After stealing some time to read the Fall 2009 issue of ‘Endangered Earth’  (newsletter from the Center for Biological Diversity) that I received earlier this week, I figuratively walked away knowing that the current state of wildlife management will be unable to cope with near-future extinction trends.  And it was the following USGS graph contained within the newsletter that I found quite worrisome.  Plus, it also gives me yet another opportunity to share a favorite quote that I tucked away from my Fish and Wildlife Conservation professor…and with a booming population this statement is unbelievably relevant:

“In other words, to successfully conserve natural resources, you must be a biologist, psychologist, anthropologist, sociologist, economist, and a philosopher all at once.” (Matthew Mahrt, Oregon State University)

Thus, I thought I’d let the graph speak for itself and encourage some reader participation.  Any thoughts?  Can we reverse the trend?

I admit I wasn’t ready for the beginning of the week, so while I get my next post together I thought I pass along a few signs I came across during my journey on Maui…a few simple reminders to protect endangered species.

Literally since the dawn of man, the quest for survival has resulted in the need for wildlife management and conservation.  As man and man’s habits (nomadic, sedentary) evolved, so too did wildlife management and conservation techniques; taking us from a point of pure anthropocentricity to a place where the health of the system is directly related to the health of our own species…all species.

Stan Rowe (1918-2004), Professor Emeritus at the University of Saskatchewan and lifelong ecologist, presented a fairly radical view of the world that may well differ from wildlife management officials, but makes scientific sense to me and perhaps for you as well.  The basis of his contention is that the world has established an organizational hierarchy based on complexity: cells contained in tissues, tissues contained in organs, organs contained in organisms, and organisms contained in ecosystems.

Earth before organisms. Ecosystems before people. Ecosphere not biosphere. Ecocentrism not biocentrism. Ecodiversity not biodiversity.
-The Trumpeter (2001), From Shallow To Deep Ecological Philosophy, Stan Rowe

Expanding on Rowe’s organizational hierarchy, I believe this truly is the way to view the Earth system.  For instance, I can grow a single cell in a tissue culture plate that requires a set of minimum conditions to ensure survival.  However, these minimum conditions are not going to make “happy” cells. By adjusting media concentrations, incubating at optimal temperature, adjusting the carbon dioxide levels, and other biotic and abiotic factors, etc., that single cell will not just survive but thrive, which is what I believe to be the ultimate goal of wildlife conservation. We need to understand not only what the minimal conditions are, but we need to know what the optimal conditions are on a hierarchal basis. That is the only way to ensure true ecosystem sustainability.

I am a firm follower of the need to preserve the health of the entire system as a means to manage and conserve individual species (i.e. salmon) and resources (i.e. water quality). Plus, I am also quite partial to conserving resources simply on the basis of aesthetics.  Thus, you could say I adhere to the ecocentric view.  However, the pragmatist in me realizes that not all individuals that constitute our global society feel the same way and many actually, and some quite adamantly, attest to the fact that nature is a resource to serve mankind.  To these segments we must use key words like value, money, and cost-benefit to ensure conservation and sustainable management practices are instituted.

To that end, fisheries and wildlife conservation is even more complex than many people believe. So I’ll leave you with a quote in the realm of deep ecology and one that sums up the sheer complexity of this issue is: “In other words, to successfully conserve natural resources, you must be a biologist, psychologist, anthropologist, sociologist, economist, and a philosopher all at once.”

On an existential side note, cannot all human action, including conservation and management practices, be reduced to an anthropocentric view?  Especially since we must come to realize that human actions and environmental modifications can and will result in negative responses unto ourselves.

What do we do with these eggs?  And this debated question has nothing to do with which came first but is a topic that has been breaking the surf in sea turtle conservation circles.  Sea turtlers world-wide have been pondering three possible scenarios for the fate of sea turtle eggs that have been deposited in nests doomed for failure.  Whether the nest is vulnerable to tidal inundation or susceptible to erosion, conservation efforts have traditionally included the relocation of eggs in these unsuccessful nests to sites that will triumph.  The contention with the traditional relocation approach is a potential meddling of sea turtle gene pools through enabling the survival of hatchlings that would actually have succumbed to Darwin’s survival of the fittest.  If nest selection is a heritable trait, then females who select the best sites are crucial for the continued survival of the species and are responsible for their past success.  Simply stated, through relocation, humans are imposing artificial selection.

