Where do you want to go?

Home | Wingtips | Alerts | Announcements |Archives | Articles | Birding & Hiking | Join | Links | Officers | Yavapai County Sightings | Mojave County Sightings | Trips & Meetings
Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind
Site search Web search

Back to Contents List of All Archives

Archives of Articles/Alerts 1999 - 2000

Year 2000:

November 2000

More Surprising Birds

Carl Tomoff

October storm fronts brought us some stunning surprises. An adult male Ruddy Ground-Dove was found outside Carol Slagle’s home in Prescott Valley early in the morning on October 22. The bird was entrusted to our local bird rehabilitators, George and Mary Leeper, who took it to the vet. Since he found nothing wrong, the poor dove was probably exhausted, perhaps carried north by the southerly storm system that left over 1.5” of rain overnight in the Prescott area.

This is only the second documented record for the Prescott region of this Central American species that ranges northward into Sonora. Rebecca Davis spotted the first one foraging at her feeders with Inca Doves in Forbing Park in October 1998. This species has visited Arizona with increasing frequency during the past decade. Vern Vaughn photographed Yavapai County’s first visitor on June 10, 1991, which was Arizona’s first summer record, near Camp Verde. Most birds arrive in fall and winter.

A Ruddy Ground-Dove that summered at a Phoenix residence was still there in early November. During the last week of October, at least four other doves appeared: one at Portal near the Chiricahuas, one south of Tucson, one near Marana north of Tucson, and one at Lake Havasu! Are more on the way?

If you observe this dove, or the Common Ground-Dove, please contact me. Although more likely to show up in our region, Common Ground-Doves are also casual and rare here.

Another front, this time from the northwest, swept though our area October 26 to 28. As I stalked about the Watson Woods Riparian Preserve under a foreboding sky early Saturday, October 28, I flushed a raptor along Granite Creek. As it screamed while gliding away through cottonwoods and willows, I could see its heavily barred underwing flight feathers, black-margined wingtips encircling a light crescent, accipiter-like tail, and bowed wings. Returning to the Peavine Trail along the old railroad bed, I was delighted to see a small cluster of birders peering with binocs and scopes in the direction of the calling hawk. Jim Morgan crept forward, aiming his recording equipment toward the sounds. The hawk eluded everyone’s view, but its distinctive calls puzzled and intrigued them all.

Jim and I returned on Monday. I saw the bird flush from near the original site and slip silently away through the trees. It circled and flew across the briskly flowing creek toward Watson Lake. This secretive hawk may still be around. One showed up at the Hassayampa River Preserve last year and wintered there before being joined by another. The pair nested this summer, though unsuccessfully, for the state’s first breeding attempt by wild birds.

Oh!……..Did this Red-shouldered Hawk blow in from California with that storm front?

Back to Contents List

November 2000

The Lakes

Carl Tomoff

The season’s first Common Loon was seen by Russell Duerksen at Del Rio Springs in Chino Valley on October 21. Late afternoon on the 23rd, with swirling winds and dark sky threatening rain over Watson Lake, I watched a string of three Common Loons drift out of sight, leaving a tight raft of 28 huddling Eared Grebes in their wake. A hoard of about 125 Franklin’s Gulls alternately descended toward the water, began to settle down, and then suddenly lifted up and flew off, only to return and repeat the sequence. Twenty minutes later, after coming and going five times, they finally dropped near the Eared Grebes and began preening in the dimming light.

Early on the 30th, after another blustery night, I was fortunate to observe a bonanza of diving birds back at Watson. A Common Loon fished near shore while a single Pacific Loon dove repeatedly into deep waters. The raft of Western Grebes, which has gradually grown from 6 to 21 since early October, suddenly swelled to 32 and was joined by a single Clark’s Grebe and five Eared Grebes. Over 40 Pied-billed Grebes were widely distributed over the lake, from shallows to wide expanses of open water. Now if only a Horned Grebe would surface, they’d all be there! But alas, no such luck.

A handful of immature California and Ring-billed Gulls bobbed on the surface, cormorants dove or preened on relict snags rising from the high water, a kingfisher rattled as it cruised just above the lake, and a silent harrier glided by. What a drama of diverse avian activity.

Visit Willow Lake and you may see several American Coots - several thousand, that is! - along with hundreds of dabbling ducks and ruddies. Ring-necks, Canvasbacks, Buffleheads, and Lesser Scaup have started filtering in; soon mergansers and eagles will join the community. Who knows, maybe a Eurasian Wigeon or other interesting wanderer will arrive in time for the Christmas Bird Count!

Back to Contents List

2000

Important Changes in Wildlife 2006 Planning Process

On Monday, November 20, beginning at 10 a.m., the Arizona Game and Fish Commission will meet in open session to discuss public comment, and each of the five Commissioners' individual views, on the Department's draft wildlife strategic plan, Wildlife 2006. The session was proposed and approved during the Commission's October 21 meeting, when public comment received by the Department thus far was shared with the Commission.

The work session will be held at the Department's Tucson regional office, at 555 North Greasewood Rd. (520-628-5376). The public is welcome to attend, and will be given an opportunity to speak during the session. This will enable public participants to hear the full range of Commission perspectives on each of the points discussed, and provide their own comment for the Commission to consider as it provides direction to the Department. The regional office's meeting room holds just 50 people, so attendees should be there promptly when the session begins, at 10 a.m.

The Department will use the comment from the November 20 meeting to revise the draft strategic plan. The revised (draft final) plan will be available again to the Commission and the public in mid-December, but the plan will not be discussed at the Commission's December 2000 meeting. This will give everyone a month or so to review the changes before the plan is discussed at the Commission's January 19 or 20, 2001 public meeting, when final action (approval or rejection) is expected to happen. The public will be welcome at the January Commission meeting and will have yet another opportunity then to present verbal and/or written comment at that meeting.

Read the Wildlife 2006 plan here.

Back to Contents List

November 2000

Arizona Audubon Council News

Karen O’Neil

The Arizona Audubon Council (AAC) held its fall meeting at the NAS Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch in Elgin, AZ on October 7, 2000.  Most of the morning was devoted to a workshop on membership recruitment and fundraising.  I will share that information with the Board and the Ways and Means committee.

