The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn."
The jump in corn prices is already affecting the cost of food. The most notable example: in Mexico, which gets much of its corn from the United States, the price of corn tortillas has doubled in the past year, according to press reports, setting off large protest marches in Mexico City. It's almost certain that most of the rise in corn prices is due to the U.S. ethanol policy, says David Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.
The rising food costs fueled by ethanol demand are also affecting U.S. consumers. "All things that use corn are going to have higher prices and higher cost, to some extent, that will be passed on to consumers," says Wally Tyner, professor of agriculture economics at Purdue University. The impact of this is being felt first in animal feed, particularly poultry and pork. Poultry feed is about two-thirds corn; as a result, the cost to produce poultry--both meat and eggs--has already risen about 15 percent due to corn prices, says Tyner. Also expect corn syrup--used in soft drinks--to get more expensive, he says.
The situation will only get worse, says David Pimentel, a professor in the department of entomology at Cornell University. "We have over a hundred different ethanol plants under construction now, so the situation is going to get desperate," he says. Adding to the worries about corn-related food prices is President Bush's ambitious goal, announced in his last State of the Union address, that the United States will produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017.
Still, some suggest that the overheated ethanol market could soon cool down. "Politicians will see that, first of all, it is not helping our oil independence," says Pimentel. "It is increasing the price of food for people in the U.S., it is costing an enormous sum of money for everyone, and it is contributing to environmental problems. But I can imagine it is going to take another year or more before politicians realize they have a major disaster on their hands."
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
More Ethanol Will Expand Gulf of Mexico 'Dead Zone'
Ramping up ethanol production for alternative fuels will worsen the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, a stretch of water unable to support aquatic life, according to a report co-written by the University of British Columbia.
The U.S. Senate's recently announced plan to triple production of ethanol made from corn starch by 2022 will increase the zone by 10 to 19 per cent from the 20,000-square-kilometres — an area roughly the size of New Jersey — it has recently occupied, the report said.
The U.S. Senate wants to ramp up ethanol made from corn starch in order to alleviate the country's dependence on oil.The U.S. Senate wants to ramp up ethanol made from corn starch in order to alleviate the country's dependence on oil.
"This rush to expand corn production is a disaster for the Gulf of Mexico," said Simon Donner, an assistant professor in UBC's geography department, in a statement. "The U.S. energy policy will make it virtually impossible to solve the problem of the dead zone."
The problem stems from the nitrogen and phosphorus found in agricultural fertilizer, which can cause excess growth of algae in bodies of water, the researchers said. When that algae decomposes, it can consume much of the oxygen in the water.
Fertilizer being used in much of the U.S. agricultural heartland, such as Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin, is the primary source of pollution in the Mississippi River system, which drains into the Gulf of Mexico. Every summer, that nitrogen is deposited in the Gulf, where the dead zone forms.
Donner and Chris Kucharik of the University of Wisconsin came to their conclusions by combining agricultural land-use scenarios with models of terrestrial and aquatic nitrogen cycling. Their work appears in Monday's edition of the Proceedings of the National Journal of Sciences.
"The nitrogen levels in the Mississippi will be more than twice the recommendation for the Gulf," Donner said.
Boosting ethanol production without increasing the amount of nitrogen in the Mississippi will require "radical shifts in feed production, diet and agricultural land management," the report said.
Corn planting may have to be moved into other states or less of the crop would have to be used to feed cattle, which would also mean less meat consumption by people.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria
Researchers have found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli 0157 in their hindgut. (Credit: Web Doodle, LLC)
Researchers have found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli 0157 in their hindgut. (Credit: Web Doodle, LLC)
Ethanol plants and livestock producers have created a symbiotic relationship. Cattle producers feed their livestock distiller's grains, a byproduct of the ethanol distilling process, giving ethanol producers have an added source of income.
But recent research at Kansas State University has found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli 0157 in their hindgut. This particular type of E. coli is present in healthy cattle but poses a health risk to humans, who can acquire it through undercooked meat, raw dairy products and produce contaminated with cattle manure.
"Distiller's grain is a good animal feed. That's why ethanol plants are often built next to feedlots," said T.G. Nagaraja, a professor of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology at K-State's College of Veterinary Medicine.
