870 research outputs found
Interview with Clyde Bolin by Thomas Goettel, May 1, 2002
No full textOral history interview with Clyde Bolin. Thomas Goettel was the interviewer.
Mr. Bolin was a law enforcement/pilot for the Fish and Wildlife Service. He discusses always wanting to work for the Service, cases he worked, and shares some stories from his time in the various locations he worked.
Organization: FWS
Name: Clyde Bolin
Years: 1968-1989
Program: Law Enforcement
Keywords: History, Biography, Aircraft, Bird banding, Employees (USFWS), Personnel, Waterfowl, Pilot, Nesting surveys, Law enforcement, Bill Snow, Flick Davis, Howard Brown, Eider Duck work, Military, Tommy Wharton, Jerry Stout, Management and Enforcement, Howard MendelINTERVIEW WITH CLYDE BOLIN
BY THOMAS GOETTEL MAY 1, 2002
MR. GOETTEL: It’s May 1, 2002 and we’re sitting in a room at the Holiday Inn
Express in Hadley, Massachusetts. I was presently surprised today when Paul O’Neal
stuck his head in my office and said that Clyde Bolin and his wife were in town visiting.
So I asked Clyde if he would consent to do a quick oral interview and he said yes. Maybe
you could start out Clyde be telling us how you got started with your career with the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
MR. BOLIN: It was a long road. I had been trying to get on with the Service for about
three and a half years or four years. I didn’t have a degree in Wildlife Management or
such at that time, and they said I should go back and get an additional degree. I started to
do that, and while I was working on that degree I had an opportunity to go to work for
Kansas Fish and Game. At that time it was the Kansas Forestry Fish and Game
Commission. I already had a degree, so I took a job as a State Game Protector for Kansas.
I worked for them for two years. I was getting ready to; I had been accepted and taken
the physical and was getting ready to go into the Kansas Highway Patrol. They were
expanding their air division and I wanted to be involved in Law Enforcement flying. Two
weeks before the Academy for the Kansas Highway Patrol was to start, I was going to
leave Kansas Fish and Game; I got a call out of the clear blue from Flick Davis. I don’t
know if they were called ARDs at that time or not. He was the Regional Office head for
Law Enforcement in the Twin Cities. He wanted to interview me and wanted to know if I
was still interested in the job. So we agreed to meet in Kansas City. He came down from
the Twin Cities. I rented an airplane and wanted Nancy to come along. We met him up
at Kansas City downtown airport in our little rented airplane. He flew in commercial.
We met and spent the afternoon eating doughnuts and drinking coffee. I guess we got all
of his questions answered. He had a flight out; we met before lunch and he had a flight
out at about 3:00pm or so to get back to the Twin Cities. He said he would let me know.
He had to go and discuss this with the Regional Director. So we got in our little airplane
and flew back. At that time I was in Coffee County, Kansas which. is about fifteen or
twenty miles southeast of Emporia, Kansas. I got a call from the operator. She said she
had a telegram for me. She wanted to know if I wanted her to read it or mail it. I told her
to read it and mail me a copy. She did, and it was from Flick. I had been accepted for a
U. S. Game Management position. That’s what it was called at the time. The job was in
Port Clinton, Ohio.
MR. GOETTEL: What year was that?
MR. BOLIN: 1968. She [the operator] asked me if I wanted to reply. I told her I would
have to call her back. There were five positions open in the Region, and Flick said that I
could fill three of them. One of them was in Port Clinton. So we had to stop and so
some thinking. I was two weeks away from going to the Highway Patrol Academy with a
guaranteed flying job. They wanted me to work on the ground for a year. They were
expanding and wanted me to fly with their air units. I said that this was the job that I had
always wanted. I had been trying to get on with the Fish and Wildlife Service for over
three years. I even drove down to Albuquerque and I met with the RD down there,
because everybody in Law Enforcement was out of the office. That was back in 1965 or
1966. He was very cordial, a very nice gentleman. I had kind of given up on going to
work for the Fish and Wildlife Service. I told them, “Yes, we’ll take the position, where’s
Port Clinton, Ohio?” We had never really traveled east of the Mississippi, and very little
east of the Missouri.
MR. GOETTEL: So you were already a Pilot at that time?
MR. BOLIN: I had my private license. And I was building up hours any way I could. I
was also a rated Navigator in the Kansas Air National Guard. We were flying the old RB-
57 Canbarras. [Sic-a type of airplane] I was doing some flying as a Navigator. We ended
up moving to Ohio. We spent four years there. Everybody knew that I was wanting a
flying position. They told me that I kind had to wait my turn like everybody does. A
position opened in Rhode Island. Of course, I was in Region 3 at that time. I applied for
it and I guess there was, I heard that there were some ten or twelve people who had
applied for the position. I got it. We moved to Rhode Island after four years in Ohio.
While I was in Ohio, I worked and got my commercial pilot’s license on my own. I think
that kind of helped pave the way for the position out here. I came out here and we had a
little L-19 on straight floats, kept on Ohio Fish and Game property at the Great Swamp
in Rhode Island on the Warden’s pond. There was an agreement when Bill Snow was a
pilot there years before. The Service had built a hanger on State property, dug a canal in
to it, put in a formal concrete footing on it. You could taxi a plane off of Warden’s pond
in to this little short canal, which about 100 or 150 feet long. You could taxi the plane up
to the hanger, run an electric hoist out on a big beam, hoist the plane up, pull it in this
hanger, and close the hanger doors. It was a nice hanger for just a straight floatplane.
That’s what was there when we came to Rhode Island. I flew that plane for about four
years. I got to take that plane for two summers up to Labrador with Bill Snow and
Howard Brown. They went up to service amphibious Beaver out of Maine. We went up
and did Eider Duck work with the cooperation of the University of Maine out of Orono
with Dr. Howard Mendel. We did that for two summers. Bill Snow retired shortly after
that. That must have been in 1974 or 1975 or 1976. I think Bill retired in 1976. I think it
was mandatory. They put everybody on notice in 1972 and they were supposed to be
gone by…I got my instrument in 1977. Anyway, Bill retired and I inherited the Beaver.
