I'm rather curious as to how the 'give presents to your supporters' gig got started. I really don't need any more return address labels, thank you. I move around so much that half the time they're not even applicable. It's just more paper that I have to find a use for or throw out. If I contribute to a conservation group it's because I believe in the cause, not because I am interested in getting a cute stuffed polar bear/dolphin/tiger/lion/whatever. (Personally, I think the labels are worse because they are completely unsolicited. I don't have to donate a single thing to get those bad boys. They're complimentary.)
Then there are the 'suggested' donation levels. An asterisk by $40 means 'It would really help us out if you gave this much.' I got an e-mail the other day from The Wilderness Society saying, 'If you pledge at least $30 to us in somebody else's name for Christmas, we'll send that person a membership to The Wilderness Society.' And let's not forget those oh-so-popular neverending fundraisers on public television. "Any amount is OK," the commentator tells us, even as she says, "If you pledge $175 we'll send you the DVD of Celtic Woman recorded live in Dublin." So let me get this straight--you're telling me that any amount I pledge will be great, but I can't get in on these deals unless I can afford a certain amount? There's no mixed message there, surely. How many people who watch PBS can afford a $200 pledge (especially if it's monthly)? Whatever happened to being grateful for what you get?
And finally--National Wildlife Federation and all other conservation groups, are you listening?--have you ever calculated how much pollution there is associated with putting out all these fun little nametags and cutesy animals that just take up space? Neither have I, but I bet it's not negligible. My mother has hysterics every time she gets another 'thing,' usually involving a rant beginning and ending with, "Quit wasting my resources!" We contribute not because we get something in return, but because we believe in conservation. So start practicing what you preach and conserve!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wetlands
In 1995 President Clinton signed a bill that commanded ‘no net loss of wetlands.’ Construction companies were required to restore wetland acreage that they had destroyed somewhere else. It sounded great on paper, but the rule did not work so well in practice. It takes a lot of work to restore a wetland, and a wetland cannot be restored in a place where it never existed to begin with. The rule was never enforced, and most construction companies did not care to spend their hard-earned money on what they saw as useless cleanup projects. Still, if you listen to former Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton, wetlands have actually increased in the last decade if you count every swimming pool, puddle, lake, and river in the U.S. They may be wet, but they do not function like wetlands.
Why the big push to restore wetlands? They’re hard to walk in, they’re breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and all that land is so good for growing crops once it’s drained. That is more or less how the first North American settlers saw things, and how people saw them through half the twentieth century. But from the late 1940s on, scientists started to realize that wetlands are far more important to humans than we thought. However, we come late to this realization. Over half (some scientists estimate up to 80 percent) of the original United States wetlands are gone, having fallen victim to farming and development. Truly, we don't know what we've got 'til it's gone.
Water filtration is probably the best-known function of wetlands. Wetland plants pick up surplus nitrates from lawn runoff and store it in their tissues, and sequester an enormous amount of carbon that might otherwise end up as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, or free radicals. The extra carbon and nitrogen taken up by plant tissues make the plants more palatable and nutritious for wildlife.
The reason wetlands are able to take up these extra nutrients is tied to the role they play in flood control. Wetlands stand between storm and agricultural runoff and other bodies of water, and the tangle of roots and grass slows the water down, allowing it to sink into the ground. The reverse is also true. Wetlands will slow and filter water coming out of a river during a flood just as they will with runoff.
Many wildlife species depend on wetlands for survival. Migrating birds depend on wetlands as stopover sites during the migration. When dams drowned wetlands along the California river system, the population of ducks was drastically reduced. Forty-five percent of the wildlife in the Everglades, from mammals to plants, is endangered. When part of the food chain is disrupted in any ecosystem, it can negatively affect the other organisms.
What can we do about the problem of disappearing wetlands? To begin with, we can protect natural wetlands. Research shows that restored wetlands are more likely to have upland plants around their edges and do not serve the abovementioned functions as well as those that are natural. However, just because restored wetlands do not function as well is no reason not to restore them. Wetland restoration is labor-intensive, so volunteer your time to help out on a restoration project. If you cannot do that, contribute monetarily to the project. Any restoration project is very expensive! Write to your elected officials demanding that we pay more attention to the environment. If nothing else, the most important thing you can do is to educate yourself and others on wetlands and the good they do in your community.
Why the big push to restore wetlands? They’re hard to walk in, they’re breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and all that land is so good for growing crops once it’s drained. That is more or less how the first North American settlers saw things, and how people saw them through half the twentieth century. But from the late 1940s on, scientists started to realize that wetlands are far more important to humans than we thought. However, we come late to this realization. Over half (some scientists estimate up to 80 percent) of the original United States wetlands are gone, having fallen victim to farming and development. Truly, we don't know what we've got 'til it's gone.
