tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49433153938718467122024-02-20T23:08:01.672-08:00Wuerthner EnvironmentGeorge Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-2220026798985957192016-03-15T15:53:00.001-07:002016-03-15T15:54:33.280-07:00The Truth About Agriculture and impacts on Biodiversity The Truth About Land Use in the United States<br />
By George Wuerthner<br />
<br />
Misunderstanding abounds about land use in the United States.<br />
<br />
By far the greatest impact on the American landscape comes not from urbanization but rather from agriculture. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farming and ranching are responsible for 68 percent of all species endangerment in the United States.<br />
<br />
Agriculture is the largest consumer of water, particularly in the West. Most water developments would not exist were it not for the demand created by irrigated agriculture.<br />
<br />
If ultimate causes and not proximate causes for species extinction are considered, agricultural impacts would even be higher. Yet scant attention is paid by academicians, environmentalists, recreationists and the general public to agriculture's role in habitat fragmentation, species endangerment and declining water quality.<br />
<br />
The ironic aspect of this head-in-the sand approach to land use is that most agriculture is completely unnecessary to feed the nation. The great bulk of agricultural production goes toward forage production used primarily by livestock. A small shift in our diet away from meat could have a tremendous impact on the ground in terms of freeing up lands for restoration and wildlife habitat. It would also reduce the poisoning of our streams and groundwater with pesticides and other residue of modern agricultural practices.<br />
<br />
Most of the information in the following summary is available from the USDA Economic Research Service publication "Major Uses of Land in the United States 1997." (To order, call 1-800-9996779). The numbers do not change appreciably from year to year.<br />
<br />
Overview of Land Use in the United States-The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.<br />
<br />
To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103 million acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20 million acres.<br />
<br />
Developed Land- Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population. In general, urban lands are nearly useless for biodiversity preservation. Furthermore, urbanized lands, once converted, usually do not shift to another use.<br />
<br />
Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The total acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44 million acres are lots of 10 or more acres.<br />
<br />
Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant until you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder corn and another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are consumed by livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect more of the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural residential, highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and golf courses combined.<br />
<br />
Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.<br />
<br />
The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres.<br />
<br />
Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed.<br />
<br />
Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands, some 501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed forest and other special categories).<br />
<br />
The USDA report concludes that urbanization and rural residences (subdivisions) "do not threaten the U.S. cropland base or the level of agricultural production." This does not mean sprawl doesn't have impacts where it occurs. But the notion that sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity is absolutely false.<br />
<br />
Conclusions that place sprawl ahead of agriculture in terms of biodiversity impacts are due to faulty accounting methods and a general bias that favors agriculture as a "good" use of the land.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, there are viable means of controlling sprawl. They include land-use planning, zoning, fee purchase and conservation easements.<br />
<br />
Despite acreage being paved over, malled over or overbuilt with condos, developed land is generally concentrated in and near cities. The loss of farm or ranch land is insignificant compared to the total acreage available in the U.S.<br />
<br />
The real message here is that we can afford to restore hundreds of millions of acres in the U.S. if we simply shift our diets away from meat. Many organizations spend their time fighting sprawl and championing agriculture as a benign use of the land. If a similar amount of effort were directed toward reducing agricultural production, we would produce far greater protection and restoration for declining species, endangered ecosystems and ecological processes.<br />
<br />
When critics suggest that we don't have the money to buy land for wildlands restoration, they are forgetting agricultural subsidies, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. For what we spend to prop up marginal agricultural producers, we could easily buy most of the private farm and ranch land in the country This would be a far more effective way to contain sprawl, restore wildlands, bring back endangered species, clean up water, slow the spread of exotic species and reduce soil erosion.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-48147591158564648182014-08-13T15:56:00.001-07:002014-08-13T15:57:01.298-07:00The Problem with National Forest CollaborativesTHE PROBLEM WITH NATIONAL FOREST COLLABORATIVES <br />
<br />
Collaboratives have been initiated on many national forests across the West. The stated goal is to resolve controversial resource issues through cooperative discussions between various interests, Thus collaboratives typically include representatives of industry such as timber companies, ranchers, local tourist promotion, county commissioners, Forest Service, BLM, FWS, state and county government, and state wildlife agency representatives, recreational interests like horseman, mountain bikers, ORV interests and what are variously termed “environmentalists” which typically includes one or two paid staff of national or regional environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and so forth. <br />
I have participated to one degree or another in five collaboratives and I can attest that there are institutional biases inherent in all collaborative that makes them unlikely to promote policies that are in the best interest of the public in general, much less the integrity of the land. Indeed, some critics argue their purpose is to reduce public participation in public lands management decisions. <br />
BIASED PARTICIPATION <br />
First is the fact that participation in collaborative is voluntary. Meetings are typically scheduled during week days during “work” hours which is one way that overall public participation is significantly reduced. What happens is that most involvement is from those with a vested economic interest in the outcome-- paid lobbyists of the timber industry, ranchers/grazing industry, ORV industry, and other groups. <br />
One timber company representative acknowledged when asked why we were at the meeting said quite unabashedly that he was paid to be there to lobby for more logging. <br />
One can question the ethics of allowing individuals with a direct financial stake in the outcome to participate in decision-making and recommendations that will benefit themselves or their employers. <br />
While it’s true that occasionally there are one or two paid representative of environmental groups or other members who do not represent exploitative interests (nor have a financial stake in the outcome), they are completely overwhelmed by resource extractive interests. <br />
Even beyond the obvious representatives of industry who often dominate these collaborative, other agency and public employees in attendance also have a philosophical and indirect vested interest in continued resource exploitation. For instance, many of the collaboratives I’ve attended include county extension foresters, state foresters, representatives of the state forestry schools, and Forest Service foresters in attendance. If you are a forester your job depends on continued logging of public lands, and most take it for granted that logging is overall a public good. <br />
Occasionally you might get a Forest Service or Fish and Game biologist attending who might have a slightly different outlook on what is the “public good”, but even these folks know their marching orders—which are not to interfere ultimately with the general demand for some logging, grazing, or other resource exploitation. <br />
Beyond even these obvious conflicts of interest, others in attendance like county commissioners, extension agents, and other public employees also generally see resource extraction like logging and grazing as a “good” for local economic interests. <br />
Given the membership of the typical collaborative it is hardly surprising that most support greater logging/grazing of our public lands. <br />
To make an analogy, imagine there was a collaborative that was put together to determine whether a nuclear power plant should be build adjacent to your city and the majority of participants were representatives of the nuclear power industry, nuclear engineers, and members of the local power company with maybe one or two environmentalists—would you trust their recommendations to the federal nuclear regulatory agency? <br />
PARADIGMS SUPPORT EXTRACTION <br />
Beyond these obvious conflicts of interest, there are starting assumptions that serve to limit participation as well. Basically those who agree with the basic premise that our forests need to be “managed” and are “improved” by logging are those who self-select to be on collaboratives. Those who may question such starting assumptions have limited opportunities to voice their objections and disagreements and if they attend at all, often become frustrated and leave. This self selection process guarantees certain outcomes and recommendations. <br />
There is also a lot of group pressure to “get along”, so even when environmentalists are paid to attend the meetings and may have some different ideals than the overall group philosophical values, it is difficult for anyone to make any substantial differences except along the margins. It takes real courage to attend such meetings and continuously voice objections, or concerns that run counter to the dominant paradigm. Most environmentalists I’ve encountered at collaborative meetings are subtly pressured to agree to actions that they are uncomfortable supporting, but resisting the social pressure to “cooperate” is difficult.<br />
GROUP THINK<br />
Because of this group think, there is little opportunity or support for alternative interpretations of science, economics, and policy paradigms. For instance, all collaboratives I’ve attended believe our forests are “unhealthy” even though forest health is largely defined in terms of timber management goals. Most believe that wildfires, beetles, and other natural selective processes are detrimental to forest ecosystems, despite a growing body of literature that questions such assumptions. <br />
Most believe that wildfires “damage” the land, again despite a lot of science that shows that wildfires are largely beneficial to the long term health of forest ecosystems.<br />
Most believe that logging is good for the economy, ignoring the fact that nearly all federal timber sales are money losing affairs subsidized by taxpayers. And most of the economic analysis used to justify logging/grazing do not consider the inherent collateral damage caused by resource extraction as a cost. Thus sedimentation from logging roads, weeds spread by livestock, trampled riparian areas that harm fish, loss of biomass from the forest ecosystem, and other impacts are simply ignored or downplayed. <br />
Most start out with the assumption that thinning/logging can preclude or stop wildfires (again because wildfires are viewed as “bad”), even though there is abundant evidence that under severe fire conditions, wildfires burn through, over, and around thinned forests. <br />
Because most are dominated by pro-logging/grazing interests, they ignore other alternatives that might achieve many of the same goals but with less environmental impacts and less direct subsidies to the industries. For instance, one will hear that logging will reduce forest density which is presumed to improve forest health, but it’s not considered a viable option when it is pointed out that beetles will selectively reduce forest density for free, and do a better job of picking the trees that are genetically or otherwise most vulnerable to drought. <br />
KEEPING UP WITH SCIENCE <br />
In addition, due to the technical nature of some of the issues, in particular the science on fire ecology, thinning effectiveness, grazing practices, fire management, logging impacts, wildlife impacts, and even what constitutes a healthy forest that are used to justify resource exploitation, participates are really not scientifically equipped to debate or disagree with the dominant paradigms.<br />
To give one example of how new science can change assumptions, in Oregon many logging proposals are now justified on the belief that wildfire is detrimental to spotted owl survival due to the owl’s need for old growth forests. If the forests burn up, so it is thought, owls are harmed. While it’s true that owls require old growth forests for nest and roosting habitat, it turns out that recent studies demonstrate that owl preferentially forage for prey in burned forests due to the increase in rodent populations created by wildfire regrowth. But most agency personnel, much less the average collaborative participant, have never heard of these studies, and thus support logging and thinning on the presumption that they are protecting spotted owls. <br />
Unfortunately even the agency personnel do not have the time to keep up with the vast amount of new scientific information generated annually, and it is beyond the ability and time constraints for anyone else involved in these collaboratives to monitor the latest scientific literature except in the most cursory manner. No matter how dedicated one may be to keeping up with the latest science, one can’t know everything and there will always be debate about what constitutes the “best” science. So nearly all collaboratives are operating under flawed assumptions, outdated ecological science, and of course, the inherent bias to find science that supports resource extraction while minimizing and/or ignoring science that questions such assumptions. <br />
WHY ARE COLLABORATIVES PROMOTED<br />
We all want to be liked and respected and the social pressure to agree with collaborative decisions is exceedingly strong—which is why collaboratives are so universally endorsed. Those in power know that getting the approval of a collaborative with “representatives” of environmental interests certifies and legitimizes the outcomes. <br />
Participation in collaboratives also silences environmental groups on many other issues that are not necessarily discussed as part of any particular collaborative. There is a tendency to avoid vigorous advocacy for environmental protection in other areas if it might offend other stakeholders (read industry representatives and rural politicians). Thus environmental representatives that may be promoting wilderness designation may avoid criticism of livestock grazing or logging proposals if they believe they must remain “friends” with the timber, ranching and others collaborative members. <br />
They also know that all those meetings are a huge time commitment, and since most environmental groups have limited funds, paying an employee to attend meetings usually comes at the expense of other activities like reviewing and commenting upon environmental impact statements, visiting timber sale sites and grazing allotments, and most importantly organizing community resistance to additional resource extraction and/or promoting wilderness designation and other protective measures. <br />
IS THERE ANY REASON TO PARTICIPATE IN COLLABORATIVES?<br />
Given all the drawbacks is there any reason why anyone with environmental concerns should participate in a collaborative? I think yes, but with qualifications. This should not be done In the absence of good organizing, advocacy in other ways or coop your group or you from voicing objections to nebulous and destructive projects.<br />
Be clear from the start that you are like the Lorax—there to speak for the forests. People are more likely to respect you if they know you are speaking from heart-felt and honest feelings. <br />
Participation does guarantee that collaborative members will hear alternative perspectives that they might not otherwise be exposed to in their daily encounters. I am certain, for instance, when I repeatedly voice the opinion that wildfires, beetles, mistletoe, and other natural agents are “RESTORING” the forest, it is counter intuitive and contrary to what most collaborative members ever hear otherwise. Or when I point out that some scientists question the validity of fire scar studies for determining past wildfire history due to inherent biases in how the data is collected and analyzed, I know this is news to many in the group. Now, of course, many may dismiss my ideas as heretical to “good forest management” but at least they are exposed to the ideas. <br />
In addition, there are some agency people who regularly attend these meetings who are sympathetic to the concerns of environmentalists. When someone questions the dominant paradigm or introduces some new scientific perspective, it gives them the political cover to raise these same issues in their own internal discussions and decision-making process. <br />
Finally there are some members of the collaborative who are truly open to new ways of viewing forest management and concepts. Voicing a different perspective may be the only exposure they may have to these ideas and it can change opinions and perspectives. <br />
Nevertheless, I think it’s important for the media, politicians, agency personnel, and the general public to recognize the inherent conflicts and limitations of collaborative efforts. No one should automatically assume that collaborative are reaching the best outcomes in terms of public interest , much less the best interest of our forests. <br />
<br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-80979185436061244762014-08-05T14:00:00.002-07:002014-08-05T14:00:13.373-07:00Cow Conspiracy Video hits Home RunCOW CONSPIRACYVIDEO HITS A HOME RUN <br />
George Wuerthner <br />
I recently had the pleasure of viewing Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn new video Cow Conspiracy. The basic question these two film makers ask is why the contribution of livestock to ecosystem degradation is missing from the world’s environmental agenda. To find the answer they set out to interview environmental leaders as well as others to see if they could find the answer. The video is well researched and illustrated. But more than that, it is also entertaining. You will enjoy this video. <br />
The first lesson they learned is that no one wants to fund a video about why livestock degradation is ignored. That was a lesson itself about the cow conspiracy. The duo were not able to find any normal sources of funding, instead had to rely upon contributions from strangers. But they persevered and produced what I think is one of the best environmental documentaries done in recent years. What they show and document in their video is the implicit or in many cases, the explicit omission of livestock production as a major source of global environmental degradation on many fronts including water pollution, deforestation, global warming, species extinction, ocean dead zones, and more. <br />
So, for instance, the duo interview various well known authors and scientists like rancher Howard Lyman, of Mad Cowboy; Michael Pollen of Omnivore’s Dilemma; Will Tuttle, Environmental and Ethics author, Dr. Greg Lutis, and others who lay out the basic problem—no one wants to talk about the contribution of livestock to global environmental destruction. <br />
This is illustrated over and over again throughout the video where spokesman for various “green” groups are interviewed and either avoid livestock as a problem or deny/downplay its contribution to environmental woes. <br />
For instance, Bruce Hamilton of the Sierra Club, is interviewed about global climate change. Hamilton correctly identifies fossil fuel burning as one factor contributing to global warming, but when asked about livestock’s contribution to green house gas emissions—Hamilton says “what about it?” At this point, the video discusses many recent scientific papers that point to livestock production as the single largest contributor to GHG production—even exceeding all transportation sectors, yet the Sierra Club, like many other groups, simply does not identify it as a problem. <br />
The duo has similar responses from other organizations. For instance, when interviewing Rainforest Action Network about the causes of rainforest destruction, land clearing for livestock grazing and forage production is barely acknowledged. <br />
Their goal is not to embarrass these individuals or organizations, but rather to illustrate how the contribution of livestock to environmental degradation is too often ignored or omitted from official recognition by nearly everyone. <br />
The movie goes far beyond the obvious impacts of livestock production such as overgrazing of rangelands, and talks about everything from water pollution (from manure) to energy use in the production of meat to the mistreatment of meat producing animals by humans. Overall it makes a very cogent and articulate argument against meat/dairy consumption. <br />
They even take on Allan Savory, advocate of more livestock production as a means of reducing global warming, pointing out that methane production from domestic animals is one of the largest contributors to warming climate, and vastly exceeds any ability of grazed grassland ecosystems to absorb more carbon. <br />
The video is full of facts illustrated with great graphs like how many more gallons of water or the amount of land required in the production of a hamburger vs. a veggie burger that will make it easy to understand why livestock are one of the greatest threats to global biodiversity and ecosystems. <br />
So why is livestock production and its multitude of environmental impacts so ignored by even environmental groups? The conclusion that Andersen and Kuhn come to is that it’s just too risky to discuss. Many groups depend on contributions from major donors and foundations that do not want livestock production criticized. The rancher and dairy farmer are cultural icons in many parts of the country—you cannot challenge them without risk to your organization’s financial security. <br />
There exists what I call a Bovine Curtain very similar to the Iron Curtain that once prevented outside news from penetrating the old Soviet Union. The Bovine Curtain comes in many forms. Land management agencies like the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management seldom critique livestock production as a source of ecosystem degradation because they must answer to western politicians who often are ranchers or otherwise associated with agriculture. Similarly, many universities researchers do not investigate the negative consequences of livestock production and are silenced because they rely upon funding from legislatures dominated by Ag producers. In some states it is even against the law to critique Ag interests—as TV host personality Opiah Winfrey learned in 1998when she was sued by a Texas cattleman for allegedly making disparaging remarks about beef. Even though Winfrey ultimately won the suit, she no longer will even discuss the issue so in essence the threat of another law suit has silenced her. <br />
My personal experience confirms Andersen and Kukn’s assertions that there is an unspoken and explicit desire to discuss livestock as an environmental, ethical, and health issue. For instance, I once worked for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) in Montana. GYC expressly forbade me to discuss livestock production’s contribution to the issues that the organization was highlighting. The organization’s board of directors included many wealthy people who had purchased ranches in the ecosystem and raised cattle. And GYC, like many western based environmental groups wanted to avoid antagonizing regional politicians like county commissioners to governors and Congressional representatives who are frequently ranchers or otherwise connected to Agricultural interests. <br />
For example, when I was asked to discuss the threats to the ecosystem at the organization’s annual board meeting, I was not allowed to mention livestock production even though many of the issues the group was fighting could be traced directly back to ranching as the ultimate source of the environmental problem. Whether it was dewatering of rivers for irrigation and its detrimental impacts on fisheries, to the spread of disease from domestic sheep to wild bighorn sheep, from the killing of bison that wandered from Yellowstone Park to opposition to wolf recovery to the continued policy of elk feedgrounds in Wyoming, the ultimate source of the problem was and is livestock. However, GYC was unwilling to frame the issue that way for fear of antagonizing its board and/or regional politicians. <br />
In another example of the Bovine Curtain slamming down, I had been admitted to a Ph.D. program at Montana State University in Bozeman and offered a four year financial grant to support my academic pursuits. However, when the Montana ranching community learned that I, a well-known Montana livestock critic, might be attending the state’s premier Ag school, they applied pressure to everyone from the department head to the President of the University threatening to cut funding to the university if my admission wasn’t denied and grant withdrawn. In the end I did not attend the university due to this perceived hostility. <br />
The cow conspiracy is not only in the West. I lived for a time in Vermont where dairy farming is relegated to the status of a God. For instance though dairy farms are the chief source of pollution of Vermont’s rivers and one of the major contributors to the eutrophication of Lake Champlain, there is virtually no critique of dairy farming in the state. No environmental groups are actively pursuing reduction in dairies despite their well document environmental impacts, not to mention the health risk associated with consumption of dairy products. Instead dairy products are lauded as “good” in Vermont and supported as “local” agriculture. Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream which was founded in Vermont is often held up as a responsible corporation even though consumption of ice cream is extremely unhealthy to consume. And while a few groups discuss the negative consequences of sprawl on the landscape, they virtually ignore the far greater acreage in Vermont that is degraded by corn and/or hay production to feed livestock. Of course dairy farming contributes to many impacts from manure, fertilizer and pesticide run off into streams, GMO seeds, to the mono cropping that destroys native biodiversity. Even Bill McKibben’s 350.org, a group based in Vermont and dedicated to reducing global warming, fails to mention the contribution that livestock production makes to global climate change. <br />
The truth is that there are very few environmental organizations that are willing to even discuss livestock production’s impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function, much less other related issues like human health and ethical treatment of animals. <br />
Hopefully after viewing he Cow Conspiracy you be will motivated to start questioning politicians, environmental organizations and others why they are ignoring what is ultimately one of the major contributors to global climate change and biodiversity losses. <br />
You can find out more about the movie at this link-- http://vimeo.com/95436726. Watch the trailer. Get a copy of the video and show it widely. Arrange for a showing at conferences, in your college classes, at your church, and any other forum. Better yet support Kip and Keegan’s efforts by making a contribution to them and joining one of the few organizations that are directly addressing livestock impacts on public lands like the Idaho based Western Watersheds Project (http://www.westernwatersheds.org/). <br />
Author’s Bio: George Wuerthner is an ecologist, author of 37 books dealing with wildlands and environmental issues including Welfare Ranching: The Environmental Impacts of Livestock Production on the Arid West. He is also a board member of Western Watershed Project. <br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-80747418908210679802014-03-05T11:44:00.001-08:002014-03-05T11:44:41.156-08:00Whither the Hunter/Conservationists? WHITHER THE HUNTER/CONSERVATIONIST? <br />
Many hunter organizations like to promote the idea that hunters were the first and most important conservation advocates. They rest on their laurels of early hunter/wildlife activist like Teddy Roosevelt, and George Bird Grinnell who, among other things, were founding members of the Boone and Crocket Club. But in addition to being hunter advocates, these men were also staunch proponents of national parks and other areas off limits to hunting. Teddy Roosevelt help to establish the first wildlife refuges to protect birds from feather hunters, and he was instrumental in the creation of numerous national parks including the Grand Canyon. Grinnell was equally active in promoting the creation of national parks like Glacier as well as a staunch advocate for protection of wildlife in places like Yellowstone. Other later hunter/wildlands advocates like Aldo Leopold and Olaus Murie helped to promote wilderness designation and a land ethic as well as a more enlightened attitude about predators. <br />
Unfortunately, though there are definitely still hunters and anglers who put conservation and wildlands protection ahead of their own recreational pursuits, far more of the hunter/angler community is increasingly hostile to wildlife protection and wildlands advocacy. Perhaps the majority of hunters were always this way, but at least the philosophical leaders in the past were well known advocates of wildlands and wildlife. <br />
Nowhere is this change in attitude among hunter organizations and leadership more evident than the deafening silence of hunters when it comes to predator management. Throughout the West, state wildlife agencies are increasing their war on predators with the apparent blessings of hunters, without a discouraging word from any identified hunter organization. Rather the charge for killing predators is being led by groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and others who are not only lobbying for more predator killing, but providing funding for such activities to state wildlife agencies. <br />
For instance, in Nebraska which has a fledging population of cougars (an estimated 20) the state wildlife agency has already embarked on a hunting season to “control” cougar numbers. Similarly in South Dakota, where there are no more than 170 cougars, the state has adopted very aggressive and liberal hunting regulations to reduce the state’s cougar population. <br />
But the worst examples of an almost maniacal persecution of predators are related to wolf policies throughout the country. In Alaska, always known for its Neanderthal predator policies, the state continues to promote killing of wolves adjacent to national parks. Just this week the state wiped out a pack of eleven wolves that were part of a long term research project in the Yukon Charley National Preserve. Alaska also regularly shoots wolves from the air, and also sometimes includes grizzly and black bears in its predator slaughter programs. <br />
In the lower 48 states since wolves were delisted from the federal Endangered Species Act and management was turned over to the state wildlife agencies more than 2700 wolves have been killed. <br />
This does not include the 3435 additional wolves killed in the past ten years by Wildlife Services, a federal predator control agency, in both the Rockies and Midwest. Most of this killing was done while wolves were listed as endangered. <br />
As an example of the persecutory mentality of state wildlife agencies, one need not look any further than Idaho, where hunters/trappers, along with federal and state agencies killed 67 wolves this past year in the Lolo Pass area on the Montana/Idaho border, including some 23 from a Wildlife Service’s helicopter gun ship. The goal of the predator persecution program is to reduce predation on elk. However, even the agency’s own analysis shows that the major factor in elk number decline has been habitat quality declines due to forest recovery after major wildfires which has reduced the availability of shrubs and grasses central to elk diet. In other word, with or without predators the Lolo Pass area would not be supporting the number of elk that the area once supported after the fires. Idaho also hired a trapper to kill wolves in the Frank Church/River of No Return Wilderness to increase elk numbers there. <br />
Idaho hunters are permitted to obtain five hunting and five trapping tags a year, and few parts of the state have any quota or limits. Idaho Governor Butch Otter recently outlined a new state budget allotting $2 million dollars for the killing of wolves—even though the same budget cuts funding for state schools. <br />
Other states are no better than Idaho. Montana has a generous wolf six month long season. Recent legislation in the Montana legislature increased the number of wolves a hunter can kill to five and allows for the use of electronic predator calls and removes any requirement to wear hunter orange outside of the regular elk and deer seasons. And lest you think that only right wing Republican politicians’ support more killing, this legislation was not opposed by one Democratic Montana legislator, and it was signed into law by Democratic Governor Steve Bullock because he said Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks supported the bill. <br />
Wyoming has wolves listed as a predator with no closed season or limit nor even a requirement for a license outside of a “trophy” wolf zone in Northwest Wyoming. <br />
The Rocky Mountain West is known for its backward politics and lack of ethics when it comes to hunting, but even more “progressive” states like Minnesota and Wisconsin have cow-towed to the hunter anti predator hostility. Minnesota allows the use of snares, traps, and other barbaric methods to capture and kill wolves. At the end of the first trapping/hunting season in 2012/2013, the state’s hunters had killed more than 400 wolves. <br />
Though wolves are the target species that gets the most attention, nearly all states have rabid attitudes towards predators in general. So in the eastern United States where wolves are still absent, state wildlife agencies aggressively allow the killing of coyotes, bears and other predators. For instance, Vermont, a state that in my view has undeserved reputation for progressive policies, coyotes can be killed throughout the year without any limits. <br />
These policies are promoted for a very small segment of society. About six percent of Americans hunt, yet state wildlife agencies routinely ignore the desires of the non-hunting public. Hunting is permitted on a majority of US Public lands including 50% of wildlife “refuges as well as nearly all national forests, all Bureau of Land Management lands, and even a few national parks. In other words, the hunting minority dominates public lands wildlife policies. <br />
Most state agencies have a mandate to manage wildlife as a public trust for all citizens, yet they clearly serve only a small minority. Part of this is tradition, hunters and anglers have controlled state wildlife management for decades. Part of it is that most funding for these state agencies comes from the sale of licenses and tags. And part is the worldview that dominates these agencies which sees their role as “managers” of wildlife, and in their view, improving upon nature. <br />
None of these states manage predators for their ecological role in ecosystem health. Despite a growing evidence that top predators are critical to maintaining ecosystem function due to their influence upon prey behavior, distribution and numbers, I know of no state that even recognizes this ecological role, much less expends much effort to educate hunters and the public about it. (I hasten to add that many of the biologists working for these state agencies, particularly those with an expertise about predators, do not necessarily support the predator killing policies and are equally appalled and dismayed as I am by their agency practices.) <br />
Worse yet for predators, there is new research that suggests that killing predators actually can increase conflicts between humans and these species. One cougar study in Washington has documented that as predator populations were declining, complaints rose. There are good reasons for this observation. Hunting and trapping is indiscriminate. These activities remove many animals from the population which are adjusted to the human presence and avoid, for instance, preying on livestock. But hunting and trapping not only opens up productive territories to animals who may not be familiar with the local prey distribution thus more likely to attack livestock, but hunting/trapping tends to skew predator populations to younger age classes. Younger animals are less skillful at capturing prey, and again more likely to attack livestock. A population of young animals can also result in larger litter size and survival requiring more food to feed hungry growing youngsters—and may even lead to an increase in predation on wild prey—having the exact opposite effect that hunters desire. <br />
Yet these findings are routinely ignored by state wildlife agencies. For instance, despite the fact that elk numbers in Montana have risen from 89,000 animals in 1992 several years before wolf reintroductions to an estimated 140,000-150,000 animals today, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks does almost nothing to counter the impression and regular misinformation put forth by hunter advocacy groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or the Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife that wolves are “destroying” Montana’s elk herds. <br />
I have attended public hearings on wolves and other predator issues, and I have yet to see a single hunter group support less carnivore killing. So where are the conservation hunters? Why are they so silent in the face of outrage? Where is the courage to stand up and say current state wildlife agencies policies are a throw-back to the last century and do not represent anything approaching a modern understanding of the important role of predators in our ecosystems? <br />
As I watch state after state adopting archaic policies, I am convinced that state agencies are incapable of managing predators as a legitimate and valued member of the ecological community. Their persecutory policies reflect an unethical and out of date attitude that is not in keeping with modern scientific understanding of the important role that predators play in our world. <br />
It is apparent from evidence across the country that state wildlife agencies are incapable of managing predators for ecosystem health or even with apparent ethical considerations. Bowing to the pressure from many hunter organizations and individual hunters, state wildlife agencies have become killing machines and predator killing advocates. <br />
Most people at least tolerant the killing of animals that eaten for food, though almost everyone believes that unnecessary suffering should be avoided. But few people actually eat the predators they kill, and often the animals are merely killed and left on the killing fields. Yet though many state agencies and some hunter organizations promote the idea that wanton waste of wildlife and unnecessary killing and suffering of animals is ethically wrong, they conveniently ignore such ideas when it comes to predators, allowing them to be wounded and left to die in the field, as well as permitted to suffer in traps. Is this ethical treatment of wildlife? I think not. <br />
Unfortunately unless conservation minded hunters speak up, these state agencies as well as federal agencies like Wildlife Services will continue their killing agenda uninhibited. I’m waiting for the next generation of Teddy Roosevelts, Aldo Leopolds and Olaus Muries to come out of the wood work. Unless they do, I’m afraid that ignorance and intolerant attitudes will prevail and our lands and the predators that are an important part of the evolutionary processes that created our wildlife heritage will continue to be eroded. <br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-49087363966678888112014-01-27T15:25:00.001-08:002014-01-27T15:25:08.539-08:00Why Thinning Forests is Poor Wildfire Strategy Much of the current political discussion about forest thinning and many of the efforts being implemented or proposed for federal forest lands are aimed at reducing large severe wildfires. It seems intuitively obvious to most people that reducing fuels will eliminate or minimize large fires that burn across large swaths of the West and occasionally threaten homes and communities.<br />
<br />
But it is also intuitively obvious that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, and thus must circle the Earth—yet we know that what seems intuitively obvious about the sun’s relationship to the Earth is false. Similarly while fuel reductions may appear to be a panacea for halting large fires, in reality they are not.<br />
<br />
