LT AWN Spring 2011 final.qxp 3/25/11 2:36 PM Page 1 · Spring 2011 VOLUME 53 * ISSUE 1 ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWS 7 AWN Spring 2011 edited:AWN_spring_09_WORKING.qxd 3/17/2011 10:33 PM

LT AWN Spring 2011 final.qxp 3/25/11 2:36 PM Page 1

2 ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWS VOLUME 53 * ISSUE 1 Spring 2011

In This Issue Page 3 President’s Corner

Page 4 Book Review

Page 5 Historical Tales

Page 6 Desert Heritage

Page 9 Summit of the Horse

Page 10 An Audacious Solution to a Stubborn Problem

Page 12 Solar Energy in Arizona

Page 14 Travel Management

Page 17 BOW Happenings

Page 18 Heritage--What Does it Mean to You?

Page 21 Camp Cook

Page 22 Members Page

Front Cover: Photo by Bob VahleBack Cover: Photo by P.K. Weis

http://www.southwestphotobank.com

If you have a photograph or painting that you would like to submit forconsideration on a future cover of Arizona Wildlife News, please con-tact AWF at the address below.

ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWS * VOLUME 53 * SPRING 2011published by the ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION

An Affiliate of the National Wildlife FederationPO Box 51510, Mesa, AZ 85208 * 480-644-0077

The official publication of the Arizona Wildlife Federation, the state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, Arizona Wildlife News (ISSN)is published quarterly as a service to affiliate members and Federation members. AWF is Arizona’s oldest conservation organization. Theeditorials and commentaries in this publication do not necessarily reflect the mission or position of the Arizona Wildlife Federation. AWF is anequal opportunity provider.

The Arizona Wildlife Federation welcomes stories, art and photographic contributions. We will consider, but assume no responsibility forunsolicited proposals, manuscripts, art, photographs and transparencies. Contact the Federation office at 480-644-0077 for details.

Advertising inquiries should be directed to the Arizona Wildlife Federation at the above address or phone number or by [email protected]. AWF does not assume any financial responsibility for errors in advertisements that appear in this publication. If notifiedpromptly of an error, we will reprint the corrected ad.

Board PresidentVP Conservation

SecretaryTreasurer

NWF RepresentativeDirectorDirector

Immediate Past President

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

MANAGING EDITOR

EDITOR

COPY EDITOR

DESIGN & LAYOUT

PRINTING

Larry Audsley

Ryna Rock

Linda Dightmon

Kim Kreuzer

Linda Dightmon

Lithotech

Larry AudsleyBen Alteneder

John GaleKathy Greene

Tom Mackin

Sandra NagillerLarry AudsleyValerie Morrill

George ReinersChris Fonoti

Tom MackinBrad PowellJody Latimer Jerry Thorson Bob VahleBrian WakelingLarry AudsleyRyna Rock

Glen DickensJohn KoleszarJoy Hernbrode

Loyd BarnettBob Vahle

Ryna RockKaren SchedlerJohn UnderwoodBob VahleBrian Wakeling

DIRECTORS AT LARGE

CONTRIBUTORS

AWF Mission StatementAWF is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating, inspiringand assisting individuals to value, conserve, enhance, manage andprotect wildlife and wildlife habitat.

ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWS

2010/11 OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS

ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

REGIONAL DIRECTORS

OTHER OFFICERS

Legislative LiaisonBen Alteneder

AWN Spring 2011 edited:AWN_spring_09_WORKING.qxd 3/17/2011 10:33 PM Page 2

Spring 2011 VOLUME 53 * ISSUE 1 ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWS 7



sportsmen community last fall and continues to work withsportsmen’s groups in reviewing this proposal. Significantwork on the proposal started 4 years ago with the SonoranInstitute and has grown significantly since that time.Stakeholders include local elected leaders, Chambers ofCommerce, the military, non-governmental and faith basedorganizations, ranchers, farmers, OHV users, businesses andother members of the community.

The proponents of the proposal hope to introduce thelegislation sometime in early summer pending the consent of asponsor and the continued work with stakeholders. The twocongressional districts within the boundaries of the proposalare District 2 (Trent Franks) and District 7 (Raul Grijalva).

What Sportsmen are Saying

AWF has contacted Arizona Game and Fish and a varietyof sportsmen’s organizations including the Yuma Valley Rod &Gun Club and Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, amongothers. There has been little to no opposition to designatingNational Conservation Lands, but there is significant resist-ance to expanding or creating more Wilderness designations.

Much of this polarization has a historical context.According to sportsmen’s groups and Arizona Game and Fish,there have been significant barriers to managing wildlife indesignated wilderness areas since the passage of the lastArizona Wilderness bill in 1990. In 2007, commissioners andsportsmen tried, without success, to persuade sponsors of abill expanding the Pajarito Wilderness to insert languageexempting wildlife management activities from restrictions inthe Wilderness Act. The commission eventually endorsed themeasure anyway, but since then the membership of thecommission has changed so that today’s commission may beless likely to endorse new wilderness legislation that does notspecifically address their concerns.

Consensus among the state’s sportsmen and wildlifeadvocacy organizations is that their concerns will need to beexpressed in the language of any legislation enabling new orexpanded wilderness. Traditional approaches such as drawingwilderness boundaries around existing roads (cherry-stemming) and adjusting boundaries to provide access andexclude man-made infrastructure have not effectivelyaddressed their concerns, nor have statements and promisesfrom bill sponsors and supporters.

The state’s sportsmen did express support for thefollowing:

-Landscape level protections for wildlife connectivity.

-National Conservation Areas if they limit habitat degrada-tion related to the construction and development of solar farms.

-Continued federal recognition of wildlife being held by theState in public trust and belonging to Arizona’s citizens, andcontinued acknowledgment of the trust responsibilities of theArizona Game and Fish Commission.

However, sportsmen and state wildlife officials also believethat human intervention in a wilderness setting is occasionallynecessary to enable resident-native wildlife to survive indesperate circumstances, and that management of wildernessmust allow that flexibility when biological data supports suchactions. With respect to wilderness designations, including the87 existing wilderness areas as well as any added in the future,Arizona’s sportsmen and wildlife officials are looking to achievethe following:

-Consistent administration of wilderness. The appropriate-ness of wildlife management projects and techniques inwilderness has been challenged internally within agencies andamong land managers, as well as externally by variousenvironmental organizations. This occurs even with policydocuments in place that describe the commitment of thefederal agencies to coordinate closely with state wildlife agen-cies on projects within wilderness and wilderness study areas.

-Ability to maintain and retrofit existing wildlife watercatchments in wilderness.

-Reasonable access to the edge of wilderness boundariesand in some cases to the interior of wilderness areas forwildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and wildlifeviewing and retrieval of harvested wildlife, and for haulingwater and maintaining permitted water catchments and otherwildlife management activities.

Solutions Going Forward

Arizona Game and Fish and sportsmen groups believe theneed for active management of wildlife will only grow in thefuture as Arizona’s population grows, habitats become moresegmented and fragmented, species become extirpated insome locations, isolated species experience a decline ofgenetic diversity, and invasions of non-native species worsen.Ability to manage wildlife in a wilderness setting is essential.Since it is impossible to predict what actions might be neededto address these concerns in the future, a general and holisticsolution for wildlife management in wilderness seems moreappropriate than individual exceptions.

Congressional legislative language should state thatwildlife management actions taken to protect wildlife areregarded as furthering the purpose of the Wilderness Act.

Legislation enabling grandfathering of water catchmentswithin wilderness areas which allow for the maintenancehauling of water and retrofitting of the aforementioned.

Review of proposed wildernesses to ensure that any roadsthat lead to the wilderness boundary, or roads leading tointerior wilderness cherry-stems, have adequate public accessand are not obstructed by private or state trust lands.

Increased look at NCA as a viable alternative towilderness.

Ensure that adequate interior access is available for theretrieval of harvested wildlife and the ability to maintenanceand haul water to permitted wildlife water catchments.

Make sure that proposed wildernesses do in fact possessthe characteristics spelled out in the Wilderness Act as criteriafor wilderness designation.

While we have a ways to go before many of theseconcerns are met, AWF believes there is a way to protectwildlife habitat while also addressing the concerns ofsportsmen and wildlife professionals. Finding solutions tothese concerns will not be easy, but AWF’s goal is to getsportsmen, state wildlife officials and conservation groupstalking WITH each other, not AT each other. Whatever theoutcome, we view this proposal as a way to discuss thehistorical issues that have plagued sportsmen and have neverbeen adequately addressed.

For more information on this proposal or to make acomment on behalf of your organization please contact:Ben Alteneder, [email protected].



AAbroad cross-section of stakeholders gathered at theSouth Point Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 3-6,2011 to kick off efforts toward finding practical solutions

to America’s wild horse and burro problems. Solutions thatwere discussed included re-establishing commercialprocessing of horse products, an industry that ended in theU.S. in 2006.

Wyoming legislator Sue Wallis, one of the co-organizers ofthe event, described the summit as “a broad based coalitionwith the capacity and the resources to drive forward thelegislative and regulatory changes necessary for a restorationof a viable, sustainable equine industry, an end to theunnecessary suffering of horses, and protections for theecological balances so necessary on not only federal, buttribal, state, and private lands for free-roaming horses andnative wildlife and forage to thrive sustainably,”

Featured speakers included former Congressman CharlieStenholm, Bureau of Land Management Director (BLM), BobAbbey, renowned animal scientist, Dr. Temple Grandin andNational Wildlife Federation (NWF) Regional ExecutiveDirector, Steve Torbit.

Participants included animal scientists, wildlife experts,members from more than a dozen Native American tribes,government agencies, business development consultants,equine academics and veterinarians, horse rescue owners,range management professionals, pet animal groups, ranchersand land managers, horse breeders, trainers, and marketersfrom the U.S,. Canada and Mexico.

BLM Director Abbey, whose appearance at the summitwas sharply criticized by some wild horse advocacy groups,made clear that he has been willing to meet with diversestakeholders on wild horse management issues. Recognizingthat some organizations take conflicting positions on what isthe best way to manage feral horses and burros, Abbey saidthat is to be expected and welcomed in a nation known for freeand open dialogue on controversial issues.