The council voted to donate $1000.00 to the Arizona League of Conservation Voters and to donate $2500.00 to the campaign to support Proposition 202, the Citizens’ Growth Management Initiative.  The Heritage Alliance is exploring ways to continue the Heritage Fund after the lottery legislation sunsets in 2003.

You might want to put this on your calendar!! The City of Yuma is holding a Birding and Nature Conference from April 19-22, 2001.  There will be several field trips and other events.  For those of you with web connections, you can check out the website at www.yumabirding.org.  There will be a banquet with Frank Gill as the speaker.  AAC will have a banquet to give awards at the Shilo Inn in Yuma.  A block of rooms will be available.  While details are not yet available, the Verde Valley is having a Birding Festival the weekend of April 28-29, 2001.

AAC has submitted a proposal to the Maytag Foundation for funding to start up a state office.  No decision will be made until December.  Herb Henderson of Northern AZ Audubon, who is spearheading the effort to get a state office up and running is developing a small group to identify other major funding sources.

Terry Johnson, head of the Nongame and Threatened and Endangered Species branch of AZ Game & Fish gave a report to the Council.  He noted that a working group has been formed to develop a management plan for the black-tailed prairie dog.  The Conservation And Reinvestment Act (CARA) ended up only in an appropriations bill in the US Congress—after it received overwhelming support in the House of Representatives.  Terry reported that this was no victory, and the CARA coalition both in and out of Congress is dead.  There will be an open, public management review next spring of the Wolf Reintroduction program.  The Important Bird Area (IBA) program has lost its AG&F staff person.  This program requires a long-term stewardship requirement for any area designated as an IBA.  The nomination process is crucial, but it is only a first step.  Field trips can serve as part of the monitoring effort.  You may remember that Prescott Audubon Society submitted a nomination of Watson Woods as an IBA.  Due to the staff changes at AG&F, we have not heard anything.  However, several PAS members have spent time in Watson Woods this fall (and perhaps earlier) and may have records of bird species observed there.  We have also instituted a field trip there each Saturday after the monthly program meeting.  If any of you have records of bird sightings at Watson Woods, PLEASE keep them.  They may be invaluable when (if) we learn whether our nomination has been accepted.

Bob Witzeman, Conservation Chair of Maricopa Audubon Society, reported that the devastating fires in the Los Alamos, NM area this past spring have given logging companies and the USFS fuel to go after old growth trees and to put cows back into the forests to graze.  However, forest grazing has actually contributed to the forest fire danger, and old growth trees are not the primary fuel for forest fires.  The homes that burned in the Los Alamos area burned from ground fires, not from crown fires.  And homes where occupants had raked pine needles at least 100 feet away from the house either did not burn or experienced less damage.

Bill Branan, manager of the Research Ranch, reported that conservationists and birders in SE Arizona have recommended to ADOT that the least expensive and most beneficial solution to the alleged rock falling at the Patagonia Roadside Rest is to put a crossing light for birders to cross Rt. 83 from the Rest area to Sonoita Creek where the Rosebreasted Becard has sometimes nested. This solution would reduce traffic danger to pedestrians and only lengthen the trip from Patagonia to Nogales by about 30 seconds!

The next AAC meeting will be held in Tucson.  No specific date has yet been set.

Back to Contents List

October 2000

“Winter Flight Year” May Be Underway!

Carl Tomoff

You may have noticed that some mountain birds have appeared in the “wrong” places for this time of year. Some have even reached the lowlands. Western-Scrub Jays and White-breasted Nuthatches drifted down into the desert at the Boyce Thompson Arboretum and into the Phoenix basin by late August. Red-breasted Nuthatches and a Mountain Chickadee arrived at the Arb in September.

In our region, as early as late July, I discovered Pygmy and Red-breasted Nuthatches in foothill woodlands well below their typical conifer forest habitat. By mid-August, Steller’s Jays and Mountain Chickadees had wandered into foothill chaparral and some residential areas.

Pinyon Jays have passed through the Prescott and Verde Valley areas intermittently since September 4, when a group of 12 settled into pinyons at Pioneer Park, and about 35 others stayed in the Sierra Prieta Mountains from September 15 to 18.

Most stunning of all, on September 14, a Clark’s Nutcracker’s nasal calling alerted me to its arrival in the Sierra Prietas near Mt. Francis. I suddenly felt as if I were near timberline as it glided raucously through ponderosas with a troop of Steller’s Jays. Roger Radd reported a nutcracker with a flock of Pinyon Jays south of Flagstaff on September 11 and a flock of 42 Pinyons over Clarkdale heading toward Sycamore Canyon on September 19. Doug VonGausig located a group of six jays at Tavasci Marsh on September 27. From October 3 to 5, a flock of 9 Pinyon Jays inspected pinyons in woodlands along Lynx Creek.

Although Pinyon Jays periodically winter in our region, I wonder what these early adventurers will do. Notice the scarcity of pinyon cones and low number of juniper “berries”; the jays might just keep wandering until they find suitable foraging habitat elsewhere. We can enjoy seeing them while they pass through our area.

I returned to the Sierra Prietas on October 6. Though I found no nutcrackers or Pinyon Jays, a squadron of eleven Lewis’s Woodpeckers flapped overhead. And soon a solitary Red Crossbill “kip-kipped” as it cleared the forest canopy. What an interesting autumn so far! Will Evening Grosbeaks join the burgeoning populations of Cassin’s Finches and Pine Siskins that have recently arrived? Will any more Lawrence’s Goldfinches drift in and join other goldfinches already here?

