By Jamie Drake   Wed, Jun 18, 2008

Do something with your photos!

As people who are drawn to nature, many of us find ourselves interested in capturing some of the most unusual or beautiful things we see with cameras and camcorders. Most of the time people seem to keep these things for their own personal reference, showing them off like trophies during arguments, or adding them to a brag board somewhere. But did you know that there are a million and one really cheap ways that you can share your skills, sell your photos or even design a photographic empire online for free or even cheap? There are photographic sharing sites, photographic portfolio sites, photographic product sites with drop shipping, a million or two things you can make order and sell with photos, and even websites that will let you make your own newsletters and magazines. And did I mention that most of it is free for people who use limited amounts, and cheap for those who want to grow bigger?

There must be a million photo sharing sites out there. The idea behind most of them is that you upload your photos and set who can see them. You get a link and can share it with whomever you choose. The fun part is that you can get critiqued and exposure for your photography or art skills by a wide, international audience. One of my favorites is Flickr.com. The people are generally friendly, it has great security features and it’s free for anyone who wants to just dabble. If you want to “go pro” you can pay a very minimal yearly fee and have unlimited uploads and storage. Other websites include PBase, shutterfly, and a myriad of photo developing store hosted sites. Most of these sites do not include integration to sell your work, but provide nearly limitless exposure.

Portfolio web sites generally come in two forms. One of them is a general exposure site. It’s favoured by many people photographers whose works are personalized and there for aren’t meant to be sold to large audiences. Wedding photographers, child photographers, and other general photographic types use these to show off their best works and provide contact information. The second type is better suited to specialty photographic works like wildlife photographers, landscape photographers, and artistic types. These sites allow for viewing of products along with prices and many times even a shopping cart. There are a wide array of sites like these available. One of the easiest and totally free sites is Photoreflect. You can set up an online store, direct people there and control your printing all from your desktop. SmugMug is also a popular, but more costly option. Do a web search and find one that fits you and your style. But always check that your photos can’t be downloaded and have watermarks placed on them to reduce theft.

Another great option for any photographic or artistic spirit is to use websites that will customize products for you and ship them either to you or to your client. Some options in this category are CafePress, Vistaprint, Lulu, Moo, QOOP, Blurb, and Imagekind. There is a huge number of things you can do with photos if you just look. The great thing about many of these websites is that they have built in quality monitors. If you have a photo that just won’t work they won’t let you do it. It’s that simple!

And last, but not the last options, are sites for making and distributing online publications. You can make a really great newsletter using a handy site like MailChimp. You can make your own catalogs and magazines for online and print using Press Publisher.

Finally, if you are always looking for new things to do with your photos and camera sign up for great newsletters already in distribution. I’m partial to PhotoJojo but there are many more worthy of your time. So, what are you waiting for!? Go make something, and send me the link when you’re done. I might just publish it in my next online venture! J

Wanna see what I do online?

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbdrake

Cafepress: http://www.cafepress.com/savingflorida

Press Publisher: http://www.presspublisher.com

By Jamie Drake   Fri, Jul 18, 2008

Drive Through Nature

Many people love nature watching but can’t seem to bring themselves to endure the grueling heat, mosquitos, and often volatile weather conditions to hike, boat, or wade themselves out to prime bird-watching areas. There is an option, a great option, for anyone who still want to “get out there” but can’t quite do it. It’s called drive through birding.

There are four major areas in Brevard County and at least two in Indian River County. The opportunities don’t stop there however, as many of the best birding areas are found at the end of trails that are drivable by vehicle.

In Brevard County, from north to south are the BlackPoint Drive at Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge, Blue Heron Water Treatment Plant off of Highway 50, the Viera Wetlands at the South Central Wastewater Treatment Plant in Viera, and the TM Goodwin and Broadmoor Marsh Area to the northwest of St. Sebastian State Park.

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge is open from dawn to dusk with the exception of shuttle launches, and extreme conditions. Guides can be found at the visitor center with maps of how to get around and pointing out where to look for famous species like bald eagle, scrub jay, roseate spoonbill, and the myriads of shorebirds. For more information visit the website http://www.nbbd.com/godo/minwr/BlackPoint/index.html.

