Environmentally speaking, that is. After all, we know that the Earth is our collective Mother. But who is mom's counterpart in looking after our fundamental biological needs?
If you were to look for the answer in many very old native cultures around the world, you might decide that the answer is the sun. Whether it is the Egyptian Re, the Navajo Tsohanoai, the Hindu Surya, or numerous others, the Sun is often seen as a protector and patriarch.
Should we feel good about that? After all, the Sun only sticks around half the time at best, is terribly inconsistent from month to month in providing us with heat and light, and seems to pick favorites (just ask an Ecuadorean and Swede if they feel that "Dad" treats them equally). And to top it all off, we know that it's only a matter of time before he abandons us altogether.
Fortunately, those varied cultures, for all of their truly profound wisdom and insight into the workings of our world, got this one wrong. We know that thanks to the work of the authors Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod. They tell us that our environmental daddy is not some distant and unpredictable ball of gas, but rather a non-governmental organization right here in our midst known as Environmental Defense Fund.
OK, perhaps I am paraphrasing Crutchfield and McLeod, and perhaps I am reaching somewhat in my interpretation of their words in doing so. The may not equate Environmental Defense Fund to Mother Earth in sustaining life. But in their recent book Forces for Good, they identify and analyze the common practices of a dozen non-profit groups that they have assessed to be the most effective and to have the highest impact. Among those twelve is but a single environmental group, and that group is Environmental Defense Fund. In the words of Crutchfield and McLeod, "By daring to 'find the ways that work', Environmental Defense has influenced not only other green groups but also government policy and business practices." (p. 14; note that "Fund" has returned to the name of the organization since publication of the book)
So, as we wind down the 40th anniversary year of this exemplary organization, allow me to offer a completely heartfelt and, ahem, unbiased thank you to Environmental Defense Fund for all they have done over the past four decades to ensure clean air and water, protect species and ecosystems, and curb global climate change. Best of luck for another 40 years!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Bad Idea
Back when it was funny, Saturday Night Live did a classic spoof commercial for "Bad Idea Jeans". A group of guys (including some comedic icons) were shooting the breeze while getting ready to play basketball. They spew out line after line of sheer idiocy (my favorite concludes, "...when am I going to make it back to Haiti?"), each followed by a black screen with only the words "bad idea" (btw, I couldn't find the clip on YouTube, but did find a commercial for what is apparently a real Swedish company that is actually called Bad Idea Jeans).
A re-make of this ad might include something along the lines of the plans of Planktos, a new company looking to get ahead of the game in the carbon market that will burst onto the scene when the U.S. eventually passes a carbon cap-and-trade bill. NYT environmental blogger Andy Revkin covers their plan in a recent post. The idea is basically to dump tons of iron into the sea to simulate natural settlement of dust containing iron that stimulates blooms of microscopic algae. The algae photosynthesize, which captures the carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere in great excess and causes the greenhouse effect and all of its consequences.
The problem with this plan is that algal blooms are, by definition, episodic and even extreme events. They represent a temporary yet drastic change in the ecosystem that then subsides with a return to more normal conditions. Algal blooms are akin to the pulse of wildflower blooms that can color woodland meadows or coastal dunes for brief periods at the right time of year, but they likely cause much greater biological and chemical changes given the nature of photosynthetic activity. We know very little about the natural frequency, intensity or effects of algal blooms, and therefore cannot possibly predict the consequences of stimulating more of them.
Furthermore, we have no idea what other ecological impacts might take place. As noted in a previous post, we are only just beginning to catalog the microbial and planktonic communities of the marine realm, let alone understand how they are structured and function. This makes me think of another recent NYT article that really drives home our very limited understanding of the natural world and the need for humilty and prudence in managing our effects upon it. It was discovered recently that a decades long effort to protect the endangered greenback cutthroat trout in Colorado might have been focused on the wrong fish, which instead was the more common Colorado River cutthroat trout.
I point this out not to mock those involved with the effort. Biological taxonomy is neither simple nor straightforward. Defining and identifying species is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. I once asked a leading ichthyologist for the best guide book to help me distinguish the longfin damselfish from the dusky damselfish in preparation for a field study. His response was that there was no such book because every book got them wrong (so don't put much stock in the info provided in the links). And these are two of the most common fishes on clear, shallow and well studied Caribbean reefs. Similarly, the greenback trout misidentification happened with a large vertebrate in a system that is relatively easy to observe and study (i.e., a stream, compared with the ocean) and surrounded by biologists, fishery managers and anglers who all know fish and know them well. If we are prone to make these very basic errors, then we should be very wary of the potential to make far more profound errors in systems for which we have much, much less basic understanding. But it is one thing to call a fish by the wrong name, and another to disrupt the fundamental chemistry of an entire ecosystem.
Curbing global climate change is clearly one of our greatest challenges, not simply among environmental issues but among all public policy issues. However, we should first strive to make headway on energy efficiency, development of renewable sources, and less risky carbon-capture approaches (e.g., planting trees stimulates photosynthesis and carbon dioxide uptake in a much better understood way). Dumping iron into the sea is the environmental equivalent of standing over a beaker containing a pile of unknown solid white cubes with a beaker of water. If you pour the water in and the cubes are tofu, you've got miso soup. But if they're pure sodium, the resulting explosion will make you lose your eyebrows if you're lucky and more likely go blind. Bad idea.
A re-make of this ad might include something along the lines of the plans of Planktos, a new company looking to get ahead of the game in the carbon market that will burst onto the scene when the U.S. eventually passes a carbon cap-and-trade bill. NYT environmental blogger Andy Revkin covers their plan in a recent post. The idea is basically to dump tons of iron into the sea to simulate natural settlement of dust containing iron that stimulates blooms of microscopic algae. The algae photosynthesize, which captures the carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere in great excess and causes the greenhouse effect and all of its consequences.
The problem with this plan is that algal blooms are, by definition, episodic and even extreme events. They represent a temporary yet drastic change in the ecosystem that then subsides with a return to more normal conditions. Algal blooms are akin to the pulse of wildflower blooms that can color woodland meadows or coastal dunes for brief periods at the right time of year, but they likely cause much greater biological and chemical changes given the nature of photosynthetic activity. We know very little about the natural frequency, intensity or effects of algal blooms, and therefore cannot possibly predict the consequences of stimulating more of them.
Furthermore, we have no idea what other ecological impacts might take place. As noted in a previous post, we are only just beginning to catalog the microbial and planktonic communities of the marine realm, let alone understand how they are structured and function. This makes me think of another recent NYT article that really drives home our very limited understanding of the natural world and the need for humilty and prudence in managing our effects upon it. It was discovered recently that a decades long effort to protect the endangered greenback cutthroat trout in Colorado might have been focused on the wrong fish, which instead was the more common Colorado River cutthroat trout.
I point this out not to mock those involved with the effort. Biological taxonomy is neither simple nor straightforward. Defining and identifying species is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. I once asked a leading ichthyologist for the best guide book to help me distinguish the longfin damselfish from the dusky damselfish in preparation for a field study. His response was that there was no such book because every book got them wrong (so don't put much stock in the info provided in the links). And these are two of the most common fishes on clear, shallow and well studied Caribbean reefs. Similarly, the greenback trout misidentification happened with a large vertebrate in a system that is relatively easy to observe and study (i.e., a stream, compared with the ocean) and surrounded by biologists, fishery managers and anglers who all know fish and know them well. If we are prone to make these very basic errors, then we should be very wary of the potential to make far more profound errors in systems for which we have much, much less basic understanding. But it is one thing to call a fish by the wrong name, and another to disrupt the fundamental chemistry of an entire ecosystem.
Curbing global climate change is clearly one of our greatest challenges, not simply among environmental issues but among all public policy issues. However, we should first strive to make headway on energy efficiency, development of renewable sources, and less risky carbon-capture approaches (e.g., planting trees stimulates photosynthesis and carbon dioxide uptake in a much better understood way). Dumping iron into the sea is the environmental equivalent of standing over a beaker containing a pile of unknown solid white cubes with a beaker of water. If you pour the water in and the cubes are tofu, you've got miso soup. But if they're pure sodium, the resulting explosion will make you lose your eyebrows if you're lucky and more likely go blind. Bad idea.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Mouseworld
I have to tip my hat to CNN.com for this post. Some time ago, I signed up to receive environmental alerts from them, and I've been pleasantly surprised by the frequency and breadth of their environmental coverage (although often disappointed by the depth). While on the road a fair bit over the past month or two, several of their news stories got put aside in my inbox. Tonight, in between pitches during the Sox game, I started catching up on those articles, and noticed a troubling (but hardly new or surprising) theme: the repeated declines, threats and conflicts with large wild animals.
First there was a report on the dire status of Borneo's pygmy elephant (which, despite its name, certainly qualifies as a large animal standing 8 feet high) due primarily to habitat destruction. Several weeks later, there was a report on a herd of around 100 Asian elephants swimming across India's Brahmaputra River to the island of Majuli, where they damaged houses and destroyed sugar cane fields. The elephants likely headed for Majuli due to the squeeze imposed by habitat loss on the mainland. Less than two weeks later, in the same region of India, six Asian elephants were electrocuted after drinking rice beer fermenting in large tubs on farmers' plantations. These stories made me think of my post way back in May on other human-elephant interactions. If we can find a way to share the landscape with Earth's largest land animal, that would be a potent symbol of our potential to co-exist with many other species. Sadly, I find myself thinking I had better plan a trip to see an elephant in the wild before they are too rare, or worse.
Next there was news of the continued decline of loggerhead turtles, ocean-going reptiles that can weigh up to 300 lbs (the CNN link appears to be dead, but the NY Times article is still up). The federal report attributes the trend to expanded commercial fishing operations, and destruction and development of nesting beaches is also a common factor in the decline of sea turtles. As with the elephants in Indian and Borneo, we are putting the squeeze on our sea turtles.
