Last week a scientist on the east coast sequenced mammoth DNA from a mammoth hair--one step forward for science. The next day the front page in our paper proclaimed "Mammoths could be cloned, and soon"--a step backward for science and the whole human race. With any luck this talk will die out just like the talk about cloning dinosaurs did after the movie version of Jurassic Park came out. Sure, it makes a great fantasy and some terrific science fiction, but in reality it poses some pretty serious problems. My very favorite line from Jurassic Park is, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." It's something we've been struggling with since the advent of human cloning, but it seems to fade in importance when we're talking about anything else. Consider the following:
1) The habitat has changed pretty drastically since mammoths and mastodons roamed the earth. They went extinct for a reason, and when anything goes extinct it usually means there isn't enough habitat to support the critter. If we figure in that we've chopped up the available habitat with roads and towns, how can we expect to support a mammoth population with less habitat than it had when it went extinct?
2) Mammoths are pretty big, we don't necessarily know what they eat, and a lot of their original food has probably gone extinct. Assuming we could keep them in captivity and manufacture the food they need, we'd be looking at a pretty expensive venture.
3) Mammoths are covered with fur. The climate is getting hotter. Is it worth bringing back a large animal just to have it die because it cannot stand the climate?
4) Ask anybody in India or Africa, and that person will probably tell you that the farming villages have been having a lot of trouble with elephants damaging their crops. A free-ranging mammoth population could potentially wreak at least as much if not more havoc on nearby farms.
5) With all the difficulty we're having with the wildlife we have now, would it really be beneficial to add another, especially considering that this other species under consideration could do severe damage to the habitat these other species need?
The idea of "reintroducing" supposedly "native" animals is not new. A couple of years ago Nature published an article suggesting that megafauna (elephants, giraffes, etc.) could be "reintroduced" to North America because the roamed the continent back when it was part of Pangaea. None of the practicing scientists I knew thought that was feasible, and I was surprised that a PhD would suggest such a thing and actually get it published in North America's premiere scientific journal. Yes, things were like that then, but they aren't now. So goes coevolution.
Scientists have been accused of playing God. What about everybody else, the people whose opinions are driving scientists to even contemplate these crazy things? Yes, I think that this pipe dream should, and will, be nothing more than an interesting fantasy.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It don't mean a thing without the habitat
Hard to believe, but the Wyoming legislature has passed legislation (*gasp!*) allowing farmers to raise sage grouse. This really bothered me when I first heard about it, for three reasons: 1) the grouse was passed over for ESA listing a couple of years ago, 2) just because it's there doesn't make it wild, and 3) this does nothing to save habitat.
Seriously, why should there be a need to farm-raise sage grouse if they aren't endangered? Of course, those of us in the biology field know that they're threatened at the very least, but the Bush Administration doesn't agree. I guess we shouldn't be surprised since this administration prefers to bury its head in the sand and pretend there isn't anything bad happening. If the agencies in this state see something fundamentally wrong, though, maybe they should do something about it, something that doesn't include farm raising the birds.
My opposition to the idea of pen-raising "wild" birds comes from my experience with pen-raising "wild" fish. Studies show behavioral differences between hatchery-raised and pen-raised fish. Why should it be any different with birds? Obviously, there are pen-raised birds that are released to the wild, but those birds are raised by people who are experts on the animal and in hand-raising animals to be released. Forgive me if I doubt that farmers possess that specialized knowledge or will have much interest in obtaining it. (Yes, I realize there are always exceptions to the rule.) A caveat in the new law is that pen-reared birds are not intended to be released into the wild. Well then, what's the point? Why go to all the trouble to raise them if they can't be released? Just to have them to eat, I guess. Why not raise chickens? It just goes to show how far wildlife has fallen in our list of values (not to mention the people who would like to hunt them.
Keeping the birds around makes little sense unless they can be released into the wild, and we can't do that without the right habitat. There is no easy way around this. The birds don't like to nest within three miles of a disturbance, and that includes oil and gas drilling. At some point the values will have to be dealt with; gas drilling or wildlife? This is yet another great example of a legislative body trying to avoid dealing with a thorny problem. I would argue it is also yet another example of the golden rule; whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Seriously, why should there be a need to farm-raise sage grouse if they aren't endangered? Of course, those of us in the biology field know that they're threatened at the very least, but the Bush Administration doesn't agree. I guess we shouldn't be surprised since this administration prefers to bury its head in the sand and pretend there isn't anything bad happening. If the agencies in this state see something fundamentally wrong, though, maybe they should do something about it, something that doesn't include farm raising the birds.