Abbey pointed out that the Department of Interior and theBLM have already removed from the discussion table anyconsideration of the euthanasia of healthy wild horses and theunlimited sale of older horses, even though these legalauthorities exist under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses andBurros Act of 1971 (as amended). Having taken the positionthat slaughter is not a viable or acceptable managementoption, Abbey focused his remarks on the present and futurecourse of the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program, which theBLM is committed to putting on a sustainable track, as calledfor by the Government Accountability Office in a report issuedin October 2008.

Additionally, Director Abbey noted that two recent reports– one by four independent, credentialed equine professionalsand one by the Interior Department’s Office of InspectorGeneral – have concluded, without any ideological or political

bias, that the BLM’s gathers of wild horses are conducted in ahumane manner. The Inspector General determined that theBLM’s gathers are "justified" and found that the agency "isdoing its best to perform a very difficult job".

NWF’s Dr. Steve Torbit spoke to the issue of the ecology offeral horses. His science-based presentation highlighted boththe history of feral horses and the ecology behind theirincreased forage abilities.

“The concerns for the wildlife community as it pertains toferal horses above the current appropriate management level(AML) is great,” Torbit said. “Increased forage removal, thefouling of water sources, trampling of vegetative cover anddecreased habitat availability all have measurable impacts tomule deer, elk, sage grouse and other wildlife.”

Torbit’s final points to ponder:Unite livestock, wildlife and native plant advocates to

mandate BLM manage horses within appropriate forageallocations and remove as indicated by managementprescriptions.

Horse advocates repeatedly call for “wild” classificationand, if they succeed, place horses under the authority of statewildlife agencies, with all appropriate management authoritiesand tools.

Call for a National Academy of Science determination onthe status of feral horses (Feral vs. Wild).

Propose a categorization of feral horses as a “culturalresource”, not a natural resource with appropriatemanagement (removal) to ensure no loss of plant, wildlife andlivestock resouces.

A primary objective of the summit was to create a forumwhere the voices of the horse world, and those deeplyconcerned about the health of lands where horses both wildand domestic are managed, could be heard by a misinformedand emotionally manipulated American public. The Summit didcatch the attention of media across the country from the Wall

Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times, and became anopportunity for ordinary horse people struggling to make aliving and to raise their children in what could be once again ahealthy, viable, horseback culture to tell their story.

More than 1,000 people convened, either in person orthrough on-line live streaming video,

There were more than 209 people on site in Vegas, andanother 879 unique viewers on the webcast who collectivelyput in 909 hours of live viewing from remotes ranches andurban centers all across the nation.

Webcasts of the presentations given at the summit can beviewed here:

h t tp : / /www.uni ted-horsemen.org/summit -of - the-horse/remote-registration-online-live-webcasts/

Summit of the HorseBy John W Gale



Commercial Horse Slaughter Could Be the Answer toAmerica’s Stubborn Feral Equine Problem

If commercial horse slaughterhouses are re-established inthe US, the nation could be on its way toward reforming awild horse and burro program that has been troubled sinceits inception 40 years ago. Questions concerning whetherand how feral equines should be controlled has put thegovernment between animal lovers and horse romanticistson one side and ecologists, ranchers, sportsmen andtaxpayers on the other. To biologists with public trustresponsibilities for our public lands, feral horses and burrosare destructive non-natives that need to be controlled. Onthe other side, the wild horse lobby insists the animals haveevery right to be there and shouldn’t be manhandled toappease ranchers, sportsmen and ecologists. For yearsthe horse advocates have pressured Congress to removelimits on how many feral horses and burros can live on ourpublic lands and where they’re allowed to roam, and mostrecently they seemed to be gaining the upper hand inCongress.

In July 2009, Congress acted to appease the horse loversby passing a bill allowing the animals to populate at willand roam freely across all public lands. Federal landmanagers and wildlife advocates were terrified at theprospect of exploding horse and burro populations wreak-ing environmental disaster all across Western NationalForest and BLM lands in places the animals haven’t beenbefore. To prevent an ecological train wreck, InteriorSecretary Ken Salazar and BLM Director Bob Abbeysuddenly announced they were pursuing new nationalsolutions to protect both the animals and the habitat, detailsto follow. That action seems to have bought Interior sometime to work the problem, because an identical Senate bill,introduced immediately after the House version passed,has since stalled. But most of what has since come fromSalazar and Abbey has only raised more questions, and itcould only be a matter of time before Congress picks up itspen again.

Now another set of voices has come forward with a solutionthat appears reasonable from a practical viewpoint if not apolitical one. Proponents of re-opening horse slaughter-houses promise to transform what has become an

e x p e n s i v enuisance intoa productiveasset. Theypoint out that bring-ing back the commer-cial slaughter and pro-cessing of horses to produceleather, pet food, meat for export and other products wouldgenerate economic benefits while protecting the ecologicalhealth of the range. They believe this would be particularlybeneficial for rural communities during an economic reces-sion. Seven states have sent resolutions to Congress ask-ing for federal cooperation in getting horse slaughterhous-es re-opened. (Arizona isn’t one of them.)

This solution will undoubtedly draw fire from at least someof the horse lovers, whose intensity is second to noneamong lobbying groups, and promises made by Abbey andSalazar have made it even harder for the Obama adminis-tration to support it. In his desperation to stop the legisla-tive juggernaut, Abbey assured horse lovers that none ofthe new solutions would involve killing any healthy animals.

Proponents hope to convince some of the horse advocatesthat commercial slaughter, given proper planning andmonitoring, could prove to be the most humane option inthe long run. The Summit featured a presentation fromDr. Temple Grandin, who emphasized the importance ofestablishing standards for humane handling along withstrict protocols for monitoring and measuring performanceto those standards at horse-processing facilities. Some ofthe Summit’s attendees were from horse welfare groupsand indicated a willingness to hear options involvinghumane slaughter.

These strikingly divergent solutions – leaving the animalsfree to roam and reproduce at will, versus killing and sellingthem for profit – might seem irreconcilable. But almost noaspect of the federal wild horse and burro program has everearned hearty approval from any stakeholders, and anyfuture course will likely require bitter compromises frompurists in all camps.

Since Congress passed the Wild Horse and Burro Act in

An Audacious Solution to aStubborn Problem

By Larry Audsley



1971, government has been unable to keep anyone happy.The Act requires that wild horses and burros be allowed tocontinue living on public lands wherever they had existedhistorically. The same law requires the animals to be keptat population levels that are “in ecological balance” with therange, a requirement biologists say can’t truly be met sincethe animals are an invasive species that will invariably inflictunnatural damage anywhere they’re living. Without humanintervention, their populations will grow about 20 percenteach year because they have no natural predators. Birthcontrol, the favored solution for many horse advocates, hasnot been shown to be practical, effective or economical,and there aren’t enough private ranches willing to absorbthem. Meanwhile, the animals’ frenzied political supportbase has successfully pressured Congress to block anyeffective solutions. BLM has not been allowed to euthanizehealthy animals, as the1971 law allows, or to sell off surplusanimals for eventual sale to a slaughterhouse. BLMrequires no-kill contracts for all horse and burro adoptions.Lately the horse lovers have taken particular aim at theagency’s long-standing practice of rounding up surplusanimals and stockpiling them in corrals and privatepastures. As of 2010, there were 38,000 feral horses andburros on public lands, which is 12,000 more than biologistssay should be there, and another 35,000 are living offgovernment funds in holding facilities. BLM now devotes$38 million of its $64 million program budget for their feedand veterinary care, often having to borrow from otherprograms. Congress’s General Accounting Office hasissued a report critical of BLM’s overall handling of theprogram, and no one is arguing that the present course issustainable.

So with their legal residencies limited to where they’ve livedbefore and their densities limited by range carrying capaci-ty, how does government control a non-native species witha tendency to ignore both? For horse lovers, the answer isto simply stop dictating where the animals can live or howmany can be there, and let them do as they please. This isessentially what the bill passed by the House in 2009 wouldhave accomplished. But even if one overlooks the damagethat would inflict on habitat, the mathematical realities ofhorse reproduction dictate that killing surplus animals can’tbe prevented forever. What happens when they eventuallysaturate all of our public lands and continue to reproduce?

The last U.S. slaughterhouse that was equipped for horsesclosed in 2007 after Congress cut off funding for inspectionsfollowing the circulation of internet videos depicting whatsome felt was inhumane animal treatment. Becausefederal law requires the inspections, a judge soon orderedthe facility closed. Since then unwanted horses have beensold at auction and shipped either to Mexico or Canada forprocessing, which hasn’t made horse lovers any happiersince this requires the animals to endure an even longerjourney by truck or box car, and the trip still ends at aslaughterhouse. Animal welfare monitors report thatprocessing practices in Mexico are no more humane thanwhat they replaced in the U.S., leaving activists to question

how much was really gained by closing the last U.S. plant.Activists have since taken to urging Congress to banexports to countries that allow commercial horseprocessing but so far haven’t succeeded. Even if they doeventually succeed in stopping exports, there’s still thequestion of what happens to horses and burros people nolonger want or can’t afford to care for. When the USeconomy went into free fall in 2007, there was a suddenincrease in the number of privately owned horses deliveredfor processing or simply turned loose.

The new proposal for commercial slaughter is essentially

the old method spruced up to conform to 21st centurysensitivities. Prior to the 1971 Act, feral horses and burroshad little protection, and their numbers were kept undercontrol through a market for their hides, meat and otherparts. The 1971 law made it illegal to capture, kill or harassany wild horse or burro. The Act also required the Bureauof Land Management, which manages most of the landsferal horses and burros occupy, to inventory the numbersand locations of existing herds, designate HerdManagement Areas (HMAs), determine appropriatepopulation levels and keep the herds within their HMAs atenvironmentally sustainable levels. The Act provided forsale and adoption of both horses and burros andspecifically authorized euthanasia as a tool to prevent themfrom over-populating and destroying the range.