They were going to put another pilot in up there. So the L-19 went to either North
Carolina or South Carolina State Forestry Department. They were going to use it for
forest fire spotting. We took it off of the floats and put it on wheels. They came out and
picked it up and now I had the Beaver. I flew it for about two and a half years and then
put in for a new aircraft and got it approved. So in 1978 we took delivery on a new
Cessna 185 “amphib” on Whip Line floats. Forney Air Service out of Lafayette,
Louisiana got the bid. They picked the new plane up at the factory in Wichita, flew it up
to the Twin Cities where Whip Line is. They landed on the river up there on wheels.
They put it on the floats and flew it back down to Lafayette, Louisiana and when it was
all ready to go I got on a commercial flight and flew down to Lafayette, Louisiana. Their
pilot got on board with us and got me all checked out on the plane and flew back with us.
I got some cross country [experience] and did some checking out on the plane. We had
one over-night on the way up from Louisiana. I came up and spent the next afternoon,
and day checking him out on the Beaver. He had a little time. Of course, he had quite a
bit of flip plane time. I checked him out in the Beaver and at about 3:30 or so in the
afternoon he’s going to head back to Louisiana. I asked him why didn’t he wait until in
the morning. He said that he wanted to go as far as he could. He took off for Lafayette,
Louisiana in the Beaver. It ended up, because there was getting to be fewer pilots,
particularly fewer LE pilots, and fewer LE pilot duty stations I ended up spending
seventeen years in Rhode Island, which was very unusual after only one duty station in
Port Clinton, Ohio. But I wanted to keep flying. I got inquires from a couple of different
duty stations. They tried to get me to go to King Salmon, Alaska. This was “no where”
Alaska. It is on the mainland just up above the Aleutian chain.
MR. GOETTEL: And the Peninsula.
MR. BOLIN: Right up there. For someone who wanted to hunt and fish and live off of
the land it would have been heaven. We still had a boy in school with college coming up
and I said no. I thought King Salmon was a little too…you know, if a family can’t hack
it, it’s not going to work.
MR. GOETTEL: I was up there a couple of years ago, and it is remote.
MR. BOLIN: It’s like a vacation thing. It’d be nice to go to for a few days, or a week or
two but year round, I couldn’t see that. We never really had any regrets. We did very
well in Rhode Island. With the Amphib we did quite a bit of Eagle transplanting work
from Canada down to here. I picked up birds from several different places in Canada and
brought them down for transplanting on Quavin [Sic] Reservoir, and down on the Virginia
shore down in the Chesapeake area where they went down there to the various States.
Some of that, we did with a rental plane. I could rent a 210, which is a pretty fast
retractable gear, high winged Cessna. In transporting Eagles, you kind of don’t want to
dilly-dally. My plane would only do about 120 knots, or about 128 mph. That 210 we
were leasing out of Providence would do about 150 or 155 knots, I don’t recall for sure,
which is getting up to around 165 or 170 mph. It was a lot faster than my plane. It had a
higher surface ceiling and retractable gear. It was pretty fast. It was a big jump up from
what I was flying.
MR. GOETTEL: What was it like working in Ohio with…I guess you were right around
the Lake Erie marshes?
MR. BOLIN: Yeah, Port Clinton is right on the Lake. In the marshes, the gun clubs were
all around Port Clinton. All around the Sandusky Bay, most of it’s…most of them are
pretty much from Sandusky well west of Cleveland from Sandusky and Sandusky Bay
and west, but east of Toledo. You’ve got about 25 or 35 miles of lakeshore there, were
most of the old, traditional clubs were. They were still pretty much in operation when I
was there. They’d gotten smart. Once Jacobson got that case through Federal Court, I
don’t remember when that was but I think it was in the 1950’s, it might have been early
1960’s but I think it was the 1950’s. I could be totally wrong. But the case got a guy
sent to prison for baiting. He had been caught several times before and he got before
Judge Clobe and he got sent to Federal Prison. That was the wake up call. There is so
much money there. You can fine those people forever. That was just like the old term,
“water off a duck’s back”. That didn’t have any influence with them. When they started
looking at prison time in a Federal Prison, that was a real wake up call. It didn’t totally
stop it, but it pretty well stopped it. There were still those who wanted to play the little
game. I don’t think they baited as much, and I don’t think they baited as long during the
season. I think most of it was pre-season, trying to get the ducks initially coming in. We
made a few baited cases, but they were sparse. You’re trying to cover so much area up
there with one Agent to get around and just check the hunting activity, and looking for
bait while you were there. But there were so many places. Some of the marshes were so
large. Even flying, it was difficult to come up with much on baiting in the years that I
was there. And just being there for four years, I was just beginning to know it pretty well
when this opportunity came up for this flying position. If you could put somebody in
there, and have them there a minimum of, I’d say six years or eight to ten years and have
them get intimately familiar with those marshes. Because there are locked gates, and there
are back ways in and this way and that way in. Sometimes when you get to know it well
enough, you can get from this marsh to that marsh without having to come back out and
come through the gate. You just follow the dikes. You could just go from one to the
other, to the other, to the other. Or, a couple of you could put a twelve-foot canoe in
there and you could just go from spot to spot to spot and be pretty effective. But it’s
extremely time consuming and takes a lot of work.
MR. GOETTEL: Did you work by yourself most of the time?
MR. BOLIN: Yeah, but I had real good cooperation from the State there in Ohio. They
were. Tommy Wharton who came on with the LE was with Fisheries Unit out of
Sandusky. He came on with the Service just a couple of years after I left Ohio to come
out here. He got hired. Our careers criss-crossed several time through the years. We
stayed pretty close friends. We’ve lost contact with one another pretty much since, but
…Some officers… it’s like that anywhere, didn’t care to work with the Federal officers.
