Category: Wild Life Conservation

Honeybees

honey-bee

I have two colonies of bees. I have growing concerns with regard to some  invasive large yellow hornets that are harvesting workers as they exit and enter the hive. I was told that they couldn’t do much harm, as they can only get one bee at a time. I studied this a while, and came to the conclusion that this advice is incorrect.

I am reminded of a popular  children’s book written by Helena Clara Pittman, called “A Grain Of Rice.” In the book it describes that a humble farmer, asks the Emperor for one single grain of rice, with the amount to be doubled every day for one hundred days. Without stopping to calculate how much rice this will be, the emperor agrees, only to discover that a single grain of rice can be turned  into all the wealth in the kingdom for this farmer.

 It seems that the situation with the yellow hornets is similar; if five hornets gather a single bee each every hour, for a twelve hour period, that’s sixty bees. Multiply by seven days, that’s three hundred and sixty bees,by four weeks= one thousand- four hundred forty bees. Over the summer season of three months, four thousand three hundred twenty.

Worker bees take twenty days to develop, and it is estimated that the entire brood of five to six thousand several weeks to regenerate. This means that it only takes a few of these hornets to cause a lot of damage.

If anyone has a method, or trap to get rid of these pests without further causing harm to the honey bees, I surely would appreciate your advice.

Stocking Muskellunge in Tennessee Waters

The introduction of Muskellunge, a large predatory fish, most commonly found in large lakes and commercial waterways in the northern United States has had a devastating impact on the smaller pan fish more desired by subsistence fisherman.

These large fish were primarily introduced through a lobby by a small number of sport fishermen, whose contributions expanded the introduction program to include smaller more shallow water way areas than can not adequately accommodate these large predators.

It is not only the predation on the smaller pan fish, but the intimidating presence or proximity that inhibit the smaller fish from feeding that is making these fish less likely to be harvested by fisherman. These large predatory fish can grow to nearly 5 feet in length and consume large quantities of fish that could otherwise be consumed by subsistence fisherman. These Muskie, as they are affectionately called, can consume fish a quarter of their body length or more. The TWRA (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency) has doubled down on the Muskie program by adding thousand of these fish into areas that cannot possibly sustain their huge appetites. My personal experience, as well as many of my fellow fishermen, have seen a huge drop in subsistence fish populations in the smaller waterways that are usually great places to fish. Additionally these large fish have migrated into small tributaries and streams in an attempt to find available food for themselves. These fish are, simply put, just another blunder by the TWRA in an attempt to satisfy a small number of lobbyists.

As a northerner that has relocated to the warm weather of the Tennessee area, I am quite familiar with Walleye fishing. I have been informed, however of some more of the wacky escapades of the TWRA.

Apparently the TWRA introduced  Alweives, a shad like minnow into Tennessee water ways to help with availability of food for Walleye and other species of large sport fish. The TWRA did not, however, do any comprehensive study on the impact of this introduction.

When Alweives are consumed by Walleye, an enzyme that is contained in the minnow inhibits the ability of Walleye to spawn properly. This is very beneficial to the TWRA because now they can increase their budget and employ agents to shock and artificially spawn Walleye in an attempt to support their populations.

Why the TWRA would not simply ban fishing in spawning zones, where overfishing exploits the Walleye’s vulnerability is unclear to me. Wildlife agencies in other states have strict regulations with regard to spawning fish and their habitats.

Upstate New York has strict guidelines for Salmon, Bass, Pickerel, Sturgeon and other species. Why would this practice be ignored by TWRA, if not only to boost salaries, and create more expenditures for their agency? Any outdoorsman can see the outrageous hikes in licensing fees over the past few years. I would like to know where the oversight is for this out of control agency. If some has any additional information, please share.

Wildlife feeders

Tennessee allows the use of wildlife feeders up until two weeks prior to the opening of big game seasons.

This practice needs to be banned. The use of feeders increases the likely hood of the transmission of CWP (chronic wasting disease) transmitted by the contaminated feed from feces on the ground of white tail deer. Any acclimation of wildlife to manmade feeding stations is unethical and only leads to unfavorable confrontations by man with wildlife not anticipated at the feeding stations. If a person needs to attract wildlife for the purpose of killing it, they should just raise domestic livestock. Attracting wildlife for this purpose is not hunting by any definition.

Some wildlife management areas have antler restriction. Unless these restrictions apply to both private and managed lands areas they are completely ineffective! State hunting regulations must be amended to be consistent on both private and public lands.

The discontinuance of field tagging is absurd there is literally no ability to enforce violators.

Bob White Quail program in Tennessee

I understand there is a cooperative study being done in the Bridgestone wildlife management area in White County Tennessee. It consists of the annual burning in the WMA. What the objective of the study is, however, is  unclear to me. The signs posted in the WMA state that areas will be burned in the fall in cooperation with the University of Tennessee.

I do know that over the past several years the WMA has burned large areas every spring,  and not in the fall. I am a conservationist as well as an outdoorsman and a hunter.

I have seen a drastic decline in animals and birds in my own back yard in recent years. I decided to look into the matter further and indeed, when checking the TWRA’s website with regard to animals (big game) Turkey and deer particularly there has been a severe decline in game checking statistics, an approximate 60% decline in turkey.

In my opinion, this is almost equivalent to a genocide or extreme cull of these species. I’m sure that this affects not only turkey but all other ground forging and nesting birds including quail, Pheasant, grouse and woodcock.

I have tried to impress my views on this matter by contacting the TWRA. They responded with irrelevant comparison to native plains Indians burning lands and boasted of belonging to a national burn council. As an outdoorsman, hunter for over 40 years, their analysis of ground cover being bad for these birds is completely false.

They also told me that the lands are only burned in a controlled rotational manner, ever few years. This is also incorrect. The lands are burned every spring when these birds are propagating (nesting-mating.) I have witnessed repetitive and consistent destruction of these areas year after year since 2009.

I was told quail were introduced or stocked on the WMA, but most of the birds are being forced into adjacent private land. I have no objection to the birds’ presence, but have to question the management practice of the WMA. Surely with over 10, 000 acres of land there could be adequate habitat if properly managed.

I have noticed the forage plot planted for the wildlife but it is planted within 50 feet of a public road where vehicles travel at 45-50 MPH.

The forage is approximately 10 feet wide by over one mile and  alongside the roadway. I have had a personal experience of quail birds exiting the WMA and hitting my windshield. I slowed my vehicle enough however that I don’t think the birds were harmed.

Either these burn practices are not being properly conducted, are not effective at all, or must certainly are having a negative effect on the wildlife populations. I will continue contacting as many state and federal and private wildlife conservation organizations until this is address.