The 1971 Act might have worked reasonably well hadCongress given the agency enough annual funding to carryout its legislated mandates and then refrained frommeddling. Instead Congress routinely caved in topressures from horse lovers opposed both to round-upsand euthanasia. By the 1980s Congress’s annual budgetappropriations for BLM began routinely prohibiting thekilling of any animals that were not old or lame. To protectthe range from growing populations, healthy, unadoptedhorses and burros had to be rounded up and cared for atprivate facilities where they received feed and veterinarycare paid for by BLM. Horse lovers have always hated theround-ups, which they perceive as brutal and traumatizingto the animals even though reports from public and privateentities have concluded that BLM’s roundups areconducted in a humane manner. They have asked whatkind of a wild horse and burro program has nearly as manyanimals in confinement as are left roaming free on therange. Both BLM and Congress started turning a blind eyeto the Act’s requirements to keep populations inside theirHMAs and at biologically sustainable levels because it wascheaper to let the herds over-populate and wander than topay for costly round-ups and long-term boarding. It alsokept horse lovers off the backs of BLM and Congress, butthat didn’t work well for other stakeholders. Privateranchers, public grazing lessees, wildlife groups, stategame commissions and land departments, military rangesand other federal agencies including national parks andwildlife refuges were complaining that their lands werebeing hammered by herds that were above allowable levelsand going where they weren’t supposed to be. (To Page 20)



By Karen Schedler

Solar Energy in AZ

AAs an environmental educator,I’m frequently asked whyArizona doesn’t derive more

of its energy from solar. With plenty ofsunshine and long days, why aren’tsolar panels atop every roof andparking garage?

If it were only that simple. Here aresome facts about solar energy that mayamaze you.

1. Coal is our primary source ofenergy nationwide, providing more than50% of our current energy needs. Usingconventional sources such as coal coststhe consumer approximately 10 centsper kilowatt hour. Solar energy costsapproximately 30 cents per kWh.

2. Though it may seem counterin-tuitive, the optimal temperature for solarenergy to be the most efficient is 80degrees. It actually loses efficiency oncethe temperature exceeds that threshold.

3. The most-frequently used solarsystems in AZ are photovoltaic (PV),the flat panels you see on rooftops,for example. Unfortunately, PV solaris only about 17% efficient. A newtechnology has recently emergedthat “concentrates” solar by usingdish-shaped structures with smallmirrors that reflect solar radiation back toa Dish Stirling engine. Relatively new onthe scene, this form of solar energy canreach 23-35% efficiency – a quantumleap forward from PV – and can beerected relatively quickly once a suitablelocation has been prepared. (Note:Efficiency refers to the conversion ofsunlight to electricity. The higher theefficiency, the more sunlight is convertedinto electricity available for us to use.)

Even if we could mitigate cost(which will likely occur sometime inthe future) and significantly improveefficiency, solar is still in its infancy. And

there are other challenges – especiallyfor wildlife and habitat.

Solar panels are assembled in closeproximity to each other in what is knownas an array. Many panels are required topower an entire home, let alone an entirecity. Cost efficiencies demand that solararrays be near transmission lines if theyare to serve consumer needs efficientlyand reliably. While we all like the idea ofusing “free” sunshine to provide ourenergy needs, how many of us want tolive next to a giant field of arrays withtransmission poles and lines? Wouldn’t itbe terrific if those arrays would be placedoutside populated areas where we coulduse their services but not have to seethem daily?

An Australian company is proposinga new solar technology for La PazCounty: solar chimneys. Imagine onehuge greenhouse in the middle of thedesert with a very large chimney towerrising from its midsection. As sun beatsdown on the glass, the air heats up(much like a closed car on a hot summerday), and hot air rises. The chimneyprovides the only outlet for this heatedmass of air. The rising air turns a turbinewhich generates energy. The best part?This system requires NO WATER – andthat’s a huge advantage for a renewableenergy resource in the middle of theAmerican Southwest. (Most requirecopious amounts of water.) What couldpossibly be wrong with solar chimneys?They require massive amounts of land –4 square miles! – to function efficiently

Certainly there are large parcels ofland in Arizona with hours of sunshinejust going to waste. Would anyone reallyfeel their presence? Ah, but what aboutthose residents who already live in suchareas, and who have no one to speak for

them? Actually, those residents –Arizona’s wildlife – do have “voices”through advocates including the ArizonaGame and Fish Department and theArizona Wildlife Federation.

What impacts does solar energyhave on wildlife and habitat?

Large arrays, transmission lines andimmense poles, electrons hummingthrough the transformers and lines. Allhave some rather stark consequences.Huge amounts of acreage arecompacted and pummeled during theconstruction phase, then covered withlarge arrays. Fences and other barriersare erected to surround the premises inorder to keep the facility secure.

The Arizona Game and FishDepartment (AGFD) has identified thefollowing as potential impacts of solarenergy generation upon wildlife, habitatsand outdoor recreation

·-wildlife mortality ·-habitat loss and/or fragmentation·-hydrologic impacts·-cumulative effects of other human

activities (e.g., compaction of soil duringconstruction and maintenance)

The department serves as the“conscience” for wildlife by reminding thesolar power industry and consumers ofthe numerous laws and regulations thatmust be considered – e.g., The NationalEnvironmental Protection Act (NEPA),the Endangered Species Act (ESA), TheMigratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald andGolden Eagle Protection Act, the SikesAct, and others. With so much potentialfor disruption, both wildlife and habitatface stressors that are often hard tomitigate.

For several years, AGFD and otherstakeholders have worked as membersof the Arizona Wildlife LinkageWorkgroup (AWLW) to create “an

What Price Does Wildlife Pay for Our Energy Demands?



President’s CornerBy Tom Mackin

When I look at the numbers, over 150,000 huntinglicense holders in Arizona, over 300,000 fishing licenseholders, millions of annual visitors to our National Forestsand BLM lands, its staggering to think of the hours spent onthese activities by those thousands of individuals. But asPaul Harvey liked to say, “and now for the rest of the story”.I look at the number of individuals who are taking an activeleadership role in the numerous wildlife and other conserva-tion groups and the number is disproportionately small.Pick a group, any group, and you will see an individual who:a) belongs to several groups, b) has served in a leadershiprole in each of those groups, c) tries to accomplish anunbelievable amount of tasks necessary to preserve thethings they value and tries to do this along with making aliving, raising a family and possibly even enjoying thosethings they actually joined these groups to do, like hiking,hunting, bird watching or fishing. Too many outdoorenthusiasts today reap the benefits that these very fewleaders are providing, and they always think someone elsewill do it so they can go do their own thing. It will always besomeone else that goes to the Forest Travel ManagementPlan meetings, someone else who will comment on theplanned solar or wind development, its always someoneelse that will write the letter to the editor disputing a claimmade by an extremist and a hundred other times when it willbe someone else. When I started teaching Hunter Ed, 25years ago, we used to quote figures that stated 10% of thepublic are hunters, 10% is against hunting and 80% reallydon’t care either way. Those figures have changed,dramatically, with only about 8% hunting, perhaps as manyas 15% against hunting and as various recent electionshave shown, the remaining 77% can go either way withoutreally understanding the facts or repercussions down theroad. This isn’t just about hunting though, this is aboutenergy development, planned highways, new public landdesignations, access to public lands and favoring onespecies over another with little to no regard for the outcome.

I’d like to ask you to think about your plans and how youcan make a difference. The fact that you’re reading this

column already says you’re doing something. You aretaking the time to read an article in a magazine publishedby a group that has been trying to make a difference forover 80 years, the Arizona Wildlife Federation. But what I’dlike to have you think about is joining a group, whether it’sa local single species group like the Arizona AntelopeFoundation, the Arizona Deer Association, or a nationalorganization like Trout Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain ElkFoundation, or any other group that values wildlife, wildlifehabitat and our outdoor traditions. But take it a step further,don’t just write that check, kick back and read the glossymagazine. Get actively involved, volunteer to take aleadership role, see how you can help, attend or evenorganize a worthwhile project, bring your children, youngrelatives or even neighbor children who don’t get outside,and really try to make a difference. We’re very fortunate tohave a great group of leaders in our Arizona wildlifeorganizations, but the toll is very high on these dedicatedfolks and the burn out factor is huge. Do you know who theAZGFD wildlife manager is in the unit where you like tohunt, hike or fish? If not, get to know them, get to know theForest Service or BLM wildlife manager for the public landsyou like to visit. Talk to them, ask them where they needhelp. Ask them what you can do to help them and then doit. Make it happen, get involved, speak to your friends, getthem to help and do your part to keep this great state ahaven for the wildlife that we all treasure and respect.

Letters to the Editor

Keep your communications short and to the point. All mustbe signed. If you send us questions, we will seek answers andprint them here. There may be times mail volume may preventus from publishing every letter we receive, but we will do ourbest to print as many as possible.

Send your ‘snail mail’ to: AWF Mail Pouch Arizona Wildlife Federation, PO Box 51510, Mesa, AZ 85208Send your email to: [email protected]



By Larry Audsley

In the late 1990s,Mitch Tobin left Berkley’sgraduate program in polit-ical science to become anewspaper reporter inTucson. His goal wasto experience environ-mental policy “upclose and in realtime” rather thanlearning it throughstatistical modelsand academictracts. During aseven yearstint with twoTucson newspapers, he pri-marily covered environmentalissues, which included a year-long serieson Arizona’s endangered species for the ArizonaDaily Star. That series became the basis for Endangered:

Biodiversity on the Brink, which takes the reader species-by-species through Arizona’s conflicts between man and nature,and between the warring factions within our own species. Hissomewhat personal account brings us the biology, politics andbusiness of endangered species protection. The bookis more than just a compilation of the articles as they appearedin the newspaper. Endangered is Tobin’s re-telling, on his ownterms, of what he found while covering efforts to save Sonoranpronghorn, spotted owls, condors, red squirrels, jaguars,Mexican gray wolves and other species. In addition to provid-ing a paycheck, his career as an environmental reporterallowed him to navigate through mountains, deserts, grass-lands, meeting halls and conference rooms on a personalquest to unravel the complexities of endangered speciesrecovery. What Tobin found was messy and cluttered withironies and incongruities. The endangered willow flycatcher,for example, thrives in the African tamarisk,, one of theSouthwest’s most despised invasive species. Some biologistsbelieve bringing limited cattle grazing back to the Buenos AiresNational Wildlife Refuge, where cows were once kicked off tobenefit masked bobwhite quail, could actually help these birdsby reducing invasive Lehman’s lovegrass.