Water filtration is probably the best-known function of wetlands. Wetland plants pick up surplus nitrates from lawn runoff and store it in their tissues, and sequester an enormous amount of carbon that might otherwise end up as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, or free radicals. The extra carbon and nitrogen taken up by plant tissues make the plants more palatable and nutritious for wildlife.
The reason wetlands are able to take up these extra nutrients is tied to the role they play in flood control. Wetlands stand between storm and agricultural runoff and other bodies of water, and the tangle of roots and grass slows the water down, allowing it to sink into the ground. The reverse is also true. Wetlands will slow and filter water coming out of a river during a flood just as they will with runoff.
Many wildlife species depend on wetlands for survival. Migrating birds depend on wetlands as stopover sites during the migration. When dams drowned wetlands along the California river system, the population of ducks was drastically reduced. Forty-five percent of the wildlife in the Everglades, from mammals to plants, is endangered. When part of the food chain is disrupted in any ecosystem, it can negatively affect the other organisms.
What can we do about the problem of disappearing wetlands? To begin with, we can protect natural wetlands. Research shows that restored wetlands are more likely to have upland plants around their edges and do not serve the abovementioned functions as well as those that are natural. However, just because restored wetlands do not function as well is no reason not to restore them. Wetland restoration is labor-intensive, so volunteer your time to help out on a restoration project. If you cannot do that, contribute monetarily to the project. Any restoration project is very expensive! Write to your elected officials demanding that we pay more attention to the environment. If nothing else, the most important thing you can do is to educate yourself and others on wetlands and the good they do in your community.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
What can we do?
We all use resources. We can't help it. We're made that way. But what can we do to reduce the impact? Here are a few ideas:
Walk, don't drive. It's better for the environment, better for your wallet, and better for you. I'm not suggesting that you walk 6 miles into town. Why drive down to the corner, though? Getting into a car for something like that is wasted effort. If you want to get where you are going faster, ride a bike. Instead of running to the store for just one thing, make a list and go to several stores.
Turn off the lights and turn down the heat. Leaving all the lights in your house on all the time can really add up. Put on a sweater if you're cold (or do some aerobics!) instead of turning the thermostat up 5 degrees. Use LED or fluorescent bulbs that use less energy. Over Christmas don't leave your window lights and outside lights on all day. No one can see them then, anyway.
Gauge how much power you're using. Some things don't need to be plugged in all the time. Try to reduce all the silent power draws.
Make sure you have a full load of laundry or dishes before turning on your washing machine or dishwasher. If you're going to water your lawn, do it in the cool of the day rather than in the afternoon. You can also save water by flushing the toilet less, but families with small children may want to abstain from that until their kids are old enough to know what is going on.
Recycle! The excuse that recycling uses energy and pollutes rings false. It does not use as much energy or pollute as much as making new stuff. It just requires a little extra effort on your part. Think of all the garbage bags you'll save!
Don't buy wrapping paper. Getting gifts from other states wrapped in newspaper can be tremendous fun. It's always interesting to see the name of an out-of-state newspaper or reread an interesting article. Use old newspaper or white paper as packing material. Save your boxes! There may come a time when you need a box, and you won't have to shell out the $2 to get one. Alternatively, corrugated cardboard in recyclable!
Sound like easy things to do? They sound that way to me, too. I am always surprised at the people who don't even recycle because it's "so much easier to throw that tin can in the garbage" than it is to walk a few steps to the back door and throw the can in the recycling bin. It means that later you'll be tying up the garbage bag and taking it out to the curb. Just do it. We live here, and we'd like to continue to do so. When you treat resources in such a cavalier fashion you are ultimately hurting yourself along with everybody else.
And P.S. Turn off the computer when you are done using it!
draft
Walk, don't drive. It's better for the environment, better for your wallet, and better for you. I'm not suggesting that you walk 6 miles into town. Why drive down to the corner, though? Getting into a car for something like that is wasted effort. If you want to get where you are going faster, ride a bike. Instead of running to the store for just one thing, make a list and go to several stores.
Turn off the lights and turn down the heat. Leaving all the lights in your house on all the time can really add up. Put on a sweater if you're cold (or do some aerobics!) instead of turning the thermostat up 5 degrees. Use LED or fluorescent bulbs that use less energy. Over Christmas don't leave your window lights and outside lights on all day. No one can see them then, anyway.
Gauge how much power you're using. Some things don't need to be plugged in all the time. Try to reduce all the silent power draws.
Make sure you have a full load of laundry or dishes before turning on your washing machine or dishwasher. If you're going to water your lawn, do it in the cool of the day rather than in the afternoon. You can also save water by flushing the toilet less, but families with small children may want to abstain from that until their kids are old enough to know what is going on.
Recycle! The excuse that recycling uses energy and pollutes rings false. It does not use as much energy or pollute as much as making new stuff. It just requires a little extra effort on your part. Think of all the garbage bags you'll save!