They didn’t have a lot of interest in waterfowl or hunting waterfowl enforcement. It’s
the same way down in Rhode Island. You’ve got your coastal people, and if it’s not in a
shell or has fins and gills, they’re really not interested. They are just interested in
shellfish and fisheries and whatever. They’d get a little diving duck and coastal duck
work shoved down their throat but they would kind of swallow the bitter pill and go on
to what they wanted to do and what they were interested in doing. That’s the way it is
anywhere. Not all inland Wardens are even around salt-water coast or have any interest
in waterfowl. They’d rather work upland hunters or deer hunters or on night deer
poaching or something like that.
MR. GOETTEL: That’s the way it was when I was in Maine. After I left Great
Meadows, I was up in Maine for ten years. The Maine Wardens up there, there were
some that were good waterfowl workers, but most of them were into deer, bear and
moose. That was their bread and butter. The marine Wardens were into lobsters.
They’d work with you when you asked them, and they were good people. But they’re
just not interested in waterfowl.
MR. BOLIN: Yeah, that’s the way it was. The Maine people were always good. But
like I said, different people have different interests. Some people like to hunt waterfowl
and some don’t. They’d rather hunt Pheasants or Quail or big game. It’s the same way
with some of the Wardens. Usually their interest was kind of what their hunting interest
was. If you find people who like to hunt geese or hunt ducks, or coastal ducks, which is
kind of different in itself then you’d enjoy that type of Enforcement.
MR. GOETTEL: Where did you get your basic training to be an Agent?
MR. BOLIN: We were in the last school that was in Washington, D. C. We were the last
group to go through Washington, D.C. in 1973. I went down in the spring of 1973. And
they were cleaning out the walls, and cleaning out their desks and hauling the files off
when we finished up. Then they moved it down to Glencoe.
MR. GOETTEL: Where was it in Washington, D. C.? Was it in main Interior?
MR. BOLIN: We were up on Rhode Island Blvd. They only had us down to main
Interior for two weeks when we finished up with that. It was the basic school for
everyone except the FBI and the Secret Service. It was just like it is down at the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center now. There was Coast Guard people there, and on and
on and on. Like I said, everyone except Secret Service and FBI.
MR. GOETTEL: How long was your training? Do you remember?
MR. BOLIN: At that time it was fourteen weeks. It was twelve weeks there, and I think
it was two weeks at main Interior when we finished up with that. It was kind of unique.
We stayed in a motel downtown. We had to walk about, because most of us didn’t have
cars there, those of us that were any distance away. And there was no place to park
anyway. You drive over to where the training facility it was but it was about six blocks.
It seems to me that we stayed in a hotel called the Rhode Islander, or what was that
hotel? Not that I am hung up on Rhode Island. It was on Rhode Island Blvd, and the
NRA Headquarters building was just down the block from us. We’d walk by that all of
the time. It was interesting. They would send us on assignments. We’d get photography
assignments and night photography assignments. We’d get out to where we were
supposed to be tracking these people. We were supposed to be conducting foot
surveillance of these people, walking around all over downtown D. C. We were supposed
to be discreet so that they would not know that we were following and watching them
and whatever. Most of us got by with it. I’d say half of us, or a third of us did. I didn’t
get found out. Because there were supposed to point out the people that they knew that
they had seen during the assignment. I was able to maintain my undercover role.
[Laughing] I was kind of distinctive at that time. I was still wearing a short crew cut flat
top hairstyle. A lot of people had “normal” haircuts. I thought, “Oh man, I’m sunk.
They’re going to pick this short crew cut out.” It wasn’t so much in style at that time. I
thought that they would know that they had seen me. But nobody picked me out. I was
kind of glad to have done that. It was kind of unique, and kind of fun to have gone
through that in D. C. And there is so much to see and do in D. C. I got to see a lot of the
Capitol that I would probably have never, ever gotten to see. I went to the White House.
Nancy and my son came down for 3-5 days when we were finishing up down on main
Interior. They came down and we got to see some of D. C. That was the only
opportunity that they ever had.
MR. GOETTEL: So you were the “old school” so to speak, where you were the Game
Management Agent when you started out?
MR. BOLIN: Yeah.
MR. GOETTEL: You did a lot of Management work too?
MR. BOLIN: Yeah, we did. At that time we were M and E, Management and
Enforcement.
MR. GOETTEL: So you did a lot of waterfowl flights?
MR. BOLIN: No, when I started out, of course they thought that everybody needed to
get out and do some banding and some this and some that. But when I started out, I felt
fortunate. I got to do nesting pair and nesting success surveys up in Canada with Jerry
Stout, he and I. He drove the car, and I walked the ponds.
MR. GOETTEL: Who is Jerry Stout? I don’t know that name.
MR. BOLIN: Jerry was the…Jerry had been working on the Canvasback. He was the
Fish and Wildlife Service Canvasback expert extraordinaire out of the Dakotas.
MR. GOETTEL: Was that Northern Prairie, Jamestown?
MR. BOLIN: Yes. Out of the Research Center out there. He’d been studying
Canvasbacks, secondarily Redheads but because of the precarious… he had known, and
he’d had these study areas up there. I know he’d been doing that for fifteen or twenty
years before I went up there with him. I was up there the summers of 1970, 71 and 72. I
came on with the Service in 1968. I didn’t have to go on banding assignments. The first
thing they’d do to break an Agent in was to send him off on an all-summer banding
assignment. That’s when the Agents would go up and pull a trailer. They gnats, and this
and had that. They would travel up there on the big lakes and some of them had airboats.
I really enjoyed my work with Jerry because it was oriented a little stronger towards
research rather than just banding. We did no banding. Ours was a nesting survey. We
did a nesting survey, and then a production survey. We’d go up in June, and stay gone a
month. We’d come home for two weeks and then go back up after mid July, I believe.
That was shorter because we’d mark nests and we had an inventory on each, on all of
these ponds. Some of these ponds with the rare ones, we wouldn’t find anything on.
But we’d kind of go by them and take a second look anyway because we felt that there
might be a late nesting, like an over water nester like a Ruddy Duck or a Canvasback,
Redheads, so we’d always take another look. Some of the nests had gotten predated and
things had happened. But it was all good data. It was all extremely accurate data. For
the survey areas that we covered it was very intensive coverage. He had data for years
and years and years of these. We covered Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. We
pretty well stayed on the move. You wore your hip boots down to breakfast, and after
breakfast you went out and got in the car.