Early in the book Tobin devotes several pages to theEndangered Species Act itself, which he says “for four decadeshas shaped our nation’s entire approach to managing naturalresources and has become an arena in which core conflictsplay out. How should we balance the needs of humans andnature?” Tobin finds much to admire about the nation’sperseverance in pursuing a policy whose success defies all

natural laws as understood by politicalscientists. As Tobin explains, “The listing and

protection of endangered species can imposereal, immediate and concentrated costs on

taxpayers, industries and campaign contribu-tors, but such actions confer vague, distant and

diffuse benefits for creatures that can’t vote, lobby,protest or maybe even move.” Yet the federal

government as whole, including Congress, hassomehow managed to hold off periodic uprisings

aimed at weakening or eliminating it. Tobin evaluates the Act from several angles, noting

that the listing process itself is problematic in manyways, and that plants seem to have a much harder time

making the list than animals. (Here he might have missedan opportunity to explore with biologists the question of

whether listing is always in the best interest of a species. Heseems to assume it is.) He finds a clear link between a

species’ appeal to humans and the funding provided to protectit, but also acknowledges that some species cost almostnothing to protect.

He shares many of the questions that perplex today’s sci-entists. Should we consider species transplants or habitatmanipulation to save species from extinction caused by cli-mate change, or is that too slippery a slope? Should gov-ernment tighten controls over a power plant in Florida to savethe polar bear without clear evidence linking the plant’s emis-sion to dead bears, or does that risk the future of both the ESAand climate change mitigation?

For someone new to Arizona’s wildlife and some of itsmost contentious issues, Endangered, is excellent for generalorientation and as a reference book. For those who saw theendangered species battles from close range and even livedthrough some of them, it offers well-told tales about events,places and people many of us personally know, and some newdetails we perhaps didn’t know.

Free at last from the journalist’s obligation to report withoutconveying bias, Tobin is not reluctant to express opinions. Heconcludes the book with a recommended 12-step program foradapting the nation’s biodiversity policy to meet 21st centuryneeds. Most would probably judge his ideas as generallysound, if not especially novel, although a few will sparkvehement opposition. His certainty of the need to ban all leadammunition will certainly outrage some readers, as will hisacceptance of delegating more authority to states forenvironmental regulation. But the value of Endangered is notso much in the few answers Tobin offers at the end of the bookbut rather in his sharing of information and insights that couldhelp guide us toward the right questions.

Book Review

Endangered: Biodiversity on the Brink



Bighorn – Burros – And Balance

Reproduced by Ryna Rock from Arizona Wildlife Magazine, October 1967

Historical Tales

High burro populations in the limitedfood and water areas of Western Arizonaare a detriment to bighorn sheep. There isa strong feeling that wild burros must becontrolled and their numbers restricted (ifnot drastically reduced) if we are to preventundue conflict with Arizona’s native wildlifeand destructive overuse of forage plants.

In Arizona, bighorn and feral burrosoccupy the same habitat. The burros occurmostly in western Arizona, along theColorado River from Yuma to the GrandCanyon National Park. It is not uncommonfor game and fish personnel to observemore burros within an area than any otheranimal.

It is estimated that there are more than5,000 feral burros in the State. And, thisanimal has no predator. So, what keepshim in balance with the habitat? OnSeptember 13, the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) issued a news releasethat outlined its policy on wild horses andburros throughout western rangelands. Toan outside observer it would appear, fromthis release that the primary emphasis ofthe Federal government will be to preservethe burro. The release did state that BLMrecognizes that wild horses and burros maybecome too plentiful. But, the approvedmethods for removal of the excess popula-tion leave much to be desired.

It appears clear that the voice of theprotectionist and not that of the conserva-tionist has been heard. It is, of course, fareasier to gain support for the protection ofan animal than it is to fully understand orsupport the wise management or use ofthat animal. Most of the individuals andorganizations promoting the merits of thewild burro appear to know little, if nothing,of its habitat or if its direct and detrimentalcompetition with wildlife. The issue withthem is emotional.

In Arizona, emphasis on the preserva-tion of the wild burro appears totally unreal-istic. The numbers already are far too highand direct competition with wildlife speciesprevails throughout its range. There shouldbe grave concern for the habitat and for thenecessity to hold animal populations withinlimits the range will sustain.

Some hope that the recent policy deci-sion of BLM will prompt control of burrosand that details will be worked out withlocal authorities to gather excess animals.In most areas inhabited by burros, bighornsheep, desert mule deer, and other wildlife,

a reduction of burros is in order.Work completed by John Russo and

Jeff McMichaels of the Arizona Game andFish Department substantiates the fact thatcompetition is now occurring for both foodand water.

So, it appears that the BLM must moveto remove excess animals to prevent rangedeterioration. The Bureau’s policy statesthat roundups must be done in a humanemanner. Also, Federal statute prevents theuse of motorized vehicles and aircraft.

Unfortunately, the burro is not cooper-ative. On various occasions individuals,hoping to profit by the capture of wild bur-ros for sale to the pet market, have failed tosucceed. Cowboys will attest to the hardi-ness of the burro and of man’s frailty inaccomplishing burro roundups.

Man and horses both suffer far morethan the burro when roundups are attempt-ed. If there is a question of humane treat-ment, it might better be extended to thecowboy and the horse who make the effort.The burro seems to suffer not.

It appears that current roundupmethod restrictions are asinine (no punintended). How then are burro numbers tobe controlled? It is no simple matter todetermine ownership of these animalsmuch less to define an effective method ofremoval. The State Livestock SanitaryBoard administers those laws that affectthe roundup, sale or disposal of livestock inArizona. By definition and by definedauthority this responsibility includes theburro. Ownership of the burro is not soclearly defined.

Undoubtedly these regulationsevolved from the early days when burroswere used as beasts of burden. It was nec-essary that animals be branded to identifyownership. Control by the LivestockSanitary Board was necessary to governtheir shipment, sale, branding, and to pre-vent the transmission of disease. But, wasit the intent of the law to govern these ani-mals once they were abandoned on theopen range to multiply into an unbrandedferal population? By State law, the killing,sale or trade of livestock (including burros)without authority or a bill of sale is a felony.

The large population of burros inArizona means there is an extensive num-ber of herbivores on lands without permit .. . . where no clear responsibility can beplaced for management. And, State andFederal laws and regulations require

removal by ineffective roundup methods. Livestock, where owners can be iden-

tified, are permitted on the public range andtheir numbers held to a level compatiblewith the forage resources available. Theseherbivores are controlled and the ownerpays a grazing fee to assist in the adminis-tration and management of the range.

Who pays the grazing fee for a wildburro? Who can be petitioned to hold burronumbers at a level compatible with the veg-etative resources? Who prevents damag-ing conflict with the wildlife?

It appears the BLM has the responsi-bility; but this is meaningless unless somemore effective and efficient method of burroremoval is authorized. Historically, burroshave been harvested by firearms. This isnot unique. Wildlife, particularly big gamepopulations, have long been managed bythis method. It is effective. However, it is amethod that is repulsive to some. Thosewho oppose this method give no thought tothe course of events where wild animalscompete to the extent that the competitionresults in a life and death struggle. Such asituation as this cannot be called “humane”.

Blind protection with no concern formanagement or the consequences violatesall reasonable judgment and disregardsman’s own growing knowledge. If thoseprotectionists who complain so bitterlywhen privately owned horses are roundedup in Montana and Idaho believe they areconservationists . . . . . they are terribly mis-led and wrong.

Burro populations must be controlled,not only to protect the welfare of thebighorn and other wildlife, but to protect thewelfare of the burro himself. This is noth-ing but sound management. Any othercourse limits Arizona’s bighorn and jeop-ardizes the future of other wildlife speciesas well.

To date, lawmakers and Federalagency heads have heard only the strongvoice of protectionists demanding thepreservation of the wild burro. Their voiceis strong. How strong is yours? If conser-vationists would make their point equallystrong, would not a course of action resultthat would enable responsible agencies toeffectively control the burro?

Regulations and laws can be changed.But, this will not be done unless you makeyour position known.



FFor the past several months Arizona WildlifeFederation has been involved in discussions con-cerning a proposal for special use designations on

federal lands in Western Arizona. The current playersdeveloping this proposal, with input from stakeholders,are the Sonoran Institute, The Arizona WildernessCoalition and the Wilderness Society. AWF’s goal has beento bring sportsmen’s issues to the table as the draft pro-posal moves forward. AWF has also been working withoff-highway vehicle groups in reviewing their concerns.

All the lands in the draft proposal are managed by theBureau of Land Management. This is a landscape levelproposal shaped like a crescent. It starts near Lake Pleasantand moves West to the Harquahala Mountains, South to theGila Mountains and East to the edge of the Sonoran DesertNational Monument. The area encompasses approximately800,000 acres made up of several varying land designations.

The Proposal

As proposed, the Sonoran Desert Conservation DraftProposal includes three types of federal land designations:wilderness, national conservation areas (NCA) and specialmanagement areas (SMA). Laws and administrativeregulations governing wilderness restrict a number of humanactivities such as motorized access, landing or flying aircraftand the use of mechanized tools for any purpose within itsboundaries. NCA legislation may be written less restrictivelyand for a specific purpose, in this case as a conservation tooldesigned to limit travel to existing roads and permanentlydesignate land for conservation purposes. SMA’s wouldmandate special consideration for wildlife connectivity toadjacent lands when developing in and around the designatedSMA. An SMA may be managed cooperatively between BLMand a county, as in the case of a county park.

Harquahala Mountains Wilderness ProposedAdditions, within the Belmont-Harquahala MountainsProposed National Conservation Area

Eighty miles northwest of Phoenix, this wildernesscontains a portion of one of western Arizona's largest desertmountain ranges. The 5,700 foot-high Harquahala Peak, thehighest point in southwest Arizona, is the anchor point for thisproposal. The proposal looks to add additional wilderness tobridge the mountains to the Big Horn/Hummingbird Springsareas to ensure continued wildlife connectivity between thetwo ranges.

As part of the larger Belmont-Harquahala NationalConservation Area (NCA), additions to the existing HarquahalaMountains Wilderness would create a buffer around theproposed wilderness areas and enable the Bureau of LandManagement to safeguard and better manage these values ona landscape level.

Big Horn Mountains Wilderness Proposed Additionswithin the Belmont-Harquahala Mountains NationalConservation Area

As part of the larger Belmont-Harquahala NationalConservation Area (NCA), there would be additions to Big HornMountains Wilderness to the south and north with a purportedgoal of wildlife connectivity with buffer zones of NCA. The BigHorn Mountains and their neighboring ranges offer variouslevels of unconfined recreational opportunities within the largerproposed Belmont-Harquahala National Conservation Area(NCA).