Don't buy wrapping paper. Getting gifts from other states wrapped in newspaper can be tremendous fun. It's always interesting to see the name of an out-of-state newspaper or reread an interesting article. Use old newspaper or white paper as packing material. Save your boxes! There may come a time when you need a box, and you won't have to shell out the $2 to get one. Alternatively, corrugated cardboard in recyclable!
Sound like easy things to do? They sound that way to me, too. I am always surprised at the people who don't even recycle because it's "so much easier to throw that tin can in the garbage" than it is to walk a few steps to the back door and throw the can in the recycling bin. It means that later you'll be tying up the garbage bag and taking it out to the curb. Just do it. We live here, and we'd like to continue to do so. When you treat resources in such a cavalier fashion you are ultimately hurting yourself along with everybody else.
And P.S. Turn off the computer when you are done using it!
draft
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
How much evidence do you need?
It's a question I'd like to hear someone ask. The problem with having reporters ask scientific questions or make scientific arguments is that often they are not equipped to follow the nswers with more penetrating questions. (I was thrilled to hear a BBC reporter admonish a couple of Americans who were bemoaning the price of oil. They complained that gasoline is now running $3/gallon in the United States, and he pointed out that in Britain it is $9/gallon). I recently spoke with an oil man who said he gives no credence to global warming, and proceeded to deny evolution by saying that all the evidence for it had been planted. His thesis was that most of the "evidence" comes from computer models, and that those are not definitive. I can understand his not liking the theory because it threatens his way of life, but I wish I'd had the presence of mind to tell him that Galileo was jailed for daring to suggest that the world was round, but four hundred or so years later it turned out to be true. And I guess science hasn't done anything for him lately, anyway (ever taken penicillin, gone to the doctor, watched TV?). You can't pick and choose what you are going to believe.
We have known about man-made global warming for close to forty years now. Climate records have been kept since the 1890s. And yes, the naysayers are correct when they say there have been climate fluctuations before, but what they always ignore is that the trends took place over hundreds of years. There is a huge difference between a temperature fluctuation of 5 degrees Fahrenheit over 300 years and 150 years. I guess climate scientists have nothing better to do with their time than proclaim the end of the world (not unlike some other people I might mention).
I listen to Air America, and the other day I heard one of Tom Hartmann's guests make the absolutely ludicrous claim that a warmer earth will actually increase the number of species, and Hartmann didn't call him on it! I don't know what scientist said that, but whoever it was his work certainly wouldn't be published in a peer-reviewed journal! (We scientists can be snobs that way.)
In any case, why can't people believe what is right in front of them? I mean, that's why people believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution...they can see it happening. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to carry the theory to a larger animal? One would think that news of melting ice caps and glaciers, not to mention prolonged drought, would bring people to their senses--everyone except the U.S., it seems. Evidence means nothing to us, apparently. Someone told me that people will come to their senses, but things have to get a lot worse. How much worse? To the point where we can't do anything about them worse? A fear of mine is that one day the New York coast will get flooded out and the midwest will be in a perpetual drought and all these naysayers will look at the scientists and other people who are actually trying to do something about this and ask, "Why didn't you do anything?", and we'll say, "We tried, but you didn't care and wouldn't listen."
When I was in grad school I was waiting in line at the bank on a rainy February day and heard the fellow in front of me say, "Where's this global warming we were promised?"
"You're not thinking what you're saying," I told him, and proceeded to list predictions. Quite likely he thought I was a nut, but I don't care. I prefer to be like--I believe it was either John Adams or Patrick Henry (this is Revolutionary War history here)--in that regard. "I am in earnest, I will not be gainsaid, I will not equivocate, and I WILL BE HEARD!"
We have known about man-made global warming for close to forty years now. Climate records have been kept since the 1890s. And yes, the naysayers are correct when they say there have been climate fluctuations before, but what they always ignore is that the trends took place over hundreds of years. There is a huge difference between a temperature fluctuation of 5 degrees Fahrenheit over 300 years and 150 years. I guess climate scientists have nothing better to do with their time than proclaim the end of the world (not unlike some other people I might mention).
I listen to Air America, and the other day I heard one of Tom Hartmann's guests make the absolutely ludicrous claim that a warmer earth will actually increase the number of species, and Hartmann didn't call him on it! I don't know what scientist said that, but whoever it was his work certainly wouldn't be published in a peer-reviewed journal! (We scientists can be snobs that way.)
In any case, why can't people believe what is right in front of them? I mean, that's why people believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution...they can see it happening. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to carry the theory to a larger animal? One would think that news of melting ice caps and glaciers, not to mention prolonged drought, would bring people to their senses--everyone except the U.S., it seems. Evidence means nothing to us, apparently. Someone told me that people will come to their senses, but things have to get a lot worse. How much worse? To the point where we can't do anything about them worse? A fear of mine is that one day the New York coast will get flooded out and the midwest will be in a perpetual drought and all these naysayers will look at the scientists and other people who are actually trying to do something about this and ask, "Why didn't you do anything?", and we'll say, "We tried, but you didn't care and wouldn't listen."
