Habitat

Environmentalists who work to promote the recovery of endangered plants and animals are often faced with the challenge of how to best motivate the public. Should we describe the alarming decline of a beloved creature to spur action, or communicate a rare but inspiring success story to restore hope?

The best way to frame recovery efforts for species on the brink isn’t just about how we communicate with others; it’s also relevant to the way we approach our work. Efforts to reverse trends that threaten the survival of wildlife can be difficult to sustain. It is sometimes extremely difficult to stay energetic and positive in the face of the continuing and demoralizing decline of species.

Fortunately, a half-full glass approach to framing species at risk recovery has emerged. It wasn’t from a communications team or a public engagement think tank as one might imagine; rather, it was developed by people working around the world to stop extinction and advance recovery.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which assesses the global status of species using a “red list” to differentiate levels of danger, introduced the concept of “green list” to assess levels of danger. feasibility of recovery and successful conservation.

“Warnings of impending extinctions are not the only way to catalyze conservation efforts,” says IUCN. “We also need an optimistic view of species conservation that presents a roadmap for how to conserve a species and achieve its recovery. This is necessary to encourage positive conservation actions and programs. To achieve this, the Red List assessment process needs to be broadened to include conservation success classifiers. IUCN is currently creating a new set of measures to achieve this.

This framing gives conservation practitioners a much broader, often more encouraging, picture than just assessments of the status of species. Like the online magazine Yale Environment 360 describes, “While the low Sumatran rhino number may well keep it critically endangered for decades to come, its assessment of green status places its long-term recovery potential at nearly 50%,” meaning that continued conservation efforts over the next century could take the species almost halfway to full recovery … for a species that has long been considered a bit more hardy than a museum exhibit , it’s a radical change in his narrative, which may well lead to new commitments of money and effort. “

The emerging framework can also play a vital role in changing business-as-usual practices. The popular Canadian approach to government-led recovery initiatives is “priority threat management”. It is detailed in the study “Prioritizing Recovery Funding to Maximize Conservation of Endangered Species,” which focuses on a region of southern Saskatchewan and uses a model to assess recovery options for species at risk based, among other things. factors, perceived profitability. remedial measures. As the report notes, “here we show that we can take limited resources for endangered species much further by prioritizing investments in management strategies that recover the greatest number of species at the lowest cost.

This approach may seem sensible, but the David Suzuki Foundation has expressed concerns about the cost-effectiveness of becoming the dominant filter in such settings, as it could exclude much-needed conservation approaches and result in the abandonment of some species. For example, the Saskatchewan report notes that habitat restoration was one of the “least profitable individual strategies” in its study area.

Habitat restoration can be an expensive endeavor. Yet in many, if not most, cases of endangered species in Canada, the main drivers have been industrial and development activities which, while fragmenting and degrading habitat, have generated significant economic gains. . They therefore have the responsibility to bear the costs.

Recovering species at risk is a difficult journey. The first step is to stop the main threats, to silence the knife, so to speak. But from there the company becomes more optimistic, based on the belief that humans have the imagination and the commitment to fix what we have damaged.

As the authors of Journal of Conservation Biology The article on which the Green List is based write: “We believe that the development and implementation of this system will give the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species a positive conservation vision, encouraging optimism” .

“Optimism” is not a word you find every day in scientific journal articles on vulnerable species. Here to find out more.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from Rachel Plotkin, Boreal Project Manager for the David Suzuki Foundation.

Two recently awarded grants will help support habitat protection and restoration along two of Alabama’s important rivers.

The Five-star and urban water restoration program provide conservation grants to Southern Alabama Land Trust (SEL) and the Keeper of the waters of the Petite Rivière to support their efforts to protect and enhance portions of the Fish River in Baldwin County and the Little River watershed in northeast Alabama.

The Five Star Program is a collaborative effort of several partners, including Alabama Power and his parent Southern Company, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency. The program focuses its resources on restoring habitat for rivers, streams and coasts.

