Remember all the furor over the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) back in the 1980s? The mammals were so rare they were thought to be extinct until 1981, when a farm dog found one and took it home. In 1986 the total census of black-footed ferrets was 14 in the state of Wyoming, the country, and the world. Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated biologists at Sybille Wildlife Research Center in Meteetse, Wyoming, the University of Wyoming, and the Wyoming and Colorado Game and Fish Departments, the population has rebounded. There are over 700 ferrets in the wild, and some 400 in captivity. As of the end of June this year, 317 kits had been born. The black-footed ferret is North America's only endemic ferret, and is well-adapted to prairie life. So how did it face near-extinction?
The answer, as one might expect, is human disturbance. When the white man arrived on the scene he began plowing vast tracts of prairie for farming, resulting in habitat loss. He also brought with him the sylvatic and bubonic plague. While the ferret is not susceptible to these diseases, the black-tailed prairie dog is (in fact, a few students who work with prairie dogs at Colorado State University have been infected with and survived the plague). This caused a huge decline in prey, thus a decline in the ferret population. The plague, however, had the most devastating effect, and the sylvatic plague hampered restoration efforts in the mid-80s.
Another major problem for the ferrets was the poisoning of praie dogs. Prairie dogs are considered a nuisance by farmers and ranchers. The dogs dig holes, eat grain, and if a horse or cow is really unlucky it might step in one of those holes and break a leg. Poisoning would be a great control tool if it could be done in a closed system, but the system isn't closed. If you've read Silent Spring, you know that cumulative effects of DDT in prey led to the decline in the osprey population, and it works the same way with ferrets. The prairie dog eats the poison, then the ferret eats the prairie dog, and after a few prairie dogs the ferret either dies from the poison itself or (like the osprey) ends up with a severely compromised reproductive system.
Skip to present day. Guess what? The Department of Agriculture is moving to usepoisoning as a tool in prairie dog control yet again. The specific poison they are advocating is called Rozol. I'll spare you the gory details, but suffice it to say the effects aren't pleasant. Right now Defenders of Wildlife is running a campaign on how inhumane it is. (Defenders is a good organization, but I'd really like to see it use more science and less emotion to persuade government agencies of its positions.) This poison will kill anything that ingests it--prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, cats, dogs, birds, even people. Young as I was, I seem to remember a lot of people being upset when the poison killed their dogs the last time around, and I doubt things will be much differrent this time. I'm sure all the wildlife biologists who worked so hard to bring the ferret back from the brink will be immensely pleased to see their hard work destroyed. Someone once said that those who do not remember the past will be doomed to repeat it. Well, guess what...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Overpopulation
Greenies--that is, absolute, 100 percent, no TV, no electricity greenies--tend to be very self-righteous in saying that we are using too much fill-in-the-blank. It's not necessarily that we're using too much (though in some cases we are), it's that there are too many of us. There are 6 billion people on the planet, far exceeding the carrying capacity of a few million. Say each of us cut down a tree; that's 6 billion trees right there, and many of us use more than that. There are a lot of extremely poor people in the Amazon, and the trees are disappearing rapidly. Why? People have to eat to survive, and those people were born into an environment where they have to keep moving and cutting down trees in order to grow enough food to survive. If our cities weren't continually expanding, we would not have as many problems with lion attacks and deer in our yards.
Unfortunately, this problem is not easily solved. China, with its population of 1 billion, discovered after it instituted its 1 child per family policy that if each family only had 1 child, there would not be enough people to provide elder care years on down the road, let alone support the infrastructure. Then, too, some countries may breed themselves out of existence, as with India. So many families prefer boys that the younger generations are low on females. Some Indian men have turned to mail-order brides.
The topic of overpopulation came up on Facebook (never have a conversation on Facebook if you are looking for people who actually think) in connection with a discussion on global warming. Somebody said that before we can do anything about global warming we have to address overpopulation. It's well-worth doing, and if we'd started 50 years ago that strategy might have worked, but now we have too many environmental problems to take them one at a time. Note to the Duggars: it doesn't matter how religious you are if you can't take care of your own children without outside help from television broadcasts and are directly contributing more than your fair share to an already overburdened planet. You're just lucky you're in America; if you lived in Ethiopia at least half your family would be dead from starvation and war.
Unfortunately, this problem is not easily solved. China, with its population of 1 billion, discovered after it instituted its 1 child per family policy that if each family only had 1 child, there would not be enough people to provide elder care years on down the road, let alone support the infrastructure. Then, too, some countries may breed themselves out of existence, as with India. So many families prefer boys that the younger generations are low on females. Some Indian men have turned to mail-order brides.
