Climate Change – Page 12 – Conservation Sense and Nonsense

The impact of climate change on birds

As our readers know, we consider climate change the most important environmental problem of the 21st century. All other environmental issues pale in comparison to climate change because most other problems are exacerbated, if not caused by climate change. For example, when native plant advocates demand that we destroy healthy trees storing tons of carbon dioxide, we know that they are not benefiting native plants which will be less well adapted to a changed climate. The many projects that are destroying healthy trees chip the wood, which releases the stored carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide as the wood decays over time.

The environmental reviews of these destructive projects try to respond to this criticism of their projects by making a number of bogus claims. For example, they claim that they intend to replace all the trees with native trees, although the horticultural requirements of native trees will prevent their survival where most non-native trees now thrive. They also claim that the mythical new native trees will compensate for the loss of the carbon stored in the existing urban forest, based on their belief that young trees store carbon at a faster rate than old trees.

Now we have a new study which has overturned this assumption. Thirty-eight scientists from all over the world participated in a study of 670,000 trees from 403 tropical and temperate species of trees. They have reported their findings in Nature magazine:

“Here we present a global analysis of 403 tropical and temperate tree species, showing that for most species mass growth rate increases continuously with tree size. Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree. The apparent paradoxes of individual tree growth increasing with tree size despite declining leaf-level and stand-level productivity can be explained, respectively, by increases in a tree’s total leaf area that outpace declines in productivity per unit of leaf area and, among other factors, age-related reductions in population density.” (1)

In other words, we now have empirical evidence that large, old trees store far more carbon than young trees.

The impact of climate change on birds

Since native plant advocates often claim that their destructive projects benefit birds, let’s examine that claim in the context of climate change. How is climate change making life difficult for birds? That’s our topic today.

We start with a report that snowy owls are being seen in the continental United States, in places far outside their normal range, such as Little Rock, Arkansas and northern Florida. At Logan Airport in Boston, more than 75 snowies have been captured and relocated during last fall’s migration season, an unprecedented number. Airports are attractive to grass-eating birds such as geese as well as raptors hunting for small mammals, such as owls and hawks because they are surrounded by vast, open fields. Airports are dangerous places for both birds and airplane passengers, so this isn’t good news for anyone.

Snowy owls are enormous birds (20-27 inches tall and 54-66 inches wingspan) with white feathers that blend with their usual home in the Arctic. So what are they doing so far south? Nobody really knows, but there are theories. One of those theories is that there was a sudden surge in the population of lemmings in the Arctic which is the preferred prey of the snowies. That sudden increase in their food source may have caused a surge in the population of snowies and now they must disperse to parts unknown to find what they need to eat. We will revisit that theory latter in the context of climate change; the article about the impact of climate change on bird populations (see below) reports that the population of lemmings has declined, suggesting that the snowies are moving south in search of food.

What happens when snow turns to rain?

As the climate warms, places where winters brought snow in the past are now rainy. Think of what that means to birds sitting on nests in the open. Snow doesn’t penetrate the down of chicks as much as rain does. A nestling that was kept dry in the snow is now soaked to the skin. Brrrrrrr…can you feel for that bird?

A colony of Magellanic penguins in Argentina has been studied for decades by a researcher who now reports that climate change is taking its toll on that colony:

“’Rainfall is killing a lot of penguins, and so is heat,’ said P. Dee Boersma, a University of Washington scientist and lead author of the study, ’And those are two new causes.’” (2)

The penguin chicks are most vulnerable about a week after hatching, when their parents have quit protecting them round-the-clock. After about 6 weeks, they develop more waterproof plumage. In the past, only about one-third of chicks survived to leave the nest, most often as a result of predation and starvation. Heavy storms killed penguins in 13 of the 28 years of the study. Extreme heat events have recently taken a toll. The population of breeding pairs in the colony has declined by 24 percent since 1987.

Rain where snow was the more usual winter weather-pattern is also known to have taken a toll on the peregrine falcon population in the Canadian Arctic.

Disrupting the food chain in the Arctic

Yale Environment 360 recently published a report about the impact of climate change on birds in the Arctic. (3) Here is a long, depressing list of specific impacts on many species of birds as a result of climate change in the Arctic:

As we have reported, polar bears around Hudson Bay are starving because the bay is no longer freezing long enough for them to hunt for seals on the ice. They have turned to eating birds’ eggs. Can you blame them?
The rising temperature in the Arctic has increased the population of mosquitoes. Some birds are dying from blood loss. This may be hard to imagine if you haven’t visited the Arctic. We can tell you from experience, that the air is black with mosquitoes on a typical summer day in Alaska.
Contrary to the opinion of the researchers studying snowy owls, the researchers interviewed by Yale Environment 360 say that the population of lemmings and other prey has declined which has reduced populations of peregrine falcon, ptarmigan, jaeger, skua, etc. A researcher explains that early, deep snow provides the insulation needed for successful breeding of lemmings. Without this insulation, the population has decreased significantly.
As spring arrives earlier, snowshoe hares may not be changing their white fur fast enough to escape predation, which will reduce that population over time as fewer hares survive to breed in the future. The hare is an important source of prey for the raptors.
Gulls scavenged the seal hunts of polar bears in the past. With receding ice and reduced hunting opportunities, this food source has decreased and what remains is often contaminated with mercury. These factors have combined to result in an 80% decline in the gull population since the 1980s.
When weather conditions are unseasonal and extreme at the start of the nesting season, birds often skip the nesting season altogether. Such a sensible choice has been observed by scientists in several locations.

The article ends on a modest note, by reminding us how little we know about birds and the limitations of the research that is done on their populations. Some of the population changes that have been observed could be short-term. There is much variation in nature from which we cannot accurately extrapolate.

How could local native plant “restorations” benefit birds?

The projects demanded by native plant advocates will destroy tens of thousands of healthy, old, large trees that are expected to live at least 200 more years and store much additional carbon during that period. These trees will release tons of the greenhouse gases causing climate change when they are destroyed. Climate change is clearly not benefiting birds. How can native plant advocates continue to claim that the projects they demand will benefit birds? It is a cruel fiction that these projects will benefit birds.

We are reporting about studies of birds in polar regions today. Climate change at the poles is presently more visible and extreme than it is locally. Assuming that we continue to do nothing, we can expect similar changes in our neighborhood in the near future with similar impacts on the birds.

