Sunday, September 28, 2008
Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project
Here are the details of the project straight from the USGS. Complete results will be published January 2009.
McCain's Bear Reference
If you're anything like me, you became quite interested in McCain's "joke" about DNA testing of grizzly bears in Montana. Here's an article outlining the research:
McCain's Beef with Bears?—Pork
The presidential wannabe scoffs at pouring millions into studying grizzly bear DNA, but scientists say it's key to preserving the species
By Coco Ballantyne
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is a well-known critic of frivolous government spending otherwise known as pork: those pricey projects that legislators routinely—and surreptitiously—slip into appropriations packages to benefit their own districts and bring them coveted votes. But scientists charge that an important study of grizzly bear DNA has gotten caught in the crosshairs as the veteran Arizona lawmaker attempts to showcase his creds as a crusader against wasteful government spending.
It is unclear why McCain, who has taken a firm stand on some other environmental issues—he believes more needs to be done to curtail global warming—considers the research to be a waste of time and money, and his press office did not respond to repeated e-mails and phone calls for comment. Yet, he is apparently so "outraged" that he takes a dig at it in a campaign TV spot in which an announcer declares:
"233 million for a bridge to nowhere. Outrageous… Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable… A million dollars for a Woodstock Museum—in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton. Predictable… Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man. John McCain."
Currently the front-runner for the GOP nod, McCain also hits the research in speeches on the stump, cracking jokes about bear paternity tests and criminal investigations. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money," McCain railed last month during a campaign stop in Clawson, Mich. Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.
In fact, Congress over the past five years has forked over a total of $4.8 million to study the genetic material of Montana's grizzly bears, according to Katherine Kendall, a research biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Kendall heads the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, which is aimed at obtaining the first accurate population estimate of grizzlies living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—eight million acres of land in northwestern Montana that encompasses Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.
"This is not pork barrel at all," says Richard Mace, a research biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). "We have a federal law called the Endangered Species Act and [under this law] the federal government is supposed to help identify and conserve threatened species."
The grizzly has been listed as a threatened species since 1975 and scientists say that it is essential to get a handle on the population to preserve it. But, according to Kendall, until the feds decided to invest in this grizzly bear DNA study, researchers lacked the funds to conduct research at the scale necessary to get a reliable measure.
In 2002 Kendall assembled a scientific panel with representatives from the USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FWP, along with other scientific and environmental organizations to determine the best way to measure the remaining grizzly population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It recommended setting up barbed wire hair-snagging stations to painlessly pluck fur from passing bears that would be used for DNA fingerprinting, a technique employed to distinguish individuals of the same species by the differences in their genetic material. This is the only way to accurately estimate population in such heavily forested terrain, where bears are difficult to spot, says Chris Servheen, a grizzly expert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In response, the USGS set aside $250,000 to launch the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project; the next year, Congress stepped in to provide additional funding, and from 2003 to 2007 appropriated $4.8 million to the effort, Kendall says.
She notes that her team of 250 scientists and researchers set up hair-snag stations at thousands of locations throughout the grizzly habitat, some as far as 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the nearest road. These wire setups do not harm the bears in any way, Servheen says: "It's no more than running a comb through your hair."
The team collected 34,000 samples of bear hair over a 14-week period in 2004, which it sent over the border to the Wildlife Genetics International laboratory in Nelson, British Columbia. By extracting and analyzing DNA in the strands, researchers were able to pinpoint the species (grizzly or black bear), gender, and individual identity of host bears. It took two years to analyze the large swath of samples and another to compile the data and conduct statistical analyses to estimate the size, distribution and genetic structure of the population as well as summarize the findings, which Kendall says she hopes to publish in a science journal by summer. (She refuses to reveal the results prior to publication.)
But numbers are only part of the story. Scientists say they also have to figure out how the population is changing to determine how to protect it. Toward that end, the Montana state government four years ago launched a $250,000 per annum effort to monitor grizzly population trends (separate from, but complementary to Kendall's study on population size), according to Mace, who is in charge of that project.
"There are no answers yet," he says, noting that it is too early to tell whether the population is increasing, decreasing or if it remains unchanged since 2004. But researchers are optimistic they will be able to fashion effective preservation measures once they have a better idea of [to vary] the population size—thanks to Kendall's study—and a solid understanding of trends.
Still, for many Americans who have never seen and probably never will see a grizzly bear, the question remains: Why should one bear population merit millions in taxpayer money?
The reason, grizzly expert Servheen says: the bears are a threatened species. He estimates that only about 1,500 still reside in the 48 contiguous states, compared with some 50,000 before the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century (a 97 percent population decline). The once far-reaching grizzly habitat, which stretched from the Mississippi River to California and ranged north to south from Alaska to Mexico, is today restricted to four western states: Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In these states, only two populations—those living in and around Yellowstone National Park and in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—number more than 50 bears and offer hope for long-term viability, Servheen says.