My opposition to the idea of pen-raising "wild" birds comes from my experience with pen-raising "wild" fish. Studies show behavioral differences between hatchery-raised and pen-raised fish. Why should it be any different with birds? Obviously, there are pen-raised birds that are released to the wild, but those birds are raised by people who are experts on the animal and in hand-raising animals to be released. Forgive me if I doubt that farmers possess that specialized knowledge or will have much interest in obtaining it. (Yes, I realize there are always exceptions to the rule.) A caveat in the new law is that pen-reared birds are not intended to be released into the wild. Well then, what's the point? Why go to all the trouble to raise them if they can't be released? Just to have them to eat, I guess. Why not raise chickens? It just goes to show how far wildlife has fallen in our list of values (not to mention the people who would like to hunt them.
Keeping the birds around makes little sense unless they can be released into the wild, and we can't do that without the right habitat. There is no easy way around this. The birds don't like to nest within three miles of a disturbance, and that includes oil and gas drilling. At some point the values will have to be dealt with; gas drilling or wildlife? This is yet another great example of a legislative body trying to avoid dealing with a thorny problem. I would argue it is also yet another example of the golden rule; whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Because we don't want to live that way, that's why!
A few weeks ago my boss mentioned that he had been to a meeting where a woman who worked for a wind energy company was singing the praises of how great wind energy would be for the state. When objections were raised, the BLM had to run interference to keep a riot from breaking out. Later, he heard the woman say, "I don't know what they're so worried about. It's just a few bats and some birds." Disregarding the ecological ignorance of that statement for a moment, it seems to me important to know the attitudes of the population you're dealing with before making that kind of a statement. Yes, Wyoming is a very windy state, and yes, it is a state full of people looking to make money off of energy, but it is also a state of hunters and fishermen who value the stuff that might get killed off. Those "few birds" are a very big deal to the people who hunt them.
The reason that oil and gas (and wind) development is such a big issue around here is that Wyoming has a lot of open space left, and open space is getting pretty scarce. Many people who live here value that open space, and as the dollar signs that obscured their vision when the oil companies first came knocking are starting to disappear as they realize exactly what they will be giving up--beautiful views, clean air, good hunting and fishing opportunities. (I know a few people who have been chased out of "development areas" while hunting.)
When I drove into Bethesda, Maryland on my way to Washington, my first thought was, "My God, you can't see the city for the buildings!" Don't misunderstand me--Washington, DC is an awesome place. Where else can you get all that history all in one place? I know a lot of people who love it. I think I could be persuaded to live the rest of my life there if I could find a single bedroom apartment for less than a paycheck and a half every month and I didn't end up spending four hours a day on public transportation or stuck in traffic. But for those of us who weren't raised in the area, it can get really claustrophobic after a while. The point is that if we wanted to live in big cities and developed areas, we would. That should count for something.
The reason that oil and gas (and wind) development is such a big issue around here is that Wyoming has a lot of open space left, and open space is getting pretty scarce. Many people who live here value that open space, and as the dollar signs that obscured their vision when the oil companies first came knocking are starting to disappear as they realize exactly what they will be giving up--beautiful views, clean air, good hunting and fishing opportunities. (I know a few people who have been chased out of "development areas" while hunting.)
When I drove into Bethesda, Maryland on my way to Washington, my first thought was, "My God, you can't see the city for the buildings!" Don't misunderstand me--Washington, DC is an awesome place. Where else can you get all that history all in one place? I know a lot of people who love it. I think I could be persuaded to live the rest of my life there if I could find a single bedroom apartment for less than a paycheck and a half every month and I didn't end up spending four hours a day on public transportation or stuck in traffic. But for those of us who weren't raised in the area, it can get really claustrophobic after a while. The point is that if we wanted to live in big cities and developed areas, we would. That should count for something.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Individuals vs. Populations
I've been thinking a lot about individuals and populations lately. This has a lot to do with the fact that I've been reading a handbook (or a great big 3-inch ring binder-full of information) on wildlife rehabilitation and some to do with the fact that I've been talking to the game wardens.