Back to Contents List

October 2000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Announces Final Compatibility Policy and Regulations

Contact: Eric Eckl 202-208-5634

After considering and responding to more than 500 public comments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published its final Compatibility Policy and Regulations, giving uniform direction and procedures for making decisions regarding wildlife conservation and public use to managers of units of the 93 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System. The policy provides a strong framework to continue to manage refuge lands sensibly in keeping with the general goal of putting wildlife first, while providing recreational and educational opportunities for a growing number of visitors. "Although national wildlife refuges are places where the needs of wildlife come first, the refuge system welcomes more than 35 million visitors each year," said Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark. "Compatibility is a powerful tool that refuge managers use to ensure that recreation, educational activities, and other uses are in keeping with their refuge's wildlife conservation mandates." The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act required the Service to update the compatibility policy, first issued in 1966. Under the new policy, a refuge manager must determine whether any proposed or existing public use will "materially interfere with or detract from" the refuge's conservation mandates; and all compatibility determinations must be made in writing after following uniform procedures. This includes providing notice to the public and inviting comment on pending determinations. "During these reviews, refuge managers will take steps to notify and involve the public such as posting notices at the refuge visitor centers and in local newspapers," Clark said. "Using a more coordinated approach with our neighbors and partners will strengthen our ability to conserve wildlife on a much broader scale." The 1997 act also established "priority public uses"-- compatible uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation -- that are especially welcome on refuges and receive preference over other uses. Priority public uses are reviewed for compatibility less frequently than other uses, and refuge managers are encouraged to seek resources to facilitate these activities if they are determined to be otherwise compatible. The compatibility policy does not apply to private property within refuge boundaries, and does not affect the terms of conservation easements and other agreements between the Service and private landowners. In Alaska, however, the compatibility policy does apply to the village lands in national wildlife refuges in Alaska withdrawn under Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. These lands were deeded to Alaska Native Village Corporations with specific restrictions, called covenants, on their sale and use. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 530 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fish and wildlife management assistance offices and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. - FWS - ============================================================ News releases are also available on the World Wide Web at http://news.fws.gov Questions concerning a particular news release or item of information should be directed to the person listed as the contact. General comments or observations concerning the content of the information should be directed to Mitch Snow (Mitch_Snow@fws.gov) in the Office of Public Affairs.

Back to Contents List

October 2000

*Why can't we do this in the West?

Aircraft Lead Sandhill Crane Migration in First Phase of Whooping Crane Project

Contact: Joan Guilfoyle, USFWS (Cell) 612-810-6797 Chuck Underwood, USFWS (Cell) 904-910-6254 Chris Tollefson, USFWS 202-208-5634

In the first phase of an ambitious effort to reestablish a migratory population of endangered whooping cranes in the East, ultralight aircraft took off from a national wildlife refuge in Wisconsin today, leading a flock of sandhill cranes on an experimental migration that could pave the way for similar flights with whooping cranes in the near future.

The 13 sandhill crane chicks have been exposed to aircraft noise by researchers since hatching and reared in extreme isolation from humans at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin. After undergoing months of specialized handling designed to get them accustomed to following the ultralight aircraft, the birds are beginning a journey through seven states that will take them to their wintering grounds at Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida.

If the migration study is successful and the birds complete the journey to Florida and return on their own to Wisconsin in the spring of 2001, the same training procedures and route will be used with whooping crane chicks as part of the second phase of the study. If all goes as planned and necessary approvals are obtained from the Flyway Councils, States and other involved agencies, the study could eventually lead to the reestablishment of a migratory population of whooping cranes in the eastern United States. So far there has been strong public support for the proposed project.

“With just over 400 whooping cranes in existence, and with only one migratory flock in the wild, the establishment of a second migratory flock is vitally important to the survival and recovery of one of North America’s most endangered species and the world’s most endangered crane. The steps we take this fall with sandhill cranes could lay the foundation for the return of a whooping crane migration to the East,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark.

The migration will follow the established eastern sandhill crane migration route, passing through Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia before arriving in central Florida. The migration will cover from 50 to 70 miles per day on days when weather conditions permit flight, reaching Chassahowitzka NWR in approximately 32 days. Ultralight aircraft will be used because they fly at low altitudes and at speeds slow enough to lead migrating birds.

Reliance on humans jeopardizes the ability of any wild animal to survive on its own, and whooping cranes are especially vulnerable because of their small population. In order to test and establish methods that can be used with whooping cranes, every effort has been made to restrict the sandhill cranes’ contact with humans in order to prevent the birds from becoming too tame and relying on human care for their survival. The sandhill cranes have been raised by humans in costumes that disguise the human form, using mechanical hand puppets designed to look like adult sandhill cranes. The birds have never seen the pilots of the ultralights out of costume. These restrictions on human contact will continue during the birds’ migration and with the whooping cranes in the near future.

Clark cautioned that despite the preparations made, the study’s successful conclusion is not a certainty. “We’ve worked hard to put together a solid partnership and enlist the help of state wildlife agencies across the migration route. But this is an extraordinarily difficult operation, and it’s never been done before on this scale, or for such high stakes,” she said.

Whooping cranes were probably always rare, with a population estimated at 500 to 700 individuals in 1870. Nonetheless, they ranged across North America from Utah to the Atlantic Coast, breeding in central Canada and the northern U.S. and wintering from the Carolinas to Texas. As a consequence of unregulated hunting and specimen collection, human disturbance, and conversion of their primary nesting habitat to hay, pastureland, and grain production, the whooping crane population faced extinction by 1941, with only 21 birds remaining.

Today, after decades of captive breeding and the 1993 reintroduction of a nonmigratory population in central Florida, there are 411 whooping cranes in North America, with 266 of those birds in the wild. Of these, there is only one remaining migratory flock of 187 whooping cranes in the wild, migrating between Wood Buffalo National Park, Northwest Territories, Canada and Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas. The Endangered Species Act recovery plan for the whooping crane requires that a second flock of migratory birds be established, because the Texas flock remains vulnerable to oil spills, disease outbreaks, declining food resources on their wintering grounds, and collisions with power lines.

The Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership, composed of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Crane Foundation, Operation Migration, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, the International Whooping Crane Recovery Team, the Natural Resources Foundation of Wisconsin and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundationwas formed in October of 1999 to coordinate the ultralight migration study. Daily updates, news releases, graphics migration tracking and partnership links are available online at the project’s web site .

Update: October 26, 2000 Sandhill Crane Migration Study Reaches Halfway Point

The flock of sandhill cranes being led by ultralight aircraft from Wisconsin to Florida reached the midpoint of their journey today, having traveled 624 miles since leaving Necedah National Wildlife Refuge on October 3. After fifteen stopover points, the entourage of twelve cranes, four aircraft, seven vehicles and twelve biologists, pilots and ground crew flew further south into Fentress County, Tennessee. "The weather has slowed us up a bit," said Chuck Underwood of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP). "Morning fog delays our takeoff time and warmer air temperatures tire the birds more quickly." Except for a mechanical problem early on, weather has been the only limiting factor in the group's progress toward reaching Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Crystal River, Florida. Originally expected to take 32 days, the trip is now estimated to take approximately two more weeks. "We had excellent flying weather from Wisconsin all the way through central Indiana," said Bill Lishman of Operation Migration, Inc. another member of WCEP. "Despite delays these last few days, the trip is going very well. And we could have blue skies and a nice tailwind tomorrow!" If the migration study is successful and the sandhill cranes complete the journey to Florida and return on their own to Wisconsin in the spring of 2001, the same training procedure and route could be used with whooping crane chicks as part of the second phase of the study. If all goes as planned and necessary approvals are obtained from the Flyway Councils, States and other involved agencies, the study may eventually lead to the re-establishment of a migratory population of whooping cranes in the eastern United States.

