Note: there is a homework assignment assocaited with this set of notes to be completed before class. Bring your written considerations to class!

Conservation Biology:

Although a young field ( really dates back only to T. Roosevelt), the field of biology conservation has gone through major changes.

I. Era of the early conservationists . 1940's - 1970's ; emphasis was on the use of existing supplies for the sake of humans --> concept being if use wisely the system will regenerate itself .

a. Both at the federal /state and university levels - evolution of School(s) of Natural Resources with creation of departments such as:

Soil conservation - soil erosion & grazing, especially commercial use of western lands and ag lands

Wildlife management - deal with wildlife management in recreational & refuge parks

Fisheries management - to develop models which would allow sustainable yields, deal with recreational vs. commercial fishery needs

Forestry - fire and timber management issues

2. Broader problems developed after WWII with human impacts unknown before:

3. Basic inadequacy of this first conservation school:

a.. Economic need over natural need: lots of government agencies and scientists either bought out or strongly influenced by commercial demands.

b. Emphasis of all policy based on the needs of a few species which were either commercially valuable ( deer, cod, salmon) or had cultural relevancy. ( eagles, grizzles, dolphins)

II. The new conservation school: 1980's provided the principles and the tools for preserving biological diversity:

Inherent in the concepts above is that not everyone can be saved with continuing human population growth, so what systems are critical, how big do they need to be physically , how can we hold them together ( fragmentation/corridors) and so on. This is not to deny there are economic considerations to be dealt with, but the needs of the organism and its support system must be recognized first before sustainable commercialization is dealt with.

Other considerations can be found in this review of series of books on conservation biology. Really read through... than decide what OTHER considerations are not dealt with in the list above.

Readings from Conservation Biology: The Social Dimension.............Reviewed by Dave Iverson

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In designing their society, conservation biologists set a goal to "develop scientific and technical means for the protection, maintenance, and restoration of life on this planet--its species, its ecological and evolutionary processes, and its particular and total environment." At the same time they made note that such "protection, maintenance, and restoration of life" would not happen unless the goal was woven into the cultural fabric of law, policy, economics, education, ethics and more. The papers assembled in Readings from Conservation Biology are a good indicator that conservation biologists do indeed want to work not only with biologists, but with a wide range of specialists and generalists in moving toward their goal.

The Social Dimension is the second in a series of six volumes. The first volume is a call To Preserve Biodiversity--An Overview. The other volumes are Wildlife and Forests, Plant Conservation, The Landscape Perspective, and Genes, Populations, and Species.

The papers assembled in this book attempt to show us "the necessity and the fascination of bringing science and society together in a productive dialogue." Editor David Ehrenfeld begins with papers on attitudes and ethics, and concludes with four essays by David Orr dealing with a cultural scotoma: our blindness in education to matters of conservation and natural history. In between we find papers dealing with notions of "threatened" and "endangered" species, searching for cultural meaning and policy options to preserve biological diversity; conservation law; conservation management; and economics and development.

Many of the issues covered in The Social Dimension are controversial, so the topic is explored with papers developed from differing points of view. Examples include discussions about the harmony and discord between and within efforts dealing with indigenous people and remaining "natural areas;" hunting and fishing in and around national parks; sustainable development; and whether or not (also to what extent) the US Endangered Species Act is working.

Some issues are not so much controversial as unknown to most people on Earth. Think about just how little people know about invertebrates. When considering the four horsemen of a possible twenty-first-century environmental apocalypse --atmospheric degradation, resource depletion, toxic pollutants, and biodiversity loss-- Stephen Kellert points out that a most unappreciated aspect of a "potential mass extinction" is the preponderance of invertebrates that are dying off. Sadly, the general public isn't even aware of potential consequences from mass extinctions. They are still locked-in on a cultural disgust for invertebrates. In general Kellert found public feelings of aversion, dislike, or fear toward most invertebrates. He found that people have positive feeling only for the likes of bees and butterflies (Kellert: Values and Perceptions on Invertebrates, pp. 1-11).

As defined by Webster, ethics is the science of moral values and duties; the study of ideal human character, action, and ends. Ethics is interwoven throughout the The Social Dimension. Some papers deal with indigenous peoples and conservation. Other papers deal with biological integrity and the loss of species. Still others deal with sustainable living in the context of caring for ourselves as humans and for others in the broader family of life on Earth.

Law and policy are explored generally using biological integrity as a cornerstone for the goals of environmental legislation. A specific dialogue on the U.S. Endangered Species Act is included, airing perspectives from many sides of this controversial Act.

