The document discusses wildlife conservation efforts in Indiana. It describes the Indiana Wildlife Federation's mission to promote conservation of wildlife and habitats through education, advocacy, and action. It provides details on the Federation's programs, which include advocating for conservation policies, educating the public and landowners, and certifying wildlife friendly habitats. The document also discusses the status of Indiana's wildlife, including numerous game and non-game species, and the threats they face such as habitat loss and pollution.

1. Presentation to the
Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force
November 10, 2011
INDIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Common Sense Conservation Since 1938
Barb Simpson
Executive Director

2. Indiana Wildlife Federation Mission
To promote the conservation, sound management,
and sustainable use of Indiana's wildlife and
wildlife habitat through education, advocacy, and
action.
www.indianawildlife.org

3. Indiana Wildlife Federation
Common Sense Conservation since 1938
 Diverse state-wide
membership of individuals,
conservation organizations
and businesses
 Non profit 501(c)(3)
 Independent affiliate of the
National Wildlife Federation

4. Advocacy
 Indiana Heritage Trust
 Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force
 Phosphorus-free lawn fertilizer program
 IDNR rule-making and legislation to ensure fish
and wildlife protection
 Sound sustainable energy policy
 Regional and federal natural resources issues,
e.g. Farm Bill, Great Lakes Compact, Clean
Water Act
www.indianawildlife.org

5. Education
 Private lands conservation programs
 Partner with NRCS, IDNR, SWCD
 Wildlife Friendly Habitat projects:
 Backyard, Schoolyard, Neighborhoods, Businesses
 Environmental education in our schools
 Indiana Environmental Literacy Plan
 Clean energy, sustainable strategies
 Electric vehicles public forum
 Water quality workshops

6. Landscaping the Sustainable Campus
Campuses using P-free fertilizer :
 Universities or colleges
interested in sustainable
lawn care, reducing lawn
size, and certifying natural
areas as wildlife friendly
habitats
 Working with
administration, staff, faculty,
& students
 10 Indiana universities

7. The Health of Indiana’s Water
 What nutrient problems
threaten fish and wildlife?
 How can clean water &
healthy habitats be restored?
 6 workshops statewide:
 Lafayette
 Hanover
 Portage
 Evansville
 Terre Haute
 Muncie

8. Support Phosphorus-free Initiatives
 Increased availability of P-free
fertilizer in stores and from lawn
service companies:
 Scotts Miracle-Gro Company will
have P-free Turf Builder line by
2012
 TruGreen and Engledow Group are
already P-free

9. Conservation Outreach and Education
IWF partners with NRCS, IDNR, SWCS
 Private landowners
 Little Calumet-Galien watershed
 Healthy Rivers Initiative-Wabash and
Muscatatuck River watersheds
 Conservation practices, landowner
assistance programs, and technical
assistance
 Emphasis on WRP, WHIP, EQIP, and
Wabash Corridor
invasive species

10. Wildlife Friendly
Certification Program
 Provided technical assistance,
coordination, and follow-up for 22
projects (~530 ac.) in 2010.
 Included restoration (new habitat) and
management (improve existing habitat)
projects.
 Grassland plantings, tree/shrub plantings,
wetland construction, and invasive
species control.

11. Wildlife in Indiana
 The Indiana setting and state comparisons
 Wildlife - health of the resource and challenges
 Game species
 Non-game species
 Habitat threats
 Wildlife associated recreation
 Hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife watching participation
 Economics
 Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats: One
perspective
 An Indiana Success Story – Sneak Peak

12. The Indiana Setting
 Smallest state west of the Appalachian Mountains
 11 natural regions
 Land cover
 72% agriculture
 19% forest
 4.3% urban/suburban
 4% wetlands and water
 Great diversity due to Lake Michigan to the north, Ohio
River to the south, and the Wabash River to the west.
Sources: Wilson, J., Indiana in Maps-Geographic Perspectives of the Hoosier State, 2003.
Simon, T., Fishes of Indiana, A Field Guide, 2011

13. Indiana has diverse
natural regions that
provide unique
habitats.
Lake Michigan
NW Moraines
Northern Lakes
Grand Prairie
Central Till Plane
Southern Bottomlands
SW Lowlands
Shawnee Hills
Highland Rim
Bluegrass