So is forking over huge chunks of change to protect grizzly bears "unbelievable"—or a joke—as McCain charges?
No way, scientists and environmentalists say. Protecting wildlife is expensive, but grizzlies are priceless, says Louisa Willcox, director of the Wild Bears Project for the National Resources Defense Council. "Grizzly bears are a symbol of our frontier past—of untamed wilderness," she says. "Lewis and Clark saw them eating buffalo carcasses on the American plains."
Not only are grizzlies "treasures of United States history," Servheen says, but they help us understand how effective our conservation efforts are. Despite their ferocious reputation, he notes, grizzlies are exquisitely sensitive to human activity and can only live on the wildest tracts of land. "They are an indicator of the health of ecosystems," he says, and they emblematize "the preservation of wilderness, which is becoming rarer every day."
Click here for the original article.
McCain's Beef with Bears?—Pork
The presidential wannabe scoffs at pouring millions into studying grizzly bear DNA, but scientists say it's key to preserving the species
By Coco Ballantyne
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is a well-known critic of frivolous government spending otherwise known as pork: those pricey projects that legislators routinely—and surreptitiously—slip into appropriations packages to benefit their own districts and bring them coveted votes. But scientists charge that an important study of grizzly bear DNA has gotten caught in the crosshairs as the veteran Arizona lawmaker attempts to showcase his creds as a crusader against wasteful government spending.
It is unclear why McCain, who has taken a firm stand on some other environmental issues—he believes more needs to be done to curtail global warming—considers the research to be a waste of time and money, and his press office did not respond to repeated e-mails and phone calls for comment. Yet, he is apparently so "outraged" that he takes a dig at it in a campaign TV spot in which an announcer declares:
"233 million for a bridge to nowhere. Outrageous… Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable… A million dollars for a Woodstock Museum—in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton. Predictable… Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man. John McCain."
Currently the front-runner for the GOP nod, McCain also hits the research in speeches on the stump, cracking jokes about bear paternity tests and criminal investigations. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money," McCain railed last month during a campaign stop in Clawson, Mich. Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.
In fact, Congress over the past five years has forked over a total of $4.8 million to study the genetic material of Montana's grizzly bears, according to Katherine Kendall, a research biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Kendall heads the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, which is aimed at obtaining the first accurate population estimate of grizzlies living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—eight million acres of land in northwestern Montana that encompasses Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.
"This is not pork barrel at all," says Richard Mace, a research biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). "We have a federal law called the Endangered Species Act and [under this law] the federal government is supposed to help identify and conserve threatened species."
The grizzly has been listed as a threatened species since 1975 and scientists say that it is essential to get a handle on the population to preserve it. But, according to Kendall, until the feds decided to invest in this grizzly bear DNA study, researchers lacked the funds to conduct research at the scale necessary to get a reliable measure.
In 2002 Kendall assembled a scientific panel with representatives from the USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FWP, along with other scientific and environmental organizations to determine the best way to measure the remaining grizzly population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It recommended setting up barbed wire hair-snagging stations to painlessly pluck fur from passing bears that would be used for DNA fingerprinting, a technique employed to distinguish individuals of the same species by the differences in their genetic material. This is the only way to accurately estimate population in such heavily forested terrain, where bears are difficult to spot, says Chris Servheen, a grizzly expert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In response, the USGS set aside $250,000 to launch the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project; the next year, Congress stepped in to provide additional funding, and from 2003 to 2007 appropriated $4.8 million to the effort, Kendall says.
She notes that her team of 250 scientists and researchers set up hair-snag stations at thousands of locations throughout the grizzly habitat, some as far as 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the nearest road. These wire setups do not harm the bears in any way, Servheen says: "It's no more than running a comb through your hair."
The team collected 34,000 samples of bear hair over a 14-week period in 2004, which it sent over the border to the Wildlife Genetics International laboratory in Nelson, British Columbia. By extracting and analyzing DNA in the strands, researchers were able to pinpoint the species (grizzly or black bear), gender, and individual identity of host bears. It took two years to analyze the large swath of samples and another to compile the data and conduct statistical analyses to estimate the size, distribution and genetic structure of the population as well as summarize the findings, which Kendall says she hopes to publish in a science journal by summer. (She refuses to reveal the results prior to publication.)
But numbers are only part of the story. Scientists say they also have to figure out how the population is changing to determine how to protect it. Toward that end, the Montana state government four years ago launched a $250,000 per annum effort to monitor grizzly population trends (separate from, but complementary to Kendall's study on population size), according to Mace, who is in charge of that project.
"There are no answers yet," he says, noting that it is too early to tell whether the population is increasing, decreasing or if it remains unchanged since 2004. But researchers are optimistic they will be able to fashion effective preservation measures once they have a better idea of [to vary] the population size—thanks to Kendall's study—and a solid understanding of trends.
