Fishy Politics: The Asian Carp

For years we have heard of the battle surrounding the Asian carp. A species introduced in an effort to supply the domestic demand for a foreign species. Asian carp, being a highly sought after entree at many restaurants which cater to those of Asian descent, have since invaded many waterways in the United States. Their prolific growth requires mass amounts of food, thereby depleting food sources and negatively impacting native species.

The United States has failed to cull the population within our own borders, and now the problem threatens to spill over into Canada. In an effort to prevent this catastrophe, the Canadian government has made the possession of living Asian carp illegal. The threat, however, persists. In February, the border patrol confiscated 14,000 pounds of live Asian carp as they were being driven over the border. With carp market prices being astronomically high, making it exceptionally lucrative, it will be hard to stop the northern flow of this species.

Canada has asked that the U.S. to put more officers on the ground to assist with the prevention an Asian carp introduction. Sounds great, right? The U.S. can simply beef up regulation enforcement on our side of the border, and Canada can remain carp-free. Do U.S. taxpayers care enough to assist with the conservation of aquatic biodiversity outside our own borders? I would bet not, especially considering how many times we have fallen short within our own nation. With how far we are already in debt, we must prioritize our nation's spending. Conservation of fish species does not usually make it through the budget cuts. Charismatic creatures sometimes do, like the eastern bluebird, but fish? Nah, not unless it is a prized game-fish within our own borders.

Unfortunately, Canada's battle against the introduction of the Asian carp will likely be a battle they fight alone.

Predatory Politics Surrounding the Red Wolf

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/07/3156950/re-endangering-the-red-wolf.html#storylink=cpy

The red wolf (Canis rufus) is the only species of wolf native to the southeastern United States. Once abundant, the species was declared extinct in the wild by the USFWS in 1980. Following years of captive breeding, the USFWS reintroduced red wolves into the wild in 1987. Of multiple sites chosen for reintroduction, only Alligator River NWR was successful. Today, over 100 individuals live in the wilds of eastern North Carolina.

Currently, North Carolina's Wildlife Resources Commission is pushing to legalize the hunting of coyotes (Canis latrans) during nighttime hours. Red wolves bear a striking resemblance to coyotes, and are therefore potentially at risk if this legislation passes. Hunters have, for years, "accidentally" harvested red wolves when hunting coyotes.

Nighttime hunts would lead to an increased margin of error, and place this endangered species in further risk. This legislation, in no way, should be considered. It is my hope that the courts, by means of the Endangered Species Act, strike this bill down. Science states that hunting does not impact coyote populations, and therefore is an ineffective management tool. Why then would a bill with zero rewards, but the potential for massive losses, be considered? A group known as the NC Predator Hunters Association has been petitioning for this change of legislation for years.

I find the sheer idea of a predator hunting association to be vile. Those who must assert their reign as the ultimate apex predator through the killing of natural alpha predators have no place in the woods, and furthermore, certainly deserve no place at the table when it comes time to discuss policy changes. If you visit their page you will find a wide assortment of pictures chronicling their hunts: hunts reminiscent of the period prior to the establishment of laws protecting our natural resources. A period which devastated many species of wildlife.

Point being: NCWRC should nix this legislation before it ever gets off the ground, and they should base future management decisions off science, not the opinions of a small group of ignorant hunters.

Book Review for Where the Wild Things Were

 

Mr. Stolzenburg is a wildlife journalist by profession. His position as a science outsider provides a rather unique view, and makes the material more approachable to the general populace. The novel starts by chronicling a study performed on the starfish Pisaster ochraceous, and the interactions it had with other members of the tidal community in the chilly waters along the coast of Washington (state). This chapter establishes the theme of the book: the far-reaching implications of removing apex predators from ecosystems. The following chapters documented a wide array of ecosystems controlled by apex predators, and the problems caused by their removal. Stolzenburg established that many ecosystems fall into disarray following the removal of predators. The latter half of the book highlighted studies in which predators were reintroduced into ecosystem. Many of these studies found that ecosystems return to their previous "glory" following these reintroductions. 