MR. GOETTEL: You said you started in 1968, but you didn’t go to Washington until
1973.
MR. BOLIN: They were hiring only, preferably State Conservation officers that had
some wildlife law enforcement background, preferably the more years the better
depending on the person’s age. Then they decided that everyone…they started sending
people through in 1970 or something. And as many people as they could get through,
they decided that all of the Agents needed to go through this Special Agents Basic
Training, which all Federal Officers were going through. It was kind of grit your teeth and
think, ‘wait a minute, I’ve been working for so many years, and I’ve been doing this and
that’. It was good training. I think that for many of us it was the leaving home, and being
gone from home
Interview with Alfred Godin by Thomas Goettel, November 12, 1999
No full textOral history interview with Alfred Godin. Thomas Goettel as interviewer.1
INTERVIEW WITH ALFRED GODIN
BY THOMAS GOETTEL NOVEMBER 12,1999
MR. GOETTEL: It’s November 12, 1999 and we are in Al Godin’s house in Leominster,
Massachusetts. I am Tom Goettel from the Regional office in Hadley, Massachusetts.
We have had a little trouble with the tape recorder here, so we are going to try this from
step one. Al, I know that your are a Korean War veteran, and you were in the Navy.
What ship were you on?
MR. GODIN: Yes. In Korean I was on the Princeton. That is a CV type Aircraft
Carrier. It was an Essex class, World War II, carrier.
MR. GOETTEL: And you got out on the Navy in 1956?
MR. GODIN: No. Well, maybe it was close to 1956. The reason I left the Navy was
that I had the opportunity to go to school under the GI Bill. Under this program the
government paid for tuition and books and various lab fees plus seventy-five dollars a
month for subsistence. I staid there for four years, and graduated with a BS, and
subsequently went to work with Louisiana Fish and Wildlife as a Fishery Biologist. But
my desire, or my love was in wildlife management. From there in Louisiana, I went to
school and got my Master’s at the University of Massachusetts, and then went to work
with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Fishery Biologist in Sandy Hook, New
Jersey.
MR. GOETTEL: What did you do at Sandy Hook?
MR. GODIN: As a Fishery Biologist I did mostly survey work, asking fisherman what
kind of lures they were using for sport fishing. We had to be able to visualize the type of
lure that he described, and ask him how many hours that he worked or fished for different
types of fish. It was mainly survey type work.
MR. GOETTEL: What is salt water or fresh water fishing, or both?
MR. GODIN: Only salt water, along the Atlantic coast. I wanted to go into wildlife, and
from there, I transferred to Denver Wildlife Research Center doing bio-essay work. This
involved testing chemical candidates to learn the feasibility of control [unintelligible] for
certain small animals like [Latin name-sounds like Microbial specie] that caused
problems for or the destruction of crops and agricultural things like shrubs and trees and
things like that. Then I transferred to Patuxent Wildlife Research in Migratory Bird
Population Station. There I was working with the [unintelligible]. We went to four areas
in the country to determine the size and the composition of the bird species by age and
sex. We also work on the criteria of determining the age of Canada Geese by the
examination of tail feathers. From there I went to work for the Division of Wildlife
Services in Region 5. My station was New Jersey, Delaware and Long Island, NY. I
focused mainly on the problems of, and hazards caused by bird populations at airports.
Most of my time was spent in New Jersey with the airport work. The other problem that
2
we had in New Jersey with the environment was a Canada goose problem. We studied
these so called non-migratory geese, because they were born and staid all of their lives in
the northeast area. They caused problems on golf courses and in a few other areas. Some
of them were called “pests” because of the amount of droppings found on people’s lawns
and places like that. Then they were the government’s problem. But when they were
cute, they belonged to the people. That was a management problem. Southern states
wanted these birds to reintroduce them to the southern states where this species of bird
migrated to for the winter. It appears that the northeast was a stopgap that stopped the
population. The population has grown to where they are now considered to be pests.
They also caused problems at airports because of their large size, and sometimes their
numbers. They might land on an airport during migration, or moving back and forth
from a feeding area to a roost site. That is just a quick sketch of the Canada goose
problem.
MR. GOETTEL: You became a fairly well known authority on bird-aircraft strike
problems didn’t you? It seemed like you were going all over the place, at one point in
time, on consultations and F.A.A. sponsored trips. Tell me a little about that. I know that
you have worked in Alaska on Bald Eagles and Canada Geese.
MR. GODIN: The three trips to Alaska were funded by the F.A.A. because they had
different problems up there. At Anchorage International Airport they had a problem with
the Canada Geese. These were birds that were being hunted along the river and they
would seek the airport as a refuge. They were not really conditioned to the aircraft traffic
so they had some aircraft collisions. There was one instance where a People’s Republic
of China aircraft stuck Geese and caused a problem with the aircraft, so they had to abort
the aircraft and repair it. This was shortly after the time that President Nixon
reestablished the cooperation and good friendship with the Chinese. That was one of the
problems up there. Other, southern airports had problems with Bald Eagles perching in
trees. What these birds would do was watch and wait for the Salmon migration. Then
they would fly from the trees to pick up fish. Sometimes they would cross an airport
runway where an aircraft would be approaching or departing. The problem there was
rather easy to solve.
MR. GOETTEL: How did you solve it there?
MR. GODIN: Well, the birds were using the trees for perching and making their
observations. So I recommended that we remove the trees. It was a simple thing to do.
Right there, the birds needed some place to look down from for the fish, if you don’t
provide them with that, they will go elsewhere.
MR. GOETTEL: How about the Canada Geese? What did you recommend for them?
MR. GODIN: With the Canada Geese the problem was the gulls on the runway, and the
tarmac. Some of the information that I gave them was this so called “food, water and
shelter” which are the three attractions to many animals that inhabit or use an airport for a
short time. It was decided to use the shell crackers. This was to find the birds, but also,
3
whoever is going to be shooting shell crackers would do it alone. And they used certain
automobiles to educate the birds that “here comes this automobile that is going to bother
us”. Sometimes, when the problem is really serious, we had to provide the airport with a
Federal Depredation permit. This regulates how many birds can be taken and so forth.