Still, for many Americans who have never seen and probably never will see a grizzly bear, the question remains: Why should one bear population merit millions in taxpayer money?
The reason, grizzly expert Servheen says: the bears are a threatened species. He estimates that only about 1,500 still reside in the 48 contiguous states, compared with some 50,000 before the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century (a 97 percent population decline). The once far-reaching grizzly habitat, which stretched from the Mississippi River to California and ranged north to south from Alaska to Mexico, is today restricted to four western states: Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In these states, only two populations—those living in and around Yellowstone National Park and in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—number more than 50 bears and offer hope for long-term viability, Servheen says.
So is forking over huge chunks of change to protect grizzly bears "unbelievable"—or a joke—as McCain charges?
No way, scientists and environmentalists say. Protecting wildlife is expensive, but grizzlies are priceless, says Louisa Willcox, director of the Wild Bears Project for the National Resources Defense Council. "Grizzly bears are a symbol of our frontier past—of untamed wilderness," she says. "Lewis and Clark saw them eating buffalo carcasses on the American plains."
Not only are grizzlies "treasures of United States history," Servheen says, but they help us understand how effective our conservation efforts are. Despite their ferocious reputation, he notes, grizzlies are exquisitely sensitive to human activity and can only live on the wildest tracts of land. "They are an indicator of the health of ecosystems," he says, and they emblematize "the preservation of wilderness, which is becoming rarer every day."
Click here for the original article.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Just some things
Another post on some things going on in my life:
--We're finally getting some cooler weather. Still no rain, but the cooler weather is nice. I can feel Fall approaching. About time too since we've passed the "start" of the season. I decorated for Fall/Halloween last Sunday, so that was fun. Not that I have many decorations, but it was fun nonetheless. I love this time of year!
--I read in a gardening book that vegetable gardens benefit from wood ashes, so I sprinkled the ashes left over from the fire pit (from the 30th bday party) around the plants today. I'm not expecting much (especially since we're getting cooler temperatures) but it was still neat to use something that otherwise would just sit there. At first I was thinking that the ashes help the fertility of the soil, but after I read more, I deduced that it helps keep pests away.
--My car is still in the shop. And not because it's not fixed, but because there's no gas. Anywhere! Apparently when I filled my car up with a mere 5 gallons of gas last Tuesday (because the pumps were so slow) I was putting contaminated gas into my car. The owner of the place has agreed to pay the bill ($340) thank goodness. And like I said, the car's fixed, but now I have the problem of finding gas to put back in it. I thought it was due to Hurricane Ike, but from what I heard on the news today, it has nothing to do with that. The way I understand it, the tankers in Spartanburg (where we get our gas) are only being filled half-way. The NC officials (not sure who that is) have called the gas companies (BP, Exxon, etc) to figure out why this is happening, but they either don't tell them or they don't answer their calls.
The solution to my problem (kind of): the guys at the auto shop siphoned off the little gas that was left from my tank (I guess the water and junk settles out of the gas) and put it back in my tank. So I have enough gas to get home or straight to a station. I've decided to just drive it home & either put the gas I have for my mower in it or just wait until this whole gas shortage thing rolls over. I'm not real concerned about my car being out of commission because my boyfriend is gone this week so I can drive his car if necessary. Also, I got my bike fixed today (another story) so I can ride it to campus. Come to think of it, I kind of like this situation. Maybe folks will actually start to carpool, ride the bus, ride their bikes, or whatever else they can come up with.
--My bike. I'm a novice...and it shows. I broke the tire valve while trying to pump up the tire. :oP So not only was I out a car, but I was also out my alternate transportation. But let's look at the bright side: the guy at the bike shop taught me how to do it correctly, I met a guy at the store that's a member of the WCU bike club and he invited me to join them, and I perused a shop next door (they sell used library and donated books there) where I found a book in the series my boyfriend is reading. It looks like it hasn't even been read & I got it for $3.00.
--I'll leave on a funny note: 2 redneck (sorry) white boys just rang my doorbell selling steaks and seafood out of the freezer in the back of their pickup. Um, sorry guys, but I think I'll pass. :o)
--We're finally getting some cooler weather. Still no rain, but the cooler weather is nice. I can feel Fall approaching. About time too since we've passed the "start" of the season. I decorated for Fall/Halloween last Sunday, so that was fun. Not that I have many decorations, but it was fun nonetheless. I love this time of year!
--I read in a gardening book that vegetable gardens benefit from wood ashes, so I sprinkled the ashes left over from the fire pit (from the 30th bday party) around the plants today. I'm not expecting much (especially since we're getting cooler temperatures) but it was still neat to use something that otherwise would just sit there. At first I was thinking that the ashes help the fertility of the soil, but after I read more, I deduced that it helps keep pests away.