The book ended by approaching some pretty controversial ideas. One such idea is of "rewilding" the North American continent. This plan would lead to the introduction of mega-fauna similar to what was present prior to the Pleistocene extinctions.  For example, elephants would be brought in to take the place of the now-extinct wooly mammoth. The idea being that these species could return the continent to a state similar to what was present prior to the Pleistocene extinctions.

Finally, you are left with the issue of shifting baselines. Is what you consider to be natural truly natural? It probably isn't as natural as you think.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in ecology, biodiversity, conservation, etc. It provides the reader with many answers, but also leaves questions unanswered, presumably because science has yet to provide definitive answers. It was thrilling to read this book, and I never wanted to set it down. As I read it for the first time sitting in the Sierras, my mind went wild with how those mountains might have once been. The boy in me imagined the howl of wolves in the valley below as they hunted down black-tailed deer foraging in the newly-green meadows. The ecologist in me wondered how that predatory pressure might alter deer behavior and spatial distribution, and thereby modify the composition of plant communities.

Read this book, it is more than worth your time.

Green Fire Review

I was thoroughly excited to view this film. Ever since it was first mentioned, I have made sure to keep the date open. However, upon viewing, I was quite disappointed, the film did not live up to what I had expected. The quote, from which the title was taken, was bastardized. Not once was it read in its entirety. Instead, small snippets were read on and off throughout the film. These snippets lacked the power of the original quote.

Additionally, many of the interview segments lacked anything of value. Tell me about the man, his legacy, etc, but don't let people of no importance speak of nothing more than who they perceive Aldo Leopold to have been.

Instead, I recommend that everyone watch The Greatest Good.

The Greatest Good is a film chronicling the history of the US Forest Service, and the many challenges it faced in its first 100 years. For a course based on policy, this is the perfect video. Throughout the film it is quite obvious how public sentiment has shaped policy, and how scientists are in a constant battle enact policy based on science, rather than the opinion of an ignorant populace.

The video may be found HERE

Is "The Lorax" Hope for the Future?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bHdzTUNw-4

Universal Studios has, just this past weekend, rolled out their new film based on a book by Dr. Seuss: The Lorax. For those who have spent their lives extremely sheltered, here is a summary of the plot: The planet has lost all of its trees to the progress of man. Streams are polluted and natural systems are in total disarray. A young man, wishing to see a tree, goes in search of one. While he never finds his tree, he does find the Lorax. The Lorax tells the boy of bygone days of flourishing forests, clean air, and clear streams. Upon the completion of the story, and judging the boy to be true in his intent to save the trees, the Lorax gives the boy a seed: the last tree seed in the world.

This sends my mind spinning in two directions. The first being, what a terrible place the world would be without its forests! What kind of people would do this? This question led to a realization that plenty of people would if it were financially lucrative. Unfortunately, many people currently inhabiting the planet lack a strong connection to the haunts of nature.

The second direction was: Will this movie change anything? I believe the answer is yes. The opinions of people are most malleable when they are young. Therefore, creating an animated movie which teaches a story of ethical land use could have major impacts on the future. Anything that encourages children to get outside and explore is positive for the planet, in my opinion.

Hopefully this movie successfully inspires future generations to fight for natural places. Without some change, I fear corporations will eventually run our natural resources into the ground.

Even if only a single individual is inspired, the implications could be enormous if fate leads that individual to a position of power. Just look how successful Roosevelt was in protecting our natural resources. Look at how much emphasis Ted Turner places on conservation. The moral of the story is: never underestimate the power of a highly motivated individual.

Chernobyl: Disaster or Salutary Lesson

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/radioactive-wolves/full-episode/7190/

Last year Nature aired an episode that thoroughly intrigued me. The program discussed how the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had impacted wildlife. Quite to the contrary of what might be expected, the accident seems to have benefited nearly every species present.

Background Information: On April 26, 1985 the Chernobyl nuclear power plant suffered a catastrophic meltdown. As a result, nearly 1100 square miles of land were be abandoned. Much of this area was once a vast wetland, but had since fallen to the progress of man in the form of dams, dikes, and irrigation canals. Farmland had been valued far above preservation of natural ecosystems.