A few years ago I was volunteering at the Game and Fish Department, stuffing moose licenses into envelopes. I had told the conservation officer that I'd really like to go along if he had any wildlife cases, and as it happened, a couple of hours later he did. I confess I was pretty disappointed. We'd been called out because a cat had gotten hold of a songbird in some body's front yard, and he seemes to be holding out hope that the bird could be saved. We took it to the local vet and had it euthanized, just because it was good public relations. When I told the warden the story, he countered that that was a lot of expense and wasted time, and that he would never tell anyone that there was anything he could do for the animal. Apparently he has been called some nasty names because he couldn't (or in the view of that particular person, wouldn't) save the animal.
There are people who save animals and return them to the wild. They're called wildlife rehabilitators. Yet even these people must euthanize animals when it is determined that they can never be functional in the wild again. It's just realism, plain and simple. I have no doubt that veterinarians would like to be able to save all their patients, and I've even seen some vets take some pretty extreme measures (like giving CPR to a dog). However, when that patient has a leg that's been partially detached by fishing line or two broken wings or has no suitable habitat in the area, it's crueler to release it as it will most likely die anyway, and in greater discomfort than it would be at a rehab center.
Nearly every government wildlife agency deals in populations, not individuals. As long as the population is healthy, the individuals comprising it will be, too. The cycle of life and death in healthy populations hinges on natural selection, something that humans have tried to combat with medications and hospitals and have been fairly successful with. There are six billion of us on the planet now, with more to come. This is going to sound extremely cruel, but I sometimes wonder what things would be like if we managed our population like we manage other populations. There would certainly be fewer of us if we just let nature take its course, and perhaps then there would be more room for the wildlife.
It may be an interesting pipe dream, but it's never going to happen. However, people have to becomne accustomed to the fact that fawns and adult deer are going to get hit crossing the road, legs and wings will be broken, things will feed on other things. Every so often someone will be killed after hitting a deer or an elk. Them's the facts. Sometimes we can rehabilitate the animal (or person) and sometimes we can't. That's life. But if the population survives there will be other deer and other people. Awful as it may seem, it's the reality we deal with on a daily basis. If we can keep the population alive, we've done our job.
A few years ago I was volunteering at the Game and Fish Department, stuffing moose licenses into envelopes. I had told the conservation officer that I'd really like to go along if he had any wildlife cases, and as it happened, a couple of hours later he did. I confess I was pretty disappointed. We'd been called out because a cat had gotten hold of a songbird in some body's front yard, and he seemes to be holding out hope that the bird could be saved. We took it to the local vet and had it euthanized, just because it was good public relations. When I told the warden the story, he countered that that was a lot of expense and wasted time, and that he would never tell anyone that there was anything he could do for the animal. Apparently he has been called some nasty names because he couldn't (or in the view of that particular person, wouldn't) save the animal.
There are people who save animals and return them to the wild. They're called wildlife rehabilitators. Yet even these people must euthanize animals when it is determined that they can never be functional in the wild again. It's just realism, plain and simple. I have no doubt that veterinarians would like to be able to save all their patients, and I've even seen some vets take some pretty extreme measures (like giving CPR to a dog). However, when that patient has a leg that's been partially detached by fishing line or two broken wings or has no suitable habitat in the area, it's crueler to release it as it will most likely die anyway, and in greater discomfort than it would be at a rehab center.
Nearly every government wildlife agency deals in populations, not individuals. As long as the population is healthy, the individuals comprising it will be, too. The cycle of life and death in healthy populations hinges on natural selection, something that humans have tried to combat with medications and hospitals and have been fairly successful with. There are six billion of us on the planet now, with more to come. This is going to sound extremely cruel, but I sometimes wonder what things would be like if we managed our population like we manage other populations. There would certainly be fewer of us if we just let nature take its course, and perhaps then there would be more room for the wildlife.
It may be an interesting pipe dream, but it's never going to happen. However, people have to becomne accustomed to the fact that fawns and adult deer are going to get hit crossing the road, legs and wings will be broken, things will feed on other things. Every so often someone will be killed after hitting a deer or an elk. Them's the facts. Sometimes we can rehabilitate the animal (or person) and sometimes we can't. That's life. But if the population survives there will be other deer and other people. Awful as it may seem, it's the reality we deal with on a daily basis. If we can keep the population alive, we've done our job.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ambulation--a good way to go places
As most of you know, I was in Washington, DC for the summer. I took a lot of public transportation and did a lot of walking. In fact, when I got off the train at the Takoma station, I just walked home instead of waiting for the bus. It was a nice way to end the day, and good exercise (something like a mile, maybe 1.5) on top of everything else. I walked to the laundromat every weekend with my clothes, and sat and read while they were washing. It was right on the way to the train station and CVS. One morning I discovered that I didn't have enough soap, so I walked the extra half-mile to CVS and picked up a bottle of Free'n'Clear detergent and some diet Pepsi. Upon my return to the laundromat, a guy asked me, "Where did you get that? Is there a vending machine around here?"