*********************

(1) N.L. Stephenson, et. al., “Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size,” Nature, January 15, 2014.
(2) Henry Fountain, “For Already Vulnerable Penguins, Study Finds Climate Change Is Another Danger,” New York Times, January 29, 2014.
(3) Ed Struzik, “Northern Mystery: Why Are Birds of the Arctic in Decline?” Yale Environment 360, January 22, 2014

Polar Bears: Our ambivalent attitude toward wildlife

The sub-title of Jon Mooallem’s Wild Ones is A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America. His chapters about polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba fit that description perfectly. The story is both disturbing and reassuring. It is disturbing because there can be no happy ending for these polar bears, but we are reassured to learn that other polar bear populations far north of Churchill are probably in better shape.

Churchill, Manitoba is on the shore of Hudson Bay. It is the only place in the Arctic where polar bears are easily seen because it was a Cold War military installation with an airport and facilities to accommodate visitors. The photographs we have seen of polar bears were undoubtedly taken there by the hordes of tourists, conservationists, photographers, media that come to Churchill to witness the most photogenic illustration of the consequences of climate change.

There were about 950 polar bears in the Churchill area when Mooallem visited in 2010. In 20 years, the bear population in Churchill had declined by about 20%. Churchill is at the southern edge of polar bear range. Eighteen distinct populations of polar bears live north of Churchill. Needless to say, Churchill is warmer than those northern locations and for that reason it is experiencing warmer winters.

Polar bears hunt for seals by finding their breathing holes in the ice on Hudson Bay. When the seal emerges for air, the polar bear snatches it, making a meal of the fatty layer that insulates the seal from the icy water. As winter temperatures rise, the length of time the Hudson Bay is frozen becomes shorter. Although polar bears may find “snacks” such as geese during the long thaw, they are essentially without food until the Hudson Bay freezes again.

Polar bear cubs are typically nursed by their mothers for 2-1/2 years. USFWS

As the thaw gets longer and the freeze shorter, polar bears are starving to death in Churchill. Mooallem describes grim scenes of gaunt bears engaging in cannibalism and cubs in their death throes. But Mooallem wants his readers to think more deeply about the bears, beyond the horrible spectacle of their suffering in Churchill. He wants us to know why there is so little we can do to help the bears and he asks us to think about our ambivalent attitude toward wildlife.

Legal mechanisms for addressing climate change

Our political system is incapable of addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of any substantive federal effort, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) tried to parlay the Endangered Species Act into a tool to address climate change. They applied for endangered status for polar bears which would have legally obligated the government to provide the habitat necessary for their survival. Since global warming is the primary threat to the bears, ensuring their survival would theoretically require us to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

This seemed a worthy effort at the time. Watching that attempt play out in a series of legal battles was another opportunity to understand the weaknesses of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The response of US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) was to designate polar bears as “threatened.” This status enabled USFWS to invoke an amendment that applies only to a particular species. That amendment was that USFWS is not required to address the underlying threat to the bears: climate change.

Since this loophole is not available for species listed as “endangered,” the response of CBD was to engage in a protracted battle about the definition of “threatened” and “endangered.” This arcane dialogue between CBD and USFWS revealed that there is no clear-cut definition of these categories in the ESA or its administration. This is one of many ambiguities in the ESA, as we have reported earlier on Million Trees.

Why can’t we help the bears?

Although there is no doubt that our political system is presently dysfunctional, our apparent inability to address the underlying causes of climate change is also a reflection of the wishes of the public. You might think that the residents of Churchill, surrounded by this living evidence of the consequences of global warming, would be actively engaged in the effort to address the causes of climate change. You would be mistaken. Although the residents of Churchill agree that the climate is warming, according to Mooallem they see it as a natural phenomenon, a cycle for which humans are not responsible and are powerless to change. Since it is a “natural” phenomenon, they also assume that the bears will survive in the long run.

Mooallem reminds us that the attitude of the residents of Churchill is the prevailing opinion of the American public. He doesn’t presume to explain the attitude of the residents of Churchill, but we will speculate. They are subjected on a daily basis to the sad spectacle of starving bears. Since it is illegal to feed the bears, there is nothing they can do about it. Putting ourselves in their shoes, it seems that one way to cope with that barrage of grim reality would be to slip into the unreal world of belief that you are not responsible for the suffering of the bears. Ironically, proximity to the bears has resulted in an apathetic attitude toward their plight.

Our ambivalent attitude toward wildlife

It may be difficult for us to understand the apathy of the residents of Churchill toward the fate of the bears because we are not witnesses to the suffering of the bears nor to the potential for the bears to become dangerous as they try to find food to survive. So, Mooallem tries to help us understand our attitude toward wildlife by putting it into a historical context: “There is a purely cultural dimension to the way we think about wild animals; their meanings can shift and float in and out of fashion over times…the stories we tell about animals depend on the times and places in which we tell them.” (1)

As American settlers moved west they had many dangerous encounters with wildlife such as bears and wolves. During this phase of American history, fear was the prevailing attitude toward such predators. Large carnivores were demonized and systematically exterminated by both land owners and government employees hired expressly for that task.

As urban populations grew, relative to rural populations, there was a growing tendency to romanticize wildlife amongst those not threatened by wildlife. Mooallem illustrates this turning point in the attitude of Americans toward wildlife with a specific incident that occurred in 1902.

Teddy Roosevelt was president at the time and hunting was one of his favorite pastimes. He went bear hunting in Mississippi to hunt bears in the company of a famous bear hunter who was said to have killed three thousand bears. The bear hunter tracked down a bear and roped it to a tree so that Roosevelt could shoot it. Roosevelt declined to shoot the bear because it didn’t seem sporting to him, but he instructed his companions to kill the bear with a knife, perhaps because the bear was in terrible shape at that point. Roosevelt always enjoyed an excellent relationship with the media, which is perhaps why the reporters following this expedition chose not to mention the ultimate death of the bear in their reporting of this incident.

The media coverage of Roosevelt’s merciful sparing of the bear sparked the birth of the beloved teddy bear. Two companies made cuddly replicas of the bear to commemorate this event and ever after the teddy bear has been America’s favorite stuffed animal for children. That was the turning point for bears to make the transition from enemy to friend.

However, that attitude could easily flip back and Mooallem provides an example: “No single piece of research demonstrates this cycle of fear and reverence more clearly than a study…that examined how cougars were written about in the Los Angeles Times between 1985 and 1995.” By 1970 cougars had been nearly exterminated in the Los Angeles area. The cougar population began to rebound as a result of a hunting ban in 1990. During the intervening period, cougars were portrayed by the media as “majestic” and “innocent.” After just two fatal attacks, media coverage shifted to describe cougars as “efficient four-legged killers.”

