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?