Episodes

  • Ep 200: The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

    Ep 200: The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
    Jul 18 2024
    The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is a cornerstone of wildlife management and conservation efforts in the United States and Canada. This model has played a critical role in the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife populations, shaping conservation policies and practices not only in North America but also influencing global conservation strategies. This essay explores the history of the North American Model, its self-sufficient funding mechanisms, key founders, its influence on other countries, and modern applications. Historical Background The origins of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period when unregulated hunting, habitat destruction, and market hunting had severely depleted wildlife populations. Prominent conservationists recognized the urgent need for a structured approach to wildlife conservation. Theodore Roosevelt, a former U.S. president and passionate outdoorsman, played a pivotal role in the conservation movement, establishing national parks and wildlife refuges. George Bird Grinnell, an influential naturalist and editor, co-founded the Boone and Crockett Club with Roosevelt in 1887, advocating for the protection of wildlife and their habitats. Aldo Leopold, often regarded as the father of wildlife ecology, furthered the cause with his seminal work "A Sand County Almanac," emphasizing the ethical responsibility humans have toward the natural world. The conservation movement gained momentum with the establishment of the Boone and Crockett Club, which was instrumental in advocating for wildlife protection laws and the creation of protected areas. The passage of the Lacey Act in 1900, which prohibited the interstate transport of illegally taken wildlife, marked a significant legislative milestone in conservation history. Self-Sufficient Funding Mechanisms One of the unique aspects of the North American Model is its self-sufficient funding mechanisms, primarily through the "user-pays, public-benefits" approach. This system ensures that those who utilize wildlife resources contribute directly to their conservation. The model's funding mechanisms are largely derived from hunting and fishing licenses, permits, and excise taxes on hunting, fishing, and boating equipment. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 are pivotal in this funding strategy. These acts impose excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle, and related equipment, with the collected funds being allocated to state wildlife agencies for conservation efforts. This financial framework has generated billions of dollars for wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, and research, creating a sustainable source of funding that has enabled continuous and effective wildlife management. Key Founders The success of the North American Model can be attributed to the collaborative efforts of key founders and various stakeholders, including government agencies, non-profit organizations, and the public. The dedication of early conservationists like Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, and Aldo Leopold laid the foundation for modern wildlife conservation. Roosevelt's establishment of national parks and refuges, Grinnell's advocacy through the Boone and Crockett Club, and Leopold's pioneering ecological research and writings all contributed to the development and implementation of the model. These visionaries recognized the intrinsic value of wildlife and natural habitats and worked tirelessly to ensure their protection for future generations. Government agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies, alongside their Canadian counterparts, have played crucial roles in implementing conservation programs, enforcing regulations, and managing wildlife habitats. Non-profit organizations, including the Boone and Crockett Club, the Wildlife Management Institute, Ducks Unlimited, and the National Wildlife Federation, have been instrumental in advocacy, education, and funding for conservation projects. Hunters and anglers, as primary funders of conservation through license fees and excise taxes, have also been pivotal in supporting and promoting sustainable wildlife management practices. Influence on Other Countries The principles and practices of the North American Model have had a significant impact on wildlife conservation efforts worldwide. Countries in Africa, Europe, and Asia have looked to this model as a blueprint for developing their own conservation strategies. The emphasis on sustainable use, science-based management, and the involvement of local communities has resonated globally. Learn more Here: https://youtu.be/yEmr1zGwi3g For instance, the community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs in southern Africa draw heavily from the North American Model. These programs empower local communities to ...
    Show more Show less
    8 mins
  • Ep 199: Conservation vs Preservation: What is the Difference?

