Forest Management Effects on Wildlife – Where Have All the Deer Gone? – Is the Great Northern Forest A Great Idea?

AUTHOR: Jack Ward Thomas, Boone and Crockett of Conservation, University of Montana and Chief Emeritus, U. S. Forest Service. He is the former Chief of the US Forest Service (the only wildlife biologist to ever hold that position), the winner of the "Leopold Award" - The WildlifeSociety's highest award, former President of The Wildlife Society, author of the book "Elk of North America", and currently holds the Boone and Crockett Wildlife Research Chair at the University of Montana.

Assumptions First

I am starting off this session with a few assumptions. First, this is a gathering of folks that have a keen interest in hunting and fishing. So, my talk will be about the workings of forests as they relate to wildlife with emphasis on those critters that gladden the hunter’s heart – white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, wild turkeys, rabbits, and squirrels. The first of those I will refer to henceforth as the “big four.”

Wildlife biologists that spend their time working to assure that the hunters that buy the hunting licenses that pay their salaries and provide them with what they need to do their jobs deal, in coarse terms, with two primary factors. The first of those factors is habitat because, simply stated, without appropriate habitat there is no wildlife. The second factor is the regulation of the pursuit and taking of the game animals in question by hunters.

I am speaking specifically of the forest habitats related to the “big four” game animals mentioned earlier. Addressing my assignment requires laying out a primer in forest ecology in order to establish a starting place for discussion.

Forest Succession

One of the first lessons that forest ecologists (including wildlife biologists and foresters) learn is that forests exist in a number of states. As forests grow, starting from open ground, they proceed through a relatively predictable series of stages. This process is called “forest succession” as one stage grows and develops to succeed another. Forest ecologists commonly divide succession into five or six stages depending on the forest type.

For my discussion today, I will use just three stages, collapsing the middle stages into one. Grasses, shrubs, and forbs give way to tree seedlings. Those seedlings grow to become saplings which, in turn, grow to become what foresters commonly call pole stands. Those pole stands grow into more mature forests that eventually become “old growth” or late-succession. In the simplest terms, which will do for this discussion, these stages can be called early, mid, and late succession forests.

Early Succession . During early succession sunlight and moisture easily reaches the forest floor stimulating the growth of these plants. The diversity of plant and wildlife species is relatively high. Food for wildlife is plentiful – particularly for the big four. This stage lasts for a relatively short time of, ordinarily, one to ten or more years with, of course, with some exceptions. For example, if golden rod takes over the site it will retard establishment of other vegetative species by exuding chemicals that thwart establishment of those plants – a process ecologists refer to as allelopathy. This early successional stage is sometimes intentionally maintained by wildlife habitat managers for longer periods of time to benefit the big four by disking, planting to grasses and forbs, controlled burning, or application of herbicides.

Mid-Succession. As the trees continue to grow and the canopies of those trees fill out and grow together they are said to “close”, ultimately, precluding most incoming solar radiation (sunlight) from reaching the forest floor, along with interception of some moisture that evaporates in the canopy. As a result, shallow rooted vegetation at ground level diminishes markedly, thereby depriving the big four game species of much of their former food supply. The trees in the stand are commonly of the same general age, often dominated by a single species, and form a single-storied canopy. This relatively simple forest structure lasts for many decades, ordinarily from 10 years up to 50-75 years or more depending on the soil and nutrients. This stage is, by far, the least hospitable in terms of habitat for the big four.

Late-Succession . At some point as the stand approaches maturity, gaps appear in the forest’s canopy due to the death of individual trees, or groups of trees, from causes including insects or disease, blow down, or fire. Sometimes these events can cover very large areas (a hurricane in the 1930s flattened millions of acres of trees in the northeast). These gaps allow sunlight and greater amounts of moisture to the forest floor producing some ground level vegetation, including young trees, to prosper and thereby provide food sources for the big four. These young trees grow to fill the gap in the canopy and, over time, older stands develop several canopy layers thereby increasing their structural diversity and attractiveness to species, specifically birds such as warblers, that are adapted to the these habitats. Mature trees become productive of mast (acorns and nuts) that are all valuable wildlife foods. The big four increase in numbers to more than is true for mid-succession and much less than in early-succession.