With the total abandonment of these areas by humans, wildlife were allowed to reclaim the land. Wolves, once persecuted nearly to eradication, returned to rule the land. Beavers, bison, deer, peregrine falcons, white-tailed eagles, and many other species also began to flourish in the absence of humans. Inadvertently, the area around Chernobyl had become the worlds largest research site for what would happen if people were removed from the land, and the results were promising. Even with the constant exposure to radiation, wildlife populations were thriving.

What is yet more promising is the governments willingness to assist in the research. Native species, such as the horse and bison, were reintroduced in an effort to recreate natural species assemblages.

This research gives me hope for the future. Hope that much of the damage caused by humanity is reversible. Hope that we have not yet completely doomed the world's biodiversity. Hope that we can preserve all creatures, from the wolf down to the deer mouse, if only we can bring about an environmental revolution.

This past weekend, at the Southeastern Ecological and Evolution Conference, it was commonly stated that future conservation must be based on triage, thus letting many species (and ecosystems) slip away, only to be remembered in the history books. Chernobyl has taught us that, with significant change/effort, we can preserve more species than ever thought possible.

Wolves in the East!

Photo Credit: USFWS

120: The number of red wolves living in the wilds of eastern North Carolina.

200: The number of red wolves currently in the USFWS's captive breeding program. 

46: The number of pups born in the wild in 2011.

18: The number of wolves remaining when the USFWS intervened in the 1970's.

Wolves have begun to spread throughout five counties in eastern North Carolina.  As they spread, they are sure to encounter human populations. How will these individuals perceive wolves? Will they see them as no more of a threat than a coyote, or will they inspire a fear reminiscent of their western counterpart, Canus lupus? After such a long absence, can they restore balance to the ecosystem? Will interbreeding with coyotes lead to the end of genetically pure red wolves?

These are all valid points, and only time/research will reveal the answers.

I, for one, hope that people welcome these creatures back to the lands they once roamed. Will there be conflict? Sure, but the end more than justifies the means. You will hear me say this over and over, but there is nothing in this world worth protecting more than biodiversity. If a species can win the evolutionary battle, it should be allowed to live through the era of man, and into whatever may come next.

From what I can see, these creatures seem to be getting along with people quite well thus far. Seeing as how they are much smaller than their western relatives, they pose much less of a threat to cattle (thankfully).

It is my hope that red wolves will one day be a symbol of successful conservation, much like the bald eagle and eastern bluebird.

Drugs, Borders, and Protecting Ecosystems

 Photo Credit: National Park Service

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fighting-drugs-border-violence-arizona-organ-pipe-cactus-132342614.html

The attached article speaks of the complications brought about in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument by drug runners who use the area on a daily basis. A wide array of issues are discussed, everything from armed guards escorting guests to the decline in visitors. However, what is not discussed is the impact on wildlife.

In an effort to stop the flow of drugs across the border, fences have been constructed throughout several portions of the park. Fences, of course, block the natural movements of wildlife. Therefore, these fences could potentially decrease the flow of genes between metapopulations. Fences, too, prevent the establishment/reestablishment of populations. Together, these factors reduce the ability of wildlife populations to overcome obstacles placed in their way, increasing the likelihood of localized extirpations/extinctions.

Drug runners have "made" dirt roads throughout the park, left garbage behind, and assuredly harassed wildlife (intentionally of unintentionally) at all hours of the day and night. With this much damage being done, the land needs management. Management that would have to be performed under the protection of armed guards. Realistically, how likely is this?

Along the border with Mexico, wildlife faces problems where fences are in position and they face challenges where they are not. Management, in this case, must begin with humans. The vast majority of what is crossing this section of the border is marijuana. Therefore, I say legalize it. To be fair, this statement is also supported by many of my other views, but this is further support (also let me note that I do not partake, it isn't my cup of tea). Legalizing would not only allow land managers to get in and do their jobs, it could help to prevent future degradation of the ecosystem caused by drug runners. Going "green" really can be green.

