Showing posts with label Massachusetts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Massachusetts. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2009

New Hampshire's Mountain Lion Mystery


by Peg Rosen
Images Courtesy Squam Lakes Natural Science Center

Imagine yourself driving a New Hampshire road at night, the winding pavement illuminated by the splay of the headlights. Suddenly, at the outer edges of your vision you glimpse an animal by the roadside, large and light in color with a long tail You stop to try and get a good look, but it’s gone. “I just saw a mountain lion!” you exclaim to yourself. But mountain lions disappeared from the forests and fields of New Hampshire long ago. Or did they? Do you believe your eyes? Or not?

You wouldn’t be alone in wondering. Numerous New Hampshire residents have encountered the mountain lion mystery Like all good mysteries, trying to discover whether mountain lions exist today in New Hampshire opens the door to a myriad of additional unanswered questions, intriguing clues and divided debate.

The Eastern Cougar (mountain lion), one of 15 subspecies of cougar living in North America, was native to our area at the time of settlement. Also called puma, cougar, catamount and panther, the eastern cougar roamed the landscape preying primarily on deer for food. Elusive and not often seen even in colonial times, its existence was threatened by land clearing for agriculture and logging. The deforestation resulted in habitat changes affecting the availability of prey and cover for protection. In addition, fearful pioneers hunted mountain lions relentlessly, adding to their decline. By the late 1800‚s, the cougar population had been hunted and displaced out of existence east of the Mississippi.

However, throughout the many years since the large, tawny cat was officially declared extirpated from the region, reports continued to trickle in from individuals claiming to have seen one. Today, apparent sightings occur regularly.. According to Mark Ellingwood, a wildlife biologist for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, several dozen sightings are reported each year in New Hampshire. In efforts to validate what may be credible reports, Fish and Game Department biologists ask observers the Who, Where, When and What of the incident and look for patterns of sightings, such as flurries or clusters of reports in a particular area. In order to confirm any sighting, the Department’s “greatest focus is on the existence of hard evidence, such as photos or videos, tracks, scat, hair samples”. On the official record to date, there has not been any piece of hard evidence available that can positively confirm a single sighting. But those who claim to have seen one of the big cats are often quite passionate about their belief in what they saw or found. For those who believe that the cougars have returned, each new sighting and testimony is a validation of that belief.

John Harrigan, a farmer and writer in Colebrook, has been keeping track of “sighting stories” since approximately 1978 and states that “the table is set” for these animals, with deer in abundance and the cougar’s willingness to feed on everything from mice to deer to young moose. With plenty of prey and still adequate forest cover, “there is no reason why there couldn”t be a viable cougar population in New Hampshire.” He applies his own version of questioning to the reports, designed to winnow out the least reliable: How far away was the viewer? What were the lighting weather, and forest cover conditions? How long was the animal in view? Mr. Harrigan declares that “although I am inherently skeptical, there is no doubt we have 2 or 3 cats, even denning females.” His conviction about the presence of reproducing cougars comes partly from several significant sighting reports that occurred in 1988-89 in broad daylight during summer months. He feels these indicate a denning female was taking chances, desperate to feed her young. Although Mr. Harrigan is one of the more vocal advocates of the mountain lion’s presence, there appear to be plenty of other proponents of the idea, as evidenced by the steady stream of reported sightings..

The opposing argument, however, can be quite persuasive when based on the premise that sightings are suspect unless validated by hard physical evidence. Dave Erler, Senior Naturalist at the Squam Lakes Natural Science Center in Holderness, New Hampshire, acknowledges that, although he would very much like to see the mountain lion return to this part of the country where it was an inhabitant before any of us, there is a decided lack of confirming evidence, especially tracks. “An animal that big and heavy couldn’t possibly travel through the snow in New Hampshire and not leave tracks.” Mr. Ellingwood also says that if they were here, we would have something more definitive by now to solve the mystery. “In talking with other biologists in Florida where they have confirmed the presence of the Florida Panther, we‚ve learned that wherever there are cougars, there is no lack of evidence.”