--My car is still in the shop. And not because it's not fixed, but because there's no gas. Anywhere! Apparently when I filled my car up with a mere 5 gallons of gas last Tuesday (because the pumps were so slow) I was putting contaminated gas into my car. The owner of the place has agreed to pay the bill ($340) thank goodness. And like I said, the car's fixed, but now I have the problem of finding gas to put back in it. I thought it was due to Hurricane Ike, but from what I heard on the news today, it has nothing to do with that. The way I understand it, the tankers in Spartanburg (where we get our gas) are only being filled half-way. The NC officials (not sure who that is) have called the gas companies (BP, Exxon, etc) to figure out why this is happening, but they either don't tell them or they don't answer their calls.
The solution to my problem (kind of): the guys at the auto shop siphoned off the little gas that was left from my tank (I guess the water and junk settles out of the gas) and put it back in my tank. So I have enough gas to get home or straight to a station. I've decided to just drive it home & either put the gas I have for my mower in it or just wait until this whole gas shortage thing rolls over. I'm not real concerned about my car being out of commission because my boyfriend is gone this week so I can drive his car if necessary. Also, I got my bike fixed today (another story) so I can ride it to campus. Come to think of it, I kind of like this situation. Maybe folks will actually start to carpool, ride the bus, ride their bikes, or whatever else they can come up with.
--My bike. I'm a novice...and it shows. I broke the tire valve while trying to pump up the tire. :oP So not only was I out a car, but I was also out my alternate transportation. But let's look at the bright side: the guy at the bike shop taught me how to do it correctly, I met a guy at the store that's a member of the WCU bike club and he invited me to join them, and I perused a shop next door (they sell used library and donated books there) where I found a book in the series my boyfriend is reading. It looks like it hasn't even been read & I got it for $3.00.
--I'll leave on a funny note: 2 redneck (sorry) white boys just rang my doorbell selling steaks and seafood out of the freezer in the back of their pickup. Um, sorry guys, but I think I'll pass. :o)
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
It may be healthy, but it sure ain't satisfying!
I love love love Sour Patch Kids. If someone asked me what my favorite food is, that's what I'd say--even if it's not technically a "food".
My boyfriend and I have plans to go see a movie on campus Friday night. The theater there charges only $2 for students and the popcorn and cokes are free. This poses a huge threat to my diet because I've always taken anything free, even if I didn't need it.
I can get a diet coke, that's fine. But what will I substitute for the buttery, salty popcorn that my boyfriend will be eating next to me? I can picture the wonder aromas wafting up to my nostrils right now.
So this got me thinking, "What healthy and satisfying movie snacks are out there?" I wish I could tell you that I was amazed by the amount I found. Hardly. I saw: celery sticks, pretzels, nuts, fruit, cut up veggies, etc. BLECH! Honestly, I think those'll just make me want my sour patch kids or popcorn even more. I'm fine with incorporating those things into my daily diet, but there's a sort of feeling that seeing a movie invokes that draws me toward the unhealthy stuff. It's like going to a carnival and passing on the funnel cake for celery sticks. Uh, no thanks.
Some may say that one serving of sour patch kids can't be all that bad. And I agree. One serving of sour patch kids, for me however, can sabotage my entire diet. There's no braking system here.
I did amazingly well with the movie snacks this summer when we went to see Indian Jones. I had just bought a huge basket of local strawberries, so I cut some up and shared them with my boyfriend during the movie. They were so good! And satisfying! And no longer in season! :o(
I found this article on SparkPeople that had some better snack suggestions than others I found. Not sure whether sparkpeople will make you log in to read it or not. The only other thing I found that may hit the spot is Kernel Season's Popcorn Seasoning. I've tried several of these and really like them except that they have a hard time sticking to butterless popcorn. I saw somewhere that you can use that healthy "butter" spray to help it stick, but I haven't tried that yet. And I'm really not all that sure that these seasonings are a healthier option. There's 2-5 calories per 1/4 tsp (1 serving) so if you stick to the serving size, perhaps it is.
A major help would be to somehow change my way of thinking that going to the movies = yummy junk food.
A funny (& perhaps relatable) aside: my dad buys the popcorn size with the free refill and then will eat all (we sometimes help) of the popcorn during the previews and get a refill before the movie even starts. :o)
Anyone have any alternative movie snack tricks up their sleeves?
Friday, September 19, 2008
The big day
Today's the big 30th party! I'm stressed out, but anxious to get the ball rolling. I have tons of cleaning to do (should've done lots of it earlier, but other things kept taking precendence) and a fair amount of setting up/decorating. I guess it's a good thing my car is in the shop (because of some bad gas I got) so that I'm forced to stay home and do these things. Well enough talkin' about it...I'm off to start cleaning!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)