"I got it at CVS," I told him.
"OK, but I'm walking, see," he said.
"So am I," I replied.
I did my graduate teaching internship at the Cuyahoga Valley Environmental Education Center, a place where we all did a lot of walking. I never noticed it being a problem until we took a field trip to the Erie Canal, probably because we did a lot of stopping. This time, however, we walked at least half a mile--maybe 3/4--down the canal, and suddenly kids were lagging behind and complaining about how tired they were! I told them they were lucky that I was not the trip leader and that we were on a time schedule. Otherwise, we would have walked until I got tired. When I was a little kid and complained, my parents always said, "Come on, Lazy Legs."
I think I know exactly what the problem is. I saw it with my cousin who is seven. He was going crazy, wanting to get outside, and my uncle refused to contemplate it because he might run out in the street and get hurt. I remember playing quite safely out in my front and back yards and never, ever having a problem. I remember kickiing the soccer ball across the street with neighbor kids, and when a car came simply getting out of the way. I have come to the conclusion that we need to stop listening to the media.
The media is forever showing us a culture where our children are at risk of being snatched or killed or end up in street gangs, yet for every kid who ends up like that there are many others who don't. I don't remember this culture of fear ever being so prevalent, or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Certainly it seemed to get worse the older I got, so maybe it was just me. While we are obsessing over this obesity epidemic, we should take a good look at our aversion to walking. That's something that could end up killing us.
"I got it at CVS," I told him.
"OK, but I'm walking, see," he said.
"So am I," I replied.
I did my graduate teaching internship at the Cuyahoga Valley Environmental Education Center, a place where we all did a lot of walking. I never noticed it being a problem until we took a field trip to the Erie Canal, probably because we did a lot of stopping. This time, however, we walked at least half a mile--maybe 3/4--down the canal, and suddenly kids were lagging behind and complaining about how tired they were! I told them they were lucky that I was not the trip leader and that we were on a time schedule. Otherwise, we would have walked until I got tired. When I was a little kid and complained, my parents always said, "Come on, Lazy Legs."
I think I know exactly what the problem is. I saw it with my cousin who is seven. He was going crazy, wanting to get outside, and my uncle refused to contemplate it because he might run out in the street and get hurt. I remember playing quite safely out in my front and back yards and never, ever having a problem. I remember kickiing the soccer ball across the street with neighbor kids, and when a car came simply getting out of the way. I have come to the conclusion that we need to stop listening to the media.
The media is forever showing us a culture where our children are at risk of being snatched or killed or end up in street gangs, yet for every kid who ends up like that there are many others who don't. I don't remember this culture of fear ever being so prevalent, or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Certainly it seemed to get worse the older I got, so maybe it was just me. While we are obsessing over this obesity epidemic, we should take a good look at our aversion to walking. That's something that could end up killing us.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Parting shots
It's old news that the Bush administration hates the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, the latest assault on the legislation has been mostly buried under the crisis in the financial markets. The bad part about that is that historically this administration has taken advantage of a distraction to go ahead and push through whatever legislation it wants under the guise of "making it all better."
It has been known for quite some time that the administration wants to limit ESA protections to the only the ranges where an endangered species is currently found. Let's see, I wonder how many tenets of the act that violates? There is no way to help a species recover if protections are restricted to only the area where the species is found because it doesn't take range, prey, and land use into account. (Then there are delistings like the wolf, now back on the list as per judicial order because the enmity between them and ranchers is so great that it amounted to one a day being shot. That hatred wasn't taken into account, either, not to mention that Wyoming had a fairly ambiguous recovery plan to begin with. But I digress.) Another good reason (from the Bush perspective) to restrict protections to the current range of an endangered species is that then the Federal government doesn't have to shell out money to fund it. Hmmm, I wonder what that money would fund? Oh yeah--job creation! We'd need hydrologists and wildlife biologists and conservationists and soil scientists and botanists to look at restoration! When I decided to go into this line of work I knew it wasn't looked upon favorably by a lot of people, but I never thought it would one day go on to become reviled by almost everyone in the upper eschelons of government.
