Consider fisheries as a good example of overlap between conservation and gardening: Fish farms are 100% gardening. Rearing fish to adult size in hatcheries so as to provide catchable trout is almost 100% gardening. Using fish hatcheries to provide releasable smolts so as to maintain harvestable runs of salmon is still principally gardening. Using fish hatcheries to re-establish self-maintaining wild populations is partially gardening and partially conservation. Less gardening and more conservation occurs when wild fish are trapped and relocated to re-establish self-maintaining populations. Habitat restoration and fish harvest restriction is partially gardening but mostly conservation. Managing and maintaining a self-sustaining population through habitat protection and harvest controls is conservation.
The pros for gardening in the above cases? Plenty of fish for the market and the creel; the fish on your table costs less. Cons? Pollution, disease spread, genetic contamination, competition with conservation efforts. The pros for conservation? Self-sustaining, balanced and healthy aquatic systems that are more stable over time and less expensive to manage. Cons? Fewer fish for the market and the creel; the fish on your table costs more (but can be of higher quality); potentially less funding for conservation because of reduced fishing license and fee collections. I think we're in the process of transitioning to fisheries based on more conservation and less gardening, at least here in the Pacific Northwest. Our markets feature wild-caught salmon coming mostly from self-sustaining Alaska fisheries (although some are also coming from hatchery supported Pacific coast fisheries). Trout anglers are becoming more satisfied with catch and release fisheries and salmon anglers have to release wild-stock fish in many fisheries. But this transitioning must occur more internationally and can probably only occur if we recognize and adjust to limits of growth and consumption. That is probably the looming cloud that could make the gardening vs. conservation discussion futile. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landr...@cox.net] Sent: Friday, 28 January, 2011 20:14 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Ecolog: In many ways, I like Warren's comment better than mine; it's certainly more concise. I'd like to hear more about the overlap, especially with regard to its pros and cons, with tradeoffs, and transitions toward transformations--especially culturally. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren W. Aney" <a...@coho.net> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? > I've weighed in on this before, but this time let me present what may be > an > oversimplification -- to me the defining difference between gardening and > conservation is based on intent: > The intent of conservation is to maintain or attain ecosystem complexity > through management protection, enhancement and/or restoration to achieve > naturally maintained ecocentric stability, diversity and productivity. > The intent of gardening is to simplify ecosystems through intensive and > continuous management to achieve human-maintained anthropocentric output > and/or attractiveness. > And yes, they can and do overlap sometimes. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, Oregon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Thursday, 27 January, 2011 17:54 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? Re: [ECOLOG-L] > ECOLOG-L > Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 (#2011-23) > > Each decision about species or habitat intervention is (or should be) > context driven. Generalizations don't hack it in science, and it's high > time > > journalists gave them up in the "popular" press. Over 4,000 words of > "provocative" prose is more than naive in this Age of the Twit, though, > and > if the authors are serious about investigating the details of this very > serious subject, they should engage, not instruct. Forums like Ecolog > could, > > if respondents would stick to the question and the responses to it, make a > real contribution to sorting out the facts from the weedy patches of > opining. > > I, and I presume Jason, continue to await an answer to the original > question. > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "austin ritter" <austin.rit...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 > (#2011-23) > > >>A week or so ago Jason asked: "Are there any recognized criteria for >> determining the boundary between >> conservation and gardening?" >> >> This article from High Country News seem extremely relevant: >> http://www.hcn.org/issues/363/17481. The artical is call *Unnatural >> preservations* and the thesis is: "In the age of global warming, >> public-land >> managers face a stark choice: They can let national parks and other >> wildlands lose their most cherished wildlife. Or they can become >> gardeners >> and zookeepers." Its a provocative read no matter what you conservation >> goal >> is. >> >> -Austin Ritter >> Middlebury College >> >> >> >> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:52:57 -0800 >> From: Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> >> Subject: Re: Conservation or just gardening? >> >> Jason, >> >> You have asked such good questions that, even though you have received a >> plethora of very thoughtful responses, I'm going to take another crack at >> being more directly responsive and insert some additional thoughts into >> your >> text in an attempt to keep myself from wandering off the subject. I'll >> put >> my responses into double-brackets with my initials [[like this WT]] to >> minimize confusion in case others may wish to add their own comments or >> correct mine. At some point, I hope you will write a summary statement to >> give us your own answers once you have thought about the questions again. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jason Hernandez" <jason.hernande...