In Baldwin County, the grant will support SALT, formerly the Weeks Bay Foundation, in its efforts to maintain and protect the 60-acre Alta Fish River Nature Preserve. The grant will provide resources for invasive plant removal, prescribed burning and native planting, if needed, as well as trail construction and educational excursions. Located in southwestern Baldwin County, the Fish River empties into Weeks Bay, which empties into Mobile Bay.

SALT’s partners on the Fish River project include the GulfCorps Conservation Student Association, Baldwin County Sewer Service, Mobile County Wildlife and Conservation Association, University of West Florida Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Nature Connection.

In the northeast corner of the state, Little River Waterkeeper will use its grant to support elements of the Little River Watershed Restoration Project – a long-term plan to protect the river and its natural surroundings, which are faced with increasing pressure from development and tourism.

Activities funded by the grant include riverbank restoration and planting native grasses and other species along power line rights-of-way.

Much of the Little River in Alabama flows atop Lookout Mountain in DeKalb and Cherokee counties. The unique river system and surrounding habitat are home to rare and endangered plants and animals. It also houses the Little River Canyon National Preserve and DeSoto State Park, which attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.

Decades ago, Alabama Power played an important role in protecting the lands that eventually became part of the Little River Canyon National Preserve.

Alabama Power supports SALT and its Alabama Coast Bird Festival, scheduled for October 6-9. The event includes birding opportunities at sites along Alabama’s Gulf Coast as well as bird and conservation workshops and exhibit on the Coastal Alabama Community College campus. Since 2004, Birdfest has raised over $ 100,000 to preserve and protect the area’s coastal birding and wildlife habitat.

“Alabama Power is proud to continue to play a role, along with many partners, in the Five Star program,” said Susan Comensky, vice president of environmental affairs for Alabama Power. “For many years, Five Star has helped protect and enhance important habitat and water quality in urban and rural communities across our state, as well as along the Alabama coast. These efforts help preserve rare native plants and animals while enhancing recreation and providing opportunities for children and adults to experience the beauty and biodiversity of this incredible place we call home.

Learn about Alabama Power’s continued efforts to protect natural resources here.

(Courtesy of Alabama News Center)

OMAHA, Neb. (WOWT) – Habitat for Humanity takes over 16 acres near 52nd and Sorensen Pkwy. The organization plans to build 88 new single-family homes, its largest project to date in Omaha.

But not everyone is happy with the plan.

“We’re going to do some walking trails, Wakonda Elementary School is right over there in that direction.”

As Habitat for Humanity’s Tracie McPherson walks the 16-acre site, reminders of the old Wintergreen apartment complex can still be seen.

“This area is made up of short units of affordable housing. Eighty-eight new homes are giving it a little push, but it still matters to those 88 families. They’re going to own this land, they’re going to own this house, and there’s just a different mindset when you own it. It’s not rental property, it’s landlords that will pay mortgage payments, pay property taxes like you do and these families are looking for that opportunity, ”McPherson said.

Habit is working to provide a geothermal water system and is working with OPPD. Construction of new homes will begin next fall.

Terrance Mackey lives nearby.

“It puts people in places to live. I mean, in any way you can improve, I’m all for that yeah. As long as you take care of your property, it’s cool but the little deer [sic] are going to have a hard time because they are confused.

The deer won’t be moved for a while. McPherson says it will take some time to clean up this property and put infrastructure in place.

“For 17 years, it has been vacant. But it has been an opportunity for 17 years. An opportunity for developers like Habitat to step in and write a new chapter for this place, ”said McPherson.

“I understand that Omaha needs more sustainable housing or affordable housing, but we also need to think about what has been here for so many years,” said Joy Bartling.

Joy Bartling runs Scatter Joy Acres, a non-profit petting zoo adjoining the development of Habitat. Bartling is concerned about the water problems created by 88 new homes in an area that already has drainage issues.

“I had concerns about water retention. How are you going to control this because it has not been controlled? If there is a sewer backing up and it has happened, it flows into our creek that we have in our area, then we have to move our animals to a safe enclosure until we can evacuate it. .