14. Indiana state-owned public land
Less than 5% of Indiana
lands are publically owned.
http://www.in.gov/dnr/3233.htm

15. State Comparisons: Population, Parks, Visitors
State Population Size State Parks Visits Visits per
(millions) (sq. miles) (millions) park
Illinois 12.9 55,600 44 30.0 682,000
Ohio 11.54 41,000 75 54.3 724,000
Michigan 9.88 96,810 100 21.2 212,000
Indiana 6.48 35,900 25 15.4 616,000
Missouri 6.00 69,700 85 15.9 187,000
Wisconsin 5.69 54,300 106 14.5 137,000
Minnesota 5.30 86,900 66 9.5 144,000
Iowa 3.05 55,900 69 14.0 203,000
Source: TNC data summary distributed to SNRTF

16. Wildlife in Indiana
Their Basic Needs
 Food
 Shelter
 Water
 Space-privacy

17. >700 Vertebrate Species in Indiana
 Vertebrates >700  Invertebrates >2000
 Birds 390+  Insects
 Fish 190+  Crustaceans
 Reptiles 50+  Arachnids
 Mammals 50+  Mollusks
 Amphibians 30+  Worms
 Sponges

18. Wildlife - Hunting and Trapping
 Woodland game  Fur bearing game
 Deer  Beaver
 Ruffed Grouse  Coyotes
 Squirrel  Mink
 Wild Turkey  Muskrats
 Opossum
 Upland game
 Raccoons
 Pheasant
 Red Fox
 Quail
 Rabbit

19. White-tailed Deer
 Reintroduced in 1934, now overabundant
 Est. 34,000+ deer-vehicle collisions 2009-2010
 Populations are controlled primarily by hunters
 Future management will require a much more
proactive approach to increasing annual deer
harvests
80% of counties
(red and orange)
above target
density
Over browsing has negative
ecological impact

20. Ruffed Grouse
 1 of only 3 native game birds
 Requires young forest habitat
 90% of IN forests are between
20 and 99 years of age
 Need increased timber harvests
where remnant populations are
found or this species will not
be in Indiana
 Need forest age diversity for
numerous species, not just
grouse.

21. Northern Bobwhite Quail
 Facing consistent long-term population declines
 Requires early successional grassland and shrubland habitat
 High grain prices and intensive farming are rapidly
increasing threats
 Small habitat changes at a broad scale could result in
tremendous rebounds
 Funding and outreach for landowner assistance programs is
vital
Indiana Quail Population Trends

22. Game fish in Indiana
 Native
 Black bass
 Bluegill
 Crappies
 Catfish
 Other pan fish
 Trout and salmon
 Introduced sport fish
 Walleye
 Striped bass
 Hybrid striped bass
 Muskellunge

23. Black Bass
 Includes largemouth, smallmouth, and spotted bass
 Abundance and individual health varies greatly across
their distribution, but generally stable statewide
 Major threats are primarily
 Sedimentation of streams
 Eutrophication of lakes
 Other habitat concerns
 Not necessarily pressure from harvest

24. Game Species for Trapping
Species Total Sold Avg. Price
2011 YTD
Muskrats 551 6.30
Raccoons 467 11.25
Red Fox 3 28.00
Mink 33 16.00
Coyotes 13 7.00
Beaver 2 15.00
Opossum 25 1.35
Grey Fox 0 0
Skunks 0 0
Weasels 1 1.00
http://www.indianatrappers.org/

25. US Hunters and Anglers Declining
Indiana trend is similar
2006 participation rate in Indiana: 5.5% hunters, 13.1% anglers
Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

26. IN Deer Hunters above the national average
Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

27. Deer Harvest in Indiana
Rise indicates growth in deer population

28. IN Turkey Hunters above the national average
Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

29. IN Black bass anglers >
US participation rate
Source: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

30. Hunter and angler access issues
 Anglers:
 Good access sites around lakes are gone
 Expensive to get new access sites
 Stream access limited if not “navigable”
 Must be in a boat. Cannot wade “non-navigable” streams
 Hunters:
 Less than 5% of Indiana is public land
 Access to private lands is limited
 Liability issues
 Some states pay a fee to landowner for access to hunt.
 Less land to hunt - land use changes

31. More people hunt on private lands
Access is key to preserving hunting tradition
Source: Trends in Hunting on Public and Private Land, USFWA, 2006

32. Whooping cranes use Indiana habitat
on their migration route
Photos taken at Goose Pond FWA

33. Wildlife Diversity
 >90% of Indiana mammals, birds, fish, mussels,
reptiles and amphibians are non-game species
 IC 14-22-34 requires: “The development of
programs designed to ensure the continued
ability of nongame species in need of
management to self perpetuate successfully.
 Funded only through the voluntary tax check off
Nongame Fund and State Wildlife Grants
 No state tax appropriations.