More contacts:

In State Coordination
Wisconsin: Bob Manwell, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources 608-264-9248 manweR@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us

Illinois: Carol Knowles, Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources 217-785-0970 cknowles@dnrmail.state.il.us

Indiana: Kathy Quimbach, Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources 317-233-0936 kquimbach@dnr.state.in.us

Kentucky: Russ Kennedy, Kentucky Dept. Natural Resources 800-852-0942 x491 russ.kennedy@mail.state.ky.us

Tennessee: Bruce Anderson, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 931-484-9571 banderson@mail.state.tn.us

Georgia: Terry Johnson, Georgia Non-game Endangered Wildlife Program 912-994-1438 terry_w_johnson@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

Florida: Bill Greer, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 850-488-9327

Partnership Main Offices
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region (WI, IL, IN): John Christian, 612-713-5101

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region (KY, TN, GA, FL): Tom MacKenzie, 404-679-7291

International Crane Foundation: Kate Fitzwillaims, 608-356-9462 x147

Operation Migration: Heather Ray, 800-675-2618

U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center: B. H. Powell, 301-497-5782

Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership

Back to Contents List

2000

Write your Senators today to support the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000
(S.2567)

The House overwhelmingly passed their version of this bill this summer and it is now waiting action in the Senate. The Senate bill can be read in its entirety on the web at http://www.senate.gov/. (Search for Bill # S2567)

In essence, it will earmark for conservation purposes $2.85 billion in revenue from offshore oil drilling to fund the following conservation needs:

$1 billion for drilling impact assistance and coastal conservation

$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which funds federal and state land acquisition (the funds would be divided equally between the state and federal sides)

$350 million to state fish and wildlife agencies

$200 million for federal and Indian lands restoration

$125 million for urban parks and recreation

$100 million for conservation easements

$100 million for historic preservation

$50 million for incentive programs for endangered species recovery.

Please write your Senator today encouraging them to support this landmark conservation legislation. See the Links page for addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses.

Back to Contents List

2000

Say "NO" to Proposition 102

By Lisa B. Force, Center for Biological Diversity and Committee for “No on 102”

Proposition 102 is a dangerous attack on both your right to vote and on Arizona wildlife. The sole purpose of Proposition 102 is to cripple your right to pass laws that preserve and protect Arizona’s wildlife.

If it passes, Proposition 102 will change the Arizona Constitution to require wildlife initiatives to pass by 67 percent of the vote. Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires that all initiatives must pass by only 51 percent of the vote. Even constitutional amendments require only a majority vote of the public. The proponents of Proposition 102 know that a 2/3 vote is almost impossible to attain, thereby effectively silencing you once and for all on wildlife issues.

---* Proposition 102 is deceptively promoted as a “wildlife-conservation” measure. The truth is, Proposition 102 would make it practically impossible for voters to approve a wildlife protection initiative.
--- * Arizona voters restricted the use of inhumane and indiscriminate steel-jawed leghold traps on public lands by approving an initiative in 1994 with an impressive 59% majority. If Proposition 102 had been in place then, the measure would have failed and we would still have deadly traps on public lands.
--- * Proponents of Proposition 102 say they want to keep a small group of animal rights extremists from telling the rest of us how to manage wildlife. The fact is wildlife advocates have never abused the initiative process; only two wildlife initiatives have ever appeared on the ballot in state history. The irony is, Proposition 102 would - for the first time in the history of the state - allow a small minority of voters to block the will of the people.
--- * Proposition 102 changes the initiative process. Initiatives are an important safety valve in Arizona when elected officials and political appointees fail to act in the public interest, the people can act on their own behalf through the initiative process. The simple-majority process reserves final authority for the people of Arizona.
--- * The Arizona legislature put Proposition 102 on the ballot, claiming concern for wildlife. But consider this: The Arizona Legislature was the very last one in the nation to outlaw dog fights, finally capitulating in 1978. Most states did so in the 1800’s. Most states also outlawed cockfights in the 1800’s, but the Arizona Legislature steadfastly refused until the people of Arizona overruled them. In the case of steel-jaw traps, the Arizona Legislature wouldn’t agree to even minor restrictions on the use of those cruel devices even though 65 other countries have long banned them. Again, the people of Arizona had to overrule them through the initiative process. These same politicians are now asking you to give up your right to decide these matters at the polls. Do you trust them to do the right thing for Arizona wildlife?

Proposition 102 targets wildlife initiatives for one simple reason: Its backers want to abolish your right to protect wildlife from unnecessary suffering and harm. But that’s not all. Proposition 102 also jeopardizes your voting rights. It would allow decisions to be made for you by only 34% of the votes cast. Tell the legislature you won’t be deceived into giving up your voting rights. Say “NO” to 102.

“No on 102” is endorsed by: Maricopa Audubon Society; Tucson Audubon Society; Thomas Woods and Elizabeth Woodin, former Arizona Game and Fish Commissioners; Gary Walsh, President, Trout Unlimited, Zane Grey Chapter; Liberty Wildlife; Humane Society of the United States; Arizona Humane Society; The Fund for Animals; Sierra Club; and the Greater Phoenix Neighborhood Association. We need your help to defeat Proposition 102. To volunteer, please call or email: Lisa Force 602-246-6498

*****************

As Arizona chapters of the National Audubon Society, whose mission is to preserve ecosystems so that birds and other wildlife can flourish and enrich the diversity of our lives on Earth, Maricopa and Tucson Audubon Societies urge citizens to vote “no” on Proposition 102.

Some special interest groups have put forth this measure to stop a simple majority of Arizonans from having a voice in wildlife management in our state because of past contentious issues such as banning leghold traps on public lands and outlawing cockfighting. We urge you to vote no on 102 to protect Arizona’s wildlife!

