What troubles me most about focus on species alone is that it relegates the rest of the system as unimportant to the body politic, validating ignorance as an acceptable state of mind with respect to the phenomenon of life and our part in it. On the other hand, if it weren't for the "cuddle factor" as a driver of conscience, ecosystems might be ignored altogether in favor of the illusion of a civilization separate from Nature. At my gut level, I dislike zoos, for example, but risked and endured ostracism, loss of income, and invective when I vigorously campaigned for shifting the declining population of California condors into a species recovery program. My point is that what I would like is not necessarily what is the best course of action at any given juncture of time and circumstance. In the California condor example, I initially was outraged by the death of a condor chick being checked by biologists in the field. I contacted a friend who was a specialist. He interrupted my righteous rant with an explanation of what was really going on at the time, and I made a 180-degree turn. My point is that "being right" and other ego-trip thinking and ranting is unimportant. What is important is kicking these issues around, going with best judgment, changing course according to the circumstances, and getting on with affecting the trends toward life and away from its degradation. As Wendell Berry once put it, ". . . to increase the possibility of life on earth, rather than to diminish it." How it all sorts out is, after all, Nature's way, eh?
WT At 01:56 PM 3/23/2007, stan moore wrote: >I am not sure that I agree that species' protections under ESA are >inadequate levels for conservation focus. One simple reason can be >explained briefly, perhaps, by noting that various species are recognized >with regard to their relationships to other species and to habitats by terms >such as "indicator species", "umbrella species", "keystone species", etc. >The sage grouse has been described in the literature as an umbrella species, >which means that management for sage grouse restoration can bring >simultaneous benefit to other species in the same biome, some of which are >obligates of sagebrush habitats and sage steppe. The peregrine falcon was >called an indicator species because its status and decline could provide >useful indication of health of the overall environment. The black-tailed >prairie dog (still not listed under ESA) has been called a keystone species >because its lifestyle and natural history attributes provide critical living >parameters for other species, including listed species such as the >black-footed ferret. > >Obviously, there are limits to what protection/management for one species >can do in the grand scheme of things, even in local situations. The needs >of one endangered species can actually contradict those of a different >endangered species in the same landscape, such as for birds that flourish in >disturbed and heavily grazed habitat versus those which require more cover. > >At the same time, we need to be formally focused on the simultaneous >recovery of all listed species in our management plans, not doing management >piecemeal. I also think that conservation research would do best to focus >on multiple listed speies simultaneously within a given landscape or >management area, such as one terrestrial species, one aquatic species, one >avian species, and one vegetative species within a given management area. >This would allow for a more in-depth and complex evaluation of landscape >health than focusing on one species only in a given management or research >location. > >I have no problem with groups such as the Center for the Advancement of a >Steady-State Economy focusing on ecological economics related to economic >growth as a component to environmental health. But at some point, where >"the rubber meets the road", we need to determine what the level should be >of a national economy so as to foster sustainability, and not to only look >at the trajectory of the economy. I continue to suggest that a good and >proper way to evaluate the size of a sustainable national economy would be >to evaluate on an empirical basis what size of a national economy could >allow for simultaneous recovery of all listed species. When we identify the >size of an economy that can allow such a recovery and ultimate >sustainability of biodiversity, then we will likely have determined the size >of an economy that is ecologically sustainable for the long term for human >society within the national ecology of any nation on the planet. > > >Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >_________________________________________________________________ >It's tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips >http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMMartagline
