I wasn’t seeing a Whooper among the Sandhills. I can assure you, it is impossible that someone behind a gun will always be able to tell the difference or not miss his intended target and hit a Whooper that flies into his viewfinder from an unexpected place.
I once made a comment that I might would actually like to taste a Whooping Cranes’s meat. BUT!!!! the second half of my comment was “WHEN THEIR NUMBERS REACH A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR SO.” Had I known, that no other means of conservation except hunting was even being considered, I would have not encouraged Operation Migration to bring the ultra-light led migration flights through the Refuge. As it turns out, they have had to change routes, and I will have to go elsewhere to assure I don’t have to watch the bird being killed. Oh by the way. Deer was our mainstay food, when my children were young. I own a gun, and though I haven’t killed meat myself, I have carried a few turkeys home from the turkey shoot. I am not anti hunting. My son is a hunter in the wilds of Washington State. I just feel betrayed. I believed we could give Whooping Cranes the same chance at multiplying it’s numbers that we gave the Sandhills. I guess we could go back to when there were only a few Sandhills, and very few people even cared that they existed on the Eastern flyway. I for one will be eternally thankful for the day my husband and I were the only two people on the road at the refuge, and something the cranes believed to be a threat caused 4,000 birds to lift with one voice into the air. That was when they were so wild they hadn’t learned to feel safe there. They lifted my heart with them. I was so impressed that there was a place in the east that I could go see cranes. In all the years since then, I would have gladly paid every time I came on the refuge to see them. But if they are being hunted, I will go elsewhere to find them. I will not support as I once did, things like Watchable Wildlife tags, whose matched money once encouraged TWRA to support the watching of wildlife. Since the matching funds program has been discontinued, as I understand it, money is an issue. The loss of those funds cut deeply i am sure. No program other than hunting has been offered as managable.
As far as inbreeding goes: when have you ever seen 4-10,000 deer in a single area close enough to chose mates from so many other individuals. These Sandhills didn’t have that trouble when there were so few, once their habitat was made safe. It is the Whooping Crane that has to deal with this issue, because there are so few. NOT Sandhills, of whom there is now a sustainable population.
And by the way. I thought those processes of regulating the size and number of wild individuals were part of the NATURAL process. It is what has happened for thousands of years to reduce populations that get oversized for their habitat. So now, man thinks it is inhumane to let that happen, but thinks hunting is humane??? Look, I get it that illness can wipe out a species. And it is inbreeding that is one of the issues that has plagued all who have tried to re-establish Whoopers. But get your facts straight. All it took for the Sandhills to over come was safe viable habitats. The Whoopers need way more help. But once the other issues are overcome for them, where will the safe viable habitat be? If Hiwassee needs help, then let other areas of Tennessee determine if they are able and willing to provide habitat for such large wild birds. By the way, Whoopers prefer water creatures and certain roots to corn. And they need water in secluded places over fields of grain. But on migration, they will be found among the Sandhills feeding on what sustains them. All who are responsible for their re-intorduction prefer they remain wild, and do not condone unnatural feeding programs for the sake of getting to see the birds. To survive they must keep their wildness.
Is killing the only way to raise money… I am sorry, but I feel it really boils down to jobs, politics, and money. Not Conservation. Have they started an Elk hunt yet? Or are there not enough of them to hunt yet? Just curious.
By the way, I just wished to thank all of you for the ideas about buying liscences etc. My husband came up with similar ideas and tried to spread it among our birding community as one way of helping TWRA with their money issues. I do wish this conversation would continue, to find the best ways that wildlife watchers can contribute to the sustainability of places to do it. Purhaps, since voting on hunting is a voter issue, why couldn’t putting a watchable wildlife sticker on my car for example, be a voter issue. I too would gladly pay on field guides and gear a little extra to go toward the coffers. Maybe we should approach our congressmen with a bill. Ideas please!!! Then let’s approach them, with a valid process that actually doesn’t cost more to implement than it takes in. And direct those funds by law to our part of the wildlife conservation population.
Cynthia Wilkerson
Cynthia, Send to TWRA commissioners the exact words you posted here. Exactly. What a wonderful piece!
Has anyone heard of progress to postpone the hunt. The newspapers are vacant of even a mention of cranes. Hope the pressure on TWRA doesn’t lessen. This whole crane hunting mess still isn’t in the public’s eye on the scale it needs to be.
I have followed and appreciated this discussion. Thank you, Julie, for bringing it to the attention of so many.
I have posted an “elephant” blog post today on the hunt issue at Vickie Henderson Art. It is a complex issue that goes even deeper than sandhill cranes. The decision on the sandhill crane hunt proposal in TN represents an opportunity, a pivotal point, giving wildlife watchers an opportunity to influence a wildlife management decision. But only if we act now. And only if we follow-up with efforts to change out-dated laws and regulations.
For those of you have sent letters, thank you. For those of you who haven’t, now’s the time.
http://vickiehenderson.blogspot.com/2010/11/sandhill-crane-hunting-in-tennessee.html
Thank you. Vickie, for the last post of encouragement.
Everyone, let’s please write to the outgoing governor, Phil Bredesen.
Maybe one of his last acts in office can be granting the sandhill cranes a stay of execution.
Governor Phil Bredesen
State Capitol
Nashville, TN 37243-0001
phone: 615-741-2001
fax: 615-532-9771
Thank you Vickie for one of the best pieces I have ever seen written on wildlife conservation. It is obvious that your experience with the TWRA and your experience with the Sandhill Crane make you the perfect person to express the concerns of everyone involved with the proposed Sandhill Crane hunt. Why is it that the biology of the species involved is so often left out of the picture?
I urge everyone reading these comments to go read Vickie’s post on this urgent matter and write the people in charge if you have not done that yet. You may also want to check out the links at the bottom of her post.
Helo,ive come across your your site before and very interesting it is too to hear someones view from across the “pond” however i must comment on your post re.the old labour government.In the 13 unlucky years they were in power they demanded that an area the size of Cambridge was built on for housing every year destroying wildlife habitat to the tune of 780,000 acres per year!We are already the most densely populated country in Europe and due to our unique maritime position very desirable for certain bird migrants who sadly find it very difficult for somewhere to go now.The last government singlehandedly destroyed countless generations of wildlife not seen on a scale since the industrial revolution this doesn,t get reported in the urban based labour press like the independant because frankly they are only interested in political point scoring.This country will always destroy it,s wildlife habitat until we become a bladerunneresque society because we are run on economics….