The topic of overpopulation came up on Facebook (never have a conversation on Facebook if you are looking for people who actually think) in connection with a discussion on global warming. Somebody said that before we can do anything about global warming we have to address overpopulation. It's well-worth doing, and if we'd started 50 years ago that strategy might have worked, but now we have too many environmental problems to take them one at a time. Note to the Duggars: it doesn't matter how religious you are if you can't take care of your own children without outside help from television broadcasts and are directly contributing more than your fair share to an already overburdened planet. You're just lucky you're in America; if you lived in Ethiopia at least half your family would be dead from starvation and war.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Help! We're being oppressed!
Well, we've done it. We've managed to piss off the snowmobile lobby once again. And how? By increasing the protected area for lynx by 39 thousand acres in the states of Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and Maine. Matt Mead, a spokesman for a Washington snowmobile group, claims that this has nothing to do with the lynx. Rather, we environmentalists have been looking for ways to get snowmobilers off the land. Gee, there's no paranoia in that statement, is there? He might take another look at the Endangered Species Act.
Lynxes need quiet areas free from disturbance by automobiles and other off-road vehicles. They also need a broad food base. Favored prey is the snowshoe hare, which has lost a lot of habitat (which just happens to be lynx habitat as well). Thus, there has been a tremendous reduction in lynx numbers. Pretty simple cause and effect.
Do we environmentalists have an agenda? Yes, we do. However, it is beyond maddening to have the ignorant claim that we are doing something to them just because we don't like them. Pot calling the kettle black, I think. At the moment, this habitat designation is tied up in court, and has been since May. Ahh, yes, another favorite method of the ignorant to impede environmental progress--if you don't like it, litigate it. That way we can spend thousands of dollars in lawsuits against lawyers who have sound science on their side. It'll give them at least a little longer to try to see if they can do enough damage to the habitat to render it useless to continue the suit.
Sorry (almost) for the sarcasm, but I've just about had it with such ridiculous opinions being given national attention.
Lynxes need quiet areas free from disturbance by automobiles and other off-road vehicles. They also need a broad food base. Favored prey is the snowshoe hare, which has lost a lot of habitat (which just happens to be lynx habitat as well). Thus, there has been a tremendous reduction in lynx numbers. Pretty simple cause and effect.
Do we environmentalists have an agenda? Yes, we do. However, it is beyond maddening to have the ignorant claim that we are doing something to them just because we don't like them. Pot calling the kettle black, I think. At the moment, this habitat designation is tied up in court, and has been since May. Ahh, yes, another favorite method of the ignorant to impede environmental progress--if you don't like it, litigate it. That way we can spend thousands of dollars in lawsuits against lawyers who have sound science on their side. It'll give them at least a little longer to try to see if they can do enough damage to the habitat to render it useless to continue the suit.
Sorry (almost) for the sarcasm, but I've just about had it with such ridiculous opinions being given national attention.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Plants matter, too
Plants aren't usually what we think about when we think of the Endangered Species Act, perhaps detrimentally. If there are no plants, there is no wildlife. Readers may remember me writing a couple of years ago about invasive species and how they push out native plants. Well, invasives are only one of the threats faced by native vegetation. Like animals, their habitat is depleted by construction projects, erosion, off-roading--in short human activity.
Two rare plants in Oregon--the Cook's lomatium and the large-flowered wolly meadowfoam--recently won protection under the ESA. The species were designated endangered in 2002, but Congress only just designated critical habitat--11,038 acres in all--for them. Until there is critical habitat, it's pretty tough to protect anything. Both species rely on epheral wetland areas for germination and reproduction. I've already covered how much the European settlers loved wetlands, but just to recap, the United States has lost as much as 80 percent of its natural wetlands to the farming and construction industries.
Ephemeral (or vernal) pools exist only during the wet season. That doesn't leave much time for the plant to grow and reproduce before things dry out again. We know where it is likely that these pools will develop, but it's pretty hard to convince a developer of that when as far as he can tell there is nothing there.
Cook's lomatium has sprawling yellow flowers, is a member of the carrot family, and is only present in two areas of southeastern Oregon.
Large-flowered woolly meadowfoam has large white flowers shaped like bluebells with the circumference of morning glories. It is only somewhat more abundant than the lomatium.
For more on these plants and to see pictures, head on over to the Center for Biological Diversity's webpage at www.biologicaldiversity.org.