    Ep 199: Conservation vs Preservation: What is the Difference?
    Jul 16 2024
    I’ve noticed that the terms "conservation" and "preservation" are often used interchangeably, however, these concepts represent two distinct philosophies and approaches to managing natural resources and protecting the environment. Understanding the difference between conservation and preservation is essential for developing effective strategies for environmental stewardship. Definition and Philosophy Conservation is the sustainable use and management of natural resources. The primary goal of conservation is to ensure that natural resources are used in a way that is both sustainable and beneficial for current and future generations. This approach recognizes that humans depend on natural resources for their survival and well-being and aims to balance the needs of people with the need to maintain healthy ecosystems. Conservation strategies often include regulated use of resources, restoration of degraded ecosystems, and protection of species through active management and hunting. Preservation, on the other hand, focuses on protecting natural environments from human interference. The primary goal of preservation is to maintain areas of the Earth in their natural, untouched state. This approach is based on the belief that nature has intrinsic value and should be protected for its own sake, regardless of any direct benefits to humans. Preservation efforts often involve creating protected areas such as national parks and wildlife reserves where human activities are strictly limited or prohibited. Historical Context The roots of both conservation and preservation can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during the rise of the environmental movement in the United States. Two prominent figures in this movement, Gifford Pinchot and John Muir, embodied the principles of conservation and preservation, respectively. Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the United States Forest Service, was a strong advocate for conservation. He believed that natural resources should be managed scientifically to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people over the longest time. Pinchot's approach emphasized the sustainable use of resources to ensure their availability for future generations. John Muir, a naturalist and founder of the Sierra Club, was a leading proponent of preservation. He argued that natural landscapes should be protected from human exploitation and development. Muir's advocacy led to the establishment of several national parks, including Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, where human activities were restricted to preserve the natural beauty and integrity of these areas. Practical Applications In practice, conservation and preservation strategies often overlap and complement each other. For example, a conservation plan for a forest might include sustainable logging practices, reforestation efforts, and the protection of critical habitats for endangered species. At the same time, certain areas within the forest might be designated as preservation zones where no logging or other human activities are allowed. Conservation is commonly applied in areas where human use of natural resources is necessary but needs to be managed carefully to avoid depletion or degradation. Examples include sustainable agriculture, fisheries management, hunting, forestry and water conservation. Conservationists work to develop practices that allow for the continued use (Use being the key word) of resources while minimizing environmental impact. Preservation is typically applied in areas that have significant ecological, cultural, or aesthetic value. National parks, wilderness areas, and nature reserves are examples of preservation efforts aimed at protecting pristine environments from human disturbance. Preservationists often advocate for the creation of protected areas to safeguard biodiversity and maintain ecosystems in their natural state. Challenges and Criticisms Both conservation and preservation face challenges and criticisms. Conservation efforts can be criticized for allowing continued exploitation of natural resources, which may lead to environmental degradation if not properly managed. Critics argue that conservation sometimes prioritizes human needs over ecological health, leading to conflicts between resource use and environmental protection. Preservation, on the other hand, can be criticized for being too restrictive and excluding human activities that might be compatible with environmental protection. Some argue that preservation efforts can lead to the displacement of indigenous peoples and local communities who have traditionally relied on the land for their livelihoods. Additionally, preservation can be seen as impractical in a world where human influence is pervasive and few truly untouched landscapes remain. Conclusion Conservation and preservation represent two different but complementary approaches to environmental protection. Conservation emphasizes the sustainable use and ...
    Show more Show less
    7 mins
  • Ep 198: The Dingell-Johnson Act: A Pillar of American Wildlife Conservation

    Ep 198: The Dingell-Johnson Act: A Pillar of American Wildlife Conservation
    Jul 13 2024
    The Dingell-Johnson Act: A Pillar of American Wildlife Conservation

    Introduction

    The Dingell-Johnson Act, officially known as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, is a cornerstone of wildlife conservation in the United States. Enacted in 1950, this legislation has played a crucial role in the management and preservation of fish and aquatic resources. Here we explore the history of the Dingell-Johnson Act, its purpose, and the mechanisms by which it funds wildlife conservation.

    Historical Context

    The mid-20th century was a period of significant environmental awareness and legislative action in the United States. Following the success of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, which provided federal aid for wildlife restoration projects, there was a growing recognition of the need to address the conservation of aquatic resources. The Dingell-Johnson Act was introduced to extend similar support to fisheries and aquatic habitats.

    Named after its primary sponsors, Congressman John Dingell of Michigan and Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado, the act was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on August 9, 1950. The legislation aimed to create a dedicated funding source for state-level fishery management and conservation projects, ensuring the sustainable use of America's aquatic resources.

    Purpose and Provisions

    The primary goal of the Dingell-Johnson Act is to restore and manage fish populations and aquatic habitats for the benefit of both recreational anglers and the general public. The act provides federal grants to state fish and wildlife agencies for various projects, including efforts to improve and restore aquatic habitats, stocking public waters with fish to enhance recreational fishing, conducting scientific research and surveys to better understand fish populations and ecosystems, enhancing public access to fishing waters through the development of infrastructure such as boat ramps and piers, and promoting conservation education and outreach programs to foster public awareness and support for fishery conservation.