To evaluate thinning for fuel reduction effectiveness we need some context. First there is the issue of how fires burn and don’t burn. Fires only ignite and spread when the weather/climatic conditions are appropriate to sustain a blaze. You can have all the fuel in the world, and not get a fire if the fuel is too moist or otherwise unable to sustain a flame. That is why there are few large fires in the old growth coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest even though there is tons of fuel per acre.<br />
<br />
Because fires only burn when weather/climatic conditions are “ripe” for a fire, most ignitions go out whether we do anything or not. For instance, between 1972 and 1987 Yellowstone National Park decided to experimentally allow all natural fires to burn without suppression. There were 237 blazes during that period, and the vast majority burned only a few to a hundred acres, and no more. Even more telling, all self-extinguished without any intervention.<br />
<br />
Yet under normal fire policy on public lands, such fires would have been “put out” by fire fighters who would have claimed credit for extinguishing the flames. The vast majority of all wildfires are in this category—in that they would go out on their own with or without suppression and they will only char a small amount of forest.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there are a few blazes that are ignited under severe fire weather conditions of low humidity, high temperatures, drought and wind. Under these extreme conditions, fires are difficult to impossible to extinguish. They may burn hundreds of thousands of acres before they go out—usually on their own whether we do anything or not. These are the fires that everyone knows, such as the Yellowstone fires of 1988, the 2002 Hayman fire in Colorado, the Biscuit Fire of Oregon in 2002, the 2007 Murphy Fire in Idaho, the Rim Fire near Yosemite in 2013, and other well-known blazes that have charred millions of acres of the West in recent years.<br />
<br />
There is a consistent theme to these fires. They all burned under extreme fire weather conditions—and often burned through thinned forests, clearcuts, overgrazed rangelands and previously burned acreage. In other words, fuel reductions did not appear to appreciably change the course of these blazes.<br />
<br />
When you look at statistics it is these few well known fires that burn the vast majority of all acreage in the West. One study concluded that more than 96% of all acreage burned was the result of 2% of the blazes and, even more telling, half of all acreage burned was the result of less than 0.1% of all blazes. In other words, it is a few very rare, and very large, fires that burn the bulk of all forest acreage and, it should be noted, these do the bulk of all ecological work and provide most of the benefits associated with fire.<br />
<br />
So it is these few fire that most fire-fighting policy and related thinning efforts are designed to halt or control. Yet it is never asked whether thinning can actually effectively halt such blazes.<br />
<br />
There are good reasons to believe that thinning cannot and will not effectively halt such blazes.<br />
<br />
First, most thinning projects are not done properly. A properly performed fuels reduction project would include not only mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, but also broadcast prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels. In fact, mechanical thinning alone often INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground.<br />
<br />
Additionally, thinning in some instances can INCREASE fire spread by exposing the forest floor’s fuels to greater sun drying and greater penetration by wind through the open forest stands. What is surprising to learn is that often the most dense forest stands (i.e. those with the most fuels) do not burn well because they retain moisture the longest, and wind is impeded from pushing flames through such dense forests.<br />
<br />
Second, thinning by removing competition between trees and brush often increases rapid regrowth of vegetation. Therefore, any thinning/fuels reduction program must have follow-up maintenance in the form of recurring prescribed burns and/or thinning to be effective. Yet most thinning projects do not even get the first prescribed burning, much less follow up burns.<br />
<br />
There are several reasons for this. The first is that many thinning projects, although consistently money-losing affairs, do recoup some funds by the sale of wood to timber companies. But once a site has been logged, it is decades before it can be logged again. So there is no financial incentive for follow-up maintenance work.<br />
<br />
Also, prescribed burning is risky, and the opportunity for agencies to set fires is limited to short windows of time. Many forest managers are loath to okay a prescribed burn unless conditions are ideal for containment. No one wants to be the person who signed off on a prescribed burn and then had it get away and burn homes to the ground. However, when conditions are good for controlling a blaze, they are usually not good for fire spread.<br />
<br />
In the last analysis, the politics of forest thinning promotes more logging. The timber industry has successfully sold the idea that fuel reductions work and it has great influence with politicians who buy into to its assurance that logging reduces large fires.<br />
<br />
Due to rapid regrowth of vegetation released from competition from other trees and shrubs, the effectiveness of fuel reduction projects—even those done properly—is lost relatively quickly.<br />
<br />
Since one cannot predict where and when fire will occur, the vast majority of fuel reduction projects are a waste of time and money because the probability that a fire will start or move into a thinned forest in any given time period that matters is exceedingly small.<br />
<br />
Worse, all thinning projects have unintended ecological consequences. Nearly all require roads for forest access. Roads are a major cause of the spread of weeds. Roads also increase access for hunters, trappers, and poachers, reducing security for wildlife. Roads also are the major source of sediment flow into waterways, thus negatively impacting fish. Removal of biomass off-site also has impacts on forest ecosystems, eliminating nutrients and reducing wildlife habitat.<br />
<br />
So even where fuel reductions are done and maintained properly, and happen to be in the path of a major fire, one must ask if the negative impacts associated with these thinning projects don’t outweigh the benefits—especially, since they all lose money.<br />
<br />
And here’s the clincher. Even if thinning/fuel reductions did stop fires under moderate fire weather conditions, it would likely not matter because most of such fires self-extinguish anyway.<br />
<br />
The fires that thinning is designed to halt are the very few large severe wildfires that are driven by drought, high temperatures, low humidity and, most importantly, wind. The fires that make the news stories across the country and are responsible for burning the vast majority of all acres in the West are exactly the fires thinning—even when done properly—cannot halt. The reason? Wind!<br />
<br />
Wind blows burning embers several miles ahead of a fire front, easily hopping over thinned forest patches. Wind also increases the intensity of the blaze as anyone who has blown on a smoldering fire and seen it flare up can attest. All large fires around the West burn under high wind conditions and in those situations, fire fighters and their techniques are ineffective. Indeed, under high winds, fires will jump highways, rivers, and lakes where there is no fuel. They will race across grass stubble on over-grazed rangelands. Fuels do not limit fires under such weather/climate conditions.<br />
<br />
Even if it were possible to reduce large fires by thinning, one must ask whether it would be advisable to do so. It turns out that the severely burnt forests that result from large conflagrations are among the most biologically important habitats. The snag forests that result from severe stand replacement blazes have the second highest biodiversity of any forest habitat in the West. The dead trees that result are a long term biological legacy critical to forest ecosystem health.<br />
<br />
So is there any place for forest thinning/fuel reductions? There is. But it should be limited to the areas immediately surrounding homes and communities. Since one can’t predict where a fire will start and burn, thinning forest willy-nilly is a waste of effort. Not only are most thinning projects done improperly, most are done for the wrong reasons and lose taxpayer money to boot.<br />
<br />
No one wants houses and towns to burn up. Focusing thinning on the immediate area around structures is cost effective. It is also easier to maintain fuel reductions near homes because access is easy, and even though there are negatives with any logging operation, by focusing those impacts to the area immediately around homes and towns—places already impacted by human use—we minimize those negative ecological impacts.<br />
<br />
Thinning trees/shrubs near homes, combined with a reduction in home flammability by installation of metal roofs, removal of flammable materials adjacent to homes, and other measures can virtually guarantee a home will survive even a severe high intensity forest fire.<br />
<br />
Thinning forests for fuels reductions, unless strategically done, is a waste of taxpayer funds, and has significant ecological impacts. It is unwise forest policy.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-53342345006762047202013-12-12T11:45:00.001-08:002013-12-12T11:45:43.579-08:00Montana Grayling Final Push for ListingThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is taking comments on the proposed listing of the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following the status review, the Service will either publish a proposed rule to protect the Arctic grayling under the ESA, or a withdrawal from candidate status in the Federal Register by Sept. 30, 2014. This may be the final step in the long drawn out effort to provide federal protection for this iconic fish.<br />
<br />
The plight of the grayling, like many native fish in the West is tied to livestock production. Directly and indirectly livestock production is the major factor in grayling decline. As a result of the political clout of the ranching industry, the agencies responsible for grayling recovery including the Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) as well as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have had to operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Their walking orders are to do nothing that would antagonize the ranchers. The machinations that have befallen the grayling are a clear example of how political considerations trump the biological criteria that are supposed to guide ESA decisions.<br />
<br />
LISTING UNDER ESA FIRST PROPOSED IN 1991<br />
<br />
In 1990 I was clandestinely contacted by several Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks fishery biologists who were concerned that their department was not aggressively addressing the threats to the grayling. They asked me to seek federal protection on behalf of the grayling under the ESA.<br />
<br />
In 1991 I and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation filed a petition to list the grayling. It was our collective hope that ESA listing would provide the legal muscle to implement changes in habitat management to the benefit of the grayling that MDFWP, the US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies were unable or unwilling to do without the club of the ESA hanging over their heads.<br />
<br />
By 1994 the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had determined that the grayling was indeed headed for extinction and warranted protection under the ESA. However, listing was precluded according to the Service because other species were in greater peril—a common ploy to avoid listing controversial species.<br />
<br />
Numerous attempts to gain listing since 1991 have failed as a result of political interference from Congressional members and the Bush administration, opposition from the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks as well as the co-opting of environmental groups by ranching interests. Groups like Montana Trout Unlimited (TU) have actively fought against listing. Instead TU and other organizations have sought to cozy up to the ranchers and advocated modest modifications in livestock management instead of actively seeking ESA protection.<br />
<br />
POLITICAL MACHINATIONS<br />
<br />
The effort to list the grayling and provide the federal protection it deserves under the ESA is a good example of Machiavellian logic and deceit. During the next decade, grayling numbers continued to plummet, but listing was avoided by numerous political machinations. After the initial decision by the FWS to list the grayling as a candidate but with no further movement I and others made repeated follow up requests to the Service to upgrade the grayling’s status.<br />
<br />
In March of 2004 the FWS finally bumped the grayling priority from a level nine to a level three, the highest priority level for a candidate listing. In May 2004, I and others, petitioned for emergency listing of the grayling to try to move it from candidate to protected status. After nearly three years of delay, the Fish and Wildlife Service responded to our petition in April of 2007. Instead of listing the grayling, the FWS reversed itself due to interference from the Bush administration, and determined the grayling no longer deserved special Distinct Population Status at all and removed it from candidate status. This decision was legally challenged by the Center for Biological Diversity and others.<br />
<br />
In 2009, after the election of Barack Obama, the FWS again reversed itself, and remanded the 2007 decision, and conducted a new review of the Distinct Population Status (DPS). In September of 2010 the FWS concluded that the grayling was indeed listable under the DPS. It was once again given a priority level three candidate status where it remains today.<br />
<br />
FAILURE OF COLLABORATION<br />
<br />
Whether listing in 1991 when I first petitioned for ESA protection would have reversed the decline of grayling can be debated, but collaboration with ranchers has not produced the desired recovery of the fish. During this intervening period, Missouri River grayling populations have declined by an average of 7 percent a year and now number less than half of their 1990 numbers. In many remaining waters, the effective breeding population of fish numbers in the low hundreds—and grayling are in essence already functionally extinct. For instance, in the 113 miles of occupied grayling habitat in the Big Hole River, it was estimated by the early 2000s there were around 200 adult fish—or little more than one grayling per river mile. In 2012 researchers found an average of three grayling of 1 year age per mile in a 19 mile stretch that was surveyed. Whether grayling can be recovered in most of the remaining occupied habitat at this point is questionable, but certainly worth trying.<br />
<br />
GRAYLING DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT<br />
<br />
Arctic Grayling are found in cold clear waters across the Boreal Ecoregion in both North America and Eurasia. The Missouri River Arctic Grayling are an ice age relict and considered a genetically distinct population. The ancestral Missouri River once flowed north to Hudson Bay and the predecessors of today’s fish were isolated in the Upper Missouri when Continental Glaciers blocked the river’s northward flow and shifted its waters east and eventually to the Mississippi drainage and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico.<br />
<br />
A beautiful fish with a large dorsal fin and shimmering purple sides, the species reaches its southern limits in the colder waters of Montana’s Upper Missouri River drainage. Lewis and Clark were the first to record the species. At that time, grayling were found in the Sun, Smith, Gallatin, Madison, Red Rock, Beaverhead, Jefferson, and Big Hole rivers. (There are unconfirmed reports that grayling may be native to the St. Mary’s River near Glacier National Park). The next closest population of grayling is found hundreds of miles further north in the Pembina River west of Edmonton, Alberta.<br />
<br />
By 1990 when I became involved in grayling issues, the fish was restricted to the Big Hole River drainage, Upper Red Rock River drainage, and a small portion of the Madison River near Ennis, Montana. Natural populations of grayling were also found in a number of lakes in these drainages, including Miner Lakes and Mussigbrod Lake in the Big Hole drainage and Upper Red Rock Lakes in the same named river drainage. (Note that Arctic Grayling have been stocked in lakes outside of its historic range so one may find them in various other water bodies). The last significant refuge for Missouri River grayling is the Big Hole River where the fish are found in approximately 113 miles of the main stem and 45 miles of tributaries between Glen and Jackson, Montana. Today Arctic Grayling only occupy about 4-5 percent of their historic range in the Upper Missouri River.<br />
<br />
The FWS estimates that, with the exception of the fish in Mussigbrod Lake, the remaining strongholds for grayling including the Big Hole River have a 13-55% change of extinction in the next 30 years simply due to random stochastic events.<br />
<br />
REASONS FOR GRAYLING DECLINE<br />
<br />
The major factor in grayling decline can be summarized in one word—cows. Livestock production has multiple negative effects on grayling.<br />
<br />
The biggest impact is dewatering of rivers for hay irrigation. Dewatering of the Big Hole River in particular has been exacerbated by a number of drought years. In June the river often runs at over 2000 CFS, but in summer during irrigation season, it can be drawn down to 20 CFS, with some portions of the river dried up completely.<br />
<br />
Water draw downs affects grayling in several ways. First, reduction in water flows forces all fish into smaller pools of habitat, increasing the competition among grayling as well as other fish for food and security.<br />
<br />
Reduction in water flow creates shallower river channels that heat up more in summer sun, with in-stream temperatures often climbing to lethal levels during extended hot periods. Indeed, in most summers, the Big Hole River exceeds Clean Water Act standards for temperatures. For instance in during the summer of 2012, ten out of eleven temperature monitoring stations in the river exceeded 70 degrees, the thermal threshold for salmonid species (like the grayling).<br />
<br />
Run off water from irrigated fields that is not lost to evaporation also tends to be warmer, and sometimes full of pollutants such as manure and fertilizers.<br />
<br />
Irrigation barriers and diversions in streams (small dams designed to shift flow into irrigation channels) also act as barriers to upstream migration of grayling that might otherwise seek out colder headwater streams.<br />
<br />
Dewatering for irrigation often completely dries up grayling spawning streams, killing any eggs or fry that are in them. Entire recruitment for a season can be lost.<br />
<br />
Young grayling that are hatched in tributary streams and move downstream during the summer months can wind up in irrigation ditches instead of the main river. At the end of the season when irrigation gates are closed, grayling are trapped in irrigation ditches that subsequently dewatered killing all fish in them.<br />
<br />
Loss of adequate flows is probably the biggest factor in grayling demise. But cattle also impact grayling habitat by trampling and compaction the wet meadows, headwater springs, and other natural sponges that are a source for up to half of the late season flows in these rivers.<br />
<br />
Trampling by cattle of the riparian streamside vegetation also harms grayling. Breakage of banks by cattle hooves contributes to widening of stream channels (and subsequently less pool habitat and higher water temperatures) with fewer deep pools which is the ideal grayling habitat. Cattle browsing on willows, as well as changes in hydrology due to livestock impacts, have significantly reduced streamside vegetation, eliminating shade which contributes to higher and often lethal temperatures for grayling. Trampling of stream banks by cattle also contributes to higher erosion and sedimentation in streams. Even non-grazed areas are impacted. For instance, portions of Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge that are closed to livestock grazing, still suffer from sedimentation flowing into the refuge from upstream livestock grazing damage.<br />
<br />
This sedimentation flow resulting from accelerated erosion not only smothers grayling spawning beds, but fills in and reduces the deep pools that are a necessary component of grayling over-winter habitat. For instance, due to livestock induced sedimentation, the average depth of Upper Red Rock Lake in Red Rock Lakes NWR has shrunk from 25 feet to 16 feet in the last century.<br />
<br />
Unlike northern grayling populations that co-evolved with top predatory fish like bull trout, lake trout, and northern pike, throughout its Missouri River range, the grayling has lived without an apex predator. Except for small grayling populations that co-existed with lake trout in Miner Lake in the Big Hole drainage, and Elk Lake in the Red Rock drainage, grayling did not co-exist with any top predatory fish.<br />
<br />
Although the evidence is unclear, it is assumed that competition with non-native trout like rainbow trout, brown trout and brook trout have impacted grayling populations. Circumstantial evidence suggests non-native fish do limit grayling since nearly all attempts to restore grayling in streams with competing non-natives have thus far been unsuccessful (though there is limited evidence for grayling recruitment in the Ruby River). Competition that may exist with non-native fish like brook trout is exacerbated by irrigation dewatering and the shrinkage of habitat associated with water draw downs. So once again, livestock production may be culpable for grayling decline induced by non-native fish competition.<br />
<br />
DAMS FRAGMENT AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS<br />
<br />
Another suspected cause of the grayling decline in the Upper Missouri River system is the loss of migratory function. Many grayling populations migrate long distances between spawning habitat and over winter sites. I once witnessed a grayling migration in the Kobuk River in Alaska where thousands of fish stream past me as they were descending the river as it froze to overwinter in deep holes in the lower river. Similar migrations once likely occurred in the Upper Missouri River. However, numerous dams have been built on these rivers, including on the Big Hole, Beaverhead, Madison, Ruby, Jefferson, Sun, and Red Rock. For instance, the Ennis Dam on the Madison River is known to block grayling migrations, and any fish that fall below the dam cannot return back upstream and are lost from the population. Nearly all of these dams were built for irrigation water storage—thus yet another impact of livestock production upon grayling survival.<br />
<br />
GENETIC DRIFT<br />
<br />
Historic effective breeding population of grayling in the Upper Missouri system was an order of magnitude of 10-100 times greater than today. Due to the fragmented nature of grayling populations, combined with current small population numbers, random genetic drift may jeopardize the future of the fish as maladaptive alleles are spread throughout the remaining fish populations. At least in the short term, reestablishing grayling populations across entire river drainages like the Big Hole and Red Rock River seems highly unlikely, which makes modification of grazing practices and livestock operations even more critical to the fish’s survival.<br />
<br />
CLIMATE CHANGE<br />
<br />
The wild card in the grayling’s future is climate change. Regional temperatures are predicted to rise an average of up to 10 degrees in the next century. Warming temperatures could prove even more lethal to grayling populations if water flows are not substantially improved. Earlier spring run-off could also influence grayling by reducing late season flows.<br />
<br />
FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS<br />
<br />
MDFWP has spent many man hours studying and attempting to restore grayling with limited success—manly because they are not permitted to address the fundamental issue of livestock production impacts in a meaningful way. Nevertheless, the agency has attempted to restore grayling in several rivers including the Sun River upstream from Gibson Reservoir and in the Upper Ruby River near Twin Bridges, Montana. The Ruby River efforts appear to be paying off, with reproduction reported for four years in a row.<br />
<br />
However, all these efforts seem to be motivated more from a desire to preclude listing than to recover the grayling.<br />
<br />
One of the ways that the FWS has avoided listing of the grayling so far (even though it determined as early as 1994 that the species listing was warranted) was by signing off in 2006 on a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). The CCAA was implemented by Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in an attempt to preclude listing of the fish. Ranchers, who agreed to voluntarily implement habitat improvement mechanisms like planting of willows on riparian areas or releasing more water during drought periods, would be protected against any future restrictions designed to restore the grayling, should the fish be listed. Over 30 landowners in the Upper Big Hole River have signed on to the CCAA.<br />
<br />
The CCAA has spent $3.6 million (most of it tax dollars) to subsidize various projects designed to improve grayling survival and preclude listing. Among some of the improvements resulting from the CCAA and other efforts is a small increase in summer stream flows, removal of some barriers on tributary streams, and fencing of riparian areas. However, the overall effect has been far short of what is needed to stabilize, much less recover the grayling.<br />
<br />
Groups that have supported the CCAA and generally thwarted efforts to list the fish include Trout Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy. In their view, listing would have had little positive on the ground effects on the fish. They believe that the CCAA offered the best opportunity to improve conditions for the grayling. While undoubtedly some of the habitat improvements that have resulted are positive for the fish, the outcomes thus far are not very promising, as the grayling continues to slide towards extinction. If the grayling should be listed, the CCAA will limit the legal options for recovery.<br />
<br />
Even in the face of obvious political machinations and duplicitous manipulation of data and biological information during the past two decades, these groups remained silent. Personally, I will consider them culpable if the grayling goes extinct for their failure to alert the public to the fish’s plight and work EVERY angle, including legal protection of the ESA designed to recover the fish.<br />
<br />
Listing would have created a legal mandate for enforcement of the Clean Water Act minimum standards for water temperate, mandated grazing changes on federal lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM which control 50% of the grayling habitat, including much of its spawning habitat. It may also create opportunities to challenge dewatering of the Big Hole River by irrigators.<br />
<br />
At this point, it is my sincere hope that the FWS finally lists the grayling, and provides a legal safety net that can result in significant changes in grayling management.<br />
<br />
Anyone wishing to submit information regarding the Arctic grayling may do so by writing to Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2013-0120; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203, or electronically at regulations.gov. After accessing the regulations.gov website, Search for Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2013-0120 and then follow the instructions for submitting comments. Information must be received by Dec. 26.<br />
<br />
Additional information is available in the Federal Register announcement initiating this status review. For more information on the Arctic grayling go the FWP website or contact the FWP Service, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59602 or by telephone at 449-5225.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-38215533948694527412013-11-15T15:52:00.001-08:002013-11-15T15:52:29.685-08:00Allan Savory Myth and Reality <br />
Allan Savory: Myth And Reality<br />
By George Wuerthner <br />
<br />
Allan Savory is an advocate for the livestock management system known as, Holistic Management (HM). He is a former member of the Rhodesian Parliament (now Zimbabwe) and has made his living as a consultant with the Savory Institute. He is best known for his recent appearance as a TED speaker where he made a number of controversial statements that he has been advocating for decades, as well as some new claims. His most recent assertion is the idea that more livestock grazing may be the solution to global warming.<br />
<br />
In short, Savory’s basic theme is a variation on what has been called “short duration grazing” or “mob grazing”. Under such scenarios livestock, typically cattle are tightly herded through a confined pasture (small pastures) or rangeland so that the animals cannot be selective in their choice of food. Then the livestock are moved rapidly on to the next grazing area, and the previously grazed area is rested from livestock for an extended period of time, so the plants can recover and regrow. Savory’s advocacy for monitoring and careful attention to livestock plant utilization is consistent with well-established range management principles.<br />
<br />
However, many of his observations about animal behavior, plant ecology, evolutionary history and carbon storage are well outside the accepted scientific consensus. And these ideas can lead to damaged ecosystems and in the case of his ideas about livestock and global warming may actually be counterproductive—leading to greater GHG emissions if implemented according to his ideas.<br />
<br />
As with everything in science, there are few absolutes. There is great variation in land productivity, climate, and the experience of ranchers and farmers who are managing livestock that can affect outcomes. One may experience or hear about examples where Savory’s prescriptions appear to be valid, but as stated below they are usually isolated exceptions. Exceptions do not invalidate the rule.<br />
<br />
The few scientific experiments that Savory supporters cite as vindication of his methods (out of hundreds that refute his assertions), often fail to actually test his theories. Several of the studies cited on HM web site had utilization levels (degree of vegetation removed) well below the level that Savory actually recommends.<br />
<br />
The following are among Savory’s most debatable ideas that a majority of scientists and observers believe are contrary to standard rational understanding and observation.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Livestock grazing can reduce Green House Gases and reduce global warming.<br />
<br />
REALITY: One of Savory most recent claims is that grazing will stimulate the translocation of carbon from the atmosphere to the roots of plants, thus increasing domestic livestock numbers and grazing, Savory asserts, will significantly reduce global GHGs. While it is true that significant amounts of carbon are stored in the soils of rangelands, the ability to capture and transfer additional atmospheric carbon to grassland soils is very limited. Most arid grasslands have low productivity, thus low ability to store new sources of carbon.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, a full GHG accounting would demonstrate that domestic livestock are among the largest source of global GHG. Methane emissions from domestic livestock, particularly cattle, are considered one of the largest sources of global GHG. Livestock also emit nitrous oxide that is even more potent as a greenhouse gas. Together these emissions are considered by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to be responsible for up to 18% of global GHG.<br />
<br />
Even worse much of the livestock pasture around the world has been created and continues to be created by the destruction of forests which results in the release of even more carbon into the atmosphere. The replacement of forests with grass pasture thus increases overall carbon emissions. According to a recent review by World Watch Institute utilizing this full accounting system livestock production may be responsible for as much as 50% of all global GHG. Thus a reduction of domestic livestock numbers would go much further towards reduction of global atmospheric carbon than any small amount of carbon which might be sequestrated as a result of growth from grasses related to livestock grazing.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Holistic Management is superior to other grazing management strategies.<br />
<br />
Reality: Due to particular unique aspects of a livestock operation, HM methods may produce better results than other livestock management methods for that specific operation. However, in side by side comparisons with other grazing methods, if EQUAL attention to forage utilization and timing is followed HM methods have not been shown to be superior. And in many other situations HM has resulted in poorer condition livestock and damage to the land resources.<br />
<br />
The qualifier is that equal attention to forage utilization and timing is important because much of the success reported for HM has to do with a significant change in livestock producer effort as well as capital investment in more range developments like watering troughs and fencing that, along with intensive monitoring, resulted in better animal distribution. These results are often compared to past lack luster management whereby livestock were left to forage with little supervision. This frequently resulted in overgrazing in some areas, while other parts of the pasture, ranch or farm were barely utilized.<br />
<br />
However, it is important to note, efficient cropping of forage by HM methods is not necessarily an improvement for wildlife and plants, soils, water quality, and other values since intensive grazing has many negative effects on these ecosystem values. For many species the lightly grazed areas on the ranch or farm were/are places where wildlife find/found refugia and suitable habitat. Many beneficial insects, pollinators, and larger wildlife such as reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals benefit from the lightly grazed areas and can be critical for ecosystem functioning.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Savory’s intensive grazing management strategies have led to greater livestock production and economic gains for ranchers and are a panacea for declining ranch/farm bottom line.<br />
<br />
REALITY: Many ranchers cannot or are not able to adopt Savory’s intensive grazing management. First, the intensive management required by HM methods to be successful often requires significant investment in fencing, water development and other infrastructure. It also requires diligent attention to livestock grazing effects and movement. This kind of diligence and attention is often difficult for ranchers and farmers to implement due to economic and/or human constraints. Other limitations to the success of HM techniques are climate and terrain. HM works best in flat terrain where livestock impacts can more equally be distributed and where adequate moisture exists for plant regrowth.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Most rangelands suffer from “overrest” not overgrazing.<br />
<br />
REALTY: Overgrazing is the cumulative effect of multiple cropping of plants that leads to a decline in plant energy reserves, reduction in root mass, seed production/reproductive effort, and is often accompanied by soil erosion and overall changes in plant composition on a site. In the absence of livestock grazing, plants recover energy reserves, seed and reproductive effort typically improves and soil erosion is reduced. There are no documented examples of “overrest”.<br />
<br />
MYTH: In the absence of livestock grazing, plants become moribund and die.<br />
<br />
REALITY: There is ample evidence that plants do not require livestock grazing to remain viable. First, there are few places on Earth where plants are not “grazed” or “browsed” by natural herbivores including larger native mammals like bison, wildebeest or guanaco to small animals like ground squirrels and grass hoppers. So plants do not “need” livestock to thrive and on public lands at least we can and should promote native herbivores over exotic domestic livestock.<br />
<br />
Secondly, one can easily refuse this statement by visiting any number of natural areas that lack livestock and nevertheless have thriving grassland/rangeland ecosystems. Most National Parks do not permit livestock grazing. And there are literally tens of thousands of small and large grass covered landscapes that for one reason or another naturally exclude livestock like isolated buttes, cliffs, gorges, mesa, plateaus, and even rail and highway right of ways.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Hoof action increases water infiltration and helps to plant seeds.<br />
<br />
REALITY: Nearly all studies (dozens or hundreds) that have reviewed the effect of hooves on soil infiltration have shown that a thousand pound cow compacts soil, reducing the space between soil particles and thus reducing water penetration and increasing water runoff.<br />
<br />
Seeds do not require hoof action to germinate. The plants in rangelands have many different adaptations to ensure adequate recruitment without “hoof action.” Some seeds are attractive to seed eating species like some birds, voles, even ants that carry seeds to their burrows or new locations and help distribute and plant the seeds. Other plants have special adaptations like needle grass which “drills” itself into the ground to ensure successful germination.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Biocrusts capping soil surface inhibits plant growth, preventing seeds from penetrating the soil and water from soaking into the ground. Biocrusts need to be broken up by hoof action.<br />
<br />
REALITY: Biocrusts are common throughout grassland ecosystems around the world. They are particularly common in arid landscapes where they play a critical role in ecosystem health and function. Biocrusts cover the soil between the spaces in bunchgrass communities (bunchgrasses are common in arid landscapes) keep other plants from germinating and competing for nutrients and water. Biocrusts can decrease the germination of large seeded annual grasses that are degrading grasslands and increasing fire frequency in grasslands and steppe habitats. While inhibiting annual grasses the biocrusts help the perennial grass species thrive.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Livestock, particularly cattle, can be managed so as to emulate native species that may no longer graze grasslands.<br />
<br />
REALITY: The notion that livestock can replace or emulate the native grazers that may have inhabited a region prior to conversion to domestication. Nearly all plant communities have multiple herbivores that chomp, chew, and graze upon their leaves, stems and even roots. This includes everything from nematodes in the soil that “graze” on roots to grasshoppers, ground squirrels, birds like geese to larger mammals like deer, elk and bison. However, funneling above ground biomass (leaves, stems, etc.) into a single animal like a cow simplifies energy flow in the ecosystem. It can also result in uneven herbivory on plants since the natural collection of animals all graze different plants, different parts of plants at different times and seasons than the single herbivore effects of one or two kinds of domestic animals.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Domestic animals like cattle are merely replacing herds of native species like bison that once roamed grasslands.<br />
<br />
REALITY: There are substantial evolutionary differences between domestic animals like cattle and native species like bison. Bison naturally move more frequently than cattle. They are better at defending themselves against native predators. They can exist on lower quality forage than cattle.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, most of the American West did not have large grazing herds of bison and/or other large mammals. For instance, bison were largely absent or found in very small numbers west of the Continental Divide. Most of the Great Basin of what is now Nevada, western Utah, southern Idaho, southeast Oregon historically did not have large herds of grazing animals, nor did Arizona, much of California, Oregon and Washington.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Domestic animals like cattle merely replaced extinct native herbivores that once roamed the western United States.<br />
<br />
REALITY: Sometimes Savory advocates will admit that historically large herds of bison, elk and other grazing mammals were absent from much of the West. But they argue that cattle are merely replacing Ice Age herbivores like giant sloth and ancient bison that are now extinct.This ignores the fact that grasslands have not remained static since the last Ice Age. Indeed, in the absence of large herbivores, western grasslands have evolved in response to climate variation, and changing evolutionary pressures. The absence of large grazing mammals permitted plants with a low tolerance for grazing pressure to occupy much of the arid West. These plants invested energy in developing extensive root systems and other mechanisms to survive in arid environments but have few adaptations that permit them to survive grazing by large mammals.<br />