This stage, once reached, can persist for hundreds of years. Larger trees that die provide valuable nesting habitat for woodpeckers and other cavity nesting birds and small mammals. Squirrels prosper in this successional state. However, at this point in stand development, the dominant trees – which are the most productive of mast - have reached the point of their highest value as timber crops and are subject to being harvested for wood products.

Effects of Methods of Tree Harvest . If the harvest is done via clearcutting the succession process begins anew. If the harvest is done via single tree or group selection timber harvest the result, in the beginning, is an intermediate condition between late and early succession which can be productive of the big four until the new trees growing in the gaps resulting from cutting trees form a closed canopy and circumstances resemble mid-succession with enhanced production of mast.

Early-successional and late-successional stages (certainly to a much lesser extent than early-succession) are the most productive of the big four species most valued by hunters. Mid-succession is far and away, the least productive of the successional conditions for the big four.

Edges and Ecotones

The point at which differing successional stages meet one another is referred to by ecologists as an ecotone. Wildlife biologists and hunters usually refer to these conditions as “edges.” Edges are particularly attractive to the big four as they put feeding and hiding “cover” areas in close proximity. Overtime, an ecotone develops along this edges that takes on some of the attributes of the adjoining successional conditions. Some species, including the big four often thrive in such circumstances. However, for some species that are adapted to interior forest stand conditions, these ecotones are only “half good” and can represent what ecologists call an “ecological trap” where survival rates and reproductive success in much reduced relative to interior stand conditions.

Interspersion – Mixing Cover and Openings

The degree to which early successional conditions are mixed with mid and late-successional forest conditions is measured by an index referred to as “interspersion.” Larger stand sizes produce less interspersion (less edge) while smaller stands more interspersion (more edge). Larger stand sizes (low interspersion) are therefore better for those species adapted to interior stand conditions such as species of warblers. Smaller stand sizes (high interspersion) are usually better for animals conditioned to plentiful patches of early successional forest conditions (“openings”) mixed in with forest stands (“hiding cover”) which includes the big four. So, astute forest wildlife managers strive to assure an admixture of larger and smaller stands to simultaneously provide for the entire array of species.

Distrubance – The Habitat Manager’s Tool

Disturbance, or actions that cause stands to revert to successional for conditions, can be natural including such factors as blow down, fire, insects, or disease. The location, timing, intensity and extent of such disturbances are highly variable ranging from hundreds of thousands of acres occurring at intervals of centuries to the demise of individual or small groups of trees on a daily basis. Managers, can, however, induce disturbance through logging, conversion to agriculture purposes, or maintenance of early forest succession through use of such tools as application of herbicides, slashing, or controlled burns. In such cases location, timing, intensity, and extent are under human control and can produce high quality habitat where, when, of the type desired. Aldo Leopold, the “father of wildlife management” in North America listed the factors having the primary effect on wildlife as “fire, ax, plow, cow, and gun.” The first four – fire, ax, plow, and cow – operate upon habitat through disturbance producing reversion to earlier successional states. The gun is applied in animal management.

Now, tuck that fascinating information away in the back of your mind for a moment while we discuss the history of the forests of the northeastern United States. We will come back to it later.

Forest Conditions Prior to 1700 – Myths and Realities

Some, perhaps most, folks thinking about the forests of the northeast have a sadly mythical vision of the condition of these forests prior to the arrival of Europeans in significant numbers around 1700. First, the numbers of Native Americans encountered at that point were but a small remnant of the numbers that had occupied these lands prior to 1500. The latest research indicates that numbers of Native Americans had been reduced by 80 percent, maybe even more, over the previous 200 years by the ravages of diseases to which they had no resistance – small pox, measles, tuberculosis, and venereal diseases introduced by the first contacts with Europeans beginning in 1492.

These original inhabitants of the northeastern United States practiced extensive agriculture and created and maintained forest openings through use of controlled fire for growing crops and some that favored wildlife species that were harvested for food and hides. By 1700, many of those openings created for agriculture and wildlife pastures had been reclaimed by early successional forests. There was no great “wilderness untrammeled by man” with the Europeans arrived. The dream of returning forests to their “pre-Columbian” conditions is poorly founded.

The Role of Fire

Fire, both “tame” fire and “wild” fire played a much greater role in determining the landscape mosaic before the early 20 th century. The period from 1700 to latter years of the 1800s, were the period of the great clearing of the forest by rapidly expanding numbers of Euro Americans for conversion to agriculture and pasture. That period was closing as 19 th century turned to the 20 th century as landowners less and less fought against the forces of nature to maintain openings.