Food for thought

Ultimately, human attitudes toward wildlife are self-serving. In the case of the polar bears of Churchill, the bears derive no benefit from the prevailing sympathetic human sentiment about them. Thousands of tourists have flocked to Churchill to see them, using untold quantities of fossil fuels to get there by air and to roam around on the tundra in buses to see the bears. The greenhouse gas emissions have provided entertainment for humans and a livelihood for the residents of Churchill, but they exacerbate climate change which will ultimately kill the bears of Churchill.

Jon Mooallem has given us a feast of food for thought. Thank you, Mr. Mooallem.

****************************

(1) Jon Mooallem, Wild Ones, A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America, Penguin Press, 2013.

Day of the Dead Trees

This is a guest post by a member of Communities United in Defense of Olmstead (CUIDO) Olmstead is a 1999 Supreme Court decision affirming the civil rights of people with disabilities. We have added links to articles about the issues about which they were demonstrating.

************************************

CUIDO demonstration on November 2, 2013. Photo by Luke Hauser

Eighteen activists –including a blind woman, a deaf man, numerous wheelchair riders, people with invisible disabilities, and nondisabled allies–paraded single file through the Farmers Market and downtown Berkeley, California on Saturday, November 2, 2013. The action was called by CUIDO, a local disability action organization.

The protesters carried signs —“DEAF SAY: READ OUR HANDS! NO CLEAR CUTS, NO PESTICIDES, DEFEND EAST BAY FORESTS” and “DEATH BY 1,000,000 CUTS!!”— as they passed out hundreds of leaflets warning of the impending destruction. Protesters also carried, attached to their wheelchairs, enlarged photographs of graceful tall trees that are targeted for elimination, including a photo of a bald eagle parent and chick, nesting in a “non-native” eucalyptus tree.

Among the activists were individuals with chemical injury whose disabilities were caused by pesticide exposure. Their leaflet warned readers of the dangers posed by the two highly toxic pesticides which UC Berkeley, East Bay Regional Parks District, and the City of Oakland intend to apply for up to 10 years.

Their action took place on All Souls Day, El Dia de los Muertos. Protesters identified with the souls of the trees and forest life endangered by this plan. Stephanie Miyashiro’s wheelchair bore a photo of large trees. A paper chain connected her heart with the trees. Her sign proclaimed: “Our lives are inextricably linked.”

The activists’ flyer also focused on the massive amount of carbon which will be released into the atmosphere if this plan is allowed to go forward, contributing to global warming. Deforestation is one of the principle causes of climate change, which already threatens the planet.

Additionally, they implore Oakland residents to vote NO on the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District special tax. Mail-in ballots are due November 13, 2013.

Two CUIDO activists will discuss the issue in greater detail at 2:30 pm Friday, November 15, 2013, on “Pushing Limits,” a radio program on KPFA (94.1 FM) which addresses issues relevant to the disability community. Update: Marg Hall and Jean Stewart did a terrific job with this interview which is available HERE

More protests are planned. Community members who would like to join in future CUIDO actions are encouraged to contact the group at: cuidoaction@gmail.com.

For more photos of this protest, please go to: http://reclaimingquarterly.org/web/berktrees13/

CUIDO, Communities United in Defense of Olmstead, is a grassroots rights organization of people with disabilities, including chemical injuries caused by pesticides. Olmstead is a 1999 Supreme Court decision affirming the civil rights of people with disabilities.

This is the flyer that CUIDO distributed at their demonstration:

DAY OF THE DEAD TREES

Trees are sacred and beloved friends; ancient living trees link us to our ancestors.

A plan is afoot to cut down hundreds of thousands of tall trees on over 2000 acres of forest, from Richmond to Castro Valley. A great many have already been destroyed. In observing Day of the Dead, we mourn their loss, celebrate their spirits, and treasure—and pledge to protect—those that remain.

Some of our most popular parks will have almost no trees left. In place of tall trees we will see vast acres of woodchips, as there are no plans for replanting. Similar projects are proposed for other Bay Area locations, such as Sutro Forest (SF).
The pretext is fire hazard mitigation, but the result will be a dry and barren landscape which will actually increase fire danger. A complex, delicate ecosystem will be destroyed, and massive amounts of carbon will be released, contributing to global warming. Deforestation is one of the principle causes of climate change, which already threatens the planet.

There are alternative approaches to fire hazard mitigation, but project sponsors (UC Berkeley, East Bay Regional Parks District, and the City of Oakland) have dismissed safer and less destructive alternatives. Instead, they propose clear-cutting and long-term, extensive use of toxic herbicides, which they intend to apply for up to 10 years. One of these pesticides has been shown to cause acute skin, eye, & respiratory illnesses; the other has been linked to blood, kidney, liver, & nervous system toxicity. One of the targeted tree species is listed as Endangered. The funding for this project is all public money, including a Wildfire Prevention Assessment District special tax on Oakland residents. (mail-in ballot due Nov. 13-VOTE NO!) IS THIS HOW YOU WANT YOUR TAX DOLLARS SPENT?

You can join the fight to stop this madness.
For action ideas and information, including links to the EPA’s critical comments:
http://www.milliontrees.me/2013/05/09/ (link to EPA’s comments is HERE)
http://www.SutroForest.com
http://www.HillsConservationNetwork.org
http://www.EastBayPesticideAlert.org

Distributed by: CUIDO (Communities United in Defense of Olmstead)
Contact: cuidoaction@gmail.com ; http://www.cuido.org
CUIDO is a grassroots rights organization of people with disabilities, including chemical injuries caused by pesticides.

Australian Dingo: A controversial predator

The dingo is a wild dog in Australia. It is a controversial animal in Australia for several reasons. Some of the issues about the dingo are similar to controversies in our country about wild animals, so perhaps we may learn something about our own debates by taking a closer look at the dingo.

Is the dingo a wild, native animal?

One of the questions about the dingo was this: “Is the dingo more closely related to wolves or to domestic dogs.” Wolves are considered wild animals, but a domestic dog that runs free—as the dingo does—does not enjoy that status. A loose domestic dog is generally rounded up by animal control agencies and probably euthanized if not quickly adopted.