It is not a permit to have a good time and kill geese.
MR. GOETTEL: I know that at J.F.K., and at Newark you worked on Gull problems that
they had there? Tell me a little about that. What did you do there?
MR GODIN: These airports like LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark were located on the
shores of the Atlantic coast on marginal land. At one time the cities had to have a place
to dump their garbage. They dumped it on these marginal land areas, and then created
airports. So these two entities were real close together. The dumps attracted the birds for
feeding, and then they would use the airport for resting, and digesting their food. They
would be moving back and forth, and in doing so they caused a hazard to the aircraft on
takeoff and landing. We provided techniques to these airports on how to control the
birds, mainly by non-lethal methods. If that didn’t work, then they could use lethal
measures according to what was written in the permit. The permit never said that they
could go out and kill birds. It’s up to the airport management or the operations
department instructions. So that’s where I came in and provided workshops for the
people in Operations, and involved in controlling the birds. It was like, “Do this, and
don’t do that”, and so forth. Periodically, I would go out with some of these Operations
people and I would examine what they were doing, and if they were doing it right.
MR. GOETTEL: You were in New Jersey, I know, for sixteen years, down in Trenton,
New Jersey. It seems that during that period in time Canada Geese went from being a
real attractive or desirable species to being a pest species. That is a real tragedy to see
something like that happen isn’t it?
MR. GODIN: Yeah. The problem there started there, I think in the 1920s. Originally
the birds, and when I say ‘birds’, I am talking about Canada Geese, they flew down on
their migration from some place in the Hudson Bay, or Jane’s Bay, using the Atlantic
Flyway. They went as far south as southern Florida. Some of them went to Texas and
down in that area. That was the way it was for a long, long time. Then man came along
and started building communities, and this and that. They have nice, green beautiful
lawns and all of that “pretty” crap. I shouldn’t be talking like that. This attracted the
birds to their lawns and golf courses and things like that. In addition, you could not hunt
the birds and in some places in New Jersey, you can’t even hunt in a Township. Their
excuse is, “No discharge of firearms”. So the birds can sense, in a way, that they are not
being harmed and so that’s where they stay. It’s like survival for anybody. You’re not
going in an area that might cause you a lot of harm. You stay away from it. Some of the
southern states wanted these “nuisance” Canada Geese, that’s what we used to call them.
I don’t know what they call them now. But they used to come up for the Round Ups.
These occurred in the middle of June, usually during the third week of June. This was
the time when adults molted their primary feathers, and the young birds or goslings were
growing their primaries [feathers]. So the birds were unable to fly at that time. We went
4
to several places where there were large numbers of these geese, and the southern states
took these birds to their states in order to provide the birds a “nitch” where there used to
be hunted. I don’t want to say “hunting” but mainly that was all.
MR. GOETTEL: Now, I know that you are a native of Fitchburg, Massachusetts which
is the next town over, from where we are now. And that you have had a life long interest
in New England, and one of the things that I don’t think a lot of people in the Fish and
Wildlife Service know, is that you’re the author and illustrator of The Wild Mammals of
New England book which is to me an incredible book, because not only is it illustrated in
pencil sketches of all of the mammals of New England, but it also has a lot of natural
history and biographical information about them. I guess “biographical” is the wrong
word, but it has a lot of information on the animals habits and food and so on. How did
you get involved in taking a project like that on? That’s quite a project, to do something
like that.
MR GODIN: I am always interested in wildlife. I was always that way. I found out that
there was not much literature on the wild mammals of New England. Some of the things
that were out there were special reports, but there was not one book that would indicate
what the mammals were, and about their distribution, or lives, or habitat and where they
were found and all of that. So this was mainly to impart the knowledge of some of these
animals that occurred in New England. It took a long time. Mainly this book is a
compilation of other people’s work. And that is sited in the book anyway. But my main
contribution was that I examined about twenty-two thousand specimen of mammals that
are found in museums. To site a few: I went to the National Natural History Museum in
Washington, D.C. and looked at all of those mammals that were from New England. I
plotted these on maps, as far as their distribution. I got the measurements and weights of
these. And I went up as far north as Orono, Maine and looked at the species there they
had in the museum. I looked at all of the states in between as well. That is my main
contribution; where they were found at that time, and mainly which counties and the
numbers that were taken. One thing that I really learned from this was the marine
mammals such as Whales and Seals that occur along the coast of New England. Some of
them would become stranded on land. So I have information on those. I some
information from the New Bedford Whaling Museum, and again, the National Natural
History Museum in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere.
MR. GOETTEL: That is an absolutely remarkable book, and I hope that it is in every
National Wildlife Refuge office in the northeast anyway, because it’s just a beautiful,
beautiful book.
MR. GODIN: Yeah, I mean, my focus and mission about was to impart knowledge, and
tell the people that we have wild animals and they are here for us too, and so forth. So
we shouldn’t go out and indiscriminately kill them. The press asked me, after the book
came out, to write an update, and a new book. I couldn’t it because I was getting too old,
and it’s like “backtracking”. You know, you do something, and then move on. One of
the things that I moved on to was; my age was catching up to me and it was time to retire.
But all in all, I had a great time with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and if I had to do
it again, I would do it.
5
MR. GOETTEL: You were talking about ten years ago, at age sixty-two.
MR. GODIN: [joking] No, that was fifty-two! You work that out!
MR. GOETTEL: O. K., age thirty-two!
MR. GODIN: Yeah, I like that one! That’s better!
MR. GOETTEL: Tell us what you got into then. How you spent your retirement years.
MR. GODIN: Believe it or not, Whales. I got fascinated with Whales when I wrote the
book, Wild Mammals of New England. I saw that these animals were found along the
coast, always migrating and moving along the coast, and some of them became stranded.