When I was in grad school I was waiting in line at the bank on a rainy February day and heard the fellow in front of me say, "Where's this global warming we were promised?"
"You're not thinking what you're saying," I told him, and proceeded to list predictions. Quite likely he thought I was a nut, but I don't care. I prefer to be like--I believe it was either John Adams or Patrick Henry (this is Revolutionary War history here)--in that regard. "I am in earnest, I will not be gainsaid, I will not equivocate, and I WILL BE HEARD!"
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Do hatcheries change the fish?
In 'Mountain in the Clouds' Bruce Brown makes a pretty strong case against hatcheries. Being raised in such close quarters fundamentally changes the fishes' behavior, so they are more likely to travel in groups and overwhelm other fish. (Such an argument can also be used against stocking nonnative species in lakes and rivers.) It is easier for disease to be transferred, and the environment in which the fish are raised is so artificial as to reduce survival when the fish are released to the river. On the other hand, the rapidly dwindling salmon populations have already lost genetic diversity. In the case of the sockeye, the species would likely be extinct today were it not for human intervention. Conservationists are faced with a conundrum--do we worry about the fish behavior or the fish genetics? Both are important, but in this case I believe genetics win out. The fish behavior is something that will probably return to normal once there are enough fish that we can let them spawn in streams and the fry do not grow up in hatchery environments. The genetics, though, is something we cannot get basck once it is gone.
Fisheries biologists are working on ways to improve salmon survival once the fish leave the hatchery. One of the most recent is known by its acronym, NATURES, and focuses on simulating a natural environment for the fry. This has had some success at improving fish survival in some areas of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The hatchery may provide instream structure (trees with their needles or leaves removed), camouflage (lattice sheets laid over the raceways), and predator conditioning (a model fish that delivers an electric shock to fry that approach too closely). (These are only a few changes that may be made.) The program is more successful when more than one change is implemented. Interestingly, when the fry have instream structure and shade, their protective coloring more closely mirrors what it would be in the river and looks less like concrete.
This isn't a solution of course, only mitigation. We still need to take as hard look at dams and the placement of power plants and other buildings. Still, it's something, which is more than the salmon had 15 years ago.
Fisheries biologists are working on ways to improve salmon survival once the fish leave the hatchery. One of the most recent is known by its acronym, NATURES, and focuses on simulating a natural environment for the fry. This has had some success at improving fish survival in some areas of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The hatchery may provide instream structure (trees with their needles or leaves removed), camouflage (lattice sheets laid over the raceways), and predator conditioning (a model fish that delivers an electric shock to fry that approach too closely). (These are only a few changes that may be made.) The program is more successful when more than one change is implemented. Interestingly, when the fry have instream structure and shade, their protective coloring more closely mirrors what it would be in the river and looks less like concrete.
This isn't a solution of course, only mitigation. We still need to take as hard look at dams and the placement of power plants and other buildings. Still, it's something, which is more than the salmon had 15 years ago.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Don't count your salmon until they're over Little Granite Dam
The recovery of salmon versus the retention of dams has been a big issue in Idaho for years now. The four dams on the Lower Snake River were built in the 1950s as a government hydrology project, and the government spent so much money on them that it wants to keep them. However, these dams were not built to supply hydropower; their main purpose was to create reservoirs for farmers to draw on in need. These dams only produce about 2 percent of the Pacific northwest's hydropower.
Meanwhile, the chinook and sockeye salmon lost ground fast. Old-timers from the 1950s tell stories about being able to walk across the backs of sockeye in Redfish Lake during spawning season. When the sockeye was listed in 1991 people held candlelight vigils for the fish. It is a very big deal now to release captive-bred sockeye into the lake, bringing out high-level Fish and Game officials and sometimes even the governor. But back when there was still a population of sockeye the stink from the decay of the dead fish drove most people away from Redfish Lake. Now, with no decaying fish, Redfish has become a resort of sorts, with lots of camping, hiking, biking, and swimming. It is unlikely the owners will want to give that up. Still, the sockeye salmon is important enough to the people of Idaho to have held candlelight vigils back in the day. We could still use them; only 4 sockeye returned to the hatchery this year.