Viera Wetlands (Rich Grissom Memorial Park) is a unique drive through tour located at the back of the South Central Wastewater Treatment Plant in Viera. Hours listed for availability are dawn to dusk, but access may be available at earlier hours. This area is famous for attracting a huge diversity of bird life that is easily viewed from the driving berms and observation areas. Specific species found here include the caracara, bald eagle, purple gallinule, least and American bitterns, and wood storks. The website for a Viera Wetlands map and brochure is located at http://www.brevardcounty.us/usd/brochure.cfm.

Blue Heron Water Treatment Plant is located on the south side of Highway 50 on Deep Marsh Road in Titusville. Hours of operation here are from sunrise to 5:00 pm. This is a city facility and check-in and check-out are required. Species of interest here include of the blue heron, purple gallinule, bitterns, and many others. Other wildlife like deer and bobcat are often seen in this area as well. For more information visit this privately run website: http://www.cfbw.com/blueheron.shtml.

The T.M. Goodwin and Broadmoor Marsh Unit are located to the northwest of Fellsmere Grade (T.M. Goodwin Road) at the southernmost end of Brevard County. The area is restricted access, so it is necessary to check the dates and times which they are open to drive through visitors. This area boasts an amazing array of wildlife. Everything from Caracara to Fulvous Whistling Ducks have been seen here. It would be beneficial to any person entering this property to bring binoculars, a field guide, and a cell phone in case of emergency. Pack a lunch, because once you get out here, you might want to stay a while. For more information visit: http://myfwc.com/RECREATION/cooperative/tm_goodwin.asp

In Osceola County, to the south of Brevard, there are at least two great areas to drive through. Bull Creek WMA and Three Lakes Wildlife Management area both offer excellent bird and nature watching activities.

Bull Creek Wildlife Management Area is located off of the Highway 95 West of Melbourne at the terminal end of Crabgrass Road. There is no fee to enter, but access is limited during hunting season. Turkey, bobwhite, harriers, bluebirds, and many other species are abundant here. This is also one of the few areas in Florida that off road vehicles are allowed to drive on improved road year-round. For more information visit: http://sjr.state.fl.us/programs/outreach/pubs/recguide/s02_bull_creek_WMA.html

Three Lakes WMA adjoins the Bull Creek Area. The entrance is off of Canoe Creek Road in Holopaw, and it requires a small fee to enter. Many species are found here, including Caracara, Burrowing Owls, Sandhill Cranes, Whooping Cranes and many more. There are also several other excellent drives nearby at Joe Overstreet Landing and Lake Kissimmee State Park. http://myfwc.com/recreation/three_lakes/default.asp

Drive through birdwatching is not restricted to these areas of Brevard and Osceola County. The causeways, beaches, and rural roads that are abundant here provide a great opportunity to see birds and wildlife that you might not see anywhere else! Enjoy the ride, and remember to stop and take a moment to enjoy life; in all it’s natural beauty.

This article is property of Jamie Drake and cannot be used without express permission.

By Jamie Drake   Wed, Oct 01, 2008

SavingFlorida Magazine is looking for authors, photographers and artists to write about Florida nature.  You can write about anything as long as it involves the real Florida.. that means no Disney and very little Miami. 

Write yourself a promo if you want, just make sure you include ONLY Florida related information.
Photos can be linked using Flickr.  I don't need to have them, just the Flickr link.

If you want more information or want to submit an article or feature let me know!

Jamie

By Jamie Drake   Sat, Aug 23, 2008

This mysterious bird is a staple for tourist birdwatchers in Florida. They are known as crying birds because of their strange wailing cries that they often emit at dawn and dusk. The name Limpkin is thought to be derived from their “limping” walk created by long legs and big feet. The presence of a limpkin can sometimes be seen by mounding of snail shells along edges of water bodies. They are shy and often hard to approach for photography and observation.

Other names: Crying Bird

Conservation Status: Currently listed as a Species of Special Concern in Florida, listed as a species of Least Concern on the IUCN red list.

Size: Length 22” Wingspan 42”

Diet: Largely consists of the Florida Apple Snail (Pomacea paludosa). It shares this preferred diet with the Endangered Florida Snail Kite. Incidentally, the Apple Snail’s future is also in jeopardy as exotic snails have taken over their natural habitats.

Range: In Florida the Limpkin is sporadically seen in North Florida, and commonly seen in Central and South Florida.

Habitat: Often found in freshwater mangroves, swamps, edges of agricultural areas, marshes and springs. In suburban and sometimes urban areas they can be found wandering around retention ponds and ditches.

