An Interview with Jim Tabor, District Wildlife Biologist Jim Tabor has served the state since 1977 when he was under contract to research the impacts of Columbia River dams on wildlife. For the past 18 years he has been the district wildlife biologist for central Washington's Columbia Basin, specifically Grant, Adams, and Franklin counties. His work emphasis has become waterfowl, although he covers all game and non-game species. As a furbearer specialist, Jim is also an instructor of the state's required Trapper Education course. Two of his recent trapping students were so impressed with his professionalism and knowledge that they recommended he be featured in this series.

Q: By the nature of where you work, has waterfowl become your "thing"? A: Yes, because my district is an important area for waterfowl breeding and wintering — in fact because of the Columbia Basin irrigation projects, this area is one of the most important for waterfowl in the state — a high percentage of my work is focused on waterfowl, and a lot of that is waterfowl habitat enhancement. Many of the habitat enhancements we do are related to removal of carp. Carp are tremendous competitors for the basis of the food chain, the aquatic invertebrates, which are important to young ducks and other wildlife. Carp are so efficient and productive that they'll dominate a body of water and leave little food for other species. So we spend a lot of effort trying to keep carp out. The wetlands in the Columbia Basin irrigation project, water that was brought to this dry country, has created many peripheral wetlands to the irrigated farmland. That was done in the late ‘50's and early ‘60's. During the first 20 years of that, those were extremely productive wetlands, in their early stage of succession, carp had not dominated, it produced lots of ducks and geese and other wildlife. A lot of those wetlands now are old. Many shallow ones are wet meadows with dense stands of emergent vegetation and little open water. In recent years we've been trying to put those old wetlands back to an earlier stage of succession. We've done that by several means, one by excavation, removing those organic sediments that fill those wetlands up. We've tried to control some of the invading weeds, like purple loosestrife. We're trying to keep our wetlands productive, and that requires active management. If we were purely passive and protective, our wetlands would lose overall productivity because they would all become late stage wetlands which produce different types of wildlife in smaller numbers. Q: So we've got an aging ecosystem, that without intervention won't meet the recreational demand for wildlife here? A: That's right. This is one of the most popular waterfowl hunting and waterfowl viewing areas of the state. And meeting that demand is costly. Getting funds from different sources to initiate habitat enhancement projects hasn't been too difficult, but getting O&M money, operations and maintenance money to take care of these wetlands on an ongoing basis, that's difficult. The actions we take to maintain wetlands in an early successional stage also confuse people. Taking a bulldozer out in a wetland doesn't sound good or look good, but when you see what it does, it's understandable. Our goal now is to keep the late successional stage wetlands from dominating the landscape. What we want to do is keep a good balance of all age wetlands, which keeps a good diversity of all kinds of wildlife. Q: What part of your job do you like best? A: I'm working with wildlife and wildlife habitat, and that's always been my goal. Originally I did research, and that was exciting. Now in management, it's a challenge to figure out how we can collect the data we need to make decisions because there's rarely enough money to get really good data, apart from specific research projects. My job as a district wildlife biologist is to provide that scientifically based information to my supervisors to make decisions. My goal has been to have some influence in how wildlife is managed, and I think my job allows me to do that. In the big picture, the area I'm responsible for is tiny, but it's important. And it's as much as, or more than, one person can handle. I'd like to have assistants so I could gather more information, but that seems to be our biggest handicap. We have to make decisions without a lot of biological information, and we're forced to do that because there's never enough money. Getting back to what I like about this work, I love to fly. And one of the things I've been advocating for many years is increased use of aircraft for gathering data, because it's an effective and efficient way to cover a lot more ground. This past year has been a terrible one for use of aircraft in wildlife survey work — there have been several crashes and loss of life — so it can be risky, but over time it's an efficient way to collect information. A good example is gathering post-hunting season deer herd composition. Here we can see deer from the ground, because it's open habitat. However, in a helicopter we're so much more efficient. The data we gather in an hour from a helicopter is probably equivalent to a week or more on the ground. Q: Where did you come up with that goal of working with wildlife? A: I grew up in central Texas and I was always interested in hunting and fishing and trapping, although no one else in my family was. My