We are doing the same thing to one of our closest living relatives. In eastern Congo, rebels have not only seized the habitat that forms one of the last refuges for mountain gorillas, but they and the army inadvertently kill many of the gorillas caught in the crossfire of their conflict, including 10 this year. With only 700 mountain gorillas left in the world, any killings and loss of habitat are simply too much.
The simple reality is that all living things need space to live, and big animals need more space. As we continually claim more land, we will continue to lose more elephants, sea turtles, gorillas, and other large, magnificent beasts. We might be moving toward a world where the only species surrounding us are those small critters that can get by on limited space and can fit in the few cracks and crevices we give them. Of course, even this vision of "Mouseworld" is not a certainty, since small species are also susceptible to extinction due to habitat loss and other threats such as pollution. Perhaps we're lining up for a world that we share with naught but microscopic bugs, germs, bacteria and viruses. We might want to be careful about moving in that direction, for some of those organisms have proven to be surprisingly adaptable and nasty. However, which species will be our neighbors might not be an issue if we continue the trend of squeezing ourselves out of living space as well...
First there was a report on the dire status of Borneo's pygmy elephant (which, despite its name, certainly qualifies as a large animal standing 8 feet high) due primarily to habitat destruction. Several weeks later, there was a report on a herd of around 100 Asian elephants swimming across India's Brahmaputra River to the island of Majuli, where they damaged houses and destroyed sugar cane fields. The elephants likely headed for Majuli due to the squeeze imposed by habitat loss on the mainland. Less than two weeks later, in the same region of India, six Asian elephants were electrocuted after drinking rice beer fermenting in large tubs on farmers' plantations. These stories made me think of my post way back in May on other human-elephant interactions. If we can find a way to share the landscape with Earth's largest land animal, that would be a potent symbol of our potential to co-exist with many other species. Sadly, I find myself thinking I had better plan a trip to see an elephant in the wild before they are too rare, or worse.
Next there was news of the continued decline of loggerhead turtles, ocean-going reptiles that can weigh up to 300 lbs (the CNN link appears to be dead, but the NY Times article is still up). The federal report attributes the trend to expanded commercial fishing operations, and destruction and development of nesting beaches is also a common factor in the decline of sea turtles. As with the elephants in Indian and Borneo, we are putting the squeeze on our sea turtles.
We are doing the same thing to one of our closest living relatives. In eastern Congo, rebels have not only seized the habitat that forms one of the last refuges for mountain gorillas, but they and the army inadvertently kill many of the gorillas caught in the crossfire of their conflict, including 10 this year. With only 700 mountain gorillas left in the world, any killings and loss of habitat are simply too much.
The simple reality is that all living things need space to live, and big animals need more space. As we continually claim more land, we will continue to lose more elephants, sea turtles, gorillas, and other large, magnificent beasts. We might be moving toward a world where the only species surrounding us are those small critters that can get by on limited space and can fit in the few cracks and crevices we give them. Of course, even this vision of "Mouseworld" is not a certainty, since small species are also susceptible to extinction due to habitat loss and other threats such as pollution. Perhaps we're lining up for a world that we share with naught but microscopic bugs, germs, bacteria and viruses. We might want to be careful about moving in that direction, for some of those organisms have proven to be surprisingly adaptable and nasty. However, which species will be our neighbors might not be an issue if we continue the trend of squeezing ourselves out of living space as well...
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
New friends, Part II
Around the same time that my sister's new friend was herself making a new friend in an old lobster (as described in Part I below), two friends of mine were welcoming a whole slew of new friends into their home. Ryan and Katie are the proud owner of a magnificent coral reef aquarium in their East Village apartment, something to keep the sea in their lives in between their much beloved dive trips to exotic and far-flung corners of the globe (as an aside, as a fine diver, writer, photographer, and naturalist, Ryan really should be authoring his own marine-themed blog; stay tuned for the link when it happens...). Among the residents of their aquarium is a pair of Bangaii cardinalfish.
This past summer, Ryan and Katie reported that their Bangaii pair had given birth to 18 babies (a few of which are pictured above). Like all cardinalfish, Bangaii cardinals adopt the peculiar practice of brooding young in the mouth of the male. The male will safeguard the fertilized eggs as the embryos develop, and then release them upon hatching. Ryan and Katie expressed great pride at providing a home to such a large clutch of young of this species, which is critically endangered in the wild and listed on the IUCN Red List.
Conveniently, my friend and former labmate during grad school John (who also appears in last month's "Postscripts" post and May's "Who needs outer space?") was visiting when news of Ryan and Katie's new arrivals came. John is an expert on tropical fishes of the Indo-Pacific, and I asked him about the Bangaii in the wild and in captivity. He confirmed the dire status of the species in the wild due to its very restricted distribution, overharvest for the aquarium trade, and habitat destruction. However, John also guessed that the global population in aquaria is probably much larger than the wild population had ever been. Therefore, captive breeding like that done by Ryan and Katie is taking harvest pressure off the wild population, and one day might provide the basis for a reintroduction program.
Recently, Ryan and Katie reported that the breeding pair gave birth to a second, smaller clutch of four young. This one caught them off guard, and before they could quarantine the newcomers from the other inhabitants of the tank - several of which might find them a tasty treat - one had swum down to the haunt of their dusky jawfish Terrence. Now, Terrence was the victim of a previous run-in with an urchin spine that left him blind in one eye and quite sullen in mood. However, this accident proved fortunate for the wayward Bangaii.
Rather than swallow the Bangaii baby whole in a manner befitting the ambush predator style of his species, Terrence not only let him/her live but slowly adopted a partnership. The Bangaii serves as an extra set of eyes on Terrence's blind side, while Terrence provides protection (or at least provides a feeling of safety) from other predators. And, the friendship has rejuvenated Terrence's spirits, making him more active and vibrant. Ryan notes that it seems these two fish have formed their own unique symbiosis (discussed in July's "Symbiotic betrayal" and, ahem, further addressed in last month's "Postscripts").
I think he's right. It is different than many symbioses seen in nature in that it is not the product of repeated interactions between two species that is continually reinforced as an inherent behavioral trait at the genetic level through natural selection. Rather, it is opportunistic and situational, and while it might lack the long-term persistence of other famous partnerships in nature, it is significant in what it says about the adaptability of living things and the responsive plasticity of their behavior. It makes me think of the famous, fascinating, and frankly quite adorable friendship the developed between a juvenile hippo and an ancient giant tortoise at a Kenyan nature preserve following the Indian Ocean tsunami.
I'll leave this post with some thoughts from Ryan on his Bangaii/jawfish duo, the sentiments of which can likely apply to many people's thoughts on the hippo/tortoise pairing...and probably many other oddball friendships we've all encountered over the years:
"That such a curious friendship could form in a cube in my living room is such a quirky nugget of life-affirming treasure that I thought I would share it with some of those who’ve been polite enough to feign interest when I’ve forced you to hunker in front of the glass while I wax poetic on such topics as the shell games played by hermit crabs and the peripatetic nature of coral polyps. Hopefully it will set the mood for your weekend."
This past summer, Ryan and Katie reported that their Bangaii pair had given birth to 18 babies (a few of which are pictured above). Like all cardinalfish, Bangaii cardinals adopt the peculiar practice of brooding young in the mouth of the male. The male will safeguard the fertilized eggs as the embryos develop, and then release them upon hatching. Ryan and Katie expressed great pride at providing a home to such a large clutch of young of this species, which is critically endangered in the wild and listed on the IUCN Red List.
Conveniently, my friend and former labmate during grad school John (who also appears in last month's "Postscripts" post and May's "Who needs outer space?") was visiting when news of Ryan and Katie's new arrivals came. John is an expert on tropical fishes of the Indo-Pacific, and I asked him about the Bangaii in the wild and in captivity. He confirmed the dire status of the species in the wild due to its very restricted distribution, overharvest for the aquarium trade, and habitat destruction. However, John also guessed that the global population in aquaria is probably much larger than the wild population had ever been. Therefore, captive breeding like that done by Ryan and Katie is taking harvest pressure off the wild population, and one day might provide the basis for a reintroduction program.
Recently, Ryan and Katie reported that the breeding pair gave birth to a second, smaller clutch of four young. This one caught them off guard, and before they could quarantine the newcomers from the other inhabitants of the tank - several of which might find them a tasty treat - one had swum down to the haunt of their dusky jawfish Terrence. Now, Terrence was the victim of a previous run-in with an urchin spine that left him blind in one eye and quite sullen in mood. However, this accident proved fortunate for the wayward Bangaii.
Rather than swallow the Bangaii baby whole in a manner befitting the ambush predator style of his species, Terrence not only let him/her live but slowly adopted a partnership. The Bangaii serves as an extra set of eyes on Terrence's blind side, while Terrence provides protection (or at least provides a feeling of safety) from other predators. And, the friendship has rejuvenated Terrence's spirits, making him more active and vibrant. Ryan notes that it seems these two fish have formed their own unique symbiosis (discussed in July's "Symbiotic betrayal" and, ahem, further addressed in last month's "Postscripts").
I think he's right. It is different than many symbioses seen in nature in that it is not the product of repeated interactions between two species that is continually reinforced as an inherent behavioral trait at the genetic level through natural selection. Rather, it is opportunistic and situational, and while it might lack the long-term persistence of other famous partnerships in nature, it is significant in what it says about the adaptability of living things and the responsive plasticity of their behavior. It makes me think of the famous, fascinating, and frankly quite adorable friendship the developed between a juvenile hippo and an ancient giant tortoise at a Kenyan nature preserve following the Indian Ocean tsunami.