Nesting and Breeding: The Limpkin's nesting and breeding habits haven’t been well documented. It is believed that they use a wide variety of sites for nesting (see Florida Natural Areas Inventory) including mounds of aquatic vegetation and marsh grasses, cypress knees, and also high in trees. In my personal experience I have seen them nest on the edge of wetlands in tall reeds. FNAI believes that nesting occurs in Late February –May in North Florida and Late January-March in Central Florida. They may nest earlier in South Florida. Brood sizes are unknown. Personally I have seen a clutch of three.

References:

United States Geological Survey. Limpkin. Accessed at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/fram1st/i2070id.html

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida. “Limpkin”. 2001. Accessed .pdf file at http://www.fnai.org/Fieldguide/pdf/Aramus_guarauna.pdf

By Jamie Drake   Wed, Jun 18, 2008

Gopher Tortoise Relocation

Introduction

In 2006 there were an estimated 18,089,888¹ humans calling Florida their home. The state of Florida encompasses over 58,560 miles¹ and is also a prime haven for many wildlife species. With such a large population of both humans and animals there are bound to be a lot of conflicts between groups who see Florida as a construction mecca and those who view it as an environmental treasure.

The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) has not been immune to these seemingly everlasting growing pains. In previous years the gopher tortoise was deemed a species of special concern by the State of Florida. This status acknowledged the tortoise needed some protection, but did little to help protect it. After years of allowing construction to occur in prime gopher tortoise habitat recent analysis has determined that the species is now eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act with the status of threatened². With this designation, developers must follow strict guidelines and apply for permits to destroy any habitat known to contain them.

Background

The natural history and vital statistics of the gopher tortoise have created a puzzle; both for those who want to develop their habitat and those who want to save them. Gopher tortoises are markedly long lived. Some researchers have listed their lifespan as over 40 years³. Because of this factor, it is hard to predict the consequences of any action on their population.

The long lifespan of this tortoise is accompanied by a long maturity phase. It is estimated that sexual maturity can happen between the ages of nine and 20². Even at the higher age maximum fecundity is not reached. Much evidence points to a link between overall size of the female and the number of eggs produced ⁴. This poses a large problem for researchers because of the time between generations. With these tortoises the changes can not be assessed as quickly and continuous research would need to be conducted over a time span of forty plus years, rather than four or five.

Of great concern to many researchers of chelonians in general has been the presence of Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD) in large numbers of specific populations. This disease is thought to have been introduced by the presence of exotic pets and has spread throughout the gopher tortoise population. This is significant, because it was once thought to be fatal in nearly all cases. If testing of a population indicated that it was infected the entire area could be destroyed without much resistance. New evidence has suggested this was not an effective measure, and new rules guide all decisions based on this disease.

As of July 2007, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) dropped the regulation that all captured gopher tortoises must be tested for the disease. In a reference sheet⁵ published for use by the public they have indicated that the test cannot differentiate between those tortoises that are active carriers and those that have been exposed and are no longer infected. In addition, young tortoises may carry maternal antibodies that aren’t an accurate indicator of their infection status.

The loss of gopher tortoises has not been restricted to the few years of development boom in Florida. Historically the meat of this tortoise was highly prized by generations of Florida Crackers (regional name for ranching Floridians) and other original settlers. The shell although not particularly ornamental on older tortoises has also been used for everything from decoration to utensils. There are no accurate records to indicate how many tortoises might have inhabited any area of Florida, but records show significant numbers of them being hunted and used throughout the state.

Why worry about the Gopher Tortoise?

The issue at hand, whether tortoises should be protected or not, is a very important one to environmentalists. Gopher tortoises are considered a keystone species⁵ and like many other keystone species their presence helps to dictate the entire ecosystems interactions. Their name, gopher tortoise, comes from the burrowing activity that they engage in. These burrows can be large or small, and have been identified as housing over 360 other species⁶ .They are considered important to soil aeration and drainage through this process as well.⁷ The loss of the gopher tortoise from any Florida ecosystem would most likely lead to the loss of at least several other species. A more emotionally charged reason for protecting the tortoises has been centered around the previously accepted practice of burying or digging through their burrows in order to construct new buildings. This practice resulted in tortoises being buried alive and possibly suffering long agonizing deaths.