Bellmonts and Surrounding Areas

Runoff from the Bellmont range creates dense growth ofironwood, mesquite and palo verde trees, especially along anetwork of washes that drain northeast to the largerHassayampa River watershed and aquifer. Wilderness isproposed for this area except for an in-holding of state trustland and access to the trust land.

Gila Mountain Complex

The Gila Mountains as proposed would be slated forwilderness protection. The eastern edge of the Gila MountainComplex would abut to the “Rainbow Valley SMA” which asproposed would protect the wildlife corridor from the SierraEstrellas to the Gila Mountains.

SMA’s

The stated goal of the SMA’s is to provide added protectionof wildlife corridors while acknowledging that there may bedevelopment. Any development would have to take into con-sideration wildlife migration patterns and mitigation for wildlifemovement. Most, if not all, of the wildlife corridors have beenidentified as such by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.Additionally, SMA’s may be used to provide recreational oppor-tunities in a specific area. For example, an SMA has beenidentified to allow for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use near LakePleasant.

Timeline

AWF began reviewing the proposal and reaching out to the

AWF Facilitates Sportsmen-Environmentalist Dialogue on

Sonoran Desert Heritage Conservation Proposal

By Ben Alteneder and Larry Audsley



Are you aware that because you are a member of the ArizonaWildlife Federation YOU are eligible for a reduction inpremiums for Mutual of Omaha's Long Term Care policy called"Mutual Care Plus"?

Contact a fellow Arizona Wildlife Federation member, Bryant

Ridgway at 602-989-1718 or 800-224-1120 x 210 for details.

ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWSMagazine Advertising Rates

Full Page $ 275

Half Page Back Cover $ 225

Half Page $ 175

Qtr Page $ 75

Bus Card $ 50

Classified Ad per word Min 25 words .40

Arizona Wildlife Federation

P. O. Box 51510, Mesa AZ 85208

480-644-0077

(FAX) 480-644-0078

[email protected]

The AWF retains the right to determine appropriatenessof ad content consistent with our Mission Statement andstated resolutions. AWN Editor and the ExecutiveCommittee of AWF will determine final acceptance butwill not discriminate as stated by existing laws.

CLASSIFIED ADS

FOR RENT. Cabin and Airstream trailers at Blue River

Wilderness Retreat near Alpine, AZ. Pines, flowing streams,

and bordered by National Forest. Outstanding hiking, fish-

ing, and birding. Reasonable rates by week or month.

www.blueriverretreat.com -

[email protected] -

928-339-4426.

198-acre Horseshoe Ranch with a 70,000 acre allotmentwill be acquired with the assistance of the Heritage Fundand pronghorn, mule deer, and turkey special license tagdollars. As in many instances, the benefits to sensitivespecies are substantial, but so are the benefits to manygame species, including pronghorn, mule deer, javelina,and quail. The ability to share costs for habitat conservationamong fund sources, especially state funds like Heritageand special big game license tags, allow the Department toacquire matching federal funding and get even more workcompleted.

Our Heritage Fund was established though initiativein 1990, passing by a 2 to 1 margin. The fund wasreauthorized though public vote again in 2002, and votersthis time passed it by an almost 3 to 1 margin. Hunters,anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts have supported theHeritage Fund from its inception, but clearly its popularityhas emanated beyond the grassroots of its beginnings.This popularity is a result of the benefits to all Arizonansregardless of whether your interests lie in nongame or gamewildlife, recreational activities within natural landscapes orin developed facilities, or your personal livelihood dependson development or protection.

As a society, we are fortunate to have an incrediblenatural environment that adds value to our lives. We

recreate, we rehabilitate, and we enjoy our wildlife inArizona. We have much more than our fathers had due tothe restoration efforts of the past century. We have theability to pass this heritage along to the next generationamplified and improved. The Heritage Fund continues toplay an important role in wildlife conservation for everyonein Arizona and in passing along this heritage to our nextgeneration. As the lottery slogan goes, you win even if youdon't play.

(Editor’s note: The Arizona Heritage Fund was created bythe voters in 1990 to fund conservation and protection of thestate’s natural and wildlife areas. Up to $20 millionannually in state lottery ticket revenues are divided betweenArizona Game & Fish and State Parks. Each year we seea flurry of emails alerting us that Arizona’s legislature isagain on the prowl sweeping special funds to cover short-falls in the state’s general fund. In most years at least someHeritage revenue does get swept. When funds are swept,the activities they pay for must be scaled down, eliminatedor paid for from another source. We asked AWF boardmember, Brian Wakeling, an employee of Arizona Game &Fish, to tell us what Heritage funding accomplishes withAGFD’s share of the funds.)

Join the AWF on

Facebook!www.facebook.com/azwildlife



(From Page 11)

BLM cited a lack of adequate funding. States began takingBLM to court in order to force them to comply with the 1971law. Arizona’s Game and Fish Commission took BLM tofederal court on three separate occasions to force removalof excess feral burros in the western part of the state.

All of the “wild” horses and burros on our Western lands arefrom feral livestock that once belonged to humans but wasturned out or escaped. As non-natives, they are notcompatible with North American ecosystems and areexceptionally hard on a landscape that did not co-evolvewith them. With solid hoofs and meshing incisors, theyharm native plants, soils and riparian areas in ways nativewildlife do not. Whereas a deer will nibble new growth froma tree, a horse or burro simply eats the tree. In Arizona, theproblem has traditionally been with the burros making theirhomes in the western part of the state (see Historical Tales,page 5), but more recently horses have become a seriousthreat to forest lands in east-central Arizona. Following ajudicial ruling on a lawsuit filed by animal welfare activists,Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest now faces having tohost horses that have escaped from the nearby Apachereservation.

It would be naïve to think re-establishing slaughterhouseswould by itself end the nation’s problems with feral horsesand burros. After all, we had slaughterhouses up until 2006

and were anything but happy since the government wasn’tallowing itself to use them. It will still be necessary topersuade Congress to allow capture and slaugther of wildhorses and burros, something it hasn’t wanted to do. Up tonow, math, science and economics have been no match forthe feral horse and burro liberation movement. Eventhough it should be obvious that the arithmetic ofuncontrolled reproduction pretty well mandates some formof lethal removal, this proposal could very well fail due to anapparent passion gap between those of us who valuewildlife and natural eco-systems more than the romanticimage of the “wild” horse.

The Summit of the Horse was attended by National

Wildlife Federation Representative John Gale and

Arizona Wildlife Federation Directors Chris Fonoti and

Bob Vahle. This article was pieced together by Editor

Larry Audsley from a combination of their notes and

other sources. For more information and background

on feral horses and burros, particularly in Arizona, see

the issue of Arizona Wildlife News that is available on

our web site at

http://www.nwfaffiliates.org/sites/azwildlife.org/ht/a/Get

DocumentAction/i/60911

In Memoriam

ANTHONY (TONY) BOSSART

by John Underwood

On November 17, 2010, Anthony(Tony) Bossart, passed awayin Scottsdale after a prolongedillness. Tony, as all his family, friends and Arizona WildlifeFederation members called him, was a long time member of theAWF and served on the Board of Directors. He was alwayssmiling and volunteering for any and all events the Federationwas engaged in. Payson Wildlife Fair, cooking and servingJohnsonville Brats at Cabela’s, Tres Rios Day, and volunteeringat the AZ Game & Fish Expo to name a few. Tony was an assetto the Arizona Wildlife Federation and will be greatly missed.Rest in Peace Tony.

Before retiring and locating to Arizona , Tony was a profession-al in the health field in the State of Washington . Tony held aBachelor of Science degree in Microbiology and Public Health.His graduate studies include Public health, law and administra-tion. He had supervised programs dealing with chemical andphysical hazards. At one time he was the project manager forSeattle-King County of public health.

Tony is survived by his wife Rebecca and son Mark.

Remember to

Enjoy Our Arizona Outdoors•Observe and Enjoy Wildlife But Do Not Harass or Cause

Undo Stress

•Respect All Land Owners - Private, Federal, State and

Tribal

•Be Considerate of All Other Outdoors Users

•Travel Responsibly on All Roads, Trails and Lands

•Be Careful At All Times With Fires and Other

Combustibles

•Do Not Contribute To The Spread of Invasive Plants or

Aquatics

•Properly Dispose of All Litter and Waste

•Know and Uphold All Applicable Laws and Regulations

•Be Prepared For Medical, Weather, Vehicle and Other

Emergencies

•Tell Someone Where You’re Going and When You’ll

Return

•Mentor Young People and Others to Respect and Enjoy

the Outdoors


Potato Chicken Casserole

½ lb bacon, cut into chunks1 (10 oz) can cream of chicken soup8-10 boneless, skinless chicken breast halves1 (10 oz) can cream of celery soup2 medium onions, chopped1 c sour cream1 can mushrooms, drained1 ½ tsp seasoning salt12-14 medium potatoes, peeled and sliced½ tsp garlic saltSalt & Pepper to taste2 c grated cheddar cheese

Heat a 12 inch Dutch oven until hot. Fry bacon untilbrown. Cut chicken into bite size pieces. Add chicken, onions, mushrooms and ½ tsp of theseasoning salt. Stir, then cover and cook until onionsare translucent and chicken is tender. Add potatoes.Stir in soups, sour cream, and the remaining season-ings. Cover and cook for 45-60 minutes using 8-10coals bottom and 14-16 coals top heat. Stir every 10-15 minutes. When done, cover top with cheese andreplace lid. Let stand until cheese is melted.

Dutch Oven Beer Bread

3 c self-rising flour 1 can warm beer3 Tbsp sugar

Mix all ingredients and place in a greased Dutchoven. Bake over hot coals about 1 hour. Place a fewhot coals on lid so top of bread will brown.

Apple Crunch

¼ c (1/2 stick) butter¼ tsp nutmeg½ c brown sugar6 cooking apples, peeled, cored, and sliced¼ tsp cinnamon2 c sugar cookie crumbs

Heat a 12 inch Dutch oven over 12 hot coals; meltbutter and stir in sugar, cinnamon, and nutmeg, andcook, stirring frequently, until sugar dissolves and asyrup forms. Cook apples in the syrup for 10 to 20minutes, or until apples are soft. Top with cookiecrumbs and serve hot or cold. Serves 6. (You maywant to line the oven with heavy duty foil beforecooking for easy clean-up.)