So they were mammals of New England. And it’s mainly because they are gentle
animals, they don’t go out and kill anybody, or attack this and that. That’s a lot of
bullshit, about the Moby Dick thing. I just liked the Whales, and that was my
introduction to them when I was writing the book. And after I retired, I still loved
wildlife and I decided; don’t be offended, Fish and Wildlife Service, but I think I had
enough about the birds and decided to go for the Whales, and try something new. The
Whales are closely related to me because they are Mammals. And sometimes, I might
look like a Whale. What I have been doing was researching anything I could find about
the different species of the large Whales, especially those that are endangered. I kept
doing research about it, and I met a lot of people who are also researching Whales, and
they helped me out a lot. I have a couple that I have done in bronze.
MR. GOETTEL: So you have spent the last ten years or so, or almost ten years sculpting
Whales. I know that we have gone through the process here today about how you about
it. It’s quite an involved process, how you go from the raw clay to the finished bronze.
This tape will eventually end up in our Archives at our National Conservation Training
Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Maybe at some point in time you could have a
display there of some of your sculptures. [Stumbled on the word sculptures]
I am starting to talk like you, after all afternoon here! [Joking]
MR. GODIN: It’s that good?
MR. GOETTEL: They are absolutely beautiful. They are incredible! You think that
the Whale is sitting right there in your living room. I am looking at a Sperm Whale and
Blue Whale. I’ve never seen a Sperm Whale. I have been fortunate enough to see Blue
Whales, and Humpback, and some of the other ones. But these things are just incredibly
accurate, and just absolutely beautiful works of art.
MR. GODIN: Well thanks!
MR. GOETTEL: I know that now you are working with the New Bedford Whaling
Museum, where they are assembling a skeleton of the Blue Whale.
6
MR. GODIN: Yeah, it’s a young Blue Whale that was stranded in Massachusetts. I
think that the U. S. Department of Commerce has helped by funding, in addition to the
New Bedford Whaling Museum. In that new wing, there will be a skeleton of a young
Blue Whale that beached itself on the Massachusetts coast. The New Bedford Whaling
Museum, when I brought my Blue Whale there, last night. One of my friends was giving
a speech on Blue Whales. He has been researching Blue Whales for years, and he is well
known about it. But as a result, when the Museum saw the sculpted Blue Whale they
asked me if I would display it along with their Blue Whale skeleton, which may be on
exhibition by July 4, 2000. I said it would be O.K. Mainly, it’s because they want to
show what a Blue Whale looks like with the skin on, compared to the skeleton. One
thing leads to another, and it keeps me happy. Although I liked the Fish and Wildlife
Service, I’m telling you now, retirement is great! [Laughing]
MR. GOETTEL: So, you’ve had a whole new career, I think since you retired almost.
It’s just incredible. What are some of your most memorable experiences in the Fish and
Wildlife Service? When you look back, what do you think about?
MR. GODIN: I guess it’s the airport work. I always liked to be at the airports. I had
access, working with the Operations people. There would be times when my bosses, I
had a lot of bosses, they would say, “I’d like to come down”. And I would say, “Come
on down”. He would tell me what airport he would be coming in to, and on what flight.
I always liked to be at the airport maybe an hour before he arrived. That way I would
have a place to park, and all of that. But mainly it was to look at the people that are
getting ready to fly, and people coming off of the aircraft. It’s the human behavior about
this that I enjoyed watching. And I would say to myself “Well, at least we’ve got a safe
flight that came in”. That led me to believe that I was going my part in preventing the
birds from colliding with aircraft, with all of these happy people coming in. That, right
there; if I had to do it all over again, I would do the airport thing, because of the public
safety. That’s about all.
There was some things that I didn’t care too much about. The Fish and Wildlife
Service. Especially some of the jobs, but overall, I am glad that I staid with the Service.
It was a good place. And I met a lot of good people too, a lot of them. We had some
good times, and we had some bad times but that goes with life.
MR. GOETTEL: I think that one of the tragedies about animal damage control, or
wildlife assistance was when it went to the Department of Agriculture. And I say,
tragedy, because we were all part of a family it seemed. We all worked very close
together. Even though I was in Refuges, I was working with you guys all of the time it
seemed. You guys were Field Biologists, and it’s hard to get, fifteen years later, it’s so
hard to find good Field Biologists that have good, practical experience. Speaking for
myself, I really hated to see that part of the Fish and Wildlife Service get transferred
away. Because the fact of the matter is that we just didn’t work that closely any more. I
mean, we did, but it was a little bit different I think.
7
MR. GODIN: Yeah, that’s right. Working as a biologist, whether a field biologist or an
office biologist, we were really dedicated. I know that some people might that that is
bullshit, but we were. And as you interview other people you will see how the puzzle fits
together to have a nice organization. I had a good time. I hope that at least, I helped
other people. Not only the birds or mammals or whatever, but it’s the people.
MR. GOETTEL: After sixteen years in New Jersey you spent about six months in the
Regional office, I guess, or four months in the Regional office. Then you transferred up
to Augusta, Maine as the Wildlife Assistance Field Biologist-State Director in Maine.
MR. GODIN: One of the problems that I first heard about in Maine was about the
Canada Geese and Blueberries. These are the low-bush Blueberries that occur in Maine.
What the Canada Geese would do was just walk into the bush and eat the Blueberries.
But as they were doing this, they would trample over the low bushes, and a lot of the
berries fell off onto the ground. This would cause an economic hardship for the
Blueberry growers. They phoned me and asked me what they could do. I said that they
could use the shell crackers. And if it became evident that the problem was not
improving, I would investigate it a little more, and make bird observations to see what
they were really doing. That’s how we solved the problem of Canada goose depredation
of Blueberries, at least when I was there, just by using shell crackers. They were really
worried about people, much more than Gulls would be.
MR. GOETTEL: You worked on Cormorants I think too, didn’t you, up there?