I'll leave this post with some thoughts from Ryan on his Bangaii/jawfish duo, the sentiments of which can likely apply to many people's thoughts on the hippo/tortoise pairing...and probably many other oddball friendships we've all encountered over the years:
"That such a curious friendship could form in a cube in my living room is such a quirky nugget of life-affirming treasure that I thought I would share it with some of those who’ve been polite enough to feign interest when I’ve forced you to hunker in front of the glass while I wax poetic on such topics as the shell games played by hermit crabs and the peripatetic nature of coral polyps. Hopefully it will set the mood for your weekend."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New friends, Part I
My father experienced his 15 minutes of fame this past summer at a Wilco concert in Northampton, Mass. As Dad stood in the front row right along the stage, lead singer Jeff Tweedy knelt down by him, put his arm around Dad's shoulders, and performed a song that was part duet, part serenade. My sister reported that this was one of the more surreal experiences of her life, both for seeing her musical idol sharing this oddly tender moment with our 60 year old father, but also for the minor celebrity status it brought about for Dad and sis. The incident became a hot topic on Wilco message boards the following week, and several fellow fans approached them at that show and others upon recognizing them. A few of these even traded contact info with Becky and became pen pals.
Among these new friends was Elaine, a doctoral student in physiology at the University of Vermont. Upon learning about Dad and Becky's affinity for all things connected to the sea, not to mention their son/brother's professional connection to the marine realm, Elaine recounted a tale of her own ascent to celebrity status through a friendship with a giant lobster in a local supermarket. The gargantuan crustacean, appropriately nicknamed Andre, had made his way from the briny Atlantic to the Price Chopper in Burlington. There, Elaine and her friend Crystal developed a fondness and admiration for the big fella, and began an effort to raise money to buy him and save him from the dinner table. Their cause sparked a local stir, and they soon had an offer from a local pilot to fly the pair with their new friend down to Boston so he could move into a new home at the New England Aquarium, where he will serve a valuable educational role. Watch a video clip of the trio's odyssey from WPTZ TV here.
The news report does not comment on Andre's age or length. The relationship between size and age in lobsters is highly variable, as in many marine invertebrates, and depends upon temperature, food and habitat quality, and inherent genetic traits, among other factors. The relationship between length and weight, on the other hand, is typically very consistent. Using a published equation for lobsters in the Gulf of St Lawrence, at 17 pounds Andre is probably just over 200 mm in carapace length (CL; i.e., the main body of the animal covered by the largest section of shell, as illustrated here), which is around 8 inches. Since the carapace is only about half the total length of the animal, Andre probably measures at least 16 inches from head to tail, not including the claws. In the Bay of Fundy, lobsters take 20-35 years to reach 200 mm CL (as measured in this study), which gives us a ballpark estimate of Andre's age.
To put Andre's size and age characteristics in perspective, The Lobster Conservancy (whose website is well worth browsing for a wealth of information on lobster biology and fisheries) reports that about half of the lobsters in the Gulf of Maine reach maturity just before they reach the size at which they can be legally harvested. In Long Island Sound, very few lobsters remain in the water after they reach the minimum legal size (see Figures 5 and 6 in this CT DEP report), and the recent stock assessment by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (the interstate body charged with setting coast-wide lobster harvest regulations) shows similar patterns in other locations (find it at http://www.asmfc.org/ and see Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). Therefore, fishing pressure is quite intense and most lobsters probably do not get a chance to spawn more than once (yet, lobster populations remain remarkably resilient to this pressure).
The Lobster Conservancy also shows how a marginal increase in the minimum size in the 1980s seemed to spawn (pun fully intended) a rapid increase in the lobster stock due to the greater average fecundity of the spawners who were afforded more time to grow and spawn. So, monsters like Andre (and I say that with great affection as a long-time fan of Godzilla, who is seen battling a giant lobster above in "Godzilla versus the Sea Monster") have not only pulled off an impressive feat in avoiding the traps for so many years, but they probably play a disproportionately important role in producing the next generation of lobsters (especially true of Andre's girlfriends).
So hats off to Elaine for getting the big guy to a place where he can help teach others about these remarkable bugs of the deep!
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Postscripts
August saw a fair bit of vacation crammed into a single month for your favorite blogger, with one result being a post-less month. The month began with a canoe camping expedition in Algonquin Provincial Park with two Aussie diplomats and Brooklyn poet (not to mention the lovely lady pictured above and several of her friends, along with mink, bullfrogs, loons, mergansers, and other critters). Follow-up expeditions in New England – a 100 mile running relay down route 100 in Vermont and a climb to the Lakes of the Clouds hut on Mt Washington, complete with a mountaintop wedding – kept the action and adventure going. But, in the words of the great minstrel Marshall Mathers, it’s time to snap back to reality.
Part of that snap means once again meeting my obligations to the Running On faithful (I know the six of you have been waiting with bated breath), and several posts will be forthcoming in the fall. Before getting to those, however, I need to address a few things in my last few posts.
Firstly, re-reading “The root of all evil?” I feel a little funny for picking on an Islamic creationist while letting all of the fundamentalist Christian nutjobs off the hook. To be sure, Mr. Yahya deserves the criticism I directed toward him for taking the extraordinary step of trying to forcefully inject his pseudo-science into the academic world, a step I have yet to see be taken by a Christian creationist or “intelligent design” proponent (Dr. Michael Behe notwithstanding). However, in decrying creationism, I should have thrown in a jab at the Bible thumpers in the interest of balance (although I will most definitely go here if I’m ever in the ‘hood). Also in the interest of balance, have a look at this excellent essay on the profound contributions of Islamic scholars in days gone by to the global body of scientific knowledge, a tradition that has sadly been greatly diminished (but not lost).
Onto “Symbiotic Betrayal”: Sigh. On the plus side, my hunch on the “scumbag or not a scumbag” question concerning Michael Vick has proven to be correct (of course, when the feds hand down a 19-page indictment, they've usually got their man).
Part of that snap means once again meeting my obligations to the Running On faithful (I know the six of you have been waiting with bated breath), and several posts will be forthcoming in the fall. Before getting to those, however, I need to address a few things in my last few posts.
Firstly, re-reading “The root of all evil?” I feel a little funny for picking on an Islamic creationist while letting all of the fundamentalist Christian nutjobs off the hook. To be sure, Mr. Yahya deserves the criticism I directed toward him for taking the extraordinary step of trying to forcefully inject his pseudo-science into the academic world, a step I have yet to see be taken by a Christian creationist or “intelligent design” proponent (Dr. Michael Behe notwithstanding). However, in decrying creationism, I should have thrown in a jab at the Bible thumpers in the interest of balance (although I will most definitely go here if I’m ever in the ‘hood). Also in the interest of balance, have a look at this excellent essay on the profound contributions of Islamic scholars in days gone by to the global body of scientific knowledge, a tradition that has sadly been greatly diminished (but not lost).
Onto “Symbiotic Betrayal”: Sigh. On the plus side, my hunch on the “scumbag or not a scumbag” question concerning Michael Vick has proven to be correct (of course, when the feds hand down a 19-page indictment, they've usually got their man).
On the down side, I grossly overstated the nature of our relationship with our canine friends. If I had stopped to give it a half-second’s thought, I would have quickly realized that what we now have is in fact domestication and not symbiosis. The relationship started as a symbiosis, when wild dogs would scavenge at the fringe of hunter-gatherer camps, and in return for the free feed would probably warn the people in those camps about lurking sabretooth tigers or whatever nasties might be nearby. However, once we took them in and began controlling their breeding, learning, feeding, etc., the relationship became something very different from a true biological symbiosis. I think I was a bit fired up about Vick and wanted to make a statement, so I needed to cram it into the context of the blog. I also think I wanted to include a picture of the mighty Caz, as well as the long and varied list of services provided by dogs. And it is because of those latter two elements that I am leaving the post up rather than hide my scientific shame. It took a LONG time to find all of those dog links!
Some final comments on Vick and dogfighting: Some have argued, including one RO loyalist, that the Vick situation is a witch hunt, is far less important than other issues, and has parallels with other sensationalist news stories, such as OJ, Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole, Britney, Lindsey, etc. I agree to a point. There are more pressing issues, but that doesn’t make this OK and shouldn’t let him off the hook. It is not comparable to the other celeb tales listed because those are the isolated cases of a few wackos who live in a world so far removed from that most of us know as to make them mere freak shows, distractions and nothing more. That’s not to say that murder, pedophilia, drug abuse, etc., are not real problems, but we will learn very little about those issues by obsessing on these extreme outlier situations (how many cases of pedophilia – alleged or otherwise – begin with a former child star who grows up to have his own theme park and bizarre skull collection???).
Vick’s case, on the other hand, is symptomatic of a larger problem. He was immersed in this culture, one not unique to sports stars. And therein will lie the true test of our outrage. If we are on more than just a witch hunt, then we will demand that this deplorable practice be stamped out across the country now that this high-profile case has called it to our attention. PETA and the Humane Society will offer Vick a chance at redemption after he serves his time by serving as an anti-dogfighting spokesman, donating a portion of his future salary to the cause (he will play again; pro sports have no shame – just ask Latrell Sprewell), and so on, and we will put our money where our mouths are in supporting them. However, once Vick is sentenced and in jail, if we then simply turn to watch what Joey is able to do with the Falcons (well, or something less gruesome), then our righteous indignation will prove to be little more than a big pile of dogshi…
Vick’s case, on the other hand, is symptomatic of a larger problem. He was immersed in this culture, one not unique to sports stars. And therein will lie the true test of our outrage. If we are on more than just a witch hunt, then we will demand that this deplorable practice be stamped out across the country now that this high-profile case has called it to our attention. PETA and the Humane Society will offer Vick a chance at redemption after he serves his time by serving as an anti-dogfighting spokesman, donating a portion of his future salary to the cause (he will play again; pro sports have no shame – just ask Latrell Sprewell), and so on, and we will put our money where our mouths are in supporting them. However, once Vick is sentenced and in jail, if we then simply turn to watch what Joey is able to do with the Falcons (well, or something less gruesome), then our righteous indignation will prove to be little more than a big pile of dogshi…
Monday, July 23, 2007
Symbiotic Betrayal
By now, all sports fans and animal lovers, and most people who glance at a newspaper from time to time, know that Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three others have been indicted by a federal grand jury on multiple crimes related to a dogfighting operation. That Vick is a remarkable athlete is without question. Whether he is also a deplorable scumbag remains to be seen (my official innocent-until-proven-guilty stance is that the jury is still out; my gut feeling after reading the 19 page indictment is an unqualified "yes").
Regardless, why do I raise the Vick indictment in a blog that has variously covered ecology and natural history, environmentalism broadly and marine conservation specifically, and the intersection between science and public policy? It is because the issue pertains to the relationship between humans and dogs that represents a type of mutually beneficial symbiosis. In fact, in my mind it is the most diverse and unusual symbiosis in all of nature.
"Symbiosis" is a broad biological concept representing any close, long-term interaction between two species. Not all types are to the benefit of both species, specifically the many types of parasitism (e.g., mistletoe that stunts the growth or kills host trees; isopod crustaceans that adhere to the tissues of marine fish). However, in my mind the more intriguing types benefit both species involved, a sort of evolutionary partnership. Marine examples of these mutualistic symbioses abound. Corals are able to form magnificent reefs by housing photosynthetic algae called zooxanthellae, which act as a sort of internal power station. There is an unwritten law somewhere that every dive magazine ever published must contain at minimum three photos (including ads) of a clownfish or anemonefish and its partner anemone. And the terrestrial world is not without its examples, too. The hippopotamus has a somewhat complex symbiosis with the oxpecker, which removes ticks but might also prolong wounds, and a more straightforward (and more funky) one with the black labeo fish, which cleans the inside of the mouth when the hippo is submerged. This is but a sampling of the many and varied ecological partnerships we called symbioses.
But our own symbiosis with dogs particularly fascinates me. Perhaps I am biased as a member of one of the species partners. Still, in exchange for providing shelter, food and other care, dogs have come to provide a wide range of services to people. This diversity has come to rely upon considerable coaching and selective breeding from our end, to be sure. But the origins of the partnership probably lay in a decision on the canid end to come to us. From there it grew, and has now evolved to span a wide array of services:
- Guidance for the blind and disabled.
- Search and rescue in both wilderness and urban areas, not to mention in water.
- Sniffing out landmines and bombs, including during the thick of war.
- Sniffing illegal plant and animal products, such as those at risk for bird flu.
- Hunting (once necessary for our survival, now mostly for our recreation).
- Protection and herding of cattle (part of the heritage of the mutt above) and sheep.
- Personal protection and police work.
- Transportation and draft work.
- Therapy for the ill and elderly (once a service of the mutt above).
Nowhere will you find a symbiosis so wide-ranging. And those who practice the sick, grotesque, and - thank you Sen. Byrd - barbaric "sport" of dogfighting have betrayed a longstanding and productive relationship. If we do not stamp this out across the board (not just as it involves one high-profile athlete) we will perpetrate a gross dishonor to evolution, our historical heritage and, most importantly, our friends.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The root of all evil?
That "money is the root of all evil" is one of our most misquoted sayings, and I am often quick to remind people that the original line from the New Testament (Timothy 6:10) is actually "For the love of money is the root of all evil." The complete quote more accurately places blame for ills done in the name of the almighty dollar on the ill-doer who covets that dollar, rather than on the dollar itself. Indeed, a slip of paper or chip of metal has little potential to do harm on its own and requires a living, breathing person to put it to negative use. Moreover, money can do enormous good in the right hands, as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Richard Branson all demonstrate.
There is, however, something to be said for the misquote given the many instances of people committing nefarious deeds not out of a love of money, but rather using money to achieve power, advance a counterproductive agenda, or otherwise act against the public good. As a recent example, Islamic author Harun Yahya (a.k.a. Adnan Oktar) has produced a new book entitled Atlas of Creation and has distributed a large but unknown number of free copies to institutions across the U.S. and elsewhere. Production and widespread distribution of the book could not have taken place without considerable financial resources, and the giveaways suggest that profit (i.e., "love of money") is not the motive. Instead, the motive is to effect a shift in public opinion. Money made the effort possible.
Now, I am not implying that Mr. Yahya has a sinister motive in producing and distributing the book. However, the simple fact of the matter is that he is dead wrong. That in and of itself is not a problem, except that by perpetrating the argument that biological evolution is a fallacy, he is contributing to the regressive trend in science education that sadly is too common across the U.S., and to a lesser extent other nations. Furthermore, evolution is not merely a theory to be studied and refined within the ivory tower as a primarily esoteric and academic exercise. Rather, as the unifying concept in all of the life sciences, understanding evolution is critical in advancing fields from the micro-level like epidemiology to the macro-level like ecology and conservation biology, fields with enormous and important practical applications.
As a staunch believer in the First Amendment (regardless of whether it is enacted in the U.S. or elsewhere), I would never advocate restricting the right of Mr. Yahya or anyone else to express his or her views. Of course, money allows some, like Mr. Yahya, to do more with their free speech than others. The internet has offset this imbalance to a degree, as discussed by Vice President Gore in his new book The Assault on Reason (and evidenced by yours truly and others who have caught the blog-bug), but the fact remains that with less cash in the bank we will never reach an audience the size of those who can pay for greater advertising and distribution. This is an imbalance we can and must live with.
My biggest problem, however, with the approach taken by Mr. Yahya is that he is addressing a scientific issue but skirting the scientific process. Science necessarily restricts free speech to a degree by requiring that any analysis or interpretation to be published, and therefore made part of the permanent scientific record, meets a high level of scrutiny. As scientists, our collective assumption is that what appears in the literature represents a rigorous analysis of data collected with a sound experimental design and interpreted as objectively as possible, free from bias and prejudice. This does not mean that everything published is definitively "true". "Truth" is a tricky concept in science. From microbiologists to astrophysicists, we are trying to understand complex, interacting systems that are often not able to be directly perceived with our five senses. We rely on indirect impressions of a piece of the system of interest, quantified, analyzed and interpreted as best we can. Because the data often provide an imperfect picture, subjectivity inevitably creeps in, and differing perspectives arise. But we all trust that those perspectives have been adequately critiqued to ensure that, though we all might not agree, the conclusions have been reached in a scientifically valid manner.
Mr. Yahya has avoided the scrutiny of peer review and the scientific process, but is trying to inject his work into the scientific community nonetheless. That, to me, is a huge problem. He knows, undoubtedly, that his interpretations would not hold up, so going through the process was probably never a consideration. They would not hold up because his perspective is rooted not in science but rather in religion, albeit dressed up to look like science. And religion, while capable of promoting solid morals and doing tremendous good, is also capable of tremendous harm. The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that it is religion that is actually "the root of all evil". The actions of Mr. Yahya and others that work against reason and scientific progress (and all of the benefits it brings) suggest that he might be right.
There is, however, something to be said for the misquote given the many instances of people committing nefarious deeds not out of a love of money, but rather using money to achieve power, advance a counterproductive agenda, or otherwise act against the public good. As a recent example, Islamic author Harun Yahya (a.k.a. Adnan Oktar) has produced a new book entitled Atlas of Creation and has distributed a large but unknown number of free copies to institutions across the U.S. and elsewhere. Production and widespread distribution of the book could not have taken place without considerable financial resources, and the giveaways suggest that profit (i.e., "love of money") is not the motive. Instead, the motive is to effect a shift in public opinion. Money made the effort possible.
Now, I am not implying that Mr. Yahya has a sinister motive in producing and distributing the book. However, the simple fact of the matter is that he is dead wrong. That in and of itself is not a problem, except that by perpetrating the argument that biological evolution is a fallacy, he is contributing to the regressive trend in science education that sadly is too common across the U.S., and to a lesser extent other nations. Furthermore, evolution is not merely a theory to be studied and refined within the ivory tower as a primarily esoteric and academic exercise. Rather, as the unifying concept in all of the life sciences, understanding evolution is critical in advancing fields from the micro-level like epidemiology to the macro-level like ecology and conservation biology, fields with enormous and important practical applications.
As a staunch believer in the First Amendment (regardless of whether it is enacted in the U.S. or elsewhere), I would never advocate restricting the right of Mr. Yahya or anyone else to express his or her views. Of course, money allows some, like Mr. Yahya, to do more with their free speech than others. The internet has offset this imbalance to a degree, as discussed by Vice President Gore in his new book The Assault on Reason (and evidenced by yours truly and others who have caught the blog-bug), but the fact remains that with less cash in the bank we will never reach an audience the size of those who can pay for greater advertising and distribution. This is an imbalance we can and must live with.
My biggest problem, however, with the approach taken by Mr. Yahya is that he is addressing a scientific issue but skirting the scientific process. Science necessarily restricts free speech to a degree by requiring that any analysis or interpretation to be published, and therefore made part of the permanent scientific record, meets a high level of scrutiny. As scientists, our collective assumption is that what appears in the literature represents a rigorous analysis of data collected with a sound experimental design and interpreted as objectively as possible, free from bias and prejudice. This does not mean that everything published is definitively "true". "Truth" is a tricky concept in science. From microbiologists to astrophysicists, we are trying to understand complex, interacting systems that are often not able to be directly perceived with our five senses. We rely on indirect impressions of a piece of the system of interest, quantified, analyzed and interpreted as best we can. Because the data often provide an imperfect picture, subjectivity inevitably creeps in, and differing perspectives arise. But we all trust that those perspectives have been adequately critiqued to ensure that, though we all might not agree, the conclusions have been reached in a scientifically valid manner.
Mr. Yahya has avoided the scrutiny of peer review and the scientific process, but is trying to inject his work into the scientific community nonetheless. That, to me, is a huge problem. He knows, undoubtedly, that his interpretations would not hold up, so going through the process was probably never a consideration. They would not hold up because his perspective is rooted not in science but rather in religion, albeit dressed up to look like science. And religion, while capable of promoting solid morals and doing tremendous good, is also capable of tremendous harm. The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that it is religion that is actually "the root of all evil". The actions of Mr. Yahya and others that work against reason and scientific progress (and all of the benefits it brings) suggest that he might be right.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Simplistic and shortsighted
My friend Hal sent me a recent opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that is critical of the modern environmental movement, yet is so full of holes that we should be calling for Dear Liza. A few quick (by my verbose standards) responses to claims in the article:
1. Perhaps the most mind-bogglingly naive statement in the piece is the following: "If cost-effective technologies to boost energy efficiency actually existed, industry would adopt them automatically, global warming or not." While I am attracted to many elements of libertarian philosophy (Dalmia works for the libertarian Reason Foundation), this gives far too much credit to the rationality of the free market. If the statement were true, the EPA would not have needed to cite and fine Wal-Mart for violation of idling regulations, a practice that needlessly burns 2.1 million gallons of diesel fuel each year (note: that fuel costs them money), despite a fairly simple cost-saving and environmentally beneficial solution (turn off the freaking engines!). As a fisheries biologist, the number of examples I have seen of fishermen irrationally outstripping the reproductive capacity of the resources that support their livelihood also challenges the assumption that industry will find the most sensible solutions.
2. The argument against energy efficiency ignores the tremendous savings that can be achieved by improvements in private homes, in addition to those by industry. If our government provided better information on how to make homes more energy efficient, as well as grants, loans and tax breaks to help bring about needed improvements, we could drastically reduce the need for hydropower.
3. On alternative energy sources, the piece states that most "...are still far from economically viable." This is true, but it ignores a huge factor. Dalmia notes that huge subsidies were originally provided to make many hydro dams possible. She fails to mention the subsidies still provided to make fossil fuel use "viable" (but likely adopts the alternative view). If solar, wind, wave and tidal (a.k.a. hydrokinetic), and other sources were given the same government support, these might be more economically viable sources in the near future, if not already. It's become somewhat cliche, but it's still true nonetheless, that if we had the same sort of "man on the moon by the end of the decade" vision and leadership today on renewable energy that JFK provided in 1961 on space exploration, we'd be having a very different debate right now.
4. There are a series of examples of green groups opposing alternative energy developments. The implication seems to be that if environmentalists claim that climate change is our most serious threat and therefore we do not unquestioningly accept all such renewable proposals, then we are obstructionists and hypocrites. This is a dangerously simplistic view. We need energy, and ALL energy sources have environmental impacts. That cannot be avoided. But asking questions about where to best locate facilities to minimize impacts is not only legitimate, it is irresponsible to not ask those questions. Although some will oppose all wind power, for example, if it has any impacts on birds whatsoever, many will want to ask the reasonable question of where to place a wind farm to achieve the optimal balance between ecosystem health and energy production. Indeed, one of the more radical environmental groups provides one of the more thoughtful analyses of a highly controversial wind farm proposal (the controversy stemming less from genuine environmental arguments and more from concerns over aesthetics and property values). The debate does not have to be between low-carbon energy and birds (or salmon - "damn" them?). With sound planning and ingenuity, we can have both.
5. The jab at Vice President Gore is a cheap shot. The progress toward mitigating climate change that Gore is helping to bring about is unprecedented in the history of environmentalism. We'd probably need to go back to Teddy to find a leader of such stature who has put environmental issues at the forefront of public policy. When Gore helps Congress pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill (which will let the free market do most of the legwork toward sorting out the problem), he will have done more than offset whatever greenhouse gases his mansion and cross-country flights are producing.
1. Perhaps the most mind-bogglingly naive statement in the piece is the following: "If cost-effective technologies to boost energy efficiency actually existed, industry would adopt them automatically, global warming or not." While I am attracted to many elements of libertarian philosophy (Dalmia works for the libertarian Reason Foundation), this gives far too much credit to the rationality of the free market. If the statement were true, the EPA would not have needed to cite and fine Wal-Mart for violation of idling regulations, a practice that needlessly burns 2.1 million gallons of diesel fuel each year (note: that fuel costs them money), despite a fairly simple cost-saving and environmentally beneficial solution (turn off the freaking engines!). As a fisheries biologist, the number of examples I have seen of fishermen irrationally outstripping the reproductive capacity of the resources that support their livelihood also challenges the assumption that industry will find the most sensible solutions.
2. The argument against energy efficiency ignores the tremendous savings that can be achieved by improvements in private homes, in addition to those by industry. If our government provided better information on how to make homes more energy efficient, as well as grants, loans and tax breaks to help bring about needed improvements, we could drastically reduce the need for hydropower.
3. On alternative energy sources, the piece states that most "...are still far from economically viable." This is true, but it ignores a huge factor. Dalmia notes that huge subsidies were originally provided to make many hydro dams possible. She fails to mention the subsidies still provided to make fossil fuel use "viable" (but likely adopts the alternative view). If solar, wind, wave and tidal (a.k.a. hydrokinetic), and other sources were given the same government support, these might be more economically viable sources in the near future, if not already. It's become somewhat cliche, but it's still true nonetheless, that if we had the same sort of "man on the moon by the end of the decade" vision and leadership today on renewable energy that JFK provided in 1961 on space exploration, we'd be having a very different debate right now.
4. There are a series of examples of green groups opposing alternative energy developments. The implication seems to be that if environmentalists claim that climate change is our most serious threat and therefore we do not unquestioningly accept all such renewable proposals, then we are obstructionists and hypocrites. This is a dangerously simplistic view. We need energy, and ALL energy sources have environmental impacts. That cannot be avoided. But asking questions about where to best locate facilities to minimize impacts is not only legitimate, it is irresponsible to not ask those questions. Although some will oppose all wind power, for example, if it has any impacts on birds whatsoever, many will want to ask the reasonable question of where to place a wind farm to achieve the optimal balance between ecosystem health and energy production. Indeed, one of the more radical environmental groups provides one of the more thoughtful analyses of a highly controversial wind farm proposal (the controversy stemming less from genuine environmental arguments and more from concerns over aesthetics and property values). The debate does not have to be between low-carbon energy and birds (or salmon - "damn" them?). With sound planning and ingenuity, we can have both.
5. The jab at Vice President Gore is a cheap shot. The progress toward mitigating climate change that Gore is helping to bring about is unprecedented in the history of environmentalism. We'd probably need to go back to Teddy to find a leader of such stature who has put environmental issues at the forefront of public policy. When Gore helps Congress pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill (which will let the free market do most of the legwork toward sorting out the problem), he will have done more than offset whatever greenhouse gases his mansion and cross-country flights are producing.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Losing fish, losing cultures
My last post raised the issue of a resumed whale hunt by the Makah tribe, noting that it is deeply connected with who the Makah are as a people. Yesterday, I discovered an article in Canada’s Globe and Mail (delivered to the door of my hotel room here in the beautiful city of Halifax) about drastically declining spawning runs of the eulachon. This is a small species of smelt that could almost be seen as a west coast version of river herring (see the post that launched this blog for more on those fish). The eulachon runs have long formed the basis of the Nuxalk tribe’s way of life, and their demise could mean the end of their culture, or at least a radical transformation. I don’t know much about eulachon (my east coast bias shining through), but I suspect they are important prey fish for many predators, so the collapse of their stock may be having ecological ripples beyond the cultural effects on the Nuxalk.
Lost traditions due to depleted fish stocks is not a phenomenon that is unique to indigenous cultures. Commercial fisheries for river herring are among the oldest in North America. North Carolina in particular has the largest in-river fishery, one that is not just a source of income but is also a way of life for the fishermen and part of the state’s coastal heritage. That fishery is now being closed in response to the severe declines in abundance. Like the eulachon, which might be declining due to shrimp trawlers, the problem might lie offshore in the form of river herring bycatch in open ocean fisheries for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. Despite the name, river herring actually spend the majority of their lives at sea, and could be vulnerable to multiple impacts away from rivers and the coast.
Although there are many bad signs for many species of fish, I can happily report that this past spring we documented for the first time in many years a spawning run of alewife in the Swan River on Long Island. Those fish are pictured above.
Lost traditions due to depleted fish stocks is not a phenomenon that is unique to indigenous cultures. Commercial fisheries for river herring are among the oldest in North America. North Carolina in particular has the largest in-river fishery, one that is not just a source of income but is also a way of life for the fishermen and part of the state’s coastal heritage. That fishery is now being closed in response to the severe declines in abundance. Like the eulachon, which might be declining due to shrimp trawlers, the problem might lie offshore in the form of river herring bycatch in open ocean fisheries for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. Despite the name, river herring actually spend the majority of their lives at sea, and could be vulnerable to multiple impacts away from rivers and the coast.
Although there are many bad signs for many species of fish, I can happily report that this past spring we documented for the first time in many years a spawning run of alewife in the Swan River on Long Island. Those fish are pictured above.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Whale tales
My last post two weeks ago focused on the world’s largest land animal. Shortly after those musings on elephants, my attention turned to the world's largest animal on land or sea when I read that Japan is once again threatening to leave the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Japan does this from time to time, whenever the IWC votes for regulations it does not like. Each time, their threats turn out to be empty.
