In Larry Case's opinion article "On predators, prey and prickly discussions about how to handle their places in the natural world" which appeared in the Times Free Press on Jan. 29, there are a few sentiments I agree with - but the majority, I don't.
Let me be the first to say ethical hunters and farmers are some of the best conservationists, understanding habitat needs and management, conservation and restoration. They know these factors will improve their hunting reservoirs, improve grazing and be good for ecology.
I do believe our society can be lazy, spoon-fed and labor under long-held beliefs simply because that is what we have always been told.
I do believe predators are a part of our world and some wild animals kill and eat other animals to live. Some are predators, some are prey.
A topic Mr. Case never introduces which has the ability to answer so many of his questions is trophic cascade.
What is trophic cascade? Simply put, trophic cascades are powerful indirect interactions that can control entire ecosystems. In a trophic cascade, ecological processes and consequences initiated by a change at the top of the food chain work their way down to lower trophic levels and eventually rebalance the ecological relationships of numerous species.
For example, predators can reduce the population density of their direct prey or can hinder the behavior of their prey to such an extent that they improve the survival of other species that their prey suppressed. Trophic cascades can also have the opposite effect: The removal of the top predator from a food chain can increase the population of its prey, leading in turn to reductions of species at the next lower trophic level.
In recent years, the most well-known trophic cascade occurred in Yellowstone when grey wolves were re-established. If you have not watched the five-minute documentary "How Wolves Change Rivers," you simply must. It will blow your mind and make you consider things of which you never thought. You can find it on YouTube, but I'll briefly summarize the documentary.
Yes, wolves do eat other animals, but they also give life to other animals.
Before the wolves were re-established, the deer populations were huge in Yellowstone and had reduced vegetation to almost nothing. The reintroduction of wolves changed the behavior of deer. As deer moved to new areas, vegetation regenerated, which meant birds came back. Beavers increased as trees came back. Beavers, like wolves, are ecosystem engineers creating niches for other species. Wolves killed coyotes, which allowed the rabbit population to increase, which means more raptors, foxes, weasels and badgers.
Many scavengers including ravens, crows, vultures and eagles are provided food from wolf kills. Bear populations rose with the increase in food from wolf kills and more berries and mast from shrubs and trees. Bears reinforce the impact of the wolves and create balance by killing fawns.
Most amazingly, wolves change the behavior of rivers. With the regeneration of forests, there is less erosion and river banks stabilize and collapse less often, so rivers become more fixed in their course. Rivers create pools, ripples and narrow courses, all excellent wildlife habitats.
Even though the wolves were small in number, their effects were large, restoring balance in the ecosystem. Amazing stuff, isn't it?
I also like to tell the story of red wolves and sea turtles, another unlikely coupling. Red wolves are the original and only wolf native to the U.S., once roaming in large numbers throughout the Southeast. Red wolves were considered extinct in the wild in 1980 and were re-established in northeastern North Carolina in 1987. Scientists noticed an increase in the sea turtle population several years after the red wolf once again took up residence on the landscape and wondered what the relationship might be.
The No. 1 and 2 prey items for red wolves are white-tailed deer and raccoons. Raccoons raid sea turtle nests, eating the eggs and thus reducing the sea turtle population. In this case, you have a critically endangered wolf helping an endangered sea turtle. That's balance at its best.
Mr. Case states it was necessary for settlers to whittle down the wolf populations if they were ever going to be able to raise livestock. This eradication was what started the imbalance of predator and prey as proven by trophic cascade. When populations are balanced and healthy, wolves do not kill livestock.
Because the red wolf no longer exists in the wild in the Southeast except the very small population in northeastern North Carolina, coyotes have moved in and taken over their role. Coyotes are amazingly resilient mesopredators. And yes, they are here to stay, creating balance.
As to Mr. Case's question, "When do we have enough or plenty of deer, turkey or elk?" biological carrying capacity and cultural carrying capacity will help answer those questions.
As for grouse, according to the Ruffed Grouse Society, they are the most widely distributed game bird in North America. They are thought of as wilderness birds, but easily adapt to living in close proximity to humans if the cover gives them adequate security. They do thrive best where forests are kept young.
Grouse are one of the first links in the food chain. Grouse populations are seldom static and fluctuations occur in waves from year to year and decade to decade. The fluctuations are not clearly understood, but hunting does not appear to be a factor since the hunting season is in fall, removing grouse that are in excess of winter carrying capacity. The primary cause seems to be weather trends and the quantity and quality of food. A bird suffering from poor nutrition or unfavorable weather may be less fit and an easier meal for a predator. Additionally, unfit birds are less likely to produce healthy chicks.
The grouse long game is affected by forest growth. In older times, fire and windstorms renewed forests, creating good habitat for grouse and other wildlife. Grouse can be considered a fire-dependent species. Today's reluctance to cut forests and to suppress fire does affect grouse populations. Controlled burns were understood by Native Americans and are again being managed for the benefit of habitats and species survival. For grouse, successive growth planting to provide diversity of tree ages in plots may be of benefit.
Too many hawks affecting grouse? Cornell recently released a study showing a massive 29% decline in songbirds. The report also concludes that because of the banning of DDT insecticide and protections from hunting, raptors have rebounded. Yes, raptor numbers have rebounded, but I would consider it quite a stretch to agree with Mr. Case's statement that we have more birds of prey now than anytime in recent history. As the Ruffed Grouse Society points out, there are many factors affecting grouse population. A healthy raptor population is not to blame for a decline.
I'm not sure why Mr. Case would even allude to shooting birds of prey given they are federally protected and something a responsible hunter would never consider.
There's nothing "prickly" about how to handle predators and prey and their place in the natural world. It's our job to successfully manage and care for habitats and let the natural order of things take place amongst a healthy ecosystem.
***
Tish Gailmard is director of wildlife at Reflection Riding Arboretum and Nature Center and a licensed wildlife rehabilitator. She is also a member of the center's Red Wolf Management Team and Red Wolf Task Force and the U.S. Red Wolf SAFE committee.