Forest Openings – No Accident

Basically, there are view openings in the northeastern forests that are not maintained by persistent human activity. Left alone, these openings relatively quickly revert to forests. The early successional stages are highly productive of the big four which was, along with some protection and transplanting of wildlife, was responsible for the “miraculous” return of deer, turkeys, and grouse from the edge of extinction in the late 19 th century to abundance, perhaps even to historic highs, the mid-20 th century.

During the latter portions of that period of recovery of the forest and the associated wildlife, early successional stages with high levels of interspersion morphed steadily into a landscape more and more dominated by mid-succession forest. One stand melded into another as edges disappeared and the degree of interspersion declined over time. In more and more areas of the northeast, as mid-successional forests stretched from horizon to horizon, questions began to arise such as “where have all the deer gone – or the grouse or the rabbits or the turkeys?”

And even the rugged terrain of the mountains, that were unsuitable for agricultural clearing, were cut over by the late 19 th and early 20 th century and the associated mills abandoned. These forests quickly regenerated, passed through their early successional stages, and entered into mid successional forest. These regenerating forests were rendered further depauperate by the loss of the American chestnut and the white pine as ecologically functional components of the forest due to introduced diseases.

Farm Abandonment – Effect on Habitat

These old farms were more and more abandoned as rural populations declined and cities exploded in size and population. As the human populations shifted more and more to the growing urban areas, first hand contact with farm and forest and with nature itself declined. After several generations even memories of and contact with the land was essentially lost to many. Over much of the northeast, we had reached a point where forest “management” of some sort was required to overcome the “mid successional slump” relative to a declining diversity of wildlife – and especially of the game species favored by early successional forests and high levels of interspersion.

Producing Desired Habitat Conditions

That returns me to the groundwork that was laid down early in this presentation. Habitat managers have the ability to produce desired habitat conditions to enhance diversity in general and, if deemed desirable, enhance habitat for the species associated with early succession – and, therefore, provide prey for hunters. These insights are not “rocket science.” Controlled disturbance of mid-successional forest stands with attention to timing, sizing, spacing, and intensity is the key.

That disturbance can take the form of timber cutting, slashing and burning, burning, herbicide treatment, creation and maintenance of food plots, and other activities. The key, however, to such treatments to enhance wildlife habitat for the big four is apt to be economic feasibility. Economic feasibility often depends on developing and taking advantage of newly developed uses for small diameter trees. The U.S. Forest Service and cooperators in universities and the private sector are making good progress in this direction. Possibilities include wood chips for use as biomass fuel, pulp, fiberboard, and other products.

As our national deficits grow by leaps and bounds, the balance of trade tilts ever more against us, and we ship our environmental effects – along with the associate dollars and jobs – to other lands, reconsideration of the trend toward abandonment of the management of our forested lands is apt to be deemed less and less tenable.

Land Ownership – Effects on Management

Lands come in two flavors related to ownership – public and private. Let us speak first of public lands – those lands owned by all the people. In the case of federal lands, such lands are owned by all the people of the United States. In the case of the state lands, the owners are the citizens of the state in questions and so on down to county and town forests. The owners of those lands have both the right and the responsibility to ask “for whom and for what” those lands are being managed. If citizens disagree with the current answers to those questions, they have the right and the responsibility to speak up as to their opinion of “for whom” and “for what” their lands should be managed.

Take this to the bank. Nearly all forested or potentially forested lands that are merely “protected,” will quickly revert to mid-successional forest – the most unproductive state for wildlife diversity and, certainly, for the big four. When forest management efforts declined these lands they quickly reverted to forests through a process of forest succession. There is no guesswork involved in that observation. There is nothing new here. We have seen how this works – twice or more times already.

Land Management for Whom and For What?

If large expanses of new lands are to be brought into public ownership it would be wise for those interested in hunting or in the preservation of biodiversity or both to ask, upfront, questions and demand clear answers to the “for whom” and “for what” questions before lending support. When you ask and demand answers to those questions, I recommend that you remember the cardinal rules of effective public involvement in natural resources issues. Organized and vocal opinion is dramatically more impressive and effective in the political process than individually expressed opinions (though one does not preclude the other). Those who organize around a coherent theme and, then, speak coherently, intelligently, persistently, rationally – and loudly - have dramatically improved chances of being heeded by policy makers.