Hetch Hetchy: Now and Then

Photo Credit: Unknown

Photo Credit: Stephanie Trapp

One of John Muir's most well documented battles was against the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in what today is Yosemite National Park. It was a battle that Muir fought in vain, with construction reaching completion in 1923. 

The first photo is prior to the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam, the second photo was taken by several fellow technicians in the summer of 2011. Still beautiful, but only a shadow of what it once was. John Muir said that the valley was "one of nature's rarest and most precious mountain temples," and I must whole-heartedly agree.

A quick history lesson: The dam was constructed to supply potable water to San Francisco; a seaside city susceptible to prolonged dry summers. Muir, and environmentally conscious individuals across the country, fought the project until the bitter end, eventually losing out to "the progress of man." Today, Hetch Hetchy still provides water to San Francisco. However, dams further down the Toulumne River could be used to replace this water.

With construction reaching completion nearly a century ago, what does it have to do with current policy issues? Republican representative Dan Lungren, of California, has recently introduced legislation that would dismantle the dam, allowing the valley to return to its previous state. Several notable Democrats (i.e. Nancy Pelosi) have stood in opposition to Representative Lungren's proposal. As a self proclaimed liberal, I am ashamed of their stance. Their stance is one of ignorance.

What is the price of progress? What is the value of a pristine wetland? When will people decide that enough is enough?

To the dabbling duck, Hetch Hetchy is now a barren wasteland: too deep for the plants which provide it sustenance. We will never be able to entirely return Hetch Hetchy to its former beauty, it now possesses granite walls bleached as natural compounds leached out into the artificial lake's waters (among other issues). However, we can do our best to rectify the mistake made by previous generations. Drain the reservoir, remove the dam, and let nature do its best to overcome whatever obstacles man has left in its way.

Here is a pretty good video if you would like to know more about the Hetch Hetchy Valley, and the plan to restore it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-QLfeoWHPE

Literature Review for "The Beast in the Garden"

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail.  Without it, nothing can succeed."
-Abraham Lincoln


An absolutely phenomenal book. This text takes the approach of a crime solver novel. We start out with an unfortunate scene in which a young man is attacked and partially consumed by a mountain lion. Then, we go back to several years to when the problem first started as innocent mistakes by ignorant people. The community of Boulder, Colorado had chosen to allow deer populations to grow uncontrolled. During this time, cougars had yet to return to the area since they had been extirpated in the early 1900's by miners and settlers. Deer, being a favorite food of cougars, attracted cougars to the area, and led to burgeoning lion populations by the early 1990's.

In areas where humans and wildlife interact there is sure to be conflict, Colorado is no exception. I don't want to ruin the book so I won't summarize the plot any further. However, I must note that it is exceptionally easy to get sucked into this book.

The relevance of this book to our class arose from the human dimension of the problem. The author does an exceptional job of voicing how public opinion has shaped policy along Colorado's Front Range.

The book also chronicles the life of a wildlife biologist who foresaw the looming disaster, and tried to persuade the government and the people into taking healthy, science based preventative measures. This individual faces an uphill battle the entire way, which I find to be quite representative of our field. Regardless of how much evidence he has to back up his position, he cannot sway the voters, at least not until a human life is lost.

The final chapter provides an exceptional summary of the issue, recommendations for the future, and an educated guess as to what the future holds. Most notably is a prediction that cougars will one day spread east until they reach the Atlantic Coast. Their journey will potentially bring balance to deer populations of the east, but will also bring about a new age of human wildlife conflict: an age in which people must learn to live with animals that could consume them.

Without going further in-depth, I have a quote the gave me pause for thought: "Time does not run backward. We can bring the lions and wolves and bears back to America, and there are many good reasons to do so--ecological reasons, spiritual reasons--but these great animals will not restore a mythic past, cannot erase the need for human intervention."

Journey

"I come more and more to the conclusion that wilderness, in America or anywhere else, is the only thing left that is worth saving." - Edward Abbey

http://news.yahoo.com/terrifying-wonder-journey-californias-lone-wolf-084000269.html

As the rest of the world ushered in the new year, northern California welcomed a long exiled member of its native fauna back to the landscape: a solitary male wolf (Canis lupus).