How did the dams harm the salmon? Biologists discovered that the dams aren't as harmful to adult salmon as they are to the presmolts. The adult salmon can use the fish ladders on the downstream side of the dams to safely jump up and over the structure (safely, that is, as long as they don't run into any nitrogen pockets). There are no such structures on the upstream side, and many presmolts are ground to bits in the power turbines. Those that do make it over the dam enter slack water where they become disoriented and more vulnerable to predators. When the fish begin their journey downstream their air bladders inflate, so they are tasty snacks stuck on the river's surface. They rely on the current to carry them downstream, and in its absence they have a tough time figuring out where to go. On the undammed river the journey to the ocean took 10-30 days; now it takes 1-3 months. As previously noted, timing is critical. The young salmon must be ready to enter salt water by the time they get to the ocean. If their physiology changes too soon they will die, and if it changes too late they will die. The dams and power plants along the way do not help things any. Salmon are cold-water fish. Chinook prefer temperatures between 30 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The warmer the water, the less dissolved oxygen there is, and the more likely that disease will flourish. Deforestation doesn't help any. With no shade, the water heats up
The Army Corps of Engineers has tried to get around this problem by barging or trucking the young salmon around the dams, but this has not worked well at all. If it did we would see greter fish returns to the hatcheries. Because salmon will be making that return journey and because they can taste chemical differences in the streams, they need that stimulation to know where they've been. Once again we find there is no substitute for Mother Nature.
Meanwhile, the chinook and sockeye salmon lost ground fast. Old-timers from the 1950s tell stories about being able to walk across the backs of sockeye in Redfish Lake during spawning season. When the sockeye was listed in 1991 people held candlelight vigils for the fish. It is a very big deal now to release captive-bred sockeye into the lake, bringing out high-level Fish and Game officials and sometimes even the governor. But back when there was still a population of sockeye the stink from the decay of the dead fish drove most people away from Redfish Lake. Now, with no decaying fish, Redfish has become a resort of sorts, with lots of camping, hiking, biking, and swimming. It is unlikely the owners will want to give that up. Still, the sockeye salmon is important enough to the people of Idaho to have held candlelight vigils back in the day. We could still use them; only 4 sockeye returned to the hatchery this year.
How did the dams harm the salmon? Biologists discovered that the dams aren't as harmful to adult salmon as they are to the presmolts. The adult salmon can use the fish ladders on the downstream side of the dams to safely jump up and over the structure (safely, that is, as long as they don't run into any nitrogen pockets). There are no such structures on the upstream side, and many presmolts are ground to bits in the power turbines. Those that do make it over the dam enter slack water where they become disoriented and more vulnerable to predators. When the fish begin their journey downstream their air bladders inflate, so they are tasty snacks stuck on the river's surface. They rely on the current to carry them downstream, and in its absence they have a tough time figuring out where to go. On the undammed river the journey to the ocean took 10-30 days; now it takes 1-3 months. As previously noted, timing is critical. The young salmon must be ready to enter salt water by the time they get to the ocean. If their physiology changes too soon they will die, and if it changes too late they will die. The dams and power plants along the way do not help things any. Salmon are cold-water fish. Chinook prefer temperatures between 30 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The warmer the water, the less dissolved oxygen there is, and the more likely that disease will flourish. Deforestation doesn't help any. With no shade, the water heats up
The Army Corps of Engineers has tried to get around this problem by barging or trucking the young salmon around the dams, but this has not worked well at all. If it did we would see greter fish returns to the hatcheries. Because salmon will be making that return journey and because they can taste chemical differences in the streams, they need that stimulation to know where they've been. Once again we find there is no substitute for Mother Nature.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
But you can't say that!
As one of my colleagues was getting ready to lead a tour at the hatchery, the boss said, "Be sure not to mention the 'e' word." I was puzzled until he explained he meant evolution. Since then I have used the 'e' word on a lot of tours, as in, "The plants in the river evolved in the presence of decaying salmon." I'm afraid I am unable to admit that I am sorry if I offended anyone because I'm not. If you go to religious gathering, you expect to hear the word 'God,' and I think that if you go to a hatchery or a field station you have to expect to hear the word 'evolution,' no matter whether you believe in it. Why? You are in the presence of a bunch of people who wee trained in biology and 'believe' in evolution. (I'm not going to get into the difference between scientific evidence and belief systems, at least not in this post.)
Why are we so worried about offending members of the public? Well, a lot of people are just petty enough to write in and say they cannot subscribe to a particular magazine anymore because of one tiny thing they disagree with, and a lot of them will go even further. Case in point--Jim Zumbo was fired from Field and Stream magazine because he had the audacity to air his thoughts on the use of automatic weapons in hunting, and there were several irate males who not only got angry with the magazine for publishing the column, but issued death threats to Zumbo and his family. How juvenile!
And yet Bible-thumpers do not worry at all about offending the rest of us byt showing intolerance toward people who practice a different religion or are a different color or have a different political bent than they do. On the other hand, they fail to see how their holier-than-thou attitudes are offensive to the rest of us.