The advent of DNA analysis has recently settled this question. The dingo is said to be more closely related to domestic dogs that came from Southeast Asia, probably brought by migrating humans about 5,000 years ago. This is not good news for the dingo, because it confers two demerits on the hapless dingo:

As a relatively recent arrival, its status as a native species is now challenged. The mammals’ curator of the Queensland Museum said, “If they want to preserve pure dingoes they should send them back to Thailand where they came from. Many people don’t realize that Australia’s so-called native dog isn’t native at all.”
If the dingo had arrived on its own, rather than in the company of humans, its status as a native species might not have been challenged. Ironically, when human agency is a factor in the arrival of species of plant or animal, it is often categorized as an “invasive species.” The fact that the dingo has been in Australia for over 5,000 years, does not exonerate it from this pejorative label.

Competition with human enterprise

Although the dingo is not closely related to the wolf they have in common that they are both top predators. In addition to killing feral animals, they both kill animals domesticated by humans, such as sheep, cattle, and goats. Consequently, both dingoes and wolves are a problem for ranchers and farmers who raise animals for a living. Ranchers actively advocate controlling populations of wolves and dingoes.

In the United States, dwindling populations of wolves were given endangered status to protect wolves from being killed by ranchers. Wolf populations in the United States have increased since wolves were given protected status. Ranchers are therefore aggressively lobbying to end that protected status and environmentalists are just as aggressively lobbying to continue that status.

The dingo has not been granted such protected status in Australia. Dingoes are being poisoned to reduce their numbers, but the species is not presently considered threatened with extinction.

Those who defend wolves and dingoes do so by explaining the role they play as apex predators. They help to balance many animal populations that might otherwise become too numerous. For example, the return of wolves to Yellowstone National Park is said to have reduced the population of deer, which has enabled the recovery of some types of vegetation eaten by deer. In Australia, dingoes control populations of feral cats and red foxes that prey on small native animals.

Scapegoating animal competitors

Until recently, dingoes were also accused of hunting rare native animals to extinction, in particular the Tasmanian tiger and the Tasmanian devil on the Australian mainland: “Perhaps because the public perception of dingoes as ‘sheep-killers’ is so firmly entrenched, it has been commonly assumed that dingoes killed off the [tigers] and devils on mainland Australia.” (1)

Australian scientists have recently exonerated dingoes of this accusation. Using mathematical models, they have decided that the disappearance of the tigers and devils was probably caused by an abrupt change in the climate at the same time that the Aboriginal population on the mainland increased significantly. The climate change reduced vegetation that had supported prey populations. Increased numbers of Aboriginal hunters meant there was insufficient prey for tigers and devils. They were the losers in the increased competition for a reduced food supply because they hunt alone, unlike humans and dingoes who hunt cooperatively together.

Familiar Themes

The case of the dingo recapitulates many themes on Million Trees:

The definition of “native” is illusive. It seems to shift to suit the purposes of the person assigning that label.
When the economic interests of humans conflict with the needs of animals, the animals are usually the losers.
Animals are sometimes scapegoated by humans for environmental issues that are not caused by animals.
Human understanding of environmental issues is often inadequate to accurately identify the cause of environmental problems.

We wish the dingo the best of luck for its survival in Australia.

************************

(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130910095413.htm

Implications of climate change for ecological restorations

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a committee of hundreds of scientists from all over the world that has been reporting since 1990 to the United Nations its consensus predictions of the future of climate change. They made their latest report recently and these are their primary findings:

They report with 95% certainty that current climate change is being caused by the activities of humans, particularly burning fossil fuels.
They predict that sea level could rise as much as 3 feet by the end of this century if current levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue.
During the same timeframe and in the same conditions, the temperature is expected to rise between 2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
If carbon dioxide emissions double by the end of the century, as the current trajectory predicts, the IPCC says current climate trends will be irreversible.

The Earth’s constantly changing climate

The public is preoccupied with the current round of climate change as well as predictions of its trajectory and consequences partly because it may be within our power to stop the trend by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth is a history of a constantly changing climate which humans did not influence. Conventional wisdom is that current climate change is unique in that it is a more rapid change than past changes, making adjustment to the change more difficult for the Earth’s inhabitants. In fact, many historical changes in the climate occurred even more rapidly when they were precipitated by cataclysmic events such as the impact of huge asteroids or volcanic eruptions.

Our readers may wonder where we are headed with this train of thought. We hasten to preview our point lest our readers think our goal is to dismiss the seriousness of the current round of climate change. Our intention in this article is to invite our readers to consider the absurdity of the concept of “native plant and animal species” in the context of the dynamism of nature, climate changes being one of the many factors in producing that dynamism. We will use the last ice age as an example to illustrate this point, drawing from an excellent book on that subject: After the Ice Age. (1)

Glaciers in the US in past 100,000 years.

The Last Glacial Age

In the past billion years, there have been many glacial periods, popularly called ice ages. It’s worthwhile to consider their cause to understand that they are as likely to occur in the future as they did in the past. They are thought to be a consequence of the constantly shifting tectonic plates that change ocean currents as well as cycles in the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the sun. The former pattern is unpredictable, even random, and the latter is a more predictable sequence. There are intervening variables that make this an oversimplification of the causes, but this is a sufficient explanation to make the main point:

“At no time has there been a return to ‘things as they were.’ It is true that there must have been times when average temperatures were similar to those of the present. Thus, before the beginning and after the end of the warmer-than-now hypsithermal interval [the warmest time interval between glacial periods], the average annual temperature must, for a while, have been much the same as now. But in other respects, conditions would have been radically different, as there were still extensive ice sheets that would have cooled their immediate neighborhoods, and sea level was still about twenty-to twenty-five meters lower than at present” (1)

In other words, the changes in the Earth are always moving forward. To suggest that a past period represents some ideal to be reified, is to treat nature as a still life painting rather than the motion picture it is. Particularly at a time of rapidly changing climate, attempting to replicate a landscape that existed 250 years ago on the West Coast and 500 years ago on the East Coast is a fool’s errand (the pre-European landscape is selected by native plant advocates to define “native”). The naturalized landscape that exists presently is surely better adapted to current conditions than whatever landscape existed hundreds of years ago. As Matt Chew (Arizona State University) says, “belonging” is when the organism is capable of persisting. (2) The Natural Areas Program in San Francisco has demonstrated in the past 15 years that the plants that existed here 250 years ago are not capable of persisting here without intensive gardening. Therefore, using Matt Chew’s definition, we might say they no longer “belong.”

The last ice age on the North American continent

Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska. Creative Commons

The most recent ice age in North America was at its height 20,000 years ago and a tiny fraction of those glaciers persist in the Arctic today. The climate oscillated many times in the past 20,000 years, but the over-all pattern was a gradual melting. As the glaciers receded, they left a barren landscape, scraped of all vegetation and sculpted by the enormous weight of the ice and the eroding action of the rocks carried within the ice. The ice was so heavy that it actually weighed down the land, lowering its elevation relative to the ocean. As the ice melted, the land returned to its previous elevations when relieved of the weight of the ice.