The most recent attack--the government wants to allow Federal and private agencies to decide for themselves whether one of their actions would have an adverse effect on the environment. How soon we forget! Why was the Endangered Species Act necessary in the first place? Do we really have to go back to being choked by smog and having our open spaces eaten up by big business to remember how important Federal regulation is? It would appear so. I would argue that there still isn't enough regulation--witness that business with the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. So yeah, letting privateers decide for themselves has never worked all that well.
So here we are with a lame duck president who is trying to push through as much destructive environmental legislation as he can during his last few months in office. With the current financial crisis it may not be much to worry about, given that Congress will be more focused on that than the environment. But given this administration's tendency to try to do whatever the hell it wants, we should definitely keep an eye on this.
It has been known for quite some time that the administration wants to limit ESA protections to the only the ranges where an endangered species is currently found. Let's see, I wonder how many tenets of the act that violates? There is no way to help a species recover if protections are restricted to only the area where the species is found because it doesn't take range, prey, and land use into account. (Then there are delistings like the wolf, now back on the list as per judicial order because the enmity between them and ranchers is so great that it amounted to one a day being shot. That hatred wasn't taken into account, either, not to mention that Wyoming had a fairly ambiguous recovery plan to begin with. But I digress.) Another good reason (from the Bush perspective) to restrict protections to the current range of an endangered species is that then the Federal government doesn't have to shell out money to fund it. Hmmm, I wonder what that money would fund? Oh yeah--job creation! We'd need hydrologists and wildlife biologists and conservationists and soil scientists and botanists to look at restoration! When I decided to go into this line of work I knew it wasn't looked upon favorably by a lot of people, but I never thought it would one day go on to become reviled by almost everyone in the upper eschelons of government.
The most recent attack--the government wants to allow Federal and private agencies to decide for themselves whether one of their actions would have an adverse effect on the environment. How soon we forget! Why was the Endangered Species Act necessary in the first place? Do we really have to go back to being choked by smog and having our open spaces eaten up by big business to remember how important Federal regulation is? It would appear so. I would argue that there still isn't enough regulation--witness that business with the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. So yeah, letting privateers decide for themselves has never worked all that well.
So here we are with a lame duck president who is trying to push through as much destructive environmental legislation as he can during his last few months in office. With the current financial crisis it may not be much to worry about, given that Congress will be more focused on that than the environment. But given this administration's tendency to try to do whatever the hell it wants, we should definitely keep an eye on this.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Too much of a good thing
I read a Ted Williams article in Audubon a while back in which he detailed a meeting on deer overpopulation. A botanist had gotten up to say that the deer are doing a lot of damage to the understory, and a hunter in the back jumped up and said, "We don't want the plants, we want the deer!" Okay sir, so what exactly do you think the deer are going to eat? It's certainly a question worth asking the people at a public meeting like that since many of those people just don't think in those terms.
We've got this problem because we tend to cater to the hunter. For years and years we managed for deer, and those who might have dissented this have had their opinions successfully squelched. As a result, the D.C./Maryland/Virginia area has tracts that are holding anywhere from 45 to 60 or so deer per square mile, when the absolute maximum an area can take before there is significant damage to the understory is 40. As a result, the deer tend to eat up their favorite foods and leave others alone, like pawpaw. Any favorite foods that peek above the dirt will be eaten since the most nutritious plants tend to be the really young ones. Young plant shoots have a much higher nitrogen:carbon ratio and as such are more palatable. Plants like pawpaw, for example, have a higher tannin concentration and are much less palatable, even though this doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be browsed if nothing else is available.
The moral of the story is that we can't manage for one species and end up destroying something else. If we don't look at the ecosystem as a whole we are (as is shown by global warming, deforestation, and a host of other environmental problems) up a creek without a paddle.
We've got this problem because we tend to cater to the hunter. For years and years we managed for deer, and those who might have dissented this have had their opinions successfully squelched. As a result, the D.C./Maryland/Virginia area has tracts that are holding anywhere from 45 to 60 or so deer per square mile, when the absolute maximum an area can take before there is significant damage to the understory is 40. As a result, the deer tend to eat up their favorite foods and leave others alone, like pawpaw. Any favorite foods that peek above the dirt will be eaten since the most nutritious plants tend to be the really young ones. Young plant shoots have a much higher nitrogen:carbon ratio and as such are more palatable. Plants like pawpaw, for example, have a higher tannin concentration and are much less palatable, even though this doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be browsed if nothing else is available.
The moral of the story is that we can't manage for one species and end up destroying something else. If we don't look at the ecosystem as a whole we are (as is shown by global warming, deforestation, and a host of other environmental problems) up a creek without a paddle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)