Hunting whales, like hunting seals, is seen by many people as a relic practice of an earlier age that is neither necessary today nor consistent with ‘modern’ values. For the most part, I am inclined to agree. Values are not static. They change and evolve, and what was acceptable in the past might not be acceptable now. Whaling was vital to the growth of Nantucket and New Bedford, and provided useful resources for a growing nation. But those resources were replaced by alternatives that were more abundant and accessible, and with that shift (not to mention the depletion of whale populations), the whaling industry faded away. It is noteworthy that our relatively newfound appreciation for whales and associated moral opposition to killing them came after they had declined in value. Despite the cause of this revelation, I personally feel that whales have a level of intelligence, social complexity, and overall uniqueness that warrants special status in the animal kingdom (my close encounter with a fin whale off Nantucket pictured above still gives me goose bumps).
However, I am hesitant to impose this ‘enlightened’ view on all cultures. The whaling industry had a relatively brief duration in the history of European settlers in America. But whaling has been an integral part of other cultures for much longer. The Makah tribe of Washington state have a long history as a whaling people. After a nearly 150 year lay-off from whaling (a fairly short period of time in the context of the history of the Makah), the tribe resumed the hunt in 1999 amidst substantial opposition and controversy (for more on Makah whaling historically and today, check here). I support their right to hunt to help maintain their independence, identity and tradition.
Hunting whales, like hunting seals, is seen by many people as a relic practice of an earlier age that is neither necessary today nor consistent with ‘modern’ values. For the most part, I am inclined to agree. Values are not static. They change and evolve, and what was acceptable in the past might not be acceptable now. Whaling was vital to the growth of Nantucket and New Bedford, and provided useful resources for a growing nation. But those resources were replaced by alternatives that were more abundant and accessible, and with that shift (not to mention the depletion of whale populations), the whaling industry faded away. It is noteworthy that our relatively newfound appreciation for whales and associated moral opposition to killing them came after they had declined in value. Despite the cause of this revelation, I personally feel that whales have a level of intelligence, social complexity, and overall uniqueness that warrants special status in the animal kingdom (my close encounter with a fin whale off Nantucket pictured above still gives me goose bumps).
However, I am hesitant to impose this ‘enlightened’ view on all cultures. The whaling industry had a relatively brief duration in the history of European settlers in America. But whaling has been an integral part of other cultures for much longer. The Makah tribe of Washington state have a long history as a whaling people. After a nearly 150 year lay-off from whaling (a fairly short period of time in the context of the history of the Makah), the tribe resumed the hunt in 1999 amidst substantial opposition and controversy (for more on Makah whaling historically and today, check here). I support their right to hunt to help maintain their independence, identity and tradition.
I have similar sympathies for nations like Iceland and Norway that argue for the right to hunt whales on the basis of longstanding traditions. There are indigenous whaling cultures in Japan, but the nation hurts its arguments to continue whaling for cultural reasons by its continued claim of the need to continue large-scale whaling operations for scientific reasons. This is a very, very, very thinly veiled commercial hunt of 1,000 or more whales annually. A bowhead whale caught off Alaska recently had the remnants of old whaling gear lodged in its neck that placed its age at between 115 and 130 years. This mind-boggling longevity is exactly why anything more than a limited hunt for cultural reasons is unsustainable. A species living a century or more cannot support industrial harvest at the level Japan would like to hunt.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Elephant tales
I received email alerts for two stories from CNN.com today that taken together present an almost paradoxical picture of humanity’s effect on the natural world as manifested through the biology and ecology of one of Earth’s most intelligent, most unique, and certainly its largest land animal. The first was an almost humorous account of an elephant in India that effectively robs motorists at tusk-point for food as they pass its stretch of highway (I say “almost” humorous because such regular and close encounters between large animals and people rarely end up well for one if not both). This situation really captures the continual encroachment of civilization upon the wildlife habitat, and the adaptations that animals must make if they are to survive that encroachment. However, the second story reported the discovery of an intact, isolated elephant population on an island in the swamps of southern Sudan, where they have avoided poaching and other disturbance during Sudan’s long civil war, reminding us that pockets of true wildness do still exist.
This pair of elephant stories reminded me of a superb article I’d read a few months ago in the New York Times magazine about the profound psychological and behavioral changes being induced in elephants by drastic disruption of the age structure, sex ratio, and social hierarchy of the herd. The article reveals shockingly complex capacity for teaching, learning and emotional responses in these amazing animals. And this raises an important point about the impacts we are having on the natural world: There is far more to animal conservation than simply population size and extinction risk. Elephants show us that beyond simple numbers of individuals, population structure and behavior are key determinants of success, and those are not the only key factors.
Australian researchers have recently shown that climate change is altering the fundamental demographic processes underlying the dynamics of marine fish populations (I had to get back to fishes somehow...), with deep-dwelling species exhibiting slower growth and species in shallower waters exhibiting faster growth. Neither fast growth nor slow growth is inherently better or worse, as growth is tied in with a wide array of other demographic traits (mortality rate, maturation, fecundity, spawning frequency, etc) and ecological factors to maximize the reproductive success of a species. Whether these alterations to the growth of fishes will compromise reproduction remains to be seen. But if these effects primarily represent a response to temperature, then they should not be permanent, or at least the species should retain the genetic resilience to adapt to changing conditions. That is, as long as we are not also draining the genetic gene pool. Sadly, it appears that we may be doing just that: Researchers at Stony Brook University have shown how fishing pressure can act as a remarkably strong agent of (non-)natural selection, potentially causing an irreversible loss of genes that reduce the adaptability of a population. Eroding the foundational genetic basis for the ecological success of a species is a truly frightening prospect.
This pair of elephant stories reminded me of a superb article I’d read a few months ago in the New York Times magazine about the profound psychological and behavioral changes being induced in elephants by drastic disruption of the age structure, sex ratio, and social hierarchy of the herd. The article reveals shockingly complex capacity for teaching, learning and emotional responses in these amazing animals. And this raises an important point about the impacts we are having on the natural world: There is far more to animal conservation than simply population size and extinction risk. Elephants show us that beyond simple numbers of individuals, population structure and behavior are key determinants of success, and those are not the only key factors.
Australian researchers have recently shown that climate change is altering the fundamental demographic processes underlying the dynamics of marine fish populations (I had to get back to fishes somehow...), with deep-dwelling species exhibiting slower growth and species in shallower waters exhibiting faster growth. Neither fast growth nor slow growth is inherently better or worse, as growth is tied in with a wide array of other demographic traits (mortality rate, maturation, fecundity, spawning frequency, etc) and ecological factors to maximize the reproductive success of a species. Whether these alterations to the growth of fishes will compromise reproduction remains to be seen. But if these effects primarily represent a response to temperature, then they should not be permanent, or at least the species should retain the genetic resilience to adapt to changing conditions. That is, as long as we are not also draining the genetic gene pool. Sadly, it appears that we may be doing just that: Researchers at Stony Brook University have shown how fishing pressure can act as a remarkably strong agent of (non-)natural selection, potentially causing an irreversible loss of genes that reduce the adaptability of a population. Eroding the foundational genetic basis for the ecological success of a species is a truly frightening prospect.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Who needs outer space?
I've never understood the rush to explore the cosmos when so much of our own planet is still very much a mystery. Well, maybe I could be talked into a mission to Mars, but there remain some very alien and unexplored parts of Earth nonetheless. Most notable among these unknown realms is the deep sea. Two of my closest Aussie friends, John and Sam, recently had the good fortune to see a living coelacanth in Indonesia (their photo is above). This deep-dwelling fish is perhaps the epitome of a "living fossil", and might be one of the key evolutionary links between fishes and terrestrial animals. John and Sam shared news and images of this encounter during the same week that my favorite poet alerted me to a NY Times article on the bizarre beasts that reside in the deepest, darkest layers of the oceans. Of course, one need not descend to skull-crushing depths to find a mind-boggling array of undiscovered biodiversity. Dr. Craig Venter's institute has been sampling microbial DNA in near-surface waters of the world's oceans in the Sorcerer II expedition, and has learned just how little we know about the basic species composition, let alone the ecological functions, of microscopic marine life. For those romantics who are sad to have missed the voyages of Cook, Darwin, Burton, Magellan, Shackleton, and the other great pioneers of the bygone golden age of Earth exploration, rest assured that we still have plenty of secrets to unlock on this globe...
Sunday, May 13, 2007
A Green Wave
I’ve had a bit of a lay-off from posting in this young blog, but while work and travel and such have kept me from writing, I have been stockpiling links. And those links will seed a series of new posts over the next week or two. But as I collect these articles, the number of environmental news stories appearing in a variety of media outlets recently has me thinking that we might be entering the next “green” revolution. As one sign that we might be entering this new era, consider the shift in attitudes toward hydropower dams in the Columbia River system that seems to be emerging. Replacing hydropower with wind farms and transporting agricultural products via rejuvenated railways rather than along artificially flattened rivers would largely eradicate the sea lions-salmon-fishermen tensions addressed in my last post. Another positive sign is the U.S.’s largest automaker joining the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
If a transformative moment is upon us, it will have been several decades in the making. The last period of major environmental policy action in the United States took place in the 1960s and 1970s when Congress passed the Clean Air Act (1963, with a major amendment in 1970), Clean Water Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (ESA; 1973), and the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (FCMA; 1976). Since that time, important environmental progress has been made, but there have arguably been no changes as sweeping as these. And their effects have generally been profound. The air is cleaner today than it was 20 years ago, water is cleaner in many places (though not all), and species protected under the ESA more often than not show dramatic improvements.
Of the four issues addressed by the acts listed above, fisheries have arguably experienced the least progress since passage of the landmark legislation. All of these laws (and, indeed, most environmental laws) strive to find some balance between economic and environmental needs (although the true revolution will come when we realize that this is a false dichotomy, but that is for another day…). However, the FCMA seems to tip the scales more toward economics than conservation relative to the other two, perhaps because its original mission had more to do with excluding foreign fleets and protecting the American fishing industry than it did with establishing sustainable fisheries. Compounding this imbalance, fisheries are assaulted by a range of impacts beyond simply fishing pressure. Two milestone reports, one from the independent Pew Oceans Commission and one from the federal U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (now unified as the Joint Ocean Commission), addressed the full suite of threats, governance challenges and research needed to reverse the decline in ocean health. Implementation of those recommendations, coupled with major new policy initiatives on climate and energy, have the potential to spawn a new green revolution.