As the ice melted, the land was slowly vegetated by seeds blowing onto the bare land, germinating, and growing. The strength and direction of the wind was therefore an important factor in the process. Which seeds blow in depends upon what plants are close by and the mobility of the seeds which varies by species. Which seeds germinate depends upon the soil conditions where they land as well as the resource requirements of the seed species. Local climate conditions will also determine which seeds survive: the temperature, the hours of light, the amount of moisture and precipitation, etc.

Add to this complexity of variables, the interaction of the plants as they grow, some hindering the growth of their neighbors by shading them, for example. In other words, there are many different factors at play as the bare land is vegetated and those factors vary enormously from one place to another. The outcome is random, largely unpredictable, and outside the control of human witnesses to the process.

The initial vegetation of the bare ground as the ice melts is only the beginning of the story. The rocky surface lacks nutrients initially. Nitrogen-fixing plants are needed to begin the process of building soil from which subsequent species of plants will benefit. Bacteria and fungi slowly populate the soil, contributing to its fertility for later plant arrivals. Animals participate in the process by distributing seeds as well as selectively eating vegetation.

This is a severely truncated version of a far more complex story none of which humans could control. We hope we have not exhausted your patience, but have given sufficient background to help you understand the most important point as explained by After the Ice Age:

“There is a wealth of evidence, however, showing that climatic change is never ending. Even if major climatic ‘steps’ are comparatively quick, it is almost certain that the climate in the intervals between steps undergoes continual lesser changes. In the light of present knowledge, therefore, [Margaret] Davis’s view, that disequilibrium in ecological communities is much commoner than equilibrium, is the more acceptable. It should lead, in time, to a much needed change in popular thought. The notion espoused by so many nonprofessional ecologists—that the living world is ‘marvelously’ and ‘delicately’ attuned to its environment—is not so much a scientifically reasonable theory as a mystically satisfying dogma. Its abandonment might lead to a useful fresh start in environmental politics.” (3)

We conclude with a nota bene: this remarkable book was published in 1991!!! Isn’t it long past time for the public to be aware of scientific information that has been available for over 20 years? When will we abandon the mystical fiction that there is some ideal landscape that may or may not have existed hundreds of years ago that we must attempt to re-create? Even if we thought such an effort would be of some benefit, what makes us think that it is physically possible, given the changes that have occurred in our environment?

*****************************************

(1) E.C. Pielou, After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America, University of Chicago Press, 1991

(2) Matthew Chew, “Anekeitaxonomy: Botany, Place and Belonging,” chapter in Invasive & Introduced Plants and Animals: Human Perspectives, Attitudes, and Approaches to Management, editors Ian D. Rotherham and Robert A Lambert, Earthscan, 2011

(3) Margaret Davis is “one of North America’s leading palynologists,” who studied the development of eastern forests after glaciers melted.

Shelterbelt: Protector or Destroyer of Nature?

In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the entire country experienced extreme poverty. In the Midwest, the drought and the dust storms it caused contributed to the suffering. The Dust Bowl was a result of decades of intensive farming on marginal land that was made possible by atypical years of heavy rain and high commodity prices. When the drought hit that is more typical of the climate in that region, the crops died and the depleted, sandy soil was free to blow in the wind in what were called “black blizzards.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt had a lifelong interest in and fondness for trees. Prior to entering politics, he had forested his property at Hyde Park in New York. So, when confronted with the Dust Bowl, a tree-based solution came naturally to him while on the campaign trail for the presidency. He was visiting a desolate town in Montana that had been deforested by mining operations when the idea of a massive windbreak to protect agricultural land from the wind and stabilize the soil came to him.

This windbreak came to be known as the Shelterbelt. The story of the planting of the Shelterbelt is one of many interesting stories about American forests told in American Canopy: Trees, Forests, and the Making of a Nation. (1)

The idea of windbreaks to protect agricultural lands was not new at the time:

“For instance, California citrus growers routinely planted stands of fast-growing, imported eucalyptus trees to shield their precious orange trees from gusts coming off the Pacific Ocean. As a 1908 pamphlet on eucalyptus explained, ‘In unprotected orchards, nearly the entire crop is frequently blown from the trees, or so scarred and bruised that the grade and market value are much reduced.’” (1)

Despite this track record of the value of trees to protect agricultural crops, President Roosevelt met with fierce political resistance to his proposal to create the Shelterbelt. At every turn, the project was repeatedly starved of the funding needed to complete the project. The detailed story of that resistance is reminiscent of the political theater we are now witnessing that is attempting to prevent the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Although the Shelterbelt never reached the scale that President Roosevelt had envisioned, much of it was eventually planted in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas:

“A 1954 evaluation of the Shelterbelt determined that over 220 million trees had been planted on thirty thousand farms. The Forest Service had laid down in total more than 18,600 linear miles of tree strips—and a majority of these, more than 70 percent, survived for decades. During the 1950s and 1960s many of the original Shelterbelt plantings were reinforced or expanded through the private actions of farmers who had come to appreciate the value of tree windbreaks.” (1)

Despite the huge scale of that project, only $14 million was spent in the eight years that the project existed. “An article in American Forests estimated, somewhat optimistically, ‘On a fifty-year basis, the cost to the government of an acre [of agricultural land] protected a year is estimated at four cents.’” That’s a bargain at ten times that estimated price.

The description of the trees and how they were planted helps us to appreciate that a windbreak is more than a single row of trees on the perimeter of a field:

“Tree strips in the Shelterbelt typically included ten rows of vegetation. The outer row contained small trees or shrubs, most commonly chokeberry, lilac, mulberry, Russian olive, and wild plum. The inner rows featured quick-growing, long-lived, taller trees that had been selected for their tolerance of the unwelcoming climate. Some tree varieties were native, while others had been discovered abroad, often the result of research first conducted by plant explorers…The most widely planted species were cottonwood, green ash, and Chinese elm, which each appeared in all six participating states.” (1)

After planting, the trees and shrubs had to be protected from grazing animals with fences.

Drought strikes again

National Public Radio (NPR) recently broadcast an update about the Shelterbelt. It’s not good news. The drought in the Midwest that is considered a consequence of climate change is killing the Shelterbelt:

“Now [the] trees [in the Shelterbelt] are dying from drought, leaving some to worry whether another Dust Bowl might swirl up again.”