Two rare plants in Oregon--the Cook's lomatium and the large-flowered wolly meadowfoam--recently won protection under the ESA. The species were designated endangered in 2002, but Congress only just designated critical habitat--11,038 acres in all--for them. Until there is critical habitat, it's pretty tough to protect anything. Both species rely on epheral wetland areas for germination and reproduction. I've already covered how much the European settlers loved wetlands, but just to recap, the United States has lost as much as 80 percent of its natural wetlands to the farming and construction industries.
Ephemeral (or vernal) pools exist only during the wet season. That doesn't leave much time for the plant to grow and reproduce before things dry out again. We know where it is likely that these pools will develop, but it's pretty hard to convince a developer of that when as far as he can tell there is nothing there.
Cook's lomatium has sprawling yellow flowers, is a member of the carrot family, and is only present in two areas of southeastern Oregon.
Large-flowered woolly meadowfoam has large white flowers shaped like bluebells with the circumference of morning glories. It is only somewhat more abundant than the lomatium.
For more on these plants and to see pictures, head on over to the Center for Biological Diversity's webpage at www.biologicaldiversity.org.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Making a mockery of hunting or I have a conscience
Those of you who know me know that I am still plugging away at the job search. Seems I am overeducated, undereducated, or underabled for most of the things out there. Maybe part of my trouble stems from an overdeveloped conscience. Earlier this week a career counselor told me that Halliburton is hiring, and I said I could not possibly work for Halliburton if it was the last corporation on earth! However, there are plenty of other places like that.
Today I was considering working at a place in Texas as a fawn caretaker. With the location in there, I was suspicious, went to the website, and had my suspicions confirmed. The 'farm' genetically modifies deer so they have bigger racks, the kind macho Texas hunters want on their walls. My job would be to get the fawns comfortable with humans, presumably so they won't have to be tracked. The 'farm' offers 'hunts' for corporations, individuals, and 'handicap' hunters. (Honestly, you'd think that even Texans value good grammar. The phrase is handicapped hunters! Handicap hunters has a different meaning altogether.) So basically, the idea is for lazy, city-dwelling hunters to shoot a deer that can be easily baited in because they know that if they went on a real hunt by themselves they wouldn't get anything. But what can we realistically expect from Texas hunting programs? This is the same state that for a time allowed handicapped veterans to point and shoot live ducks on a computer, and then didn't even go out to retrieve the meat! I guess all it takes to be really macho is to go out and shoot something.
I have little sympathy for the kind of hunter who would resort to canned hunting, even if that hunter is handicapped. Being handicapped myself, I have had to realize that there are a lot of things that I might have been able to do in other circumstances that, things being what they are, I can't. It has been a long, slow process that is still going on. I don't have anyone catering those might-have-beens to me.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get, but then, what did I really expect from a deer 'farm' in Texas? That's a pretty sad commentary on Texas.
Today I was considering working at a place in Texas as a fawn caretaker. With the location in there, I was suspicious, went to the website, and had my suspicions confirmed. The 'farm' genetically modifies deer so they have bigger racks, the kind macho Texas hunters want on their walls. My job would be to get the fawns comfortable with humans, presumably so they won't have to be tracked. The 'farm' offers 'hunts' for corporations, individuals, and 'handicap' hunters. (Honestly, you'd think that even Texans value good grammar. The phrase is handicapped hunters! Handicap hunters has a different meaning altogether.) So basically, the idea is for lazy, city-dwelling hunters to shoot a deer that can be easily baited in because they know that if they went on a real hunt by themselves they wouldn't get anything. But what can we realistically expect from Texas hunting programs? This is the same state that for a time allowed handicapped veterans to point and shoot live ducks on a computer, and then didn't even go out to retrieve the meat! I guess all it takes to be really macho is to go out and shoot something.