If a transformative moment is upon us, it will have been several decades in the making. The last period of major environmental policy action in the United States took place in the 1960s and 1970s when Congress passed the Clean Air Act (1963, with a major amendment in 1970), Clean Water Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (ESA; 1973), and the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (FCMA; 1976). Since that time, important environmental progress has been made, but there have arguably been no changes as sweeping as these. And their effects have generally been profound. The air is cleaner today than it was 20 years ago, water is cleaner in many places (though not all), and species protected under the ESA more often than not show dramatic improvements.
Of the four issues addressed by the acts listed above, fisheries have arguably experienced the least progress since passage of the landmark legislation. All of these laws (and, indeed, most environmental laws) strive to find some balance between economic and environmental needs (although the true revolution will come when we realize that this is a false dichotomy, but that is for another day…). However, the FCMA seems to tip the scales more toward economics than conservation relative to the other two, perhaps because its original mission had more to do with excluding foreign fleets and protecting the American fishing industry than it did with establishing sustainable fisheries. Compounding this imbalance, fisheries are assaulted by a range of impacts beyond simply fishing pressure. Two milestone reports, one from the independent Pew Oceans Commission and one from the federal U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (now unified as the Joint Ocean Commission), addressed the full suite of threats, governance challenges and research needed to reverse the decline in ocean health. Implementation of those recommendations, coupled with major new policy initiatives on climate and energy, have the potential to spawn a new green revolution.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Too much nature
Earlier this week, a Columbia River salmon fisherman shot a sea lion that had taken a fish off the line of another fisherman. The sea lions (along with the fishermen, for that matter) gather near the base of Bonneville Dam, where fish aggregate to wait for a chance to enter a fish ladder that allows passage over the dam and on to spawning grounds further upriver.
(The photo above shows a fish ladder at the much smaller dam on the Peconic River on Long Island. The Peconic ladder provides a slope that is angled such that fish can ascend, with baffles inside to divert the flow of water to the sides and slow the current in the center, creating a low-flow channel up which fish can swim. The Bonneville ladder has a different structure, being composed of a series of pools and weirs that allow fish to make a short jump and then rest before the next jump. However, in either the case the narrow entrance – relative to the natural width of the river – creates a bottleneck where fish must aggregate and become easy targets for sea lions, birds and fishermen.)
The actions of the fisherman are actually strangely aligned with proposals being developed by Oregon and Washington for “limited selected lethal removal” of sea lions on the Columbia. In both articles linked above, the voice opposing the killing of sea lions comes from the Humane Society, an animal rights organization. There is an important distinction between animal rights activism and environmentalism, a distinction that many people overlook or of which they are simply not aware. Strictly speaking, killing of animals in and of itself is not an environmental concern. Environmentalism, as I see it at least, is about protecting biodiversity, ecological structure and key ecosystem processes. Removing individuals from a plant or animal population can be consistent with environmental goals as long as the population is still able to replenish itself and serve its ecological role (e.g., corals provide habitat, trees secure the soil, herring feed larger predators, wolves remove the old, weak and sick from caribou herds, etc.). A coast-wide population of 300,000 sea lions is probably more than capable of reproduction and serving the functions that sea lions serve in the Pacific coastal ecosystem.
This is not to say that environmentalists cannot also place a priority on animal rights. I know many who wear both hats, and count myself among them to a degree (but I do eat meat, and will probably continue to do so as long as I remain friends with Marno). But it is important to recognize whether an argument is based on animal rights or environmental principles. “Limited selected lethal removal” will probably not compromise the conservation success that has been achieved with sea lions. But many find it to be unacceptable treatment of our pinniped neighbors. The Canadian seal hunt is a similar issue. The current population size and growth rates allow for limited sustainable harvest, but the method is deplorable. Equally deplorable is the live finning of sharks. However, in contrast to seal clubbing or killing of “problem” sea lions on the Columbia, shark finning is problematic for both ethical and environmental reasons. Sharks are long-lived, slow growing apex predators with low reproductive rates, and consequently have been overfished in many places to the detriment of ocean and coastal ecosystems (as addressed recently in high-profile Science paper by the late Dr. Ram Myers.).
The controversy over killing of sea lions on the Columbia, whether by vigilante fishermen or the states, also highlights another modern environmental challenge. The typical cry of the environmental community is that we have too little nature. Rainforest is being cut, slashed and burned, salt marshes are cleared for summer homes, fisheries are depleted, coral reefs are bleaching and dying, and wildlife is driven extinct. And that is all true. But in some cases we seem to have too much nature, and some ecosystems have become drastically out of balance through an overabundance of certain species. The number of sea lions in the Columbia River is probably not an “overabundance” per se, but the sea lion population has become disproportionately large relative to the salmon population. Deer are certainly overpopulated in many northern forests, and are overstripping the forest understory. Some lobster fishermen argue that there are too many striped bass, and they are causing excess mortality of juvenile lobsters. The numbers of cormorants along the Atlantic coast has also generated concerns over their impacts on forage fish populations.
It is tempting to view these problems of excess and imbalance as being the results of highly successful management. To be sure, striped bass numbers have climbed from their frighteningly low numbers of the 1980s due to bold, aggressive and effective management of fishing and habitat (see Dick Russell's fine book for an excellent account of this history). However, any problems that striped bass might now be causing are not the result of successful striper restoration, but rather due to other management failures (e.g., overfishing of southern New England lobsters, damming of rivers and depletion of herring runs) that have placed those species interacting with stripers in a precarious position. In contrast, the overpopulation of deer has almost nothing to do with sound deer management, but rather depletion or outright eradication of natural predators (wolves, catamounts, etc.) that should keep deer in check.
And so it goes with the Columbia River sea lions. Their numbers are strong due to effective conservation. That they might be causing problems today (although predation on 3-4% of the salmon run hardly seems to constitute a severe impact) is not really due to that conservation success. Instead, the real problem is our multiple insults to the salmon population. Dams that block migration, or at least force fish into a highly vulnerable bottleneck at the entrance to a fish ladder, poor water quality and habitat degradation due to poor land-use practices and watershed planning, and overfishing have driven salmon numbers to a level where sea lion predation looks to be a problem. However, as the Humane Society contends (the animal rights group somewhat ironically picking up the environmental argument), blaming the sea lions is really just ignoring our own environmental failings and ducking our responsibilities.
(The photo above shows a fish ladder at the much smaller dam on the Peconic River on Long Island. The Peconic ladder provides a slope that is angled such that fish can ascend, with baffles inside to divert the flow of water to the sides and slow the current in the center, creating a low-flow channel up which fish can swim. The Bonneville ladder has a different structure, being composed of a series of pools and weirs that allow fish to make a short jump and then rest before the next jump. However, in either the case the narrow entrance – relative to the natural width of the river – creates a bottleneck where fish must aggregate and become easy targets for sea lions, birds and fishermen.)
The actions of the fisherman are actually strangely aligned with proposals being developed by Oregon and Washington for “limited selected lethal removal” of sea lions on the Columbia. In both articles linked above, the voice opposing the killing of sea lions comes from the Humane Society, an animal rights organization. There is an important distinction between animal rights activism and environmentalism, a distinction that many people overlook or of which they are simply not aware. Strictly speaking, killing of animals in and of itself is not an environmental concern. Environmentalism, as I see it at least, is about protecting biodiversity, ecological structure and key ecosystem processes. Removing individuals from a plant or animal population can be consistent with environmental goals as long as the population is still able to replenish itself and serve its ecological role (e.g., corals provide habitat, trees secure the soil, herring feed larger predators, wolves remove the old, weak and sick from caribou herds, etc.). A coast-wide population of 300,000 sea lions is probably more than capable of reproduction and serving the functions that sea lions serve in the Pacific coastal ecosystem.
This is not to say that environmentalists cannot also place a priority on animal rights. I know many who wear both hats, and count myself among them to a degree (but I do eat meat, and will probably continue to do so as long as I remain friends with Marno). But it is important to recognize whether an argument is based on animal rights or environmental principles. “Limited selected lethal removal” will probably not compromise the conservation success that has been achieved with sea lions. But many find it to be unacceptable treatment of our pinniped neighbors. The Canadian seal hunt is a similar issue. The current population size and growth rates allow for limited sustainable harvest, but the method is deplorable. Equally deplorable is the live finning of sharks. However, in contrast to seal clubbing or killing of “problem” sea lions on the Columbia, shark finning is problematic for both ethical and environmental reasons. Sharks are long-lived, slow growing apex predators with low reproductive rates, and consequently have been overfished in many places to the detriment of ocean and coastal ecosystems (as addressed recently in high-profile Science paper by the late Dr. Ram Myers.).
The controversy over killing of sea lions on the Columbia, whether by vigilante fishermen or the states, also highlights another modern environmental challenge. The typical cry of the environmental community is that we have too little nature. Rainforest is being cut, slashed and burned, salt marshes are cleared for summer homes, fisheries are depleted, coral reefs are bleaching and dying, and wildlife is driven extinct. And that is all true. But in some cases we seem to have too much nature, and some ecosystems have become drastically out of balance through an overabundance of certain species. The number of sea lions in the Columbia River is probably not an “overabundance” per se, but the sea lion population has become disproportionately large relative to the salmon population. Deer are certainly overpopulated in many northern forests, and are overstripping the forest understory. Some lobster fishermen argue that there are too many striped bass, and they are causing excess mortality of juvenile lobsters. The numbers of cormorants along the Atlantic coast has also generated concerns over their impacts on forage fish populations.