Camp Cook

By Ryna Rock


WHADDA’ YA’ KNOW?

Answers

1.Stamps from both the Federal and Arizona DuckStamp Programs .

2.Climatic factors, which vary throughout the state.3.Arizona’s Sky Island ranges or mountains.4.Restoring, enhancing, and acquiring wetland

habitat in Arizona . 5.Tree squirrels do not hibernate6.Venomous reptiles.

(From Page 13)


Membership

AWF Members wanting a full copy of Board Minutes, Contact Kim at: 480-644-0077. A summary is available at www.azwildlife.org

NEW MEMBERS FROMOUT OF STATE

Laura Waddle Las Vegas, NV Susan A Walker Sierra Madre, CA Joe Sorcic Point of Rocks, MD Diane Pearce Las Vegas, NV Gem Nason Sykesville, MD Geri Lundsberg Denver, CO Stephanie Lavigne Las Vegas, NV Victoria Hayward Temecula, CA Ann Clausen Westchester, PA Vince Bloom Citrus Heights, CA Karen Baumann Addison, TX Linda Davies Las Vegas, NV Polly Hansen Rocklin, CA

AWF 88th Annual Meeting NoticeThe Arizona Wildlife Federationannounces its 88th Annual Meeting andAwards Event, June 11-12, 2011.Affiliates it’s time think about delegates,getting your membership records updat-ed, and resolutions you’d like to presentor candidates for office you’d like tonominate. Information and instructionson requirements and activities will bearriving in your mailboxes soon.

This year we continue our “Back toNature Camp Meeting” theme inEastern Arizona’s AZG&FD Sipe Wildlifearea, approximately 7 miles southeastof the communities of Springerville andEager. Watch for further communiquésfrom our office that will include direc-tions and a map, an agenda, and otherinformation relating to our AnnualMeeting.

The usual business meeting will be taking place, including AWF elections,resolutions, and a post-Annual Board of Directors meeting. Beyond that we planto have enjoyable speakers, great camaraderie, and the provision of some “kick-back” time for your enjoyment. We encourage you all to bring your families toenjoy the available camping and beautiful area we will be staying in.

Our Awards Event Saturday evening and Sunday morning Breakfast will be themeals that will be provided for you and your cost will be included in yourregistration fees. This does mean you will need to bring your own supplies for

other meals and your own food preparation equipment. Propane stoves are the

best bet for your own cooking requirements.

We encourage you all to join us starting Friday afternoon or evening. Our AnnualMeeting will be held on Saturday, as will the Awards Banquet. On Sundaymorning, you’ll have the pleasure of a delicious cooked breakfast and time torelax afterward with a second cup of coffee.

I hope to see you all there!Tom Mackin, President

WELCOMENEW MEMBERS

Lisa Anthony ScottsdaleRon Beda San Tan ValleyTravis Bradford FlorenceThomas Britt FlagstaffChris Buchanan SurpriseKris Coates Sun City West Joan Cornwell PaysonJoe Cottrell ScottsdaleDave Cummings PhoenixDaina Dajevskis TucsonChristine Donoghue TucsonDeb Drysdale YumaDiana Dunn PhoenixJosh Ebert Cave CreekLarry Erickson Apache Junction Ed Fox Apache JunctionDiana Fredlund Sun City WestSheila Frens Sun City WestRuben Fuentes GilbertLinda Halverson Sun City WestRichard Halverson Paradise ValleyAlan Handelsman ScottsdaleGreg Hardy PhoenixJennifer Hayen PineSheila Hill PhoenixScott Homaday Apache JunctionDan Howell MesaSteve Jansen MesaElizabeth Johnson ScottsdaleAlex Johnson MesaConnie L Johnson ScottsdaleKirk Jones MesaKathi Kenneally Figler Queen CreekClint Lindsey ChandlerRick Malanowski PhoenixBrian Markham MesaJames Martinez MesaMike Martinez GilbertDebbie McComb PhoenixErin McGuire ScottsdaleSherri Melson Queen CreekMichael Mosier ChandlerDon Nash Fountain HillsDenise Neill ScottsdaleBradley Newman PrescottKevin Oueliette Apache JunctionRodney Palmer GilbertJamie Paparelli Rivero PhoenixPat Radtke GilbertPatricia Saunders ScottdaleDusty Sellers GilbertBetty Jo Soehlig Fountain HillsBob Spay Jr ScottsdaleMason St Clair ChandlerJack Sweeney ScottsdaleRobyn Tennyson PeoriaJulie Tennyson PeoriaKathleen Tucker TempeDawn Turk MesaLisa Wallman PhoenixRandy Winsor ChandlerSteve Wisniewski Mesa

Sheryl Yee Chandler


photo: courtesy AZ Game & Fish



assessment of wildlife habitat andlinkages critical to sustaining wildlifehabitat connectivity with comprehensiverecommendations for land use plannersand managers.”

Remember that, as our state wildlifeagency, AGFD is not a permittingauthority for solar energy development. Itsimply makes recommendations to“avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impactsto wildlife, and supports/opposesprojects based on Wildlife and HabitatCompensation Policy and biologicalexpertise to analyze impacts to wildlife.”This policy manual includes fourcategories that identify criteria toevaluate when considering impacts towildlife on solar projects – from the mostcritical impacts to virtually none. Thispolicy is one worth perusing, especiallyfor sportsmen and other wildlifeadvocates. You can visit:"http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/documents/FinalSolarGuidelines03122010.pdf"http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/documents/FinalSolarGuidelines03122010.pdf to read ordownload the report in its entirety. (Youcan also see what the agency has to sayabout wind projects and others with thepotential to disrupt our wildlife heritage.All renewable energy has both intendedand unintended consequences.)

What role might AWF play inadvocating for wildlife?

While recognizing the need forrenewable energy such as solar, theArizona Wildlife Federation also servesas a “voice” for those who cannot speak.We serve as advocates on numerouslevels such as educating the public,contacting elected officials, supportingsage public planning, appearing at publicforums and meetings, and workingdirectly with our state wildlife agency topromote the welfare of our state’sdiverse wildlife.

Each individual member has a roleto play. Your letter to an editor may seeminsignificant but every letter writtenrepresents similar views of numerousothers – so take the time to write! Ifa potential solar project has beensuggested for your area, take time tolearn basic details such as the amount ofland to be impacted, reports already filedfor public review and comment, potentialimpacts to wildlife, who to contact withyour concerns.

No one denies that we need todevelop solar energy in order to have asustainable future. I would also bet thatno one wants solar energy to moveforward with little-to-no regard for thewildlife and habitat that can be disrupted.

Sources for this article: SRP, theArizona Republic, Arizona Game andFish Department.

WHADDA’ YA’ KNOW?

1. What two stamps are required to hunt waterfowl inArizona?

2. What is the single greatest determinant in forecasting long-range small game populations?

3. Arizona was one of the first states to protect whichnorthernmost fragments of the Sierra Madre range in Arizona ?

4. What does the revenue from Arizona ’s waterfowlstamps go toward?

5. Is it a truth or a myth that tree squirrels hibernatein winter?

6. What name is given to the sometimes-unpopularreptiles?

(Answers on Page 21)

Arizona WildlifeTrophies

The 2010

Arizona Wildlife Trophies

book is now available.!

You can order it by calling the ArizonaWildlife Federation office at 480-644-0077or you can download the order form fromthe website www.azwildlife.org

The price is $45.00 plus a $4.00handling/shipping charge.



Travel ManagementA Personal Perspective

By Bob Vahle

AAre you one who enjoys visiting our public lands forhunting, fishing, camping, wildlife viewing, andexploring forests and deserts, for example, on

primitive roads in 4x4 trucks, ATVs/UTVs or sand rails/bug-gies? Are you aware of and engaged in the developmentof the Travel Management Plans (TMPs) that are beingcrafted by both the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureauof Land Management (BLM) to address the impacts of offhighway vehicles (OHVs) and the excessive road densitiesand unauthorized “wildcat” roads that have been createdon our public lands? Do you understand the critical needfor managing the use of motorized vehicles, particularlyOHVs, and the impacts of excessive road densities onvegetation, soils, water, wildlife and habitats, and on recre-ational activities such as hunting, fishing and camping onour public lands?

If you are not aware of this process and not providing yourinput, you should become involved. Due to the significantincrease of road densities, particularly OHV- created, as well asthe skyrocketing sales and use of OHVs on public lands, theU.S. Congress, Forest Service and BLM have identified thedevelopment of TMPs as a high priority task to address theimpacts of excessive road densities and un-regulated OHV useon our natural resources and recreational activities, while stillproviding sufficient opportunities for the owners of OHVs toenjoy using these vehicles in many types of outdoor activities.The large volume of information regarding these managementissues would be difficult to comprehensively cover in this shortarticle, but for more background on the legal mandates,federal agency management issues, public issues, and pro-posed actions by the USFS, I would recommend review-ing the Federal Register – Publication / Volume 70, Number216 – November 9, 2005 titled: Travel Management:

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use – Final

Rule (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf.) andthe USFS web site (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/)regarding travel management. The BLM is undergoing asimilar process to address the management of motorizedvehicle use particularly OHVs on BLM lands as well (See -www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/travel_management). In addition, there is a large volume ofscience-based information on the potential adverse impacts ofexcessive open road densities and unregulated OHV use onnatural resources, particularly vegetation, soils, water,wildlife/fish populations and their habitats, along with impactson recreational activities such as hunting and fishing. Severalpublications discussing these impacts are included at the endof this article.

Here in Arizona, sales of OHVs have exploded 347 percentin the last 10 years (Source: Arizona Department ofTransportation). OHV use has outpaced the state’s populationgrowth. According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department,“OHV use more than doubled while the Arizona populationincreased by slightly more than 65 percent. A study completed

in 1990 estimated the numberof OHVs in Arizona to be over550,000. In 2001, the number ofATVs alone was over 100,000 andtwenty percent of adult Arizonans identify themselves as motor-ized trail users”. Today in 2011 knowing that the number ofOHVs has certainly increased even more since this infor-mation was reported, it is very common to see vehicles andtrailers loaded with OHVs of all types traveling to our publiclands in Arizona. Certainly, the proper use of OHVs is a legit-imate and enjoyable source of recreation on public lands, butas with other multiple use activities such as timber harvest andlivestock grazing, it is critical to recognize the potential foradverse impacts on natural resources and recreational usersthat can occur.