The growth in ethanol plants means more cattle are likely to be fed distiller's grain, therefore harboring 0157 and potentially a source of health risks to humans, Nagaraja said. That's why he and Jim Drouillard, K-State professor of animal sciences, have been collaborating on testing distiller's grain-fed cattle for 0157. Nagaraja and Drouillard, who studied the carcass quality of cattle fed distiller's grain, are joined by Megan Jacob, a K-State doctoral student in pathobiology. Through three rounds of testing, Nagaraja said the prevalence of 0157 was about twice as high in cattle fed distiller's grain compared with those cattle that were on a diet lacking the ethanol byproduct.
"This is a very interesting observation and is likely to have profound implications in food safety," Nagaraja said.
Food safety and animal health are research priorities at K-State, which since 1999 has dedicated more than $70 million on research related to animal health and food safety. More than 150 K-Staters are actively involved in these areas.
Nagaraja said research in the next few years will focus on finding out why 0157 is more prevalent in cattle fed a distiller's grain diet. He said it could be something that changes in the animals' hindgut as a result of feeding distiller's grains, or maybe the byproduct provides a nutrient for the bacteria.
"Feeding cattle distiller's grain is a big economic advantage for ethanol plants," Nagaraja said. "We realize we can't tell cattle producers, 'Don't feed distiller's grain.' What we want to do is not only understand the reasons why 0157 increases, but also find a way to prevent that from happening."
Researchers have found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli 0157 in their hindgut. (Credit: Web Doodle, LLC)
Ethanol plants and livestock producers have created a symbiotic relationship. Cattle producers feed their livestock distiller's grains, a byproduct of the ethanol distilling process, giving ethanol producers have an added source of income.
But recent research at Kansas State University has found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli 0157 in their hindgut. This particular type of E. coli is present in healthy cattle but poses a health risk to humans, who can acquire it through undercooked meat, raw dairy products and produce contaminated with cattle manure.
"Distiller's grain is a good animal feed. That's why ethanol plants are often built next to feedlots," said T.G. Nagaraja, a professor of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology at K-State's College of Veterinary Medicine.
The growth in ethanol plants means more cattle are likely to be fed distiller's grain, therefore harboring 0157 and potentially a source of health risks to humans, Nagaraja said. That's why he and Jim Drouillard, K-State professor of animal sciences, have been collaborating on testing distiller's grain-fed cattle for 0157. Nagaraja and Drouillard, who studied the carcass quality of cattle fed distiller's grain, are joined by Megan Jacob, a K-State doctoral student in pathobiology. Through three rounds of testing, Nagaraja said the prevalence of 0157 was about twice as high in cattle fed distiller's grain compared with those cattle that were on a diet lacking the ethanol byproduct.
"This is a very interesting observation and is likely to have profound implications in food safety," Nagaraja said.
Food safety and animal health are research priorities at K-State, which since 1999 has dedicated more than $70 million on research related to animal health and food safety. More than 150 K-Staters are actively involved in these areas.
Nagaraja said research in the next few years will focus on finding out why 0157 is more prevalent in cattle fed a distiller's grain diet. He said it could be something that changes in the animals' hindgut as a result of feeding distiller's grains, or maybe the byproduct provides a nutrient for the bacteria.
"Feeding cattle distiller's grain is a big economic advantage for ethanol plants," Nagaraja said. "We realize we can't tell cattle producers, 'Don't feed distiller's grain.' What we want to do is not only understand the reasons why 0157 increases, but also find a way to prevent that from happening."
Outdoor And Arts Amendment
Outdoors, arts amendment heads to ballot
by Tim Pugmire, Minnesota Public Radio
February 14, 2008
Minnesota voters will decide this fall whether to raise the state sales tax to benefit the outdoors and arts.
St. Paul, Minn. — The House and Senate voted overwhelming Thursday to pass a consitutional amendment bill that failed to get through last year's session. If approved by voters in November, the measure would dedicate millions of dollars to enhance specific state resources, including wildlife habitat and arts and cultural programs.
The Nov. 4 statewide ballot will ask voters if they want to amend the Minnesota constitution to include a dedicated funding provision to protect hunting and fishing habitats, water sources, parks and trails, and the state's arts and cultural heritage. The sales tax increase of three eighths of one percent would generate nearly $300 million a year for 25 years.
by Tim Pugmire, Minnesota Public Radio
February 14, 2008
Minnesota voters will decide this fall whether to raise the state sales tax to benefit the outdoors and arts.