<br />
MYTH: Plants need to be grazed and benefit from livestock grazing.<br />
<br />
REALITY: Savory mixed up compensation with need and an economic value with a biological one. The grazing of a plant harms the plant, especially if the cropping occurs during the growing season. Plants can compensate for this loss but often do so at a cost to their overall fitness. Grazing the top of a grass means that the bottom or root of the plant will compensate for it but only with a loss of capital and root mass, weakening the plant that now needs rest from grazing.<br />
<br />
The loss of photosynthetic material (leaves) by grazing causes a plant to respond by translocation of energy from roots or other parts of the plant to build new leaf material—assuming there is sufficient moisture, nutrients and other critical elements available to recover from the grazing event.<br />
<br />
Thus cropping may result in greater overall biomass production as plants seek to compensate for their loss of leaf material. However, the production of more above-ground biomass is often done at the expense of other important plant material including a reduction in root growth, loss of reproductive effort (the plants expends energy on leaf production instead of seed production), and so forth. It is hardly a “benefit.”<br />
<br />
To characterize compensation from a harmful event as a need is analogous to suggesting that shooting and poisoning of coyotes is a “benefit” to coyotes because they compensate for these losses by producing additional pups.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-45317245797628613632013-07-22T22:06:00.002-07:002013-07-22T22:09:06.813-07:00Revisiting Fire History Studies <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XASdqdI5YQQ/Ue4P53NNU9I/AAAAAAAABIs/kZ6oZ9NPCiY/s1600/63721-00722+Open+ponderosa+pine+forest+along+Selway+River,+Selway+Bitterroot+Wilderness,+Nez+Perce+NF,+Idaho+George+Wuerthner+.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XASdqdI5YQQ/Ue4P53NNU9I/AAAAAAAABIs/kZ6oZ9NPCiY/s320/63721-00722+Open+ponderosa+pine+forest+along+Selway+River,+Selway+Bitterroot+Wilderness,+Nez+Perce+NF,+Idaho+George+Wuerthner+.jpg" /></a></div>Revisiting Fire History Studies<br />
One of the cornerstones of current forest policy is the assumption that western forests are outside of their “normal” density and appearance or what is termed “historic variability” due a hundred years of mismanagement that included logging of old growth, fire suppression, and livestock grazing.<br />
<br />
This idea has been used to justify logging public lands to “restore” forests to their pre-management era appearance and resiliency. Due to this past mismanagement we are told that forests are “over grown” “decadent” and ready to burn.<br />
<br />
Not to dismiss the past management that largely continues unabated today, including on-going logging, grazing and fire suppression, but whether the current forest stand condition is that far from past conditions is a matter of increasing debate. This is especially important because the proposed solution to the perceived problem is to log the forest. <br />
<br />
Deforestation is no longer done just to provide timber companies with profits or consumers with wood. Now lumber companies are involved in a much more noble enterprise—they are logging the trees to “restore” the presumed forest “health. <br />
<br />
The scientific basis for “restoration” is dependent on fire scar studies. These studies suggest that the drier forests composed of lower elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas fir burned frequently and thus kept density low with “park-like” open stands of mostly larger trees. Keep in mind the discussion is focused on lower elevation forests since higher elevation forests like lodgepole pine, fir and spruce are characterized by much longer fire intervals and definitely were not affected to any significant degree by fire suppression.<br />
<br />
So we often hear how such low elevation dry forests burned regularly at frequent intervals in “light, “cool” blazes that removed the litter and killed the small trees, but did little harm to the larger trees. <br />
<br />
Like a lot of myths, there is some truth to this generalization, and no doubt in some areas this characterization is accurate. But more recent studies using different methods have started to question this well-established story-line. These alternative interpretations are finding that the intervals between fires is much longer than previously suspected, and that stand replacement blazes (where most of the trees are killed) were likely more common even among lower elevation dry forests than previously thought. <br />
<br />
PROBLEMS WITH FIRE SCAR METHODS <br />
The major method for determining the fire history of an area is to find trees with scars created by fires. If the tree is not killed by the blaze, it will develop a scar that can be counted in the tree rings. This record of past fires is then used to determine the “fire rotation” or the time it takes to burn a specific area one time.<br />
<br />
There are four major flaws with many fire scar studies. These methodical flaws contribute to a shorter fire rotation bias—in other words, they tend to over state the effect of fire suppression on forests. And if the fire rotation is longer, than much of what is being characterized as unhealthy forest may be perfectly normal and healthy. <br />
<br />
The first flaw is targeted sampling. A researcher walks through the forest looking for areas with an abundance of fire scarred trees. The trees in this area are then sampled and used to determine the fire history for the area. In the 1930s the bank robber Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. Sutton is reputed to have replied with the self evident “because that is where the money is.” In a sense that is how fire researchers have gathered their data on fires—they sample in places with a lot of fire scars.<br />
<br />
The problem with targeted sampling is that it’s non random. It’s like going into a brewery to poll people about whether they like beer. Places with an abundance of fire scars tend to have naturally low fuel loadings. But these sites may not be representative of the surrounding landscape such as north facing slopes or valley bottoms which may be wetter or have higher productivity—thus longer intervals between blazes. <br />
<br />
The second flaw is composite fire scars. Most fire studies add up all the fire scars recorded into a “composite” timeline. The problem with this technique is that the more scars you find and count, the shorter the fire interval becomes. Since the majority of fires do not burn more than a single tree or a small group of trees, using these scars in the composite tends to bias the final count towards much more frequent intervals. Some fire researchers now try to counter this by only including fire scars recorded the same year on 3 or more trees. Nevertheless, even this may overstate the frequency of fire in a given study area.<br />
<br />
In other words, your composite may suggest a fire burned within your study area once every 5 years or whatever, but most of these blazes only burned a few trees, then ecologically speaking they are insignificant. What are important are the fires that burn most or all of the study area. These larger blazes may be far less frequent and take 100 years to burn most or all of the study area. Since the critical issue for the forest is the occurrence of the occasional blaze or series of fires that burns most, if not all of the entire study area, the real fire rotation for such an area may be 100 years, not every 5 years. <br />
<br />
The third flaw is fire distribution. If you read fire studies carefully they will usually note the longest interval without any recorded fire. Often this is a significant period of many decades. Why is this important? Because the average person hears that there were fires every 10 or 20 years and assumes that fires operate like clocks on a regular schedule. In reality fires come in episodic groups usually dictated by periodic droughts that are controlled by shifts in off shore currents like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, thus tend to be grouped together in certain drought prone decades. <br />
<br />
Let me give a hypothetical example of how “averaging” fire intervals can skew interpretations. Let’s say a particular fire history study found a fire interval that averaged one blaze every 20 years. In a 100 years, this works out to 5 fires. However, since fires tend to burn only in drier decades, one could easily have 3 fires in the first decade, and two in the last decade and no fires for the 80 years in between. <br />
<br />
Why is this important? Because the common assumption is that if the fire interval is 20 years, fires would keep tree density low and reduce fuel build up. However, if no fires burned in an area for 80 years or whatever the fire free interval may have been, then there may not be an “abnormal” build up of fuel or increase in tree density, when in fact, nothing is out of the ordinary at all. <br />
<br />
Finally the fourth major flaw is assuming that stand replacement blazes are unusual in dry lower elevation forests. Because most fire scar studies are non-random, and target areas with fire scars, the other areas are not sampled. Often the reason these non-sampled areas lack significant numbers of fire scarred trees is because all trees may have been killed in a stand replacement fires—so are not there to be recorded. <br />
<br />
Due to these flaws and errors in interpretation, many fire scar histories (but not all) may seriously misrepresent the fire rotation of an area. If the period between fires is considerably longer than previously thought, then our forests may not be far out of their historic variability and may be well within that variability. In either case, they do not require “restoration” because they are not out of balance. <br />
<br />
The other major justification for logging is to reduce the perceived increase in fire occurrence and severity often blamed on past forest management including fire suppression. As pointed out above, most forests may not be that far outside of historic conditions. <br />
<br />
The fact that we are seeing more and larger fires fits perfectly with the pattern that is expected under current climatic conditions. In other words, if you have drier weather conditions, with high temperatures, low humidity and high winds, you will get more fires. You will get larger fires. <br />
The prevailing climatic conditions are driving most of the apparent change in fire frequency and severity. For instance, the Southwest is in the grips of a drought that hasn’t been seen in five hundred years. Not surprisingly, there are fires now burning across the region bigger and more intense than any seen in the past. However, Paleo fire studies confirm that such large fires may not be abnormal when compared to the fires that burned similar severe droughts occurred in the past centuries. <br />
<br />
MANAGE FOR ECOLOGICAL PROCESS NOT SOME HISTORIC STAND STRUCTURE <br />
Finally there is too much emphasis on "restoring" stand structure (in other words the presumed appearance) of forests rather than on restoring ecological processes. It is more critical to accept and promote natural processes like beetle outbreaks, wildfires (including stand replacement blazes), and other natural ecological agents than simply trying to replicate some presumed historic forest structure. If these ecological processes are restored, than the forest will sort out the kind of appearance and structure that is appropriate for current climatic conditions.<br />
<br />
This is not to suggest that all fire scar historical reconstructions are wrong—but it does raise the prospect that many of our assumptions about fire may be inaccurate or biased to some degree. Many of the logging proposals in the West are likely based on flawed assumptions about fire ecology and historic conditions. And before any “restoration” logging is accepted as necessarily, the underlying assumptions should be carefully evaluated to make sure they are not skewed towards a shorter rotation that actually does not characterize the area accurately. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1F10e89srGk/Ue4PtrLusmI/AAAAAAAABIk/E4ydgP9_JrU/s1600/63721-00722+Open+ponderosa+pine+forest+along+Selway+River,+Selway+Bitterroot+Wilderness,+Nez+Perce+NF,+Idaho+George+Wuerthner+.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1F10e89srGk/Ue4PtrLusmI/AAAAAAAABIk/E4ydgP9_JrU/s320/63721-00722+Open+ponderosa+pine+forest+along+Selway+River,+Selway+Bitterroot+Wilderness,+Nez+Perce+NF,+Idaho+George+Wuerthner+.jpg" /></a></div>George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-47766249031846767672013-04-08T20:03:00.001-07:002013-04-08T20:03:22.405-07:00Lies about wolves Recently I attended a hearing in Helena where I heard numerous people, including many in the state Legislature, asserting that wolves were "decimating" Montana's game herds. Unfortunately due to the widespread repetition of the lies and distortions, the only thing being decimated is the truth.<br />
<br />
According to MDFWP in 1992, three years before wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone and Idaho, there were an estimated 89,000 elk in Montana. By 2010, elk had been so "decimated" that MDFWP estimated that elk numbers had grown to 140,000-150,000 animals.<br />
<br />
Indeed, in 2012, according to MDFWP statistics, out of 127 elk management units in the state, 68 are above objectives, 47 are at objectives, and only 12 are considered to be below objectives. And even among these 12 units, the causes for elk declines are often complex and involve more than wolf predation. In at least a few instances, overhunting by humans is the primary factor.<br />
<br />
Beyond hunting, the presence of wolves has many other benefits. Wolves cull sick animals such as those with brucellosis and Chronic Wasting Disease from herds that could threaten both humans as well as livestock. Wolves shift ungulates away from riparian areas, resulting in greater growth of willows and other streamside vegetation. This, in turn, creates more habitat for wildlife including songbirds, and beaver. Healthier riparian areas also results in greater trout densities.<br />
<br />
It is disturbing to me as a hunter and ecologist that MDFWP repeatedly fails to aggressively counter the distortions and misinformation.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-83329968624898383722013-04-08T20:02:00.002-07:002013-04-08T20:02:39.417-07:00Understanding Fire Scar Histories I've been studying fire ecology for decades, an interest which led to the publication in 2006 of my book WIldfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. My interest in wildfire did not end with the book and I have continued to read and digest the fire-related literature, attend conferences, and most importantly visit and observe large blazes around the West. <br />
<br />
What I began to question, even when I put together Wildfire, was the idea that low severity/high frequency fires were the dominant influence upon western dry forest landscapes<br />
Yet the majority of forest service "restoration" is based upon the idea that somehow our forests are out of whack. That fire suppression has created dense stands that have allowed fuel buildup and thus we are experiencing abnormal fires. That the common story that everyone repeats. The problem is that it is probably not true. <br />
<br />
Therefore, all the forest restoration work being done is likely not restoring anything, rather is more an excuse for logging than for anything.<br />
<br />
Consider these points.<br />
<br />
1. The majority, if not all, low severity/high frequency fires are small. There are tens of thousands of lightning caused fires that occur around the West. But the vast majority (like 99%) burn out before they can char more than a few trees. Even if you totaled up all the acreage burned by these thousands upon thousands of fires, the overall effect on the landscape would be very small because the geographical footprint of each blaze is tiny. I have probably traveled more of the West looking at fires than anyone I know, and I have yet to see a significant area burned as a low severity fire. The reason is that the major factor that determines fire spread, severity and size are burning conditions. You get low severity fires when the conditions for a burn are not favorable for fire spread. <br />
<br />
2. The vast majority of the acreage burned in any year is due to a very small number of fires. These blazes occur under highly favorable climate/weather conditions of low humidity, high winds, high temperatures, and drought. They have little to do with fuels. Think of this for yourself--there's more fuel in the Olympic rainforest than anyplace else in the West, but the Olympic forests seldom burn. Why? Because they are too wet most of the time for a fire to get started and even if one does start, to burn much acreage. <br />
<br />
3. Most larger landscape scale fires do not burn as a single type of blaze. Rather they are a mixture of low, mixed, and high severity burns. We call some of these "stand replacement" fires meaning that the majority of trees may be killed by fire--but even in stand replacement blazes, it is unusual to get more than a 50% kill of trees within the burn perimeter. Fires burn in a mosaic with patches of fire killed trees, other patches intermixed with live and dead trees, and still other patches where few if any of the trees are killed. So even in a “stand replacement” burn you can easily have 50% of the forest that is either mixed or low severity (or no burn at all). <br />
<br />
4. I've been re-reading a lot of the fire scar studies that have been done around the West upon which "restoration" is based, and most of them (maybe all of them) are flawed. They all have several statistical and other errors that exaggerate the number of fires. <br />
<br />
One flaw is targeted sampling. Basically one goes out and finds trees with fire scars and samples them. But these are not random samples. In other words, one is seeking out trees that are scarred by fire, which means you are ignoring the majority of all trees. But then people try to suggest these fire scar trees represent the condition of the landscape as a whole. It's like walking in a bar in Dillon Montana and noting that the majority of men sitting there have cowboy boots on, but then trying to suggest that the majority of all men in America wear cowboy boots. Obviously it may be true about bar patrons in Dillon, but not about men in general. Same is true about the results of fire scar reconstructions. <br />
<br />
A second flaw is that most fire scar reconstructions use "composites" of the fire scars. In other words, they add all scars together to come up with the "fire interval". But this is highly biased in a number of ways. <br />
As noted above, most fires affect only a few trees or small acreage. So should they have the same "weight" as say a fire that burns the entire study area? What you find is that the majority of small fires does not affect much area, and probably have little overall influence on the landscape. In other words, you have a thousand acre study area and lightning causes a single tree to burn—should you imply—as most studies do—that this is one “interval” in the forest burn cycle? <br />
Worse yet, the larger the sample area, the more likely you are to pick up a lot of these single burn trees, so this tends to skew the fire interval to shorter and shorter time frames, giving a false picture of the burn frequency across the landscape. On the other hand, too small a sample size can also skew things since you might miss a large stand replacement event because the one plot you sampled for whatever reason might have been one of the no-burn or lightly burned sites in an otherwise more severe and widespread fire. <br />
It is the relatively rare, but large fires that do the bulk of the ecological work. In addition, unless you cross date the fires, you can have a lot of single tree scarred trees, but each one due to a different lightning strike, and not related to any other fires in the area and all burning only a tiny fraction of the total landscape. <br />
<br />
A third flaw is the way people think about the results. Fires are episodic much like floods on rivers. The vast majority of fires occur in series due to climate/weather conditions. Thus you can have 2-3 fires in one decade, followed by maybe 80 years without any fires, then another decade of drought where you have a series of very large blazes. In other words you could easily have 5 fires in a hundred years which would give you a fire return interval of every 20 years, but this would be deceptive. In reality you had 80 years without a single fire. <br />
This is somewhat like river floods. Despite the name of "Hundred Year Floods" you can have two hundred year floods back to back, followed by 200-400 years without any significant floods. Same with fires. Such a fire temporal pattern would undoubtedly lead to dense forest stands that are occasionally "thinned" by fire, beetles, or disease. <br />
<br />
We know from other methods including geo morphic, fire atlases, pollen and charcoal records, and other alternative means of deciphering fire patterns that fires are highly influenced by changing climatic conditions. And these conditions are largely influenced by factors like off shore currents, periodic shifts in solar input, and so on. These large global influences have a lot to do with how much forest burns and under what kinds of conditions. What these studies indicate is that large fires are quite normal--even in so called "dry forests" like ponderosa pine if you view things from the proper temporal and spatial scales. At least for many forest types we are not likely experiencing larger fires or fires that are outside of the 'historic" variability if you view them from the proper time and geographical scales. <br />
<br />
The other factor is the cultural bias against dead trees. Dead trees are a sign of a healthy forest. We need beetle kill, wildfires and diseases like mistletoe to keep our forest ecosystems functioning. Most forest management is designed to reduce or eliminate these important factors. The way to think about beetles, fires, and disease is like predators. These are the predators that keep a forest healthy, just as wolves keep the elk herd healthy. Trying to limit these natural processes to a small part of the landscape is like saying it's OK for a few token wolves to kill a few elk, but we don't want them affecting elk across the state. However, if you have that attitude, than you are effectively eliminating wolf predations as a major ecological factor. Same thing applies to managing forests to reduce the occurrence of fires, disease and beetles. We need to embrace these forest processes for the critical role they play in maintaining healthy forest ecosystems. <br />
<br />
The end result of all this is that the vast majority of forests now being "thinned" for restoration to "restore" their "historic variability" are likely not out of historic variability at all, thus do not need restoration. I would not suggest this applies to every forest stand, but I am willing to bet the vast majority of restoration projects are based on out of date interpretations of past historic conditions. <br />
<br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-84369822485275112322013-03-04T18:43:00.001-08:002013-03-04T18:43:25.172-08:00State Agency does not use Science to manage predatorsGov. Steve Bullock was recently quoted as supporting legislation that would increase the killing of wolves because the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks supports the legislation.<br />
Bullock was quoted as saying: “... at the end of the day we need to base these decisions on science, not on politics …” Unfortunately, indiscriminate killing of wolves is largely about politics and ignores the best science.<br />
Predator killing creates a self-fulfilling feedback mechanism, whereby more wolves (cougar, bears, coyotes) are indiscriminately killed, the greater social disruptions, resulting in additional conflicts, and more demand for additional killing.<br />
We’ve seen this cycle for decades in our failed attempts to reduce coyote depredations. As Albert Einstein has said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.<br />
There are good scientific reasons why indiscriminate killing (which hunting and trapping are) fails to get the expected results.<br />
The loss of experienced, older animals and their “cultural” knowledge of their territory may mean the remaining wolves will starve or seek out easy prey like livestock.<br />
With wolves, the loss of pack members may result in an inability to hold on to territory, forcing the remaining pack members into new territory where they may not know wildlife use patterns – such as where elk calve or migration corridors. Again this may cause them to seek out livestock for food.<br />
When there is heavy mortality and fragmented packs, populations are skewed toward younger animals. This ultimately leads to a greater number of breeding pairs, and even higher number of young pups.<br />
The end result is a higher percentage of young inexperienced animals, which like human teenagers, are more inclined towards risky behavior and lack the skills to survive. This naturally predisposes them to seeking easy prey like livestock.<br />
Another problem with indiscriminate predator killing is that it often removes the very animals that are the least likely to be involved in livestock depredations. The majority of hunting occurs on the larger blocks of public land. The wolf pack that is attacking cattle on private ranchlands are unlikely to be the animals removed by hunters and/or trappers.<br />
Worse, current state policies ignore or devalue the multiple ecological benefits of predators – from reduction of disease transmission among other species such as elk and deer, to restoration of riparian areas and increases in both songbirds and trout.<br />
Striving to keep predator numbers well below the number that actually influences ungulate populations seriously undermines the ecological function of predation, and contributes to ecological impoverishment.<br />
Finally there is the ethical question. One continuously hears about fair chase and ethical behavior regarding hunting. What is ethical about killing animals you don’t eat? Is gratuitous killing ethical behavior? Most U.S. citizens no longer hunt. They only accept hunting if they believe hunters are involved in ethical hunting practices. Montana FWP’s backward and archaic policies are undermining ultimately public support for hunting in general.<br />
There may be an occasional need to surgically remove a particularly troublesome animal, however that is entirely different from the indiscriminate slaughter Montana FWP gratuitously calls “hunting.”<br />
The bottom line is Montana FWP does not use science to manage predators. Its predator policies are archaic, unethical and often self-defeating relics from the past. It’s time for Montana to enter the 21st century and manage predators with a scientific understanding of their social ecology and treating predators with the respect they deserve. George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-40120016233658048002013-03-04T18:42:00.000-08:002013-03-04T18:42:02.709-08:00State Agency Game Farming Is Not Compatible with Ecosystem Integrity <br />
S<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKdku-JPg8F4S5pXsLnrjqYAXRCAwYbUHI4nWo94ftSewZ6ye5xDD3KR6d5yzo1td8cGCKyA9FF94mCn_5YaZxppi1R6FxsiTdn_cQMjSLJNEiNX6jwwBT-Uugx9OoLhjcPwWmcBHA/s1600/90006-01347+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-472.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKdku-JPg8F4S5pXsLnrjqYAXRCAwYbUHI4nWo94ftSewZ6ye5xDD3KR6d5yzo1td8cGCKyA9FF94mCn_5YaZxppi1R6FxsiTdn_cQMjSLJNEiNX6jwwBT-Uugx9OoLhjcPwWmcBHA/s320/90006-01347+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-472.jpg" /></a><br />
By George Wuerthner On January 14, 2013 · 39 Comments · In Politics, Predator Control, Wildlife, Wolves<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
State Agency Game Farming Is Not Compatible with Ecosystem Integrity<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
With the delisting of wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act, management of wolves has been turned back to the individual states where wolves occur. In most of these states, we see state agencies adopting policies that treat wolves as persona no grata, rather than a valued member of their wildlife heritage. Nowhere do I see any attempt by these state agencies to educate hunters and the general public about the ecological benefits of predators. Nor is there any attempt to consider the social ecology of wolves and/or other predators in management policies. Wolves, like all predators, are seen as a “problem” rather than as a valuable asset to these states.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In recent years state agencies have increasingly adopted policies that are skewed towards preserving opportunities for recreational killing rather than preserving ecological integrity. State agencies charged with wildlife management are solidifying their perceived role as game farmers. Note the use of “harvest” as a euphemism for killing. Their primary management philosophy and policies are geared towards treating wildlife as a “resource” to kill. They tend to see their roles as facilitators that legalize the destruction of ecological integrity, rather than agencies dedicated to promoting a land ethic and a responsible wildlife ethic.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Want proof? Just look at the abusive and regressive policies states have adopted to “manage” (persecute) wolves and other predators.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Idaho Fish and Game, which already had an aggressive wolf killing program, has just announced that it will transfer money from coyote killing to pay trappers to kill more wolves in the state so it can presumably increase elk and deer numbers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) which many had hoped might be a bit more progressive in its predator attitudes, supports new regulations that will expand the wolf killing season, number of tags (killing permits), and reduces the license fee (killing fee) charged to out of state hunters who want to shoot wolves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wyoming is even more regressive. Wolves are considered “predators” with no closed season in many parts of the state.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Alaska, perhaps displaying the ultimate in 19th Century attitudes that seem to guide state Game and Fish predator policies, already has extremely malicious policies towards wolves, and is now attempting to expand wolf killing even in national parks and wildlife refuges (it is already legal to hunt and trap in many national parks and refuges). For instance the Alaska Fish and Game is proposing [aerial?]-gunning of wolves in Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and wants to extend the hunting/trapping season on wolves in Lake Clark National Park, Katmai National Park, and Aniakchak National Preserve until June, long after pups have been born. Similar persecution of wolves to one degree or another is occurring in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, which have been given management authority for wolves in those states.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Although some states like Montana changed their name from “game” to wildlife, their attitudes and policies have not changed to reflect any greater enlightenment towards predators.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Montana recently increased the number of mountain lions that can be killed in some parts of the state to reduce predation on elk.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks is on a vendetta against a newly established mountain lion population in that state, and greatly increased mountain lion kill in a small and recently established population of these animals.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Wyoming Game and Fish is almost salivating at the prospect of grizzly delisting so hunters can kill “trophy” grizzly bears.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I could give more examples of state game agencies that have declared war on predators in one fashion or another.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The point is that these agencies are still thinking about predators with a 19th Century mindset when the basic attitude was the “only good predator is a dead predator” and the goal of “wildlife management” was to increase hunter opportunities to shoot elk, deer, moose and caribou. These ungulates are seen as desirable “wildlife” and predators are generally viewed as a “problem.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Many state game farming agencies suggest that they have to kill these carnivores to garner “social acceptance” of predators. Killing wolves, bears, coyotes and mountain lions is suggested as a way to relieve the anger that some members of the ranching/hunting/trapping community have towards predators. Is giving people who need counseling a license to kill so they can relieve their frustrations a good idea? Maybe we should allow frustrated men who are wife beaters to legally pound their spouses as well?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that many of these same agencies like to quote Aldo Leopold, author of Sand County Almanac, and venerate him as the “father” of wildlife management, they fail to adopt Leopold’s concept of a land ethic based upon the ecological health of the land.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Aldo Leopold understood that ALL wildlife have an important role to play in ecosystem integrity. Decades ago back in the 1940s he wrote: “The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: “What good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To keep every cog and wheel means keeping not only species from going extinct, but maintaining the ecological processes that maintain ecosystem function. What makes state game farming policies so unacceptable is that there is no excuse for not understanding the ecological role of predators in ecosystem integrity. Recent research has demonstrated the critical importance of predators for shaping ecosystems, influencing the evolution of prey species, and maintaining ecosystem integrity. We also know that predators have intricate social relationships or social ecology that is disrupted or destroyed by indiscriminate hunting.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Yet state game farming agencies continuously ignore these ecological findings. At best the policies of game farming agencies demonstrates a lack professionalism, or worse, maybe they are just as ignorant of recent scientific findings as the hunters/trappers they serve.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ironically these same state game farming agencies see that the numbers of hunters and anglers are declining, along with their budgets. Agencies depend upon the killing fees (licenses and tags) charged to hunters and anglers for the privilege of killing and privatizing public wildlife to run their operations. Yet instead of broadening their base of support from other wildlife watchers to those interested in maintaining ecological integrity, these agencies are circling the wagons, and adopting policies that reflect the worse behaviors and attitudes of the most ignorant and regressive hunting/trapping constituency. In the process, they are alienating more moderate hunters and anglers, as well as the general public.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The problem is that state game farming agencies have a conflict of interest. Their budgets depend on selling killing permits which depends upon the availability of elk, deer, moose and caribou to kill, not more predators. Any decline in the population of these “game” animals is seen as a potential financial loss to the agency. Therefore, these agencies tend to adopt policies that maintain low predator numbers. Yet these same agencies are never up front about their conflict of interest. They pretend they are using the “best available science” and “managing” predators to achieve a “balance” between game and predators.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Because of this conflict, game farming agencies turn a blind eye to ethical considerations as well. Most of the public supports hunting if one avoids unnecessary suffering of the animals—in other words, makes a clean kill. They also want to know the animal did not die in vain and the animals is captured and/or killed by generally recognized codes of ethical behavior. In other words, the animal is consumed rather than killed merely for “recreation” or worse as a vendetta and the wildlife has a reasonable chance of evading the hunter/trapper. But when the goal is persecution, ideas about ethics and “fair chase” are abandoned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Personally I would rather see state agencies reform themselves and adopt more inclusive, informed and progressive attitudes towards all wildlife, especially predators. But judging from what I have seen, it appears these state game farming agencies are headed in the opposite direction.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If they continue down this path, it’s clear that they will lose legitimacy with the public at large. Efforts to take away management authority will only strengthen. For instance, voters in a number of states have already banned the recreational trapping of wildlife, always over the objections of state game farming agencies. Efforts are now afoot to ban trapping in Oregon and I suspect other states will soon follow suit.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The next step will be to take away any discretion for hunting of predators and perhaps ultimately hunting of all wildlife. The trend towards greater restrictions is seen as the only way to rein in the abusive policies of state game farming agencies. In California, the state’s voters banned hunting of mountain lions in 1991. Oregon banned hunting of mountain lion with dogs. In other states, there are increasing conflicts between those who love and appreciate the role of predators in healthy ecosystems, and state game farming agencies.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bans on all hunting has even occurred in some countries. Costa Rica just banned hunting and Chile has so limited hunting that it is effectively banned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I suggest that the negative and maltreatment of predators displayed by game farming agencies in the US, will ultimately hasten the same fate in the U.S.<br />
(Visited 2,011 times, 55 visits today)George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-74789869550566565792013-01-06T08:08:00.000-08:002013-01-06T08:08:19.776-08:00<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_dIcUbA7DIMsGEAoo8tkb87bTjOKWaGBKAX6oC9LBzmoeLJOEfAjINn5KEa_6qWKDJ_DVPr_TTqTIYnDMYJPdMn3khFj-cplA_3Vc_yuIGIGaC2Ot5HCMbrxU82nim5UZtYrIQm5y/s1600/90006-01702+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-447.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_dIcUbA7DIMsGEAoo8tkb87bTjOKWaGBKAX6oC9LBzmoeLJOEfAjINn5KEa_6qWKDJ_DVPr_TTqTIYnDMYJPdMn3khFj-cplA_3Vc_yuIGIGaC2Ot5HCMbrxU82nim5UZtYrIQm5y/s320/90006-01702+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-447.jpg" /></a></div><br />
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxW1U6BSwFP6YzMwNWVmOWItNDgzNi00NzI4LWI2ZDMtZjMzNWY1OWE3MDRm/edit?hl=en_US<br />
Management of Predators: A need for changes in policies<br />
<br />
By George Wuerthner (gwuerthner@gmail.com), May 2011<br />
Commissioned by Big Wildlife (www.bigwildlife.org)<br />
ABSTRACT: Management of predators has historically been based on extirpation and/or a grudging<br />
tolerance of low populations. While extirpation of predators is no longer the goal of wildlife agencies,<br />
current state wildlife policies often maintain populations above extinction levels, but well below<br />
maximum biological carrying capacity. Predator policy typically ignores the ecological influence of<br />
predators in terms of their important influence upon ecosystem organization. Furthermore,<br />
management for populations without considering the social organization of top predators can lead to<br />
greater conflicts with humans, particularly livestock owners and hunters, the two groups who are often<br />
hostile to predators.<br />
Introduction<br />
Predators have always been a controversial subject in wildlife management. Traditionally predators were<br />
viewed as competitors to hunters and a threat to the livelihood of livestock owners. Informally, the motto<br />
“the only good predator’s a dead predator” historically represented the prevailing attitude of most<br />
European Americans. Changing cultural values now give greater consideration to the ecological value of<br />
wolves (Canis lupus) and have resulted in changes in public policies best represented by the attempt to<br />
recover wolves within their historic range in the United States. Yet, negative attitudes towards predators<br />
from hunters and ranchers still influence management policies of state wildlife agencies. Unfortunately,<br />
current predator management policies of many state agencies tend to reinforce negative attitudes and<br />
hostility to predators, both in how agencies frame the issue of predators, as well as by advocating<br />
indiscriminate control that ignores predator ecology and disrupts social organization.<br />
Historical Background<br />
European settlers in North America brought negative attitudes towards predators with them when they<br />
colonized the continent. Predator extirpation was one of the early activities of many colonial, territorial<br />
and state governments. For instance, in 1630, just ten years after the Mayflower landed, the Massachusetts<br />