@yahoo.com> >> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:08 PM >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? >> >> >> This question is inspired by a conversation with a former employer. When >> do >> our interventions cease to be conservation and become gardening? >> >> [[I, and perhaps others, may have jumped to conclusions about what you >> mean >> by "conservation" and "gardening." I'd be interested in your own >> definitions >> of the terms in the sense of your original intent. WT]] >> >> For the sake of argument, I was taking the purist position: that ideally, >> we >> want to be able to put a fence around a natural area and walk away, >> letting >> nature manage it. >> >> [[Again, I think we should consider just what you mean by "purist" and >> "fence" and "letting nature manage it." WT]] >> >> But as my employer rightly pointed out, that is just not a realistic >> expectation in the 21st century, what with invasive species, systemic >> pollution, human pressures on surrounding areas, and countless other >> factors >> which will not go away. But of course, she also knew that there is a >> degree >> of intervention which crosses the line from conservation to gardening, >> that >> is, caring for a population that no longer participates in its ecosystem >> processes. >> >> [[And, of course, I/we might have had some difficulty interpreting the >> context of "intervention" and where "the line" is. WT]] >> >> There is, of course, a continuum of interventions. >> >> [[This may be a crucial point that requires more attention. WT]] >> >> Removal of invasive competitors is a relatively light intervention; >> growing >> seedlings in a greenhouse and then planting them out is more intensive; >> maintaining an in vitro germplasm collection still more intensive. >> >> [[This is a key statement, not so much a question, but its implications >> may >> be worth far deeper attention than what first meets the mind. For >> example, >> your statement brings to mind the intervention that produced the >> "invasive >> competitors" in the first place. Some (e.g., Ewell, 1987) have suggested >> that resistance to invasion is one of the tests of ecosystem restoration >> and >> ecological theory, so the first "intervention" to consider might be the >> event or series of events that caused the "invasive competitors" in the >> first place (or the uncounted or uncountable "places"). >> >> [[To keep from spinning on the tip of this point where angels fear to >> dance, >> let's say, for example that the "pristine" conditions was first "invaded" >> by >> a cow brought into, say, California by an invading Spaniard and turned >> loose >> in an ecosystem that had not evolved under such a critter. The ecosystem >> did >> not evolve under the influence of her shuffling gait, her style of >> grazing, >> her fecal matter, the Mediterranean diet of oats and associated weed >> contaminants therein, and perhaps the strains of bacteria, ad infinitum, >> that were included as unprecedented change-agents in this particular >> ecosystem. Oats and their fellow-travelers almost immediately reared >> their >> ugly heads and began populating the hoof-ploughed ground, >> opportunistically >> spreading and multiplying where conditions where right for their >> germination, growth, survival, reproduction, and distribution. >> >> [[Fast-forward a couple of centuries or so, and the ripple effects of >> that >> initial invasion have grown in number, diversity, and extent such that >> colorful names like "rip-gut brome" and "cheat-grass" have come to be >> accepted as "part" of "the" ecosystem, so numerous and widespread they >> have >> become. The "removal" of these "invasive competitors" has come to be >> considered impossible, yet a select few of their fellow-travelers have >> been >> targeted for "removal." "Bioxenophobia" has become big business, helping >> to >> inflate the profits of Big Chem and countless lesser players, and >> promises >> of cures to these "competitors'" influences continue to ring grant cash >> registers across the land, under the assumption that an infinity of >> studies >> and "removals" will someday remove the menace. Studies of ecosystem >> recoveries, some spontaneous, some stimulated by well-calculated further >> interventions, do not get much, if any, funding. Advances and declines >> over >> time of "weed" populations do not get much attention, and the cows are >> still >> a-lowin' on the mountain-side. WT]] >> >> Are there any recognized criteria for determining the boundary between >> conservation and gardening? >> >> [[Excuse me if I've missed it--and please point it out--but I don't think >> anyone really answered this one very directly; I certainly didn't do an >> adequate job. But certainly it is the responsibility of ecologists to >> confront that issue directly and unequivocally define that boundary. To >> me, >> gardening is cultivating--replacing a self-sufficient ecosystem with a >> dependent assemblage of organisms of our choice, not accepting the >> organisms >> whose requirements match the uncultivated habitat. I hope others can >> replace >> or revise it with something better. WT]] >> >> And if a species is beyond saving with conservation, how worthwhile is it >> to >> save that species with gardening? Can we determine when a species' only >> hope >> is gardening? >> >> [[Instead of trying to answer this question directly, simply, >> theoretically, >> I just went off on one of my favorite rant-- about the California >> condor--I >> apologize. I think you have defined it pretty well, Jason; I would only >> add >> that "we" need more science and less guesswork--and certainly less >> politics--so that we can start "gardening" well ahead of the precipice, >> as >> when the breeding population is so low and the wild population is in >> steep, >> continuous decline. And as was so well pointed out by McCallum, since the >> cost of preventing extinction pales against the cost of causing it, doing >> so >> should be (totally, dude) a no-brainer. Ecologists just have to work >> harder >> and harder and never, never give up in providing evidence and persuasion >> so >> that more and more people embrace that no-brainer. WT]] >> >> Jason Hernandez >> Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service >> >> >> Ewel, J. J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. >> pp. >> 31-33 in: W. R.Jordan, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber (eds.). Restoration >> Ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge >> University >> Press, Cambridge. >> >> >> -- >> Austin Ritter >> Middlebury College >> Cell: 410.960.0075 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11 > 07:34:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3408 - Release Date: 01/28/11 09:14:00