That brings me to my point for this writing. I am very tired of tiptoeing around trying not to offend anyone because that's just not a good way to get anything done. I am tired of avoiding discussion of controversial topics because I believe that when topics are controversial they must be discussed. I find that on these controversial subjects (dams on the Snake River in Idaho or drilling in the Sagebrush of northwestern Wyoming) only one side gets aired, and it's not usually the biological opinion side. I am tired of being beaten over the head with, "You can't say that because you might not get hired," or "You can't say that because someone might disagree and it would make the hatchery look bad." Don't my opinions count? Aren't ethics and conservation important? For myself, I prefer to assume that anyone who reads a magazine or takes the time to go on a tour can separate my personal opinions from what they believe. That may be a naive assumption, but I'm sticking to it. I am part of this world, and my opinion counts.
Why are we so worried about offending members of the public? Well, a lot of people are just petty enough to write in and say they cannot subscribe to a particular magazine anymore because of one tiny thing they disagree with, and a lot of them will go even further. Case in point--Jim Zumbo was fired from Field and Stream magazine because he had the audacity to air his thoughts on the use of automatic weapons in hunting, and there were several irate males who not only got angry with the magazine for publishing the column, but issued death threats to Zumbo and his family. How juvenile!
And yet Bible-thumpers do not worry at all about offending the rest of us byt showing intolerance toward people who practice a different religion or are a different color or have a different political bent than they do. On the other hand, they fail to see how their holier-than-thou attitudes are offensive to the rest of us.
That brings me to my point for this writing. I am very tired of tiptoeing around trying not to offend anyone because that's just not a good way to get anything done. I am tired of avoiding discussion of controversial topics because I believe that when topics are controversial they must be discussed. I find that on these controversial subjects (dams on the Snake River in Idaho or drilling in the Sagebrush of northwestern Wyoming) only one side gets aired, and it's not usually the biological opinion side. I am tired of being beaten over the head with, "You can't say that because you might not get hired," or "You can't say that because someone might disagree and it would make the hatchery look bad." Don't my opinions count? Aren't ethics and conservation important? For myself, I prefer to assume that anyone who reads a magazine or takes the time to go on a tour can separate my personal opinions from what they believe. That may be a naive assumption, but I'm sticking to it. I am part of this world, and my opinion counts.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The importance of salmon
Why protect the chinook and sockeye salmon? What's so great about them? In almost every ecosystem, if one species is driven to extinction another one fills in the gap, right? That may not be possible with the salmon. To understand why, we need to know a little about the life history of the fish.
Fisheries scientists estimate that at one time there were 14 million salmon returning every year. By the mid-1850s that number had dwindled to 6 million. Not 14 million, but not the mere 3 thousand that were returning by the time the salmon was listed. Salmon dig redds (nests) to lay their eggs, and die after spawning. When the eggs hatch (approximately 2-3 months after fertilization) the salmon fry live off yolk sacs attached to their bellies for about 2 weeks. When the sacs are used up the young chinook are called button-up fry and swim up to the surface of the water. For the next 18 months or so they feed off microbial insects. Eventually, something signals them to begin their migration downstream to the ocean, usually at the end of April. The young fry become what are called pre-smolts, are released from the hatchery, and begin the arduous journey downriver. Because they are not yet strong enough to swim long distances, they let the current carry them tail-first. Only about 10 percent will actually make it to the ocean. During their journey the salmon go through a process called smoltification; that is, their bodies get ready to make the transition from fresh water to salt water. I am no fish expert, so I am not fully equipped to describe all the changes in detail, but I do recall from vertebrate zoology that the fish go from excreting copious amounts of very dilute urine to small amounts of very concentrated urine in order to maintain ion balances in their bodies. Timing is crucial; if the fish change to soon they will die, and if they change too late they will die. The fish stay in the ocean for 1-3 years. The 1-ocean chinook are called jacks and are not considered full adult, but are fully capable of spawning. There is little scientific backing for it and it is not true of all areas in the continental United States, but conventional wisdom says that a good run of jacks represents 10 percent of the next year's run. Because the fish's body has gone through so many changes to adapt to ocean life, its digestive system essentially shuts down once it hits freshwater. Thus, they do not eat for the rest of their lives. Science suggests that salmon can taste chemical differences in water up .03 parts per million. (For an everyday equivalent, imagine you have a million cups of water and 1 cup of sugar. Mix it all together and you've got 1 ppm of sugar. Now, consider that the fish can taste much less than that. It's truly an amazing system!) The fish get to their natal streams, spawn, and die. Everything in the stream has evolved to capture nutrients from the decomposition of those dead fish. If you suddenly remove those nutrients from the stream, the plants that depended on those nutrients die and aren't there, they don't give off oxygen, and evewntually the whole system starts to collapse. A huge problem right now for those streams and lakes is the suden sterility.
Luckily, there are programs that are attempting to bring the chinook and sockeye salmon back. To save time and avoid confusion, let's just say that there are more than a few captive rearing programs going on in river corridors throughout Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Some of the fish are reared in captivity their entire lives, and some are released to make the journey to and from the ocean.