Bay colonists enacted a bounty on wolves.1 One of the first political actions of settlers in Oregon Territory<br />
were so-called “wolf meetings.” The first such meeting, held in 1843, levied a $5 assessment on each<br />
settler to pay for bounties on predators.2 Similarly, some 80,730 wolves were killed for bounty in<br />
Montana and $342,764 in bounties was paid between 1883 and 1918.3<br />
In Montana, during the years 1902 to 1930, bounties on wolves and cougars were significantly reduced as<br />
predators were extirpated. Bounty payments<br />
declined from 4,116 in 1903 to zero by<br />
1928.4<br />
Eventually the burden of paying for predator<br />
bounties was transferred to the federal<br />
government. In 1907, in exchange for<br />
paying fees to graze their livestock on<br />
federal lands, the US Forest Service entered<br />
into agreements with ranchers to control<br />
wolves on national forests. Authority for<br />
predator control was later transferred to the<br />
Bureau of Biological Survey in 1914.5 Professional hunters were hired by the Bureau to track down and<br />
kill predators with as many as 200 men in the employ of the government at the height of predator<br />
extermination efforts. As a consequence of government extirpation efforts – combined with on-going<br />
unceasing slaughter by hunters, ranchers and settlers – both grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis) and wolves<br />
were nearly extirpated from the West by the 1940s.6 Other species like mountain lion (Puma concolor)<br />
fared slightly better, in part, because they were less vulnerable to poisoning efforts. Nevertheless, even<br />
mountain lions were reduced to half of their natural geographic range as a result of persecution.7<br />
Changes in attitudes towards predators came slowly. One of the first organizations to question the<br />
pervasive notion “the only good predator is a dead one” was the American Society of Mammalogists who<br />
issued a report in 1928 asserting that predators had scientific, economic and educational value. The<br />
mammalogists called for protection of predators in national parks and other public lands.8<br />
By the 1930s visionary biologists like George Wright and Adolph Murie were calling for an end to<br />
predator control in the national parks.9 And ecologist Aldo Leopold, who wrote the first textbook on<br />
game management, eventually came to see predators as an intrinsic part of nature. In 1949 he published<br />
his book A Sand County Almanac which included his powerful essay “Thinking like a Mountain” where<br />
he describes the changes in his ideas about the role of predators in nature.<br />
In response to changing public attitudes towards predators, most states have given “game” animal status<br />
to larger predators. For instance, mountain lions were nearly extirpated from Oregon by the 1960s. In<br />
1967 Oregon listed mountain lions as “game animals,” enacting hunting seasons and attempting to<br />
maintain viable populations of the animal. As a consequence, mountain lion populations rose from 214 in<br />
1961 to 3,114 by 1994.10 Similar changes in the status of most predators, with the exception of coyotes<br />
(Canis latrans), from “vermin” to “game,” occurred in other states throughout the West.<br />
The ecological and philosophical value of predators was given greater legal status and protection when<br />
Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973. The Act provided protection to species that<br />
were considered endangered or threatened and provided a mechanism for protection of habitat. Of the<br />
species given early protection under the ESA, both the grizzly bear and the gray wolf were listed as<br />
endangered in the lower 48 states, along with the Florida panther (mountain lion).<br />
A transformation in public attitudes from utilitarian to more non-utilitarian values of wildlife has led to<br />
some changes in how state and federal agencies manage wildlife with greater emphasis on restoring intact<br />
ecosystems and slightly less importance on sustainable yield of trophies and/or meat.11 Yet hostile<br />
attitudes towards predators among many hunters, outfitters and ranchers remain. For instance, Lynn<br />
Madsen, owner of Yellowstone Outfitters in Wyoming was quoted at an anti-wolf rally in Jackson Hole,<br />
Wyoming as saying: “They (wolves) have put people, literally, out of business,” he said. “The only thing<br />
that keeps Wyoming in the running is the (elk) feedgrounds.”12 Similarly, Ron Gillette, an Idaho outfitter,<br />
was quoted in a High Country News article suggesting wolves “are the most cruel, vicious animal in<br />
North America...the only predator that eats its prey alive because they like the taste of warm blood!”<br />
Gillette went on to say “Enviros – the ‘wolf-thug terrorist groups’– are full of crap and baloney when they<br />
claim wolves have little impact. When they turned wolves loose, they were having toasts that hunting in<br />
Idaho would soon be over!”13<br />
State Control of Wildlife Management<br />
Despite legal and philosophical changes, predators are still treated differently from other wildlife species<br />
by state wildlife agencies. Unless a species is listed under the ESA, management of wildlife is under the<br />
jurisdiction of state wildlife agencies. Most state agencies are required to manage for viable populations<br />
2<br />
of all wildlife species; however, there is no<br />
requirement to manage for ecological health<br />
and/or social stability.<br />
Many pro-hunting organizations, though more<br />
moderate in their rhetoric than some of the<br />
outfitters quoted above, demand that agencies<br />
manage predators the same as any other<br />
wildlife. For instance, M. David Allen,<br />
President of the Rocky Mountain Elk<br />
Foundation, wrote in their publication, Bugle<br />
Magazine, that “we should be actively<br />
managing them (wolves) through regulated<br />
hunting and other prescribed methods.”14 In<br />
other newspaper editorials, Allan has stated<br />
that “Every wildlife conservation agency, both<br />
state and federal, working at ground zero of<br />
wolf restoration – Idaho, Montana and<br />
Wyoming – has abundant data to demonstrate<br />
how undermanaged wolf populations can compromise local elk herds and local livestock production.<br />
There’s just no dispute, and emotion-over-science is not the way to professionally manage wildlife.”15<br />
The implied message is that a decline in elk (Cervus elaphus) herds – or any other game species sought by<br />
hunters – as a result of predation is undesirable and unacceptable to hunters. The more moderate prohunting<br />
organizations typically hold the stance that wolves are OK so long it doesn’t affect hunting<br />
success; however, maintaining wolf populations at this level may reduce the ecological influence on prey<br />
or ecosystems.<br />
This strong pressure to reduce predation effects upon favored game species has a significant influence on<br />
state wildlife agencies. Wildlife agencies have a direct conflict of interest when it comes to managing<br />
predators since all state wildlife agencies depend on hunting license fees to fund their programs. Thus,<br />
whether stated implicitly or not, the main goal of most wildlife management is to maximize species<br />
considered desirable to hunters, like elk and deer, and often at the expense of other species, including<br />
predators.<br />
Since predators can limit populations of large ungulates, state agencies generally tend to manage<br />
predators, particularly large predators like mountain lion (cougars), wolves and bears far below their<br />
biological carrying capacity. As a result, their ecological influence upon ecosystems is limited. The union<br />
of hunters with stockmen and state wildlife agencies – as well as other government agencies like Wildlife<br />
Services, which kills predators – formed what one author termed a “diamond triangle” that dominates and<br />
exercises disproportionate control over predator management policies.16<br />
For instance, coyotes are treated as vermin by all wildlife agencies, with no closed season or limits on the<br />
kill. Other predators like mountain lion, wolves and grizzlies are often managed to maintain populations<br />
well below biological carrying capacity based upon perceptions of public acceptance, particularly among<br />
hunters and livestock owners.<br />
In response to the perception that wildlife agencies were overly biased against predators, citizens in some<br />
states have taken management of some predators away from wildlife agencies. For instance, in 1990<br />
California voters supported an initiative that banned sport hunting of mountain lion (cougar). Similar<br />
Since predators can limit populations of large ungulates,<br />
state agencies generally tend to manage predators far below<br />
their biological carrying capacity. Photo: George Wuerthner.<br />
3<br />
legislation that sought to ban the use of hounds to hunt the animals so as to reduce the kill of mountain<br />
lions was passed in both Oregon and Washington as well.<br />
In 1994 three bills designed to reverse the ban on mountain lion hunting were introduced in the California<br />
legislature, but defeated. In 1996 another referendum introduced by the legislature to rescind the ban on<br />
mountain lion hunting was defeated by California voters. A similar attempt to reverse a voter-approved<br />
referendum ban on mountain lion hunting by dogs was also placed before Oregon voters by hunters and<br />
livestock owners. But Oregon citizens voted to maintain the ban. The Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife<br />
(ODFW) responded to this citizen ban on hound hunting of mountain lions by significantly reducing the<br />
cost of mountain lion licenses and lengthening the hunting season in an effort to maximize the kill on<br />
mountain lions by hunters. For instance in 2009, 42,000 mountain lion licenses were sold in Oregon.<br />
In 2006 the Oregon Fish and Game Commission voted to allow federal agents to use dogs to track<br />
mountain lions. The Commission also voted to permit private hound hunters to be appointed by the state<br />
to “assist” federal agents in the tracking and killing of mountain lions.17<br />
Not only animals that may have attacked livestock, but any animal deemed “potentially” a stock-killer can<br />
be killed. As a consequence, the number of mountain lions killed in Oregon has actually increased since<br />
the ban on hound hunting of mountain lion was implemented.<br />
A similar citizen ban on use of dogs in mountain lion hunting passed in Washington in 1996. Just as in<br />
Oregon, the Washington Fish and Game agency responded by increasing the length of the mountain lion<br />
hunting season, bag limits and combined the mountain lion license with a general license to hunt elk and<br />
deer, increasing greatly the potential legal number of mountain lion hunters. These changes led to<br />
increased mortality for mountain lions, thereby nullifying the ban’s original purposes.<br />
State agencies say they are responding to concerns about public safety, arguing that large predator<br />
populations are a threat to humans. Agencies claim they are receiving more complaints from the public<br />
about conflicts between mountain lion and the public and are merely responding to public safety<br />
concerns.18 Agencies respond to hunters dismay over declines in huntable animals like elk, but frequently<br />
fail to counter negative viewpoints by noting the positive ecological effects resulting from predation on<br />
ungulates.19<br />
Critics of state wildlife agency predator management claim that fish and wildlife departments often feed<br />
public fears about predators through indirect and subtle propaganda campaigns that exaggerate the threat<br />
of predator attacks. They suggest agencies may be<br />
contributing to the rise in complaints by increasing<br />
outreach and making a greater efforts to seek and track<br />
complaints. In addition, critics argue that agencies<br />
sometimes attribute any decline of huntable species<br />
like elk or deer to predators, without a corresponding<br />
attempt to place such declines in historic perspective<br />
(often prey numbers are historic highs and may decline<br />
somewhat, but well within the normal carrying<br />
capacity for a region).20 Agencies, critics suggest, also<br />
do little to place a decline in ungulate numbers within<br />
an ecological perspective (i.e. enumerating the<br />
ecological and ecosystem services that predators<br />
provide).21 Wolf (Canis lupus). Photo: George Wuerthner.<br />
4<br />
Proponents of predator control suggest that without hunting, predators become habituated to humans, and<br />
thus pose a greater safety threat to humans. However, a study of mountain lion attacks on humans finds no<br />
compelling evidence that hunting and population control reduces attacks on humans. Beiers notes that<br />
mountain lion are heavily hunted and controlled on Vancouver Island, BC. In a paper on the topic, he<br />
says “Compared to other North American cougar population, Vancouver’s cougar population may be the<br />
least habituated to humans and the most subject to aversive conditioning. Nonetheless Vancouver Island<br />
has by far the highest concentration of cougar attacks on humans. This fact seems difficult to reconcile<br />
with the habituation hypothesis.” 22<br />
A review by Tavaas, which looked at how effective hunting was in reducing human conflicts and<br />
complaints of black bear, found that hunting had little overall effect on conflicts. In fact, states with<br />
increases in hunting had increases in complaints and conflicts. By contrast, non-lethal measures such as<br />
bear-proofing garbage cans and reducing access to human foods resulted in far greater reductions in<br />
human/predator conflicts.23<br />
Another study of black bear in Wisconsin found similar outcomes. Although hunters removed 356 bears<br />
implicated in nuisance complaints, they took these bears in proportion to their availability. The authors<br />
concluded that the Wisconsin bear hunting season did not show clear evidence of reducing nuisance<br />
complaints during 1995–2004, probably because hunting was not effectively designed for that goal.24<br />
Ecological Role of Predators<br />
Many state wildlife agencies, because of their desire to maximize populations of ungulates such as elk,<br />
moose, caribou and deer for hunters, do not emphasize the ecological benefits of predators in shaping<br />
ecosystems. Predators are maintained at population levels so their ecological role as top down predators<br />
and influence in trophic cascades (when predators suppress the abundance of their prey) are muted, and/or<br />
non-existent.<br />
Recent research on the ecological role of predators in exerting top-down influences upon prey populations<br />
with long-term consequences for<br />
vegetative communities demonstrates<br />
that predator influence has significant<br />
ecological consequences for<br />
ecosystem health. Trophic cascades,<br />
where “top down” controls on<br />
herbivores by predators prevent<br />
overexploitation of vegetation, has<br />
been postulated and confirmed in<br />
various places.<br />
Terborgh et al. describe the ecological<br />
consequences of loss of predators in<br />
forest fragments created by<br />
hydroelectric development in<br />
Venezuela. There, predators of<br />
vertebrates are absent and densities of<br />
rodents, howler monkeys, iguanas and<br />
leaf-cutter ants are 10 to 100 times<br />
Wolves in Yellowstone’s Hayden Valley feed on a young<br />
elk while ravens wait their turn. Photo by Phil Knight.<br />
5<br />
greater than on the nearby mainland, suggesting that predators normally limit their populations. The<br />
densities of seedlings and saplings of canopy trees were severely reduced on herbivore-affected islands,<br />
providing evidence of a trophic cascade unleashed in the absence of top-down regulation.25<br />
The presence of predators creates what some biologists are calling “ecology of fear” in prey species like<br />
elk. Animals have the ability to learn and can respond to differing levels of predation risk and will<br />
respond to fear of predation with measurable responses including changes in densities, vigilance<br />
observations and foraging effects on plants.26<br />
Robert L. Beschta and William J. Ripple describe how the absence of wolves in Olympic National Park<br />
permitted elk browsing to influence plant communities. In Olympic National Park, where wolves were<br />
extirpated in the early 1900s, Beschta and Ripple found significantly decreased recruitment of bigleaf<br />
maple and cottonwood along riparian areas, which they attribute to heavy elk browsing in the absence of<br />
wolves. 27<br />
A study of the influence of wolves upon elk by Hebblewhite and colleagues in Banff National Park found<br />
that the absence of wolves in one part of the Bow River Valley permitted elk numbers to increase an order<br />
of magnitude. Annual survival of adult female elk was 62% in the high-wolf area vs. 89% in the low-wolf<br />
area. Annual recruitment of calves was 15% in the high-wolf area vs. 27% without wolves. Wolf<br />
exclusion decreased aspen recruitment, willow production, and increased willow and aspen browsing<br />
intensity. Herbivory by elk negatively affected beaver lodge density.<br />
Loss of beaver had several negative effects. Beaver dams help control flooding and provide water storage<br />
that helps to maintain stream flow in late summer, benefiting fish and other aquatic life. Plus beaver and<br />
their dams create wet meadows, which are utilized by many wildlife species. For instance, Hebblewhite<br />
and colleagues found that elk herbivory had an indirect negative effect on riparian songbird diversity and<br />
abundance.28<br />
Ripple and Beschta found an increase in cottonwood recruitment in Yellowstone National Park after<br />
restoration of wolves.29 And Ripple and Larson reported that aspen regeneration in Yellowstone National<br />
Park essentially stopped by the 1920s once elk populations expanded with protection afforded by the park<br />
and the concurrent extirpation of wolves from the park.30<br />
Ripple and Beschta compiled information from five parks – Yellowstone, Olympic, Yosemite, Wind Cave<br />
and Zion – and concluded the absence of large predators allowed herbivores to alter plant community<br />
structure.31<br />
Another study just outside of Yellowstone in the Gallatin Range found similar results. In the absence of<br />
large predators, elk herbivory significantly reduced aspen recruitment.32<br />
Beschta and Ripple also found that riparian vegetation and hydrological function was influenced by the<br />
elk browsing which they hypothesize is a consequence of wolf extirpation. In a study of the Gallatin River<br />
northwest of Yellowstone National Park they compared channel cross-sections on three reaches of the<br />
upper Gallatin River. Willow cover on floodplains averaged 85% on the transect that was outside of the<br />
wintering range of elk, but only 26% and 5% for reaches dominated by wintering elk.33<br />
Beyer and colleagues studying willow in Yellowstone National Park found a two-fold growth in the plants<br />
after reintroduction of wolves that could not be explained by climate and/or other factors. The researchers<br />
6<br />
believe that wolf presence changed<br />
habitat use by elk.34<br />
Another consequence of the loss of<br />
apex or top predators is meso predator<br />
release where the loss of a top predator<br />
allows smaller predators to increase in<br />
numbers and distribution. Meso<br />
predator release was coined by Michael<br />
Soule in a paper published in 1988.35<br />
This phenomena has been observed at<br />
numerous levels.36 Meso predator<br />
release, for instance, is blamed for<br />
increased predation on ground nesting<br />
birds in the eastern U.S. In this case, it<br />
is the control and reduction in coyotes<br />
which normally keep in check other<br />
predators like raccoons (Procyon lotor)<br />
and skunks (Mephitis sp.).37<br />
The presence of wolves was found to limit and redistribute coyotes. Coyote densities declined by 33% in<br />
Grand Teton National Park and 39% in Yellowstone National Park in wolf abundant sites after wolf<br />
restoration.38<br />
The changes in coyote population and distribution had indirect and direct effects. For instance, Kim<br />
Berger and colleagues found four times higher pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana) fawn survival in areas<br />
dominated by wolves because wolf presence led to a reduction in coyote predation on pronghorn fawns.39<br />
The presence of wolves may even affect rodent populations. Miller and colleagues, studying vole<br />
(Microtus sp.) populations near wolf dens and away from wolf dens, found greater numbers of voles near<br />
dens. They were able to document that coyotes, a major predator on voles, avoided wolf activity centers<br />
like wolf dens, hence this led to a reduction in predation on voles by coyotes. They were unable to<br />
document, but speculated that more abundant vole populations near wolf dens may lead to greater<br />
utilization by other vole predators from weasels to hawks.40<br />
Top predators such as wolves also create carrion that is utilized by scavengers, including bears, ravens<br />
(Corvus corax), magpies (Pica pica), wolverine (Gulo gulo) and coyotes, among others. Wilmers and<br />
colleagues studying carrion use by scavengers found that wolves increased the time period over which<br />
carrion is available.41 For example, grizzly bear coming out of hibernation have little vegetative food to<br />
eat. Finding wolf-killed carrion can help bears through the late winter and early spring season of food<br />
scarcity and may be important for bear survival.42<br />
One study even suggests that top predators and their creation of carrion may ameliorate the effects of<br />
climate change. Wilmers and Getz looked at the long-term climate data for Yellowstone National Park and<br />
found that winters are warmer and shorter. As a consequence, they hypothesize this would result in less<br />
winter-kill and thus carrion. However, the recent restoration of wolves to the park, which create carrion,<br />
may provide scavengers with an on-going source of late winter food.43<br />
The Druid wolf pack in Yellowstone National Park makes it way<br />
across the valley. Research shows that wolves have had a positive<br />
impact on both riparian vegetation and hydrological function in<br />
Yellowstone. Photo by Phil Knight.<br />
7<br />
Another study on the interaction between climate and predators by Hebblewhite in Banff National Park in<br />
Alberta found that the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) influenced winter elk survival, with harsher winter<br />
weather strongly reducing elk numbers. However, in areas where wolves were present, elk were even<br />
more vulnerable and had greater population declines. Hebblewhite concluded that the effects of NPO<br />
were weaker in the absence of wolf predation.44 This “predator effect” might serve to more quickly<br />
balance herbivore numbers to the available forage base and may be important to plant communities by<br />
providing vegetation with respite from heavy herbivory pressure.<br />
Predator Influences on Prey Behavior<br />
Many state wildlife agencies suggest that hunting can mimic the role of top predators. Recent research<br />
demonstrates that predators have different influences on prey species than hunters.<br />
Hunters tend to select different age and sex animals from predators. In a study comparing elk killed by<br />
hunters with elk taken by predators, researchers found that hunters selected a large proportion of female<br />
elk with the greatest reproductive values, whereas wolves killed a large proportion of elk calves and older<br />
females with low reproductive values. The mean age of adult females killed by hunters throughout the<br />
study period was 6.5 years, whereas the mean age of adult females killed by wolves was 13.9 years. They<br />
concluded that hunting exerted a greater total reproductive impact on the elk herd than wolf predation.45<br />
Another study of winter wolf predation on elk in Yellowstone by Smith et al. found that 43% of the elk<br />
killed were calves, 28% were adult females (cows), 21% were adult males (bulls) and 9% were of<br />
unknown age/sex. Comparing prey selection to prey availability, wolf packs residing on the northern<br />
range (NR) of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem selected for elk calves, and against cows, but selected<br />
bulls approximately proportional to availability.46 The selection for calves by wolves, in particular, is<br />
considerably different from the typical selection made by human hunters.<br />
There is also evidence to suggest that human hunters are causing rapid evolutionary changes in wildlife<br />
species different from the influence exerted by native predators. A review of human-caused changes in<br />
hunted species found average declines of almost 20% in size-related traits and shifts in life history traits<br />
of nearly 25%.47<br />
Another difference between human hunters and native predators is the seasonality of influence. While it’s<br />
well documented that elk will seek out safety refugia like private ranches to avoid hunters during the<br />
hunting season, such shifts in habitat are short-lived. By contrast, native predators like wolves can<br />
influence elk and other prey behavior and habitat selection throughout the year.<br />
And unlike human hunters, which may provide a seasonal input of carrion resulting from gut piles left by<br />
hunters and/or the subsequent death of wounded animals, predation by large predators like wolves has a<br />
different spatial and temporal influence on carrion abundance and thus availability to scavengers.48<br />
A study in Yellowstone National Park comparing habitat use by elk before and after wolf restoration<br />
demonstrated that in summer elk avoided wolves when wolf activity was centered around dens and<br />
rendezvous sites by selecting higher elevations, less open habitat, more burned forest and, in areas of high<br />
wolf density, steeper slopes than they had before wolf reintroduction.49<br />
A study of wolf and cougar predation influence and effects on elk in the Madison Range of Montana<br />
found that wolves preyed primarily on male elk in poor condition, the exact opposite of human hunters<br />
who tend to kill mature bulls in prime condition.50<br />
8<br />
And the year-round presence of large predators, even in the absence of direct predation, may even<br />
influence reproductive fitness, leading to reductions in prey populations.51<br />
Hunting of ungulates, the prime prey of top predators, may actually lead to greater conflicts with livestock<br />
productions. In some areas fish and wildlife agencies maintain ungulates like elk at their “political” rather<br />
than biological carrying capacity – in other words the perceived tolerance of large landowners, typically<br />
ranchers. According to research on wolves in Europe, this may actually increase predation by wolves on<br />
livestock.52<br />
In North America, the rural agricultural areas where wolves occur are often frequented by wild and<br />
domestic ungulates, both of which the wolves prey upon. Managing for high densities of wild ungulates<br />
could result in decreased livestock depredation by wolves.53<br />
In addition, human hunting pressure can force elk to seek refuge on private ranchlands that may be<br />
inaccessible and/or closed to public hunting.54 While human hunters may not be able to follow the elk on<br />
to these ranchlands, wolves can and do, thus setting up a situation where predators may kill livestock.<br />
Predator Social Interactions Ignored by State Agencies<br />
Most of what we know about predators is by studying animal groups under duress. Nearly all predators<br />
are trapped and hunted, thus much of what we assume about their behavior may be skewed or<br />
misinterpreted.<br />
Kathleen Green contends that social behavior needs to be incorporated into management of social species.<br />
She argues that social predators have a greater risk of extinction due to “inverse density dependence” and<br />
reproductive suppression.55 Yet these social aspects of predators are seldom considered by management<br />
agencies.<br />
In a study of Washington mountain lions (cougars), Hilary Cooley found that cougars responded to<br />
hunting pressure through emigration and immigration and that traditional survival/fecundity harvest<br />
models did not accurately predict populations.56 The increased immigration and recruitment of younger<br />
animals from adjacent areas resulted in no<br />
reduction in local cougar densities, however,<br />
there was a shift in population structure toward<br />
younger animals. Thus cougar hunting may lead<br />
to misinterpretation of population trends, since<br />
immigration may mask population declines in the<br />
sink and surrounding source areas.57<br />
Robert Crabtree, studying coyotes in Yellowstone<br />
National Park, found that unexploited coyotes<br />
behaved much more like wolves, with a dominant<br />
pair doing the breeding, while sub-dominant<br />
adults helped with raising pups. Territories were<br />
held for long periods of time, often decades. But<br />
these behavioral traits are seldom seen in<br />
exploited coyote populations.58<br />
New research is finding that hunting of mountain lions<br />
(cougars) may not actually control population levels as<br />
much as it shifts population structure towards younger<br />
animals. Photo by George Wuerthner.<br />
9<br />
Wolf biologist Gordon Haber, who studied wolves in Denali National Park for 40 years until his untimely<br />
death in an airplane crash, argues that social behavior and social organization that emphasizes group<br />
hunting and cooperate breeding requires a different response in management. According to Haber, family<br />
groups are the preeminent functional units, not meta populations, and it is this behavior that predominates<br />
and most defines wolves as a species. Haber claims at least one family lineage in Denali National Park<br />
may have occupied the Toklat River drainage continuously since they were studied by Adolph Murie in<br />
the 1930s. As a consequence, there is multi-generational learned behavior and “cultural” knowledge<br />
transmitted from wolf to wolf about prey location, hunting opportunities and other information important<br />
for survival.59<br />
Writing in Conservation Biology, Haber argues the widespread assertion that wolves can maintain 25 to<br />
50% mortality without biological consequences ignores the damage done to social interactions and longterm<br />
degradation of predator social cohesion. Haber suggests that “true sustained-yield management<br />
requires more emphasis on qualitative biological features to determine the extent to which wolves and<br />
other species with evolutionary histories as predators, rather than as prey, should be harvested.” 60<br />
There are studies of other animals that demonstrate that stable social structure contributes to long-term<br />
viability and productivity of social members. Female elephants (Loxodonta africana), for instance, in well<br />
established family groups have lower levels of stress hormones and higher reproductive output than those<br />
in groups that have been socially disrupted by poaching.61<br />
A study comparing a heavily hunted mountain lion population and a lightly hunted one in Washington<br />
demonstrated that hunting did disrupt social relationships and demographics. Researchers found that<br />
heavy harvest resulted in higher immigration, reduced kitten survival, reduced female population growth<br />
and a younger overall age structure. Light harvest corresponded with increased emigration, higher kitten<br />
survival, increased female population growth and an older overall age structure.62 The researchers<br />
concluded that “contrary to accepted belief, our findings suggest that cougars in the Pacific Northwest are<br />
currently declining.”<br />
Lambert and colleagues hypothesized that among other factors, “increased conflicts between cougars and<br />
humans in this area could be the result of the very young age structure of the population caused by heavy<br />
hunting.” 63<br />
A study of wolves near Algonquin Park in Ontario demonstrated clearly the negative impacts of hunting<br />
on wolf social structure. Linda Rutledge and colleagues found that after a hunting ban outside the park<br />
was instituted, human-caused mortality decreased, but was largely offset by natural mortality, such that<br />
wolf density has remained relatively constant at approximately three wolves/100 km2. However, the<br />
number of wolf packs with unrelated adopted animals decreased from 80% to 6%, indicating a much more<br />
stable social organization.64<br />
Disruption of social organization has important consequences for wolf management. A number of studies<br />
have documented that increased prey demands are associated with the birth and growth of pups. If the<br />
“cultural knowledge” of where to hunt and/or ability of a pack to effectively hunt is destroyed by loss of<br />
key pack members, creating more unstable social systems, the remaining pack member may be more<br />
prone to attack livestock and/or wander into new territories. Such social interactions are totally ignored<br />
by “population” oriented wildlife management, which merely attempts to maintain population numbers<br />
rather than social cohesiveness.<br />
10<br />
Plus indiscriminate hunting (i.e. the opportunistic killing of predators by hunters) can disrupt social<br />
cohesion in predators, reduce the ability of an animal and/or pack to hold a territory, reduce its<br />
effectiveness in hunting (thereby making it more likely to attack livestock) and can also skew overall<br />
population towards a younger age cohort.<br />
If livestock is available to wolves during this critical period, the likelihood of predator losses is<br />
significantly increased. Thus the seasonality of grazing determined predator opportunity and conflicts<br />
with livestock producers.65<br />
A review by Karlsson and Johansson of predation on livestock in Europe demonstrated that once a farm or<br />
ranch suffers a predation event, it is much more likely to experience additional predator losses. In their<br />
study, depredated farms were approximately at 55 times higher risk for a repeat predation event within 12<br />
months compared to other farms in the same area.66 The researchers believe predators, attracted by<br />
carrion, are more likely to attack additional livestock, making clear that rapid removal of dead animals<br />
may be a potential way to reduce predator opportunity.<br />
However, the mere presence of livestock within wolf territory does not automatically result in predation.<br />
Chavez and Gese, in a study of wolves in agricultural areas of Minnesota, found that radio-collared<br />
wolves passed directly through a pasture containing cattle on 28% of the nights of tracking, and that 58%<br />
and 95% of the wolf locations were within 1 km and 5 km from a pasture, respectively. Space use of<br />
wolves in this study demonstrated that wolves visited livestock pastures during the 24-hour tracking<br />
sessions; they apparently were passing through these pastures with cattle and not preying on livestock.67<br />
Animal Husbandry Influences on Predation Losses<br />
Not all wolves are inclined to kill livestock. Animal husbandry practices (such as lambing and calving<br />
sheds, herders, guard dogs, night time corralling and barn use, as well as other methods) are effective at<br />
discouraging predator opportunity.<br />
One study in Africa found much lower predation losses for cattle that were corralled at night compared to<br />
herds without night-time corralling.68 Research by Mordecail Ogada and colleagues in Africa found that<br />
cattle, sheep, and goats experienced the lowest predation rates when attentively herded by day and<br />
enclosed in traditional corrals (bomas) by night.69<br />
One study of wolf predation on domestic sheep in the French Alps found that confining or simply<br />
gathering sheep at night in the presence of five livestock-guarding dogs was predicted to prevent most<br />
kills (94% and 79%, respectively) that would have occurred in similar conditions but with free-ranging<br />
sheep.70<br />
Another study in Poland also concluded that poor husbandry practices contributed to higher livestock<br />
losses.71<br />
In an experiment in Montana, researchers put road-killed deer inside fenced enclosures amid active wolf<br />
territories and used electric fladry to discourage wolves. They found electric fladry was 2 to 10 times<br />
more effective than fladry at protecting food in captivity and that hunger increased the likelihood of<br />
wolves testing fladry barriers, suggesting that electrified fladry could be one effective means of<br />
discouraging predators.72<br />
A Minnesota study found that trapping of depredating animals like wolves did not appear to reduce future<br />
predation, though it may sometimes affect predation in certain situations. However, the authors speculate<br />
that just the additional presence of people may contribute to fewer depredations.73<br />
11<br />
The presence of domestic livestock can contribute to conflicts between predators and ranchers. Domestic<br />
livestock diets overlap with native species like elk and deer and is well documented, especially on poor<br />
condition rangelands. Thus forage consumption by domestic animals can reduce the biological carrying<br />
capacity of the land for native prey species.<br />
In addition, social displacement of key prey species by livestock can also influence predation rates. Many<br />
wildlife species, including elk and deer, are known to abandon pastures where livestock are present. Thus<br />
if wolves den in an area in the spring where natural prey like elk are abundant, only to have the elk<br />
abandon the area once livestock are moved on to a grazing allotment (as occurs on many public lands in<br />
the West), it may leave predators, especially those with dependent young, little choice but to prey upon<br />
domestic livestock.74<br />
In effect, livestock producers over much of the West have been successful in externalizing one of their<br />
operational costs – predator losses – by extirpation and/or reduction in predators. Opportunities to reduce<br />
predator losses by changing grazing practices are not likely to be implemented as long as the public<br />
continues to subsidize livestock operations with predator control.<br />
Hayes and Harestad found evidence that compared to unexploited populations, packs experiencing control<br />
and/or hunting had higher mortality rates as a direct consequence of reductions – pack sizes are smaller,<br />
home ranges were less stable and occupied at variable times and more young are produced in the<br />
population.75<br />
Younger animals may breed earlier, and in exploited populations produce more young. Young growing<br />
pups consume more biomass (meat) than adults, creating a greater need to obtain food. Typically in<br />
exploited populations, pack size is smaller, with only the breeding adults to raise pups, putting greater<br />
pressure on adults to obtain easily available meat. Plus young pups reduce the mobility of the pack,<br />
limiting the area where adults can seek prey. Thus indiscriminate hunting puts increased pressure on the<br />
few adults to obtain meat, and they often satisfy this need by attacking livestock.<br />
The effects of lethal control and/or hunting on pack stability can lead to social disruptions and loss of<br />
territory. A study, which pooled data on 148<br />
breeding wolf packs, showed that the loss of adult<br />
breeders (from any causes, including natural<br />
mortality) often leads to the dissolution of the<br />
pack and loss of pack territory and/or limited<br />
breeding in the following season. For instance, in<br />
47 of 123 cases (38.2%), groups dissolved and<br />
abandoned their territories after breeder loss. Of<br />
dissolved groups, territorial wolves became<br />
reestablished in 25 cases (53.2%), and in an<br />
additional 10 cases (21.3%) neighboring wolves<br />
usurped vacant territories.76 Thus any increases in<br />
mortality caused by human hunting and/or lethal<br />
control may disrupt social interactions between<br />
packs and lead to the loss of social/cultural<br />
knowledge that long time residency by family<br />
lineages may provide.<br />
Simple animal husbandry techniques have been shown<br />
to greatly reduce livestock losses from predators;<br />
unfortunately, many ranchers don’t use them.<br />
Photo by George Wuerthner.<br />
12<br />
An on-going study in Washington confirms this trend. According to Dr. Robert Wielgus, killing large<br />
numbers of mountain lion (cougars) creates social chaos. Ironically, as cougar population declined due to<br />
increased mortality from hunting, complaints about exploding cougar populations and human conflicts<br />
increased. The incidence of cougar complaints, which averaged about 250 a year before Washington<br />
increased cougar hunting effort, more than doubled the following year before peaking at 936 in 2000, all<br />
the while cougar populations were declining as a consequence of hunter-caused mortality.77<br />
Researchers attribute this increase in human conflicts to the social disruption created by hunting.<br />
According to Wielgus, trophy hunters often target adult males, which act as a stabilizing force in cougar<br />
populations. Loss of mature male cougars as a consequence of hunting permits young males to occupy<br />
