I guess I really don’t need an excuse to throw out a favorite passage of mine from the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Heck, our Government plainly states a reason to conserve wildlife in peril and recognizes the varied and vital roles these species play in maintaining the health of our Nation’s ecosystems.  But there was and is something conspicuously absent from that 1973 landmark document.

“The Congress finds and declares that various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people…”

Prior to becoming an endangered or threatened species, many of those listed under the ESA had a degree of commonality about them.  Perhaps they were species routinely observed or occurred in such vast numbers that who would have guessed such a “common species” could be disappearing from our National landscapes (i.e. Chinook salmon). So what is conspicuously absent from protection…those “common” species we take for granted, those species who currently have healthy populations, and those plants and animals just as vulnerable to overharvesting and habitat loss as the ones who currently populate the list of endangered and threatened species.

“Right now, there are few incentives for public land managers to focus on and maintain ecologically healthy wild animal populations … to keep the lifeblood of wild places flowing. As a result, we often learn that a population or an entire ecosystem is in trouble after the damage is done because we haven’t been monitoring and protecting wildlife.”

Amy Vedder, Executive VP of Conservation for The Wilderness Society

Recognizing that a need exists to ensure today’s common species continue to benefit from healthy populations, a new piece of legislation has been introduced to Congress.  America’s Wildlife Heritage Act is nothing less than a Species Act designed to monitor species, “maintain sustainable populations of native species and desired non-native species, and reintroduce extirpated species when a species population is no longer present.”

According to the America’s Wildlife Heritage Act:

Fish and wildlife are fundamental parts of America’s history and character, and fish and wildlife conservation is a core value shared by all Americans. All future generations deserve the opportunity to benefit from and enjoy a diverse array of fish and wildlife species.

The American landscape is rapidly changing, particularly in the Western United States where the majority of the Federal public lands are found, increasing the importance of sustaining fish and wildlife and their habitats on our public lands.

Federal public lands are critical to the future of fish, plant, and wildlife species in America. Federal public lands help to protect endangered and threatened species from going extinct and help prevent species from becoming endangered in the first place. These lands complement the conservation of fish, plants, and wildlife on private lands by providing comparatively intact tracts of land that serve as refuges from human development and other pressures. Federal public lands also help keep common species common, including species valued for hunting and fishing.

Please contact your congressional representatives (http://house.gov) and encourage them to sign on as co-sponsors of this important bill.

For additional information visit The Wildereness Society: http://wilderness.org/content/wonder-it-all

 Added a new video that I dug up at the California Department of Water Resources. The video and excerpt was originally published at Thriving Oceans and showcases the new technique for saving salmon in the delta. 

“Preliminary results show that an experimental, non-physical fish barrier is working to help keep young Chinook salmon and steelhead in a more direct path to the ocean and away from agricultural diversion and the state and federal pumping plants. The bubble curtain barrier project combines acoustics and a strobe-lit sheet of bubbles to create an underwater wall of light and sound at frequencies that repel juvenile Chinook salmon.”

Check out the video…

Fish exhibit quite a number of learned behaviors that can relate to foraging, recognizing predators, pain, and social organizations.  All of these are important for the survival of the individual as well as the species itself.  Even everyday human-fish interactions can divulge learned behaviors such as feedings.  The fish in both my aquariums swim to the top right-hand front corner of the tank when I enter the room and approach them.  That is because I typically feed them from the right corner and they associate me and the location with food.  Also, reef fish in popular tourist destinations can be quick to approach snorkelers/divers as many tend to feed them.  This type of learning/classical conditioning (i.e. Pavlov’s dog) has also been observed in minnows that recognize other fish as dangerous. 

There was a very interesting 2004 article in Current Biology in which the researchers examined the methods by which fish, specifically zebrafish, choose their companions when forming shoals.  By genetically selecting the coloration of the fish (blue, gold, or no stripes), they were able to form tank specific populations to determine if preferences were genetic or environmental.  Fish were sorted prior to hatching and raised in tanks that contained all of one color type, or in tanks with the opposite color type.  After the onset of adult coloration, the researchers then allowed the fish to choose the group they wanted to associate with by placing individuals in tanks subdivided into three sections.  The middle section contained the test individual and the sides each contained a certain group made of all one color type. They found that the fish greatly preferred which ever color pattern they had been raised with, irrespective of their own color.

The researchers continued to conclude that this learned social behavior could have a great impact on survival and reproduction of the individual fish.

Reference: Raymond E. Engeszer, Michael J. Ryan, and David M. Parichy. 2004. “Learned Social Preference in Zebrafish”, Current Biology. 14: 881-884.

I can’t believe there’s already a follow up to the last two weeks (Spotlight: Migratory birds; Do you hear what they hear?), but the latest SCB publication provided a unique view on sound and light pollution that I just couldn’t pass.

An evolutionary development to maximize reproductive success has led many reef species to synchronize spawning during certain periods or even a single night of the year. These cues often include cycles of the moon and tides, which signal the perfect opportunity to produce the next generation of fish and invertebrates.