With more people in the immediate vicinity, Bartling is also concerned about vandalism, which she says is already happening.

“I can put up as many no-trespassing signs as I want, but you have teenagers or kids who see a cow on the other side of the fence and I want to go pet the cow and they hurt each other, I am still responsible. “

She hopes the development will include fencing, separating the properties to ensure the safety of residents and animals. Bartling also wonders what will become of the fauna already present.

“You go from city to country with a few laps of the tires on your car and nowadays money talks and that’s what is sad. This money speaks and nature does not win.

Tracie McPherson says the new homeowners will be responsible for making mortgage payments, adding property taxes to city coffers. Joy Bartling says she hopes Habitat for Humanity’s home ownership plan will attract people who are dedicated to improving the area.

Copyright 2021 WOWT. All rights reserved.

You learn to read between the lines after working for years on political issues in Ontario.

For example, when the government makes an announcement late Friday, it’s a clear signal that it hopes to avoid timely scrutiny and negative media coverage. And when the Department of Environment, Conservation and Parks claims it is “streamlining authorizations”, it is usually to allow industry and development to move faster or faster, to the detriment of that. which is seen as an obstacle.

A good example: the government’s announcement at the end of the afternoon on September 17 about the establishment a new “Species Conservation Action Agency” under the Endangered Species Act. While this looks promising, the agency is the first step in “streamlining authorizations” for activities that negatively affect species at risk.

This is all part of the implementation of the new “Endangered Species Conservation Fund,” another sounding euphemism for what conservation advocates have aptly dubbed “Pay to kill”. With the fund, those who propose harmful activities will be able to pay up front rather than taking action to more than compensate for the damage caused, as is currently required.

The Ontario ESA was designed with flexibility in mind. It allows harmful activities to continue, but only with adequate safeguards in place. Operators must take steps to ensure that the species will be doing better than before the damage occurred. If the habitat is damaged or destroyed, it must be restored or replaced.

The Comprehensive Benefit Standard was designed to facilitate species recovery, not just to mitigate the blows of habitat loss and degradation, the primary driver of species decline. But the fund guts out the norm, allowing operators to make a payment and then leave, without any additional liability.

With this new model, there will no longer be a direct link between the damage inflicted on a particular species and the remedy provided by the fund. Payments should be pooled and used for the benefit of any species in the fund, not necessarily the one that has been harmed. Depending on political priorities or the availability or convenience of compensation activities, populations of some species, or parts of their range, may be sacrificed while others benefit.

In addition, the activities supported by the fund should only be “reasonably likely” to benefit the affected cash. In other words, it provides certainty for promoters, but not for the plants and animals that ESA is supposed to protect. Nor for the affected communities.

There is no doubt that the fund will shorten approval times and increase certainty for developers, as the government claims. It will be cheaper and faster to obtain authorization for harmful activities. But it creates a perverse incentive for destruction.

In the midst of a man-made extinction crisis, it is tragic to see the government pursue such a backward policy. Biodiversity is declining at an accelerating rate “unprecedented in the history of mankindAnd yet in Ontario there does not appear to be an appetite for the transformative change needed to stem the loss.

You don’t have to read between the lines to understand that human well-being is inextricably linked with the health of the planet. This fact is inescapable. The loss of biodiversity is classified as a the top five risks for economies over the next decade, because of nature’s invaluable blessings. However, time and time again, we have seen the government choose to weaken environmental laws and policies.

Is it too much to ask the government to maintain and strengthen the protection of our most endangered plants and animals rather than looking after its business friends?

Eleven caribou calves born in a secure maternity enclosure at Mont Rochfort, near Hudson’s Hope, were recently released into the wild alongside their mothers. With these new additions, Klinse-Za’s at-risk caribou herd is now estimated at around 116 animals, up from 36 in 2013.

With the release of the cows and calves, the eighth year of the Caribou Maternity Enclosure project draws to a close. But the work to help this herd recover continues. Protecting young calves at risk from predators is only part of herd recovery.

