Science for Everyone

Wisconsin residents of all ages and backgrounds are tracking wolves, monitoring streams, banding birds, counting invasive plants and more—all in the name of “citizen science”

By Denise Thornton

(Page 3 of 5)

Indeed, engagement is the key. Kris Stepenuck, of UW Cooperative Extension and the Department of Natural Resources, coordinates 300 adults and 1,500 students who wade into streams all around the state collecting data for UW-Extension and the DNR as part of the Water Action Volunteers (WAV), a group that makes water monitoring possible at a level that simply could not happen without them.

Last year WAV volunteers were asked to help expand an urban road salt monitoring project that, because of the cost of continuous monitoring equipment, had stalled at 22 sites.

“Each continuous monitoring site costs $15,000 to run,” says Stepenuck. “But with volunteers grabbing samples every other week, plus whenever it snowed, they were able to monitor 34 sites for under $10,000. So it’s much more economical, and we can get a broader picture with the help of this network of local volunteers.”

To keep her volunteer force growing, Stepenuck pays close attention to what motivates them. “They want to see lakes and streams protected for the future,” Stepenuck says. “And the more they learn, the more likely they are to take action to help protect these natural resources they care so much about.”

As evidence Stepenuck points to a newsletter she uses to keep her volunteers connected with each other and with the research to which they contribute. A recent edition shows the results of a survey tallying volunteers’ community connections and activities related to natural resources. Every person surveyed said he or she has written a letter to the editor of their local paper about water or other resource issues, attended a public meeting, talked with neighbors, engaged in personal reading or research, or sought experts for additional information on water issues. Before becoming a stream monitor, almost half stated they had rarely or never participated in water issue activities in their local communities.

Ted Ludwig is an example of someone who found his engagement deepening. First he joined the Tainter Lake Association, and then he attended a water monitoring course through Water Action Volunteers. Soon he was monitoring multiple sites. “I’ve taken on coordinating 20 people who are monitoring 15 different streams,” says Ludwig. “Now that I understand the value of water monitoring I keep looking for ways to do more.”

After retiring from 21 years in the Marine Corps and 20 years with the U.S. Postal Service, Ludwig now spends more than 30 hours a week as a Water Action Volunteer and organizing a nonprofit dedicated to monitoring area streams and lakes. When he is not in the water, Ludwig is writing letters to newspapers and going to hearings on environmental issues. He also serves on a citizen committee to help develop lakeshore rules at the county level.

In addition to enjoying being outdoors, says Ludwig, “The thing I like the best is working with young kids. It’s always fun to see the kids when they try to identify the creatures they have found in the water. The people you work with are really nice, and it makes for an enjoyable retirement.”

When the solution depends on observation over large areas, citizen scientists can play a pivotal role. The Great Lakes Early Detection Network, launched this spring and spearheaded by CALS/UW-Extension agronomy professor Mark Renz, will depend heavily on citizen monitoring to identify invasive plant species.

“We started this project to better understand where invasive plants are located and how they are moving within the Great Lakes Area,” says Renz. “Wisconsin has more than 70 species of invasive plants. When you add in Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, it’s a huge task to find out where these plants are. We quickly realized that as scientists and researchers, we could not tackle this by ourselves. We are asking people to do a service for their community by reporting invasive plants.”

Renz has designed a website where information can flow back and forth between volunteers and researchers to keep the volunteers engaged. He hopes to attract and build a relationship with volunteers who become knowledgeable about plant identification and stay involved in the program. “We are a network,” says Renz. “The citizen scientists are equal members. We know that if they are not happy, the project will falter.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Communities, Environment, Featured, Summer 2012 | 5 Comments »

5 Responses to “Science for Everyone”

  1. Posted by: Tracker | June 24th, 2012 at 7:13 am

    I was proud to participate in the volunteer tracking program until legislators stepped in and decided they did not believe our numbers. Instead we heard false statements such as there are many more wolves out there as a reason for voting for a wolf hunt. Well then, they can attend the ecology workshop, track training and donate hundreds of hours and count the wolves themself.

    Trackers were not considered stakeholders during these discussions, were not informed by DNR of the pending legislation and now the data trackers collected will be used to support a wolf hunting/trapping season that is not science based.

    Now that we have a law in place for a hunting/trapping season our work is valued? When Cathy Stepp is no longer DNR Secretary and legislators amend the law to make the hunting trapping season more reasonable, I will consider returning. You can say I am angry, hurt but most of all disappointed that the DNR turned its back on volunteer trackers and the wolf.

  2. Posted by: No Longer Volunteering for State of WI | June 25th, 2012 at 9:18 am

    I have volunteered for the WI Wolf Tracking program since it began…for over two decades. I have given the State of Wisconsin my time away from family, hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of donated gas and wear and tear on my truck, nights paying for a place to stay, and all without complaint…until now. I have tried my hardest to get my views across to the knuckleheads in Madison, but they were not at all interested in listening to the scientists or the public regarding this issue. Money talks…..lobbyists and special interests groups won this round.