The Gopher Tortoise Conflict

The problems that gopher tortoises pose for developers occur because of their habitat. Gopher tortoises use dry upland areas to construct their burrows². Many times this is the property that developers most favor. Before 2007 developers were allowed to apply for an incidental take permit to construct in areas where gopher tortoises were found. This allowed them to effectively bury the tortoises alive and to destroy any habitat that may be supporting them. This was a fast and easy process compared to their options today. Developers actually have several options to deal with this issue according to a new Gopher Tortoise Recovery Plan². According to Chapter 68A - 27.005, FL Administrative Code⁸ land owners and developers now have only four options for dealing with gopher tortoises on their property. There are two categories of permits issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The first is a standard permit for the relocation of five or more gopher tortoises on site or any number off site (greater than two miles away). The requirements indicate that the tortoises may be excavated, captured, and removed to a different area on or offsite, but cannot be harmed in the process. With this permit the applicant may have to also test each tortoise for URTD disease and depending on the outcome adjust their plans for relocation. In many cases relocating the tortoises can be expensive, and if they are placed on state lands the permittee must pay a mitigation fee. The second option is that they can build near and around the burrow if they can maintain a distance of 25 feet or greater. The other options simply involve not developing the property at all. In assessment of these options it is often in the best interest of the developer or landowners to relocate tortoises on site. The cost for the permit is free if moving under five animals and there is no testing required, further reducing the costs. The FFWCC has also published material that will facilitate any land owner in the capture and relocation of tortoises on their property. For larger developers, they may need to contact a qualified person, and the testing and relocation still may come with a large price.

The response to this legislation has been fairly positive. It is seen as being a viable solution for now to help reduce further loss of the tortoises and also allow further development of areas they have inhabited. The problem that exists still is where do we put tortoises that have to be relocated?

Can We Coexist?

Regardless of the historical damages done to the gopher tortoise we have been able to co- exist in many places. Agricultural areas are by far the best representation of this. On the many large ranches that sprawl across Florida the gopher tortoise has been a life long resident. Some ranchers are even opening up their property to become relocation areas.

In other areas, like places where developments are the predominant land use, the gopher tortoise has not had such success. One of the major problems is that gopher tortoises tend to wander away from their home area and directly into roads. Vehicle-tortoise collisions a common site in areas that tortoises inhabit. At the Florida Wildlife Hospital in Melbourne, Florida, this is the primary reason that any tortoise is brought in. A common secondary reason is because of nutritional deficiency. Suburban tortoises, especially the young ones are often seen with this condition. The cause is uncertain but there is speculation that lawn treatment and grass choices have created this problem. The news isn’t all bad for these city slickers. Many people now perceive the tortoise as a treasure, even going so far as to name them and keep track of their activities.

Possible Solutions

The whole problem with the tortoises is different depending on what side of the fence you stand on. Naturalists can easily say that the tortoises are beneficial and should be left in their natural areas. Some land owners, developers and people less interested in preserving wildlife tend to see them as added red tape and expense. In the new guidelines issued⁸, gopher tortoises may now be relocated rather than be allowed to fall under incidental take. One of the main issues regarding this proposal is the issue of availability of land for this purpose of relocating tortoises. Since gopher tortoises are specialized in the type of soil and ecosystem they need and the amount of space required, they can not be removed to just any place. There have been controlled studies to determine the effects of transplantation of tortoises to selected areas. In one study by Small and MacDonald⁴ the relocation of Gopher Tortoises to reclaimed phosphate mines was found to be successful at varying degrees by age. However it was noted that further research is necessary to make a well informed conclusion regarding long term viability of this option. Another study of relocation to islands is also underway, this may be a solution for crowded coastal areas⁹.

Secondary concerns regarding this type of conservation program have involved controlling disease, genetic viability, and what exactly the results of transplantation will be⁴. Disease is more likely to impact any dense population rather than a loosely spaced one. One of the main considerations of placing tortoises in refuges is that the density does not exceed a certain level. Current research has not been able to dependably determine the needed density requirements. The current guildelines issued state 2-3 tortoises per acre depending on habitat. Genetic viability also becomes a factor with this system. Because there are only so many places across Florida that these tortoises will be placed it is unlikely that the populations will cross each other naturally. To address this issue there have been proposals to distribute and even to possibly rotate groups through certain areas.