Besides all the scientific reasons to keep the salmon around, we should do it because they are just plain cool! I thought steelhead were big when we caught them, but then we got to chinook season. A 5-year old chinook can be as big as a small shark! All of a sudden we went from getting fish that were 70 centimeters long to fish that were 92 centimeters long or more! (Divide by 2.54 to get the length in feet). I had seen pictures of the male sockeye in full red and green spawning colors and thought they looked cartoonish, but then I saw a real male sockeye, and to my amazement they really do look just like that!
Some people may ask why we should save the salmon. Well, why not?
Fisheries scientists estimate that at one time there were 14 million salmon returning every year. By the mid-1850s that number had dwindled to 6 million. Not 14 million, but not the mere 3 thousand that were returning by the time the salmon was listed. Salmon dig redds (nests) to lay their eggs, and die after spawning. When the eggs hatch (approximately 2-3 months after fertilization) the salmon fry live off yolk sacs attached to their bellies for about 2 weeks. When the sacs are used up the young chinook are called button-up fry and swim up to the surface of the water. For the next 18 months or so they feed off microbial insects. Eventually, something signals them to begin their migration downstream to the ocean, usually at the end of April. The young fry become what are called pre-smolts, are released from the hatchery, and begin the arduous journey downriver. Because they are not yet strong enough to swim long distances, they let the current carry them tail-first. Only about 10 percent will actually make it to the ocean. During their journey the salmon go through a process called smoltification; that is, their bodies get ready to make the transition from fresh water to salt water. I am no fish expert, so I am not fully equipped to describe all the changes in detail, but I do recall from vertebrate zoology that the fish go from excreting copious amounts of very dilute urine to small amounts of very concentrated urine in order to maintain ion balances in their bodies. Timing is crucial; if the fish change to soon they will die, and if they change too late they will die. The fish stay in the ocean for 1-3 years. The 1-ocean chinook are called jacks and are not considered full adult, but are fully capable of spawning. There is little scientific backing for it and it is not true of all areas in the continental United States, but conventional wisdom says that a good run of jacks represents 10 percent of the next year's run. Because the fish's body has gone through so many changes to adapt to ocean life, its digestive system essentially shuts down once it hits freshwater. Thus, they do not eat for the rest of their lives. Science suggests that salmon can taste chemical differences in water up .03 parts per million. (For an everyday equivalent, imagine you have a million cups of water and 1 cup of sugar. Mix it all together and you've got 1 ppm of sugar. Now, consider that the fish can taste much less than that. It's truly an amazing system!) The fish get to their natal streams, spawn, and die. Everything in the stream has evolved to capture nutrients from the decomposition of those dead fish. If you suddenly remove those nutrients from the stream, the plants that depended on those nutrients die and aren't there, they don't give off oxygen, and evewntually the whole system starts to collapse. A huge problem right now for those streams and lakes is the suden sterility.
Luckily, there are programs that are attempting to bring the chinook and sockeye salmon back. To save time and avoid confusion, let's just say that there are more than a few captive rearing programs going on in river corridors throughout Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Some of the fish are reared in captivity their entire lives, and some are released to make the journey to and from the ocean.
Besides all the scientific reasons to keep the salmon around, we should do it because they are just plain cool! I thought steelhead were big when we caught them, but then we got to chinook season. A 5-year old chinook can be as big as a small shark! All of a sudden we went from getting fish that were 70 centimeters long to fish that were 92 centimeters long or more! (Divide by 2.54 to get the length in feet). I had seen pictures of the male sockeye in full red and green spawning colors and thought they looked cartoonish, but then I saw a real male sockeye, and to my amazement they really do look just like that!
Some people may ask why we should save the salmon. Well, why not?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Native Americans are cool!
Call me naive, but I thought white people in this country were pretty much over their racial prejudice toward the natives. Then I worked in Idaho during the chinook salmon season and discovered that is not the case. The Grandfather Clause in the Endangered Species Act allows the Shoshone tribe to fish for chinook salmon, but since the chinook is a threatened fish the season is closed for the rest of us. Now, working for the Idaho Fish and Game I could totally understand the frustration. The tribe uses gaffs to spear the fish, and it's a lethal technique. They can't necessarily tell whether the fish is male or female before it's too late. Unfortunately, the more female fish they take, the fewer females we have to spawn, and the fewer eggs we have. During spawning we can use a male to fertilize two different females, but we can only use a female once. I felt the frustration, but I also felt it on the other side.