    It will take an act of God to change the methodology for the hunt that our ill-informed and careless legislators have set in motion. The DNR Secretary has absolutely NO concern for Wisconsin wildlife resources and has played this entire issue for personal gain. Who wins? Surely not wildlife, only political good ol boys who are slapping themselves on their backs with “atta boys”. Which one of them would like to come along on a wolf census survey with me? Which one of them would like to see if I am qualified to know what a wolf track looks like? Which one of them would endure ticks, contract Lyme Disease, and wear a bug suit in 90 degree weather in July to conduct a survey? Which one of them will go out on a howl survey with me while dudes on four wheelers with dogs and guns are trashing the landscape and running all forms of wildlife to kingdom come? Which one of them will go to the funeral of the first citizen carelessly killed by stray shots while on a moonlight ski with their family? Who will count the wolves now? Oh I forgot, there won’t be any more wolves to count. Shame on you Governor Walker for signing another ludicrous bill that sets Wisconsin’s wildlife back 150 years. Now, should we talk about wetlands??

  3. Posted by: Adrian Wydeven | June 26th, 2012 at 9:53 am

    I realize a lot of people were disappointed by the legislature that created the wolf public harvest. Most WDNR people did not know about the specific legislation until it was made public for all. While some members of public questioned the DNR wolf count, I don’t know that this is a reflection on volunteer trackers, but more of a distrust of DNR surveys in general. We get the same distrust on deer and bear surveys. The WDNR does not make the laws, that is the role of the legislature. The DNR remained neutral on the legislation until the legislature passed the bills. Once passed and signed by the governor, the WDNR is resposnsible for developing harvest zones, quotas, and administrative rules to go along with the law. But WDNR does not have the option to change or disregard the law. Thus WDNR is now in the process of developing a wolf harvest system that will allow a recreational public hunting and trapping season for wolves, while still maintaining a healthy wolf popullation.

    While many people oppose the hunting and trapping of wolves, it needs to be understood the harvest is intended to be sustainable and not wipe out the wolf population. This is not taking us back 150 years, in fact not even 56 years when wolves were shot and trapped year-round and the state paid you $20 for every wolf you killed. The havest will be carefully regulated to make sure a sustainble population of wolves persists on the landscape. I realize a lot of trackers were upset over this process, but I hope most will continue to track wolves. We especially need citizen trackers now to make sure wolf populations are remaining viable, and to help us determine when and where we need to apply more conservation practices. With more controls applied to the wolf population, we need citizen trackers more than ever. We greatly appreciate all the trackers who have devoted their time, efforts and funding over the years. Adrian Wydeven, WDNR.

  4. Posted by: KWolf | June 26th, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    Great to learn about more opportunities to volunteer. I’m currently doing bat population surveys; I want to get my daughter involved in monitoring projects, so I appreciate the contacts list at the end of the article.

    Having met the people of the DNR “in the wild” (as in: not at work!), I know how deeply upset most of them are by Walker’s policies. Please don’t blame them for things that happen when their political hands are completely tied–they also don’t get to spout opinions on company time, so you wouldn’t know how hard it is for them to deal with the anti-environmental agenda of the current State administration. If wolves are being hunted and no one is there to monitor how it impacts their populations, how will Walker’s nutcases ever be stopped? We need the data, even when we’re ticked-off about how it’s being used or not used.

  5. Posted by: Adrian Treves | June 27th, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    The comments made by our dedicated and self-sacrificing volunteer trackers hit home. Wisconsin was once held up as a model of wise management of wolves. I was one of the people who bragged about our science-based policies and prudent interventions that didn’t stir up public controversy. Political appointees have ignored the science from the grassroots work of civilian wolf trackers to academic studies spanning decades.

    Wisconsin may be headed for confrontations in courts and the specter of federal relisting of the wolf in my view, if the current, proposed hunting quotas are filled and extend beyond the first year. The best science available suggests the upcoming harvest will take more than the number of wolves expected; the wolves so tirelessly counted by civilian trackers and DNR biologists for decades. Will we see a 2013 surge in wolf reproduction as a response? Probably not. For one the hunt will eliminate breeders and it can take a pack a year or more to recover and breed again. Also we may not “see” anything. Because the trackers may boycott the annual wolf count we won’t know how many wolves we have left in March. Even the DNR biologists’ counts will be questionable because hunters may take a wolf after the DNR has counted it, given the timing of the wolf hunting season during the annual count. What worries me even more is the widespread and untested assumption that there are too many wolves to tolerate. Thirty years of study indicate the biggest challenges wolves pose for Wisconsin are attacks on domestic animals on private property — not attacks on hunting dogs, not taking too many deer — and there isn’t good evidence the wolf population size is more important than the wolf population spread. If proponents of Act 169 honestly wanted to address a real problem with wolf recovery they would have designed the hunt to reduce farm animal and pet dog depredations. Instead they propose to diminish the wolf population statewide, which could exacerbate the problem for livestock producers and rural landowners.

    Wisconsin is heading blind-folded into an uncertain future, led by poorly informed politicians and their appointees who have been unwilling to read evidence, listen to the experts, or consult the civilians who have devoted years to understanding the situation on the ground.

    In closing, I’ll repeat my testimony to legislators and the public. Wolves should be hunted with respect or not at all.

Have Something to Add? Comment here!