Our Peace Region Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Board of Trustees funds the Maternity Enclosure and ongoing efforts to restore caribou habitat through deactivating roads and restoring l ‘habitat. Both projects are led by the Nîkanêse Wah tzee Stewardship Society, a non-profit initiative between West Moberly First Nations and Saulteau First Nations in collaboration with Wildlife Infometrics which manages the projects.

On the side of the maternity pen, 13 cows were captured in early spring, tagged, sampled and brought into the 15 hectare pen. The pen is a familiar place for most cows, 12 had been there before and seven were born there. Guardians from Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations monitor the enclosure 24 hours a day from the time the caribou enter until they are released, along with their calves, in mid-August. The youngest calf was eight weeks old when released and was less susceptible to predators such as bears, wolves and wolverines.

Equally important is habitat restoration, and when the caribou leave the enclosure, the goal is to give them access to the best possible habitat to increase their chances of survival. Several years ago, the FWCP funded a project to deactivate 2.3 km of an old industrial road near the previous maternity facility, which reduced access to caribou habitat for caribou. humans and predators. This work has given exceptional results and has been extended.

Last year, restoration activities were carried out at four sites, resulting in the restoration of 3,183 ha of habitat within the range of the Klinse-Za herd. Since the start of the restoration work, more than 100,000 seedlings have been planted and 35 km of linear corridors restored. At the watershed scale, restoration efforts have restored 13% of previously disturbed habitat (26,906 ha). And it doesn’t stop there. This year, the Nîkanêse Wah tzee Stewardship Society has identified three new road networks and plans to deactivate and restore up to 23 km of roads.

Why is the FWCP funding caribou recovery? Well, we are a partnership between BC Hydro, the Province of British Columbia, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and public stakeholders, and we fund projects that conserve and enhance fish and wildlife in watersheds. affected by BC Hydro.

dams. In our Peace Region, the caribou is one of our priority species – an important species for the indigenous nations of the region – and two of our priorities are to fund native-led maternal enclosure projects and to restore caribou habitat.

The woodland caribou is listed as endangered under the federal Species at Risk Act and is far from being out of the woods yet — and pardon the pun — but the efforts of the Nîkanêse Wah tzee Stewardship Society and many funding partners, including the FWCP, are showing signs of success with this particular herd.

Chelsea Coady is the Peace Region Manager for the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Have a question? Email him at [email protected]

Understanding Hunting in Grizzly Bear Habitat

Photo credit: Dreamstime

Grizzly bears were listed as endangered in 1975, but in today’s world thousands of grizzly bears live in the bottom 48 years. Yet there are only significant populations in three states. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have grizzly bears that are increasing in numbers year on year as they thrive in this ecosystem without any natural predators. Grizzly bears affect the deer and elk population, our choice of hunting locations, and our backcountry experience in different ways. Here’s a breakdown of how these bears affect hunting and some changes you may need to make the next time you consider hunting in grizzly bear country.

Biology

Before we dive into the effects of grizzly bears on hunting, let’s briefly talk about their biology and behavior. The grizzly bear is a brown bear that inhabits North America from Alaska to Wyoming. They can weigh up to 700 pounds and eat rodents, insects, elk calves, fawns, cattle, trout, grasses, and anything in their path. Grizzly bears can run up to 40 mph and have a home range as large as 2,000 square miles. For a size comparison, grizzly bears are typically up to twice the size of a black bear. Grizzly bears are a real top predator that seems to fear nothing.

Effects of grizzly bears on animal populations

In general, a grizzly bear will not slaughter a healthy adult elk, deer, or other similar sized animal. Adult animals are wary of grizzly bears enough to keep their distance, and they can run as fast, if not faster, than a bear. However, it is essential to note that grizzly bears have a negative effect on ungulate populations. Grizzly bears attack the fawn population in the spring of each year. It is a typical sight to see bears following around a herd of elk, waiting for them to have their babies so they can eat the placenta as well as the newborn. It is a natural process; However, this can affect animal populations, especially as the number of grizzly bears continues to grow.