34. >700 Vertebrate Species in Indiana
124 are State Endangered (63) or Special Concern (61)
Total SE or SC
 Birds 390+ 47
 Fish 190+ 25
 Reptiles 50+ 19
 Mammals 50+ 22
 Amphibians 30+ 11
Success stories: Bald eagle, River otter, Bobcat
“All the easy ones have been done”
www.endangeredwildlife.in.gov

35. >2000 Invertebrate Species in Indiana
 Invertebrates >2000  Only mollusks tracked for
 Insects Endangered or Special concern
 Crustaceans
status
 Arachnids
 Mollusks:
 State endangered 15
 Mollusks
 Special concern 11
 Worms
 Federal endangered 10
 Sponges
Fanshell
White Cat’s Paw
Mollusks are the “canary in the coal mine” for water quality.

36. Indiana’s 16 Federally Endangered Species
 Mammals  Mollusks
 Gray Myotis  Fanshell
 Indiana Myotis  White Cat’s Paw
 Northern Riffleshell
 Birds
 Tubercled Blossom
 Whooping Crane
 Pink Mucket
 Piping Plover
 White Wartyback
 Least Tern
 Orangefoot Pimpleback
 Kirtland’s Warbler
 Clubshell
 Rough Pigtoe
 Fat Pocketbook

37. ~75% of all animal species are insects
 Insects provide critically important services: pollination, pest
control, a food source for wildlife.
 We must understand the role of insects in the food chain.
 “IDNR does not have statutory responsibility or expertise to
direct conservation and management practices for most
groups of invertebrate wildlife.” from ICWS, pg.28
 Div. of Entomology and Plant Pathology is a small group
with broad responsibilities focused on the commercial nursery
and pollinator industries, e.g. commercial bees, emerald ash
borer, gypsy moth.

38. Non-game Species on the Rise
 Bobcat, river otter, osprey, bald eagle,
others rebounding statewide
 Due to successful reintroductions &
intensive management
 IDNR Division of Fish & Wildlife’s
Wildlife Diversity Section has been a
tremendous success

39. Non-game Species in Trouble
 Declines due to complex issues
 Indiana Bat – disease and habitat loss
 Box turtles, whip-poor-wills, freshwater
mussels – habitat loss
 Several species require rare and
declining habitat
 Young forests, large forest blocks,
wetlands, grasslands, and clean water

40. Threats to Wildlife
 Habitat  Pollution - sediment,
 Loss for breeding excess nutrients
 Loss for feeding  Agriculture/forestry
 Fragmentation practices
 Impedes movement
and migration
 Climate change
 Size-scale is critical  Counter economic or
 Invasive species policy incentives
 Commodity prices
 Diseases
 Farm bill cutbacks
 Energy strategies
Source: Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy

41. Invasive species threaten
Indiana’s Ecology and Economy
Zebra mussels-established Emerald ash borer-spreading
Sea lamprey attached to trout-
ongoing control and expense
Feral hogs-growing issue

42. Asian carp are in Indiana rivers and are
threatening the Great Lakes
Eagle Marsh fence

43. Invasive plants
threaten
wildlife habitat
and
Forest-Japanese Stilt grass
working lands
Farmlands/open space-Canada Thistle Wetlands-Phragmites australis

44. Wildlife Corridors-An Approach
“Green Infrastructure” to reduce habitat fragmentation
Networks of:
 Natural lands
 Working lands
 Other open spaces
http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/definition-green-infrastructure

45. Connecting public lands via wildlife corridors

46. Indiana’s restored wetlands play an important
role in migratory bird patterns.
 North American Flyways  Mississippi Flyway

47. American White Pelican
First observed 1892 - Next observed in 2009
State record high count 359 in 2010
Migratory pattern is shifting
eastward due to wetlands in Indiana