The Future of Gopher Tortoises in Florida

The future of the tortoises in Florida is in danger. The serious reductions in population numbers and available habitat have created a situation not uncommon to many species in the state of Florida. The tortoises haven’t been studied thoroughly and much research is lacking that is necessary to help protect them. The future of the gopher tortoise in Florida seems to depend on the presence of agriculture and conservation areas as well as tolerance from people who inhabit areas alongside them. With the listing of the tortoises as threatened new responsibilities have been placed on the general population as well as the government in protecting these tortoises. The environmental education of a whole new generation of Floridians may well be the key to their protection.

Final comments

In conclusion of the information presented it seems that the gopher tortoise is going to continue being an issue in Florida for a long time. The future of these tortoises is currently based on the ability of the state and independent researchers to conduct research on this species and conserve areas that will be suitable for relocation if construction is to continue unimpeded by their presence.
Unfortunately, it seems that the high price to locate and remove gopher tortoises may be a problem for many developers who are already paying high fees for biological surveys, permits, and construction. Although this is not an opinion paper, I feel that the most effective way to balance this problem out is to create fines that exceed the value of the tortoise removal process. If it costs less to destroy the turtles illegally and possibly face fines, rather than relocating them, the interest of money may override the interest of preserving the environment.

Ideally, counties, cities, and the State of Florida should be moving towards a greener way of thinking. This would include revitalizing run-down areas, encouraging vacant housing and business areas to be filled, and protecting the green space we have left. Because the state is so impacted by money coming in from development this is probably not going to happen any time soon. So for now, the gopher tortoise has the protection of the endangered species act. Hopefully that’s enough to carry it through to the next decades of more environmentally sensitive Floridians.

References

¹ United States Census Bureau. State and County Quickfacts. Florida. [Internet] August 31, 2007. Available from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html

² Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Gopher Tortoise Management Plan; September 2007 [internet] Available from http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/pdf/GT-Mgmt-Plan.pdf

³Puckett, C. & R. Franz. University of Florida. Gopher Tortoise: A Species in Decline. [Internet] Available from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW048

⁴ Small, C. R. & L.A. Macdonald. Reproduction and Growth in Relocated and Resident Gopher Tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) on Reclaimed Phosphate Mined Lands. Publication No. 03-105-145 Florida Istitute of Phosphate Research. April 2001 [Internet] Available from

http://fipr1.state.fl.us/FIPR/FIPR1.nsf/470e2f6af65c0b0385256b58005ab96f/144700e2adb3cf2d85256b30006a745c/$FILE/03-105-145Final.pdf

⁵ Williams, Angela T. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Memorandum: Affidavit for Blanket Authorization to Test Tortoises for Upper Respiratory Tract Disease. December 10, 2003. [internet] Available from http://myfwc.com/permits/Protected-Wildlife/apps/urtd_info.pdf

⁶ Gopher Tortoise Council. About the Gopher Tortoise[Internet] Available from http://www.gophertortoisecouncil.org/about.php

⁷ United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Fire Effects Information System. Index of Species Information: Gopherus polyphemus [Internet] Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/reptile/gopo/all.html

⁸ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Committee. Gopher Tortoise Online Permitting. [Internet] Available from http://myfwc.com/permits/Protected-Wildlife/permits.html#gophertortoise

⁹Science Daily. August 10, 2005. Displaced Gopher Tortoises Might Survive On Islands, Say Researchers. [Internet] Available from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050810134906.htm

By Jamie Drake   Wed, Jun 18, 2008

Florida Black Bear

• Order: Carnivora
• Class: Mammalia
• Family: Ursidae
• Subfamily: Ursinae
• Genus: Ursus
• Species: americanus
• Subspecies: floridus

The Florida black Bear is a subspecies of the Black Bear family. Black Bears are closely related to polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos)..

The geographical range of the Florida black bear is restricted to “6 core areas (Eglin, Apalachicola, Osceola, Ocala, St. Johns, and Big Cypress) and 2 remnant populations (Chassahowitzka and Glades/Highlands).” (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. http://myfwc.com/bear/distribmap.htm) According to research and the suggestions given in the habitat management guidelines (http://myfwc.com/bear/Reports/BB_Hab_Mgmt_Guide.pdf) the Florida black bear is heavily reliant on areas with dense saw palmetto. Reproduction occurs from June to July with cubs born in January or February. They use a den built into dense ground cover to go into winter lethargy; time pregnant females use to gestate. Their behaviors are similar to other bears, they travel long distances and may forage random areas. They learn quickly humans mean food. Bears are omnivores, but for the Florida black bear most scavenging is done in plant materials.