A farmer in Oklahoma describes the dying Shelterbelt:

“He pointed to a line of trees as he drove along the shelterbelt trees that flank his farmhouse. ‘You can see the tops of those trees?’ he asked. ‘You see how they’re dying? You can see how it’s almost deteriorated to nothing.’”

Oklahoma State Forester, Tom Murray, told NPR what the Shelterbelt accomplished there:

“’This used to be cotton field, if I remember right, looking back at the history,’ he says. ‘And it just blew—it’s sand and it blew. By putting this [windbreak] here, it stopped that south wind from blowing across the field.’”

We wonder if the native plant advocates who are determined to destroy tens of thousands of our non-native trees in the Bay Area understand that those trees are protecting us from the harsh winds that blow in from the ocean.

Shelterbelt the Destroyer

When we read the story of the creation of the Shelterbelt, we were immediately struck by the irony of its name. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the most widely used sub-contractor for the destruction of non-native plants and trees is named Shelterbelt. They are responsible for many of the herbicide applications in the so-called “natural areas” in San Francisco. Here is a description of their organization from their website:

“Shelterbelt Builders was founded in 1978 in Berkeley, CA as a general building and landscaping company completing over 600 commercial and residential projects during the subsequent 15 years…After an exhaustive effort rebuilding residential homes following the 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm, management realized there was no locally available organization specializing in the management, stewardship and restoration of native landscapes in the San Francisco Bay Area. At that time, Shelterbelt abandoned traditional construction and restructured itself into a specialty contracting company dedicated exclusively to restoration of native landscapes and open land management. We are now one of the leading companies in California devoted to this task.”

Shelterbelt began the eradication of non-natve vegetation in Glen Canyon in November 2011

The Shelterbelt company began as a builder. Now they are a destroyer of non-native trees and plants. Their name is now a misnomer in our opinion. The name, Shelterbelt, was coined in 1935 to describe a massive windbreak composed of non-native and native trees that was responsible for helping to stabilize the agricultural land in the American Midwest and end the era of the Dust Bowl. To see that name appropriated by a company that actively engages in the destruction and poisoning of non-native vegetation is very sad indeed. It is also a reminder that ecological “restorations” have become an industry, with vested economic interest in the continuation of the destructive crusade against non-native plants and trees.

Shelterbelt's tools: chainsaws and equipment to spray herbicides — Shelterbelt’s tools: chainsaws and equipment to spray herbicides

***************************************

(1) Eric Rutkow, American Canopy: Trees, Forests, and the Making of a Nation, Scribner, 2012

“How economic growth will help prevent extinction”

The latest issue of The Economist magazine contains a special report about biodiversity which is previewed on its cover as “How economic growth will help prevent extinctions.” (1) That’s a counterintuitive statement, but one we might expect from The Economist because it is an unashamed promoter of capitalism. Although it has a viewpoint, its readers also rely on it for accurate reporting about international issues and events. So, we read the special report about biodiversity with great interest.

How does economic development support biodiversity?

At the early stages of development, biodiversity suffers from the inevitable pollution associated with industrialization. As development progresses and a society becomes more affluent, biodiversity benefits from the regulation that people begin to demand from their governments.

In the United States, for example, tremendous progress has been made in cleaning up our water and air since the 1970s, an era of environmental regulation. Two-thirds of our rivers were considered unsafe for swimming or fishing 40 years ago. Only one-third are still considered unsafe. (That still seems like a lot.) Likewise, the development of the Chinese economy has produced horrendous levels of pollution and their prosperity is just recently creating the demand to address the problem. When we clean up our air and water, the animals with which we share the planet benefit as much as we do.

In the initial stages of development, population often increases as death rates from treatable diseases decline, which is Africa’s current stage of development. However, education becomes more widely available as a society becomes more affluent and birth rates decline when more women are educated.

Agricultural methods are improved by greater economic resources and education. Improved agricultural techniques make land more productive so that less land is used for agricultural purposes. More land becomes available for preservation and recreation. Less labor required by agriculture increases urbanization which also uses less land. In 1985, a study reported that “protected areas” were only 3.5% of the planet’s land area. By 2009, another study reported that “protected areas” had increased to 13% of total land area. In the Northeast of the US, forest is expanding on abandoned agricultural land.

Although modern agricultural methods use pesticides and fertilizer, The Economist cites two studies that report net benefit of these techniques to the environment compared to traditional methods. That claim probably deserves more scrutiny. We wonder, for example, to what extent our ignorance of the long-term effects of the use of synthetic chemicals made it possible to reach that conclusion.

Greater prosperity also creates leisure time and with it a demand for recreation in nature, resulting in an appreciation of nature. This respect for nature has also promoted a less utilitarian attitude toward animals. Animals are no longer viewed as the servants of humans. Rather they are widely considered our neighbors in the environment in prosperous countries. This changing attitude toward nature has produced many Non-Governmental Organizations that advocate for the preservation of land and the welfare of the plants and animals that live there.

Brazil is a case in point because its prosperity is more recent than our own. Its appreciation of its rainforests is quite new. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has declined from 28,000 sq kilometers in 2004 to less than 5,000 sq kilometers last year. The attitude toward the value of the tropical forest has changed and the government’s new regulatory tools reflect that change.

More prosperous countries are also usually more peaceful. Wars and conflict often harm the environment, as well as its occupants. For similar reasons, governments are usually more effective in prosperous countries. Without competent government, environmental regulations are useless.

Do the facts fit the theory?

Extinction is considered the final test of the preservation of biodiversity. So, have the rates of extinction decreased as many countries have become more prosperous? The Economist tells us they have.

First we must acknowledge our imperfect knowledge of extinction rates because we have identified a small fraction of the total number of species on our planet. We have identified more of the large species of animals than we have of smaller species such as bacteria and microbes. So trends in extinctions rates are easier to identify amongst vertebrates, especially birds for which detailed records are more available.

The moa was a huge flightless bird that was hunted to extinction by Polynesians when they occupied New Zealand.

Around 10,000 bird species have been identified. Some extinctions are an inevitable result of natural selection, considered the “background” rate of extinction, which is estimated for birds to be about one extinction per century. Bird extinctions attributed to man are exemplified by the disappearance of approximately 1,000 bird species on islands after they were occupied by Polynesians, which is at least 100 times above the background rate of extinction.

The extinction rate for birds has decreased considerably in recent times. Nine species of birds are known to have become extinct during the period 1980 to 2000. Given our imperfect knowledge of all species, there may be extinctions that have not been noticed and recorded.