For management, three questions are explored in various ways: "Do we know the difference between what we can manage and what we cannot?", "Are we doing more harm than good with management schemes that are incompletely worked out and poorly related to the biology of threatened organisms?", and "How might we protect the welfare of both humans and endangered species?"

The largest group of papers falls into the category of economics and development. These papers explore both possibilities and roadblocks to effective dialogue and collaboration in the practice of ecology and economics. General discussion centers on critical evaluation of sustainable development and ecological economics. Specific discussions center on eco-tourism, agriculture, forestry, and medicine.

The editor leaves education for last--last but not least. In his introduction Ehrenfeld notes that conservation education is the most seriously deficient part of the educational system both in the United States and most of the developed world. Education is explored in four brief, but elegant essays by David Orr: "Biological Diversity," "Agriculture, and the Liberal Arts," "Professionalism and the Human Prospect," "Architecture as Pedagogy," and "The Virtue of Conservation Education."

On balance I found much to hope for and little to quibble over among the papers. But that reveals my biases. My own philosophy and practice has been influenced by many of the authors in this volume. One nagging concern remains: Will enough people read this book, and enter into dialogue over the issues raised to make any difference? Social learning is critical to resolution of the many issues raised in "conservation biology", "ecological economics", "environmental ethics", "landscape ecology", and many other ongoing social policy discussions. As professionals and citizens of Earth, each of us will have to stretch to reach beyond the boundaries of our professions and our self-interests to move beyond our present impasse. As Orr notes, "professionalism has Balkanized the intellectual landscape, each fiefdom having its own professional association, trade journals, and specialized jargon. Professional allegiance to one principality or another, few 'professionals' know enough of the whole terrain to be dangerous to the established order." The way forward "demands scholars who pay attention to large issues and who have loyalties to things bigger than mere professionalism" (Orr: Professionalism and the Human Prospect, pp 227,229). The same holds true for us as citizens, in our neighborhoods, towns, provinces, and regions--as we begin to explore broader relationships in the community of life on Earth. The papers in this book provide first tentative steps along a path of extended dialogue toward a sustainable, liveable future.

It would not be fair to conclude this review without admitting the depth of my biases. I have been a fan of David Ehrenfeld for quite a while, and have been strongly influenced by his ideas and philosophy in The Arrogance of Humanism (Ehrenfeld 1981) and Beginning Again: People and Nature in the New Millennium (Ehrenfeld 1993). The same is true for David Orr. I am especially fond of his Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World (Orr 1992) and Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect (Orr 1994). So when I saw their substantial imprint on the chapters in this volume, Ehrenfeld as editor and contributor and Orr with 5 of the 43 articles, I knew that I had to explore this volume further. As I did, I found a wealth of information from well-known and lesser-know authors.

III. Example of wildlife management: I found this proposal on the web. YourASSIGNMENT BEFORE COMING TO CLASS is to jot down what is "wrong" with this proposal. What are the missing elements that are not being dealt with which could that this good intentioned proposal will flop? Your answer should invclude perspectives that come up in the review above as well as the continuting notes below in section IIII and V.

The Conservation Biology Alternative for Grizzly Bear Population:Restoration in the Greater Salmon-Selway Region Central Idaho and Western Montana....by Mike Bader....awr@igc.org...June 1996

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this alternative is to reestablish a large subpopulation of grizzly bears in the Greater Salmon-Selway region of central Idaho and extreme western Montana, to become part of a larger metapopulation of grizzly bears throughout the Northern Rockies states. This effort should be viewed in the context of grizzly bear recovery efforts throughout the Northern Rockies. Population viability analysis has revealed that to ensure longterm viability ( a 95% or better chance of surviving for several hundred years), a population of grizzlies in the Northern Rockies will need to consist of approximately 2,000 bears or more (Allendorf, et al. 1991; Shaffer 1992). This population would likely be spread throughout the core areas of the Northern Rockies at a density of about one bear per 25 square miles (Metzgar and Bader 1992; Craighead et al. 1995). At this density, approximately 50,000 square miles of secure habitat are required to support a viable population of grizzly bears (Metzgar and Bader 1992). Secure habitat is defined as roadless areas of 5,400 acres or greater (Mattson 1991) or low road density habitat (0.25 miles of road per square mile or less). These areas cannot be effective in isolation but must be linked together as a network of secure areas.