Organized opinion costs time and money to organize, educate, communicate, coordinate, and hang tough with in the persistent development and presentation of results. And, the effort can never cease as the players constantly change. There are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats.

Mere “protection” of land (first ask “protection” from what?), however appealing in the abstract, will produce a predictable, almost certain, outcome. That outcome is forest succession which will quickly move into and persistent for many decades in mid-successional forest conditions. Is that outcome what you want? If not, what do you want? Then, what will you do to help assure the outcome that you do want?

Preservation As An Approach to Habitat Management

The predominantly, and increasingly urban citizenry is, clearly, supportive of “preservation” - though they may have little idea of what that means over the long run. “Preservation” in northeastern forests is unlikely to yield neither the results that hunters will like nor the varied landscape patterns most citizens have learned to appreciate. However, “preservation” has appeal to those who have a vision of a forest primeval that has never existed, at least in the last several thousand or so years. But, until there is public support for and confidence in forest management to achieve clearly identified purposes and conditions, “preservation” in the terms of simply letting nature take its course will have dramatic appeal. As long as logging – even logging that is carefully planned and responsibly executed, as an example, is commonly assumed to have “destroyed the forest forever” we have a long way to go to be able to enhance forest habitat conditions for the big four.

There seems to be an increasing fascination of the American people with “wilderness” that is too often confused with a longing for “wildness” – two vary different concepts. The more people we fit into our national fabric the less land there is per capita. That seems clear enough. The more the encroachment of houses and human occupancy into previously open land the less the opportunity to wander over the countryside as Theodore Roosevelt put it, “gun in hand.” Wildness is more a condition of being out of the sight and sound of others than it is of preserved “wilderness” wherein all human activities that might significantly alter forest conditions are precluded. On the other hand, conditions, to a large extent, of wildness can be produced through management of both land and people. For example, access can be limited or human activities dispersed across the landscape via creation or closing of roads and trails and rationing of access.

Foresters and Wildlife Biologists – A Potential Dynamic Duo

Foresters are proven masters when it comes to growing and harvesting trees in a sustainable fashion. Foresters, on the average, are quite so, as we say in the great woods of the northwest, skookum in producing the best outcomes for wildlife and wildlife habitat from forest management activities. But, the combination of a skilled forester and a skilled wildlife biologist can produce remarkable results from active forest management for wildlife, aesthetics, and economic returns from wood products.

Several states are moving forward with regulations requiring forest land owners to have forest management plans prepared by licensed or certified foresters. As research has shown over and over that most forest landowners in the northeast are more concerned with wildlife than maximizing economic returns from forestry, I believe it would be a good move to require that certified wildlife biologists and certified foresters both sign off on forest plans that meet the landowner’s objectives.

Deer Management – Critical to Habitat Management

Deer Influence Habitat. Some animals, deer among them, have the ability to dramatically influence their own habitats. Consequently, the animals themselves require management if a desired habitat is to be created or maintained. In one sense, white-tailed deer are the game manager’s dream animal. They are widely adaptable – their range encompasses every state in the lower 48 and a vast array of habitat types. They adjust to the presence of humans and thrive in disturbed habitats. They are relatively long-lived, reproduce at any early age, commonly produce two offspring per adult female per year and they are polygamous, and highly adaptable relative to habitats. Unless deer numbers are rigorously controlled by predators populations commonly grow to numbers that exceed what biologists refer to as “carrying capacity” simply describing a point in population density where begin to damage their habitats. Deer populations then decline to the level that can be sustained by the diminished habitat.

Consequences of Overpopulation . Overpopulated deer ranges are easily recognized once habitat degradation has begun through such tell tale signs as “browse lines.” This occurs when deer have eaten all the leaves and twigs from trees and shrubs as high as they can reach standing on their hind legs. Deer striving to exist in such circumstances become less and less intimidated by humans and their machines and more and more conflicts occur. Those conflicts include collisions with automobiles, movement into suburban areas with resultant conflicts including damage to plants, conflicts with dogs, and even conflicts with humans.

Die-Offs and Artificial Feeding . Large-scale “die-offs” of deer are common under such circumstances. Emergency reactions motivated by concern for the severely stressed animals such as providing of supplemental feed is apt to only delay the inevitable and put off dealing with the real problems of too many deer for the existing habitat. Large scale artificial feeding operations will, over time, only worse habitat damage as deer numbers are maintained in locations at levels that could not be otherwise sustained. States are commonly and increasingly prohibiting such operations in fear of transmission of disease – particularly that of chronic wasting disease (a disease related to mad cow disease, scrapies in sheep, and Crutzfeld-Jacob disease in humans).