The Economist article mentions the potential for climate change to accelerate rates of extinction. In our opinion, its optimistic view of the future of biodiversity does not adequately account for that threat. We attribute that to the viewpoint of the publication, which tends to support economic development by emphasizing its benefits more than its costs.

The lesson for us in The Economist article is that climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity. As long as we continue to turn a blind eye to its causes, we should expect an acceleration of extinction rates in the future. Eradicating non-native plant species is a diversion from this task. If non-native plant species are better adapted to a changing climate, they are more likely to support the long-term survival of wildlife.

*********************

(1) “Special Report: Biodiversity,” The Economist, September 14-20, 2013.

“Hey, You Calling Me an Invasive Species?”

The New York Times published an op-ed by a member of their Editorial Board on Sunday, September 8, 2013, entitled, “Hey, You Calling Me an Invasive Species?” It is a spirited defense of non-native plants. Surely this is an indication that our challenge of the native plant movement is now mainstream. We will touch on a few of the op-ed’s main themes, but we urge you to read the op-ed here.

Mount Sutro Forest is threatened with destruction because it is not native. Courtesy Save Sutro Forest.

Using the eucalyptus forest on Mount Sutro as an example. the Editorial Board member, Verlyn Klinkenborg, makes the point that many of our non-native plants have been here for hundreds of years. Since they have been here for several generations of humans, most of us no longer consider them foreigners:

“But the trees on Mount Sutro have been there within the memory of every living San Franciscan, and to the generations who have grown up within view of them, it seems almost perverse to insist that they are alien.”

The distinction between native and non-native depends upon an arbitrarily selected “snapshot” of our landscape taken just prior to the arrival of Europeans. On the East Coast, that’s the early 16^th Century. In the San Francisco Bay Area, that’s 1769, when Portola’s men saw the San Francisco Bay. The Times op-ed reminds us that this particular snapshot is becoming more and more irrelevant because of climate change. If plants and animals don’t move in response to that change they will not survive:

“As plants and their pests adjust their range under the influence of global warming, what becomes of the distinction between native and nonnative? To any individual species, it doesn’t matter whether it’s native or not. The only thing that matters is whether its habitat is suitable.”

Finally, Mr. Klinkenborg takes us on a verbal tour of Central Park to make the point that our open spaces are a mélange of native and non-native plants and animals. We can see with our eyes that they are living in harmony and to pluck only those considered non-native from their midst would be needlessly destructive and disruptive of the peace that reigns there:

“Nature in Central Park can’t be divided into native or nonnative species, and neither can it be on Mount Sutro. The eucalyptus trees that grow there may be naturalized rather than native, but try telling that to all the other creatures that live in those woods or the people who hike there.”

Mr. Klinkenborg’s final sentence reminds us that we are the original “invaders:”

“And when it comes to the distinction between native and nonnative, we always leave one species out: call us what you will—native, naturalized, alien or invasive.”

The absurdity of nativism is becoming more and more evident. Our objections to its destructive consequences will eventually be heard. It’s just a matter of time.

The Endangered Species Act is based on outdated science

We have reported to our readers many times about the changes in scientific opinion regarding invasion biology in the past fifty years, since the inception of the theories that originally supported that discipline. Now we see an acknowledgement of the changed scientific viewpoint in a critique of the Endangered Species Act by the legal profession.

Holly Doremus is Professor of Law at Boalt Law School at the University of California, Berkeley. Her critique of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was published by the Journal of Law & Policy in 2010. She previews her theme in her introduction:

“I am interested in why the ESA came to assume an unrealistically static vision of nature. First, the Act’s static structure is typical of law in general, which has traditionally embodied the human search for stability. Second, the Act is inevitably, a product of the political times in which it was drafted and of a rapid and chaotic legislative process, which did not encourage thoughtful examination of the complex contours of the conservation problem. Third, it followed in part from incorrect but widely shared assumptions about the nature of the problem and potential solutions. Fourth, scientific understanding was itself in transition as the law was being crafted, moving from a focus on the tendency of ecological systems to approach equilibrium to one on the ongoing dynamics of many systems.” (1)

We will focus on the fourth issue, i.e., how the ESA is in conflict with the reality of constantly changing ecosystems.

A Static Vision of Nature

The ESA is based on assumptions about nature that were the conventional wisdom at the time the law was passed in 1973:

Evolution was considered a series of events that occurred in the distant past and is no longer actively changing plant and animal species. Theoretically evolution does not end, but at the time the ESA was passed in 1973, it was not believed to occur within a time frame that would be observable by man. Plant and animal species were therefore viewed as being distinct and unchanging.
This view of evolution was consistent with the prevailing public opinion in the United States, which does not believe in evolution. Many Americans believe that species have not changed since they were created by God.
Nature was perceived as reaching an “equilibrium state” that was stable over long periods of time.
Early conservation efforts were therefore based on the assumption that once achieved, an equilibrium state could be sustained if left undisturbed in nature preserves.
Darwin’s finches are an example of rapid evolution

We now know that these assumptions were mistaken. Evolution can occur very rapidly, particularly amongst plants and animals with short life spans and frequent generations. And ecosystems are constantly changing, particularly at a time of a rapidly changing climate and associated environmental conditions such as atmospheric conditions.

Professor Doremus tells us that ecological scientists played no role in the writing of the ESA and took little notice of the law when it was passed. The press also ignored the new law, which may have been a factor in its being unnoticed by the scientists who may have been in a position to raise the questions that should have been asked. “It seems that conservation scientists, like the general-interest press, and most legislators, did not consider the ESA groundbreaking, or even particularly important.” (1) In any case, the problems that have arisen in the implementation of the law were not foreseen by the politicians who passed it, nearly unanimously in 1973.

How does the ESA define “species?”

As its name implies, the heart of the law is how “species” are defined. In fact, if the law had stopped at providing legal protection for “species,” we would not be experiencing nearly as much difficulty with the implementation of the law. Unfortunately, the ESA’s “…definition of ‘species’ [is] broad, but not a model of clarity, ‘The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” (1)

Splitting species into sub-species and “distinct population segments” has proved problematic because taxonomy (the classification of organisms) has always been inherently subjective and will probably continue to be. The taxonomic system that was popular at the time the ESA was passed was Mayr’s biological species concept which identifies as a species any group that interbreeds within the group but not with outsiders. This definition is not useful for a species that hybridizes freely, such as the manzanitas of which six species have been designated as endangered. Professor Doremus tells us that US Fish & Wildlife Service now evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis.