Hunting selection

When it comes to choosing an elk or deer hunt in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho, the number one concern for many hunters is the grizzly bear. Some hunters even refuse to hunt in an area where grizzly bears live out of fear for their lives. Although bear attacks do occur, they are not that common. And they can be horrible when they happen. I understand why some hunters would not want to hunt in grizzly territory; however, that means there is less competition there which is why I still hunt in these areas. Most hunters have to decide whether they are ready to hunt in grizzly country or not. If the answer is no, then that’s fine, but you still have a few things to consider and understand if the answer is yes.

Appeal considerations

When I hunt in grizzly country, I always make sure to pay a little more attention to what I’m doing. For example, when I call, I always make sure I’m ready to welcome a moose while still looking for a bear. It’s better to be over-prepared than under-prepared in this situation. On a related note, when stalking I always do my best to be calm and slow, but I’m also on the lookout for an unsuspecting bear. The last thing you want is to surprise a mother bear with cubs or an aggressive boar.

Hinterland considerations

When camping in the backcountry, it’s always important to stay away from aromas, meat, food, and even pots and pans. Bears have excellent noses and will come looking for new smells. I would rather they investigate my camping supplies hanging in a tree 100 yards away instead of exploring my tent. Carrying a gun and bear spray is also essential and it is important to take your tent with you.

When I think of grizzly bears, I am in awe of their abilities. After all, they are animals that can weigh up to 700 pounds while eating the plants, animals, and insects that cross their path. Then they hibernate for five to seven months a year to start again until they are 25 to 30 years old. Although I am impressed, I am also terribly respectful. Grizzly bears are dangerous predators that can really hurt you, so if you don’t give them the respect they deserve, you can pay the price. This fall, understand how bears can affect your hunt, and use your skills and know-how to be bear aware and kill an elk or deer in bear country.

Tracks

A man has been fined £ 1,600 after deliberately destroying protected habitat for bats and newts so he can develop his property.

David Pearce, of Four Oaks Road, Headcorn, has pleaded guilty to damaging the homes of pipistrelle bats, brown bats and crested newts.

It happened at a Headcorn address and the 56-year-old appeared in Maidstone Magistrates’ Court earlier this month following an investigation by the Police Rural Task Force from Kent.

In December 2019, he applied for a building permit for a barn conversion.

As part of the planning process, an ecological study was carried out which concluded that the chicken coop was used both as a daytime roost and for hibernation by long-eared brown bats and pipistrelle bats.

A closer look at the site revealed that a disused pool was being used as a breeding ground for crested newts.

As bats and newts are protected by law, the survey highlighted the need to obtain a European Mitigation License for Protected Species from Natural England and to carry out all work in the presence of a manager of bats approved.

With respect to newts, the investigation concluded that there was a need for a receiving site, trapping and newt-proof fence.

In March 2021, an environmentalist working for the Bat Conservation Trust visited the site in response to a report of a stranded bat.

She realized that work had started on the barn, with the walls removed and scaffolding erected, resulting in the destruction of the dormitory used by the bats.

Pearce was then questioned and he admitted that earthworks had been done and the pool had been drained, destroying the habitat of the newts.

He was fined £ 1,600 after appearing in court, as well as paying an additional £ 245 to cover prosecution costs and a victim fine surcharge.

“It is likely that a number of these endangered species would have died as a result of the destruction of their habitat.”

Sgt. Darren Walshaw of the Rural Task Force said: “It is disappointing that this individual developed the site when he was aware of the damage it would cause to the protected species that live there.

“The construction work should have been carried out under license and supervised by experts specializing in wildlife.

“It is likely that a number of these endangered species have died as a result of habitat destruction.

“We will not hesitate to take action against those who show blatant disregard for the regulations in place to protect endangered animals.”

Read more: All the latest news from Weald

When pandas are too comfortable in their habitat, they no longer move around in search of a better location and their chances of encountering other pandas in the wild decrease, according to the latest research. published in Conservation biology.

The authors wrote that “the amount of habitat and its level of fragmentation had non-linear effects on functional connectivity (gene flow) and inbreeding”.