As a longtime OHV owner and an avid hunter/fisherman,camper and wildlife-viewing enthusiast, I am very interested inthe health and wise management of our federal public landsboth in Arizona and other states. Thus, the issues ofcontrolling excessive densities of open roads, particularly thosecreated by unregulated cross country travel, has concerned meboth personally and professionally in my previous work. I havebeen an active participant in all of these outdoor recreationalactivities for many years. Professionally, I spent 35 years as awildlife biologist for the USFS and Arizona Game and FishDepartment in natural resource management trying to helpmanage and mitigate these impacts on wildlife and theirimportant habitats. Over the years I often find myselfconflicted with trying to balance my own personal desires,opinions, and philosophy regarding these issues with theunderstanding that there are significant needs to carefullymanage open road densities and motorized vehicle use, par-ticularly OHV use, on our public lands. Of first priority, we needto protect and conserve vegetation, soils, water and wildlifehabitats while secondarily meeting the desires of the public asbest possible so they have reasonable opportunities to usemotorized vehicles, including OHVs, to pursue the multitudeof outdoor activities the public enjoys.

As a close-to-home example, I have lived and worked inthe White Mountains of Arizona within the Apache-SitgreavesNational Forests (ASNF) for over thirty years. I have seen firsthand the significant proliferation of roads across this forest andobserved the impacts on stream channels, soils, vegetation,and key wildlife/fish habitats. I have witnessed the creation ofmany miles of unauthorized OHV trails through cross countrytravel which over time have become “wildcat roads” that arenow repeatedly used by OHV users. Many temporary roadsclassified by the USFS as Level 1 roads in the roadmanagement system were developed for strictly forestmanagement purposes such as timber harvest, forestrestoration thinning treatments, fuels reduction and firemanagement. These Level 1 roads were to be closed to pub-lic use after the treatment and management activities werecompleted and were never intended to become part of a



Suggested Articles:Suggested Articles:

Gucinski, H. et.al. 2000. Forest Roads: AGucinski, H. et.al. 2000. Forest Roads: A

Synthesis of Scientific Information, USDASynthesis of Scientific Information, USDA

Forest Service Report.Forest Service Report.

Proesholdt, K. 2007. Collision course?Proesholdt, K. 2007. Collision course?

Off-road vehicle impacts on hunting and fishOff-road vehicle impacts on hunting and fish--

ing. Issak Walton League Publication. 18 pp.ing. Issak Walton League Publication. 18 pp.

M.L. Watson and W.M. Gruber. 2006.M.L. Watson and W.M. Gruber. 2006.

Wildlife, habitat, and hunting: New Mexico’sWildlife, habitat, and hunting: New Mexico’s

Roadless Areas. New Mexico Department ofRoadless Areas. New Mexico Department of

Game and Fish Publication. 42 pp.Game and Fish Publication. 42 pp.



public forest transportation system. These temporary roadswere purposely closed for a variety of natural resourceobjectives including the protection of the watershed to limit soilerosion, impacts to water and vegetative resources, andprotection of key wildlife habitats. In order to effectivelyaccess many areas of the forest for management purposes,the density of these temporary roads has over time becomequite high. Unfortunately, many of these temporary Level 1roads have been re-opened by unregulated OHV use. Inaddition, OHV users have created many additional miles ofundesired and unauthorized OHV wildcat trails and roadsthrough cross country travel. Currently, many areas of theforest have open road densities exceeding more than fivemiles of open roads per square mile. This greatly exceeds the1987 ASNF Forest Plan standard of maintaining two miles orless of open roads per square mile. As an example, thinkabout a density of 5 miles of open road per square mile onsome areas of the Forest. Do you need an open roadapproximately every two-tenths of a mile (352 yards) to provide“reasonable” access to the forest? Is that an area you want torecreate in to find solitude or hunt? As mentioned previously,many research studies have been conducted on the adverseeffects of fragmenting key wildlife habitats with high open roaddensities and unregulated OHV use on wildlife speciesbehavior and health. These studies have determined thatopen road densities of greater that one mile of open road persquare mile can reduce habitat effectiveness for species suchas elk, and OHV activity and access through key wildlifehabitats can displace animals to less preferred marginalhabitats and disrupt breeding activities and care and security oftheir young. This ultimately can affect wildlife population healthand numbers. Likewise, excessive open road densitiesfacilitates widespread and increased OHV use that canadversely impact forest recreationists such as hikers andcampers who may be seeking solitude away from big cities andmotorized vehicles, as well as hunters whose desire of aquality hunting experience involves undisturbed game withoutdisruption by OHV activity. As an avid bow hunter myself, Ihave had many of my hunts and stalks on game ruinedbecause of uncontrolled OHV activity. Unfortunately, I haveseen this problem continue to get worse each year on theASNF and other forests in Arizona along with public lands inother states where I have recreated through the years.

So, what steps has the Apache-Sitgreaves NationalForests taken in its travel management process to addressthese critical issues? Beginning in 2005 and continuingthrough 2006, the ASNF hosted and participated in 31 publicmeetings and workshops related to motorized travelmanagement. The public input from these meetings along withinventory data of the roads existing on the forest were used topropose management alternatives through development of adraft Environment Impact Statement. The ASNF roadinventory identified 2,832 miles of open National ForestSystem roads designated for public motorized vehicle use, 156miles of motorized trails, and approximately 3,373 miles ofpredominantly Level 1 primitive forest management roadscurrently existing on the forest. In October 2010, the ASNFpublished and disseminated their “Draft - EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) for Public Motorized TravelManagement Plan” for public review. This documentis available on the ASNF website athttp://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/index.shtml. During the develop-ment period of this document the public has had considerable

opportunity to review and provide input on the issues,alternatives, and proposed actions identified in the plan. In abrief summary, the modified proposed action and preferredalternative identified in the EIS calls for the elimination ofmotorized cross country travel and designates a system ofroads, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle use. The roadsystem would have 5.6 percent fewer open roads (2,673 miles)and 72 percent more motorized OHV trails (268 miles) thanthe current system. On approximately 25 percent of thedesignated open roads (658 miles), corridors would bedesignated 300 feet from either side of the road for the solepurpose of accessing dispersed camping locations with motorvehicles. Motorized big game retrieval would be allowed froma one-mile distance off the designated road and motorized trailsystem (1.2 million acres) during specific seasons for deerand elk. There would be five motorized OHV use areasdesignated on two ranger districts (459 acres).

After attending several of the public meetings andparticipating in the ASNF travel management planningprocess, I have been astounded by the myths, rumors andoutright misinformation I have seen disseminated in variousmedia along with talking with local residents in the WhiteMountains and elsewhere about what is being proposed in theASNF Draft Travel Management EIS. The most ridiculousrumors are that all but the main roads in and out of the ASNFwill be closed and that 80-90 percent of all existing roads andtrails throughout the forest will be closed. Folks, this is simplynot true and certainly reflects to me that many of the publicspreading these myths have simply not participated in theplanning process and are willing to obtain and spread their“factual” information through the rumor mill. Yes, things aregoing to change from the current situation on this forest inrelation to motorized vehicle activity. From my perspective,the most significant positive change as proposed will be toeliminate OHV cross country travel other than that authorizedfor big game retrieval and fuel wood gathering. Undoubtedly,from my perspective the unregulated cross country travel byOHVs has simply led to the creation of too many wildcat trailsand roads and re-opening of Level 1 forest management roadsthat were never intended for public use, all of which havesignificantly increased open road densities and impacted soils,vegetation, water, wildlife habitat and recreationists.

Certainly no management plan will meet every desire andexpectation given the diverse public that uses this forest. Aftercarefully evaluating the pros and cons of the proposed actionsfor myself, I feel the proposed actions will provide a significantimprovement in reducing the excessive open road densitiesand unregulated OHV use that I have seen drastically increaseover my 30 years of living, recreating and working within theASNF. I feel the proposed road and trail network will provideme ample opportunities to utilize motorized vehicles, includingmy OHV, to pursue the outdoor activities I enjoy. Hopefully thisplan will be implemented and modified over time throughadaptive management to better meet forest users needsas new issues or opportunities are identified. If you areconcerned about what travel management actions may occuron your favorite USFS and BLM lands, I highly recommend thatyou become well informed, participate in, and help craft thetravel management plans that will be used to managemotorized vehicle use on our public lands. Actively participat-ing will provide you a much better opportunity to form youropinions based on fact about the proposed plans rather thanrelying on the rumor mill and disseminated misinformation.



Are you ready for beyond B.O.W.? If yes, ArizonaOutdoor Women is ready to take you to the next level.

Arizona Outdoor Women will be having workshops once amonth to give you more confidence with those outdooractivities. My name is Kathy Greene and I am the coordinatorfor these workshops. I have been involved with B.O.W. for 15

yrs. I am anavid outdoor-swoman wholoves to fish,go camping, 4wheeling andlives to hunt!I also run thes e c o n dlargest inter-n a t i o n a larchery out-door targettournament inthe USA for 6years. Duringthe 90’s I ranall the outdoorarchery targettournamentsand was thepresident ofA S A A

(Arizona State Archery Association) for 10 years. I have alsohelped start the PSE youth archery program, and ran my ownyouth archery program in Tucson for 10 years.

Arizona Outdoor Women’s goal is to take one outdooractivity a month and help you become more proficient with it.These one-day workshops are based on small groups of ladiesso that you will have a one on one learning experience. Theworkshops will be no larger than 20 ladies. For a small fee youwill get an experienced instructor to work with and some greatoutdoors cooking.

At B.O.W. Camp you took fly fishing classes. You loved it,and went out and got your own equipment. You are on thewater and trying to remember how to do that cast again. Thenext B.O.W. Camp is not until the fall so what do you do?

Here is where A.O.W. workshops can help you out.You log on to the Arizona Outdoor Women website(ArizonaOutdoorWomen.com) and see that there is a flyfishing workshop in July at Woods Canyon Lake. Great! Nowyou can get that help you need and enjoy a day on the waterfly-fishing. How about that camping class you took and youwant to do it again? Say you are out camping with your tentand will be out in that windstorm and rain all night long. At theA.O.W. workshop we will show you how to put up your tent, getit ready for that storm so you won’t have to sleep in your carbecause you got soaked the last time. Plus learn some greatoutdoor cooking while you’re camping.