territory. “The adults police large territories and kill or drive out young males. With the grown-ups gone,<br />
the ‘young hooligans’ run wild,” Wielgus says.<br />
Evidence suggests cougars under two years of age, just learning to live on their own, account for the<br />
majority of run-ins with people and domestic animals. “You don’t get to be an old cougar by doing stupid<br />
stuff like hanging out in backyards and eating cats,” Wielgus says.78<br />
Carroll et al. warn that social carnivores such as the wolf, which often require larger territories than<br />
solitary species of similar size, may be more vulnerable to environmental stochasticity and landscape<br />
fragmentation than their vagility and fecundity would suggest.79<br />
Predator control by management agencies creates a vicious circle of self-fulfilling feedback mechanisms,<br />
whereby livestock owners demand greater predator control, which state wildlife agencies provide<br />
willingly since, in general, they want fewer predators preying on game animals, which hunters want to<br />
shoot. Hunters are encouraged to kill more predators, disrupting social organization and skewing the<br />
population to younger animals, which in turn are more likely to kill livestock, leading to ever more<br />
demands for more “predator control.”<br />
Predator control may be creating other conflicts with livestock producers as well. Artificial feeding of elk<br />
that leads to winter congregations has been documented to increase the occurrence of brucellosis infection<br />
in wildlife.80<br />
There is evidence that wolf predation (as well as other predators) can reduce disease occurrence and thus<br />
transmission from wildlife to livestock. For instance, researchers in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem<br />
found that wolves helped to disperse elk and apparently kept brucellosis infection low under natural<br />
conditions. Under more crowded conditions in feedlots, brucellosis infection rates are much higher.81<br />
Brucellosis is a major concern to ranchers since it can cause abortion of fetuses in livestock and bison that<br />
wander out of Yellowstone National Park are routinely killed by the Montana Department of Livestock to<br />
prevent brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. Recent occurrence of brucellosis in cattle due to elk<br />
transmission is fueling fears that ranchers may soon demand elk control as well.<br />
Livestock Losses to Predators Exaggerated<br />
Perhaps one of the most perplexing aspects about predator management is the unrealistic and exaggerated<br />
importance of livestock losses attributed to predators. Notwithstanding the fact that any loss to predators<br />
can be significant to individual livestock producers, overall predators are not a threat to the livestock<br />
industry as a whole.<br />
13<br />
For instance, in 2005 only 5% of all cattle losses in the continental U.S. were attributable to predators. In<br />
addition, only 0.11% of all cattle losses in 2005 were due to predation by wolves. (However, it’s<br />
important to note that wolf distribution is more limited than other predators like coyotes). Coyotes killed<br />
more than 22 times more cattle, domestic dogs killed almost five times as many cattle and vultures killed<br />
almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005. Interestingly, theft was responsible for almost five<br />
times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.82<br />
Source: NASS<br />
In 2009 wolves were responsible for 192 confirmed cattle losses in the northern Rockies. This was lower<br />
than in 2008 when 214 were killed. However, confirmed sheep losses were 721, almost double the 355<br />
reported in 2008, primarily due to the loss of more than a hundred sheep in one predation event.<br />
A total of 478 wolves were killed by either hunters or agency personnel in 2009. Montana removed 145<br />
wolves by agency control and 72 by hunting. Idaho removed 93 by agency control and 134 by hunting. In<br />
Wyoming, 32 wolves were removed by agency control. In Oregon two wolves were removed by agency<br />
control.83<br />
14<br />
These numbers could be expected to change as wolf numbers increase, but there are reasons to believe the<br />
presence of wolves may actually reduce livestock losses. Since it is well documented that the presence of<br />
wolves reduces the number of coyotes, and since coyotes are among the major predators on livestock<br />
(particularly sheep), some have argued that restoration of wolves throughout the West would lead to a<br />
reduction in predator losses.<br />
A Case Study: Management of Wolves<br />
The management of gray wolves in the northern Rockies provides a case study in the problems associated<br />
with current management paradigms with regards to top predators. While there are differences in the<br />
behavior, prey selection and resource allocations between top predators, most share some common<br />
attributes with regards to how state agencies manage them, or perhaps mismanage them. The current<br />
debate over wolf management demonstrates the conflicts that dominate wildlife agency policies.<br />
The gray wolf was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1978. Natural recolonization of the<br />
northern Rockies near Glacier National Park began in the 1980s. In order to speed recovery efforts, the<br />
US Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves into two other recovery zones – Central Idaho and the<br />
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wolves were trapped in Canada and released in these zones in 1995 and<br />
again in 1996. Wolves in these two areas were considered “experimental and non-essential” populations<br />
and thus had reduced protections under the ESA. This permitted the US Fish and Wildlife Service to kill<br />
any wolves that were deemed harmful to the long-term prospects of species recovery. Typically wolves<br />
were killed after depredation on livestock. In reality, wolves both in the Glacier Park recovery area, as<br />
well as other recovery zones, were treated essentially the same and were regularly killed by the US Fish<br />
and Wildlife Service in response to documented predation upon livestock and/or pets.<br />
From that start, the population has grown to more than 1,600 wolves in the three state area, so that by<br />
2009 the government proposed delisting of wolves in Montana and Idaho and handing management over<br />
to state wildlife agencies. The FWS retained management control over wolves in Wyoming because of<br />
conflicts over management policies with that state, which proposed making wolves “predators” over most<br />
of the state with year-round open season and no limits on hunting.84 Meanwhile environmental<br />
organizations sued to reverse delisting based on several fine points of the law, including the requirement<br />
by the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan that genetic exchange between all three recovery zones had to be<br />
documented before delisting could occur and that under delisting rules, wolf populations could dip as low<br />
as 300 animals.85 Despite significant long distance dispersal of wolves into adjacent states, as of 2010, no<br />
genetic exchange has been documented between wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and other<br />
recovery zones.<br />
Meanwhile, in response to delisting by the federal government, both Idaho and Montana, in an attempt to<br />
control wolves, instituted hunting seasons. By March of 2010 hunters had killed 159 wolves in Idaho and<br />
72 in Montana. Additional wolves were also killed by Wildlife Services in response to livestock<br />
depredation. At the end of 2009 the northern Rockies gray wolf population was estimated to include 525<br />
wolves in Montana, 320 wolves in Wyoming and at least 843 wolves in Idaho. Three packs are now<br />
verified in Oregon and Washington.86<br />
State wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service argue that hunting does not endanger wolf<br />
recovery. In a narrow sense they are correct. It is unlikely that hunting, alone, would reduce wolf<br />
populations to critical levels. However, indiscriminate hunting, along with livestock depredation control<br />
deaths and disease, might jeopardize at least local populations. Most wildlife agencies maintain the<br />
position that regional numbers, or meta populations, are the only valid consideration in evaluating<br />
15<br />
hunting, trapping and control programs on wolves. Such concerns are the crudest measure one can employ<br />
in wildlife management and ignores much of the latest research on evolutionary behavior and the<br />
ecological importance of predators in structuring ecosystem function.<br />
More importantly, state agency management goals to maintain predators at populations lower than<br />
biological carrying capacity does have other consequences. It is increasingly obvious that top predators<br />
play an important role in ecosystem regulation. Plus indiscriminate hunting and killing of predators can<br />
actually increase conflicts with humans – the opposite of what wildlife agencies profess is their goal.<br />
Greater attention to the social interactions of predators, as well as appreciation of the ecological influence<br />
of top predators, should lead to more enlightened management of predators that recognizes them as an<br />
important ecological process that has significant evolutionary influence upon ecosystems.<br />
In April 2011 a rider was attached to a federal budget bill at the behest of Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho<br />
and Senator Jon Tester of Montana, which legislatively returned management of wolves to state control in<br />
Montana and Idaho, while maintaining federal protection for wolves in Wyoming. Wolf hunts are also being<br />
planned for the 2011 fall general hunting season in both Montana and Idaho. On May 12, Montana Fish Wildlife<br />
and Parks set the fall 2011 wolf hunt quota at 220, a quota number that Idaho is also considering.<br />
________________________<br />
George Wuerthner (gwuerthner@gmail.com) is the Ecological Projects Director for the Foundation for Deep<br />
Ecology. He is a former Montana hunting guide, and previously worked as a biologist and botanist for several<br />
federal agencies. He is also the author of 35 books dealing with natural history, conservation and environmental<br />
issues. This report was commissioned by Big Wildlife (www.bigwildlife.org), a non-profit conservation group<br />
working to ensure the longterm viability of top carnivore wildlife throughout the west.<br />
16<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/history_of_bounty_hunting.pdf.<br />
2 Wuethner, G.K. 1996. Potential for wolf recovery in Oregon. Pages 285-291 In: Wolves of America Conference Proceedings, Defenders<br />
of Wildlife, Albany, NY 14-16 November 1996.<br />
3 http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/history_of_bounty_hunting.pdf.<br />
4 Riley S., et al. 2004. Dynamics of early wolf and cougar eradication eorts in Montana: implications for conservation. Biological<br />
Conservation Volume 119, Issue 4, October 2004, Pages 575-579<br />
5 Gill, B. 2010 in Hornocker, M. and Sharon Negri ed. Cougar Ecology and Conservation. Page 9, Chicago, Illinois, U of Chicago Press.<br />
6 Robinson, M.J. 2005. Predatory Bureaucracy: The extermination of wolves and the Transformation of the West. Boulder, Colorado, U of<br />
Colorado Press.<br />
7 Gill, B. 2010 in Hornocker, M. and Sharon Negri ed. Cougar Ecology and Conservation. Page 9, Chicago, Illinois, U of Chicago Press.<br />
8 Gill, B. 2010 in Hornocker, M. and Sharon Negri ed. Cougar Ecology and Conservation. Page 12., Chicago, Illinois, U of Chicago Press.<br />
9 Shafer, C. 2001. Conservation Biology Trailblazers: George Wright, Ben Thompson, and Joseph Dixon, Conservation Biology, Vol. 15,<br />
No. 2, pp. 332-344.<br />
10 Oregon Cougar Management Plan, 2006. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.<br />
11 Schwartz, C.C., J.E. Swenson and S. D. Miller. 2003. Large carnivores, moose and humans: A changing paradigm of predator<br />
management in the 21st Century. Alces Vol. 39: 41-63.<br />
12 Jackson Hole News 2010. Hunters rally to disperse wolves. http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?ctg=4<br />
13 Ring, R. 2008. The gospel according to Ron Gillette: Fiery advocate against wolves connects with a small farm town. High Country<br />
News. May 12, 2008.<br />
14 M. David Allan. 2008. Bugle Magazine. Wolves—How about a little common sense? Volume 25, Issue 3, May/June 2008.<br />
15 Wild Sheep Foundation. 2010. Elk Foundation Calls Out Motives of Wolf Groups. http://www.wildsheepfoundation.org/Page.php/News/<br />
133<br />
16 Gill, B. 2010 in Hornocker, M. and Sharon Negri ed. Cougar Ecology and Conservation. Page 12., Chicago, Illinois, U of Chicago<br />
Press.<br />
17 Cougar Update April 2009. Predator Defense web site: http://www.predatordefense.org/docs/cougars_update_04-02-09.pdf<br />
18 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. Key Facts about Cougar in Oregon and the Cougar Management Plan http://www.dfw.state.or.us/<br />
wildlife/cougar/<br />
19 French, B. 2009. Big game animals scarce in once-popular hunting district along Gallatin River. Billings Gazette. Dec. 9, 2009. http://<br />
billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_468faeb8-e06b-11de-a34e-001cc4c002e0.html<br />
20 Idaho Fish and Game. 2009. Clarification on elk numbers. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=4775<br />
21 Cougar Update April 2009. Predator Defense web site: http://www.predatordefense.org/docs/cougars_update_04-02-09.pdf<br />
22 Beier, P. 1992. Cougar attacks on humans: An update and some further reflections. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection<br />
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1992. University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 1992. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/<br />
vpc15/6<br />
23 Tavass, E. 2005. Correlation of reduction in nuisance black bear complaints with implementation of (a) a hunt vs. (b) a non-violent<br />
program. Presented at 9/21/05 New Jersey Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy and at 8/8/07 Public<br />
Meeting on Black Bear Management at the New Jersey State Museum.<br />
24 Treves, A., et al. 2010. American black bear nuisance complaints and hunter take. Ursus 21(1):30–42 (2010).<br />
17<br />
25 Terborgh, J. et al. 2001. Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments. Science Vol. 294 30 November pages 1923-1925.<br />
26 Laundré, J.W., L. Hernández and W. J. Ripple. 2010. The Landscape of Fear: Ecological Implications of Being Afraid. The Open<br />
Ecology Journal, 2010, Volume 3.<br />
27 Beschta, R. and W.J. Ripple. 2008. Wolves, trophic cascades, and rivers in the Olympic National Park, USA Ecohydrol. 1, 118–130<br />
Published online in Wiley InterScience.<br />
28 Hebblewhite, M. et al. 2005. Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Ecology, 86(8), pp. 2135–2144.<br />
29 Ripple WJ and Beschta RL. 2003. Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Forest<br />
Ecology and Management 184: 299–313.<br />
30 Ripple, W.J. and E.J. Larson. 2000. Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biological<br />
Conservation Vol. 95, 3, Pages 361-370.<br />
31 Beschta, R.L. and W.J. Ripple. 2009. Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States. Biol.<br />
Conserv. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.015.<br />
32 Halofsky, J. and W.J. Ripple. 2008. Linkages between wolf presence and aspen recruitment in the Gallatin elk winter range of<br />
southwestern Montana, USA. Forestry, doi:10.1093/forestry/cpm044<br />
33 Beschta, R. L. and W.J. Ripple. 2006. River channel dynamics following extirpation of wolves in northwestern Yellowstone National<br />
Park, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31, 1525–1539.<br />
34 Beyer, H.L., E.H. Merrill, N. Varley and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Willow on Yellowstone’s Northern Range: Evidence for a trophic cascade?<br />
Ecological Applications, 17(6), 2007, pp. 1563–1571.<br />
35 Soule, M. E. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat slands. Conservation<br />
Biology 2: 75–91.<br />
36 Prugh, L.R. el. Al. 2009. The Rise of Mesopredator. Bioscience Vol. 59 No. 9.<br />
37 Rogers, C.M., and S.B. Heard. 2000. The Mesopredator release hypothesis: Intregating landbird management with ecological theory.<br />
Studies in Avian Biology No. 21:138-143.<br />
38 Berger, K.M. and E.M. Gese. 2007. Does Interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? Journal<br />
of Animal Ecology. 76. Pages 1075-1085.<br />
39 Berger, K.M., E.M. Gese, and J. Berger. 2008. Indirect effects and traditional trophic cascades: A test involving wolves, coyotes and<br />
pronghorn. Ecology, 89(3), pp. 818–828.<br />
40 Miller, B.J. et al. 2010. Trophic Interactions Affecting Small Mammals in Grand Teton National Park. (In Review)<br />
41 Wilmers, C.C. et al. 2003. Trophic facilitation by introduced top predators: grey wolf subsidies to scavengers in Yellowstone National<br />
Park. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2003, vol. 72, no6, pp. 909-916.<br />
42 Wilmers, C.C. and E. Post 2006. Predicting the influence of wolf-provided carrion on scavenger community dynamics under climate<br />
change scenarios. Global Change Biology (2006) 12, 403–409<br />
43 Wilmers, C.C. and W.M. Getz. 2005. Wolves as climate buffers in Yellowstone Park. PLoS Biology April 2005, Volume 3, Issue 4,<br />
e92.<br />
44 Hebblewhite, M. 2005. Predation by wolves interacts with the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) on a western North American elk<br />
population. Journal of Animal Ecology 74, 226–233.<br />
45 Wright, G. J. et al. 2006. Selection of Northern Yellowstone Elk by Gray Wolves and Hunters. The Journal of Wildlife Management.<br />
70(4).<br />
46 Smith, D. W. et. al. 2004. Winter prey selection and estimation of wolf kill rates in Yellowstone National Park 1995-2000. Journal of<br />
Wildlife Management 68(1):153–166<br />
18<br />
47 Darimont, C. T. et al. 2009. Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. PNAS January 20, 2009. vol. 106 no. 3<br />
48 Wilmers, C.C. el al. 2003. Resource dispersion and consumer dominance: scavenging at wolf- and hunter-killed carcasses in Greater<br />
Yellowstone, USA. Ecology Letters (2003) 6: 996–1003<br />
49 Mao, J.S. et al. 2005. Habitat Selection by Elk Before and After Wolf Reintroductions in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife<br />
Management 69(4):1691–1707.<br />
50 Atwood, T. , E.M. Gese, K.E. Kunkel. 2006. Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s<br />
Madison Range. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4).<br />
51 Creel, S. et al. 2007. Predation Risk Affects Reproductive Physiology and Demography of Elk. Science. Feb. 16, 2007. Vol. 315.<br />
52 Meriggi, A. and Sandro Lovari 1996. A Review of Wolf Predation in Southern Europe: Does the Wolf Prefer Wild Prey to Livestock?<br />
The Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 1561-1571.<br />
53 Musiani, M. and P. Paquet. 2004. The Practices of Wolf Persecution, Protection, and Restoration in Canada and the United States.<br />
BioScience January 2004 Vol. 54 No. 1<br />
54 Proffitt, K.M., et al. 2008. Contrasting Effects of Wolves and Human Hunters on Elk Behavioral Responses to Predation Risk. Journal of<br />
Wildlife Management 73(3).<br />
55 Kathleen Green. 2004. How important is the role that social behaviour of African Wild Dogs (Lycoan pictus) plays in their conservation<br />
and extinction risk? Animal and Plant Sciences Department The University of Sheffield<br />
56 Hilary Cooley. 2008. Effects of Hunting on Cougar Population Demography. PhD. Thesis, Washington State University.<br />
57 Robinson, H.S. et al. 2008. Sink populations in Carnivore Management: Cougar Demography and Immigration in a Hunted Population.<br />
Ecological Applications Vol. 18, No. 4.<br />
58 Coyotes in Yellowstone National Park. http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/coyotes.htm<br />
59 Haber, G. 2005, Behavior and Conservation of Wolves in Alaska. http://www.alaskawolves.org/Reports_files/Research%20Objectives-<br />
1.pdf<br />
60 Haber, G. 1996. Biological; Conservation, and Ethical Implications of Exploiting and Controlling Wolves. Conservation Biology<br />
Volume 10, No. 4. Pages 1068-1081<br />
61 Gobush, K.S., Mutayoba, B.M. and Wasser, S.K., 2008. Long-term impacts of poaching on<br />
relatedness, stress physiology, and reproductive output of adult female African elephants. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1590–1599.<br />
62 Cooley, H.S., et al. 2009. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology, 90(10),<br />
2009, pp. 2913–2921.<br />
63 Lambert, C.M., et. al. 2006. Cougar Population Dynamics and Viability in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(1).<br />
64Rutledge, L. et al. 2010. Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation<br />
143 (2010) 332–339.<br />
65 Musiani, M., et. al. 2005. Seasonality and reoccurrence of depredation and wolf control in western North America. Wildlife Society<br />
Bulletin. , Vol. 33, (3)<br />
66 Karlsson, J. and O. Johansson. 2010. Predictability of repeated carnivore attacks on livestock favours reactive use of mitigation<br />
measures. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47, 166–171.<br />
67 Chavez, A. S. and E.M. Gese. 2006. Landscape Use and Movements of Wolves in Relation to Livestock in a Wildland–Agriculture<br />
Matrix. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(4)<br />
68 Monika Schiess-Meier et al. 2006. Livestock Predation—Insights From Problem Animal Control Registers in Botswana. Journal of<br />
Wildlife Management 71(4)<br />
69 Mordecai Ogada el al. 2003. Limiting Depredation by African Carnivores:<br />
the Role of Livestock Husbandry. Conservation Biology, Pages 1–10 Volume 17, No. 6, December<br />
19<br />
70 Espuno, N. et. al. 2004. Heterogeneous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildlife<br />
Society Bulletin 2004, 32(4): 1195–1208.<br />
71 Gula, Roman. 2006. Wolf Depredation on Domestic Animals in the Polish Carpathian Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management<br />
72(1).<br />
72 N.J. Lance, et al. Biological, technical, and social aspects of applying electrified fladry for livestock protection from wolves (Canis<br />
lupus). Wildlife Research, 2010, 37, 708–714<br />
73 E.K. Harper et al. 2007. Effectiveness of Lethal, Directed Wolf-Depredation Control in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management<br />
72(3)<br />
74 Coe, P.K. et al. 2004. Spatial and Temporal Interactions of Elk, Mule Deer and Cattle. Transactions of the 69th North American<br />
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.<br />
75 Hayes RD, and Harestad AS. 2000.Demography of a recovering wolf population<br />
in the Yukon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 36–48.<br />
76 Brainerd, S.M. et al. 2008. The effect of Breeder Loss on Wolves. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1)<br />
77 Gross, L. 2008. No Place for Predators? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060040<br />
78 Doughton, S. 2008. Is Cougar Hunting Breeding Chaos? Seattle Times.<br />
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html<br />
79 Carroll, C. , M. K. Phillips, N.H. Schumaker, and D. W. Smith. 2003. Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Restoration Success:<br />
Planning a Reintroduction Program Based on Static and Dynamic Spatial Models. Conservation Biology, Volume 17, No. 2, Pages 536–<br />
548<br />
80 Cross, P.C., et al. 2010. Probable causes of increasing brucellosis in free-ranging elk of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecological<br />
Applications, Vol. 20, No. 1.<br />
81 Proffitt, K.M., P.J. White, and R.A. Garrott. 2010. Spatio-temporal overlap between Yellowstone bison and elk – implications of wolf<br />
restoration and other factors for brucellosis transmission risk. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47, 281–289.<br />
82 Wolf predation and livestock losses. Defenders of Wildlife http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/<br />
solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/wolf_predation_and_livestock_losses.php<br />
83 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana. Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated<br />
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2010. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2009 Interagency<br />
Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 59601. http://<br />
www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt09/<br />
FINAL_2009_Northern_Rockies_Summary_and_Background_3_3_10.pdf<br />
84 Secretary Salazar Affirms Decision to Delist Gray Wolves in Western Great Lakes, Portion of Northern Rockies http://<br />
fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/news/delist3_6_09.pdf<br />
85 Judge allows gray wolf hunt to proceed in Idaho and Montana, Los Angles Times Sept. 10, 2009 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/<br />
10/nation/na-wolves10<br />
86 http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov<br />
20<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZCq1rwKuWmCpXLHHivrBAqqNglO7P3eNtwh9bVtDQ0-ZPKCF8fdmguQNS3f0I2h-EhIihaimW02_70-NK_sABUhPPjt3KDUQJ2MbfIQUqAra6iv_BXlh0YCLtljwjrw8ixDmpQKf0/s1600/90006-01803+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-435.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZCq1rwKuWmCpXLHHivrBAqqNglO7P3eNtwh9bVtDQ0-ZPKCF8fdmguQNS3f0I2h-EhIihaimW02_70-NK_sABUhPPjt3KDUQJ2MbfIQUqAra6iv_BXlh0YCLtljwjrw8ixDmpQKf0/s320/90006-01803+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-435.jpg" /></a></div><br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-74940465716145457042013-01-01T16:33:00.001-08:002013-01-01T16:33:43.353-08:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhInuAcqoU2DRePAx_n3oJpBwUfTYFWgcgp76NbvGDR1aeIjH_HoslB153YA9RIg20TOoqnEQQw5nryOW2uM45TqvYmzduFihAqdv9qIciim6rG66Zg29FTlxURlJGMplzrlGxy6SI7/s1600/90002-00469+Grizzly+bear+Urus+arctos+horribilis+George+Wuerthner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="215" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhInuAcqoU2DRePAx_n3oJpBwUfTYFWgcgp76NbvGDR1aeIjH_HoslB153YA9RIg20TOoqnEQQw5nryOW2uM45TqvYmzduFihAqdv9qIciim6rG66Zg29FTlxURlJGMplzrlGxy6SI7/s320/90002-00469+Grizzly+bear+Urus+arctos+horribilis+George+Wuerthner.jpg" /></a></div><br />
In their December 29th editorial in the Billings Gazette, Scott Talbott of the Wyoming Game and Fish and Harv Forsgren of the U.S. Forest Service wrote that hunting was another step towards grizzly bear recovery. <br />
To read their editorial, go to this link: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-hunting-another-step-toward-grizzly-bear-recovery/article_b7763b6e-2221-5c1b-91b9-dc05c3c35bb9.html<br />
Specifically, the authors claim that regulated hunting will recover grizzly bears. Boy is that a leap. We haven’t hunted grizzlies for several decades now, and the bears appear to be doing fine without being shot or trapped. There is no legitimate reason to indiscriminately kill any predator.<br />
Those, like the authors, who advocate the hunting of grizzly bears continuously, proclaim that state management will not cause the extirpation of bears (or wolves, mountain lions, etc.) This is a straw man they construct so they can knock it down. Few opponents of predator hunting/trapping are worried that these animals will be completely eliminated from the West. <br />
By trying to frame the issue this way, proponents of bear killing misrepresent the real concerns of those who question state wildlife management of predators. The concern of opponents of bear hunting, wolf hunting, mountain lion hunting has more to do with ethics and how we should be treating other living creatures—a concern to which the authors and others appear tone deaf. <br />
They further claim that state agencies use the “best available science.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The best available science is disregarded by the authors as well as all state wildlife management agencies that manage predators because it would challenge the validity of many of their management prescriptions. <br />
With regards to grizzly bears, conservation science suggests we need many more bears in many more places to sustain their populations over the long term. There is plenty of unoccupied bear habitats in the Northern Rockies. Many parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming that could support grizzlies where they are currently absent, including Wyoming’s Salt and Wyoming Ranges, the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho, and the Centennial Mountains of Montana to name just a few. <br />
The best available science also suggests that many predators including bears, wolves, mountain lion and coyotes have intricate social interactions that are disrupted or damaged by indiscriminate killing from hunters and trappers. <br />
At best hunting and trapping are blunt tools to address what may be in some rare instances legitimate conflicts such as the surgical removal of a food-habituated bear--though I hasten to add that many conflicts are self-created by humans who exercise sloppy animal husbandry or camping practices. <br />
Hunting, and most trapping, does not specifically target any particular offending animals—such as a bear that might be killing livestock. Rather the majority of bears (or wolves, mountain lions or coyotes) killed are not causing any conflicts at all. They are innocent by- standers who happen to be caught in the cross hairs of predator persecution.<br />
For instance, dominant bears will occupy the best habitat and prevent other bears from occupying the territory. Yet in many cases, if a bear has lived long enough to become a dominant animal, it is not one that causes troubles for humans. Yet it is the biggest bears, in other words, the dominant bears that hunters seek to kill opening up habitat for occupation by another bear that may not be so friendly to human desires. <br />
To suggest, as the authors do, that hunting will reduce human conflicts directly contradicts the best available science which they profess to use, but obviously ignore. This growing body of research suggests that hunting of predators actually increases human conflicts. For instance, there are many predators that live among livestock without ever killing cattle or sheep. Yet because they inhabit the territory, they keep other members of their species from occupying the area. If a hunter should kill this livestock-friendly bear, the habitat, if it’s any good, will be filled quickly by another bear that may or may not be so livestock friendly. <br />
Indeed, one study of black bears in the eastern US found that as states increased the killing of bears to “reduce conflicts”, the number of bear-human conflicts increased. <br />
Similar studies of mountain lion have documented exactly the same pattern. As mountain lions are killed, and even as the population is declining, the number of conflicts increases—the exact opposite of what state wildlife agencies predict will occur. Hunters tend to kill the dominant toms (male) mountain lion opening up space for immature young lions, who like human teenagers, are bolder, less cautious, and more inclined to attack livestock and even humans. <br />
Thus the typical “management” approach advocated by state wildlife agencies exacerbates, rather than reduces human-wildlife conflicts. <br />
To suggest that regulated hunting is a “solution” to perceived problems with humans is like arguing that the best way to address crime in our cities is to shoot all young men since the majority of crime is done by youths. Obviously you might eliminate some of the criminal element by such a policy, but you would be unavoidably be killing many innocent people.<br />
Why aren’t Fish and Game agencies using that science in their management decisions? I will answer it. Because they are a regulatory agency that has been captured by the very group they are supposed to regulate—namely hunters and trappers. <br />
Follow the money. State wildlife agencies run on the sale of licenses. Anything that contributes to greater license sales is looked upon favorably. <br />
To be fair, it should be acknowledged that these agencies are not immune from political pressure from the hunting and trapping community. Many western state Fish and Game agencies are already under duress from ill-informed hunters and trappers and legislatures ignorant of ecology and animal behavior. <br />
Some of the more extreme predator killers even go so far as to suggest that that these agencies are coddling predators and god forbid bowing to the wishes of animal rights advocates. Thinking that any animals have “rights” is heretical to these folks who believe wildlife exists for their sole pleasure and exploitation. <br />
So these state agencies practice a vicious cycle; whereby predators are indiscriminately killed, which disrupts their social organization, which leads to greater human conflict, and thus more demands for predator control.<br />
Worse, the authors as well as many state wildlife agencies eulogize the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. That model, among other things, specifically requires the highest ethical behavior from hunters. What is ethical about killing a bear for self -aggrandizement just because you are so insecure the only way you can so you can prove your manhood is by killing a bear? Most hunters are not going to eat the meat—isn’t that wanton waste? Is killing a bear just to have a “trophy” rug on the wall a legitimate and ethical use of wildlife, especially when that destruction of a wild creature denies the rest of the public of its wildlife heritage? <br />
Others argue that we “need” to permit hunting and trapping of predators to reduce the anger of some members of the hunting and trapping community. Is killing any animal justified just to address the emotional problems of some members of the public? These people need counseling, not a license to kill. <br />
I am a former Montana hunting guide. I studied wildlife biology and currently work as an ecologist. I believe that hunting can lead to some valuable insights about wildlife and individuals. Some of my hunting experiences have been almost transcendental experiences—ironically more often when I did not kill an animal. If one is going to take the life of another creature, one must be absolutely certain that killing is justified.<br />
The unnecessary and indiscriminate persecution of predators is what fuels public opposition against all hunting, not to mention it does not help grizzly or any other animal’s recovery. <br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-26774119242561316432012-10-01T20:11:00.002-07:002012-10-01T20:11:41.836-07:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhp_ANZL6-9lpfiGnPPDVfa_JRuKnneB-XDHXCmblv8JDYlOmHXNPn0MHCwWOErRCBpqBF19GHV3aClB5lL_ojl9mSjni5uGVhoSi9OCq14mCs_y3DI74CSRkaCHneYHocd2fS4elH/s1600/sage+grouse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhp_ANZL6-9lpfiGnPPDVfa_JRuKnneB-XDHXCmblv8JDYlOmHXNPn0MHCwWOErRCBpqBF19GHV3aClB5lL_ojl9mSjni5uGVhoSi9OCq14mCs_y3DI74CSRkaCHneYHocd2fS4elH/s320/sage+grouse.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
SAGE GROUSE: PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE CAUSES <br />
When I was in college, one of my favorite courses was animal behavior. One of the more memorable lessons I learned was the difference between proximate and ultimate causes of behavior. Proximate and ultimate causes of events are important to distinguish. <br />
For instance, say a researcher finds that sedimentation in streams is causing reproduction failure in trout. That is the proximate cause. Often the sedimentation is the result of logging roads—the ultimate causes. But agencies and even far too many environmental groups do not want to identify the ultimate factors causing environmental degradation because naming names is politically risky. <br />
Worse, they often fail to connect the dots. Land management agencies tend to want to treat the symptoms, rather than confront the ultimate causes of these environmental problems. The reason for this is easy to understand from a bureaucrat’s perspective—confronting the causes for environmental degradation usually involves directly confronting some economic interest that is financially benefiting from the activity. <br />
Livestock production and its impact on other species is one of the best examples of how ultimate causes are ignored. When we look around the West and enumerate many of the factors causing environmental concern, knowledgeable folks can easily trace the cause directly back to livestock production. For example, when streams are dried up to support irrigated hay fields, and trout/salmon populations decline due to removal of water, the proximate reason is lack of water. However, if the dewatering is used to produce hay that is fed to cattle, than the ultimate cause of aquatic ecosystem degradation is livestock production. <br />
We see these kinds of proximate and ultimate factors with many endangered species throughout the West. Nowhere is this connection between livestock production and species decline more apparent than with sage grouse. Yet the United States Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t even consider livestock production among the major factors in sage grouse decline. <br />
This past week I attended the Desert Conference held in Bend, Oregon I saw yet another example of this blindness to livestock. <br />
Among the representatives on a sage grouse discussion panel, there was a representative of the Oregon Fish and Game (ODFW). During her presentation, she commented upon the agency’s policies regarding sage grouse and she listed the threats that Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) thought were a threat to the bird. ODFW identified factors like energy development, wildfire, invasive species (cheatgrass), vulnerability to predators, and climate change among the issues, nowhere was livestock grazing considered. When questioned about this seemingly inexplicable omission, she explained that ODFW thought livestock grazing benefited sage grouse. <br />
The omission of livestock production as a major factor in sage grouse endangerment points out a serious flaw in the way agencies articulate and characterize the threats to wildlife. What the ODFW biologist did was a common error, often seen when studying natural resources issues, as well as in many other controversial topics. People often focus on the symptoms rather than the causes of observations. In this case, nearly all of the threats to sage grouse with the exception of energy development are ultimately caused by livestock production—yet the ODFW did not want to discuss, much less, mention the cow factor. <br />
Invasive plants like cheatgrass are a problem for sage grouse, in part, because the annual cheatgrass out completes native grasses which are better hiding cover for the grouse. Cheatgrass is highly flammable and burns frequently. Due to the widespread occurrence of cheatgrass in the West, fire regimes have been altered, and we now see more frequent fires in many of our sagebrush steppe ecosystems. While the native species like sagebrush and bunchgrasses are adapted to occasional fires, they cannot survive fire year after year—a situation that often occurs when cheatgrass takes over. <br />
Thus, as more and more cheatgrass dominates the West, there is less and less good sagebrush habitat. <br />
But why is cheatgrass so prevalent in much of the West? The short answer is livestock. By trampling soil crusts which otherwise cover the bare spaces between native bunchgrasses, cattle often create perfect disturbed sites for cheatgrass seeds to colonize. More over cheatgrass seeds are carried from place to place on the fur of livestock, helping to ensure its widespread distribution. <br />
Livestock also impacts sage grouse in other ways. For instance, wet meadows and riparian areas by streams are important foraging areas for sage grouse chicks during the first 3-4 weeks of life. They hunt insects in these areas and the usually dense vegetation provides cover from predators. But cattle love grazing in riparian areas and wet meadows, eliminating the cover, and often due to ”down cutting” as a result of cattle trampling of stream bank vegetation, even eliminating the wet meadows entirely. <br />
Another factor of sage grouse mortality is fence collisions. Sage grouse are slow fliers and tend to fly only a little above the ground. As a result, they frequently run into barbed wire fences. The ODFW did not mention this as a problem, but a number of studies have shown that fences may be a major mortality factor. So the proximate cause of this mortality is collisions with fences, but again one must ask why are the fences here? They facilitate livestock production. So once again livestock is again the ultimate cause of sage grouse mortality. <br />
Fences also impact sage grouse in yet another way. The fence posts make natural perches for birds of prey that often predate on sage grouse. So predation by a hawk or eagle maybe the proximate cause of mortality, but again livestock production is the ultimate cause of mortality. Without the fences strewn across miles and miles of sage grouse habitat, birds of prey would not be a major issue. <br />
Another cause of sage grouse mortality is West Nile Virus. In some sage grouse populations as much as 25% of the females have died from the disease. The virus is carried by mosquitoes. so while West Nile Virus is the proximate cause of sage grouse mortality, the presence of mosquitoes is greatly enhanced by livestock stock tanks where the mosquitoes find ideal breeding habitat. So again livestock production is the ultimate cause of sage grouse mortality. <br />