MR. GODIN: Yes. One of the problems that the State Fish and Game had was the
Atlantic salmon depredation with the Double Crested Cormorant. In Maine there is at
least one Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery that grows these Atlantic salmon. They
release them as smelt. This is up in the Penobscot River. Then the fish would migrate
down to the ocean, and be on their way to return, and then, go back south. So, the
Cormorant was causing depredation. They were eating a lot of the smelts. Nobody made
an assessment of how much that the birds were eating, or if it was a natural mortality of
the fish, or if the birds were taking more of these fishes. What we did when we were
working the State Atlantic Salmon Commission and the State Fish and Game
Commission was to work on the upper and lower Penobscot River, collecting the
Starlings. We divided these into certain areas, like A, B, and C, and so forth. With the
Cormorants that we got, we did crop seed, and
Specific characteristics of the maintenance obligation – selected problems
No full textIn addressing the parental obligation to maintain a child, as regulated in the Family and Guardianship Code, the legislator oft en derogates from general principles of the maintenance by submitting this obligation to special rules. Th ese particularly concern the conditions of the maintenance obligation, the forms of maintenance, the criteria which defi ne the scope of obligation and also a specific model that enables the possibility to avoid providing maintenance. However, it should be noted that avoiding the maintenance obligation is not possible with regard to a minor. Some non-code regulations also contain preferential provisions with respect to the maintenance of children unable to provide for themselves, which predominantly involves administrative measures to infl uence maintenance debtors by
establishing a specifi c mechanism of material support for those entitled to benefi t (assistance to persons entitled to maintenance) and tax exemptions applicable to the [email protected]ław Goettel – Professor, doctor habilitatus in law, head of the Civil Law Institute at the Faculty of Law, University of Bialystok.Mieczysław Goettel – profesor tytularny, doktor habilitowany nauk prawnych, kierownik Zakładu Prawa Cywilnego Wydziału Prawa Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku.Uniwersytet w BiałymstokuBudna E., Obowiązek alimentacyjny rodziców względem dziecka, „Nowe Prawo” 1990, nr 7-9.Goettel M., Świadczenie alimentacyjne jako przedmiot obowiązku podatkowego, „Przegląd Podatkowy” 2002, nr 4.Goettel M., Wybrane konstrukcje prawnorodzinne w prawie podatkowym (na gruncie przepisów o podatku dochodowym od osób fi zycznych), (w:) M. Andrzejewski, L. Kociucki, M. Łączkowska, A. Schulz (red.), Księga Jubileuszowa Profesora Tadeusza Smyczyńskiego, Toruń 2008.Gwiazdomorski J., (w:) J.S. Piątowski (red.), System prawa rodzinnego i opiekuńczego, Wrocław 1985.Haberko J., Charakter prawny relacji rodzice – dorosłe dzieci w kontekście zobowiązań alimentacyjnych rodziców, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny” 2015, z. 4.Ignatowicz J., Nazar M., Prawo rodzinne, Warszawa 2016.Jędrejek G., Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Pokrewieństwo i powinowactwo. Komentarz, wyd. elektr., Lex 2014Kajmowicz K., Wygaśnięcie obowiązku alimentacyjnego w aspekcie materialnym i procesowym – zagadnienia wybrane, (w:) J.M. Łukasiewicz, I. Ramus (red.), Prawo alimentacyjne. Zagadnienia materialne (Tom II), Toruń 2015.Pietrzykowski K., (w:) K. Pietrzykowski (red.), Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2015.Ramus I., O potrzebie ustanowienia instytucji niegodności alimentacji. Zarys problemu (Część II), (w:) J.M. Łukasiewicz, I. Ramus (red.), Prawo alimentacyjne. Zagadnienia materialne (Tom II), Toruń 2015.Smyczyński T., Obowiązek alimentacyjny rodziców względem dziecka a polityka socjalna państwa, Wrocław 1978.Smyczyński T., Prawo fi liacyjne i alimentacyjne po reformie z 2008 r., „Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego” 2010, z. 2.Smyczyński R., Prawo rodzinne i opiekuńcze, Warszawa 2016.Smyczyński T., (w:) T. Smyczyński (red.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Tom 12. Prawo rodzinne i opiekuńcze, Warszawa 2011.Sokołowski T., Prawo rodzinne. Zarys wykładu, Poznań 2013.Sokołowski T., Stosowanie przepisów art. 141-143 k.r.o., (w:) M. Andrzejewski, L. Kociucki, M. Łączkowska, A.N. Schulz (red.), Księga Jubileuszowa Profesora Tadeusza Smyczyńskiego, Toruń
2008.Stojanowska W., (w:) W. Stojanowska, M. Kosek, Nowelizacja prawa rodzinnego na podstawie ustaw z 6 listopada 2008 i 10 czerwca 2010. Analiza. Wykładnia. Komentarz, wyd. elektr., Warszawa 2011.Strzebinczyk J., Prawo rodzinne, Warszawa 2016.Tomaszewska E., Ustawa o pomocy osobom uprawnionym do alimentów, Warszawa 2014.Wierciński J., (w:) W. Borysiak i inni, Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz, wyd. elektr., Warszawa 2014.Wojtaszek-Mik E., Wygaśnięcie obowiązku alimentacyjnego rodziców wobec dzieci, (w:) M. Kosek, J. Słyk (red.), W trosce o rodzinę. Księga Pamiątkowa ku czci Profesor Wandy Stojanowskiej, Warszawa 2008.223193
Fungal entomopathogens: new insights on their ecology
Get PDFAn important mechanism for insect pest control should be the use of fungal entomopathogens. Even though these organisms have been studied for more than 100 y, their effective use in the field remains elusive. Recently, however, it has been discovered that many of these entomopathogenic fungi play additional roles in nature. They are endophytes, antagonists of plant pathogens, associates with the rhizosphere, and possibly even plant growth promoting agents. These findings indicate that the ecological role of these fungi in the environment is not fully understood and limits our ability to employ them successfully for pest management. In this paper, we review the recently discovered roles played by many entomopathogenic fungi and propose new research strategies focused on alternate uses for these fungi. It seems likely that these agents can be used in multiple roles in protecting plants from pests and diseases and at the same time promoting plant growth
Australia
No full textAustralia is a vast island continent with a unique flora and fauna. The economy is dependent on bulk commodity exports, and agricultural exports accounted for approximately A$29 billion in 2009, or 4.6% of total exports (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2010). However, the Australian pesticide market is small, estimated to be about 2-3% of the total global market for pesticides.\ud
\ud
Early experiments with microbial control included field trials in the late 1960s with the granulosis virus of codling moth in apple orchards, and in the 1970s with Elcar, the nucleopolyhedrosis virus (NPV) of Helicoverpa zea. Initial success was limited, with poor field efficacy and direct competition with new chemical insecticides. Early large scale field trials with the granulosis virus of potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella, gave promising results (Reeda and Springetta 1971), but a commercial product was not registered.\ud
\ud
The number of microbial pesticides registered in Australia has increased in the last decade (Table 18), with the widescale use of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk). A crisis in insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa species in the late 1990s led to adoption of area-wide integrated pest management in the commercial cotton and sorghum industries, where biopesticides are used to manage resistance to chemical insecticides and to reduce secondary pest outbreaks (such as silver leaf white fly) by maintaining beneficial insect populations. Biopesticides are also used in areas of special concern such as national parks, in the expanding ‘organic’ market, and for export markets such as wine, where the industry restricts the use of synthetic insecticides (Hunter 2010)..