St. Paul, Minn. — The House and Senate voted overwhelming Thursday to pass a consitutional amendment bill that failed to get through last year's session. If approved by voters in November, the measure would dedicate millions of dollars to enhance specific state resources, including wildlife habitat and arts and cultural programs.
The Nov. 4 statewide ballot will ask voters if they want to amend the Minnesota constitution to include a dedicated funding provision to protect hunting and fishing habitats, water sources, parks and trails, and the state's arts and cultural heritage. The sales tax increase of three eighths of one percent would generate nearly $300 million a year for 25 years.
Monday, March 10, 2008
More Ethanol Scam News
The Ethanol Scam
By ROBERT BRYCE
The ethanol scam just keeps getting more and more absurd. In January, three U.S. senators two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with Indiana Republican Richard Lugar introduced a bill that would promote the use of ethanol. It also mandates the use of more biodiesel and creates tax credits for the production of cellulosic ethanol. They called their bill the "American Fuels Act of 2007."
The most amazing part of the press release trumpeting the legislation is its fourth paragraph, in which Lugar declares that "U.S. policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates."
Let's consider that for a moment. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. economy was primarily based on carbohydrates. For most people, horses were the main mode of transportation. They were also a primary work source for plowing and planting. Aside from coal, which was used by the railroads and in some factories, the U.S. economy depended largely on the ability of draft animals to turn grass and forage into usable toil. America's farmers were solely focused on producing food and fiber. And while the U.S. was moderately prosperous, it was not a world leader.
Oil changed all that. After the discovery of vast quantities of oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and other locales, America was able to create a modern transportation system, with cars, buses, and airplanes. That oil helped the U.S. become a dominant military power. Humans were freed from the limitations of the carbohydrate economy, which was constrained by the amount of arable land.
Thus while Lugar and his ilk promote ethanol, they are ignoring a pivotal question: should our farms produce food or fuel?
Last September, Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute (a group that promotes "an environmentally sustainable economy") wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that the amount of grain needed to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank "would feed one person for a full year. If the United States converted its entire grain harvest into ethanol, it would satisfy less than 16 percent of its automotive needs." Brown said the ongoing ethanol boom in the U.S. was "setting the stage for an epic competition. In a narrow sense, it is one between the world's supermarkets and its service stations." More broadly, "it is a battle between the world's 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their mobility, and the world's 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive."
Using food to make fuel bothers many analysts, and whether their affiliation is liberal or conservative doesn't seem to matter. Dennis Avery, director of global food issues at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, D.C., has concerns that are remarkably similar to Brown's. A few days after Brown's piece appeared in the Post, Avery published a paper showing that ethanol simply cannot provide enough motor fuel to make a significant difference in America's fuel consumption. And like Brown, he laid bare the essential question: food or fuel?
"The real conflict over cropland in the 21st century," wrote Avery, "will set people's desire for biofuels against their altruistic desire that all the children on the planet be well-nourished." He continued, "The world's total cropland resources seem totally inadequate to the vast size of the energy challenge. We would effectively be burning food as auto fuel in a world that is not fully well-fed now, and whose food demand will more than double in the next 40 years." Avery says that even if the U.S. adopted biofuels as the antidote for imported crude oil, "It would take more than 546 million acres of U.S. farmland to replace all of our current gasoline use with corn ethanol."
That's a huge area, especially considering that the total amount of American cropland covers about 440 million acres.
But the constraints imposed by the amount of arable land in the U.S. are not important to the politicos on both the Left and the Right who insist that America must be "energy independent." For the apparatchiks who worship at the altar of ethanol, no subsidy is too great, no corn field is too big, as they push their bilge about the perils of foreign oil. None of them bother with pesky facts, like this one: the U.S. was a net crude oil importer way back in 1913. In fact, since 1913, the U.S. has been a net crude oil importer in all but nine of those years.
Thus, while farmers, politicos, and Big Agriculture insist on casting the ethanol scam in terms of national security, the evils of foreign oil, and the benefits of ethanol to rural communities, the larger issue is a moral one: are we going to use our precious farmland to grow food, or are we going to subsidize the growth of an industry that turns food into a commodity, motor fuel, of which we already have an abundant supply?
The answer should be obvious.