The Black Bear as a species is common to North America. They are doing well in some areas and subspecies but others are suffering. Specifically fro the Florida subspecies, they are suffering a loss of numbers due to a loss of habitat, increased roadways, and genetic depression due to distances between populations. The Florida Black bear used to be common across the state of Florida, including outlying islands. That has been reduced greatly to only 6 viable populations in the state.

I chose this article: (I searched the online journals, but chose to use this instead)

McCown, W. J. and Eason, T. H. Black Bear Movements and Habitat Use Relative to Roads in Ocala National Forest: Preliminary Findings. ICOET 2001 Proceedings pgs 397-404. http://www.floridaconservation.org/bear/Publications/ICOET_2001_Wildlife.pdf

The objectives of this research were to determine how, when and why bears near the Ocala National Forest were using the roadways. The mortality rates for the bears in this area were higher then in other areas of the state and due mainly to vehicle collision. What the research found was that their findings were completely different from similar research done elsewhere, although there was no apparent reason. In the conclusion they determined that bears are crossing these roadways more frequently and utilizing different habitat areas than other bears in the state. The research has determined that although the bears are more likely to be roadkill here, there has been no adverse change in population so no immediate changes are necessary.

And just a really neat thing I found I have added here.

For someone interested in Black bears I suggest checking this website out

http://www.bearstudy.org/

By Jamie Drake   Wed, Jun 18, 2008

The Bird In Between: Northern Caracara (Caracara cheriway)

What’s a Caracara? One of the most frequent questions I’ve been asked in my work while doing a population survey in a large county in Florida. I cringe for the hundredth time, thinking about how little people know about native Florida, and dive into my rehearsed explanation. I learned a long time ago, that the information is not in the details for most, so I make it simple. “The caracara is in the falcon family, it’s native to Florida, and they are often seen with buzzards.” I am prepared for this question, so I whip out the photo. It is a clear picture of a dark brown and white bird with a dark cap, a blue and orange-ish red beak, and set of bright orange chicken like legs. It usually elicits one of two responses, the “Oh! We have those around here?” or “I’ve seen one of them, I always wondered what it was…”. Either way leads into my next over-rehearsed discussion about their habitat, what I’m doing, and why they are so important.

It never ceases to amaze me, that so few people, even those that have lived here all their lives have any idea of the nature surrounding them. The Caracara is my shining example, but there are so many more. Very few people are aware that almost all the herons they see, and quite a variety of other birds and animals are on the Endangered Species Act, very few even know what the Endangered Species Act is. I strive to enlighten the masses and so I dive into the plight of my designated research species, The Northern or Crested Caracara.

The Caracara, as I commonly call it, has a multitude of common names, including the Mexican Eagle, Mexican Buzzard, Crested Caracara, Audubon’s Crested Caracara, Northern Caracara, and even in Spanish- Carancho. Its scientific name is no more clear, having gone through several changes in recent years. The most current rendering is Caracara cheriway, although previously it’s been referred to as Polyborus plancus audubonii, and Caracara cheriway audubonii. Many, even knowledgeable people, incorrectly often refer to them as Caracara plancus, a nearly identical South American cousin. There is often some confusion about where this bird is from. There are stories they migrated from Mexico, and people who think they were released from captivity. But the truth is they have been here, in Florida, all along. And after so much time of going nearly unnoticed, their story is just coming to light.

Florida, is a land changing quickly. It’s in the middle in between of being a swampy paradise, to a sea of never ending cookie-cutter developments. Agriculture, once a domineering force here, is losing the economic battle, and selling out to development projects. Here, my story begins. I say my story, because it definitely isn’t the whole story, and in all reality, there is no one who really knows it. What we do know is that Caracara have been present here since the first records of wildlife were made. Their range used to extend over the whole state, and possibly some of the southeast, and now it has been reduced to the lower half of Florida, and another separate population found in the southwest, Central America, and South America. They were subject to the effects of DDT in the 1970’s, but there is no accurate record of to what effect. Now they are subject to the most obvious cause of problems with wildlife; loss of habitat. Florida currently lists the Caracara as a threatened species and has estimated a population of less than 600.