Role of Diadegma semiclausum (Hymenoptera : Ichneumonidae) in controlling Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera : Plutellidae): Cage exclusion experiments and direct observation
Get PDFWe evaluated the role of the larval parasitoid, Diadegma semiclausum Hellén (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), in controlling Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) by cage exclusion experiments and direct field observation during the winter season in southern Queensland, Australia. The cage exclusion experiment involved uncaged, open cage and closed cage treatments. A higher percentage (54-83%) of P. xylostella larvae on sentinel plants were lost in the uncaged treatment than the closed (4-9%) or open cage treatments (11-29%). Of the larvae that remained in the uncaged treatment, 72-94% were parasitized by D. semiclausum , much higher than that in the open cage treatment (8-37% in first trial, and 38-63% in second trial). Direct observations showed a significant aggregation response of the field D. semiclausum populations to high host density plants in an experimental plot and to high host density plots that were artificially set-up near to the parasitoid source fields. The degree of aggregation varied in response to habitat quality of the parasitoid source field and scales of the manipulated host patches. As a result, density-dependence in the pattern of parasitism may depend on the relative degree of aggregation of the parasitoid population at a particular scale. A high degree of aggregation seems to be necessary to generate density-dependent parasitism by D. semiclausum . Integration of the cage exclusion experiment and direct observation demonstrated the active and dominant role of this parasitoid in controlling P. xylostella in the winter season. A biologically based IPM strategy, which incorporates the use of D. semiclausum with Bt, is suggested for the management of P. xylostella in seasons or regions with a mild temperature.Xin-geng Wang; John Duff; Michael A. Keller; Myron P. Zalucki; Shu-sheng Liu; Peter Baile
Impacts of the biocontrol agent Malacorhinus irregularis (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) on Mimosa pigra seedlings and the importance of root nodules
No full textThis study investigated the impacts of the biocontrol agent Malacorhinus irregularis Jacoby (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) on the weed Mimosa pigra L. (Mimosaceae). We used controlled experiments to determine whether larvae of different developmental stages can destroy mimosa seedlings, whether larvae can survive and develop when feeding on root nodules, whether larvae prefer root nodules or seedlings, and the importance of N-2 fixation to mimosa. One third instar larva destroyed a mean of 1.6 seedlings overall, although this varied with larval density. First instar larvae spent more time on seedlings than on nodules, but final instar larvae spent more time on nodules. Larvae survived and developed on root nodules and on seedlings. Mimosa plants growing in pots only produced high numbers of root nodules when growing in low N conditions, indicating that mimosa responds to soil low N status by increasing symbiotic N-2 fixation. The higher N content in mimosa leaves than leaves of native plants from north Australian wetlands, and the ability to vigorously nodulate in conditions with a low N supply suggest that mimosa relies on N2 fixation during times of low soil N availability and at sites with low N status. We propose that Malacorhinus below ground herbivory on root nodules and seedlings complements the above ground herbivory of other established biocontrol agents against mimosa
[Duplicate of 287]
No full textRoberts, Donald W./Davidson, Elizabeth W./Kaya, Harry K./Gelernter, Wendy /Harper, J. D. (James Douglas), 1942-/Federici, Brian A./Vlak, J. M./Goettel, Mark S. (Mark Stanislaw), 1954-/Park City, UtahAll images created by or supplied to the Society of Invertebrate Pathology for use in publications and promotion. Content in Description field provided by text on verso or accompanying documentation
Goettel, Adolph W. (Birth, 1888-11-01)
No full textAddress: 415 Linn St.6477/Pg. 158/1888/M W/Germany/america/Mrs J. Pfeiffer- MidwifeOriginal record filed in drawer labeled 'GL-GOLDBERG'
An endemic omnivorous predator for control of greenhouse pests
No full textBook Description "Biological control: a global perspective": This book contains 45 chapters divided into four sections, i.e. classical biocontrol programmes, inundative (or augmentative) biocontrol programmes (using nematodes, bacteria, fungi and viruses), conservation biocontrol programmes and networking in biocontrol. It describes the personal experiences of scientists from the initial search for suitable control agents against weeds and pests, to the release of these biological control agents into ecosystems and finally to the beneficial outcomes demonstrating the success of biological control across diverse agroecosystems. This book is intended for researchers and students interested in crop science, pest management, biotechnology, ecology and policy analysis.
Book chapter: Generalist natural enemies can be key members of biological control programmes. We believe that importation of generalist natural enemies for biological control should be avoided, and that endemic natural enemies should be used instead. We summarize our progress developing a generalist mirid, Dicyphus hesperus, for biological control in greenhouse tomato crops. Our success in locating a generalist mirid which can fill a niche in protected culture illustrates the potential for such approaches. This predator satisfies four of five preconditions that we set when we started the project and could potentially be used successfully as part of biological control programmes in greenhouses in North America.book chapterPublished
- …