Scott Burge, President, Maricopa Audubon Society, Tempe

Roger Wolf, President, Tucson Audubon Society, Tucson

Herb Fibel, Treasurer, Maricopa Audubon Society, Tempe

Back to Contents List

September 2000

Love Birds, Love Golf?

Eve Gill

Recently the City of Prescott has dried up a significant wetland out by the airport once watered by effluent. One hundred twenty eight species of birds have been recorded using this wetland, including Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon. Now this area is almost totally dry because the city is selling the effluent to golf courses.

A solution to the problem may lie in getting the golf courses to cooperate so that the wetland may be reestablished. We need interested birders and golfers to help us find a solution. If you are interested in helping in restoring this vital wetland, or working to protect the birds that use Willow and Watson Lakes, call Eve Gill, Conservation Chair at 717-0544.

Back to Contents List

 

5/00

The following is an update on the Wolf Reintroduction presentation made to the May 19 meeting of the AGFC.

Informational announcement from the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program.
    On May 19, 2000, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission was briefed on the Mexican wolf reintroduction project in Arizona and New Mexico. The presentation by me and Richard R. Remington (AGFD Region 1 Supervisor) was for informational purposes only. Per State open meeting laws it did not allow the Commission to take any action. Opponents and proponents of wolf reintroduction were well represented at the meeting.
    The presentation was in two parts: (1) history of the project from the Ice Age through wolves arriving in Arizona in January 1998 for placement in the acclimation pens near Alpine; and (2) project activities since the first release of wolves in March 1998. A slide show (TBJ) and a PowerPoint (RRR) presentation were followed by a question and answer session with the Commission, and the audience "testimony" session. Although I doubt that a single mind was changed on whether wolf reintroduction is "good" or "bad," at least most folks present did seem to agree that the briefing was thorough. Perhaps even interesting.
    Follow-up as an action item has been rumored widely, apparently based on unofficial comments by some Commissioners back in February-March, but as of yesterday the Commission had not indicated an interest in considering this issue again in the near term. Certainly it is NOT on the current June agenda. The Commission can, of course, request another presentation, for action or informational purposes, whenever it so desires. However, barring such a Commission request, the Department will probably not schedule another presentation until mid to late 2001 (perhaps October 2001, in Phoenix), to coincide with a scheduled 3-year progress review that will be conducted by the agencies participating in the interagency adaptive management group for this project.
    On behalf of the Department, I want to thank everyone who sent comment to the Commission or the Department on this issue, who attended the Commission meeting, or who in any other constructive manner made their thoughts known, whether those thoughts are pro or con on wolf reintroduction. The letters we received (predominantly pro-wolf) and the testimony at the Commission meeting (more evenly split) were largely characterized by the same civility that has been the hallmark of Arizona's voyage through this now 18-year process.
    Information on any future developments with regard to this issue will be posted through the Activist, and/or announced in Arizona's Nongame News, which is a snail-mail ca. monthly newsletter available free to anyone who contacts Nongame Branch at 602 789-3500, (fax) 602 789-39226, or kdrouillard@gf.state.az.us.

Terry B. Johnson
Chief, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Arizona Game and Fish Department
2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399
phone 602 789-3507
fax 602 789-3926
e-mail: teebeej@gf.state.az.us

Back to Contents List

2000

Another chance to let your voice be heard concerning Roadless Areas

Bob Witzeman

President Clinton has proposed to close all USFS roadless areas over 5000 acres to roadbuilding. Please attend the public hearings on this proposal:
    * Phoenix, June 21, Wed., Embassy Suites, 6-9PM, 44th S. and McDowell
    * Prescott, June 21, Wed., Prescott Fire Center, 7-9PM, 2400 Melville Dr.
    * Flagstaff, June 26, Mon., Flagstaff High Sch., 4-7PM, 400 W. Elm St.
    * Tucson, June 26, Mon., Doubletree Hotel, 6-8PM, 445 S. Alvernon Way
    * Springerville, June 22, Thurs., Forest Sup. Off., 7-10PM, 309 S. Mtn. Ave.

Points to make:
      Support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) roadless closures, but point out that the DEIS alternatives are weak and do not adequately protect these wild areas from logging, grazing, mining and off-road vehicles. Specify:
   1. Insist upon strict prohibition of cattle and ORVs from roadless riparian areas.
   2. All roadless areas 1,000 acres or larger should be protected. The DEIS protects only 5,000 acres and larger.
   3. The DEIS only includes 1.1 million acres of roadless USFS land in Arizona. In fact, there are 1.5 million acres. Demand the full 1.5 million acres for Arizona, and that any other incomplete states should be re-surveyed.
   4. Include roadless protection for the Tongass NF (the DEIS proposes to exclude Tongass protection).
   5. Personal comments about your experiences in roadless areas are important.

If you can't attend these important hearings, please submit your comments before July 17, 2000 to: USDA Forest Service-CAET Attn: Roadless Areas Proposed Rule P.O. Box 221090 Salt Lake City, UT 84122 Fax (877) 703-2494 http://roadless.fs.fed.us

Back to Contents List

more ...

Our National Forests need your help!

Cathy Koehler

Yesterday evening I went to a meeting about the roadless proposal for the National Forest Service. The proposal has two parts:

1. To restrict certain activities, such as road construction, in roadless areas.

2. To establish procedures and criteria to be used by forest managers to determine what activities are consistent with the values associated by roadless areas.

At the meeting support for this proposal was almost nonexistent. By at least 10 to 1, most folk wanted more roads for more jeeps to race about through the forest.

Roads are destructive in many ways. They cause erosion, allow noxious weeds to invade wilderness areas, and cause destruction of species that need undisturbed territories.

If you care about our national heritage, take a few minutes to read the following e-mail that I am sending to the Forest Service. Then please send your own e-mail to roadless/wo_caet-slc@fs.fed.us . Or access the web site at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ and fill in the form there. Or send a fax to 801-517-1021. You can copy and paste from my e-mail or write your own, but please send something. And feel free to forward this message to anyone you know who might want to support this issue. (Comment period has been extended to July 17, 2000.)