I have little sympathy for the kind of hunter who would resort to canned hunting, even if that hunter is handicapped. Being handicapped myself, I have had to realize that there are a lot of things that I might have been able to do in other circumstances that, things being what they are, I can't. It has been a long, slow process that is still going on. I don't have anyone catering those might-have-beens to me.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get, but then, what did I really expect from a deer 'farm' in Texas? That's a pretty sad commentary on Texas.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Cap and trade
A lot of environmentalists are pushing cap and trade on carbon emissions. The idea is that all companies get a cap on the amount of carbon they can emit per year, and if some companies go over that they can buy unused carbon credits from companies that don't emit as much. I am afraid I see little environmental benefit in all this. What it essentially says is that big companies can go on polluting as they have been for years, provided they have enough capital to pay other companies for their unused credits. Sure, it might be great economically, but where's the environmental benefit? The obvious argument is that if all companies are given a limit on how much carbon they can emit, even with the trade provision we can limit how many tons of carbon dioxide go into the air. It's a sight better than what we have now, I suppose, but why not just cap the carbon emissions and insist that all companies meet them? Why only shoot for better when we can shoot for ideal? Because for some reason America isn't ready for ideal yet, at least not environmentally, that's why. We've been going back and forth on this for years now, and somehow we're still not ready. Why must environmental crisis always be the prime motivator?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Treat the cause
My environmental groiups have been going nuts about the Obama administration following the same "disastrous" policies on the polar bear as the Bush administration did. I believe they need to be a little less reactionary. First of all, the polar bear is not yet endangered. We are anticipating that they will become endangered in the near future because of global warming. Don't get me wrong; I think we should do everything in our power to protect the polar bears and the other species that already are endangered or may become endangered due to global warming, say, the ribbon seal. The trouble with using the ESA to push climate policy is that the ESA was not set up to deal with climate change and it is already a hated piece of legislation. Using this as a vehicle to push climate is a little like trying to get a rider on a bill that has already been passed.
This is not to say we shouldn't do anything about climate. President Obama has endorsed stronger limits on carbon emissions. Climate change is eventually going to threaten everything, not only the critters on the ESA. So we are doing something about the polar bear, although it has been a long time coming. Once we get a handle on carbon emissions, though the threat to the habitat will still be a problem for a while, THEN we can worry about disastrous policies. The thing that is threatening polar bears is habitat loss from global warming. Global warming is the symptom, and we are working on treating it. In the meantime, it doesn't help the environmental community's image any to be so alarmist.
This is not to say we shouldn't do anything about climate. President Obama has endorsed stronger limits on carbon emissions. Climate change is eventually going to threaten everything, not only the critters on the ESA. So we are doing something about the polar bear, although it has been a long time coming. Once we get a handle on carbon emissions, though the threat to the habitat will still be a problem for a while, THEN we can worry about disastrous policies. The thing that is threatening polar bears is habitat loss from global warming. Global warming is the symptom, and we are working on treating it. In the meantime, it doesn't help the environmental community's image any to be so alarmist.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Well, it's happened again
Wolves are set to again lose protections except for those in Wyoming. Remember how that went over last time? The Center for Biological Diversity is set to sue. It will be interesting to see if that accomplishes anything. Meanwhile, wolves are being shot from airplanes in Alaska, and with the promise of the illustrious Butch Otter, governor of Idaho, that he will be the first to purchase a license, I rather doubt that we can expect a different outcome from last year. I'm all for population control, but when the animal is so hated that it may very well be hunted to extinction (again, though I'm fully aware of how odd that sounds in the context of extinction) there have simply got to be some better controls. What those should be, though, I have no idea. There doesn't seem to be much deterrent to poachers, especially if they are well able to pay the fine.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
And now, for an interruption
I swear I'll get back to environmental blog posts at some point, but right now things are absolutely crazy! I got to Chicago on Sunday, and I started my new job yesterday. There has been very little time for research or even just spouting opinions lately, and I'm sure my readers would like my opinions to be at least semi-informed. Also, there is no Internet access at the house where I am staying, so I must hie myself four miles to Panera whenever I want/need to use the Internet. Lastly, has anyonbe else experienced pain in the mid-thigh area from pressing on the gas pedal too long?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
You own this, but not this
Land ownership has been chopped into some really funny-looking parcels. With surface land it is usually pretty easy to tell who owns what; all the fences along the roads saying "Fill-In-The-Blank" Ranch. However, a foot below the ground a completely different company may own the minewral rights. I first ran into this concept in graduate school, and it took me some time to get my head around it. Raymond Firestone had sold the land to Bath Township to turn into a nature preserve, but the Firestone family retained the mineral rights. The most frustrating part was that an oil pipeline ran right past my research field, and when it burst the university had a heck of a time getting the company to do anything about it.
If I eventually figured out the difference between surface rights and mineral rights, I'm sure the ranchers out here understand it. However, to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings, all wildlife, no matter where it is, is owned by the state. In other words, all wildlife found in New Mexico belongs to New Mexico. It seems that some ranchers have yet to grasp this statute. There are a couple around who don't like us to trap and radio collar lesser prairie chickens on their land because they don't like those unsightly collars on "their" chickens. The excuse has been that they weigh too much (the heaviest collar we have weighs about 3 grams).