“Functional connectivity was highest when about 80% of the surrounding landscape was habitat. Although the relationship between amount of habitat and inbreeding was also non-linear, inbreeding increased as habitat increased until about 20 percent of the local landscape contained habitat, after which inbreeding decreased. as habitat increased.

The Guardian Explain this is a ‘great place’ when it comes to aiding animal gene flow: ‘it is greatest when 80% of an area is considered an ideal environment for bears – for example, containing bamboo forests. After this point, models suggest a rapid decline in the success of individuals at spreading and reproducing. “

The Guardian refers to the principle of Goldilocks being in play, from exercise to exploration of exoplanets. For example, an article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine recount the Goldilocks tale: “a child stumbles upon a house in the woods belonging to a bear family. She tried the porridge, the chairs and the beds; some were too hot / big / hard, some too cold / small / soft, but some were “right”. In exercise and sport, the Goldilocks principle of ‘just the right amount’ has been recognized for decades, while in professional life, physical activity has been designed ‘not to harm ”instead of being“ just right. “

According to an announcement made five years ago by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), giant pandas are no longer on the “endangered” list but are considered a “vulnerable” population. This year, Chinese officials made a similar statement.

However, IUCN has noted that over the next 80 years, climate change could wipe out more than 35 percent of pandas’ bamboo habitat. A concern, such as Guardian The point is that habitat fragmentation could lead to the isolation of pandas, that is, they could “end up without enough food or unable to reproduce”.

According to WWF, while the Chinese government “banned logging in panda habitat in 1998… new roads and railroads continue to cut across the region, further fragmenting forests. This isolates populations of pandas and prevents them from reproducing.

The study Complex effects of habitat quantity and fragmentation on functional connectivity and inbreeding in a population of giant pandas is based on genetic analyzes of panda droppings in Wolong Nature Reserve in China and also on computer modeling.

The authors suggest that large pandas in the wild should not be 100% comfortable and that “it may make sense to think that local landscapes containing more than 80% habitat are attractive to individuals. rather than as obstacles to their movements “.

“Although inbreeding in local panda populations was also affected non-linearly by the amount of habitat, our results indicated that the lowest inbreeding occurred at the maximum amount of habitat,” continued -they.

According to the study, the functional connectivity (gene flow) of pandas “increases as the proportion of habitat in a landscape increases, it decreases when that proportion exceeds 80 percent,” says the Guardian.

Study authors, Connor T., Qiao M., Scribner K. et al, recommend that “landscapes with more uneven habitats should be prioritized for conservation and restoration in a scientifically informed manner (aiming 80 for cent of habitat that maintains edges) to maximize the health of the giant panda population.

This is because they believe that a lot of resources could mean that the pandas would stay where they are and not need to go looking for food, drink and mates.

They also note that the genetic diversity of pandas decreased slightly as the proportion of habitat increased (inversely correlated) but that after about 25 percent, genetic diversity increased as the proportion increased (directly correlated).

As a result, the study highlights the need for a large amount of habitat for large pandas in the wild, but that an environment that is not necessarily perfect is good for their survival, in fact, could be. beneficial.

“The finding that the optimum amount of habitat for functional connectivity is less than 100% gives hope for already disturbed areas of panda habitat and suggests that these areas should not be ignored in management plans. as inappropriate, ”the team wrote.

“Additionally, by aiming for a ‘more homogeneous’ landscape, plans to connect isolated subpopulations of pandas may be more realistic and achievable than previously thought.”

Talk to GuardianClaudio Sillero, professor of conservation biology at the University of Oxford – not involved in the research – says the study could be applied to populations other than giant pandas.

“Most large carnivores live in increasingly fragmented landscapes. It may well be that the disorderly nature of their interface with human activity is causing more animals to disperse or travel further, and could result in greater genetic connectivity and increased population persistence, ”he says. .

Source: TRTWorld and agencies

Blue hearts, slender day flowers, northern dog’s tongue, red bentgrass, Manzanita bearberry, creeping sedge, little white lady’s-slipper, Leiberg’s panic grass: all are gone. These plants once decorated the Pennsylvania landscape, but not now.