    Funding Mechanism

    The Dingell-Johnson Act is funded through a unique and sustainable mechanism that relies on excise taxes on fishing equipment and motorboat fuels. Specifically, the act imposes a federal excise tax on items such as fishing rods, reels, tackle boxes, and other related equipment. Additionally, a portion of the federal fuel tax paid by motorboat users is allocated to the fund.

    The revenues generated from these taxes are collected by the federal government and deposited into the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. The funds are then apportioned to states based on a formula that considers the number of licensed anglers and the state's land and water area. States must match a portion of the federal funds with their own contributions, typically derived from fishing license fees.

    Impact on Wildlife Conservation

    The Dingell-Johnson Act has had a profound impact on wildlife conservation and fisheries management in the United States. Since its enactment, the act has provided billions of dollars in funding for state-level projects. These funds have been instrumental in restoring fish habitats, enhancing recreational fishing opportunities, and conducting vital research.

    One of the significant achievements of the Dingell-Johnson Act is the successful recovery of many fish species that were once threatened or endangered. For example, the restoration of habitats and careful management practices have led to the resurgence of species such as the striped bass, walleye, and various trout species. Additionally, the act has facilitated the creation and maintenance of numerous public access points, making fishing more accessible to the public and supporting the economic benefits associated with recreational fishing.

    Moreover, the Dingell-Johnson Act has fostered a strong partnership between federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, and the angling community. This collaborative approach has been essential in addressing complex conservation challenges and ensuring the sustainable management of aquatic resources.

    Conclusion

    The Dingell-Johnson Act stands as a testament to the United States' commitment to wildlife conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources. By providing a dedicated and sustainable funding source for fisheries management and conservation projects, the act has made significant contributions to the health and vitality of America's aquatic ecosystems. As we look to the future, the principles and mechanisms established by the Dingell-Johnson Act will continue to play a vital role in preserving the nation's fish and wildlife heritage for generations to come.
    Show more Show less
    5 mins
  • Ep 197: The Pittman-Robertson Act: A Cornerstone of Wildlife Conservation

    Ep 197: The Pittman-Robertson Act: A Cornerstone of Wildlife Conservation
    Jul 11 2024
    The Pittman-Robertson Act: A Cornerstone of Wildlife Conservation

    The Pittman-Robertson Act, officially known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, is a landmark piece of legislation in the history of American wildlife conservation. Enacted in 1937, this act has played a pivotal role in funding wildlife conservation efforts across the United States. Its history, mechanisms, and impacts are a testament to the power of dedicated funding and cooperation between federal and state governments in preserving natural resources.

    Historical Context

    In the early 20th century, the United States faced a severe decline in wildlife populations due to unregulated hunting, habitat destruction, and the expansion of agriculture and urban areas. By the 1930s, many species of game animals were on the brink of extinction. This alarming trend prompted conservationists, hunters, and lawmakers to seek solutions to restore and manage wildlife populations.

    The Pittman-Robertson Act emerged from this urgency. Named after its sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, the act aimed to provide reliable funding for wildlife conservation. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937, marking a significant shift in the nation's approach to wildlife management.

    Mechanisms of the Act

    The core mechanism of the Pittman-Robertson Act is the imposition of an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Initially, the tax rate was set at 11% on long guns and ammunition and 10% on handguns. Over the years, the tax has been adjusted and expanded to include other hunting-related equipment.

    The revenue generated from this excise tax is collected by the federal government and then allocated to state wildlife agencies based on a formula that considers the state's land area and the number of licensed hunters. This funding is specifically earmarked for wildlife restoration projects, research, habitat acquisition and management, and hunter education programs.

    One of the key features of the Pittman-Robertson Act is the requirement for states to match the federal funds with their own revenue, typically at a ratio of 1:3. This ensures that states have a vested interest in the success of their conservation programs and promotes efficient use of funds.

    Impact on Wildlife Conservation

    The Pittman-Robertson Act has had a profound impact on wildlife conservation in the United States. Since its inception, the act has generated billions of dollars for state wildlife agencies, providing a stable and reliable source of funding that has been critical to the recovery and management of numerous wildlife species.