I think it's a power play. "We're the landowners, you have to keep us happy, so therefore we can use whatever crazy reason (if any) we want to make you do our bidding." And generally, we will. When I hear that talk about wildlife on their lands being "their" wildlife, I just bite my tongue for the good of the organization. I hope a day comes when offending someone else is not a concern in the biological community because while some things may make a few people mad, they need to be said.
If I eventually figured out the difference between surface rights and mineral rights, I'm sure the ranchers out here understand it. However, to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings, all wildlife, no matter where it is, is owned by the state. In other words, all wildlife found in New Mexico belongs to New Mexico. It seems that some ranchers have yet to grasp this statute. There are a couple around who don't like us to trap and radio collar lesser prairie chickens on their land because they don't like those unsightly collars on "their" chickens. The excuse has been that they weigh too much (the heaviest collar we have weighs about 3 grams).
I think it's a power play. "We're the landowners, you have to keep us happy, so therefore we can use whatever crazy reason (if any) we want to make you do our bidding." And generally, we will. When I hear that talk about wildlife on their lands being "their" wildlife, I just bite my tongue for the good of the organization. I hope a day comes when offending someone else is not a concern in the biological community because while some things may make a few people mad, they need to be said.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bioenergetics
There are big predators and small predators, and the size food they can accomodate varies with it. Shrews are predators; they eat insects. Lions are predators; they eat zebras and gnus, sometimes even elephants! Even voles can be considered predators, though few people have ever heard the term 'seed predator.'
Unfortunately, the term predator comes with a lot of stigmatization. There was a bobcat in these parts a year ago, and the ranchers were convinced it was killing and eating their cattle. A bobcat is a little bigger than the average housecat, and incapable of delivering the kind of force it would take to kill a full-grown cow. Even so, someone shot the bobcat. I have no idea whether it cut down on livestock deaths, but I doubt it.
When I was in graduate school one of the things I looked at was seed predation by voles and what size seeds they ate. Not surprisingly, my results suggested that they ate the seeds that were smaller or had papery seed coats, and the larger seeds or seeds with thick coats stayed in my petri dishes. Caloric expenditure may be desirable for a lot of humans, but for a rodent that may not encounter food for several days it has significant detriments. If it takes more energy to get to the food than are given by the food, the rodent, wolf, moose, deer, etc. will be no better off for having taken the gamble. Some animals do, and may well die if it doesn't pay off. That's why a lot of predators prefer to pick off the sick and the weak rather than attacking a healthy animal that is well-equipped to defend itself. By picking off those animals, voila! The rest of the population is healthier.
Being a predator is not a bad thing, at least not if you don't have stock to protect. But in protecting that stock ranchers need to realize which predators are a threat and which aren't. It will take a lot of worry out of the ranching process.
Unfortunately, the term predator comes with a lot of stigmatization. There was a bobcat in these parts a year ago, and the ranchers were convinced it was killing and eating their cattle. A bobcat is a little bigger than the average housecat, and incapable of delivering the kind of force it would take to kill a full-grown cow. Even so, someone shot the bobcat. I have no idea whether it cut down on livestock deaths, but I doubt it.
When I was in graduate school one of the things I looked at was seed predation by voles and what size seeds they ate. Not surprisingly, my results suggested that they ate the seeds that were smaller or had papery seed coats, and the larger seeds or seeds with thick coats stayed in my petri dishes. Caloric expenditure may be desirable for a lot of humans, but for a rodent that may not encounter food for several days it has significant detriments. If it takes more energy to get to the food than are given by the food, the rodent, wolf, moose, deer, etc. will be no better off for having taken the gamble. Some animals do, and may well die if it doesn't pay off. That's why a lot of predators prefer to pick off the sick and the weak rather than attacking a healthy animal that is well-equipped to defend itself. By picking off those animals, voila! The rest of the population is healthier.
Being a predator is not a bad thing, at least not if you don't have stock to protect. But in protecting that stock ranchers need to realize which predators are a threat and which aren't. It will take a lot of worry out of the ranching process.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Fire and all it entails
Fire is a very important component of the natural ecosystem. For thousands of years fires started and burned rampantly with no one to put them out. Then humans came along with the idea that fire is bad--unless it's set by a human, of course. The current fires in Australia point to the hypocrisy of that statement.
A lot of forested ecosystems have evolved in the presence of fire. For certain species, it is necessary for reproduction. Seeds must be subjected to fire before they can germinate. Of course, they must also have the necessary nutrients and light if they are to grow, so older plants have to die. When trees fall in the rainforest there is an immediate scramble by seedlings to fill the newly lit area. It is the same in North American ecosystems. To grow something new, something else must die.