Mr. Harrigan refutes the lack of evidence theory with reasons for the missing elements of proof, explaining that scat, tracks, bits of hair and even deer carcass from a kill will not last long unless an effort is made by the finder to preserve them effectively. Some who hold the view that the cougar is extinct here argue that a cat and car collision would otherwise have occurred by now. But could a case for their presence be made on the idea that such a small number of cats might be able to avoid that type of human contact? What about the compelling stories of sightings told by, according to Harrigan, “keen individuals who have no reason to make something like that up”? Mark Ellingwood concedes that “the people registering reports are reasonable individuals who, even though we (Fish and Game) try to remain objective and respectful of their claim, seem perplexed when we tell them their evidence is not definitive enough for confirmation”.

If the reported sightings haven’t been substantiated by physical evidence and cougars aren’t here, what are people seeing that looks like a mountain lion? Some sightings have been determined to be a matter of mistaken identity, the creature later identified as a bobcat, housecat, or other animal. But in circumstances with good viewing conditions, it would seem difficult to not recognize the distinctive size, shape, color and cat-like movements of a mountain lion

And if the great cats are indeed back, where did they come from? Are they holdouts from the original natives who have remained in Maine or the Canadian Maritime Provinces and have migrated back to our state? Although a mountain lion’s territory range can be vast and migration of some western cougars seem to have occurred in the Midwest based on confirmed sightings there, Ellingwood states that “even though it’s not impossible, the dispersal distances seem too great„ to make migration a likely scenario”, while Harrigan observes that “animals don’t pay attention to borders” and seemingly credible sightings in eastern Canada put the mountain lion in range of our state. Or perhaps the sightings are of escaped or released exotic pets. Could a cougar kept in captivity make it‚s way as a wild creature and manage to survive? Some say “yes”, some say “no”. Cougar strength, agility and power is certainly evident in the physical appearance of the two captive mountain lions at the Squam Lakes Natural Science Center. Brought to the Center from Montana as orphaned two-week-old cubs, they could not have survived without their mother. But, now, as full-grown adults, they seem to possess the physical qualities needed to hunt in our wilderness. But would they know how or be able to learn quickly enough? Who can say if a sighting is of a native Eastern Cougar, an escaped cousin from captivity, or nothing related to a cougar at all?

As long as there are unconfirmed sightings, there will be a mountain lion mystery. “Are there mountain lions in New Hampshire?” Mr. Erler has created categories for the possible responses: Category #1. “Don't know, don't care”, Category #2 “Yep, they’re here”, Category #3. “Nope, they're not here”, and Category #4. “Not sure - wish I could believe they were, but not enough proof to support the notion”.

In what category would you place yourself?


I Believe T-Shirt from Moosewood Communications

Sunday, February 15, 2009

An Open Letter to the City of Fitchburg, MA

By Wayne D. King
Fitchburg is planning to turn off 60% of its lights this year to save money, here's a better idea that will save you more, take your budget for replacing burned out lights and install a new retrofit LED system or retrofit all your lights and save.

Source article: WBZ.com

There are a few important facts to know about LED Technology and Incandescent lighting to fully appreciate this letter.

1. Incandescent street lights have a maximum life of 2 years and go out when they fail
2. LED Lights have an average life of 10.5 years and because they are composed of multiple LEDs they only fade when they "fail".
3. The average incandescent Street light cost $168/year in electricity
4. The Average LED Retrofit costs about $21/year in electricity
5. Insects are not attracted to LED


To Public Works commissioner Lenny Laakso and the people of Fitchburg.

I understand where Mr. Laakso is coming from. The cost of operating street lights is a killer on the budget, and aside from the debatable issue of safety, its a no brainer if the question comes down to keeping schools open or street lights lit.

But a newly patented technology may just solve the problem for you without shutting down 60% of your lights, there may even be some stimulus funds available for installing them.

