|
The October, 2007 issue of National Geographic Magazine has a short-take on the impacts of windmills on Lesser Prairie-Chickens. The article is in their Conservation section and is titled "Nowhere to Nest?" Though only a long paragraph in length, it is great to get this issue out nationally by such as creditible source as National Geographic. It also discusses the fact that Lesser Prairie-Chickens, which is still a federal candidate for listing as a threatened species due to loss of habitat, avoid power transmillion lines as well as windmills (and the roads that go with this development).
Most of you are probably aware that grassland bird species like the Lesser Prairie-Chicken avoid nesting in areas with tall objects like windmills and power lines. Though the recent push, supported by many in Audubon, for wind development has created a conundrum since there are effectively no regulations about placement of windmills and a recent wind farm being developed near the Pawnee National Grasslands went forward without apparent concern for the important raptor nesting nearby. And there are other species that have been shown to be impacted by windmills including bats. We need to support "smart wind energy" development that takes into account the impact of not only the windmills, but the placement of additional power lines and roads to serve them, on species. The feature article in this edition is also great: "Growing Fuel-The Wrong Way, The Right Way". They debunk the current myth that corn kernal based ethanol is a good thing for the environment: "Biofuels as currently rendered in the U.S are doing great things for some farmers and for agricultural giants like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, but little for the environment. Also in this issue is an article on how to cut emissions contributing to global climate change and Climate Change map.
I am delighted with this issue of National Geographic and I encourage each of you to go out and buy this issue if you don't subscribe. You might also consider sending them a letter noting the value of their article (send to: ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com ) We need to encourage more good conservation articles.
|
|
|