The sagebrush ecosystems of the Great Basin have also evolved in the presence of fire, so most scientific papers recommend frequent burning to manage habitats. However, a paper authored by a professor at the University of Wyoming points out that, although fire is an essential feature of sagebrush ecosystems, it only burned significant portions of sagebrush every 100 to 300 years. If it is burned more often than that there is a high risk that invasive species will move in, take up moisture and nutrients, crowd out the native sage, and completely change the landscape.
Fire suppression is done to protect homes and communities, but is not necessarily good ecologically. Crown fires (that is, fires that only affect the tops of trees) do not burn as hot as those that affect entire trees. Small branches do not burn as hot as large branches, and younger trees do not burn as hot as old trees. One might think this is a good argument for cutting out old-growth forest, but those old-growth trees are necessary for nesting by the spotted owl, while some other species like the Kirtland's warbler prefer younger growth. Forestry, therefore, preservesd old-growth trees surrounded by younger trees. If an older tree gets hit by a lightning strike and the wood burns, when it spreads it will spread to the younger trees where it may be easier to put out.
The counter-argument is, "If trees burn, why have them at all?" Well, grass burns, too, and grass fires are hot and burn fast, especially in areas where there are strong winds, and it is just as susceptible to lightning strikes. We cannot stop fire, we cannot strip the natural world of all vegetation, so we have to live with it. We live with it by allowing fires to burn unless they threaten communities, and by setting fires where they are likely to burn in the near future. Foresters know more than the general public about fires in their areas, so there is little to be gained by muzzling foresters and letting them tell us only what we want to hear. We don't have to hear the bad news for it to happen.
This discussion wouldn't be complete without a little discussion of global warming. As the globe warms, the pine beetle causes more devastation to northern trees because the winters don't get cold enough to kill the larvae. White pine is its preferred tree, but it will infest just about any tree in the area that is alive. Any tree too heavily infested by pine beetles will die. Dead trees burn, perhaps more hotly than any living tree. And they will burn. When I was in Idaho the trees across the river had been decimated by beetles. A friend of mine asked a firefighter what she should do if the area caught fire, and he said, "Don't even stop to pack. Get out!"
A lot of forested ecosystems have evolved in the presence of fire. For certain species, it is necessary for reproduction. Seeds must be subjected to fire before they can germinate. Of course, they must also have the necessary nutrients and light if they are to grow, so older plants have to die. When trees fall in the rainforest there is an immediate scramble by seedlings to fill the newly lit area. It is the same in North American ecosystems. To grow something new, something else must die.
The sagebrush ecosystems of the Great Basin have also evolved in the presence of fire, so most scientific papers recommend frequent burning to manage habitats. However, a paper authored by a professor at the University of Wyoming points out that, although fire is an essential feature of sagebrush ecosystems, it only burned significant portions of sagebrush every 100 to 300 years. If it is burned more often than that there is a high risk that invasive species will move in, take up moisture and nutrients, crowd out the native sage, and completely change the landscape.
Fire suppression is done to protect homes and communities, but is not necessarily good ecologically. Crown fires (that is, fires that only affect the tops of trees) do not burn as hot as those that affect entire trees. Small branches do not burn as hot as large branches, and younger trees do not burn as hot as old trees. One might think this is a good argument for cutting out old-growth forest, but those old-growth trees are necessary for nesting by the spotted owl, while some other species like the Kirtland's warbler prefer younger growth. Forestry, therefore, preservesd old-growth trees surrounded by younger trees. If an older tree gets hit by a lightning strike and the wood burns, when it spreads it will spread to the younger trees where it may be easier to put out.
The counter-argument is, "If trees burn, why have them at all?" Well, grass burns, too, and grass fires are hot and burn fast, especially in areas where there are strong winds, and it is just as susceptible to lightning strikes. We cannot stop fire, we cannot strip the natural world of all vegetation, so we have to live with it. We live with it by allowing fires to burn unless they threaten communities, and by setting fires where they are likely to burn in the near future. Foresters know more than the general public about fires in their areas, so there is little to be gained by muzzling foresters and letting them tell us only what we want to hear. We don't have to hear the bad news for it to happen.