Robert Bryce lives in Austin, Texas and managing editor of Energy Tribune. He is the author of Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. He can be reached at: robert@robertbryce.com
By ROBERT BRYCE
The ethanol scam just keeps getting more and more absurd. In January, three U.S. senators two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with Indiana Republican Richard Lugar introduced a bill that would promote the use of ethanol. It also mandates the use of more biodiesel and creates tax credits for the production of cellulosic ethanol. They called their bill the "American Fuels Act of 2007."
The most amazing part of the press release trumpeting the legislation is its fourth paragraph, in which Lugar declares that "U.S. policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates."
Let's consider that for a moment. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. economy was primarily based on carbohydrates. For most people, horses were the main mode of transportation. They were also a primary work source for plowing and planting. Aside from coal, which was used by the railroads and in some factories, the U.S. economy depended largely on the ability of draft animals to turn grass and forage into usable toil. America's farmers were solely focused on producing food and fiber. And while the U.S. was moderately prosperous, it was not a world leader.
Oil changed all that. After the discovery of vast quantities of oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and other locales, America was able to create a modern transportation system, with cars, buses, and airplanes. That oil helped the U.S. become a dominant military power. Humans were freed from the limitations of the carbohydrate economy, which was constrained by the amount of arable land.
Thus while Lugar and his ilk promote ethanol, they are ignoring a pivotal question: should our farms produce food or fuel?
Last September, Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute (a group that promotes "an environmentally sustainable economy") wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that the amount of grain needed to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank "would feed one person for a full year. If the United States converted its entire grain harvest into ethanol, it would satisfy less than 16 percent of its automotive needs." Brown said the ongoing ethanol boom in the U.S. was "setting the stage for an epic competition. In a narrow sense, it is one between the world's supermarkets and its service stations." More broadly, "it is a battle between the world's 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their mobility, and the world's 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive."
Using food to make fuel bothers many analysts, and whether their affiliation is liberal or conservative doesn't seem to matter. Dennis Avery, director of global food issues at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, D.C., has concerns that are remarkably similar to Brown's. A few days after Brown's piece appeared in the Post, Avery published a paper showing that ethanol simply cannot provide enough motor fuel to make a significant difference in America's fuel consumption. And like Brown, he laid bare the essential question: food or fuel?
"The real conflict over cropland in the 21st century," wrote Avery, "will set people's desire for biofuels against their altruistic desire that all the children on the planet be well-nourished." He continued, "The world's total cropland resources seem totally inadequate to the vast size of the energy challenge. We would effectively be burning food as auto fuel in a world that is not fully well-fed now, and whose food demand will more than double in the next 40 years." Avery says that even if the U.S. adopted biofuels as the antidote for imported crude oil, "It would take more than 546 million acres of U.S. farmland to replace all of our current gasoline use with corn ethanol."
That's a huge area, especially considering that the total amount of American cropland covers about 440 million acres.
But the constraints imposed by the amount of arable land in the U.S. are not important to the politicos on both the Left and the Right who insist that America must be "energy independent." For the apparatchiks who worship at the altar of ethanol, no subsidy is too great, no corn field is too big, as they push their bilge about the perils of foreign oil. None of them bother with pesky facts, like this one: the U.S. was a net crude oil importer way back in 1913. In fact, since 1913, the U.S. has been a net crude oil importer in all but nine of those years.
Thus, while farmers, politicos, and Big Agriculture insist on casting the ethanol scam in terms of national security, the evils of foreign oil, and the benefits of ethanol to rural communities, the larger issue is a moral one: are we going to use our precious farmland to grow food, or are we going to subsidize the growth of an industry that turns food into a commodity, motor fuel, of which we already have an abundant supply?
The answer should be obvious.
Robert Bryce lives in Austin, Texas and managing editor of Energy Tribune. He is the author of Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. He can be reached at: robert@robertbryce.com
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Ethanol
Corn-Based Fuel Fares Poorly in New Analysis
Smithsonian scientists back Swiss analysis that declares corn, soy, and sugarcane counterproductive
by Craig Weatherby
Smithsonian scientists back Swiss analysis that declares corn, soy, and sugarcane counterproductive
by Craig Weatherby
You’ve heard the claim: corn, soy, sugarcane, and other “bio-fuels” can help wean America and the world off of petroleum.
And folks using recycled deep-fryer restaurant oil to run their diesel vehicles – like the tour busses for Willie Nelson’s and Dave Matthews’ bands – are being awarded halos.