Sample e-mail or letter: I support the National Forest Service's Roadless Proposal because I believe more roads in the National Forests would cause an environmental impact that would be disastrous. Roads break up habitat for many species that need undisturbed territories and disrupt migration patterns; roads cause erosion, pollute waterways, and allow pathways for invading, noxious species. Roads are also expensive to build and maintain. The Forest Service receives only about 20% of the funds necessary to maintain the 380,000 miles of roads now existing. We need consistent national procedures and guidelines because our National Forests are national and belong to all the people, not just those lucky enough to live next to a forest. Catherine A. Koehler, Prescott, AZ 86303

Two additional comments:

Bob Witzeman of the Maricopa Audubon Society has informed us that at the Tonto National Forest meeting there was a throng of ORV people who argued that if there was already a wildcat (unofficial) road in place, regardless of what scofflaw vehicle(s) had built it, it was legal. Please point out in your letter to the USFS that these wildcat roads should not be allowed legality in the upcoming designation of Clinton's 5000 acre roadless area closures.

Back to Contents List

2000

Kent Clegg and the cranes need your help!

Those who attended the special program presented by Kent Clegg heard about the problems he is having in getting his project with whooping cranes to be approved by State and Federal agencies. Apparently, there is lack of coordination and actual opposition by the states that the cranes migrate through. Please write a letter to support his program. If you are unfamiliar with his project and missed the program, visit his web site and learn more.

Write to: Ms. Nancy Kaufman, Southwest Region Director, US Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.

 

Back to Contents List

May 2000

Prescott Open Spaces

On May 16 the citizens of Prescott will be asked to cast their votes on the Sales Tax Extension. Prescott Open Spaces, a political action committee formed to insure the passage of this bill, is urging you to vote for this tax extension. This is a win-win proposal for Prescott. Continued funding for roads is necessary to keep the city running smoothly and the purchase of land will help to ensure the preservation of the Prescott we all love and value.

The open space purchase plan has many advantages. It is based closely on the City’s Open Space Plan, over a year in the making, and approved by the City Council in 1999. It incorporates input from many citizens. It has flexibility to allow for a variety of conservation methods and preserves a variety of important wildlife habitats. It insures public access to many favorite spots, and greatly increases citywide trail systems. It protects land as open space permanently. And there is a cap of $40.7 million on the amount to be collected over the next 15 years.

At the same time the funding for roads and road improvements is fully protected and expanded. Open space acquisition is not expected to significantly delay any road project and secures the necessary continuity for future planning. Well over half of the projected sales tax revenue will go to the roads program and provides more money for roads than the original sales tax measure.

These far reaching benefits will improve life for everyone who lives in the city and increase tourism . . . all without any new taxes! For more information about this issue and the Prescott Open Spaces committee please contact Eve Gill, chairperson, at (520) 717-0544.

Back to Contents List

April 2000

Arizona Game and Fish Commission Meeting, May 18 - 19, 2000

Terry B. Johnson Chief, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Arizona Game and Fish Department

This is an FYI notice on some issues important to the Nongame and EndangeredWildlife Program that will be discussed at the Arizona Game and Fish Commission meeting in Safford, on May 18, 19, and 20, at the Ramada Inn, 420 East Hwy 70.Business will be conducted on May 18-19. The May 20 session will be a brief field trip, during which no business will be conducted.

The May 18 session will begin at 1 p.m., with an Executive Session that is not open to the public. The last item of the day will be a request for the Commission to authorize the Department to finalize, execute, and implement a Memorandum of Understanding with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, USFWS, and various Angler groups for restoration of Apache and Gila trout on the Apache National Forest. Larry Riley, Chief of Fisheries, will make the presentation on his and my behalf. The MOU will help us move forward with recovery and eventual down or delisting for these two species.

The May 19 session will begin at 8 a.m.
**** The first item will be an action item on the Hunting Contests rule (R12-4-317.
**** The second item will be an action item asking the Commission to authorize the Department to expand its allocation of Federal Aid (Pittman-Robertson) funding for the Department's Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. This action is needed as we continue to find ways to minimize the impact of decreasing Heritage Lottery Fund revenues.
**** Item 3 is an update on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (HR 701), which will at last come to a floor vote in the House of Representatives next Tuesday or Wednesday. CARA would provide literally hundreds of millions of dollars each year in new funding for conservation, education, and recreation work by state wildlife agencies and countless other governmental and nongovernmental cooperators. It would also provide billions for many other things, most of which are directly related to natural resource conservation. Detailed information on CARA is readily available at www.teaming.com, thanks to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
**** I was supposed to present Item 7 (petition to develop a rule to modify restrictions on water sets, jaw spread, and trap placement for certain land set traps) on behalf of Tice Supplee, but the petition has just been withdrawn by Frank Riggs, of the Arizona Trappers Association. It was withdrawn after the agenda was distributed, so it remains on the agenda but it will NOT be presented. Please don't go all the way to Safford just to hear us confirm that the item will NOT be discussed.
**** Item 12 is Time Certain for 1 pm. It is a 4-hour briefing and open discussion on the Mexican wolf reintroduction project. I will begin with a 1-hr summary of how and why AGFD became involved in this project, and what it was intended to accomplish. I will cover everything from the Pleistocene thru post-Super Bowl Monday 1998, when we brought wolves into Arizona. Richard Remington, Region I Supervisor, will follow with a 1-hr summary of what has happened in the two years since then. At the end of these presentations and the 2-hr discussion session, the Commission may or may not direct the Department to bring the issue (wolf reintroduction) back to them as another briefing item, or as an action item, at a subsequent Commission meeting. It is indeed a fact that some folks, including some past and present Commissioners, question whether the Department should be involved in wolf reintroduction. Other folks, including some past and present Commissioners, have long since made up their minds one way or the other. There is no shortage of opinions, pro and con, on this and all other aspects of wolf recovery.

As always, if someone wants to express their opinion on a Commission agenda item, they may do so in writing to the Commission or the Director or me (address below) before the meeting, or they may present written or verbal testimony at the meeting. I encourage everyone to express their opinion, pro or con, and a simple post card does the trick nicely.

The Commission Chair is W. Hays Gilstrap (Phoenix). His fellow Commissioners are Dennis Manning (Alpine), Joe Carter (Safford), Mike Golightly (Flagstaff), and Bill Berlat (Tucson). Our Director is Duane L. Shroufe. And I am: Terry B. Johnson Chief, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 phone 602 789-3507 fax 602 789-3926 e-mail: teebeej@gf.state.az.us

Back to Contents List

April 2000

Arizona Game and Fish Meeting to Discuss Wolf Reintroduction

Bob Witzeman

Because of recent wolf/human conflicts, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission is pondering whether to stay in the wolf reintroduction program along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Please ask the Commission (e-mail, fax and postal address below) to continue this important program.