Unfortunately, these celestial indicators are being usurped by artificial lighting around the world. In a new study, A global inventory of coral reef stressors based on satellite observed nighttime lights, researchers have found that spawning and migrating behaviors of reef inhabitants are accidentally triggered by coastal city lights, offshore gas and oil platforms, and fishing boats with high intensity lights. Now, with the flick of a switch we are altering critical lifecycle events that had once been dependent upon light intensity from the sun and moon and were optimized over many eras. Additionally, we are not just affecting highly publicized species such as sea turtles and migratory birds, but an entire ecosystem collectively known as the rainforest of the sea.

And what about sound you ask?  Well to compound the mounting problem of manmade sounds spreading across our oceans from shipping and offshore drilling activities is ocean acidity (Do you hear what they hear?).  Essentially the more carbon dioxide we generate, the more carbon dioxide that is absorbed and dissolved in our oceans. Thus, ocean water becomes more acidic. In 2008, the Geophysical Research Letters published a paper that indicates acidic oceans can amplify underwater sounds and allow them to travel 70% further and hence interfere with the natural acoustics of marine life.

Day or night, when I walk outside it is not nature I hear, but an ever expanding urban environment filled with the sounds of traffic. It is no wonder that researchers are documenting a shift in the way wildlife communicate. Birds are changing their songs, adopting human noises, increasing the volume of vocalization, switching from daytime to nighttime singing, and choosing new frequencies to cope with a humanized planet.  Additionally, some species have abandoned habitats heavily polluted by manmade noise in favor of lower productive areas that are simply quieter.

In a loud environment populated with low frequency noise (i.e. traffic), animals are being forced to choose between three doors: Adapt, migrate, or die. Personally, this scenario is not one that I had expected to be encountered based on mere sounds. But when a species that uses low frequency is unable to switch to a higher one, there is little option for them, especially in a time when open spaces are difficult to come by.

When I step outside at night I see a pseudo-day as street lights block the stars and I hear the hum of traffic that masks the crickets and frogs. And then I long for solitude…

What do you hear and see at night?

The classic battle being fought around the country between Big Box Stores and Mom & Pop Shops has transcended our coastlines and sailed into the global fisheries industry. Whether we have a predisposition for supporting underdogs, or strive to preserve tradition, we seem to harbor a connection to small local businesses and feel dismayed by their impending decline.

Unfortunately cheap prices and a wide variety ultimately sway consumers with misplaced priorities towards corporate giants… which in our oceans translate to overfishing, unprecedented bycatch, and environmental impacts. Instead of stepping aside as large-scale fisheries continue to dominate the waters, perhaps a trend reversal is in order. Could phasing out “Big Box” fisheries be a solution that ultimately reduces global bycatch, capitol costs and fuel consumption while simultaneously increasing social benefits such as jobs?

According to Dr. Pauly, “Indeed, I argue that the best path toward sustainable fisheries worldwide would be to phase out industrial fisheries in favor of artisanal fisheries, which have a much better track record of sustainability (Conservation Magazine: July-September 2007. Vol. 8, No. 3).”

The recent discovery of endangered coho salmon in California’s Garcia River watershed is a testament to the importance of preserving and restoring habitat. The twice clear-cut Garcia River Forest resulted in the diminishment of its coho population to a mere 1 percent of historical numbers. I guess we should not be surprised that responsible land and resource management is essential for sustaining wildlife populations and rehabilitating endangered species.

However, this “revelation” does not seem to resonate when politics and monetary streams are involved. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy declared in 2004, “Of our nation’s 259 major fish stocks—representing 99 percent of total commercial landings—roughly 25 percent are either already overfished or experiencing overfishing.” Yet, before leaving office the Bush Administration is working to deregulate certain fisheries management decisions and put power in the hands of the same commercial operations responsible for the current state of our fish stocks.

Thus, the inherent problem of this whole situation is cost-benefit analysis. Using salmon as an example, I believe we are not asking the right questions: What mode of action provides the best odds of salmon recovery (as opposed to the notion of what is the minimum we need to do to just slide by), ensures salmon restoration, or is it simply a need to ask what is the morally right thing to do?

In the context of environmental law, cost-benefit analysis tries to breakdown both the positives and negatives of regulatory alternatives to a dollar figure. Thus, there becomes a need to quantify the monetary value of human life, endangered species, aesthetics, and habitats. Generally speaking, the positives and negatives are calculated by what people are willing to pay to either prevent or retrieve an outcome. With this in mind, the regulators and legislators must choose a point at which to end; the point at which the benefits of pursuing salmon recovery are not worth the achievable costs. Estimating the costs for salmon recovery when it comes to removing dams, loss of hydroelectric power, or even other technologies like salmon ladders/passages can easily be measured. And hence we are often provided a cost of salmon restoration that is in the billions of dollars. However, it is when benefits, such as environmental health, habitat protection, species conservation and natural resource sustainability, need to be monetized that things are not quite as easily discernable.

In an effort to wrap this up, Environmental Law and Policy provides the following reasons why cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection fails:

• The standard economic approaches to valuation are inaccurate and implausible- The establishment of artificial (estimated) prices for the prevention of endangered species, protecting a habitat, or saving a human life are not based on precise calculations, but rather done through a variety of indirect techniques that result in the loss of accuracy and common sense.

• The value-laden and complex cost-benefit process is neither objective nor transparent- It is less likely to deliver objectivity because, as opposed to theory, it actually introduces opinions and judgment calls often influenced by personal beliefs and partisanship.