Arizona Outdoor Women will help you become moreconfident with yourself so you can go out and enjoy theseoutdoor activities. Hope to see you at one or more of theseworkshops.

Arizona Outdoor WomenKathy GreeneCoordinator www.arizonaoutdoorwomen.com

[email protected]

AZ BOW is now

on Facebook!

facebook.com/pages/Arizona-Becoming-an-Outdoors-

Woman/295848287943

BOW Happenings

Beyond BOW is Here!Beyond BOW is Here!By Kathy Greene, AOW Coordinator


HHeritage defined:something that ispassed down from

preceding generations; a tradi-tion. The Heritage Fund, then, is

aptly named, for it is a revenue streamfrom the Arizona lottery that in part enables the ArizonaGame and Fish Department to manage wildlife in thepublic trust for today's and future generations.

It has been 20 years since Arizona voters approvedthe Heritage Initiative. Since that date, a variety ofconservation successes have been achieved with theassistance of the Heritage Fund. The Heritage Fundsupports the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets,California condors, and black-tailed prairie dogs in thestate. It has provided funding for the bald eagle nestwatchprogram and restoration of Apache trout. Without thesefunds, the acquisition of 18,000 acres of public lands forstate wildlife areas such as Sipe White Mountain,Grasslands, Upper Verde and Coal Mountain Springs,would have been far more difficult if not impossible.

I am not the first to consider our wildlife andconservation heritage. Over a century ago, those whowould later be recognized as our conservation leaders wereidentifying the key components that would become theNorth American Model of Wildlife Management. "To waste,to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust theland instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, willresult in undermining in the days of our children the veryprosperity which we ought by right to hand down to themamplified and developed" as stated by Theodore Rooseveltduring his seventh annual message on the 3rd of December1907. Even President Roosevelt was a latecomer to thenatural heritage concept, as Henry Herbert (under the penname of Frank Forester) began writing of the need forconservation prior to 1850. Their writings, political activismand conservation activities, along with those of manyothers, provided us with the heritage we have today.

And that’s great if you like that kind of stuff. Most of usdo, but it just may not be the most important conservationissue to all of us.

Heritage Fund benefits have been multi-faceted, andthey are not only used for threatened or endangeredwildlife. Heritage Funds have established or augmentedprograms that generated $2.3 billion in total expenditureson wildlife-related recreation, and that means jobs! Humanpopulation growth and development has increasedchallenges for native wildlife, and conservation decisions

have been informed by Heritage-funded programs thatreduce risks to their existence and eliminate added federalregulation. The Heritage Fund has increased theDepartment's ability to gather and apply biological datacritical to fighting the misuse of the Endangered Species Actby special interest groups. Wildlife viewing opportunitieshave been increased and outdoor recreation programshave been established as a direct result of the HeritageFund.

While Heritage has been a boon to nongame wildlife,the fact remains that the Arizona Game and FishDepartment has been involved in nongame andendangered wildlife management for decades before theHeritage Fund was established, and funding had to comefrom elsewhere. In fact, the Department established theNongame Branch 10 years before revenues from Heritagearrived. The funding for these activities was derived fromother sources, including the Wildlife Check-off on state taxreturns, donations, and contracts. Administratively, someactivities had to be covered through license and tagrevenues to ensure mandated activities could beadequately addressed.

The Department must ensure that conservationactivities are in compliance with the Endangered SpeciesAct, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the StateHistorical Preservation Office. Compliance analysis mustbe done for all activities, regardless of whether the activitiesare routine game surveys, research projects, transloca-tions, forage monitoring, or virtually any other activity inwhich the Department engages. The cost for this analysisis routinely covered through Heritage funding today, but wewould need to conduct these activities even withoutsupporting funding. In short, Heritage Funds have allowedthe Department to gain knowledge about sensitive specieswhile making the existing funding go even further tobenefit traditional research and management activities.

During the first week of February, Department biologistsparticipated in a cooperative effort with volunteers from theNational Wild Turkey Federation in the translocation of the200,000 wild turkey – a restoration that has brought turkeysback from less than 100,000 nationwide in 1900 to about7 million today. The turkey that hit the 200,000 tally is aGould's turkey, native to Arizona, but extirpated by 1920.The 1994 translocation and management effort thatinitiated the push to restore Gould's turkey in Arizona waspartially funded by the Heritage Fund.

Also early in 2011, the latest Department habitatacquisition was approved by Governor Brewer; the


Heritage – What Does It Mean To You?

By Brian Wakeling



AWF Members

Alan Abel TucsonWilliam Acheson FlagstaffPatsy Apple PhoenixJeff Augustine ScottsdaleJames Baldree PhoenixJohn Bauermeister ScottsdaleDavid Beaty MesaDiana Beatty KingmanJohn R. Beck PeoriaDonald Billick PhoenixBruce H. Bishop TempeClarence Bowe Jr. ScottsdaleM.J. Bramley Jr. MesaJay Brandon Apache JunctionJonathan Brooks AnthemWade Brooksby PhoenixRoger J Carroll Sierra VistaGary S. Christensen FlagstaffLouise Coan TucsonClifton E. Cox TucsonDon Cox PeoriaAl Crossman TempeDonald D Dalgleish ScottsdaleHoward Darland MesaAnthony Diana PhoenixJohn E Dupnik PhoenixLinda Erman PhoenixRick Erman PhoenixToni Erman-Kirch PhoenixRobb Evans FlagstaffDonald Farmer ScottsdaleGeorge Flener Mesa

Chris Fonoti Chino ValleyJames E. Frye MesaSteve Gallizioli Fountain HillsJohn Gannaway PhoenixGilbert F. Gehant MesaFred Gerhauser PeoriaDonald Gerould Sun CityJ. David Gibeault TucsonRene G Gilbert AnthemHank Gonzales TucsonKim Graber PhoenixRaymond E. Grice MesaTimm J. Haas WillcoxDonna J Hallman San Tan ValleyWestern Hardwoods PhoenixCole Harvey Casa GrandeMiles C. Hauter S SedonaKristan Hildebrandt TempeJeffery L. Hinkley PhoenixMark Hullinger ChandlerRichard Humphrey TucsonBunny Huntress TempeMike Johns PhoenixHenry Johnson Lake HavasuRoy G. Jones PhoenixThomas Kalos Paradise ValleyPeter S. Klocki DeweyLee A. Kohlhase MesaWilliam Lacy MesaHarvey J. Lawrence ScottsdaleNancy L. Lewis PhoenixLong Valley Service Happy Jack

Don Luke PhoenixJerry Marquis PageChristina Mathew-Bowers PhoenixPatricia A. McNeil PaysonDuke Mertz ChandlerDavid & Victoria Morgan AnthemSandra Nagiller ParksAllen Naille FlagstaffJack Naperala ScottsdaleMike Neilson DeweyFred Nobbe PhoenixDaniel & Annalee Norton ScottsdaleDonald J. Parks Jr. PeoriaPrice Phillips SomertonJim Pierce ScottsdaleJerome Pratt Sierra VistaPaul Pristo ScottsdaleRobert & Marilyn Recker Sun CityJudith Riddle PhoenixBryant & Marsha Ridgway Casa GrandeRyna Rock Camp VerdeKent M. Rogers MesaSarah Ruhlen SupriseRobert C. Schatke ChandlerTerry Schupp TempeLary & Betty Lou Scott ScottsdaleWalter Scrimgeour PrescottDavid Seamans ScottsdaleDuane Shroufe GlendaleJack H. Simon PhoenixJim A. Slingluff TucsonDale Slocum Phoenix

Randy Sosin SedonaWendell G. Swank CottonwoodGeorge L. Sypherd Sun City WestLewis N. Tenney Jr. HeberLarry Thowe PageRobert D. Tucker BuckeyeCharles W. Tyree TucsonJohn B. Underwood ScottsdaleKen Vensel FlagstaffMark T. Vi t t ScottsdaleStephen T. White ScottsdaleBrian H. Williams ScottsdaleRobert A. Witzeman PhoenixLarry M. Wolfe Sr. PhoenixChuck Youngker Buckeye

George Boutonnet Salinas, CAJim Breck Alexandria, SDDale Hislop Calgary Alberta, CNTerry Johnson Costa Mesa, CARoy Kornmeyer Blackhawk, SDPhil Liles Snyder, OKGlenn Napierskie San Diego, CAJohn W Nelson Montrose, COAce H Peterson Montrose, CORobert Stragnell Hanover, NHJaren Vanderlinden Amarillo, TXTom Ward Orange, CA

Doug Baker TucsonBurton Barr Central Library PhoenixLouise Coen TucsonMilton G. Evans Flagstaff

Don Gerould Sun CityPatti Ho Chino ValleyIvy Hanson CarefreeFrank H Moore Phoenix

Frank Murphy MesaEmmett Reyman MesaDonald G. Roberts FlagstaffSCI Periodicals Los Angeles, CA

Gene Tolle PhoenixJohn C Underwood Tempe

Please take a moment to review the list of Life Members and past Benefactors tomake sure we have not missed anyone.If you want to add someone to the list or upgradeyour own membership status, please use the membership form provided below.

Arizona Wildlife Federation BenefactorsHonoring the memory of sportsmen and sportswomen through a $500 Benefactor Membership

Arizona Wildlife Federation Life Members

$ 15 Junior (17 & under)

30 Individual

75 Individual - 3 years

45 Family

110 Family - 3 years

100 Patron

500 Life Member

325 Distinquished Life Member

(65+ or Disabled Veteran)

500 Benefactor

75 Small Business

500 CorporateMail To:

Arizona Wildlife FederationPO Box 51510Mesa, AZ 85208

All Membership fees are tax deductible


Arizona Wildlife FederationPO Box 51510 Mesa, AZ 85208(480) 644-0077Fax: (480) [email protected]

NON-PROFIT ORG

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PHOENIX, AZ

PERMIT #5378


Documents

LT AWN Spring 2011 final.qxp 3/25/11 2:36 PM Page 1 · Spring 2011 VOLUME 53 * ISSUE 1 ARIZONA WILDLIFE NEWS 7 AWN Spring 2011 edited:AWN_spring_09_WORKING.qxd 3/17/2011 10:33 PM