As Florida is converting sprawling ranches, wet prairie, and Cabbage Palm hammocks, it is shrinking the available habitat left for many already struggling species. For the Caracara, this is a big concern. They are a species with not a lot of information known about them, even to the extent of no recent population numbers. Agriculture, mainly in its cattle ranching, sod farming, and grove forms has possibly given the Caracara an edge on other species. They are birds of the open Florida cabbage palm savanna and prairie areas. This type of agriculture allows those conditions necessary for reproduction and foraging to continue on, even though the natural state of the land has changed. Unfortunately for these birds, and many who share their habitat, ranching is falling to subdivisions left and right. Caracara haven’t been shown to adapt to these situations, and most likely will not.

Few people not involved in some sort of wildlife related activity realize that Caracara are around, and in most places, a rarity to see. They cruise around in open fields and sod fields grabbing bugs, snakes, and whatever else they can find, they feed on carrion when it’s available, and they often travel or nest in wetlands where they commonly take their prey live. There has even been evidence that they do some sort of fishing, preying on catfish coming up for air.

The birds are consistant in their appearance with no alternate plumage. Their facial and leg coloring may give away their emotional status as they can drain and flush the color at will. Juveniles are always lighter brown, more buff colored on light parts, and display more streaking than barring in their plumage. In addition juveniles facial coloring and leg coloring is usually a pale color, not resembling their parents. Some adults may be seen in a plumage of light brown, but this is thought to be due to a sub-adult age (between one and four) or the result of feather fading. A common thought on determining sub-adults from juveniles is to compare plumage on the breast, look at facial coloring and also leg coloring. None of which is 100% fool-proof.

Nesting occurs nearly any time of year with the most common date being in January and hatching time during February. Unlike most raptors Caracara do build one or several nests and utilize them until the juveniles have left to their congregational groups. Most nesting takes place in cabbage palms, but has been observed rarely in other foliage types. After leaving the parents supervision these juveniles will assemble in a large group and disperse to a territory possibly with their mate in two to four years.

In my experience, Caracara are an amazing, beautiful bird, with a great deal of personality differences from bird to bird. They have provided myself, and many others, with a new perspective on Florida. Hopefully they will continue to draw attention as it becomes clear that caracara, the creatures that share their natural communities, and us as humans, all benefit from keeping agriculture and natural areas around.

By Jamie Drake   Sun, Aug 24, 2008

By Jamie Drake   Sun, Aug 24, 2008

By Jamie Drake   Wed, Jun 18, 2008

Wildlife Tunnel Use in Conservation Ecology

Wildlife tunnels are a relatively new thought in the field of wildlife conservation and ecology. There are several forms of a “tunnel” including but not limited to overland tunnels, under road tunnels, fauna bridges and culverts. The main goal of the original wildlife tunnel was to reduce the number of vehicle - wildlife collisions and has grown to include further applications including continuation of habitats and sustainability of meta populations. Research on the construction and application of such tunnels has been limited or restricted in its usefulness for general design. This is in part due to the newness of the idea, the regionality of the data, and the actual data that has been collected.

As the population of many countries is expanding and people are moving into once unpopulated areas many species of wildlife are being forced to adapt by utilizing human made structures such as roads and bridges. Just a couple of decades ago roads were built without consideration for their impact ecologically. This neglect of ecological consideration has led to an onslaught of vehicular deaths that has included nearly every species without excluding humans. The damages were so obvious in some areas that eventually research was done on how to prevent such collisions. After analyzing road and driver factors eventually wildlife became the subject of discussion. Tunnels and bridges were proposed as a means of detouring animals off the highways but little was known about their effectiveness or placement.

In real projects done in Poland (Brodziewska 2006) the use of these structures has been studied for over 20 years. The official statistics on road mortality were never collected but similar neighboring areas have served as examples of possible pre-construction data. As of 2002 all major roadways have to built with ecological consideration, including tunnels where indicated. The initial trials of this were not always successful. Much of this was attributed to a lack of understanding of migration routes, use by people, and improper technique of luring animals to their use. Later tunnels were built to match wildlife migration routes, look natural, and to guide animals into them. Research on road mortality in this area where tunnels were placed has shown that the number of accidents involving wildlife has decreased and that properly placed and constructed tunnels will be utilized. Culverts built for toads crossing during migration have shown to be nearly 100% effective. Conversely, the problem of moving large mammals through tunnels has not been solved as moose, the largest mammal in the area, are not known to utilize them.