As this wolf passed into California it made national headlines. Such a charismatic creature's return would be expected to do as much. However, few of these articles addressed anything more than the "feel good" portion of the story. Assuredly, cattle ranchers and environmentalists immediately mobilized. Both camps have much to gain, or lose, in the potential upcoming battle. If our lone wolf (affectionately named Journey) never finds a mate it will all be in vain, and this is precisely what the cattle industry is hoping for.

As a wildlife biologist, it is my hope that a female will follow Journey into this "new" territory. Human ignorance extirpated these animals, it is time that we allowed them to return home. We owe it to them, their ecosystem, and our selves.

Their ecosystem, how so? While still very controversial, many papers point to a top-down balancing of ecosystems when alpha predators are returned to the landscape. One popular example is the Yellowstone ecosystem. It appears that the reintroduction of wolves to the ecosystem has brought about the first regeneration of aspen since wolves left the ecosystem. Following the removal of wolves from the landscape, elk (Cervus elaphus) populations went through the roof. These elk virtually mowed down any aspen that tried to grow. With the wolf's reintroduction, these stands are regenerating for the first time in decades, thereby saving the landscape from the erosion which had begun to take hold. What benefits do we stand to see from the return of wolves to Lassen County California, and beyond? Only time will tell, but I fully support finding out.

As previously mentioned, ranchers immediately voiced their discontent with the potential return of wolves to the landscape. From their standpoint, wolves threaten their livelihood, and therefore should be vanquished from the territory. Much of the land used by these ranchers is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. http://www.statereports.us/2010/04/california-tribal-federal-lands-map/ Personally, it is my belief that our public lands should not be used as subsidized grazing lands for cattle (unless they provide a beneficial ecosystem service). Farmers who choose to use these lands should absorb the costs of cattle lost to native predators.

The time has come for science to guide our management decisions, not the whims of a rancher, government marksman, or the average layperson (voters). Only time will tell if Journey will succeed in finding a mate in California. I, for one, certainly hope he does, and would love to study how the ecosystem transitions as a result. Wild places need wild beasts.

Welcome home, Journey. It is good to see you again!

"Only You"

                       A burned longleaf pine stand along the South Carolina Coast (Yawkey Island)

                  http://www.nbc12.com/story/16628164/cause-sought-for-deadly-fla-highway-pileup

 Just this week we saw news reports roll in from the Gainesville, Florida area concerning a series of car crashes that cost 10 people their lives. The cause: Smoke on the highways that reduced visibility to zero from a nearby wild fire.

The severity of the smoke has been accredited to the smoldering embers in an area that has not been allowed to burn naturally in many years. The fire suppression led to an excessive buildup of fuels. These fuels were so dense that they could not get enough oxygen to burst into flames, therefore they sat and smoldered, producing a mass amount of dense smoke.

So what does this have to do with wildlife? The answer to this is two-fold. The first being that fire suppression also impacts species composition. As detritus builds up, animals better adapted to these conditions flourish, while others fall behind. This particular area of Florida burned naturally (and Native American induced) every several years in the time prior European settlement. While variation in burn cycle is natural, the current lack of burning is human induced.

Our second way in which these fires impact wildlife is how they affect the court of public opinion. After seeing headlines concerning "fire", "smoke", and "10 deaths" many will be more cautious to allow burning on both public and private lands. We already see this along highway 17 in South Carolina, where certain land owners are not allowed to burn their timber land due to the smoke produced.

Fire is an essential part of many southeastern ecosystems. Without these fires natural process get out of rhythm, and we see exceptional cases (like our fire near Gainesville, FL). If this fire were to convince more people that burning is a detriment to civilization, land managers could lose one of their most powerful tools. Only time will tell if this is the case, but I certainly hope it is not.

The Fight to Protect Muir's Legacy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/yosemite-half-dome-plan_n_1240217.html

This week the debate over what is wilderness, and how to regulate it was stirred once again. Yosemite National Park has made public its intention to limit accessibility to the parks signature landmark: Half Dome. Park officials wish to limit summit permits to 300 per day. This is a stark difference from the days where anyone could summit the peak without a permit. In those days, as many as 1200 individuals would crest the peak in a single day.