This discussion wouldn't be complete without a little discussion of global warming. As the globe warms, the pine beetle causes more devastation to northern trees because the winters don't get cold enough to kill the larvae. White pine is its preferred tree, but it will infest just about any tree in the area that is alive. Any tree too heavily infested by pine beetles will die. Dead trees burn, perhaps more hotly than any living tree. And they will burn. When I was in Idaho the trees across the river had been decimated by beetles. A friend of mine asked a firefighter what she should do if the area caught fire, and he said, "Don't even stop to pack. Get out!"
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tar sands exploitation is a really bad idea
Environmentally and financially, getting oil from the tar sands in Canada is not a good idea, and hasn't been since its inception 30 years ago. The largest tar sands deposits are in Venezuela and Alberta, but there are also a few in the United States. Canada is already struggling with the effects of tar sands mining.
The first step in mining the tar sands is to get to the sand. That means digging a pit approximately 150 feet deep. After that, the sand must be trucked back to processing plants, the bitumen melted out, and impurities such as sulfur skimmed off before it can be shipped.
Canada's Environmental Defense calls this the most destructive project on earth, and with good reason. Huge swathes of boreal forest have been cut down to make room for processing plants and tailings ponds. The ponds for this project are objectionable for the same reason most other mine tailing ponds are--they contain incredibly toxic materials. PAHs, naphthenic acids, and mercury levels are all on the increase. The Ministry of the Environment in Canada says a danger posed by the tailings ponds is the possibility of these poisons leaking into the groundwater. This is certainly happening, but the worst effects of the poisons are already being seen downstream. The tailings ponds are located on the banks of the Athabasca River, separated from the main channel only by earthen walls. Experts say that if these walls fail, we will forget all about the Exxon Valdez disaster. Meanwhile, fish are deformed, and the incidence of rare forms of cancer have tripled in the nearby tribes. The doctor who discovered this and tried to bring it to the attention of the government was quickly shut down.
A lot of mine tailings are piped into wetlands, killing any amphibian life and frequently killing birds that try to land there. Ornithologists are worried about the long-term effects on migratory bird populations. Processing the oil requires a huge amount of water, more than the city of Calgary could use in two years. Most of this fresh water ends up in tailings ponds.
The fallout from the mining affects provinces as far away as British Columbia and the northern United States. Indiana has has problems with air pollution and acid rain from the tar sands operation. British Columbia has both those problems plus the fact that oil tankers will bring the oil up along the coastline. Of course, they then risk oil spills.
Syncor, the oil company most heavily invested in the Canadian tar sands, promises to mitigate the damage, but this is nearly impossible. Right now the foremost idea is to bury the tailings ponds under fresh water and hope they will be filtered out. You don't have to be a scientist to see that this poses a huge risk to everyone who drinks that water. The poisons can easily seep into groundwater or the wetlands. Besides, the ecological damage will already be done. The companies could easily mitigate the damage as they go along, but it costs twice what they are spending now to do that. Much cheaper to just let the volatile organic compounds (such as benzene, a known carcinogen) to just dissipate in the atmosphere.
The question is, is it worth it? If you are head of a corporation that mines the sands, probably. If you are the person actually doing the mining and processing, I doubt it. It is supremely unfair to the tribal entities. They have had to put up with Manifest Destiny and its ramifications for years now, and now they are being poisoned by an operation from which they will likely not benefit. It is a major health hazard to people across Canada and parts of the United States who breathe in the toxins released in the purification process. Now, back to that head of the corporation--I assume he is breathing the same air and drinking the same water. His body functions just like those of other humans. History has taught us that it is rare for environmental damage to be a good motivator unless it affects us. Even with pots of money, I doubt that dying of a preventable cancer will make it worth it to the CEO.
The first step in mining the tar sands is to get to the sand. That means digging a pit approximately 150 feet deep. After that, the sand must be trucked back to processing plants, the bitumen melted out, and impurities such as sulfur skimmed off before it can be shipped.
Canada's Environmental Defense calls this the most destructive project on earth, and with good reason. Huge swathes of boreal forest have been cut down to make room for processing plants and tailings ponds. The ponds for this project are objectionable for the same reason most other mine tailing ponds are--they contain incredibly toxic materials. PAHs, naphthenic acids, and mercury levels are all on the increase. The Ministry of the Environment in Canada says a danger posed by the tailings ponds is the possibility of these poisons leaking into the groundwater. This is certainly happening, but the worst effects of the poisons are already being seen downstream. The tailings ponds are located on the banks of the Athabasca River, separated from the main channel only by earthen walls. Experts say that if these walls fail, we will forget all about the Exxon Valdez disaster. Meanwhile, fish are deformed, and the incidence of rare forms of cancer have tripled in the nearby tribes. The doctor who discovered this and tried to bring it to the attention of the government was quickly shut down.