Climate change is yet another factor. Changing climate is one of the factors which includes severe drought and extended warm season are driving the fire cycles that converting many millions of acres of sage brush habitat to annual grasslands of cheatgrass and other invasive species. The reason climate is again yet another ultimate cause has to do with cattle methane releases. The bacteria in cattle rumen produce methane as a bi-product of digestion. These gases along with conversion of native vegetation to cow pastures are among the largest contributors to global warming. One World Watch paper estimates that as much as 50% of global GHG emissions may be due to livestock production. <br />
Some opponents of sage grouse listing argue that coyotes are responsible for sage grouse decline. Never mind that coyotes and sage grouse have always co-existed, so one must ask what is the difference? The reason sage grouse are vulnerable to predators is the result of livestock removal of grasses that provide hiding cover. The proximate of sage grouse poor recruitment is coyote predation, but the vulnerability is due to the ultimate cause—livestock production. <br />
Indeed, when considering all the mortality factors and limitations that are driving sage grouse towards extinction, livestock production is easily the dominant factor. Curiously, it was not even mentioned as a concern by ODFW, and in fact, the ODFW official said livestock grazing was considered beneficial. How can this be? The short answer appears to be that it’s politically convenient to enumerate the proximate causes rather than confront the ultimate causes for sage grouse decline. Ranchers continue to have a lot of political clout. It’s obvious that ODFW does not want to antagonize these lords of the sage. <br />
This example of sage grouse decline and how livestock causes decline is a good lesson in proximate and ultimate causes. When you look closely at many different environmental issues in the West, one can generally trace it back to livestock production. <br />
<br />
George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-27927358413656370952012-09-27T20:51:00.000-07:002012-09-27T20:51:19.325-07:00Smart Resource Management and the Lorax<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik3-xzIMA_8JUfjzxHNGiPXk-9UB_FGzv7J80fyv9M1NcnDqlrqj47Nll-gGVJ3onbeYUGLmHxvREl6Rk4VF3uZ9YSg_QzepHR3niVWpOUIN3L7TUEzfLs6giD7zX_r1zaAg-RDDoK/s1600/Weed+invasion+along+FS+logging+road%252C+Helena+NF+Montana+George+Wuerthner-1430.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="212" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik3-xzIMA_8JUfjzxHNGiPXk-9UB_FGzv7J80fyv9M1NcnDqlrqj47Nll-gGVJ3onbeYUGLmHxvREl6Rk4VF3uZ9YSg_QzepHR3niVWpOUIN3L7TUEzfLs6giD7zX_r1zaAg-RDDoK/s320/Weed+invasion+along+FS+logging+road%252C+Helena+NF+Montana+George+Wuerthner-1430.jpg" /></a></div>Weeds along logging road--one of the uncounted costs of logging. <br />
<br />
I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees.<br />
<br />
Dr. Seuss <br />
<br />
It seems more and more there are fewer conservation organizations who speak for the forest, and more that speak for the timber industry. Witness several recent commentaries in Oregon papers which are by no means unique. I’ve seen similar themes from other conservation groups in the rest of the West.<br />
<br />
Many conservation groups have uncritically adopted views that support more logging of our public lands based upon increasingly disputed ideas about forest health, fire ecology as well as age-old bias against natural processes like wildfire and beetles.<br />
<br />
For instance, an article in the Oregonian paper quotes Oregon Wild’s executive director Sean Stevens bemoaning the closure of a timber mill in John Day Oregon. Stevens said: “Loss of the 29-year-old Malheur Lumber Co. mill would be “a sad turn of events,” he said.” Surprisingly, Oregon Wild is readily supporting federal subsidies to promote more logging on the Malheur National Forest to sustain the mill.<br />
<br />
In the same article Susan Jane Brown, a staff attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center was quoted saying “Had you told me 10 years ago that I would be trying to keep a mill open in eastern Oregon, I would have said you’re crazy, but things change.”<br />
<br />
George Sexton, the Conservation Director, for KS Wild in a separate editorial in the Medford Oregon Mail Tribune advocates more logging of our federal lands by writing in an editorial that “We can make forests healthier and communities safer from wildfire and provide a product to the mills. It is time to follow the lead of the local Forest Service and produce timber in a way that attempts to restore our forests rather than exploit them.”<br />
<br />
THE CONTEXT<br />
<br />
I think what motivates such commentary from these organizations is the desire to defuse the timber issue. They hope that support of logging in less controversial areas such as tree plantations, heavily roaded and previously logged areas will keep agencies away from roadless areas and other critical habitat. It is part of an overall strategy to ultimately garner more protection for wildlands.<br />
<br />
It’s important to note that all of these conservation groups I am critiquing here as well as throughout the West which are currently supporting more logging continue to fight the worse logging proposals in roadless areas and old growth, and are strong advocates for wilderness designation.<br />
<br />
However, I tend to believe that their support for logging represents a failure to challenge many of the flawed assumptions that are guiding federal logging programs and in some cases even repeating many of the same pejorative language helps to undermine in the long term conservation efforts. After all if the public believes our forests are sick and unhealthy; that logging will cure them; that logging will preclude wildfires and eliminate beetle kill, and that rural economies are dependent on public lands logging to survive, than they are, in my view, contributing to the wrong message.<br />
<br />
Bear in mind that these organizations do not unconditionally support all logging. Rather they have very specific criteria and limitations used to determine which logging operations they support and which they may oppose at times. Nevertheless, the public seldom hears these qualifiers.<br />
<br />
For instance, it was standard practice in the not too distance past for conservation groups to point out that nearly all federal timber sales lost money. Today one seldom hears any of these organizations discussing the poor economics of federal logging—indeed, they are often supporting these money losing timber sales. They would also point out how logging harmed wildlife, fisheries, spread weeds, and the many other ecological impacts. Logging hasn’t changed. These impacts still exist—but in today’s world few are articulating these costs.<br />
<br />
If there is going to be logging on public lands we need to consider all these costs and benefits fairly. Even if there is some benefit that can be ascribed to a logging proposal, the economic and environmental costs may still not justify this expense. Far too often these organizations are unwilling to critique or point out that the flawed premises used to justify logging.<br />
<br />
SMART RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PARADIGM<br />
<br />
Such comments as mentioned above and many more I could quote from other conservation organizations, tends to endorse a certain way of thinking which I call “Smart Resource Management (SRM)” The SRM paradigm is a direct descendent of Gifford Pinchot, founder of the Forest Service who advocated the “wise use” of natural resources. It assumes we know enough about ecosystems to manage them without unintended consequences and wise enough to do so judiciously—two assumptions I would challenge.<br />
<br />
SRM is the antithesis of wildness or self willed nature. This notion that we can and should manage ecosystems as a giant garden is, in my view, the root cause of many of our environmental problems. I tend to believe that most of the people working for western conservation groups are not strong supporters of SRM school of thought. Unfortunately conservationists have adopted the language, analogies and “stories” that support and lend credibility to the SRM ideas which dominate land management decisions. We hear our forests are sick, unhealthy, will be improved with logging, and so on. These are the words and story of industry.<br />
<br />
I personally feel there is a growing body of evidence that questions whether our forests are significantly altered from what one might expect given climatic and other conditions. These ideas challenge the assertion that we “need” to log our forests in the first place—assuming again that we are smart enough to manage forests to begin with.<br />
<br />
However, if forests are not significantly altered if considered from a boarder set of criteria, this negates any requirement for “restoration”.<br />
<br />
Even if one agreed that some forests have changed from recent historic conditions, it doesn’t automatically mean that logging is the best or only way to put these forests back on a more natural trajectory—natural processes like beetle kill, drought, wildfire, and other factors are currently doing a fine job of maintaining the health of millions of acres of our forests.<br />
<br />
There may be legitimate rationales for logging, but it’s not the one usually given for logging public forests today. Indeed, the major justifications given for logging public lands is typically some social or ecological benefit—to reduce fires, clean up bug killed trees, fix watersheds, restore forest health or provide for “economic stability” to rural communities. In far too many cases, all of these are just cover to hide the main reason for logging—to maintain the local timber industry at the expense of our forest’s ecological integrity and taxpayer dollars.<br />
<br />
DEAD TREES ARE CRITICAL TO ECOSYSTEM HEALTH<br />
<br />
Even if I were to agree that forest management has led to a deviation from historic conditions, I see no need to introduce logging into the forest to “fix” the situation. Forests are perfectly capable of “restoring” themselves. That is what beetle kill and wildfires are doing.<br />
<br />
Dead trees are actually a sign of a healthy forest ecosystem that is functioning properly to readjust itself to the prevailing conditions.<br />
<br />
What isn’t well known, and you won’t know it from listening to the advocates of logging, is that many of these assumptions and ideas that have guided forest management policies are being challenged. There is a growing body of research which suggests that dense forests, even in dry ponderosa/Douglas fir stands, may not be significantly out of historic condition. That fire suppression has been less effective than previously thought. That thinning doesn’t preclude large blazes and so on.<br />
<br />
For example the alternative to the fire suppression has led to denser forest stands is countered by another paradigm that climatic conditions—namely moister, cooler conditions for decades in the last century–may have done more to create dense forest stands and limited fire spread than human fire fighting.<br />
<br />
There are a growing number of people, myself included, who believe we don’t have enough dead and dying trees in the forest to sustain forest ecosystems—therefore we do not think that beetle kill and large fires are something to bemoan, rather they should be celebrated.<br />
<br />
There is also conflicting opinion about whether logging can actually reduce or slow large fires under severe fire conditions. There is an abundance of evidence from large fires that logging has little effect on slowing blazes—which of course from an ecological perspective we need.<br />
<br />
Even if thinning did appear to slow or halt small fires, historically speaking it is the very few, but exceptionally large fires that account for nearly all the acreage burned—and consequently do all the ecological work. If, as many conservation groups now acknowledge, wildfires are critical to ecosystem health—then we must do everything we can to facilitate large blazes—not prevent them.<br />
<br />
So if the goal to promote healthy ecosystems, we need large blazes and major beetle kill. I hear few conservation groups, particularly partnering with logging advocates promoting non-invasive measures such as homeowner responsibility for reducing home flammability as well as zoning to reduce home construction in these areas that would reduce conflicts with large fires. Is this coincidence? I don’t think so.<br />
<br />
It is not unlike groups that are livestock advocates that are unwilling to suggest that ranchers take greater responsibility for reducing predator conflicts by using guard dogs, removal of dead carcasses, calving and lambing sheds as well as other measures that would reduce or eliminate the presumed need for predator control.<br />
<br />
All of these ideas and others are a challenge to the common discourse promoted by the timber industry and its lackeys in forestry schools, federal agencies, and now even far too many conservation groups.<br />
<br />
Now I will be the first to grant that many of these new ideas and challenges to the old paradigm are preliminary and may, upon future review, be found to be overly simplistic as the original ideas they are replacing about fire suppression, forest health, fire ecology, and so forth.<br />
<br />
But isn’t it the job of conservation groups to err on the side of caution? If there is dispute about whether logging is needed or not, shouldn’t conservation organizations err on the side of no active management rather than promoting policies that by happy coincidence just so happens to line the pockets of the timber industry?<br />
<br />
NEW IDEAS ABOUT FORESTS CHALLENGE OLD PARADIGMS<br />
<br />
Far too many conservation groups have gone well beyond advocating “wise use” to advocating exploitation. Much of it based on out of date ideas about wildfire ecology, forest health, and logging.<br />
<br />
Take for instance George Sexton’s idea that we can log our way to “forest health”. The underlying presumption of such commentary is that our forests are no longer healthy. But new insights into how forest ecosystems work challenge the dominant paradigm. Increasingly we find that dead trees, whether due to beetle kill, diseases, drought or fires are a sign of a healthy forest, in much the same way that wolves killing elk indicates a healthy predator prey relationship.<br />
<br />
Groups as diverse as Oregon Wild, the Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association as well as others—all of whom I might add do a lot of good conservation work in other areas–are advocating thinning to preclude large wildfires and beetle kill. Not only is there a growing body of literature that suggests that thinning is not effective at stopping fires under extreme fire conditions, one has to ask why you would want to do this? Even if the motivation is forest “restoration” why not advocate restoration by natural processes like wildfire or beetles?<br />
<br />
Forest ecosystems require periodic inputs of dead trees. Dead trees fill many critical roles and functions in forested ecosystems from homes to many bird species (45% of all birds rely on dead trees) to habitat for salamanders, ants, bees, lichens, fungi and a host of other species. Dead trees falling in streams are important for aquatic ecosystems, and rotting wood in the soil is critical to soil nutrients.<br />
<br />
The natural background rate of tree mortality that occurs in the absence of large fires or beetle kill is not sufficient to provide the long term input of dead woody biomass essential for functioning forest ecosystems. Forests need occasional large scale mortality to provide for these dead wood needs.<br />
<br />
Thinning forests, even if it worked to effectively thwart fires and beetles, would be undesirable because it would be short circuiting the long term flow of dead wood. Even if some old growth died as a consequence of fires or beetles, this does not represent a loss to the ecosystem since big dead trees are the most valuable to the ecosystem. So what if some old growth burns up—so long as we don’t remove those trees by logging, they will continue to full fill important functions in the forest ecosystem.<br />
<br />
LOGGING IS NOT BENIGN<br />
<br />
Beyond these problems, logging is not benign. Many of the real costs associated with logging remain unaccounted and often ignored.<br />
<br />
If we are trying to decide whether to log a particular area or not, we need to fairly articulate the real costs as well as the benefits. In far too many cases, the benefits are imaginary or fleeing (as in the assumption that logging can reduce the spread of large blazes) and the negatives are ignored or glossed over.<br />
<br />
For example, logging roads cutting across slopes severs the subsurface flow of water, diverting it on to the surface of the road, which in turn causes excessive sedimentation in streams. Logging equipment also compacts soils reducing infiltration. Both factors create greater erosion and sedimentation loading in streams.<br />
<br />
Logging roads, equipment, and access created by logging roads is one of the major vectors for the spread of weeds. In the long run, the introduction of weeds may have more negative impacts on wildlife and the forest ecosystem than any effect from natural processes like fires.<br />
<br />
Logging roads are also a major vector for hunters, poachers, trappers, ORVs, and other human activities that can disturb sensitive wildlife or reduce wildlife populations. For instance, grizzly bears avoid logging roads—and thus logging roads effectively reduces bear habitat. Elk also avoid roads. And even so-called closed roads and/temporary roads still provide access to hunters, and are often broached by illegal ORV use.<br />
<br />
I have only mentioned a short list of the effects of logging—and I could add a much lengthier list here.<br />
<br />
The point is that these negatives are seldom mentioned when decisions to log or not are discussed. And even if they are acknowledged agencies and supportive groups often advocate other “techno fixes” to correct the problem. For instance, it is common for the FS and their conservation group allies to acknowledge that logging can spread weeds, but then the response is that we have to spray herbicides to control the weeds. Even if herbicide spraying were implemented, an honest appraisal would admit that spraying is seldom a 100% effective. Does it make sense to risk the spread of weeds by logging forests on the assumption logging will preclude fires or restore the forest, when it may not be effective in reducing fires anyway and the forest is perfectly capable of self restoration?<br />
<br />
IF CONSERVATION GROUPS DON’T ARTICULATE LOGGING IMPACTS—WHO WILL?<br />
<br />
What is problematic about conservation groups endorsement of logging is that they then become captured by the industry. They cease to be advocates for the forest. It is difficult to be in collaboration with industry or politicians while at the same articulating the many ways that logging impacts the land. Yet if conservation groups like NW Conservation, MWA, Oregon Wild, KS Wild, Idaho Conservation League, National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, and others will not articulate these problems to the public, who will?<br />
<br />
All the public knows from the quotes in the paper or hearing a short radio spot is that our forests are “unhealthy”, logging “improves” forest health or that logging will reduce fires or beetles. And it is a natural conclusion that dead trees are a sign of an unhealthy forest ecosystem. They hear that conservation groups believe logging is the cure for a host of ailments that affects the forest– real or imaginary.<br />
<br />
Instead of promoting logging, conservation groups ought to be articulating all the negatives associated with logging. If they support anything it should be the alternatives to logging—be a staunch supporter of more wildfire—and do not use qualifiers like “good fires” (low intensity) and “bad fires” (stand replacement). Tell the public why beetle kill is good for forests—how it creates a nice mosaic of age classes and is one of the main ways we get biomass into forest ecosystems. Why dead trees are needed for “healthy” forest ecosystems. These are the messages that conservation groups should be sending—because if they don’t, no one else will do it.<br />
<br />
ALTERNATIVES TO LOGGING<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these groups could point out that there are alternatives to logging. Even if one agreed that our forests deviate from historic conditions, one could advocate allowing natural ecological processes to correct the situation.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that in our national parks and wilderness areas—the kinds of places that these groups with names like Montana Wilderness Association, Oregon Wild, KS Wild, and others believe is a desirable land status—are restoring themselves with wildfires, beetles, and other natural processes. They don’t need to be logged to be healthy.<br />
<br />
Permitting fires and beetles to “restore” forests—if indeed they even need restoration–is akin to promoting wolves to “restore” healthy elk herds by reducing elk numbers. Wolves are far better at determining which elk should or should not survive than the indiscriminate killing by hunters just as wildfire, beetles, and so forth at better than any foresters in determining which trees should be killed.<br />
<br />
Is it the role of conservation groups to be advocates for logging? If conservation groups abdicate their responsibility to speak for the forests—then who will? There are not enough loraxes around anymore.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-30279711329919368742012-07-13T12:46:00.000-07:002012-07-13T12:51:38.707-07:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM-JbJjhWf4Z0dKslVrZ6AT7QUzcQ_A8l-3E6qeAu7q3MfkIBj7No1Lm5U-_lvlCAn-U66ZaIksoAcyVBMRMHMi7gKSeDWLOjhyphenhyphenfb1jTR1v9WiEanddXjoWQGkY7zOr6_qqJI1v_op/s1600/Log+torn+apart+by+bear+looking+for+ants%252C+Yellowstone+NP+Wyoming++George+Wuerthner-2617.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM-JbJjhWf4Z0dKslVrZ6AT7QUzcQ_A8l-3E6qeAu7q3MfkIBj7No1Lm5U-_lvlCAn-U66ZaIksoAcyVBMRMHMi7gKSeDWLOjhyphenhyphenfb1jTR1v9WiEanddXjoWQGkY7zOr6_qqJI1v_op/s320/Log+torn+apart+by+bear+looking+for+ants%252C+Yellowstone+NP+Wyoming++George+Wuerthner-2617.jpg" /></a></div><br />
CAPTION: Log torn apart by grizzly looking for ants. <br />
<br />
Dead. Death. These are words that we don’t often use to describe anything positive.<br />
<br />
We hear phases like the walking dead. Death warmed over. Nothing is certain but death and taxes. The Grateful Dead. These are words that do not engender smiles, except among Grateful Dead fans.<br />
<br />
We bring these pejorative perspectives to our thinking about forests. In particular, some tend to view dead trees as a missed opportunity to make lumber. But this really represents an economic value, not a biological value. <br />
<br />
From an ecological perspective dead trees are the biological capital critical to the long-term health of the forest ecosystem. <br />
<br />
It may seem counter-intuitive, but in many ways the health of a forest is measured more by its dead trees than live ones. Dead trees are a necessary component of present forests and an investment in the future forest. <br />
<br />
I had a good lesson in the value of dead trees last summer while hiking in Yellowstone. I was walking along a trail that passes through a forest dominated by even-aged lodgepole pine. Judging by the size of the trees, I would estimate the forest stand had its start in a stand-replacement blaze, perhaps 60-70 years before.<br />
<br />
Strewn along the forest floor were numerous large logs that had fallen since the last fire. Fallen logs are an important home for forest-dwelling ants. Pull apart any of those old pulpy rotted logs and you would find them loaded with ants. <br />
<br />
Nearly every log I pass along the trail had been clawed apart by a grizzly feasting on ants. It may be difficult to believe that something as small as ants could feed an animal as large as a grizzly. <br />
<br />
Yet one study in British Columbia found that ants were a major part of the grizzly’s diet in summer, especially in years when berry crop fails. <br />
<br />
Who could have foreseen immediately after the forest had burned 60 years before that the dead trees created by the wildfire would someday be feeding grizzly bears? But dead trees are a biological legacy passed on to the next generation of forest dwellers including future generations of ants and grizzly bears.<br />
<br />
Dead trees have many other important roles to play in the forest ecosystem. It is obvious to many people that woodpeckers depend on dead trees for food and shelter. In fact, black-backed woodpeckers absolutely require forests that have burned. <br />
<br />
Yet woodpeckers are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. In total 45% of all bird species depend on dead trees for some important part of their life cycle. <br />
<br />
Whether it’s the wood duck that nests in a tree cavity; the eagle that constructs a nest in a broken top snag; or the nuthatch that forages for insects on the bark, dead trees and birds go together like peanut butter and jelly.<br />
<br />
Birds aren’t the only animals that depend on dead trees. Many bats roost in the flaky bark of old dead snags and/or in cavities. <br />
<br />
When a dead tree falls to the ground, the trunk is important habitat for many mammal species. For instance, one study in Wyoming found that without big dead trees, you don’t have marten. Why? <br />
<br />
Marten are thin animals and as a consequence lose a lot of heat to the environment, especially when it’s cold. They can’t survive extended periods with temperatures below freezing without some shelter.<br />
<br />
In frigid weather, marten dig out burrows in the pulpy interiors of large fallen trees to provide thermal protection. They may only need such trees once a winter, but if there are no dead fallen trees in its territory, there may not be any marten. <br />
Many amphibians depend on dead trees. <br />
<br />
Several studies have documented the close association between abundance of dead fallen logs and salamanders. Eliminate dead trees by logging and you eliminate salamanders. <br />
<br />
Even fish depend on dead trees. As any fisherman can tell you, a log sticking out into the water is a sure place to find a trout lying in wait to grab insects. <br />
If you talk to fish biologists they will tell you there is no amount of fallen woody debris or logs in a stream that is too much. The more logs, the more fish.<br />
<br />
Even lichens and fungi are dependent on dead trees. Some 40% of all lichen species in the Pacific Northwest are dependent on dead trees and many are dead tree obligates, meaning they don’t grow anyplace else.<br />
<br />
Dead trees fill other physical roles as well. As long as they are standing, they create “snow fences” that slows wind-driven snow. The snow that is trapped, melts in place, and helps to saturate the ground providing additional moisture to regrowing trees. <br />
<br />
Dead trees that fall into streams stabilize and armor the bank, slowing water, and reducing erosion.<br />
<br />
Dead trees create hiding cover and thermal cover for big game as well. I was once on a tour with a Forest Service District Ranger who wanted to conduct a post fire logging operation. We were standing near the open barren landscape of a recent clearcut that was adjacent to the newly burnt forest.<br />
<br />
I pointed out to him that the black snags still had value. He couldn’t see anything but snags waiting to be turned into lumber. I said the snags were still valuable for big game hiding cover. He dismissed my idea out of hand. <br />
<br />
So I challenged him. I said I have a rifle and you have two minutes to get away from me. Where are you going to run? He didn’t have to ponder the point very long. <br />
<br />
Even more counter-intuitive is that dead trees may reduce fire hazard. Once the small twigs and needles fall off in winter storms their flammability is greatly reduced. <br />
<br />
By contrast, green trees, due to the flammable resins contained in their needles and bark, are actually more likely to burn than snags under conditions of extreme drought, high winds and low humidity.<br />
<br />
Under such extreme fire-weather conditions, I have seen trees like subalpine fir explode into flame as if they contained gasoline. <br />
<br />
Fine fuels are what drive fires, not large tree trunks. Anyone who has fiddled around trying to get campfire going knows you gather small twigs, and fine fuels. You don’t try light a twenty inch log on fire. <br />
<br />
Dead trees are the biological capital for the forest. Just as floods rejuvenate the river floodplain’s plant communities with periodic deposits of sediment, episodic events like major beetle kill and wildfire are the only way a forest can recruit the massive amounts of dead wood required for a healthy forest ecosystem. <br />
<br />
Such infrequent, but periodic events may provide the bulk of a forest’s dead wood for a hundred years or more. <br />
<br />
All of the above benefits of dead trees are reduced or eliminated by our common forest management practices. <br />
<br />
Sanitizing a forest by “thinning” to promote so-called “forest health”, post-fire logging of burnt trees , or removal of beetle-killed tree bankrupts the forest ecosystem. <br />
<br />
And even our mostly ineffective efforts to suppress wildfires and/or feeble attempts to halt beetle-kill reduce the future production of dead wood and leads to biological impoverishment of the forest ecosystem. <br />
<br />
Creation and recruitment of dead trees is not a loss, rather it is an investment in future forests. <br />
<br />
If you love birds, you have to love dead trees. If you love fishing, you have to love dead trees. If you want grizzlies to persist for another hundred years, you have to love dead trees. <br />
<br />
More importantly you have to love or at least tolerate the ecological processes like beetle-kill or wildfire. These are the major factors that contribute dead trees to the forest. <br />
<br />
So when you see fire-blackened trees or the red needles associated with a beetle kill, try to view these events in a different light-praise the dead: the forests, the wildlife, the fish-- all will be pleased by your change of heart.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-16973687148469026462012-07-12T21:51:00.000-07:002012-07-13T16:01:30.673-07:00Understanding MDFWP Wolf Hunting Decision<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-OPKcXaoImujCLXUHZvUAqmpWkwlzEQsV6WMG7CUtu2hzcu-tb-iI8TgQLZnsh_D_cLuzxvuI5GwxcIsB5vGrNaU5buEUmxAU4Hin-ACaa77F9fNjk_CRfakgEPSGzkRKHF6crr8u/s1600/90006-01779+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-443.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="219" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-OPKcXaoImujCLXUHZvUAqmpWkwlzEQsV6WMG7CUtu2hzcu-tb-iI8TgQLZnsh_D_cLuzxvuI5GwxcIsB5vGrNaU5buEUmxAU4Hin-ACaa77F9fNjk_CRfakgEPSGzkRKHF6crr8u/s320/90006-01779+Wolf+George+Wuerthner-443.jpg" /></a></div><br />
On July 12, 2012, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) Commissioners voted 4-0 to increase wolf hunting in the state, expanding the hunting season and permitting the trapping of wolves for the first time as well. The goal is to reduce wolf numbers across the state in hopes that it will calm the hysteria that presently surrounds wolf management.<br />
<br />
The commission’s decision to boost wolf hunting and trapping will likely lead to greater conflicts between humans and wolves because MDFWP’s management ignores the social ecology of predators. <br />
<br />
Hunting predators tends to skew populations towards younger animals. Younger animals are inexperienced hunters and thus are more likely to attack livestock. Predator hunting disrupts pack cohesion, reduces the “cultural” knowledge of pack members about things like where elk might migrate or where deer spend the winter. <br />
<br />
In addition, just as occurs with coyotes, under heavy persecution, wolves respond by producing more pups. More pups means greater mouths to feed, and a need to kill even more game—thus hunting and trapping may actually lead to greater predator kill of game animals like elk and deer. <br />
<br />
Thus a vicious self-reinforcing feedback mechanism is set up whereby more predators are killed, leading to greater conflicts, and more demand for even greater predator control.<br />
<br />
So why has MDFWP and the commission ignored the social ecology of predators? The answer lies in politics.<br />
<br />
Montana’s hunters have been driven to frenzy by various interest groups. Some are just plain ignorant predator ecology and truly believe that the best way to reduce conflicts is to kill more wolves. Less wolves, some believe, means hunter nirvana.<br />
<br />
But others have a sinister motive which I believe the MDFWP Commission was in part responding to. <br />
<br />
Right-wing conservative groups have seized upon the wolf issue as a way to generate support among ecologically ignorant hunters. They have used the media and hunting advocacy groups (like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation) to sell the idea that wolves were a major threat to big game hunting-- despite the fact there are more elk now in Montana than when wolves were first restored. <br />
<br />
Others spread stories about wolves carrying off babies and children or spreading infectious disease. <br />
<br />
Some of the most conspiracy-minded survivalist types even believe the restoration of wolves is a UN Plot—part of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a plan for sustainable living but many conservatives believe is a blue print for a new world order. <br />
<br />
And of course against this backdrop we had the livestock industry screaming that wolves were destined to destroy the industry despite an annual loss of less than 100 animals to the predators last year out of a total population of 2.5 million cattle and sheep. <br />
<br />
These conservative organizations and individuals successfully made killing wolves a litmus test for politicians and even the MDFWP. If you were not supportive of more wolf persecution, you were, at the very least against rural America and in the minds of some individuals perhaps even against hunters. <br />
<br />
At the worst, a decision to lessen the persecution of wolves meant you were sympathetic to animal rights organizations and gun control advocates. What Fish and Game Commissioner wants to be branded as siding with animal rights organizations or the gun control crowd? Of course that is all irrational. But you must remember this issue is not based on rational thought. <br />
<br />
It is within this kind of madness that the MDFWP Commissioners were required to make a decision. If the commission did anything but increase the killing of wolves, it would have certified in many people’s mind, including many hunters that the MDFWP was anti hunter. <br />
<br />
The Commission vote demonstrates that Fish and Game agencies are incapable of managing predators based on science or ethics. <br />
<br />
One must remember that hunter and angler license sales are the primary funding mechanism for state wildlife agencies. Even if the vast majority of the public were against killing predators, the state agencies are likely to ignore those concerns if there is the perception that the majority of hunters were in favor of more predator control. <br />
<br />
The commission, for instance, recently increased the quota for mountain lion in western Montana despite the direct opposition of some its own biologists who argued that such hunting was ineffective and even detrimental to mountain lion populations.<br />
<br />
In Montana, as with the rest of the country, I have no doubts that the majority of hunters favor fewer wolves. And the commissioners have to dance with the one that “brung ya.” <br />
<br />
Beyond this political background that the commissioners faced, there was an even larger context. <br />
<br />
The right wing conservative organizations, most of them friendly and supportive of Republican candidates for office, were hoping to lay a trap for Democratic politicians. If the Commissioners, who after all, were appointed by a Democratic governor, voted to maintain last year’s hunting quota or god forbid actually reduce or eliminate wolf hunting, it would have been exactly the issue needed to unseat every Democrat in the Montana legislature. <br />
<br />
There was a further fear—and a not unwarranted one—that if the MDFWP Commission did not expand wolf hunting and trapping, it could ruin the chances for Democratic candidates for office. A new Republican governor and Republican dominated legislature it is reasoned, would quickly sweep the MDFWP Commission clear of anyone who didn’t actively promote even more aggressive wolf control. <br />
<br />
There is also some who were willing to bet, and probably were correct, that all Democratic candidates would be hurt if the Commission did not expand wolf hunting, including Senator Jon Tester, who is seeking re election to the US Senate.<br />
<br />
So it was within this context that the Commissioners had to make their decision. <br />
I do know the MDFWP Commissioners are well educated, thoughtful, and very conscientious men. In my view the MDFWP commissioners are men of the highest integrity. <br />
<br />
Although I was not privy to any of their thoughts, I am certain they did not reach their decision, easily nor with any joy. For some, I am almost certain it was an agonizing and painful splitting of the baby. I would not have wanted to be in their shoes. <br />
<br />
I suspect that if you asked them why they decided to expand wolf killing, they would tell you that they know that wolves won’t be eliminated from Montana—and that is a step forward compared to the situation of a few decades ago when there were few or no wolves in the state. <br />
<br />
And some might even suggest that once the rhetoric and hysteria dies down, they could envision a more sensible and less vindictive approach to wolf management in the future. There might even be wolf management based on science, including the social ecology of predators, instead of politics. <br />
<br />
I am also certain if you could speak to the Commissioners in private when they thought no one would hear, they might admit the wolf had to take the fall for a “greater good.” As they would suggest, and quite correctly I’m afraid, a Republican Governor in Montana would be even more likely to enact aggressive wolf hunting policies, and appoint Commissioners far less sympathetic to wolf supporters. <br />
<br />
It may be difficult to believe that MDFWP Commissioners are sympathetic to wolf supporters given their votes, but I know after attending one of the hearings that the Commissioners are not personally hostile to wolves. <br />
<br />
But I am sure that Commissioners were thinking even beyond Montana state politics when they voted to expand wolf persecution. If somehow right wing conservatives were able to paint Senator Tester as one of the “wolf loving” Democrats, it might hurt his re election bid. After all Tester only won in the last election by a mere 3000 votes.<br />
<br />
Whether a correct assumption or not, many Democrats fear if Tester loses his re election, the US Senate could tip to the Republicans. In their worst nightmares, some Democrats see a situation whereby Republican Mitt Romney wins the White House, the rabid tea party activists manage to hold on to their stranglehold on the House, and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. <br />
<br />
With all legislative bodies held by Republicans and a Supreme Court that sees Corporations as persons, and is generally sympathetic to tea party anti-government rhetoric and big business interests, there is no end to the bad outcomes that one could imagine might befall the country.<br />
<br />
Within this political context, a few more dead wolves seems like a small, if not regrettable sacrifice necessary to prevent a far worse calamity for the country. The unfortunate thing for me is that it appears that despite all the scientific research, and “enlightened” environmental concern, predators are still being treated as unwanted and under-valued members of our wildlife heritage. <br />
<br />
I might even go so far as to suggest pro wolf sympathizers made some strategic mistakes. They failed to hammer over and over again that predator control is unnecessary, ethically suspect, and only leads to greater conflict. By not taking the high moral ground, they lost the political debate. <br />
<br />
Many were unwilling to argue against wolf hunting in general—afraid that such a position would be unacceptable to most hunters and ranchers. By passively and in some cases, even agreeing that wolf control was needed, it legitimized the idea that wolf control was necessary. At that point the discussion just degenerates to a debate about how many wolves should be killed, not whether wolves should be killed in the first place. <br />
<br />
Environmentalists should have stated categorically there is no legitimate reason to kill wolves or any other predators for that matter, except perhaps for the most unusual and special circumstances such as the surgical removal of an aggressive animal. <br />
<br />
Instead of arguing that wolves are part of the Nation’s wildlife patrimony that deserve to be treated with respect, appreciation, and enlightened policies, pro wolf activists lost the rhetorical argument by allowing anti wolf forces to define the limits of discussion and successfully frame the issue<br />
. <br />
In my view, many conservation organizations lost the debate with their weak and tepid stance. As many have suggested, boldness is rewarded—and in the case of wolves—boldness by those set on using wolves as a surrogate for conservative values won the political debate. <br />