48. 32 Species of Shorebirds migrate thru Indiana-
from the Arctic to South America
Stilt Sandpiper, 70 in 2010.
State Record High Count at
Goose Pond FWA
Source: Lee Sterrenburg

49. Wildlife Watching

50. How many Hoosiers
hunt, fish, and watch wildlife?
000’s
Bass 324
Catfish 223
Deer 231
Turkey 35
Waterfowl ---
Watchers 2,042

51. How does Indiana compare: hunters,
anglers, and wildlife watchers?
State Bass Catfish Deer Turkey Waterfowl Watchers
000’s 000’s 000’s 000’s 000’s 000’s
Indiana 324 223 231 35 --- 2,042
Kentucky 344 275 238 76 --- 1,475
Illinois 378 335 204 61 65 2,566
Ohio 457 288 426 96 --- 3,489
Michigan 531 64 713 81 --- 3,227
Sources: Report 2006-8 Trends in Hunting and Fishing 1999-2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Report 2006-1 Wildlife Watching in the US: The Economic Impacts on National and State
Economics in 2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service

52. Participation and expenditures-2006
Hunting, fishing, wildlife watching in Indiana
Activity Participants Expenditures Avg. /Person
Retail sales
Fishing 768,000 $627 mil $773
Hunting 272,000 $223 mil $791
Wildlife 2,042,000 $933 mil $453
watching

53. Bird-watching is the fastest growing
outdoor pastime
Source:“America’s Wildlife: The Challenge Ahead International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

54. Economic Value of $Millions
Wildlife Watching Retail sales $934
in Indiana Ripple effect $1,593
Salaries and owner $535
income
Jobs 18,380
State/Local Tax $128
Revenue
Federal Tax $117
Revenue
Source: Report 2006-1 Wildlife Watching in the US: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economics,
US Fish and Wildife Service

55. State Budget 2011-2013
“Conservation and Environmental” = 1.1%
http://www.in.gov/sba/files/ap_2011_b_x.pdf

56. Funding Natural Resources?
 State budget funds?
 Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT)?
 A municipality receives a payment in lieu of property
or sales tax revenue from another government entity
that owns a real asset, such as land, or a valuable
right-of-way.
 Federal to state PILT
 Other new funding mechanisms?

57. One perspective….
Strengths Weaknesses
Collaboration among Lack of overarching strategic alignment
conservation community among all conservation entities
Major Rivers and Lake Inadequate funding for management and
Michigan conservation of wildlife and habitat;
stS maintenance of equipment and facilities,
wildlife monitoring and research
Committed people Inadequate people resources
Diverse habitats Outreach and education activities limited
Proven success stories Hunter/angler fees pay for all who use public
wildlife areas
Indiana has 2nd highest prime Conservation best management practices on
farm acreage working lands not fully utilized to benefit
wildlife and habitat
Strong hardwoods market Too many programs depend on grants

58. One perspective…
Opportunities Threats
SNRTF-can be a turning point in Habitat loss, fragmentation,
Indiana’s approach to conservation degradation
Healthy Rivers Initiative and Wildlife Invasive species
Corridors approach
stS
Outdoor recreation has economic impact Water quality and quantity
Migratory waterfowl returning Children losing their connection to
nature
Wildlife watching growing Federal and state cuts in
conservation funding
Find a way to get non-consumptive users Loss of hunters/anglers
to financially support natural resources
Need energy strategy that includes Energy strategies can conflict with
stewardship of natural resources. conservation objectives

59. A Success Story……
Goose Pond
Fish and Wildlife Area

60. Greene County
Circa 1869

61. Drainage began in earnest at the
turn of the last century. Farmed
for 100 years.

62. Goose Pond Fish and Wildlife Area
 8000 acres wetland restoration under the NRCS Wetland Reserve
Program
 Diverse habitat:
 1380 acres prairie
 400 acres hardwood trees
 >4000 acres open water
 Funding through complex partnerships:
 The Nature Conservancy
 Ducks Unlimited
 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
 Federal Highway Administration
 US Fish and Wildlife Service
 State of Indiana agencies
 Other conservation groups, communities, individuals

63. Goose Pond….the Story of a Wetland and its Neighbors
Lee Sterrenburg
www.friendsofgoosepond.org