Consider the plight of the modern Indian. Reservations were traditionally located on the poorest land, and most tribes were made to live with their traditional enemies. For example, the Sho-Ban tribe in Idaho is comprised of the Shoshones and the Bannocks, and further west the Sho-Pais are the Shoshone and Paiute tribes. If you want to go even further west the Klamaths and Modocs were forced onto a reservation together in the mid-1800s, a condition at least partly responsible for the Modoc War (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). At the Fort Hall Reservation near Pocatello, Idaho, there are only enough jobs for about half the people. Some of my colleagues have said, "Well, they should go off-reservation then." Right. Let's think about what that entails. To get a job off the res, first there needs to be some sort of transportation. As far as I can tell, some of the prejudice against the Indians comes from them 'getting all this money from the government and having shiny new cars all the time.' Those are the ones we see. What about the ones we don't? It costs money to relocate or to get a taxi, money that many of these people don't have. Besides, there is safety in numbers, in knowing that your neighbors will not take an instant dislike to you just because you happen to be Native American.
I'm not saying the tribes are blameless. The tribes are supposed to stay 100 feet away from the weir (picture a bunch of spikes driven into the river bed close enough together to prevent fish passage, and you've got a pretty good idea of what a weir looks like), and there is a fluorescent orange spike driven in at the 100-foot mark. Over the coursse of three weeks that marker mysteriously moved closer and closer to the weir. Did tribal people move it? Most likely. Yet don't shenanigans like that go on in white society? Yes, there were some younger guys who came in and were totally obnoxious, but doesn't that also go on in white society? I think, then, that it is unfair to blame things on Indians when the same things go on everywhere, regardless of race, creed, or color.
Perhaps the worst comment I heard was, "Countries have been taken over before. They should just get over it." Countries have been taken over, but the Masai are still living their traditional lifestyle. When I went to Guyana I noticed that our guides, stripped of all the modern trappings like T-shirts and outboard motors, were living just as they had for hundreds of years. There is a huge difference between having your country taken over and being stripped of your language, customs, and religion. The Native Americans here just had the misfortune to be living in more accessible areas than the rainforest or desert.
I was the research data technician at the hatchery, so every morning I was down at the trap taking data. I recall one of the fisherman coming to watch about the time the white folks gathered around started commenting on tribal fishing. He stood there and listened for a while and then walked off, his back rigid with anger. When I had the opportunity to talk with him later the first thing I said was, "I really feel the need to apologize for my coworkers. I can't imagine what it feels like to have to listen to your people talked about like that."
Consider the plight of the modern Indian. Reservations were traditionally located on the poorest land, and most tribes were made to live with their traditional enemies. For example, the Sho-Ban tribe in Idaho is comprised of the Shoshones and the Bannocks, and further west the Sho-Pais are the Shoshone and Paiute tribes. If you want to go even further west the Klamaths and Modocs were forced onto a reservation together in the mid-1800s, a condition at least partly responsible for the Modoc War (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). At the Fort Hall Reservation near Pocatello, Idaho, there are only enough jobs for about half the people. Some of my colleagues have said, "Well, they should go off-reservation then." Right. Let's think about what that entails. To get a job off the res, first there needs to be some sort of transportation. As far as I can tell, some of the prejudice against the Indians comes from them 'getting all this money from the government and having shiny new cars all the time.' Those are the ones we see. What about the ones we don't? It costs money to relocate or to get a taxi, money that many of these people don't have. Besides, there is safety in numbers, in knowing that your neighbors will not take an instant dislike to you just because you happen to be Native American.
I'm not saying the tribes are blameless. The tribes are supposed to stay 100 feet away from the weir (picture a bunch of spikes driven into the river bed close enough together to prevent fish passage, and you've got a pretty good idea of what a weir looks like), and there is a fluorescent orange spike driven in at the 100-foot mark. Over the coursse of three weeks that marker mysteriously moved closer and closer to the weir. Did tribal people move it? Most likely. Yet don't shenanigans like that go on in white society? Yes, there were some younger guys who came in and were totally obnoxious, but doesn't that also go on in white society? I think, then, that it is unfair to blame things on Indians when the same things go on everywhere, regardless of race, creed, or color.
Perhaps the worst comment I heard was, "Countries have been taken over before. They should just get over it." Countries have been taken over, but the Masai are still living their traditional lifestyle. When I went to Guyana I noticed that our guides, stripped of all the modern trappings like T-shirts and outboard motors, were living just as they had for hundreds of years. There is a huge difference between having your country taken over and being stripped of your language, customs, and religion. The Native Americans here just had the misfortune to be living in more accessible areas than the rainforest or desert.
I was the research data technician at the hatchery, so every morning I was down at the trap taking data. I recall one of the fisherman coming to watch about the time the white folks gathered around started commenting on tribal fishing. He stood there and listened for a while and then walked off, his back rigid with anger. When I had the opportunity to talk with him later the first thing I said was, "I really feel the need to apologize for my coworkers. I can't imagine what it feels like to have to listen to your people talked about like that."
To Begin
As the title of this blog suggests, I am something of a nature fanatic. I have a master's degree in biology, and my interests are conservation and habitat restoration. I am also very interested in different cultures. This blog, then, will be (I hope!) somewhere I can air my thoughts on the direction of the environment and social justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)