<br />
If environmentalists had made a more cogent argument, marshaled the latent and widespread support for predators, wolves in particular, they might have provided the political cover for the MDFWP commissioners to make a more wolf-friendly decision. <br />
<br />George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-81069924166622303262012-06-22T08:05:00.005-07:002012-06-22T08:11:41.674-07:00Baucus Farm Bill Amendment Bad for Forests<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUvljVPByDYkjmJLgMNm-g-mz6wT8qp-plfYSwfv13BWZ-I3yD9shP4_CR5m1laQCTPaVszyB_VGTSPdMwapGQO2rLF1H6jCkvlohnvdlz9BTWy8FhcdGC9O2jPvvvqR1z1j2Mk8b_/s1600/Beetle+killed+trees+by+Helena%252C+Montana++George+Wuerthner+%25287853+of+1%2529-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUvljVPByDYkjmJLgMNm-g-mz6wT8qp-plfYSwfv13BWZ-I3yD9shP4_CR5m1laQCTPaVszyB_VGTSPdMwapGQO2rLF1H6jCkvlohnvdlz9BTWy8FhcdGC9O2jPvvvqR1z1j2Mk8b_/s320/Beetle+killed+trees+by+Helena%252C+Montana++George+Wuerthner+%25287853+of+1%2529-2.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Despite the ecological reality that beetle-kill is part of healthy functioning forest ecosystem, Montana Senator Max Baucus successfully added an amendment to the Farm Bill that would provide additional funds ($200 million) to log beetle-killed trees as well as “stream line” the process of getting out timber sales. Baucus stated this would be “good news” to the timber industry. Here’s a link to one news report on the Baucus amendment. http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/farm_bill_amendment_to_combat_bark_beetles_clears_senate/28442/<br />
<br />
I don’t blame the Senator for his lack of ecological knowledge. And I am sure he had the best intentions, however, his amendment is “bad news” for our forests. <br />
Among the incorrect assertions made by Baucus is the idea that dead beetle-killed trees increases fire risk. Except for the “red needle” stage, there is no conclusive evidence that dead trees contributes to any greater fire risk. Indeed, there is some research that suggests that dead trees are less prone to fire, especially once the needles and small branches are worn off over time. <br />
<br />
Green trees, by contrast, have flammable resins that under conditions of drought and high winds can sustain high intensity blazes. <br />
<br />
Baucus’s press release also furthered the misconception that beetle kill leads to a “loss” of the forest. In fact, beetle related mortality is seldom more than 50% of the trees in any forest. The naturally thinned forests that beetles create leads to increased growth rates among the remaining trees. <br />
<br />
Dead trees not a wasted resource as implied by timber industry propaganda. Rather they are important for many wildlife species. Up to 45% of all bird species depend on dead trees for some part of their survival including feeding, roosting, and nesting. Dead trees that fall into streams contribute to as much as 50% of the fish habitat in aquatic ecosystems. Dead trees in streams also provide bank stability reducing water velocity and thus erosion. <br />
<br />
In addition, dead trees are an important biological legacy to the future forest. The physical presence of dead trees is critical to future forest growth. Dead trees stacked on the ground capture water and concentrate it on the ends of logs where it can enhance seedling growth. The snags left by beetles provides some shade for tree saplings, and acts like a snow fence to trap snow in the winter adding to the water infiltration of the forest soil. The slowly decomposing boles are an important source of nutrients to the future forest. <br />
<br />
Logging is not a benign activity. The disturbance that accompanies logging can enhance the spread of weeds. Logging roads are a major source of sedimentation in our streams and one of the major factors in the decline of many native fish populations. Logging activities can displace or disturb sensitive species from grizzlies to elk. Logging removes biological legacy, in effect, starving the forest.<br />
<br />
Finally, to put the $200 million Baucus proposes to subsidizes timber operations in perspective, consider that in 2011 the entire 151 million acre national wildlife refuge system cost only around $500 million to operate. Could we not better spend $200 million on other conservation work? <br />
<br />
While Senator Baucus’ amendment may have had the best intension, it’s bad news for taxpayers who will pay for the destruction of our forests, not to mention the long-term degradation of our forest ecosystems. <br />George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-17319134874626832042012-06-07T07:56:00.000-07:002012-06-07T07:58:58.119-07:00Population and Biodiversity Loss<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8JhU6fUkdV01oz9ot8HTwtyy6N9E9pDSSjURAHcUhGaCZPh46-IfxsOa7y23Q9WULOd6w5C4V7fYDRdiol87l8E-Y854X_pIDrLNUNWfovEmsxPk8z96gbR_kfdwclSk2SLUfwdPa/s1600/65731-00383+Sky+scrapers+on+Manhattan+Island+from+Hudson+River%252C+NY+George+Wuerthner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="218" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8JhU6fUkdV01oz9ot8HTwtyy6N9E9pDSSjURAHcUhGaCZPh46-IfxsOa7y23Q9WULOd6w5C4V7fYDRdiol87l8E-Y854X_pIDrLNUNWfovEmsxPk8z96gbR_kfdwclSk2SLUfwdPa/s320/65731-00383+Sky+scrapers+on+Manhattan+Island+from+Hudson+River%252C+NY+George+Wuerthner.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Population and Biodiversity<br />
The Parable of Isle Royale<br />
by GEORGE WUERTHNER<br />
<br />
Isle Royale in Lake Superior is a national park. Besides its fame as a park, Isle Royale is also famous for its wolf and moose populations. The island provides a unique experimental design of what happens when populations are permitted to grow without restraint.<br />
<br />
The story begins with the immigration of moose to the island sometime in the late 1800s or early 1900s. Some speculate that moose swam to the island or crossed on ice in winter. No matter how they got there, they existed on the island for five decades without wolves. By the 1920s the moose population increased to more than 3000 and as a consequence of over browsing, the moose population crashed in the 1930s. The moose population languished for a while, and then began to grow again.<br />
<br />
Just after World War II, wolves migrated to the island, most likely over the ice in winter. Wolves preyed on moose, and for a few decades, wolves and moose seems to sustain a relative equilibrium. Then in 1980, the wolf population crashed after the introduction of canine parvovirus.<br />
<br />
Released from wolf predation, the moose population soared to new heights inflicting tremendous damage to the island’s plant communities. As before the moose population crashed with 2000 moose starving to death in one four month period! The moose population now remains at around 500 animals, far below their original high numbers due to the damage sustained by the island’s plant community as a consequence of too many moose.<br />
<br />
ISLAND EARTH<br />
<br />
There are lessons for human population in the Isle Royale example as well as other tales that could be told. Continuous population growth can lead to habitat degradation, great suffering for the dominant animal, and eventually a lowered carrying capacity due to habitat destruction.<br />
<br />
Human populations may be like the proverbial moose population. We have been released from predators that might otherwise keep our numbers in check and somewhat sustainable. Mind you I have no wish for a major pandemic, famine, warfare or other factors that once held human numbers in check. But I do think there are plenty of signs, that humans, like the moose of Isle Royale, are degrading the carrying capacity of Planet Earth—which is, after all, the only habitable island we know of in the Universe.<br />
<br />
Despite the seriousness of population growth as an agent of planetary damage with serious potential repercussions for human survival, there is a tendency for the majority of people to ignore the issue.<br />
<br />
There are many on both the left and right ends of the political spectrum who feel human population growth is not a problem or at the very least a manageable problem. Typically the right opposes any discussion of population reduction because of conservative religious views or a business model that requires endless growth to maintain economic prosperity. The left tends to downplay population based on social justice grounds—that the world’s poor are blamed for population growth, while the world’s richest countries enjoy the benefits of excessive consumption.<br />
<br />
Both support their respective positions often by arguing that as a result of technology we will rise to the occasion and help us get through any shortages we may face be it energy, food, or space. In a sense the worldviews of the left and right are not appreciably different when it comes to techno optimism.<br />
<br />
I am inclined to agree that technological advances often change assumptions about limiting factors—what’s available to use and at what cost can change dramatically due to technological innovations. At one time salt was more valuable than gold, but technological innovations has made it so common we can buy it for pennies. So I am loath to discount how technology can rapidly change predictions and assumptions about the availability of critical resources.<br />
<br />
But the problem is that technology does not come free. There’s a huge ecological cost to technological fixes. Even if you could grow sufficient food for 10 billion people, one has to consider what’s driving that food production. The price of food does not reflect the real costs.<br />
<br />
It’s the mining that produces the metal to make the plow. It’s the gas drilling that provides the fertilizer. It’s the oil drilling that provides the fuel to power the trucks that moves the food to people. It’s the dams that provide the water storage for irrigation of fields. And even more so today the computers that calculate the amount of water to spread or the exact percentage of pesticide to apply and so on. Behind that food production is long technology train that is pulling a lot of cars—each taking a bite out of the Earth’s biodiversity, land and water to feed a growing human population.<br />
<br />
Of course, I’m generalizing here, and there are many shades of gray and degrees of buy-in to the various perspectives. But there are few on either side of the right or left who agree that human population growth poses a grave danger to the Earth’s ecosystems and biodiversity, much less a threat to humanity as well.<br />
<br />
The debate over population has largely focused on whether outright population growth—primarily in the less developed countries is a threat– and/or whether consumption of natural resources by developed countries is really the problem for sustainability. In reality this debate is not helpful since both are problematic. Both issues need to be addressed. Depending on how you define sustainability, we are already likely well past any sustainable society.<br />
<br />
FINITE EARTH<br />
<br />
There are physical limits to the Earth and its life support systems. And though technology can unleash abundance where previously there was scarcity, ultimately this means there are limits to population growth. There is only so much agricultural land, fish in the sea, fresh water to drink, oil and coal to burn, and so forth. Where and when we reach those limits is a matter of debate, and for many of these resources, limits may be more regional in nature. But what can’t be debated is that all of these are finite. I don’t doubt that humans are clever and innovative, and some of these resources will be replaced or used far more efficiently in the future.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, just the physical need for housing, and providing basic needs for an expanding human population will place new demands on Planet Earth whether we impose strict limits or not. What we have in terms of ecological limitations is a planet that is already overtaxed if one uses the appropriate metrics like biodiversity loss.<br />
<br />
It would be unfortunate to simply try to determine what number of humans could be supported on Earth if we were to completely exploit any of these resources. I think it misses an important philosophical question.<br />
<br />
In the simplest terms, some define sustainably only in terms of human population. Can the Earth sustain 10 billion or whatever number one chooses to use? I think it probably can.<br />
<br />
However that may be the wrong question. Human sustainability ought to be a question of quality of life. And when that is the objective, we clearly need to reduce our population and consumption. For human impacts on the planet’s natural capital; its forests, its oceans, its ecosystems, as well as air, water, air, and wildlife are already showing severe degradation and/or loss of resources that are critical to human health and happiness. Impoverishment of ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, loss of beauty and exhaustion of critical minerals, and energy supplies all threatens to jeopardize the continued habitation of humans on the planet.<br />
<br />
Even if we could succeed in supporting a population of 9 or 10 billion people that doesn’t mean that number is good for the Earth and good for people. Do you really want to live in a mega city with wall-to-wall apartments much like a packing plant at a CAFO factory (Confined Animal Farming Operation)? Can anyone argue that this provides a quality of life?<br />
<br />
If one answers in the negative, and says they would prefer to live in less crowded conditions with abundant clear air, clean water, abundant wildlife, and beautiful surroundings than it really demonstrates that we must do something about population. It is a choice. Inaction is a choice by default.<br />
<br />
NATURE SUFFERS<br />
<br />
There are other considerations other than merely whether human population can be sustained in some fashion. We have a moral obligation not only to the overall quality of life for humans, but also a responsibility for other life on Earth. As many have pointed out we are on the verge of a massive new extinction. The world is losing species at a rate that is 100 to 1000 times faster than the natural extinction rate. Studies have shown that biologically diverse ecosystems are more productive, so these losses, if nothing else, have the potential of reducing the ability of the Earth to sustain human population.<br />
<br />
Habitat loss is the biggest driver of extinction. And much of this habitat loss is a direct consequence of human population growth and the need to support more and more people. For instance, agriculture already claims an astounding 40% of the Earth’s total land area. This figure is not difficult to doubt if you have ever stared out of a plane window while flying over the Great Plains and Midwest. What you see is mile upon mile—for thousands of miles—is croplands that have virtually replaced the native prairie ecosystem.<br />
<br />
When you consider there are huge areas of permanent ice like Antarctica as well as the boreal forests that cover much of Siberia and Canada, such numbers are shocking. Agriculture, by its definition, is the production of one or a few species of plant and/or animal at the expense of native species. And the amount of land devoted to agriculture is expanding as a direct result of human population growth. The existing agricultural land use is a major driver of species extinction and biodiversity loss. Increasing agricultural conversion will likely hasten biodiversity losses.<br />
<br />
No one wants to say to anyone that they have to suffer hunger or even starvation. And it seems sensible to suggest that population reduction is really the only way we can guarantee adequate nutrition for people without continuing to drive more and more species over the brink to extinction.<br />
<br />
And even when species are not driven to extinction, they may be so reduced that they are functionally extinct. Globally, large predators have been shown to have significant influence upon ecosystem function. Yet large predators are among the most imperiled animals on the Earth. In many parts of the world they are functionally extinct.<br />
<br />
ETHICAL CONSIDERATION<br />
<br />
Thus far I’ve mostly made the argument for population reduction based on how it might improve things for human society. But humans are not the only species on the Planet. Ethically we have a moral obligation to share the Planet with other life. I recognize that most people will see human life as most important, and that is completely natural. Yet it’s also an important human trait that we have compassion for other lifeforms. And if one feels that we have a moral obligation to share the Earth with the other millions of species inhabiting the Earth and being an agent of their extinction is morally wrong than we should look again at how population growth is contributing to species extirpation.<br />
<br />
THE PROBLEM<br />
<br />
Proponents who discount population growth or suggest that the rising tide of humanity is already self- correcting and that globally population growth is tapering off. Tapering off isn’t good enough. While some countries are experiencing reduced fertility and in some places like northern Europe or Japan, population growth is no longer at replacement, globally human population is still growing at an astounding rate.<br />
<br />
Despite these positive shifts in demographics in some countries, we are still adding 80 million people to the Earth every year! And some suggest that somewhere on the planet we’ll be building the equivalent of a city of a million inhabitants every five days from now until 2050. This multiplier effect due to demographic inertia will cause significant population expansion for decades to come.<br />
<br />
A good example is the country of Ghana. In 2010 there were 20 million people in this impoverished country. The average number of children born per woman was 4. Even if the fertility level decreased dramatically to replacement rate of 1.1 children per mother 2020, we would see Ghana’s population continue to grow for 40 more years before it would stabilize at 40 million.<br />
<br />
There are additional social issues, particularly concerning pregnancy and women’s health. An alarming 1400 Afghanistan women per 100,000 die in childbirth or complications from pregnancy, compared to 5 deaths per 100,000 in countries like Denmark. Of course, that is mostly a factor of poverty and lack of good medical care, but it is also a factor of how many children women in each country typically have. The more children you birth, the higher the chances that one of them will be problematic. Maintaining and providing good medical care while your population is exploding is difficult if not impossible as well.<br />
<br />
As many note, education of women can significantly reduce population growth. But there is a chicken and egg situation here. One of the main barriers to education is poverty. In poor countries providing even a minimum education for women is made more difficult by the sheer number of children requiring schooling.<br />
<br />
Happy pronouncements that we can feed more people through new agricultural techniques and other techno-fixes, ignore the fact that more a billion people already live in extreme poverty. It’s difficult to see how adding 2-3 billion more people can make it any easier to relieve poverty.<br />
<br />
There is evidence that overall mortality and absolute poverty are declining, especially for the world’s poorest people. However, with that decline in mortality and economic growth come new demands upon the Earth.<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that some parts of the world consume the bulk of natural resources, per capita consumption is increasing even among the poorest people. While this is likely a good thing given the extreme poverty, it does not bode well for the Earth.<br />
<br />
In addition, most assertions that we can feed, house, cloth, educate, and employ 9 or 10 billion people requires continuing ever deeper into dependency on high tech solutions and massive inputs of energy. Intensive agriculture using genetically modified crops, an abundance of pesticides, irrigation, and the conversion of more and more the Earth’s surface to growing crops at the expense of native ecosystems. We are already nearing the limits or perhaps exceeding the limits on what can be captured by nets and trollers from the world’s oceans. Decline in larger fish across the world has serious implications for ocean ecosystems. And most of the world’s grazing lands are suffering from livestock induced degradation, soil erosion, and weed invasion.<br />
<br />
And unless one presumes everyone is going to live a bare existence lifestyle, providing even a reasonable amount of light, heat, and power for production and transportation of “things” requires more and more energy production. Whether this is derived from burning of more fossil fuels or nuclear energy and/or massive wind farms, solar fields, hydroelectric, and other more renewable energy sources, the end result is more and more of the Earth is mined, drilled, and/or converted to energy production.<br />
<br />
IS POPULATION DECLINE A PROBLEM?<br />
<br />
Part of the hysteria over population voiced by some is that declining population growth will lead to economic stagnation. As one commentator said recently “ It’s an irony that aging doomsayers like Ehrlich and Holdren may not live long enough to behold come to fruition in their lifetime, but to achieve the very goals they claim to be aiming toward, there may be only one hope for the human species: Bring on the babies. “<br />
<br />
The Population Reference Bureau reported that in 2011 US population grew by just 0.7%. Immigration was down, and more people survived than were born. This is causing some to wring their hands over what is sometimes called the demographic decline. They predict that aging population and lack of births will lead to economic decline and a collapse of society. Just look at the aging population of Japan and its slowing economy we are told, ignoring the fact that Germany and a number of other European countries have low reproduction rates as well as strong economies.<br />
<br />
NATURAL REGULATION OR BRAINS?<br />
<br />
I’m generally an advocate of natural regulation—or letting nature take its course. But when it comes to human population collapse, I’d rather see alternatives. We are, we are told by those who suffer from too much hubris, (often the same ones saying we don’t have a population problem) that we are clever and intelligent. Well an intelligent person, and even one that might not believe we have a serious population problem, would at least use the precautionary principle which says in the absence of better information you seek the alternative that has the least potential for long term damage.<br />
<br />
Certainly advocating population reduction can have few down sides that I am aware of, especially if done with a sense of justice and fairness. Even though I do not want to be viewed as a techno optimist, I have to admit that we have the “technology” in the form of birth control, plus education, and access to medical facilities to limit our population. It seems in light of the on-going biodiversity loss as well as other crisis’s exacerbated by population growth (like global climate change) that we can begin a global effort to bring human population more in line with global carrying capacity. And global carrying capacity in my view means not significantly contributing to accelerated species extinction, excessive pollution, and the rapid consumption and/or degradation of finite resources.<br />
<br />
I’m afraid that if we don’t use our brains, we’ll follow a path much like the Isle Royale moose—a major population crash with a much depressed and infinitely poorer surviving population of humans. But even worse, we may be taking down a lot of the Earth’s heritage of diversity and landscapes in the process.<br />George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-23850863576652809202012-05-29T14:28:00.002-07:002012-05-29T14:30:11.343-07:00
Colt Summit Timber Sale Exemplifies False Assumptions Behind Many Timber Sales
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUbeR0xhNTZkwPPLLw_P7CYXWwCV2_wpxwc0r7yhpe9qfyRSjb232S5dfbUtrG62tLJL6ZNO5X0NFJEe1Wlb4SuVq__VuGSlZO_pXLBhNilBu54FjDNMk-I0wsQcOBAfNfe5KVJy_X/s1600/image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUbeR0xhNTZkwPPLLw_P7CYXWwCV2_wpxwc0r7yhpe9qfyRSjb232S5dfbUtrG62tLJL6ZNO5X0NFJEe1Wlb4SuVq__VuGSlZO_pXLBhNilBu54FjDNMk-I0wsQcOBAfNfe5KVJy_X/s320/image.jpg" /></a></div>
”At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour.”
~ Edward Abbey
The Colt Summit timber sale on the Seeley Lake Ranger District is the first logging proposal on the Lolo National Forest to be challenged in five years. It has become symbolic of a bigger fight over logging in the Northern Rockies. It is the proverbial line in the sand. It is actually typical of the many timber sales now being promoted by the Forest Service based on flawed assumptions about fire ecology and exaggerated public benefits, so in a sense is worthy of scrutiny since it is representative of what environmentalists around the West are encountering these days.
The Colt Summit Timber sale is being challenged by the Friends of the Wild Swan, Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Mountain Ecosystems Defense Council. They have filed a law suit to stop the timber sale arguing that the logging may jeopardize endangered grizzly bear, lynx and bull trout. Also, Wildwest Institute filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs (they are members of the Lolo Restoration committee).
THE COLT SUMMIT TIMBER SALE
The Colt Summit sale calls for thinning in mature and old growth forest, along with shelterwood cuts (essentially a clear cut with most of the larger trees removed) along with extensive prescribed burning in what is clearly one of the last contiguous forest corridors left in the Seeley Swan Valley. The FS admits that it’s one of the few intact unfragmented tracts of federal forest in the Swan Valley, but then ignores its significance.
The proposed timber sale is in Situation One occupied grizzly habitat, and critical lynx habitat. Streams in the sale area support endangered bull trout. The logging operations, and the human presence is likely to have negative impacts on these species.
To its credit, the Forest Service has designed the timber sale to mitigate some of the worse impacts of logging. For instance, most of the logging will occur in winter with over-snow removal of trees to reduce the need for road construction and disturbance that can lead to weed spread. But reduction in logging impacts is not the same as no impacts. And in a region that is already significantly over cut, any new logging has disproportionate cumulative negative effects. Here’s a photo showing clearcuts surrounding Lake Inez. Seeley Lake is further out. All of these clearcuts lie between the Colt Summit area and Seeley Lake.
GREEN WASHING
Like all timber sales today, the Forest Service is ostensibly not cutting trees just to provide lumber or profits to timber companies. The agency no longer has a public license to log simply to enrich timber industry corporation coffers, so they use other rationales that play upon the public’s fears and misunderstandings. The agency now logs for dubious rationales including forest health, to reduce fire risk, to “improve” wildlife habitat, increase recreational opportunities and other presumed public benefits.
The main justification for Colt Summit is to log the area to reduce the threat of wildfire and increase the safety of Seeley Lake by logging in what it is calling the Wildlands Urban Interface. Never mind that Seeley Lake is more than ten miles from the closest segment of the proposed timber sale and there are already miles of clearcuts and thinned forest between Colt Summit and Seeley Lake. (See photo)
Beyond the somewhat fallacious assertion that logging can be justified on the basis of reducing fire hazard in the Wildland Urban Interface, the agency asserts that road closures, by reducing sedimentation into streams, will be a net benefit. There is no doubt that closing any road is a net benefit.
However, the agency stacks the deck in its analysis by comparing the on-going excessive road density and problems associated with it such as chronic sedimentation into streams, with an alternative that closes some roads, but calls for significant logging as the “price” for road decommissioning. As a result it can suggest that logging “improves” the landscape over the current situation.
There is, unfortunately, no alternative that compares the no action or current condition with an alternative that closes roads, and only proposes thinning in the immediate vicinity of Seeley Lake, along with modification of homes to reduce flammability such as requirement for metal roofs. Such an alternative would clearly be more cost effective, better for the land, and more effective in reducing fire risk than the Forest Service’s current proposal.
Advocating for logging so you can close the very roads created by the logging sale and even if you close a few other miles of roads is a bit like building a couple of new dams and then putting in fish ladders to improve fish migration. Sure fish ladders is an improvement, but one doesn’t have to build dams as a justification to marginally improve fish movements. Neither does one need to log the forest to justify removal of the very roads used to log the forest.
If road closure is good for wildlife, they should be closed regardless of whether there is a timber sale in the area, not use the road closures as an excuse to justify logging.
LOGGING HERE, THERE, EVERYWHERE
Part of the objections made by the groups suing the Forest Service is the fact that the Colt Summit timber sale occupies the last remaining strip of unlogged forest connecting the Swan Range to the Mission Range in the entire Seeley Swan corridor. As a result it is important for the movement of wildlife like the grizzly and lynx from one mountain range to the other.
If you go to Google Earth and put in Seeley Lake Montana then move northward following the Highway 83 corridor you will see from space what is not visible to causal observation—a highly fragmented and ravaged valley. Here’s a link to a short video showing the sale area and the surrounding butchered landscape.
Look west of Seeley Lake and Lake Inez on Google Earth and you will see miles of clearcuts and logging. Same pattern for the land east of these lakes all the way to the foothills of the Swan Range. Continue north past Lake Inez and Rainy Lake and you will come to the circular pond known as Summit Lake among unlogged forests that lie on the watershed divide between the Clearwater River flowing south and the Swan drainage flowing north. Immediately north of the watershed divide you will see many more clearcuts on the Flathead National Forest—all the way to Swan Lake. I’ve seen a lot of butchered landscapes in Oregon and Washington, but the Seeley Swan Valley gives either of those states a run for the prize as most abused and degraded landscapes.
It will become abundantly clear why groups like the Alliance for Wild Rockies, Friends of the Wild Swan and others are arguing this sale will degrade the connectivity between the Mission Range and Swan Range. Yet the Forest Service has the audacity to propose more logging in what is already one of the most fragmented forested valleys in Montana and amidst one of the last forested corridors that stretches across the Seeley-Swan Valley.
MORE LOGGING PLANNED—CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANYONE?
Worse for the Colt Summit corridor, is that the Forest Service has four or five other timber sales planned for the area both north and south of Summit Lake. For instance, the proposed Glacier-Loon timber sale lies just north and west of Summit Lake. The proposed Summit Salvage timber sale lies north and east of Summit Lake between Holland Lake and Clearwater Lake. Several other proposed timber sales, including Beaver Creek timber sale, lie to the west and south. If all of these are permitted to be logged, along with Colt Summit, it will destroy the remaining connectivity in the southern Swan Valley.
Past over logging combined with new proposed timber sales clearly poses a cumulative impact on affected wildlife species. It’s disingenuous for the FS to declare that logging Colt Summit will improve habitat for lynx by creating additional acres of younger age tree stands. Any review of the surrounding land of clearcuts would demonstrate that young age class trees are not in short supply. Rather it is old growth with down wood that is scarce on the Seeley Lake Ranger District due to the excessive past logging of the area by Plum Creek timber company, state of Montana and the Forest Service.
DISTORTED FIRE SCIENCE
The worst part about the Colt Summit proposal is that it’s based on faulty and perhaps purposefully deceptive ideas about wildfire ecology and fire risk. Nevertheless, distortion of science is not something that can halt a timber sale. So the conservation groups suing the FS are using one of the limited legal handles available—the ESA to draw attention to what is a poorly planned and unnecessary logging operation.
This timber sale is predicated on the assumption that fire regimes in the Colt Summit area are outside of their historical variability. It appears the Forest Service is confusing fire regimes. It appears to be applying the Southwest Model for ponderosa pine forests of short fire intervals and low intensity blazes to the Colt Summit’s lodgepole pine and subalpine fir forests. These forests tend to burn infrequently and usually as stand replacement intense blazes.
This gets to problem number two. There is quite a bit of new debate about how effective fire suppression has been, particularly in the higher elevation/moister forest types such as we find dominating in the Colt Summit. In other words, even if this area didn’t have naturally long intervals between fires, it’s questionable that fire suppression has had a significant influence on fuels. There has been a period of significantly wetter and cooler conditions that has prevailed for nearly 50 years between the 1940s until the 1990s that reduced fire spread throughout the Rockies. These forests are frequently too wet naturally to burn except when there are severe fire conditions and then they tend to burn in stand replacement blazes.
The idea behind thinning is that fuels are the driving force in fires. However, a growing body of evidence suggests major climatic conditions are what drive fires, not fuels. If climate/weather is dry, with low humidity and high winds, fires tend to burn through all kinds of fuel loadings. Many studies question whether fuel loadings have significant influence on fire spread under these severe climatic conditions. There are also scientific studies that show thinning can often increase fire severity so it’s by no means a guarantee that thinning operations will have even a neutral influence on fire hazard.
The frequent failure of thinning to halt or even slow major fires under severe conditions is obvious by reviewing large fires throughout the West. The closest is the Jocko Lakes Fire that burned the area just to the west of Colt Summit. The Jocko Lakes Fire burned through a landscape that was heavily logged, and thinned. There were a lot of clearcuts. If logging can halt or reduce the spread of fires, the Jocko Lakes area would have to be a good test. It failed miserably. To suggest that thinning which is a much lower reduction of fuel compared to a clearcut will significantly slow or stop fires is reckless at best, giving the community a false sense of security.
WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT HOMES?
Research has shown that the best way to protect individual homes and/or a community from fire is to reduce the flammability of the buildings, not trying to fireproof the forest. Putting on a metal roof, and clearing burnable materials around a structure would be far less expensive and effective method to protect Seeley lake. If the Forest Service were really working for the public interest, and not the timber industry, they would be promoting home protection over logging. It’s cheaper. It’s more effective. It does not require disturbing the forest. It would even provide jobs. It just doesn’t provide profit to timber companies.
LOGGING AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Logging will impact endangered species like lynx. The work of lynx biologist John Squires and others repeatedly demonstrates that older forests with a lot of down woody debris (DWD) is critical lynx habitat. Thinning the forest will remove dead trees, and thus will contribute to a reduction to recruitment of dead woody debris in the future. So not only would logging destroy existing lynx habitat today, but it will significantly reduce the creation of additional lynx habitat in the future.
A CLOSED ROAD IS NOT THE SAME AS NO ROAD
The FS and its supporters suggest that the Colt Summit timber sale will be a net benefit because an estimated 25 miles of road will be decommissioned or stored. Road closures are desperately needed to be sure, but what isn’t made clear is that the majority of roads to be closed are ones that are created and/or reopened to facilitate the Colt Summit timber sale.
There is no doubt a need for additional road closures, but one does not have to do any further logging to close roads. The way the FS gets to declare this a net benefit is by closing or eliminating a few miles of roads and comparing it to current condition of doing nothing. But one does not have to log the area to close roads, and because there is no alternative that compares road closures.
The Upper Clearwater watershed where Colt Summit is located is heavily roaded. According to the FS “road densities were high in most of the drainages… . All drainages had between 20 and 30 percent of roads within a 300 foot buffer of a stream.” The FS own fish biologist opines that “sedimentation is also an increased concern due to the high amount of timber harvest, roading, and sensitive soils within this watershed.” The conclusion of the fish biologist is that nearly all sub drainages in the Clearwater drainage were functioning at an unacceptable risk” for sediment.
One way the FS sugar coats its road building enterprises is by suggesting that new roads will be “temporary” and most logging activity will be limited to winter when snow cover will reduce impacts. There is some truth to these assertions, but even the best logging practices will contribute new levels of sedimentation to a system that is clearly already severely degraded. And at least some of these temporary roads will be open for at least six years that the timber sale is implemented guaranteeing that many of these impacts will occur for a considerable amount of time. All of these new roads will be providing new access to hunters/trappers as well as illegal ATV use, the spread of weeds, and in some cases, additional sedimentation into streams, and other harm. All of these are minimized in the FS EA so as to suggest a net benefit to the logging operations.
And even after road closures the impact of roads continues. Roads, even closed roads, are not the same as no road. A closed road still provides easier access to snowmobiles (and trappers use snowmobiles—lookout lynx) and ORVs, and even hunters on foot tend to follow old roads, thereby reducing security for wildlife.
There is also some deception in the statement that the FS will close 25 miles of roads, because by my count at least 14.5 of these miles are a direct result of the proposed timber sale. So the 25 miles is an inflated number. i.e. without the timber sale, one would have fewer miles of road to close in the first place. The closure of 4 miles of streamside road 646 adjacent to Colt Creek will have the greatest benefits by reducing sedimentation in streams. However closure of this road is on-going and not opposed by the appellants.
In addition the EA says that roads will be “decommissioned and/or stored”. It does not define decommissioned. In many cases if a road bed is not ripped up, the slope restored, and trees planted on the site, it cannot be considered “restored.” Worse, stored roads definitely mean they will be reused at some future date.
Furthermore, animals like the grizzly avoid areas of human use. Even a closed road is avoided for a long time after human traffic ceases. In one study in the South Fork of the Flathead, FWP showed that bears would avoid up to 2 miles on either side of an active road, and even a closed road. Using a 2 mile standard, the timber sale will nearly affect the entire width of the Swan Valley in this location.
Finally it’s important to note that the groups that are opposing the timber sale are not opposed to any road closures.
WEEDS INVASION FACILITATED
One of the biggest and long term threats to the forest comes from exotic weed invasion. While roads may be closed and even erased with enough money and time, weed invasion typically is a one way street towards greater ecological degradation. The FS own analysis concludes that “ground disturbances worth noting with this project consist of landings associated with the harvest units, new road construction, road obliteration, road maintenance, road reconstruction, increased traffic due to log haul, and stream crossing upgrades.”
Ground disturbance will increase weed establishment and spread. And if you read between the lines in the FS own weed analysis, the suggestion is that despite some requirements for weed control practices, the likelihood of significant increase in weed establishment is foreseen.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IGNORED
The logging should be considered as part of a cumulative impacts. The FS is proposing timber sales on all sides of Colt Summit. When all these logging operations are considered together, along with the negative impacts of past logging, it’s clear the cumulative effects from this are significant.