Deer Number Control Requires Predation . Control of deer numbers to match habitat conditions requires that high rates of predation be maintained with concentration on the female segment of the herd in order to hold down reproductive capacity. As human societies, certainly where human populations are as high as they are in the northeastern United States, have quite limited tolerance for native predators that prey efficiently on deer – cougars, wolves, and bears – humans (i.e., hunters) must fill that role.

Coyotes Fill a Vacant Niche

As an aside, the essential elimination of several of the large predators, cougars and wolves (and black bears in some locations), from the northeastern United States has created a niche – an ecological place – for what biologists call “meso predators” (i.e., medium sized predators) to fill the void. It was only a matter of time until coyotes would expand east of the Mississippi to fill that void. And, now they are present in the northeast – and here to stay. Because coyotes are a relatively new addition to the fauna of the northeast, because that do quite well in human dominated habitats, and because they prey on the big four to some extent, there are hunters who are upset with the circumstance and demanding reductions in this new predator that competes with hunters for deer. My advice is to simply relax.

First, coyotes are phenomenally adaptable animals and you really can’t do much about either their numbers or continued spread without enormously expensive sustained control programs which would, likely, inflame public opinion. Second, coyotes will, ordinarily, only become an “obvious problem” when particular adverse circumstances exist – malnutrition, habitat degradation, and concentration in segments of a deer herd. Third, when you really can’t win, it is wise to turn the circumstances to advantage by considering that you have a new “game animal” – and a fur bearer at that – that can provide hunting, and/or trapping opportunities.

No Real Option to Hunters as Predators

In reality, there is no really viable option to human predation as a control on deer populations. Even some of the environmental groups that have for years advocated such actions as “birth control” and other non-lethal means of control of deer numbers and associated habitat degradation have come to that conclusion. That does not mean they are ready to condone “sport hunting” which implies that “sport hunters” derive some gratification from hunting and killing their quarry. Rather “sharp shooters” – who would be merely carrying out a job – would be employed to do the work. Puritanism is alive and well. But, that is another story and under circumstances of having to reduce deer numbers in heavily populated areas with a high probability of injury to humans, pets, and property there may be limited alternatives.

However, in other circumstances, sport hunters are and will continue to be the predator of choice and pay significant fees to fulfill that role. Regulation of hunting to obtain appropriate results in terms of regulating deer numbers to protect habitat conditions, assuring a safe and enjoyable experience, satisfying hunters, and protecting property rights of landowners – all at the same time – is a very tricky business. This inherently tricky business is complicated by the “North American Model” of wildlife management.

The North American Wildlife Management Model

In that model, the wildlife belongs to the people of the state and is managed by the state government in the name of the people. The habitat (i.e., the “land”), however, is under the control of the owner of the land. The rights of ownership include the right of the landowner to control access to that land. In other words, a hunter cannot legally pursue the public’s wildlife on the property of another without permission.

If hunters are to fulfill the assigned, and likely essential role, as the controlling predator for deer populations they must have access to the habitat (the land) that contains the prey. Lack of access translates into the fact that hunters cannot effectively fulfill their increasingly important social role as a primary predator. Obviously many landowners, for various reasons – often very good reasons – post their lands to hunters thereby dampening the effectiveness of hunters as predators and an effective control agent for deer numbers. That, in turn, leads to deer population levels that routinely and adversely effect habitat and other conflicts and creates continued consternation.

Programs to help assure hunter access to as much land as is reasonably possible is a critical part of deer management aimed at prevention of habitat degradation and damage to crops and ornamentals. Such approaches include education, economic incentives, public relations efforts, and assured improved and appropriate behavior by hunters.

Pay to Hunt? A Look at the Future

Given the capitalistic nature of our society, coupled with the consequences of the North American Wildlife Model, landowners are more and more inclined to view access to land for purposes of hunting to be a potential and source of revenue. And, the market value of that access will tend to increase as the land available for hunting decreases and demand for hunting increases. That is both the good news and the bad news for hunters and hunting.

The good news is that enhanced revenue is a powerful incentive to pay attention to an opportunity. In this case, that opportunity would include enhanced attention to the welfare of wildlife habitat and wildlife. The bad news is that hunting, which was once free, now demands a fee – and, likely, fee that will become more common and increase as demand exceeds supply.