    One of the most notable successes of the Pittman-Robertson Act is the restoration of white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and elk populations, which were once dwindling. Through habitat restoration, controlled hunting, and research funded by the act, these species have made remarkable comebacks and are now thriving across much of their historical range.

    The act has also facilitated the establishment and maintenance of wildlife management areas, which provide critical habitat for a wide variety of species. These areas offer not only conservation benefits but also recreational opportunities for hunters, bird watchers, and outdoor enthusiasts, contributing to the overall quality of life and economy in many regions.

    Broader Implications and Legacy

    Beyond its direct impact on wildlife conservation, the Pittman-Robertson Act has set a precedent for how user-generated funding can be leveraged for public goods. The model of using excise taxes on specific goods to fund related conservation efforts has been emulated in other areas, including the Dingell-Johnson Act for fish restoration and management.

    The act also underscores the importance of partnerships between hunters, conservationists, and government agencies. By linking the interests of hunters with conservation goals, the Pittman-Robertson Act has fostered a collaborative approach to wildlife management that balances recreational use with preservation.

    Conclusion

    The Pittman-Robertson Act stands as a landmark achievement in the history of American conservation. By providing a dedicated and sustainable funding source for wildlife restoration, it has enabled the recovery of numerous species and the preservation of vital habitats. Its legacy continues to influence conservation policy and practice, demonstrating the enduring value of strategic, cooperative approaches to managing natural resources. As wildlife conservation faces new challenges in the 21st century, the principles embodied in the Pittman-Robertson Act will remain crucial to safeguarding the nation's rich biodiversity for future generations.
    Show more Show less
    6 mins
  • Ep 196: The Failure of Recovering America's Wildlife Act

    Ep 196: The Failure of Recovering America's Wildlife Act
    Jul 9 2024
    Wildlife conservation is a cause that garners widespread public support. Many people recognize the urgent need to protect endangered species and their habitats. Yet, when it comes to the critical issue of funding these initiatives, a striking disconnect emerges. Despite vocal advocacy for conservation, translating this support into financial commitments often proves difficult. This reluctance to allocate new or increased funding sources places a disproportionate burden on hunters and anglers, who have traditionally shouldered the financial load through mechanisms established nearly a century ago. The recent failure of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act (RAWA) serves as a prime example of this conservation conundrum. Public Support vs. Funding Resistance Public opinion frequently favors robust wildlife conservation efforts. Surveys and polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans support measures to protect at-risk species and their habitats. This sentiment is reflected in the broad bipartisan support that conservation bills often receive in legislative bodies. However, this support tends to wane when discussions turn to how these initiatives will be funded. The gap between public support and financial commitment is starkly illustrated by the legislative journey of RAWA. This bill aimed to provide $1.3 billion annually to state and tribal wildlife agencies, enabling them to implement comprehensive conservation plans for species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). Despite the bill's widespread popularity and bipartisan backing, it ultimately failed due to an inability to agree on a funding mechanism. This pattern is not unique to RAWA; it is a recurring theme in the history of conservation legislation. Existing Funding Mechanisms: Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts Since the early 20th century, the financial backbone of wildlife conservation in the United States has been the Pittman-Robertson Act (1937) and the Dingell-Johnson Act (1950). These acts impose excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, directing the revenue to state wildlife agencies for conservation purposes. This model has generated billions of dollars over the decades, funding crucial conservation projects and habitat restoration efforts. The reliance on these funds means that hunters and anglers have played a pivotal role in financing conservation. Their contributions have supported a wide array of species and habitats, benefiting not only game species but also non-game wildlife and broader ecosystem health. However, this model also places a significant financial burden on a relatively small segment of the population, which raises questions about the fairness and sustainability of relying so heavily on these groups. The Failure of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act RAWA's failure highlights the broader issue of finding politically acceptable funding sources for conservation. The act, which had the potential to transform wildlife conservation funding by providing a stable and substantial financial base, was ultimately left out of the year-end omnibus spending package. The primary reason for its exclusion was the inability to agree on a funding mechanism. Initially, RAWA's funding was to come from revenue generated by new regulations on cryptocurrency transactions. This proposal, like several others before it, failed to gain sufficient support in the Senate. The lack of consensus on how to finance the bill, despite its clear benefits and widespread backing, underscores the broader challenge of securing reliable funding for conservation. Funding Mechanism Challenges The difficulty in agreeing on new funding mechanisms is not a new problem. Over the years, various proposals have been made to generate additional revenue for conservation efforts, but many have failed to gain traction. This resistance stems from a variety of factors, including political disagreements, concerns about tax increases, and the complexity of implementing new revenue streams. The reliance on hunters and anglers through the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts reflects a reluctance to explore alternative funding sources. These acts have been incredibly successful in generating funds for conservation, but they also highlight the limitations of relying on a narrow funding base. Expanding the funding pool to include other sectors and stakeholders is essential for creating a more equitable and sustainable model for conservation financing. The Path Forward The failure of Recovering America's Wildlife Act is not the end of the road for wildlife conservation. Proponents of the bill remain committed to reintroducing it in the current Congress, with the hope of finding a funding mechanism that can secure bipartisan support. This ongoing effort reflects a broader recognition that conservation is not just a priority for hunters and anglers but for all Americans. To address the funding challenge, conservation advocates are exploring a ...
    Show more Show less
    8 mins
  • Ep 195: America's Largest Elk:The Roosevelt Elk: History and Conservation