In the United States the use of these construction methods has not been widespread. There are several bridges, tunnels, and culverts that have been constructed but in general the data about their use has not been well published. In a briefing by the Virginia Department of Transportation (Public Roads 2005) a researcher named Bridget Donaldson has been studying the implementation of seven culverts placed under major interstates. Her research is similar to the research in Poland in that the results have shown an importance in proper placement and guiding structures for utilization as well as a preference in size for different species. This paper states that the added expense of roughly $200,000 per culvert is well under the cost of one human–wildlife collision fatality. That cost is estimated to be nearly $3 million dollars per fatal accident, including vehicle damages, law enforcement and hospital costs.

In addition to the savings incurred by the avoidance of wildlife-vehicle collision scientists are still working out the positive effects of the tunnels on various species. It is believed that for many species these tunnels will allow more genetic transfer, lower mortality, and reconnect important areas broken up by roads. There is some argument about the effectiveness of these tunnels in maintaining population stability.

While a large number of people support the construction of tunnels for various reasons, there are some scientists who think that we need to examine the outcomes with a more critical eye. In a paper about predator-prey relationships around wildlife tunnels (Little 2004) several problems regarding information about tunnels have been pointed out. Of the most importance to the imperial process Little points out that while data about individual species and tunnel use has been collected it has not been compared with data about the surrounding populations of any single species or of multiple species. The passages are not used equally by all species and since the interactions of predators and prey are cascading and dynamic in effect there is no data to point out how other species are affected by single species utilization. In effect the tunnels could be creating a good situation for a few select species while negatively affecting many other species.

In addition to the lack of information on multispecies effects there are very specific things that make the implementation of tunnels effective. This includes a very detailed knowledge of migration routes, species preferences, and effective barrier building. Regionally, especially in a large area like North America, or a diverse area like Florida, species utilize different patterns and may have very different needs. The amount of time and the ability to interpret such information can be a costly factor in their implementation and can’t be used widely without modifications.

Ecologically, the argument for wildlife tunnels is made mostly on the basis of single species research. While still in hypothetical argument the positive impacts of these projects include an ability to maintain metapopulations through fragmented areas, maintaince of regional population numbers because of decreased road mortality, healthier genetic pools of both flora and fauna, and greater ability to maintain and create large tracts of connected ecosystems that are vital for any conservation effort. Negatively, the effects if not desirable, could just as easily each landscape level. The research pointed out by Little’s paper has indicated that the tunnels could alter predator-prey relationships causing mesopredator release and create a cascade effect.

These tunnels, even with their criticisms, could prove a great technique in conservation of fragmented areas, subpopulations, and even in maintaining natural relationships. Although more research is in the works, this direction of thinking is pointing towards a more ecologically minded type of construction. In Poland, and other parts of Europe, the implementation of structures to protect both people and wildlife is mandated and is proving to be fairly effective at least at single species levels. If more research can be done to determine what the consequences of utilization are and how to mitigate them the animal world could be much healthier in just a matter of generations. In some states in the U.S. the use of tunnels has decreased traffic fatalities of both humans and bears to a manageable level, and may be a contributing factor in the Black Bears’ considerable population recovery in Florida.

Personally, I think the implementation of tunnels and bridges is inexpensive and should be considered anywhere where sensitive areas occur. The ability to map out migration routes with GPS and GIS has led me to believe there is an ability to collect accurate and reliable data that will allow for construction that will not be underutilized, will reduce future expense, and contribute to preserving ecosystem. In my opinion new construction should have these in place where acceptable, with research programs attached, regardless of the arguments about multi-species data. It seems likely that future research will allow us (as researchers) to make modifications that will cost much less than deconstructing and reconstructing entire portions of roads. In contrast, if research shows that tunnels have negatively impacted populations, the tunnels are easily filled in or closed off. In addition, the ability to save countless human lives through a simple $200,000 construction process works as an added benefit that is sure to be the wings of any such project proposal.

Works Cited

Brodziewska J. 2006. Wildlife tunnels and fauna bridges in Poland: past, present and future, 1997-2013. IN: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 448-460. Accessed on 6/11/2008 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1231&context=jmie/roadeco>

Little, SJ. 2004. The influence of predator-prey relationships on Wildlife Passage Evaluation. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL. Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportaion and the Environment. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; pp 277-292. Accessed on 6/11/2008 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=jmie/roadeco>

Public Roads: May June 2005, Vol. 68 Issue 6 pg 32-32 1 pg. Accessed via EBSCOHOST; Academic Search Premier.