To protect and provide ideal growing conditions for the rest of Pennsylvania’s native plant species, the state’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has established 35 wild plant sanctuaries.

To guard against poaching, the agency does not reveal the locations except to say that they are all in state forests, in plots ranging from five to 700 acres. Canned foods contain many of the state’s rarest and most endangered plants.

DCNR is business. About 30 more shrines will be under state protection by the start of next year. The agency has also worked with landowners to create nearly two dozen canned goods on private property where vulnerable plants have been found. And it helps the Pennsylvania Game Commission take similar action on 1.5 million acres of state gambling land.

These measures aim to ensure that native plants are protected and managed for their importance to wildlife, pollinators, insects and biodiversity in general – as well as for their sheer beauty and to protect what some people say is their right to do. part of nature world.

“The designation of sanctuaries helps DCNR achieve its mission of conserving native wild plants and ensures the protection of some of the most botanically diverse sites in the Commonwealth,” said DCNR Secretary Cindy Adams Dunn .

The sanctuaries are found on rocky slopes, rich forest hollows, glacial bogs, river islands, muddy bogs, mudflats, and perpetually eroded floodplains along streams.

When the Pennsylvania Division of Forestry was formed in 1895, the mission focused on woods and trees. But now plants of all kinds, from wildflowers and prairie grasses to ancient trees, have their fair share.

Of the 2,100 native plant species found in Pennsylvania, approximately 350 are now considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Some species, such as the three-seeded mercury, the blue crested foxglove, and the pink tick, have not been found in the state for many years, leading some to believe they are extinct.

The DCNR is responsible for researching and monitoring native wild plants. It enlists botanists, academics and volunteers to help with monitoring and research projects.

Why make such an effort to protect the native plants of Pennsylvania? “Nothing exists in nature in a vacuum,” said Rebecca Bowen, head of the division of conservation science and ecological resources at DCNR. “The birds, the animals and the trees, all work relative to each other.

Additionally, after the state’s Wild Resource Conservation Act was passed in 1982, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection – the DCNR’s parent agency – was tasked with finding and protecting threatened plants in the state, as well as increasing populations of wild plants.

Lawmakers who passed the law noted that plants must be protected “for the good of all,” even if they are not a resource that is consumed or harvested for other purposes.

Bowen said the creation of plant sanctuaries shows that the DCNR “takes this burden seriously”. Although, she noted, the agency has managed many sites as plant sanctuaries as early as the 1980s and only now declares them as such.

The exact nature of the protection varies depending on the needs and vulnerabilities of the plants. Plants such as leafy spurge, white sparrow, and mountain chickweed have wire cages placed on them to prevent deer from nibbling them until oblivion. In some cases, logging activities and trails are prohibited to minimize disturbance.

Trees can be felled to provide sunlight for a particular species, and some areas are mowed regularly to control competing vegetation. Controlled burns are prescribed for plant communities that have evolved to need occasional fires.

Invasive non-native plants are a constant and growing threat. They can displace native species, alter habitats, and disrupt the life cycles of native insects that depend on or support plant communities. The endangered Northeast Bulrush, a type of sedge, is one such vulnerable species, and the state has deployed teams to remove harmful invasive plants in and around the spring ponds where the bulrush grows.

The 1982 Conservation Act also called on the agency to encourage private sanctuaries wherever a rare or endangered plant could benefit – and the state makes professional help available to participants.

The call to arms, Bowen said, is aimed at preventing the disappearance of more of the wild things that spring from the ground, even species most people will never see. “It has been shown that it is important for people that there are wild things and wild places whether they are seen or not,” she said. “It makes people feel good that we are protecting these species that might otherwise go extinct. “

If you have a property in Pennsylvania that might be eligible for Wild Plant Sanctuary designation, you can find an application at dcnr.pa.gov. Click on the Conservation tab, then choose Wild Plants. From there, select Wild Plant Sanctuary, where you’ll find an app.