But how real are the benefits claimed for ethanol from corn or soy, or bio-diesel from french-fry pits and Malaysian palm oil plantations?
The devil is in the details, according to the authors of a new Swiss study, whose conclusions were reviewed and ratified by scientists at the Smithsonian Institute.
The Swiss say that recycled deep-frier oil is indeed a good alternative to petroleum for diesel engines, because it is recycled, and because its environmental impacts are much less than those of the oil it is replacing.
But corn, soy, and sugarcane – currently, the three main sources of ethanol for cars – didn't fare nearly as well in their comprehensive new analysis.
The food-or-fuel face-off Current ethanol production represents only about three percent of domestic gasoline consumption, but it consumes 20 percent of the
US
In September of 2006, Lester Brown, the president of the non-partisan Earth Policy Institute, noted in a Washington Post opinion piece that the amount of grain needed to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank “… would feed one person for a full year.
And, as he wrote, "If the
Prompted by subsidies offered to growers of corn for ethanol, American farmers, mostly in the
US ethanol subsidies cost American taxpayers some $11 billion a year, and are raising food prices and contributing to eco-destruction here and overseas.
Ethanol refiners get a 51 cent tax allowance for every gallon produced. And the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to some $1.38 per gallon, or about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.
In
Corn fields also require vast amounts of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides that end up in rivers and groundwater and continue to expand an already enormous “dead zone” in the
None of these costly impacts get considered when politicians tout the alleged societal benefits of corn-based ethanol.
Nor do proponents like to mention the huge amounts of petroleum needed to grow corn for ethanol. (Conventional fertilizers and pesticides are made from oil.)
By most calculations – including those of the new Swiss study – these energy inputs match or exceed the energy provided by ethanol made from corn.
In other words, we are wasting public money and irreplaceable water and soil resources in pursuit of a false promise of energy independence.
The rise in corn production in the
From 2006 to the end of 2007 US corn production rose 19 percent, entirely due to demand for ethanol, while soy harvests fell by 15 percent. This has pushed up prices for corn, and for conventional beef and pork raised on the grain.
And, this subsidy-driven shift from corn to soy has nearly doubled global soy prices since late 2006.
After the
The main soy-producing states in
Swiss study highlights environmental impacts of bio-fuels
Most studies that have attempted to evaluate different bio-fuel crops have focused on their capacity to cut greenhouse-gas emissions or fossil fuel use.
Some studies suggest that corn-derived ethanol in the
Compared with oil, nearly all bio-fuels reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but input-free weeds such as switchgrass easily outperform input-heavy corn and soy (Bala G et al 2007).
Earlier this month, scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute analyzed a new study commissioned by the Swiss government, whose authors sought to gauge the relative merits of 26 bio-fuels.
The Swiss scored each fuel using an index that takes into account relative reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental impacts, which include harm to human health and ecosystems and natural resource depletion.
The Smithsonian scientists – Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance – summarized the results:
- “The Swiss study identifies striking differences in the environmental costs of different bio-fuels. Fuels made from
- “The best alternatives include bio-fuels from residual products, such as recycled cooking oil and ethanol from grass or wood.”
If anything, the Swiss study understates the negative consequences of growing the wrong crops for bio-fuel. As the Smithsonian researchers said, “The … study falls short in that it fails to consider secondary consequences of bio-fuels, such as rising food costs, but it is a big step forward in providing a way to compare the environmental benefits and costs of dozens of different bio-fuels.
Dr. Laurance put the issue this way in a press release, “Different bio-fuels vary enormously in how eco-friendly they are. We need to be smart and promote the right bio-fuels, or we won’t be helping the environment much at all.” (STRI 2008)
Sources
- Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl, 17, 675–691, 2007.
- Bala G et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 April 17; 104(16): 6550–6555. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0608998104.
- Crutzen PJ,
- Scharlemann JPW, Laurance WF. Science 4 January 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5859, pp. 43-44 DOI: 10.1126/science.1153103.
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Corn... fuel... fire!
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Smithsonian scientists highlight environmental impacts of biofuels. January 3, 2008. Accessed onloine January 6, 2008 at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/stri-ssh010308.php
- Ulgiati S. A comprehensive energy and economic assessment of biofuels: when “green” is not enough. Crit Rev Plant Sci 2001;20(1):71-106.