It is tempting to view these problems of excess and imbalance as being the results of highly successful management. To be sure, striped bass numbers have climbed from their frighteningly low numbers of the 1980s due to bold, aggressive and effective management of fishing and habitat (see Dick Russell's fine book for an excellent account of this history). However, any problems that striped bass might now be causing are not the result of successful striper restoration, but rather due to other management failures (e.g., overfishing of southern New England lobsters, damming of rivers and depletion of herring runs) that have placed those species interacting with stripers in a precarious position. In contrast, the overpopulation of deer has almost nothing to do with sound deer management, but rather depletion or outright eradication of natural predators (wolves, catamounts, etc.) that should keep deer in check.
And so it goes with the Columbia River sea lions. Their numbers are strong due to effective conservation. That they might be causing problems today (although predation on 3-4% of the salmon run hardly seems to constitute a severe impact) is not really due to that conservation success. Instead, the real problem is our multiple insults to the salmon population. Dams that block migration, or at least force fish into a highly vulnerable bottleneck at the entrance to a fish ladder, poor water quality and habitat degradation due to poor land-use practices and watershed planning, and overfishing have driven salmon numbers to a level where sea lion predation looks to be a problem. However, as the Humane Society contends (the animal rights group somewhat ironically picking up the environmental argument), blaming the sea lions is really just ignoring our own environmental failings and ducking our responsibilities.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
In Memoriam
Another quick post to follow yesterday's (something more substantial is coming in the next few days). The minke that was visiting Brooklyn beached itself and died. The reason is unclear as yet, and I don't want to use this sad turn of events to launch into a sermon on how humanity is destroying the waters and wildlife of the world. Humankind probably had nothing to do with this. Sometimes baby whales just get separated from their mothers, don't know where to go or how to hunt, and don't make it. Nature can be as cruel as she can be magnificent.
But I want to say a quick thank you to the little guy, and wish him peaceful rest. We forget that this heavily urbanized and industrialized harbor around our city was once one of the most ecologically vibrant and productive estuaries on the Atlantic coast. Now, it is mostly a colossus of glass, steel and concrete that, oh yeah, happens to be surrounded by water. Yet, life still thrives in and around those waters. To be sure, the pulse of nature here is not like it once was, but stripers and herring still run, and shorebirds still populate the remaining marshes and beaches. And once in awhile, something like the little minke provides, even if only for a few hours, a particularly poignant and exciting reminder of the ecosystem amidst which we live.
But I want to say a quick thank you to the little guy, and wish him peaceful rest. We forget that this heavily urbanized and industrialized harbor around our city was once one of the most ecologically vibrant and productive estuaries on the Atlantic coast. Now, it is mostly a colossus of glass, steel and concrete that, oh yeah, happens to be surrounded by water. Yet, life still thrives in and around those waters. To be sure, the pulse of nature here is not like it once was, but stripers and herring still run, and shorebirds still populate the remaining marshes and beaches. And once in awhile, something like the little minke provides, even if only for a few hours, a particularly poignant and exciting reminder of the ecosystem amidst which we live.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Brooklyn's newest visitor
Since my only two readers (or the only two of whom I'm aware, at least) reside in Brooklyn (Hi Cat! Hi Jason!), I had to post a quick note about a rare cetacean visitor to the JV borough.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Keeping up with the Remengesaus
When it comes to marine conservation, it is not the Joneses we should be chasing, but rather President Tommy Remengesau Jr., leader of the tiny island nation of Palau. President Remengesau called for his nation and the rest of Micronesia to protect 30% of their coastal waters from fishing, and Palau is already reaping the benefits in terms of productive fisheries and vibrant dive sites for tourists. By contrast, less than 1% of coastal waters in the United States have been similarly protected. As a nation built first as a maritime economy and culture, and now the world’s foremost scientific nation and the cradle of modern environmentalism (going back before Teddy Roosevelt and continuing through Al Gore today), it is more than a little embarrassing for the United States to be lagging behind such a small developing nation on this front.
A word of warning here in only my second post: You will not read many kind words from me about President George W. Bush in this space. But my first comment about W will in fact be kind. Last year, the President created the world’s largest marine sanctuary when he designated the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a national monument. That was a bold, ambitious and laudable action that, coupled with the network of marine protected areas at California’s Channel Islands, represents an important precedent and step toward more strategic, effective, and conservation-minded management of marine species and habitats in the U.S.
I could write pages on the utility and limitations of marine reserves, and the state of both the science and politics associated with their creation. But I won’t do that...yet (although I have actually written a fair bit on the subject, such as this, this and this). For now, I just wanted to acknowledge the small country in the South Pacific for proving to be a world leader in marine conservation. Kudos, Palau!
A word of warning here in only my second post: You will not read many kind words from me about President George W. Bush in this space. But my first comment about W will in fact be kind. Last year, the President created the world’s largest marine sanctuary when he designated the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a national monument. That was a bold, ambitious and laudable action that, coupled with the network of marine protected areas at California’s Channel Islands, represents an important precedent and step toward more strategic, effective, and conservation-minded management of marine species and habitats in the U.S.
I could write pages on the utility and limitations of marine reserves, and the state of both the science and politics associated with their creation. But I won’t do that...yet (although I have actually written a fair bit on the subject, such as this, this and this). For now, I just wanted to acknowledge the small country in the South Pacific for proving to be a world leader in marine conservation. Kudos, Palau!
Monday, April 16, 2007
On your mark...
A river herring run is one of nature’s most egalitarian phenomena. Every spring, two distinct but closely related and nearly indistinguishable species, the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), swim up Atlantic coastal waterways from Newfoundland to Florida to spawn. These relatively small silvery fish migrate hundreds or even thousands of miles from the vast ocean to the coast and on upstream to produce their next generation. Unlike the better known species of salmon that adopt a similar life history but are much more picky about the size and characteristics of the rivers they will use, alewives and bluebacks use spawning grounds ranging from large, majestic rivers to small tidal creeks. Therefore, a herring run is a piscine experience that doesn’t require a journey to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef or even the wilds of Maine to be experienced. River herring runs are incredibly accessible to nature lovers, occurring in backyards, town parks, and even some highly urbanized areas.River herring are more than fascinating species in their own right and a source of enjoyment for those who eagerly await their annual arrival. They also play a key role in supporting multiple ecosystems, and by extension human economies and societies. River herring are directly harvested in commercial and recreational fisheries, either being used as bait, ground into fishmeal, or eaten by people. In fact, Native Americans used river herring to fertilize fields and increase crop production, and they passed this knowledge on to early colonists. The scale of these fisheries is much less today than it once was. However, alewives and blueback herring continue to play important ecological and economic roles. They are vital to the health of freshwater ecosystems by delivering carbon, nutrients and energy upstream, against river flow, replenishing what is lost as water moves from land, down river and out to sea. More importantly, river herring are a critical prey fish in multiple ecosystems, feeding (among many other predators) tuna, cod and billfish at sea, striped bass, bluefish and harbor seals in estuaries, and ospreys, herons and otters in rivers. If you can think of a coastal predator along the eastern seaboard, chances are that river herring figure into its diet.
These humble fish, superficially simple yet behaviorally and ecologically quite complex, are in trouble. Resilient to a point, river herring have through the years endured a series of anthropogenic insults, including overfishing, bycatch mortality, water pollution, habitat degradation, and, perhaps most significantly, blockage of migratory routes by dams and other barriers. For years, river herring runs hung on across their range despite these impacts. However, we now may be reaching a tipping point as cumulative and synergistic effects seem to be driving pervasive declines in river herring populations across their range. The paper I grew up with, the Hartford Courant, recently reported on the discouraging trends in alewife and blueback runs.
Running On will not be a blog solely about river herring. Rather, this blog will address the full range of interactions between humankind and the natural world. Humans are inevitably integrated within the biosphere, ultimately reliant upon air, water, soil, wildlife, forests, oceans, and the myriad products and ecosystem services they provide. Our attitudes, actions and policies, as individuals, corporations, organizations and governments, have a tremendous role in determining the future state of global ecosystems, and therefore human society as well. So, sometimes, I will highlight and offer thoughts on key developments in environmental policy (like this news from California). Other times, I will discuss ongoing environmental issues that might not be linked to an immediate action or decision but that need to be kept fresh in our minds (like our river herring and their plight).
And some times I will simply discuss nature: its lessons, patterns and quirks, and our own new discoveries about it. Sound stewardship of natural resources requires appreciation of our inescapable co-dependence with the non-human world, as well as understanding of the nature of this co-dependence. Building that appreciation and understanding is well served by enthusiasm and excitement for the world around us. Learning about the unique hypno-attack hunting behavior of Indonesian cuttlefish (see it here in the second clip down the page) will not help manage any natural resource in a more sustainable manner. But the sense of awe it instills can reinforce the complexity and value of nature. We are constantly learning more and more about a world that we both rely upon and often relentlessly exploit, and recognizing the ever-present gaps in our knowledge, highlighted by these sorts of discoveries, might help engender a more cautious, measured and studied approach. This is a critically needed transformation. I can state without exaggeration or hyperbole that environmental degradation is the single greatest threat we face as a nation and a species. The threat of terrorism becomes irrelevant if we cannot eat, drink or breathe.
I chose Running On as a title for several reasons. After nearly a decade as an academic ecologist, first as a graduate student and then as a post-doctoral fellow, my first project as a professional environmentalist has been restoration of river herring runs. In fact, Running On is the title of white paper I wrote in 2005 outlining plans for river herring restoration on Long Island (here, but note that I write here as private citizen and not an employee of the fine organization that keeps me employed!). River herring themselves are emblematic of many environmental issues. Their ecology and conservation spans multiple ecosystems, scales, and types and degrees of human impact. And, they are hanging on (or, running on). They are often responsive to the right conservation action, highlighting the resilience and responsiveness of nature when we give her a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)