1.  Let nature take its course and do not relocate vulnerable eggs

2.   Relocate eggs and increase dwindling sea turtle population numbers (and potentially accept a changing gene pool)

3.  Commercialize/sell the doomed eggs and use profits for conservation efforts

Although more research is definitely needed, those opposing any type of commercialization received a boost to their argument in a new publication Nest-Site Selection in Individual Loggerhead Turtles and Consequences for Doomed-Egg Relocation.

According to findings, nest site selection is a product of experience rather than genetics. What is most interesting is that there appears to be variability in nest selection, which actually bodes well for long-term survival as the turtles do not necessarily return to the exact same beach but those in a general area.  Differences in erosion potential, predation, and profile between beaches enable increased nesting success since females exhibit variable nest-site selection strategies.  Thus, a strategy that works on one may not work on the next beach and hence speaks volumes towards the evolutionary accomplishment of marine turtles.

The authors conclude, “Because concerns over distortion of the gene pool have been a major impetus for proposing the commercialization of doomed eggs indicate that such commercialization cannot be justified on this biological basis for at least some, and perhaps most, sea turtle populations. (Pfaller, et al.)”

The argument does beg the question, “W hat harm will come from selling doomed sea turtle eggs?”  I’m sure it is not just me, but something  does seem inherently wrong with trafficking in threatened and endangered species products.    Firstly, can regulations alone ensure doomed eggs are the only ones that will enter the market?  Poaching is already a huge problem with sea turtle eggs and many other commercially viable species.  Ensuring that local markets are only providing legally harvested eggs is a daunting management task. 

Secondly, a determination must be made as to which nests are indeed doomed and available for harvesting.  Some nests will definitely fit a doomed profile, but there is not 100% accuracy in deciding which category a nest should fall…err on the side of caution I suppose.  Thirdly, there is the ecologically benefit the doomed eggs provide.  Plants, animals, scavengers, etc. rely on the nutrient value of these eggs for survival. 

Of course this is only a small piece of the sea turtle puzzle as under optimal circumstances a hands-off approach is always the best course of action.  Populations are able to cope with naturally occurring forms of loss such as predation and water inundation, but as habitats decline, human encroachment increases, greed rises, and communities struggle with survival the turtles find themselves on the losing end.

Who you gonna call? Raccoons! Well, that’s what a new study in Biological Conservation is suggesting in regards to threatened loggerhead turtles. Conservation plans typically call for raccoon management tactics as they are notorious sea turtle egg harvesters. At face value it makes sense to control sea turtle egg predation by keeping such nest raiders at bay, but researchers have actually found that lower instances of nest predation occur in areas where there are more raccoons.

It turns out that raccoons have a taste for ghost crabs in addition to turtle eggs, and by removing them from the ecosystem the natural balance of the food web is upset. A low population of raccoons leads to an increased population of ghost crabs, which ultimately results in higher turtle egg predation.

Besides the obvious point that over time nature has established a functioning system reliant upon biodiversity, it also attests to the notion that if the food web changes at a faster rate than the population, then the population may not be able to recover (i.e. extinction); effectively upsetting the sustainability of the lower systems that depend upon the more complex systems for survival. In this case raccoons, ghost crabs and sea turtles are important in each other’s continued existence. There is a cause and effect that flows both ways and the effects may or may not be seen immediately.

By rapidly altering the ecosystem and increasing the state/structural change faster than that at the population level, wildlife within the system are unable to cope. In order to have a long-term management plan for sea turtles, officials must work to ensure that the ecosystem remains intact and functional. Thus, short-term actions aimed at population recovery must be supported by ecosystem preservation plans that ensure support of the entire community, which by the way includes all the species that comprise the loggerhead’s food web.

Wildlife management is a very intricate concept or process that is easily stated in the phrase “Protection of the ecosystem”, but is extremely difficult to implement when the complexities of wildlife populations, food webs, habitats, human presence, and politics are involved.