Recently Best LEDLighting has applied for a patent on a new system for retrofitting street lights. LED Street lights will cost 80-90% less than the traditional incandescent light and save an equal amount in maintenance costs.

Lets look at the numbers.

According to the WBZ.com story on March 13, 2009, the City has about 3000 lights that will be under consideration for this shutdown. They probably have more lights than this, but lets work with this number.

Every Incandescent streetlight costs an average of $168 per year to operate. On an annual basis therefor the city spends about 504,000 for these lights. In addition to this 1/2 of all incandescent street lights mist be replaced every year and the cost of replacement including the light, a bucket truck and maintenance worker averages about $250/light. For 1,500 light that about $375,000. So the total cost for keeping 3000 lights lit and maintained each year is about $879,000. That's a hefty sum.

According to the WBZ.com story turning off 60% of street lights will save about $240,000. But this savings number does not include the maintenance savings. The actual savings will probably be closer to $445,000. Of the 3000 lights, 1800 will be shut off.

If the city were to simply shut off these 1800 street lights there would be a substantial savings while they were off. At some point in the future they will simply be turned back on and the cost to the community will spike back up again. Lets imagine for the sake of argument that this happens after 3 years, so that there are 3 years of saving at $445,000 per year. In a moment you'll see why this matters.

Now let's try a different approach to the problem. Using a newly patented LED Streetlight Retrofit process, we'll look at two possible alternatives and the cost over 10 years:

1. The Zero Sum Solution
Using only the existing street light maintenance budget to convert as many street lights to LED as possible within the existing budget. This is the "Zero Sum" solution. The city realizes its anticipated savings but instead of turning off 1800 street lights the city turns off some and retrofits the others. This new LED technology is more expensive than replacing one incandescent light but it is much more affordable than any other alternative previously available, so for every 3 lights that the city budgeted for replacing, they could retrofit one streetlight with LED Technology. This means in the first year 1/3 of the lights will be retrofit and 2/3 shut off; in year 2 the second third would be retrofit and only 1/3 would remain off; in year 3 the remainder of the lights would be retrofit.

Your Plan - Turn off all 1800 Street Lights - The City's Solution
Year 1 : savings $240,000
Year 2: savings $240,000
Year 3: savings $240,000
Year 4-10: cost $240,000/year or 1.68 million
Net savings for first 3 years: $720,000
Net cost for 10 years: 1.68 million - $720,000 = - $960.000

Retrofit Option 1 - Convert 1/3 to LED each year for 3 years
Cost to operate the 1/3 LED for the entire year: $12,240 (no this is not a typo). This must be subtracted from the savings.
Year 1 : savings $228,000
Year 2: savings $216,000
Year 3: savings $203,000
Year 4-10 Cost: 37,800/year = $264,600
Net savings for first 3 years: $647,000
Net savings for 10 years: $264,600 - $720,000 = $455,000.

Summary: The 10 year cost for just shutting off light for 3 years and then turning them back on is almost 1 million dollars. If the city retrofits 1/3 of the lights at no additional cost to taxpayers there is a net savings of $455,000. All this is achieved using the maintenance budget for conversion costs.

The other approach would be for the city to borrow the full amount needed to make the conversion of the street lights (approximately 2.25 M) financed over 3 years.

2. The Green Investment Solution
Bonding a complete retrofit of all streetlights for 3 years and converting all of the lights to LED.
Year 1-3: $791.000/year (annual cost of existing lights plus maintenance: $879,000)
Year 4-10: $63,000/year or $441,000
Total cost over 10 years including all costs to retrofit: $2,814,000 compared to $8.79 Million for keeping, running and maintaining the incandescent lighting. Saving your taxpayers almost 6 million dollars. Psssst. The second decade looks even better (10 million plus) because you are not paying to retrofit the lights.

Wayne King's company, Moosewood Communications, promotes cutting edge green solutions including Best LEDLighting's LED Retrofit solution.
Learn more at their blog http://GreenerMinds.blogspot.com