Land management companies – including wood products companies - which once considered wildlife and hunting “a pain in the arse” now see hunting as a profit center. I was recently hired as consultant to a large timber company and pointed out that the company had a significant opportunity to increase its revenues through leasing lands for the hunting. The Chief Forester pointed out they were in the “timber business” not the “wildlife business.” I pointed out that any company in which I owned stock had best be in the “money making business.” The President of the company smiled and nodded. They were, indeed, in the money making business. The Chief Forester said, “let’s talk.”

Such opportunities are not limited to large land holders. Landowners with relatively small parcels of lands are increasingly taking the opportunity to form cooperatives to put together enough land under cooperative arrangements to produce viable hunting leases. The difference between a “problem” and an “opportunity” is simply whether one can capitalize on the situation. Forming cooperatives to accommodate hunting parties provides an opportunity to turn “win/lose” scenarios for hunters and land owners into “win/win” opportunities for both.

A Strong State Wildlife Agency Required

If habitat for “huntable” wildlife, with other wildlife species benefiting as well, is to be maintained and enhanced, a well-financed, professionally competent, stable, and empowered state wildlife agency is an essential component. Such agencies will have to do more than make and enforce laws and regulations. Such agencies will have to do more than ration out hunting opportunities and deal with damage complaints. Such agencies, in cooperation with other government entities such as the Agriculture Extension Service, must provide help with habitat planning, formation of collectives, and education of landholders and hunters alike.

An Increasing Role for Consultants

If extension services to provide guidance to landowners relative to habitat management are not available from the governmental sector the void will be – and is – being filled by the private sector. There is nothing wrong and much, potentially, valuable to be gained from qualified and ethical consultants. However, it would a large step forward if such consultants were required to be licensed and held to standards of qualification and experience similar to that required for consulting foresters. Too many such “consultants” are merely peddling “services” and “products” that may be neither suitable to circumstances nor cost effective. Activities or actions that have a tendency to concentrate or attract animals without providing overall or broader ranging benefit to both hunters and the species in question should be viewed cautiously. Landowners and hunters being “sold” on such services should ask and receive answers to a series of questions relative to “cost to benefit.”

No Substitute for a Strong Political Support Base

All of the things that I have discussed to assure the future of hunting – appropriately managed habitat, well-managed wildlife populations, fairly and effectively managed hunting, continued effective education of all concerned, landowners, hunters, and the general public – requires an effective, sustained, political support base. That base must come, as it always has, from those who care enough to put their scarce time and money on the line – again and again and again.

Building on Success

Scarcely more than a hundred years ago, such things as deer and turkeys in the northeast were discussed largely in the past tense and with a sense of nostalgia for things long gone. Our predecessors sat around the pubs of the day and pointed out old timers who had “killed the last deer – or the last turkey - in the county.”

Then, something happened - something almost magical in retrospect. The forest began its return and with that return sportsmen worked to see that the wildlife returned along with the forest. They were successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. That is our heritage. And, now it is our turn to bear the necessary burdens – and reap the benefits.

For those who chose to see the “glass half empty” let me suggest, as strongly as I can, that I see nothing but opportunity in today’s situation. We now know so much more about wildlife and its habitat than we ever knew before - and that knowledge is exploding. There are extant abilities to influence public opinion that are mind boggling in their potential. Hunter and landowners have more organized support bases than ever before and we have barely touched what could be done. Wildlife aficionados have resources, technical and financial, at our disposal that could only be dreamed of when my career began 50 years ago. And, most of all, we have the land.

Looking for a Helping Hand – We the People

All we have to do is put all of those things together – knowledge, people who care, capable professionals, the wildlife, and the land – and success is assured. And, who puts all those things together or sees that such occurs? In this country, the answer is both simple and obvious – we the people. The answer is always the same in a democracy – we the people.

What we chose for ourselves and our posterity – and set out to make reality – can be. If we forgo our right to chose, or if we slacken in our work for what we chose, we can only accept the result of circumstance.

I prefer to choose – and to act. Then, I would look to the end of my wrists for the helping hands that can make it so. And, then, I would reach out those hands to take the hands of others that share my dream. And, then, together, we would assure that our dreams come true for us and those who come after us. It is as simple – and as difficult - as that.