- Zah R et al. Ökobilanz von Energieprodukten: Ökologische Bewertung von Biotreibstoffen (Empa,
Friday, March 7, 2008
Minnesota Timberwolf Shot
A southeastern Minnesota coyote hunter discovered last month that the north woods aren't the only place to find a wolf in Minnesota.
The man saw what he thought was a coyote about 250 yards away while hunting near the Whitewater Wildlife Management Area in Olmsted County.
The hunter reported the incident to a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources conservation officer.
The officer issued only a written warning because the hunter reported the incident, was forthcoming during the investigation and the animal was mistakenly taken well outside Minnesota's established wolf range.
"Typically, the killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor because it is a protected wild animal for which there is no hunting season," said DNR Enforcement Director Col. Mike Hamm. "Under different circumstances, the action could have led to a conviction, stiff fine, jail time and $2,000 restitution."
It is illegal, he said, to shoot a wolf except in defense of human life and, under certain circumstances, to protect livestock or pets.
Dan Stark, DNR wolf management specialist, said last month's incident is a reminder that wolves, while largely located in forested areas of central and northern Minnesota, do find their way to other parts of the state.
"We all need to know that young wolves sometimes roam hundreds of miles outside their normal range in search of a mate to establish a pack," said Stark. "There is a known population of wolves in central Wisconsin. That's just 50 miles from southeastern Minnesota, a short distance for a wolf to travel."
Stark said Minnesota's wolf management plan, which was approved by the DNR in 2001 and implemented in March of 2007, following removal from the federal endangered species list, aims to ensure the long-term survival of the wolf while resolving conflicts between wolves and humans.
"The wolf's presence enhances Minnesota's rich natural heritage," he said. "But people need to be aware that encounters may occur even in areas where wolf presence is rare."
Minnesota is home to about 3,000 wolves based on a 2003-04 survey, Stark said. A new population estimate will be released later this year.
I remember shooting at a wolf back in the sixties (they weren't protected then) while deer hunting in SE Minnesota. Their were always reports of deer and fox hunters seeing them in the late 60's.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Fisherman
An American businessman was standing at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish.
“How long did it take you to catch them?” The American asked.
“Only a little while.” The Mexican replied.
“Why don’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?” The American then asked.
“I have enough to support my family’s immediate needs.” The Mexican said.
“But,” The American then asked, “What do you do with the rest of your time?”
The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take a siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life, senor.”
The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds you buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats.”
“Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the consumers, eventually opening your own can factory. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”
The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senor, how long will this all take?”
To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”
“But what then, senor?”
The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO (Initial Public Offering) and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”
“Millions, senor? Then what?”
The American said slowly, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos…”
Minnesota Moose Population Down
Northeastern Minnesotas moose population
continues to decline
continues to decline
An aerial survey conducted in January estimates that the number of
moose in northeastern Minnesota increased from 6,600 in 2007 to 7,600 in
2008, but the long-term trend suggests that Minnesota?s moose herd
remains in decline, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
At first glance, the raw numbers appear to suggest that the
population has increased, said Dr. Mark Lenarz, DNR wildlife
researcher. The margin of error, however, overlapped between years,
which means that there was no significant change in the number of moose
this year.
Based solely on the survey results, I would be hesitant to infer a
declining population, he said. But the long-term population trend
suggests otherwise, and there are other factors that significantly
impact moose population.
Aerial surveys to estimate the moose population have been conducted
every year since 1960. But wildlife researchers implemented a new
methodology in 2005. Lenarz said statistical comparisons of data
collected from 2005 to 2008 indicate that the population increase was
not as significant as it appears.
When nonhunting factors such as disease, bull and cow pairings, cow
pregnancy rates, calf survival and predation are considered, indexes
used to estimate herd viability drop below the levels at which
researchers would like to see them.
Lenarz said a study of radio-collared moose in northeastern Minnesota
shows that non-hunting mortality has averaged 21 percent during the last
six years. Elsewhere in North America, that rate generally falls between
8 and 12 percent.
Biologically, issuing 200-250 permits a year for a bull-only hunt
doesn't negatively impact Minnesota?s moose population, said Lou
Cornicelli, DNR big game program coordinator. What directly impacts
moose population is the cow and calf survival rates.
Minnesota is the only state in the central region of the lower 48
states with a significant moose population. The moose is the largest
member of the deer family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)