dad and brothers didn't hunt or fish, but I loved it. I've trapped since I was eight years old, starting out on my own probably with the monetary motivation to sell fur, and I continued through college and to this day. But it isn't all monetary incentive, especially not today with fur prices down. Trapping is very challenging to your knowledge of wild animals. There's nothing quite like running a trapline. How I got into it on my own, I'm not sure. Hunting and fishing for many people is a social activity, but it's never been for me. I was not a socialite, growing up in a rural area. And trapping is pretty much a lone activity. Anyway, at some point in high school I decided I wanted to be a wildlife biologist. At that time in Texas the place you got the kind of training you needed to do that was at Texas A&M. My family had very little money, so I scraped and saved to get myself into that school and got a bachelor's degree in wildlife science. I wanted to get a master's degree so I looked for a fellowship and got one at Oregon State University, but before I could fill that I was drafted into the Army. I was in the service for a couple of years and then got back to Oregon State and did my master's thesis work on river otters. I was looking at better methods for determining populations of river otters. I had a lot of interest, and still do, in furbearers. I first worked in the Oregon State Cooperative Research Unit, inventorying wildlife that could be affected by the water fluctuations from the dams on the Columbia River. I also headed up some work funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation to determine the impacts of highways on wildlife. Then I started work for what was then the Washington Department of Game on the Columbia River hydropower study of impacts on wildlife. Q: Is your graduate work and interest in furbearers the reason you conduct Trapper Education classes now? A: Probably. Trapper Education is normally handled by Enforcement personnel because they do animal control work. But here it kind of naturally flowed to me because of my interest. You know Trapper Education was originated in this country by the state of Washington. Trapping has always been pretty controversial. There are a lot of folks out there that don't like the idea of a critter being held by the foot until the trapper comes to remove it. And there are people who don't like animals to be killed by any manner, especially if held in a steel jaw trap by the foot. A lot of that attitude has been caused by a few people who are not ethical. Our trapper training is aimed at making sure our trappers know how to be ethical and responsible. The main opposition to trapping has been a question of humaneness. The average person probably envisions an animal caught in a trap with its leg broken, staying in a trap for many hours, suffering tremendous pain. That's not representative of most trapping today. Most species are caught in instant-kill traps. Most foot-hold traps are used in water and quickly drown the animal. A lot of people are not adequately informed or are misinformed about trapping and furbearer management. We have to control populations of these animals just as we do others, especially since we've squeezed them out of a lot of their habitat. Without recreational trapping, the taxpayers will bear the burden of government control of some of these animals. Beavers are the biggest problem. Beavers are trouble makers in a civilized, developed environment because they're going to cut down trees and impound water wherever they are, because that's what beavers do. And often times it's not particularly where people want water impounded and not particularly the tree they want to see fall. So there's lots of damage, and there always will be, if we want to share our world with wildlife. If private, recreational trappers aren't helping control the numbers of these animals, paid government trappers will have to. And these animals can be harvested without threat to the long term health of the population. I think that's what many people don't understand — the population concept of wildlife. Most people think about individual animals. Wildlife professionals have to think about populations. None of us want to see an animal mistreated. None of us like the idea of an animal dying a slow death. We know it happens, but we have regulated the means of taking wildlife that reduces that possibility, that minimizes inhumaneness. Q: How do you feel about the future of wildlife management? A: Well I haven't lost all hope. We will see reduced wildlife populations and reduced consumptive use of wildlife as more habitat is converted to human use. I think there's a big need for people in our profession to make sure that people don't completely crowd out wildlife. Wildlife is an important component of a quality life. If you have good wildlife populations, you probably have a pretty good environment for people, too. I spent a couple of years in Germany and they have a society that's been there for a long time compared to here. They've reached a point where their population growth is slow and they're concerned about maintaining a quality environment, and they've accomplished that. Wildlife is still present. Hunting is not a big deal there, but it still occurs. And a very high percentage of people appreciate wildlife. I think that will happen here, too. I think there's hope.