Some suggestions for your message:

1. Wolves have played an important role in our southwestern ecosystem and will help restore natural balance and diversity to our native wildlife.

2. Improved management guidelines and techniques can reduce human/wolf conflicts. Don't abandon the program just because the original techniques had problems.

3. Mexican Wolf ecotourism can benefit Arizona and the local communities involved.

4. It is important to reiterate to the Commissioners that Arizona needs to remain a leader in wildlife species re-establishment. Our State Game and Fish Department has outstanding, committed biologists and personnel who have shown that they can carry out this program.

5. It would not serve the public or this state and nation to abandon the program prematurely. Poll after poll indicates that Arizonans, and most Americans, want wild wolves.


The next commission meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 19 in Safford, AZ (at the Ramada Inn, 420 E. Hwy. 70). The time is set for 1 p.m. for an update on the reintroduction and overview of the number of wolves currently in the wild. Although the Commission is not expected to vote at the meeting, it is important that the Commission not be discouraged from continuing this important effort.

Remember this is the Mexican Gray Wolf, not the same animal you hear about in Yellowstone and the northern tier of U.S. states. Arizonans should be proud of this unique example of our southwestern wildlife heritage.

PLEASE CONTACT:

Arizona Game & Fish Commission
2221 W. Greenway Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399
fax (602) 789-3299, email to: mketterer@gf.state.az.

Gov. Jane Dee Hull
Arizona State Capitol
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(800) 253-0883, fax (602) 542-1575,
email: azgov@azgov.state.az.us
Governor's Tucson Office (520) 628-6580, fax 628-6512

Back to Contents List

March 2000

Support the Protection of the Black-tailed and Gunnison's Prairie Dogs in Arizona

(See results of the March 18 meeting) Please note that hunting regulations on the Gunnison's Prairie Dog "may" be discussed at the April 14-15 meeting in Phoenix!

Bob Witzeman

The Burrowing Owl has benefited from living in Prairie Dog colonies because of the burrows and shortgrass habitat afforded. Ferruginous Hawk and Mountain Plover also benefited from the shortgrass. In a 3-2 vote the AZ Game and Fish Commission recently rejected reintroduction of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog into Arizona.

The following is a sample letter to the Commission asking them to (1) reintroduce the now extirpated Black-tailed Prairie Dog (into southeastern AZ), and to (2) disallow recreational shooting of Gunnison Prairie Dogs (a different species of Prairie Dog) during spring reproductive season (the endangered Black-footed Ferret is being reintroduced into a Gunnison PD colony near Seligman, AZ). Your letter must be received by MARCH 3, 2000.

If you live in Tucson please attend the AZ G&F Commission meeting March 18, Saturday, at the Best Western, Inn Suites, 6201 N. Oracle Rd., Tucson. Request that the Black-tailed Prairie Dog be reconsidered for reintroduction into its historic range in SE AZ. Please confirm agenda time from Terry Johnson’s Non-Game Dept. office 602 789-3507 or Marcia in AGFD Director Duane Schroufe’s office: 602 789-3279

Phoenix residents: Please attend the G&F Commission meeting Sat., April 15, at AZ State Fairgrounds. Ask that season limits be placed on the recreational shooting.

Please introduce yourself to the Commission in your first sentence. Use the letter verbatim or two or three handwritten sentences would be fine. No email letters!!!

SAMPLE LETTER: TO: THE ARIZONA GAME & FISH COMMISSION:
W. Hays Gilstrap, Chairman,
Commissioner William Berlat,
Commissioner Dennis D. Manning
Commissioner Michael M. Golightly
Commissioner Joe Carter
2222 W. Greenway Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85023

TO: TICE SUPPLEE, CHIEF ­ GAME BRANCH Arizona Game & Fish Department 2222 W. Greenway Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85023

FROM: ____________________________(your name)
RE: Prairie Dog Population Management

PLEASE SEND A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO EACH COMMISSIONER AND MS. SUPPLEE

Greater protection is needed for prairie dogs in Arizona. First, the recreational shooting of Gunnison¹s prairie dogs during their reproductive season should be disallowed. Secondly, please consider the re-introduction of the Black-tailed prairie dog into suitable habitat in the state.

Prairie dogs are considered keystone species, integral to the health of many short and mixed-grass communities and to birds such as Burrowing Owls, Ferruginous Hawks and Mountain Plovers. Biologists have shown that where prairie dogs occur there is greater plant diversity, and higher numbers of arthropods, small mammals and terrestrial predators (ferrets, badgers, foxes, skunks, raptors) as well as greater bird species diversity and abundance than in surrounding areas. Endangered Black-footed ferrets are completely dependent on prairie dogs for food and shelter. In the absence of prairie dogs the biodiversity of grasslands is threatened.

Poisoning programs eliminated prairie dogs from millions of acres. Since settlement until today prairie dog habitat was reduced from an estimated 100 million to one million acres. Two species of prairie dog formerly inhabited Arizona, the Gunnison's and the Black-tailed. The Black-tail was extirpated in the 1930s while the Gunnison's persists in small, isolated populations in the north-central to northeastern part of the state. The largest and most secure population of Gunnison¹s prairie dog in the state, in Aubrey Valley west of Seligman, is one of only 6 reintroduction sites in North America for the endangered Black-footed ferret.

The critical importance of prairie dogs in grassland ecosystems coupled with their extreme reduction in numbers demands increased protection of the populations that remain, as well as efforts to expand and connect isolated populations. Small populations are subject to elimination from disease (sylvatic plague), genetic deterioration, and natural catastrophes. Isolation of colonies prevents re-colonization when a local population is lost.