Fortunately, this amount of secure habitat area still exists in the Northern Rockies bioregion. Unfortunately, it is not contiguous. Rather, it exists as a series of semi-isolated blocks of wildlands. Conservation biologists agree that it may still be possible to maintain a landscape in the Northern Rockies that will sustain a viable population of 2,000 grizzly bears, but this population will consist of a series of subpopulations linked into a metapopulation by corridors, which together could comprise a genetically diverse, viable population.

In order to move towards reestablishment of a self-sustaining, viable population of grizzly bears in the Northern Rockies, a significant sub-population of grizzly bears must be reestablished in the Greater Salmon-Selway region of central Idaho and extreme western Montana. Geographic Information System analysis (Ecology Center 1995) has identified a proposed population recovery zone covering approximately 21,645 square miles. Not all of this area is currently secure habitat, and some areas may have limited value as grizzly habitat. Still, this region represents the largest block of secure wildland habitat remaining in the lower 48 states. In the contiguous states, grizzlies now occur only in association with large blocks of national park, designated wilderness, and other lands with little humanintrusion (Metzgar and Bader 1992). As such, the Salmon-Selway region is the unoccupied link among the triangle of large core areas of suitable grizzly bear habitat in the Northern Rockies, comprised of the Greater Yellowstone area, the Glacier Park/Bob Marshall area, and the Salmon-Selway region (see Figure 1). It is potentially capable of supporting a relatively large population of grizzly bears distributed over a large geographic region and is the ideal candidate for a project to reestablish a grizzly population.

This population will be linked by habitat linkage corridors to other grizzly bear populations in the Northern Rockies to form a regional metapopulation. In this way, there is still hope that land and wildlife managers can design a management system that can achieve a self-sustaining population of 2,000 grizzly bears throughout the Northern Rockies states.

IV. Wildlife in parks

Policy in todays parks still reflects the initial mentality of the earlier conservationists. Game managers role is to produce a shootable surplus which is removed by recreational hunters. Implicit is hunters are good, as they simply replace the natural predators which no longer exist ( bad wolves which once threatened humans are gone). This system has a long history, over 300 years of benign control.

1. Earliest laws came under guise of control of hunting: we must control the season, sex, age of hunted animals to help regulate thief numbers. But are these rules truly helping or hindering the hunted population? Why kill bucks, not females if really want to control pop number?

2. Predators: if we kill predators then there will be more for us to shoot - we are just substituting for them philosophy;

Predators are selective agents, kill sick & young not the best

Allow prey to over expand --> end up destroying habitat; then kill them off

3. Land reservation: long battle going back to late 1800's -- should land be preserved ( which allows hunting) or be a refuge ( no hunting and in some newer legislation, minimal human activity.

Refuge is difficult to maintain, especially where once hunted and people claim rights to hunt.

4. Game stocking:

a. release of game species back into 'back into wilds' - problem is overstocking areas which normally supports less density just ends up destroying habitat or population

b. release of exotic species, such as wild boar, has created damage to natural ecosystems.

V. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Conservation Corridors

Potential Advantages of Corridors


1. Increase immigration rate to a reserve, which could

a. increase or maintain species richness and diversity (as predicted by island biogeography theory);

b. increase population sizes of particular species and decrease probability of extinction (provide a "rescue effect") or permit reestablishment of extinct local populations;

c. prevent inbreeding depression and maintain genetic variation within populations.

2. Provide increased foraging area for wide-ranging species.

3. Provides predator-escape cover for movements between patches.

4. Provide a mix of habitats and successional stages accessible to species that require a variety of habitats for different activities or stages of their life cycles.

5. Provide alternative refugia from large disturbances (a "fire escape").

6. Provide "greenhouse" to limit urban sprawl, abate pollution, provide recreational opportunities, and enhance scenery and land values.

.
Potential Disadvantages of Corridors ,


1. Increase immigration rate to a reserve, which could

a. facilitate the spread of epidemic diseases, insect pests, exotic species, weeds, and other undesirable species into reserves and across the landscape; b. decrease the level of genetic variation among population or subpopulations, or disrupt local adaptations and coadapted gene complexes ("outbreeding depression").

2. Facilitate spread of fire and other abiotic disturbances ("contagious catastrophes").

3. Increase exposure of wildlife to hunters, poachers, and other predators.

4. Riparian strips, often recommended as corridor sites, might not enhance dispersal or survival of upland Species.

5. Cost, and conflicts with conventional land preservation strategy to preserve endangered species habitat (when inherent quality of corridor habitat is low).