Ecolog:
With respect to Conover's and Aney's responses (and influenced by my recent
communication with another retired ecologist, whom I'm blind-copying), I'm
going to jump off the bridge and suggest that diversity is proportional to
heterogeneity. I invite criticism and evidence or speculation to the
contrary (or in confirmation), as well as discussion about measures of
diversity and their utility and relevance to the real phenomenon we call
ecology (as opposed to its study).
WT
For the sake of full disclosure, here is the text of my off-list response to
Jonathan Brown:
[[Jonathan:
[[You've got a good subject and good questions. However, there's a lot more
to
"the" answers than you might expect. Your research will no doubt provide an
important public service, but it will help science too. For example, many
scientists, scholars, and practitioners may not have a good grip on the
number, extent, and diversity of wilderness areas, or their history. I hope
your work will reveal how this whole area can open up new and untold stories
as well as reveal the politics of the whole process and what is and is not
being done scientifically. Any of these, of course, can constitute stories
in of themselves.
[[There is a lot of propaganda on many sides of this issue; often it can be
identified by what I call the "Shrill Index" (sorry, it's not my fault that
it rhymes with "shill"). And, "follow the money" is always useful, yet
difficult to tease out. One of the richest areas within this subject lies in
the lies about wildland fire--that's sure to heat things up, and drive the
sides to firmly dig in their heels along traditional lines of bias, making a
casualty of the reasonable middle. There's a whole herd of elephants in that
room.
There's so much more . . . you'll be inundated. You'll have thousands of
tigers by the tail, but it should be fun--if you survive.
WT]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross R. Conover" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Media Inquiry: Wilderness
In concert with Warren's response, I would speculate that as the
wilderness designation tends to protect large areas with a range of
biological productivity, they are unique in their high *gamma* diversity.
Ross Conover
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Warren W. Aney <[email protected]> wrote:
As a field ecologist, my observations are not entirely scientific or
empirical but I hope they are objective. First, a Wilderness designation
does not generally prevent mining since the Federal Mining Act of 1872
precedes and supersedes the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Second, designated Wilderness Areas vary so much ecologically it is
difficult to generalize about conditions of air, water, and biota.
Generally, however, it has been my observation that designated Wilderness
Areas tend to have these qualities in comparison to adjacent
non-wilderness
lands:
1. Wilderness tends to be structurally and biologically more diverse and
resilient.
2. Wilderness source streams and lakes tend to be cleaner in terms of
pathogens, pollutants and silt (but grazing is still allowed in
wilderness
areas, so don't drink downstream from the sheep herd -- and even high
altitude wilderness streams may contain giardia).
3. The greatest risks to headwaters are from soil disturbance due to road
construction and mining, steep slope soil movement due to tree removal,
chemical-laden seepages and runoff from mined areas, over-grazing, and
riparian area disturbances. Except for mining and grazing, these
activities
do not occur in designated Wilderness Areas.
4. Certain species assemblages are much more likely to exist and be
productive in designated Wilderness Areas or in areas with wilderness
conditions, e.g., wolverine, fisher, lynx, brown and grizzly bears,
Capercaillie, Northern Spotted Owl and some of its prey species, bull
trout.
5. Several species are less likely to conflict with humans and human
enterprises when they inhabit large, contiguous wilderness areas, e.g.,
cougar, grizzly bear, wolves.
Hope this helps a little, and I'm sure others on this list will provide
more
specific information.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
9403 SW 74th Ave
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 539-1009
(503) 246-2605 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Brown
Sent: Thursday, 28 April, 2011 14:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Media Inquiry: Wilderness
Hello-
My name is Jonathan Brown. I'm a reporter with Colorado Public Radio and
I'm
working on a story about federal designations of wilderness.
I'm trying to get a scientific/empirical response to this question:
"What do federal wilderness designations do?"
We already know they prevent road building, construction of any kind,
motorized
use, drilling, mining, timber harvesting and humans can only visit, not
remain.
But what - if anything - is the result of all this? Are the air and
water
cleaner? Fauna and flora healthier somehow? Do wilderness areas protect
headwaters, as many proponents claim?
Again, I'm looking for an empirical response to these questions and I'm
hoping
someone out there can provide substantive answers.
Thank you-
Jonathan Brown
Colorado Public Radio
(303) 871-9191 x 456
[email protected]
--
Ross R. Conover
"In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but
by
what we refuse to destroy" --John Sawhill
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3604 - Release Date: 04/29/11