A new threat is unregulated recreational shooting. According to an Arizona Game and Fish Dept. document, recreational shooting “may contribute to population fragmentation and the slow recovery of colonies reduced by plague or other factors.” Much of the information in this report comes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999, “Positive” 90-day finding, for a petition to list the Black-tail prairie dog. In light of the importance of prairie dogs and their reduced numbers, and given our ignorance of the effects of recreational shooting, it seems logical to take a conservative approach and place some limits on the practice. At the very least prairie dogs ought to be treated like most other hunted species and allowed a period during the year when they can rebound from hunting and maintain their numbers. This would be the time from April to June when they are raising their young. Please enact a seasonal ban on shooting of prairie dogs between April and June when they are raising their young. This request is being submitted by March 3 in the hope that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission may consider instituting such a season this year when hunting regulations are discussed at their April 15, 2000 at the Phoenix Fairgrounds. A season seems especially important in the Aubrey Valley where Black-footed ferrets are being reintroduced.

Our other request concerns the Black-tailed prairie dog, whose federal listing as endangered was recently determined by the USFWS to be “warranted.” The Commission must consider the reintroduction of this species. The Department’s “Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona, Draft, 1996, states “identify and evaluate potential habitat, and if sufficient habitat existed, reintroduce the species; if habitat does not exist, implement appropriate land management techniques to restore habitat; educate public on importance of prairie dogs in maintaining grassland ecosystems.” According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Wildlife 2000 Strategic Plan, the mission of the Department regarding nongame species is to, (1) Protect, maintain, and enhance existing nongame and endangered wildlife populations, natural biotic communities, and habitats.) and to (2) “Restore extirpated nongame and endangered wildlife, degraded biotic communities, and habitats, where feasible to do so.” The recent congressional proposal of protecting the “Las Cienegas” grassland habitat in southeastern Arizona is timely to this issue. This was historical habitat for the Black-tailed prairie dog, prior to its extirpation. It holds promise as a reintroduction site for this species.

Sincerely, --

The following is an update on these issues from a letter received from Terry B. Johnson, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Chief, Arizona Game and Fish Department:

On 18 March 2000, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) voted unanimously to direct the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) to continue its active role in an interstate black-tailed prairie dog conservation agreement and to proceed with evaluating potential reintroduction of black-tailed prairie dogs into Arizona. This vote is not a directive to reintroduce the species, but it does instruct the Department to continue with the 12-step process for possible re-establishment of the species in Arizona. The Commission also directed the Department to consider the ecological and conservation benefits, financial costs, feasibility of reintroduction, potential impacts on public and private land uses, and possible effects of prairie dog carried diseases on other wildlife, humans, and domestic animals including livestock.

The Department's 12-step procedure was created in 1987 and has been used to evaluate the potential of reintroducing other species, such as the Gila trout, black-footed ferret, California condor, and Mexican wolf. The process involves reviews of the species' previous status in Arizona, causes of extirpation, suitability of remaining habitat, interactions with other species, land ownership and land use conflicts, environmental compliance, public input, logistical and other considerations.

Black-tailed prairie dogs previously inhabited areas of suitable grassland habitat in the southeastern portion of Arizona. However, the species was extirpated from Arizona in the late 1930s. Historic range of the black-tailed prairie dog includes 11 states. Although the species has not been extirpated throughout its entire historic range, its distribution and population numbers have been greatly reduced. Between October 1999 and February 2000, nine states, including Arizona signed a Memorandum of Understanding to provide guidance for conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs and the short to mid-grass habitats on which the species depends. The primary purpose of the MOU is to implement The Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment and Strategy, which the Department took the lead in developing. In February 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that listing of the black-tailed prairie dog under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is warranted but precluded by higher priority species. The Department believes implementation of the Conservation Agreement for black-tailed prairie dogs will eliminate the need for listing under the ESA. Although no blacktailed prairie dogs currently occur in Arizona, take is prohibited through Commission Order 14, a portion of the Arizona Hunting Regulations.

Northern and eastern portions of Arizona are within the historic range of Gunnison's prairie dogs. In general, this species occurs in smaller colonies than black-tailed prairie dogs, and it has come into fewer conflicts with human activities. Although populations of Gunnison's prairie dogs fluctuate due to natural and human impacts, they remain fairly common in portions of northern Arizona. The species is not included on the Department's list of Wildlife of Special Concern, nor are they included or proposed for federal listing under the ESA. Currently, Gunnison's prairie dogs may be taken in Arizona with possession of an Arizona hunting license. Take is permitted year-round and there is no bag limit. Within the last year, the Department has begun considering closure of the Gunnison's prairie dog season for several months during their reproductive period in the spring; however, the Commission has indicated they do not see the need for such changes at this time. Harvest of prairie dogs is limited by their infrequent surface activity in winter, and by shooting restrictions in areas with on-going big game hunts. This issue may be discussed further at the 14-15 April Commission meeting in Phoenix, when regulations are set for the 2000-2001 hunting seasons.

The Commission and Department are proud of our working record with nongame and endangered species. Through support from the Heritage Fund, the Department has built a strong and interactive Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Since inception of the Heritage Initiative, the Department has led or participated in several high-profile reintroductions of endangered species, such as the Mexican wolf, California condor, black-footed ferret, and Gila trout. Through Heritage funding, the Department also conducts and supports research, management, public education, and "watchable wildlife" opportunities encompassing the diverse array of nongame species found in our state.

Back to Contents List

Year 1999

November 1999

Conference on State Trust Lands, November 20, 1999

Karen O’Neil

On November 20, 1999, I attended the second Conference on State Trust Lands held at ASU. State trust lands (9.3 million acres) were given to the state of Arizona by the United States government when Arizona became a state. However, they are not public lands. These lands are held in permanent trust. The revenue generated by these lands is used to benefit the state school system. Unfortunately, these lands presently generate less than 2% of schools’ revenue. State trust lands are incredibly ecologically diverse and are the homes to equally diverse wildlife communities. Presently 8.4 million acres of state trust lands are grazed by livestock. Many speakers at the conference indicated that most of the grazed acres are mismanaged; i.e. too many cattle are allowed to graze the land thereby decreasing rather than increasing the value of the land. Conservation groups are concerned about the mismanagement of the lands as the degeneration of the lands disrupts ecosystems needed for Arizona’s wildlife. Education groups are also concerned because the present management of the lands is limiting the revenue that could be generated to fund Arizona’s schools. The public should be concerned. Presently there is no access for recreation use except by hunters and fishermen who pay for access through their licenses. On the other hand, there are also no funds to manage lands for recreational use. Some lands are of a checkerboard configuration with private land. This renders the state trust lands in those configurations virtually worthless as revenue generators. Many solutions were proposed at the conference. Some of these included:

Back to Contents List