    Ep 195: America's Largest Elk:The Roosevelt Elk: History and Conservation
    Jul 4 2024
    Nestled within the majestic Redwoods State and National Forests in Northern California, the Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti) stands as a symbol of resilience and the intricate balance of nature. These magnificent creatures, named after President Theodore Roosevelt, inhabit one of the most stunning landscapes in the United States, sharing their home with the tallest trees on Earth. Roosevelt elk are distinguished by their impressive size, with males (bulls) weighing between 700 to 1,100 pounds and females (cows) ranging from 575 to 625 pounds. They are known for their dark, thick neck manes and massive antlers, which can span up to four feet and are shed and regrown annually. These elk are highly social animals, typically forming herds that can range from a few individuals to several dozen. Their diet primarily consists of grasses, shrubs, and tree bark, which they find abundantly in the lush ecosystems of the Redwoods. Roosevelt elk play a crucial role in maintaining the ecological balance, as their grazing patterns help shape the vegetation structure, benefiting a variety of other species. The Roosevelt elk, which are the largest of the four subspecies of elk in North America, once roamed extensively across the Pacific Northwest, from British Columbia down to Northern California. By the late 19th century, overhunting and habitat loss due to logging and agriculture had severely diminished their population. The plight of the Roosevelt elk became a symbol of the broader environmental degradation occurring across the country, prompting early conservationists to take action. President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman, hunter and naturalist, recognized the urgent need to protect America's natural heritage. Roosevelt's passion for conserving wildlife and preserving wilderness areas led to the creation of the National Park Service in 1916 and the designation of several protected areas specifically aimed at conserving critical habitats for species like the Roosevelt elk. The establishment of the Redwoods State and National Parks in the 1960s was a landmark achievement in the ongoing efforts to protect these magnificent beasts. These parks, encompassing over 130,000 acres of pristine old-growth forests, were created through a unique collaboration between federal and state governments. The parks were designated to safeguard not only the towering redwoods but also the diverse ecosystems they support, including the habitats of the Roosevelt elk. This conservation effort was significantly bolstered by the involvement of private organizations and local communities. The Save the Redwoods League, founded in 1918, played a pivotal role in purchasing and protecting large tracts of redwood forests, ensuring that these ancient trees and their inhabitants, such as the Roosevelt elk, would be preserved for future generations. The creation of the Redwoods State and National Parks provided a sanctuary for the Roosevelt elk, offering a protected environment where they could recover and thrive. One notable conservation success is the restoration of elk habitats, which has been crucial in supporting the recovery and sustainability of Roosevelt elk populations. These efforts involve a comprehensive approach that addresses both the immediate and long-term needs of the elk and their ecosystems. One of the primary strategies has been the removal of invasive plant species that compete with native vegetation. Invasive species, such as Scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry, can overtake natural habitats, reducing the availability of essential food sources for the elk. By removing these invasive plants and reintroducing native flora, conservationists have been able to restore the natural balance and enhance the availability of nutritious forage for the elk. Managing forest growth is another critical aspect of habitat restoration. In areas where forests have become overly dense due to fire suppression or other human activities, thinning practices are implemented to create a more open and diverse forest structure. This not only improves the health of the forest but also promotes the growth of grasses and shrubs that elk rely on for food. Controlled burns, a technique used to mimic natural fire cycles, also play a vital role in maintaining healthy forest ecosystems by reducing underbrush and promoting the growth of new vegetation. Restoring meadows is equally important for the Roosevelt elk, as these open areas provide essential grazing grounds. Meadows can become overgrown with woody plants and conifers, reducing their value as habitat for elk and other wildlife. Conservation efforts often include mechanical removal of encroaching trees and shrubs, followed by reseeding with native grasses and plants to restore these meadows to their natural state. This not only benefits the elk but also supports a wide range of other species that depend on meadow habitats. The establishment of wildlife corridors has been another ...
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Ep 194: Feral Hogs are Destroying the Southern United States