Since the ESA was passed, many competing definitions of “species” have been proposed by scientists. There were 22 different definitions of species in the modern literature as recently as ten years ago. These competing definitions reflect disagreement about appropriate criteria for identifying species—morphology, interbreeding, or genetic divergence, as well as the degree of difference needed to define the boundary between species. We see these scientific controversies played out repeatedly in the law suits that are interpreting the ESA.

The identification of “distinct population segments” amongst vertebrates has proved to be even more problematic. Legal challenges to the determination of distinct population segments have reversed the rulings of the US Fish & Wildlife Service for many species that were considered genetically identical such as the sage grouse (eastern vs, western?) and the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (found in different meadows in the Rocky Mountains). In some cases, these rulings were reversed several times, and perhaps will be again! These reversals reflect the ambiguity of the law, as well as the science of taxonomy. The fact that the ESA specifically allows “citizen suits” has pushed the regulating agencies to implement the law more aggressively than politics alone would have predicted.

Species can and do move

In addition to considering species immutable and unchanging, the ESA also takes a static view of where they live. The concept of “distinct population segments” depends somewhat on the assumption that species of animals don’t radically alter their ranges in the short-term. The assumption is also consistent with the underlying conservation policies that tend to preserve specific places in order to protect rare species within those places.

We now understand that some ecosystems are internally dynamic. We recently told our readers of the need for the sand dunes near Antioch, California to move freely in the wind to sustain that fragile ecosystem. Professor Doremus also tells us about the constantly changing courses of braided rivers in Nebraska that are essential to the sustainability of that unique ecosystem.

Platte River in Nebraska is a braided river. Creative Commons

In a rapidly changing climate, the preservation of a species may require changing ranges. If the climate becomes too cold, too hot, too wet, or too dry for a species of plant or animal, its immediate survival may require that it move to higher or lower altitudes or latitudes. Moving may be a more effective strategy than the adaptation that may be slower than necessary to survive. Freezing species into their historic ranges does not ensure their survival at a time of rapidly changing climate. In some cases, a species has become plentiful in the new territory it has freely chosen to inhabit and simultaneously rare in its historic range where it has been designated as an endangered “distinct population.” Draconian measures have been taken to restore a species in its historic range, where it is no longer adapted to current conditions.

We leave you with Professor Doremus’ observation about the ESA: “The ESA’s static view of species, landscapes, and conservation obligations, while entirely understandable, has become a hindrance to effective conservation. The ESA’s lofty goals of conserving species and the ecosystems upon which they depend cannot be achieved without a more realistic vision of the dynamic qualities of nature and the ability to respond to the changes that are inevitable in dynamic systems.”

************************

(1) Holly Doremus, “The Endangered Species Act: Static Law Meets Dynamic World,” Journal of Law & Policy, Vol. 32: 175-235, 2010.

The unintended consequences of micromanaging nature

We must tell our readers about the collateral damage of misguided attempts to manage nature more often than we would like. We prefer positive stories, but in the hope of a better future we must also inform the public of the unintended consequences of the many projects that are killing one species of plant or animal based on the mistaken assumption that another plant or animal will benefit.

In this case, a project sponsored by the Nature Conservancy decimated the population of rare Arctic grayling fish in Centennial Valley, Montana, by damming the streams to create ponds for the benefit of the equally rare trumpeter swan. The grayling had spawned in those streams and the population plummeted when the streams were dammed.

The Nature Conservancy scientist who was interviewed by National Public Radio for this story said, “There are lots of examples where we try something that sounds like a good idea [and it] turns out not to be that good of an idea. Then [we] remedy it and—hopefully—never try it again.”

Unfortunately, they ARE trying it again. Now the scientists are trying to compensate for the damage to the grayling population by killing cutthroat trout that is considered a predator to the grayling. The cutthroat is not native, so that also makes it a candidate for eradication. It’s as though we are on a killing treadmill. One mistake seems to lead to another.

Stop and think before you shoot!

A bird lover in Hawaii takes a more thoughtful approach to the suggestion that introduced cockatoos and African parrots should be shot, based on the assumption that they are competing with the dwindling population of native birds. He points out that the native birds nest in the ground, while the cockatoos and parrots nest in cavities in the trees. Most of the native birds are nectar eaters, while the cockatoos and parrots eat seeds and nuts. So, he wonders if the introduced birds are really a threat to the native birds.

The exotic birds are either escaped pets or the descendents of them. The author of the article urges pet owners to take care of their pets and make a permanent commitment to their care. Releasing them into the forest is making them a target for people who think killing them would benefit other birds.

The author is not opposed to killing non-native animals when absolutely necessary, but he is at least willing to carefully consider if it is necessary, in his opinion. He is comfortable with the killing of rats, pigs, and feral cats, for example.

Million Trees takes this question a step further. We don’t think humans should micromanage nature. We don’t have enough information to presume to know better than nature what is best. We also have our own anthropomorphic criteria for which species is more important than another. Our judgment is self-serving and is not a substitute for the even-hand of nature. Nature follows the simple rule of “survival of the fittest.” Nature is as likely to save the lowly spider as it is to save the beautiful trumpeter swan.

A parable to illustrate the point

This parable, retold in Fanaticism of the Apocalypse (1) illustrates the futility of man’s attempt to control nature:

“Noah, as he is loading the animals onto the Ark, is alarmed by the large number of candidates. Mammals, birds, marsupials, penguins, primates, and lizards have already gone on board. The ass, the ox, the giraffe, the elk, the stag, the lion, and the cat urge the patriarch to raise the gangplank and close the hatches. The boat is chock-full, the cedar hull is about to crack open, the Deluge is threatening. Outside, a crowd of harmful or misshapen pests—cockroaches, toads, slugs, spiders—asks to be taken on. The toad speaks on behalf of his unsightly comrades: he pleads their cause with eloquence, pointing out to the Patriarch that they perform a useful function in nature. In God’s design, nothing is ugly or repugnant: everything is ingenious, even invertebrates, mollusks are necessary. No one has the right to destroy these creatures of the Lord. But Noah turns on his heel and decides to raise the anchor. Then a cloud of insects and pests assails him: fleas climb on his legs, crabs crawl in his pubic hair, lice swarm on his head, leeches, stinkbugs, and mosquitoes stick to his skin without him noticing them. Snakes slip into his flowing hair, spiders take up residence in his beard. That is how the whole bestiary was spared.”

We fiddle with nature at our own peril.

*****************************

(1) Pascal Bruckner, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse, Polity, May 2013