The Park Service argues that the wilderness area containing Half Dome is seeing deterioration of natural features due to excessive use. In keeping with their definition of wilderness, the only solution is to decrease the number of individuals who will be permitted to enter this wilderness area.

Having been to Half Dome just this past summer, I can personally attest to the damage caused by the crowds. Trails are broadening due to excessive use, thereby leading to increased erosion. Litter may be seen at times, but thankfully this has been kept to a minimum. Noise pollution spoils the areas natural splendor at times. Finally, some of the wildlife is no longer truly wild. Many of the areas small mammals have become accustomed to handouts from the public.

In an effort to curtail these effects the Park Service instituted a limit of 400 Half Dome passes each day in 2011. Apparently not seeing the changes they are looking for, they have decided to cut that number to 300. While I can personally attest to how difficult this makes acquiring a permit, I can also say that I believe the ends justify the means. When in wilderness areas you wish to be left alone to absorb your surroundings, silence enables you to see more of the native fauna. More people means that these animals seek shelter as noisy groups rattle by.

Additionally, there should be some sort of test required to summit Half Dome. We already see this at the worlds tallest peaks, like Mt. McKinley.  McKinley also boasts a remoteness that only invites the most adventurous and fit outdoor enthusiasts. Half Dome, however, is close enough for city slickers to make an overnight trip of it. A few of these individuals, from my experience, are out of shape, litter, trample through sensitive areas, take unnecessary risks, and do not fully appreciate silence.

It is time to put the "wild" back in "wilderness", and the Park Service has taken the first steps to do just that.

Fire Suppression in the West

    Photo Credit: Reno Gazette

In my time at Clemson I have heard numerous professors speak of fire suppression and the harm it has done to natural processes. Here in the southeast we see denser forests and a lack of regeneration of fire dependent species. As a Wildlife Biologist, I have been trained to notice these changes. However, the average layperson would never know the difference.


The west is a beast of another color. Just this week we watched the outskirts of Reno, Nevada burned. While burning of arid lands is a natural process, many have already speculated that the severity of this weeks fires are, at least in part, due to fire suppression. These areas naturally burned approximately twice each decade. As people began to fragment  this system with roads and houses, fires were suppressed in order to protect property. This suppression has led to a buildup of fuels, far above the natural levels.

The Reno area has seen an exceptionally dry fall and winter this year. When added to an abundance of fuel, all that was needed was a spark. In this case, that spark was provided by an elderly individual who improperly disposed of fireplace ashes. These ashes were whipped up by winds rushing ahead of new weather system. The winds gave our fire the added push to become more than just a wildfire, it was now a firestorm that threatened thousands of homes and lives.

Fortunately, the winds were short-lived and firefighters gained control of the fire within a matter of days. Additionally, the new weather front brought snow and rain to the area, helping to extinguish any remaining hotspots. In all, twenty homes were lost and one fatality resulted.

Could this have been prevented? Put simply, the answer is yes. We have the ability to manage these lands in a way that reduces the risk of catastrophic fires, and thereby mimics natural conditions. Why this was not implemented in Reno I cannot say, but I can make an educated guess. It could be because burning is more expensive than simply doing nothing at all. With the nation in a recession, landowners may have decided this was not a priority. Personally, I do not suspect this is the reason. Most of the land surrounding Reno is federal land (BLM and USFS), and therefore is managed pretty actively. The most likely answer is that the people of Reno do not want to deal with smoke created by controlled burns. Smoke inconveniences those with asthma, limits visibility for motorists, interrupts air-travel patterns, and is generally seen as having an “unpleasant” smell. So we package it up, put it away, and try to avoid it for as long as possible, with the end result being fires like the one we have just witnessed in Reno. The sad part is, this incident is bound to repeat itself due to the ignorance of people.

Still, none of this accounts for the damage to the ecosystem. When will people learn to live with the world around them, rather than constantly and irrevocably altering it?