A lot of mine tailings are piped into wetlands, killing any amphibian life and frequently killing birds that try to land there. Ornithologists are worried about the long-term effects on migratory bird populations. Processing the oil requires a huge amount of water, more than the city of Calgary could use in two years. Most of this fresh water ends up in tailings ponds.
The fallout from the mining affects provinces as far away as British Columbia and the northern United States. Indiana has has problems with air pollution and acid rain from the tar sands operation. British Columbia has both those problems plus the fact that oil tankers will bring the oil up along the coastline. Of course, they then risk oil spills.
Syncor, the oil company most heavily invested in the Canadian tar sands, promises to mitigate the damage, but this is nearly impossible. Right now the foremost idea is to bury the tailings ponds under fresh water and hope they will be filtered out. You don't have to be a scientist to see that this poses a huge risk to everyone who drinks that water. The poisons can easily seep into groundwater or the wetlands. Besides, the ecological damage will already be done. The companies could easily mitigate the damage as they go along, but it costs twice what they are spending now to do that. Much cheaper to just let the volatile organic compounds (such as benzene, a known carcinogen) to just dissipate in the atmosphere.
The question is, is it worth it? If you are head of a corporation that mines the sands, probably. If you are the person actually doing the mining and processing, I doubt it. It is supremely unfair to the tribal entities. They have had to put up with Manifest Destiny and its ramifications for years now, and now they are being poisoned by an operation from which they will likely not benefit. It is a major health hazard to people across Canada and parts of the United States who breathe in the toxins released in the purification process. Now, back to that head of the corporation--I assume he is breathing the same air and drinking the same water. His body functions just like those of other humans. History has taught us that it is rare for environmental damage to be a good motivator unless it affects us. Even with pots of money, I doubt that dying of a preventable cancer will make it worth it to the CEO.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
A little celebration and a little mourning
On Monday I happened to hear a report on the Bush Administration's latest conservation designation: the Marianas Trench. The environmentalists interviewed for the story were positively giddy about the designation of such a large area as protected. I tried to celebrate with them, I really did. After all, the Marianas Trench represents an important part of the seafloor--without it we wouldn't recycled earth--and the protected area encompasses some coral reefs. It also happens to be the largest designation of protected land.
Unfortunately, I found myself annoyed with these environmentalists. It may be something to celebrate, but as I listened to the exultation I couldn't help feeling betrayed. After eight years of environmental struggles I feel like this is an empty gesture. Anything this administration has felt there was any profit in has been cut up and sold off to oilmen. The Endangered Species Act is in the process of being gutted, the Department of the Interior's budget has been cut to bare bones, and things have generally gone to hell. We conservationists have been powerless to do anything, though thanks to Environmental Defense, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a Montana judge who ordered wolves relisted a lot of potential damage was avoided through litigation.
Yet as I listened to these enthusiasts I got the distinct feeling that all is forgiven with this designation. They seemed to have forgotten that all is not rosy, and that was no doubt the impression that many people not well-versed in the environment got as well. I tried reminding myself that those people know as well as I that we've still got big problems, and that their words were edited for radio, but it really didn't help much. We have problems, big problems, many of which have been made worse by inaction on the part of this administration. As far as I am concerned, this administration will have to designate a lot more protected land in a big hurry to even come close to making up for the damage it has done.
Unfortunately, I found myself annoyed with these environmentalists. It may be something to celebrate, but as I listened to the exultation I couldn't help feeling betrayed. After eight years of environmental struggles I feel like this is an empty gesture. Anything this administration has felt there was any profit in has been cut up and sold off to oilmen. The Endangered Species Act is in the process of being gutted, the Department of the Interior's budget has been cut to bare bones, and things have generally gone to hell. We conservationists have been powerless to do anything, though thanks to Environmental Defense, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a Montana judge who ordered wolves relisted a lot of potential damage was avoided through litigation.
Yet as I listened to these enthusiasts I got the distinct feeling that all is forgiven with this designation. They seemed to have forgotten that all is not rosy, and that was no doubt the impression that many people not well-versed in the environment got as well. I tried reminding myself that those people know as well as I that we've still got big problems, and that their words were edited for radio, but it really didn't help much. We have problems, big problems, many of which have been made worse by inaction on the part of this administration. As far as I am concerned, this administration will have to designate a lot more protected land in a big hurry to even come close to making up for the damage it has done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)