In the end, Colt Summit is not in the public interest and if implemented will have far more negative impacts to our public lands than any benefits.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-10191018265523591532012-05-17T20:41:00.000-07:002012-06-07T08:00:41.387-07:00To Kill a Mockingbird<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipoGxa5rntMtS911LrayFY-4F9X4VCCDthFZ_9ZKM4fY51OItUDKCOF7RyOZEo0QAKEG2d1QKSSJ2vHv-QhOgClros8EXUXfHAucEU7vaZcSDUpE0PtAg4ndp24av4uj-t4zuBSQ8X/s1600/90006-01217++Wolf+running+George+Wuerthner-468.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="217" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipoGxa5rntMtS911LrayFY-4F9X4VCCDthFZ_9ZKM4fY51OItUDKCOF7RyOZEo0QAKEG2d1QKSSJ2vHv-QhOgClros8EXUXfHAucEU7vaZcSDUpE0PtAg4ndp24av4uj-t4zuBSQ8X/s320/90006-01217++Wolf+running+George+Wuerthner-468.jpg" /></a></div>I recently attended the wolf hearings held by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission in Helena. The commission is considering initiation of a trapping season, as well as eliminating quotas on the number of wolves that may be killed. The goal is to significantly reduce the state’s wolf population which currently numbers somewhere in the vicinity of 600 animals. The commission will make a final decision on the matter by July. At the hearing I felt like I was witnessing a modern day version of Harper Lee’s famous book To Kill a Mockingbird. In that novel the mockingbird is symbolic of innocence animals and by extension, innocence citizens destroyed by thoughtless and ignorant people. In Lee’s novel the main character, lawyer Atticus Finch, is one of the few residents of the southern community of Maycomb committed to racial equality and fairness. He agrees to defend a black man (a mockingbird in human society) wrongly accused of raping a poor southern girl. For his efforts both Atticus and his children suffer abuse and ridicule from the community. Worse, in the end, Atticus is unable to overcome the racial prejudice of his community members and win acquittal for the black man who was convicted by public opinion rather than facts. Even the otherwise descent people of that community were unable to put aside the cultural biases they had grown up with. In a similar way I believe the wolf has become a symbolic scapegoat for many otherwise descent Montanans who, for whatever reason, cannot overcome the cultural biases against wolves. I do not want to overstate this analogy. Wolves can and do kill elk and deer as well as livestock. They can sometimes even depress elk and deer populations. Yet for many who testified at the commission hearings, it is clear that killing wolves symbolizes more than just a predator that may occasionally create conflicts with human goals. When one can’t lash out at the real and/or imaginary forces that are creating fear or anger, someone or something else is punished. What was termed in my college animal behavior classes as “displaced” aggression. In Montana there is displaced aggression being heaped upon the wolf. For some with the most extreme opinions in Montana, the wolf actually represents the distance federal government or worse a UN global plot to subjugate rural America that they fear is controlling their lives. When they kill wolves, they are lashing out at these institutions they fear. And like the mythical towns people in Maycomb Alabama whose racial prejudice and lynch mob mentally convicted the black man Tom Robinson of imagined crimes based on dubious evidence, the wolf has been convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion—at least the portion of the public I observed at the hearings. There is no other way to explain the depth of hatred and fear I witnessed. Any rational examination of the evidence against the wolf would not justify the death penalty that I fear will be imposed by the Commission. Over and over again I heard many of the same old inaccurate and often exaggerated justifications for wolf reductions. Among them is the assertion that wolves are decimating the state’s elk and deer herds and destroying hunter opportunity. Yet in 1992 when the state completed its elk management plan, and three years before wolves were reintroduced, there were an estimated 89,000 elk in Montana. By 2007 an article in Montana Outdoors proclaimed there may be as many as 150,000 elk in the state. And a recent communication I had with Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologist put the current number at around 140,000 animals. Even as I write this commentary, the headlines in today’s papers proclaimed “FWP: Surveys Show Big Game Populations Bouncing Back.” Any reasonable person looking at those numbers would conclude that the presence of wolves is not a threat to hunting opportunities. Indeed, if I wanted to be as irrational as many of the hunters I heard at the hearing, I could suggest a correlation where the presence of wolves appears to increase elk numbers and hunting opportunities across a state. Similarly, accusations that wolves are a threat to the state’s livestock industry are equally as dubious. Last year according to the Montana Dept of Livestock, more than 140,000 cattle and sheep died from various causes including poisonous plants, disease, and other factors. Out of these 140,000 animals, wolves were responsible for less than a hundred deaths. This is not to suggest that the loss of any livestock is not an economic blow to the individual rancher, but can anyone seriously argue that wolves are a universal threat to the livestock industry that justifies state-wide persecution? And there are many positive benefits to the presence of a large wolf population that were rarely mentioned or acknowledged at the hearing. For instance, temporary or even sustained decrease in elk numbers can lead to a reduction in browsing on riparian vegetation like willows and cottonwood along streams. Healthy riparian areas create more food for beaver. Beaver ponds improve water storage and stream flow, reducing floods—which may be a huge net economic benefit to society. Healthy and functioning streams also equal more trout and other fish, improving fishing opportunities and of course the bottom line for businesses that depend on serving the fishing public. Predation by wolves can also reduce the occurrence of diseases that are a potential threat to both livestock and wildlife. For instance, the spread of disease like chronic wasting disease and brucellosis can have economic consequences to the livestock industry as well as elk and deer hunting. Wolves by their presence tend to reduce disease across a herd by dispersing elk and deer as well as by preying on sick animals. Collectively these positive economic benefits to society and even to the livestock industry may far outnumber any negative costs associated with wolf livestock losses. If we are going to manage wolves so they full fill their ecological function as top predators, one can’t kill the majority of wolves off and expect to maintain these positive ecological benefits. Even more troubling to me is that Montanans seem to want to use brute force instead of their brains to deal with wolf conflicts. A great deal of recent science on the social ecology of wolves as well as the positive benefits of predators on ecosystems is largely ignored by current management policies. There is a growing body research that suggests increased persecution of predators is likely to increase, not decrease, human conflicts. Even if you lower the wolf population, you may actually increase the human conflicts. Widespread and aggressive indiscriminate killing of wolves or any other predator may have unintended consequences. Hunting and trapping tends to skew predator populations towards younger age classes; Younger animals are less skillful hunters. They are the very animals most likely to wander into the backyards of people’s homes or come into a ranch yard to nab a young calf or lamb. Due to their inexperience and lack of hunting skill, younger animals are more inclined to seek out livestock as prey. In addition, a wolf population suffering from heavy mortality leads to break up of packs where breeding is usually limited to the dominant male and female. Fragmenting the population into many smaller packs can result in more breeding females and often results in a higher survival of pups. In a very short time the population rebounds, prompting endless calls for more persecution. Predator control can even potentially lead to greater kill of elk and deer. Smaller packs with many pups to feed are unable to guard their kills against other scavengers. When an adult kills an elk or deer, by the time it can carry meat back to the den and return, much of the carcass may be stripped of any remaining meat, leaving that animal no choice but to kill another elk or deer. Smaller packs may in the end also produce more pups—and like teenagers everywhere—the greater food demands of growing pups may lead to the killing of more prey and/or livestock. And since many wolves co-exist with livestock, the indiscriminate and random removal of wolves by hunting and trapping can actually create a void that may be filled by other wolves that may be more inclined to prey on livestock. There are definitely conflicts that sometimes arise between wolves and people. However, the intelligent way to respond is through the surgical removal of individual animals or packs and adoption of non-lethal animal husbandry practices. For instance, after California passed a state-wide ban on use of traps and poison to control predators, Marin County Commissioners voted to replace lethal measures with non-lethal methods. The tax payer funds that previously went to lethal control were used instead to build fences, purchase guard dogs and lambing sheds. In the end there was a reduction in predator losses while at the same time, the county spent less funds than what it had previously spent on lethal predator control. A similar effort in Montana’s own Blackfoot Valley where dead carcasses which serve as an attractant for predators are promptly removed has also lead to a reduction in livestock /predator conflicts. Such changes in policies demonstrate what is possible when people use their brains instead of their guns. In the novel to Kill a Mockingbird, the indiscriminate killing of mockingbirds represented the unnecessary and thoughtless destruction of animals and humans based on old biases. The sad truth is that in Montana we are still killing symbolic mockingbirds by our archaic and irrational attitudes towards predators like the wolf. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijcm-YjHh8wRgELqm1H9p2iPrViIIVBR4VyP726H1JugKsPHXwYZ49ki6Jcyt4exNM9QF2-zWuy-EmPrJmezMgWrsC6nJ41SWOLnkSY9XCYOoJcAlHBVpkiA_T2V8b2-V1Ele7nWKQ/s1600/Mexican+wolf+George+Wuerthner-8861.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijcm-YjHh8wRgELqm1H9p2iPrViIIVBR4VyP726H1JugKsPHXwYZ49ki6Jcyt4exNM9QF2-zWuy-EmPrJmezMgWrsC6nJ41SWOLnkSY9XCYOoJcAlHBVpkiA_T2V8b2-V1Ele7nWKQ/s320/Mexican+wolf+George+Wuerthner-8861.jpg" /></a></div>George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-70479010593888174112012-04-10T14:58:00.000-07:002012-04-10T14:59:36.542-07:00Trapping the Barbaric sportYears ago I was backpacking in Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness with my friend, Rod, and his Malamute, Jake. Like most dogs, Jake was happily running ahead of us investigating this and that. Suddenly Jake let out a sharp cry and began to yipping from someplace up ahead in the brush. We rushed to him to find his leg in a giant leg-hold bear trap set by a deer carcass. This trap was the size of a car tire. We desperately tried to open the trap, but even with the two of us trying to open the contraption, the springs were just too stiff and we couldn’t get Jake’s leg free. So Rod and I took turns carrying 100 pound Jake on our shoulders, along with the heavy trap plus our backpacks to our car so we could rush him to a vet. <br />The vet had to get a special trap opener to compress the springs so we could open the jaws enough to remove Jake’s leg. Jake was lucky. Because the trap’s teeth were so large, Jake’s leg was caught wedged between teeth instead of having it go through his leg. He fully recovered from the experience. But most pets and nearly all wildlife are not so lucky. <br />There was no sign indicating the presence of the trap, nor any other effort to warn people of this trap. Had either one of us stepped into the track, we might have suffered serious damage. <br />Unfortunately trapping of wild animals is a legal activity in all of the United States. In fact, I am not aware of a single state “wildlife” agency that doesn’t promote trapping, instead of questioning its’ legitimacy. <br /> It’s amazing to me that in this day and age we still allow the barbaric activity to be justified in the name of “sport”. Leg-hold traps and snares are particularly treacherous. Animals caught in such traps suffer pain, exposure to weather, dehydration and often a long painful death. Snares are even more gruesome with animals slowly strangling to death as the wire noose tightens. How is it that cock and dog fights are now illegal and yet we permit state wildlife agencies to sanction an equally cruel activity? <br />The statistics are astounding. More than 4 million animals are trapped for “fun” each year, many enduring immense suffering in the process. Millions more are trapped as “nuisances” or die as “non-target” animals. For example more than 700 black bear are snagged each year in Oregon as “nuisance” animals by timber companies (because in spring bears eat the inner cambium layer of trees).<br />Only a few states have banned the use of leg-hold traps for sport trapping and usually only through citizen initiative process. Yet 90 countries around the world have banned these traps and the entire European Union has banned these contraptions. <br />Most trapping targets “fur bearer” animals like lynx, musk rat, beaver, marten, fisher, river otter, weasel, mink, bobcat, red fox, coyote, and bears and in some states like Idaho and Alaska, trappers also take wolves. Most of these animals are important predators in their own right, and help to promote healthier ecosystems in many, many ways from the way that wolves reduce the negative impact of large herbivores like elk to reduction of rodent populations by coyotes. Thus indiscriminate trapping disrupts natural ecological processes, often in ways we don’t appreciate. <br />And while most trappers might scoff at the idea, their “enjoyment” of trapping comes at the expense of the pleasure of other wildlife lovers who might rather see a red fox scampering across a field, a river otter swimming in a stream or hear a coyote howling in the night than see it’s skinned and fur used for frivolous purposes like clothing—we have other alternatives to fur. <br />The major arguments used by trappers to defend the legitimacy of their “sport” can largely be refuted.<br />One argument is that trapping promotes family time, learning about nature and gets people outdoors. However, there are many other ways to spend time together as a family, learn about nature or to get outdoors that does not involve traumatizing animals. <br />Another argument is that if we don’t kill the animals, they will overpopulate and die of starvation and/or disease. If you believe this line of self-justification, trappers are really acting out of a sense of mission, responsibility and kindness by killing animals to save them from a greater misery. Beyond the obvious rationalization of such assertions, a problem with this logic that not all animals, or animals in all places are in jeopardy of overpopulation. And trapping doesn’t necessarily remove the animals that are most likely to die from these natural events. <br />A third justification often heard in trapping circles and from state wildlife agencies, is trapping helps to remove “problem” animals—beaver that clog up culverts or coyotes preying on livestock. There are numerous issues with this line of reasoning. The first is that trapping, as practiced by most “sport” trappers, is indiscriminate. They are not taking the specific animals that may be “problematic”. Most trapping is random, killing any animal unfortunate enough to wander into a trap. <br />Beyond that, because agencies like to promote trapping, some like Wildlife Services entire existence is dependent upon having “problem” animals to kill, there is little incentive to educate or even regulate the public so that conflicts are not created in the first place. In many cases, the “problem” is “problem humans”. So livestock producers who fail to adequately monitor their animals and utilize guard animals along with lambing/calving sheds, have more issues with coyotes. Honey producers who do not use electric fences around their bee hives have issues with bears. And so on. <br />Not every instance can be alleviated by some creative action by humans, but in most case we don’t even try because neither the government wildlife agencies nor the trappers want solutions other than trapping and the broader excuse for trapping that they believe these so called “problems” justify. In those instances, where changing human behavior fails to reduce conflicts, we may have no choice but to rely upon the surgical removal of “specific” animals, not the wholesale killing of any animal that happens to have a fur coat. And such removal should be done in the most humane way possible. <br />If you want to see how sport trapping harms wildlife, view this video a bobcat trapped in a snare. Hint it does have a happy ending. If you can, support groups that attempting to end this barbaric “sport”<br />Video 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMVuHcIa5ic<br /><br />Video 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39umvONjDAc. <br /><br />http://www.predatordefense.org/features/snares_bobcat.htmGeorge Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-77660182037271589722012-03-31T14:38:00.000-07:002012-03-31T14:39:11.168-07:00Wolf Control Breeds ConflictsThe hysteria that surrounds wolf management in the Rockies has clouded rational discussion. Wolves are hardly a threat to either hunting opportunity or the livestock industry.<br />ELK NUMBERS ABOVE OBJECTIVES <br /> For instance, the Wyoming Fish and Game reports: “The Department continues to manage to reduce Wyoming’s elk numbers. The total population of the herds with estimates increased by 16 percent in 2009 and is now 29 percent above the statewide objective of 83,640 animals.” <br />Things are similar in Montana. Populations have grown from an estimated 89,000 animals in 1992 prior to wolf recovery to 140,000-150,000 animals in recent years. <br />In Idaho we find a similar trend. According to the IDFG 23 out of 29 elk units are at and/or above objective. Hunter success in 2011 was 20%: one in five hunters killed an elk. <br />Wolves are clearly not a threat to the future of hunting in any of these states. <br />LIVESTOCK LOSSES EXAGGERATED <br />Ranchers are equally irrational. In 2010 Wyoming livestock producers lost 41,000 cattle and calves due to weather, predators, digestive problems, respiratory issues, calving and other problems. But total livestock losses attributed to wolves was 26 cattle and 33 sheep! <br /> Last year Montana livestock producers lost more than 140,000 cattle and sheep to all causes. But total livestock losses attributed to wolves was less than a hundred animals. <br />In 2010 Idaho cattle producers lost 93,000 animals to all causes. Respiratory problems were the largest cause accounting for 25.6 percent of the cattle lost. Next came digestive problems, accounting for 13.4 percent of the cattle deaths. Total cattle losses attributed to wolves was 75 animals. <br />To suggest that wolves are a threat to the livestock industry borders on absurdity. <br />WOLF CONTROL INCREASES CONFLICTS <br />Worse yet, the persecution of predators does not work to reduce even these minimum conflicts as most proponents of wolf control suggest. <br />The reason indiscriminate killing does not work is because it ignores the social ecology of predators. Wolves, cougars, and other predators are social animals. As such, any attempt to control them that does not consider their “social ecology” is likely to fail. Look at the century old war on coyotes—we kill them by the hundreds of thousands, yet ranchers continue to complain about how these predators are destroying their industry. And the usual response assumes that if we only kill a few more we’ll finally get the coyote population “under control.” <br />The problem with indiscriminate killing of predators whether coyotes, wolves, cougars or bears is that it creates social chaos. Wolves, in particular, learn how and where to hunt, and what to hunt from their elders. The older pack members help to raise the young. In heavily hunted (or trapped) wolf populations (or other predators), the average age is skewed towards younger age animals . Young wolves are like teenagers—bold, brash, and inexperienced. Wolf populations with a high percentage of young animals are much more likely to attack easy prey—like livestock and/or venture into places that an older, more experience animal might avoid—like the fringes of a town or someone’s backyard. <br />Furthermore, wolf packs that are continuously fragmented by human-caused mortality are less stable. They are less able to hold on to established territories which means they are often hunting in unfamiliar haunts and thus less able to find natural prey. Result : they are more likely to kill livestock. <br />Wolf packs that are hunted also tend to have fewer members. With fewer adults to hunt, and fewer adults to guard a recent kill against other scavengers, a small pack must actually kill more prey than a larger pack. Thus hunting wolves actually contributes to a higher net loss of elk and deer than if packs were left alone and more stable. <br />Finally hunting is just a lousy way to actually deal with individual problematic animals. Most hunting takes place on the large blocks of public land, not on the fringes of towns and/or on private ranches where the majority of conflicts occur. In fact, hunting often removes the very animals that have learned to avoid human conflicts and pose no threat to livestock producers or human safety. By indiscriminately removing such animals which would otherwise maintain the territory, hunting creates a void that, often as not, may be filled by a pack of younger, inexperienced animals that could and do cause conflicts.<br />INSANITY IS DOING SAME WRONG THING OVER AND OVER<br />We need a different paradigm for predator management than brute force. As Albert Einstein noted, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Unfortunately insanity has replaced rational thought when it comes to wolf management.<br />George Wuerthner is an ecologist with among others, a degree in wildlife biology, and is a former Montana hunting guide. He has published 35 books. <br />Box 5163, Helena, MT 50604 541-255-6039George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943315393871846712.post-91183986531144003402012-03-31T14:36:00.003-07:002012-03-31T14:40:15.459-07:00M.King Hubbert and the Myth He Predicted Peak OIlPEAK OIL AND M. KING HUBBERT <br />Each time there is a short-term shortage of oil or the price begins to rise, there is talk of running out of affordable oil, an idea captured by the concept of Peak Oil. Peak Oil is the theoretical point when the maximum rate of oil production is reached and after that time enters into a terminal decline. There is a lot of debate surrounding the Peak Oil theory, with some observers predicting rapid decline in oil production with serious implications for our entire economy and society. <br />No name is more closely associated with the concept of Peak Oil than geologist Marion King Hubbert. Hubbert was a research geologist for Shell Oil Company and later the US Geological Service. Hubbert is credited with developing a quantitative technique (Logistic Growth Curve) now commonly referred to as the Hubbert Curve, which he suggested could be used to predict the remaining oil supplies (or any other finite resource like gas, copper, etc.) and the time of eventual depletion. <br />In the 1956 meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas, Hubbert presented a paper titled Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels where he suggested that overall petroleum production would peak in the United States between the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Since US oil production did indeed appear to peak in 1970, many Peak Oil advocates acclaim Hubbert as a prophet. However, an apparent peak in production does not necessarily represent a peak in oil availability, especially in a global market—something that Peak Oil advocates tend to overlook. In fact, a “peak” may just be one of many “spikes”. <br />Another point of confusion in the debate over the ultimate availability of oil and gas supplies is the question of “unconventional” fossil fuel sources like tar sands, oil shales, heavy oils, and shale oil. Hubbert did not include these other energy types in his estimates and many of the proponents of Peak Oil today tend to ignore these hydro-carbon sources. However, since there is vastly more oil (and gas) found in these “unconventional” sources compared to “conventional” crude oil and traditional gas sources, the exclusion of them from any policy debate over oil’s demise leads to serious misrepresentation of our ultimate fossil fuel availability.<br />As Hubbert wrote in his paper, “if we knew the quantity (of some resource) initially present, we could draw a family of possible production curves, all of which would exhibit the common property of beginning and ending at zero, and encompassing an area equal to or less than the initial quantity.” In theory, Hubbert’s basic concept is sound. As a way of thinking about and approaching the issue of declining finite resources, Hubbert was a pioneer. But that does not mean his predictions were accurate.<br /> The problem for anyone trying to predict future resource availability is discerning the initial starting amount of a resource such as oil when one cannot readily see or gauge accurately the resource. This lack of transparency presents huge opportunities for error, in particular, erring on the side of under estimation of the total resource. And time has consistently shown that under estimation of total resource is the most common error, and as we shall see this is exactly the error that Hubbert made with regards to his estimates of our remaining oil and gas reserves. Hubbert can be forgiven because new technology can make previously unavailable resources accessible, even less expensive to exploit. In fact, he even anticipated this to a degree in his paper, another point that Hubbert’s admirers today tend to overlook. <br />FORCASTING PROBLEMS<br />Few that credit Hubbert with a successful prediction have apparently actually read his paper. A reading of his presentation demonstrates that Hubbert grossly underestimated total oil supplies, and thus his predicted high point of the bell curve deviates significantly from reality. Indeed, there is good evidence we haven’t even reached the top of the bell curve, much less past it in 1970. He did not anticipate things like the discovery of oil in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay or shale oil like the North Dakota Bakken Formation, among many other oil discovery that have significantly changed total oil supplies. <br />And because US oil production did peak in 1970, the same time period which Hubbert suggested oil reserves would reach their half-way point and start an inevitable decline, few bothered to ask whether the observed decline in US production might have any other explanation other than declining geological petroleum stocks as Peak Oil advocates suggest.<br /> Predicting future oil and gas supplies is fraught with dangers. Many factors influence oil extraction other than geological limits. A rapid shift to renewable energy, a decline in global economies, new technological innovation, energy conservation, a high oil price that dampens consumer demand, political instability and wars all significantly affects energy production, thus when and how “peak” is achieved. Many believe a more realistic model rather than a bell curve is a rapid run up in production to a spike or series of spikes followed by a long drawn out plateau and production decline with ultimately more oil production occurring after the apparent peak, but less rapidly than prior to the “peak” which of course wouldn’t really be a peak in the traditional sense of the word.<br />HUBBERT’S ERROR<br />The first problem with Hubbert’s prediction is that his estimates of total oil and gas reserves are far too low. If the starting amount of reserves are low, than the top of the bell curve is reached much sooner than if there are greater amounts of oil--assuming that a bell curve actually represents what is occurring--which many people dispute. Some suggest Hubbert just drew the curve to fit his assumptions.<br />In his paper, Hubbert estimated that the “ultimate potential reserve of 150 billion barrels of crude oil for both the land and offshore areas of the United States.” Hubbert’s estimate was based on the crude oil “initially present which are producible by methods now in use.” Using the 150 billion barrel estimate he predicted US Peak Oil occurring in 1965. But to be cautious, he also used a slightly higher figure of 200 billion barrels which produced a peak in oil production around 1970—the figure that Hubbert advocates like to use to demonstrate that Hubbert was prophetic in his predictions. However, by 2006 the Department of Energy estimated that domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels. Of this large in-place resource, 400 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable with current technology. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/eor_co2/Undeveloped_Oil_Document.pdf <br />This estimate was produced before horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking techniques were widely adopted which most authorities believe will yield considerably more oil than was thought to be recoverable in 2006.<br />Going back to Hubbert’s paper we find that he predicted that by 1970 the US should have consumed half or about 100 million barrels of oil of the original endowment of 150-200 billion barrels of recoverable oil. And by his own chart on page 32 of his paper if we use the assumption of 200 billion barrels as the total potential oil reserves of the US we should be completely out of oil by now. According to his curve and graph, by year 2000 we should have had only around 27 billion or so barrels of oil left in the US and fallen to zero sometime in the mid-2000s. <br />Yet the US government estimates as of 2007 that our remaining technically recoverable reserves are 198 billion barrels, and this excludes oil that may be found in area that are off limits to drilling (i.e. like most of the Continental Shelf). http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec4_3.pdf And there are another 400 billion barrels that some suggest could be recovered with new methods (which itself is a subset of total in place oil which future technology may make available at an affordable price). http://www.fossil.energy.gov/education/energylessons/oil/MS_Oil_Studyguide_draft1.pdf<br />Obviously if Hubbert were correct, and we had reached Peak Oil in 1970 (point where we had consumed half of our oil) and we started out with only 200 billion, we could not have nearly 200-400 billion still left to extract—and total resources are likely even higher than this figure.<br />It’s also important to keep in mind that “technologically recoverable” resources are not the “total” amount of oil thought to exist in the US, so the total in-place reserves are much, much larger. It does not take a lot of imagination to predict that many of these oil resources will eventually be unlocked with new technological innovation thus added to the total “proven reserves.” <br />Another example of his under-estimation of oil is US off-shore oil. In his 1956 paper, Hubbert suggests we had 15 billion total barrels, but the US government now estimates there is closer to 90 billion barrels of oil left off-shore--and we have already extracted quite a bit. (I'm not sure if that figure is just for off -shore currently open to exploration or all off shore--since oil exploration is banned on 83% of the US coastline. If this figure refers only to those areas currently available to drill--then the number may be quite a bit higher if all off shore areas were opened to oil extraction).<br />Hubbert was even farther off in his estimate for global oil reserves, which is not surprising since in 1956 very few parts of the world had been adequately studied. In his 1956 paper Hubbert wrote that there was “about 1250 billion barrels for the ultimate potential reserves of crude oil of the whole world.” In his paper he estimated that the entire Middle East including Egypt had no more than 375 billion barrels of oil. Yet by 2010, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that just the “proven reserves” in Saudi Arabia alone totaled 262.6 billion barrels. Similarly in his paper Hubbert uses an estimate of 80 billion barrels for all of South America, yet Venezuela has 296 billion barrels of proven reserves. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html. <br /> By 2000, the point when Hubbert estimated that we would reach global Peak Oil we would have only around 625 billion barrels of oil left. Just the 558 billion barrels of proven reserves known to exist in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela alone (and a lot more in-place resources) is nearly equal the total global oil supplies that Hubbert estimated would remain in global reserves. Obviously once again Hubbert’s global estimates were way too low. <br /> The world has already burned through more than a trillion barrels of oil, clearly demonstrating how far off his prediction of oil supplies were. The estimated "proven reserves" left globally are today more than 1.3 trillion for the top 17 oil producing countries alone. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html<br />PROVEN RESERVES Vs. TOTAL RESOURCES<br />Part of the confusion in the Peak Oil debate is that people, agencies and organizations use different definitions and accounting methods that are often not explicitly acknowledged. For instance, most Peak Oil advocates rely upon “proven reserve” numbers to argue we have limited oil supplies remaining. However, it is important to note the term "proven reserves" has a very precise meaning that only includes oil that has a 90% certainty that the oil can be extracted using current technology at current price. It does not represent total oil that may over time be produced. The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called various terms including oil in place. Due to technological, political and other limitations, only a small percentage of the total “in place” oil can be extracted at the present time. However, proven reserves are the bare minimum amount of oil that reasonably can be expected to be extracted over time. <br />One of the wild cards in predicting oil reserves is the recovery factor. Recovery factors vary greatly among oil fields. Most oil fields to this point have only given up a fraction of their potential oil holdings—between 20-40%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery By 2009 the average Texas oil field had only about a third of its oil extracted, leaving two-thirds still in the ground. http://www.beg.utexas.edu/UTopia/images/pagesizemaps/oilgas.pdf Using Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques, many of them not even available when Hubbert wrote his paper, recovery can often be boosted to 40-60%. In essence if EOR were applied to many of the larger US oil fields, we could effectively double the oil extracted, hence “proven reserves.” <br />Even Hubbert recognized that we may eventually extract more oil from existing fields, though he still underestimated the effect of new discoveries and new technology. Hubbert wrote ”… only about a third of the oil underground is being recovered. The reserve figures cited are for oil capable of being extracted by present techniques. However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made within the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant effect upon the date of culmination. Amore probable effect of improved recovery will be to reduce the rate of decline after culmination…..”<br />While no one realistically believes it’s possible to get every last drop of oil from an oil reservoir, new technologies are often able to get significantly more oil from existing fields than was possible in the past. The important fact is that the recovery factor often changes over time due to changes in technology and economics. Since the bulk of global oil still remains in the ground, and any shift upward in price and improvement in technology suddenly makes it profitable to exploit reserves that were previously not included in the “proven reserves” estimate. Thus proven reserve estimates are a minimum, not the maximum amount of oil available. <br />To demonstrate how technology and price can affect “proven reserves” estimates, just a few years ago Canada's "proven reserves" of oil were only 5 billion barrels. Today, due to higher prices and improved technology that makes tar sands production economically feasible; Canada now has "proven" reserves of 175 billion barrels of oil. Nothing changed other than the price of oil and the technology used to extract it. Oil companies knew there was a lot of oil in the tar sands, but it took a change in technology and price to move it into the “proven reserves” category. Even more telling is that the total minimum estimate of in place oil for the tar sands exceeds 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. Keep in mind that 1.3 trillion barrels is more oil than Hubbert thought existed in the entire world when he presented his 1956 paper. <br />People knew all along there were tremendous amounts of oil locked in Alberta’s tar sands. But it took a change in price, along with some technological innovation to make it profitable for extraction. So proven reserves are not a static figure based on geology, rather it reflects economics and technology. Unfortunately too many writing about the presumed Peak of oil in the United States appear to ignore the distinction, and regularly use the “proven reserves” figure as if it were the ultimate geological limit on oil and/or gas supplies.<br />Although the major point of his paper was the potential depletion of traditional oil and gas reservoirs, he did mention “unconventional oil.” Unconventional oil reserves are oil or hydrocarbons found in geological formations other than a traditional oil reservoir. Examples of unconventional oil include Alberta’s tar sands, oil shales of the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the heavy oils of Venezuela, and other non-traditional hydrocarbons. There are far more of hydro-carbons in these formations than traditional oil reservoirs—a fact that many Peak Oil advocates frequently ignore. Or if they acknowledge their existence, they dismiss them as uneconomical or technologically impossible to exploit and therefore will never make a significant contribution to global energy supplies. <br /> Hubbert failed to appreciate the potential contribution of these unconventional sources of synthetic oil. For instance, he put the total for US oil shales at around a trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Recently the USGS estimated that the Green River drainage area of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah may contain as much as 4.2 trillion barrels of in place oil equivalent in oil shale deposits. To put this into context, the US currently consumes around 24 billion barrels of oil in 2010, so even if a fraction of these oil shales are exploited it will significantly increase available energy to the US. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=36&t=6 With unconventional oils like tar sands, oil shales, heavy oils, etc. included, it seems we have huge amounts of potential energy--even acknowledging that much of that oil may not be extracted until some future date due to cost and/or lack of technology. <br />NATURAL GAS ESTIMATES<br />As he did with his estimates of oil, Hubbert also appears to have underestimated natural gas supplies as well. He put total natural gas supplies to be around 850 trillion cubic feet (TCF) and maximum US production would be 14 TCF annually. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that shale gas reserve alone total 750 TCF and shale gas is only one source of natural gas. http://205.254.135.24/analysis/studies/usshalegas/<br />Total natural gas reserves are increasing. Estimates vary about total gas reserves, but they run between 1400 to 2000 TFC http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp. I see no reason to doubt these estimates.<br />If correct, then his estimate of natural gas was also a vast underestimate. This link shows that gas supplies are increasing well into the future. http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp And new estimates for gas hydrates (methane locked in frozen ice) suggests there may be twice as much energy locked in these resources than all the coal, oil, and traditional natural gas supplies combined. One estimate suggests there may be a 3000 plus year supply of natural gas in gas hydrates. Whatever the ultimate number may be, the important point is that we are not in any danger of running out of fossil fuels in the near future. <br />OTHER EXPLANATIONS FOR US PEAK OIL PRODUCTION<br />Was it just coincidence and luck that Hubbert picked 1970 as one of the possible peaks in US oil production even though his starting numbers were way too low? <br />This raises the question whether declining US production since 1970 is due to depletion of oil fields as asserted by Peak Oil advocates or whether economics explains it better. (This is not to deny that at some point we will see declining production due to real limits--the question of importance however is when that will occur).<br />Another explanation requires looking beyond the US. Keep in mind that oil is a commodity. Just because we may see a decline in production of some commodity does not mean we are running out of that substance or resource. The Northeast US was once the major producer of timber in the US. Today if you buy lumber in New England, there’s a good chance it was cut and shipped from the Pacific Northwest, not because there are no trees to cut in New England. Rather due to climate, vegetation, and infrastructure factors, it’s less expensive to cut trees in Oregon or British Columbia than to log New England forests. It would be wrong to conclude that because New England imports most of its lumber that there are not enough trees left to provide wood locally.<br /> Similarly attributing declining US oil production to geological depletion ignores the effect of global oil production. Immediately after WWii the US was easily the global leader in oil production. This dominance of global oil markets by US production and companies continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Then in the late 1960s and early 1970s oil production in other parts of the world began to increase substantially. In particular, Middle East oil production improved dramatically due to foreign investment and technology. For a variety of factors, once the oil infrastructure (pipelines, tanker ports, oil fields,) was built in these places, it became less expensive to import oil from Saudi Arabia, for example, than to build a new oil field in Wyoming or Texas. Indeed in some cases producing oil wells in the US were capped and retired even though they were perfectly capable of producing more oil. Not only was oil production increasing in Saudi Arabia, but all over the world at this time including Venezuela, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. All of these new fields were producing lower cost oil than one could get from most US oil fields at the time. So could it be that US producers just decided it was a better business plan to invest in and/or buy oil from other oil producing countries? Did this low cost oil cause oil companies to import oil rather than invest in US oil production?<br />Worse for US producers, except for a few manufactured shortages like the 1973 oil crisis created by OPEC in response to US support for Israel or the War in Iraq, the abundance of relatively inexpensive oil kept oil prices depressed throughout the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and into the early 2000s, discouraging new investment in US oil production. http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm<br />It takes up to a decade or more to bring a new oil field on line, especially if the field is not located near other infrastructure. For instance, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay Oil field was discovered in 1968 and it wasn’t until 1978 before the first oil was sent to market. Oil companies will only invest in major new production if they are certain that the prices are stable and will remain at a specific break-even point into the future. This lag time between changes in price or technology and significant production is why the oil industry cannot rapidly respond to short term price increases or politically created shortages. <br />Peak Oil advocates continuously point to the rise in oil prices during the latter part of the 2000s and suggest that an apparent lack of significant new oil production is due to depletion. However, there is a time lag before higher prices result in a noteworthy increase in oil production. Given the huge investments needed to bring on line new oil production, companies have to first wait for quite a number of years after an oil price hike before they start any new development to make sure that higher prices are going to stabilize, not rise and then fall suddenly as happened in 2008 when oil reached $145 a barrel then crashed to $30 a barrel. Such volatility does not lead to greater oil production. <br /> Nevertheless, higher oil prices in the past few years have started to spur new development in the US and around the globe. The US, for instance, has reduced its import of foreign oil from 60% to 45% due to higher production at home as well as greater efficiency spurred by higher fuel prices. These trends point to continued reduction in imports. However, because of the long delay between start up and full production, there is no quick relief. This is one reason why “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a foolish response to any oil price increase. <br />From the oil producer’s perspective, there is no advantage in increasing spare production capacity. All this will do is flood the market (global market) with cheap energy. What company wants to reduce its profits by over production? So far global oil production has largely been able to meet all demand, except for short term shortages as a result of political change, wars, and/or price speculation. But none of these reflect a true geological short-fall or serious effect of depletion. <br />Despite Hubbert's prediction that we would be just about out of oil by now, the US oil production (and gas) have both gone up in recent years. This is in response to higher prices and new technologies. But according to Hubbert this could not be occurring because we are long past our Peak and indeed, very near our bottom line for oil.<br />There is no doubt that a finite resource such as oil will continue to decline, and demand will likely grow at least into the foreseeable future, both of which should lead to higher fuel costs. But whether this leads to a long term chronic shortages that cause major economic disruption or even the collapse of civilization as some predict is subject to more uncertainty than perhaps some like to admit. For one thing there is far more oil on the planet than most people recognize, and new technologies combined with rising price for fuels is spurring development of new oil supplies. Rising prices also spurs shifts to other energy sources, as well as greater efficiency and conservation of energy.<br />Rather than running out of oil and/or gas any time soon, I think the bigger danger is that we have more than enough oil and other fossil fuel energy resources to sustain us for quite a few decades if not centuries. Any efficiency and/or conservation of energy, combined with some replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewables than these finite resources, will extend hydrocarbon resources quite a few additional decades. <br />The real problem for the planet and human society is not the imminent danger of running out of hydrocarbon fuels, but that an abundance of these energy sources will permit population and economic growth that will gradually diminish the planet’s biodiversity, degrade ecosystems, and disrupt global climate and other systems.George Wuerthnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267408166129843384noreply@blogger.com2