    Ep 194: Feral Hogs are Destroying the Southern United States
    Jun 20 2024

    In Texas, feral hogs have become a significant ecological and agricultural problem. These invasive, non-native animals, also known as razorbacks or river rooters, have spread across the state, with their presence documented in 252 out of 254 counties. Mikayla Killam, an expert on the subject, provides insight into the history, behavior, and impact of these animals on the landscape.

    The Origin and Spread of Feral Hogs

    Feral hogs in Texas have a diverse ancestry, originating from both domestic pigs introduced by Spanish explorers and Eurasian wild boars brought over in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The introduction of these animals was driven by the desire to enhance hunting opportunities with a challenging and resilient species. Over time, these animals have interbred, creating a hybrid that is exceptionally adaptable and prolific.

    Ecological and Agricultural Damage

    Feral hogs are highly destructive due to their omnivorous diet and rooting behavior. They damage crops, compete with livestock for resources, and pose a threat to native wildlife by consuming plants and animals meant for native species. Their rooting, especially around water sources, disrupts ecosystems, damages watersheds, and accelerates soil erosion. This behavior has significant implications for agricultural productivity and natural resource conservation.

    Health Risks and Human Impact

    These animals are not only an ecological and agricultural nuisance but also a public health concern. Feral hogs can carry diseases transmissible to livestock, wildlife, pets, and humans. One such disease, swine brucellosis, poses serious health risks, necessitating precautions when handling or consuming feral hog meat.

    Conservation and Management Efforts

    Addressing the feral hog problem requires concerted management efforts. Mikayla Killam emphasizes the importance of education and proactive measures. Resources and detailed guides on managing feral hog populations, including building traps and snares, are available on the dedicated website, feralhogs.tamago.edu. This platform consolidates valuable information and offers direct access to experts for those seeking assistance.

    The Call to Action

    The proliferation of feral hogs underscores the need for a robust and coordinated conservation strategy. By understanding their impact and implementing effective management practices, we can mitigate the damage they cause and protect Texas's agricultural and natural landscapes. Mikayla Killam's insights and resources are invaluable in this ongoing battle, highlighting the critical role of community awareness and involvement in addressing this pressing issue.
    Show more Show less
    10 mins
  • Ep 193: How To Control Coyotes: Predator Damage Control Tips From Human Wildlife Conflict Expert Mikayla Killam

    Ep 193: How To Control Coyotes: Predator Damage Control Tips From Human Wildlife Conflict Expert Mikayla Killam
    Jun 6 2024

    Join Mikayla Killam, a renowned Human Wildlife Conflict Expert, as she delves into the complexities of coyote management and the essential role these predators play in our ecosystem. In this insightful video, Mikayla discusses the necessity of balancing coyote control with conservation efforts, ensuring these native animals fulfill their environmental roles while mitigating human-wildlife conflicts.

    Key Topics Covered:

    • Understanding when coyote control is necessary and how to determine the threshold for action.
    • Effective predator management techniques, including trapping and the use of livestock guardian dogs.
    • The importance of specific and regulated chemical control options for targeted coyote management.
    • The role of wildlife experts in developing and implementing humane and effective wildlife damage management plans.
    • Balancing the needs of conservation with the practical aspects of livestock and game management.

    Mikayla Killam emphasizes the importance of education and data-driven decisions in wildlife management. She provides practical advice on how landowners can monitor and manage coyote populations to protect livestock while maintaining ecological balance.

    Don't miss out on this valuable resource for anyone involved in wildlife management, conservation, or dealing with human-wildlife conflicts. Subscribe for more expert insights and practical tips on managing wildlife responsibly and effectively.

    Learn more at: www.aptitudeoutdoors.com
    Show more Show less
    12 mins