The Land Grant University Movement and IANR: Animal Science Seminar Series

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking we were at when we created them." That quote, attributed to Albert Einstein, epitomizes for me the importance of land grant universities in the 21 st century, and whenever I hear someone say that land grants are obsolete - which, occasionally, I do hear - I want to pull that quote out and say "here - read this." When all the problems in the world have been solved, then - and only then - will land grant universities be obsolete. Maybe. I'm not really willing to commit to the idea that the day of obsolete land grants ever will come, but if all the problems in the world are one day solved, then maybe - maybe - I'd consider it.

Introduction for Todd Gleeson at the ADVANCE Seminar

Dean Gleeson earned a doctorate from the University of California, Irvine in developmental and cell biology in 1979, and has been a member of the Boulder faculty since 1981. He is a professor in the Department of Integrative Physiology, and maintains a research laboratory that has trained numerous undergraduates and 20 graduate students and postdoctoral associates. He earned Boulder campus Student Office of Alumni Relations (SOAR) teaching-honors in 1985. He has published over 100 articles and abstracts on his studies of muscle carbohydrate metabolism and the metabolic consequences of muscle fatigue in animals, and he is an elected fellow of the AAAS. He served as Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs on the Boulder campus from 1997-2001, and has served as dean of the College since 2001.

U.S. Meat Export Seminar Welcome

What a great pleasure it is to welcome you to our campus today. We are so very glad to have you here with us in beef country. I'm sure you are all very well aware beef is big business in our powerhouse agricultural state. And as a connoisseur of the product, let me tell you - it's very good beef!

BLACKBIRD DAMAGE AND CONTROL--AN INFORMAL SEMINAR

The object is to hash over a few problems as we see them on this red-winged blackbird situation. I'm Mel Dyer, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Around the table are Tom Stockdale, Extension Wildlife Specialist, Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, Columbus; Maurice Giltz, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; Joe Halusky, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; Daniel Stiles, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.; Paul Rodeheffer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; Brian Hall, Blackbird Research Project, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario; George Cornwell, Virginia Polytechnic Insti¬tute, Blacksburg, Va.; Dick Warren, Peavey Grain Company, Minneapolis, Minn.; Bob Fringer, N.J. Department of Agriculture, Trenton, N.J.; Charles Stone, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; Larry Holcomb, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; Doug Slack, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; Charles Wagg, N.J. Department of Agriculture, Trenton, N.J.; Dick Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; and Jim Caslick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, Fla. As I see the situation, as a director of a red-winged blackbird research project, we have a problem which has been defined in human terms concerning a natural animal population.

The Probe, Issue 164 – April 1996

Opportunities and Challenges Within Wildlife Damage Management, by Robert H. Schmidt, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan Utah 84322-5210 IVFDM Not IVPDM by Robert H. Giles, Jr., Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321 Letter to Editor RE: Pet Sterilization and Animal Rights Correspondence Course Announcement-- Utah State University Virus "Cure" for Rabbit Problem Eludes Human Controls Call for Nominations for Berryman Institute Awards Video Review: Review of "Professional Coyote Trapping" Produced by Fur-Fish-Game, 2878, E. Main St., Columbus, OH 43209. 80 minutes. Wildlife Control Seminar Makes Points With Michigan Man

BIRD HAZARDS TO AIRCRAFT

When I spoke to the third Bird Control Seminar in 1966 on "Ecological Control of Bird Hazards to Aircraft", I reviewed what we had accomplished up to that time. I spoke about the extent of the problem, the bird species involved and the methods we used to make the airports less attractive to birds that created hazards to aircraft. I wish to discuss today our accomplishments since 1966. I have presented a number of papers on the topic including one with Dr. W. W. H. Gunn, in 1967 at a meeting in the United Kingdom, and others in the United States (1968 and 1970) and at the World Conference on Bird Hazards to Aircraft in Canada in 1969. There is no longer any question about the consequences of collision between birds and aircraft. Aircraft have not become less vulnerable either. Engines on the Boeing 747 have been changed as a result of damage caused by ingested birds. Figures crossing my desk daily show that while we are reducing the number of serious incidents and cutting down repair costs, we will continue to have bird strikes. Modification of the airport environment (Solman, 1966) has gone on continuously since 1963. The Department of Transport of Canada has spent more than 10 million dollars modifying major Canadian airports to reduce their attractiveness to birds. Modifications are still going on and will continue until bird attraction has been reduced to a minimum.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.