Re: [ECOLOG-L] two suggestions re inundation by opinion pieces
Well, personally, my reaction to this thread is ARE YOU SERIOUS? I've been a member of this Listserv since 1996, and the recent comments by Tom Givnish and David Lawrence I found to be the most dismissive and sophomoric I've ever read here. In particular, Tom's idea of commenting being limited based on publishing success is a huge moral failure on his part. Again, personally, i use the LIstserv for EXACTLY the reason of reading rants and discourse. This is what stimulates critical thinking, regardless of validity. It's not as if (as this case in point) a questionable post DOESN'T get called out by other posters. As Malcolm mentioned, if you don't want to read posts from certain folks, FILTER IT! It's not rocket science. I've taken my valuable time to correspond with Wayne off-list before, thanking him for stirring things up. He'll admit he's not always right, and that's what we should all strive for (some of us have more work to do than others on that front). Oh but sorry; I only published two Federal Reports last year and I'm sure grey lit most certainly doesn't count…. Appalled, Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 northoutside.com Check out NORTHOUTSIDE.COM for science and adventure-related blogging, photos and more from the Upper Great Lakes! On May 28, 2013, at 11:49 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: > Several people post on here a lot, but why are they noticed. > prominent poster 1: 9 posts in May > prominent poster 2: 12 posts in May > > Yes, I actually sat down and counted. > So, if you find 12 posts over 28 days to be inundated, I suggest you > abandon email!!! > This is a listserv, there are going to be exchanges. > If you don't like it, you need to use a filter. > That is what I do. > Anyway, > Most young biologists come out of graduate school thinking that > everything works as it did at their school or in their grad program > and that all PHDs are far more intelligent and educated in most > matters than are they. It is important for them to discover even the > finest of scientists is not all-knowing, but all have opinions on what > is correct/incorrect, appropriate/inappropriate, fair/unfair, &c. > > I personally came to this while serving as an editor for three > different journals over a decade and a half. I remember receiving a > paper form a well-known ecologist and upon receiving it, opened it up > to see some of the worst writing I've ever seen. This shocked me, and > I spoke with my then PHD advisor about it. He informed me that this > was not unusual, and I have now learned that writing is something > almost everyone struggles with, so we all need to work on it. > Likewise, on listserves I am sometimes shocked at statements made by > highly accomplished widely cited ecologists who should know better, > and impressed with comments by the inexperienced or unknown. > I am very happy that ECOLOG has that verification of posts, sometimes > I look back at a post I made and realize I completely insulted someone > by miswording a comment. > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM, lmsconsulting > wrote: >> I am in full agreement with Tom. When interacting with biology students and >> graduates, i have asked if they belong to the ECOLOG list for it is a good >> venue for job postings. Most young biologists have shaken their heads and >> told me that the number of jobs posted and "real" interactions, such as >> posters needing advice on project etc, is not worth the number of emails >> they have to delete from members that appear to need to soapbox so they can >> post any random opinion of theirs would be noticed and then try to open a >> discussion over it. >> >> In my belief, we would have a larger membership if these individuals could >> contain themselves or those that want to dicuss their random opinions could >> have their own "room" or such to discuss it in. >> >> I honestly am tired of a certain few here that continually do this at the >> expense of all other members and their inboxes who may just not care what >> your opinion on everything is. >> >> Linda >> >> Original message >> From: "Thomas J. Givnish" >> Date: 05/28/2013 12:05 AM (GMT-06:00) >> To: c >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] two suggestions re inundation by opinion pieces >> >> Gentlepeople – >> >> I would like to offer two suggestions. >> >> >> First, we each restrict our commentary to topics about which we, as >> individuals, are experts. >> >> >> Second, each individual should restrict the number
[ECOLOG-L] Data Analysis; Rapid Assessment for Chryxus Arctic
Hello Friends As my subject line implies, I am seeking an individual to assist me in analyzing data gathered on host plant abundance to produce a rapid-assessment method for identifying suitable habitat for a Regional Forester Sensitive Species of butterfly. I have presence and abundance data on seven species of plants and about 20 species of Butterflies at 72 sites. I would be offering co-authorship on a manuscript that would likely be submitted to a regional journal (Upper Midwest). Most of the text is complete (as part of a submitted report) and the analyses is the only segment needing attention. Please respond off-list, and many thanks in advance! Best- Eric North
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Requesting advice on bat survey training
Hello All A friend of mine has been instrumental in initiating bat research as part of his position as a Wildlife Biologist with the Forest Service on the Washburn Ranger District of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. He has been doing surveys here for several years and is EXTREMELY knowledgeable. Well worth contacting Brian. His contact info is Brian Heeringa, bheeri...@fs.fed.us phone 715.373.2667 ext. 234 Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Check out NORTHOUTSIDE.COM for Science and Adventure-related Blogging and Photos from the Great Lakes Region! > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:48:02 -0800 > From: jmicke...@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Requesting advice on bat survey training > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > I know that their offerings tend not to be cheap, but the good folks down at > the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (National Zoo) at Front Royal: > http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/default.cfm > offer a wide range of highly respected course materials, including > terrestrial mammal conservation... here is a posting from this past year > http://www.diversitas-international.org/resources/news/training-courses-at-the-smithsonian-conservation-biology-institute > Species Monitoring & Conservation: Terrestrial MammalsApril 16-27, 2012This > course teaches current techniques in assessment and monitoring of wild mammal > populations, including bats. Participants learn principles of study design; > current field assessment methods; data analysis techniques including MARK and > DISTANCE software; application of monitoring data to decision-making and > population management; and collection and preparation of museum voucher > specimens.http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/MAB/GMU/terremammals.cfmSee also: > http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/SpeciesSurvival/VirgianiaBigEaredBats/default.cfm > Also pretty sure Conservation International still does an annual bat > conservation workshop: > http://www.batcon.org/index.php/get-involved/workshops.html > -John > John Mickelson > Geospatial and Ecological Services > 501 Stage Rd. > Monroe, NY 10950-3217 > (845) 893-4110 > john.mickel...@yahoo.com > > --- On Sun, 1/27/13, Michael S. Batcher wrote: > > From: Michael S. Batcher > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Requesting advice on bat survey training > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013, 3:15 PM > > I have been interested in learning more about methods to survey for bats, > using either or both sound or mist nets. I would appreciate any advice > anyone may have on courses or organizations that offer such training. I > don't have a particular research goal at this point - just interested in > learning something new. Thanks in advance. > > Michael S. Batcher > Buskirk, NY 12028
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions EVOLUTION Meaning and Understanding
Hi All Excuse the horribly late, out-of-context response. Often, it's hard to tell with the responses to threads wheather the accuracy/inaccuracy of a particular statement is generally agreed upon, or simply not commented upon. My feeling is almost always the latter. I didn't receive any reponses personally from anyone, so felt the need to set the record straight for any students or experts who felt the point had been made and didn't question the accuracy of the response to my post. I tried to make a point earlier in this thread related to Community Evolution; more as a potential question for the panel in question in the initial request for responses. The last reply to my thread, from Joey Smokey, was the most troubling. His retort was that "communities do not evolve" and that the "topic had been sufficiently put to rest". This came as news to me. Please let me introduce the list to Dr. Thomas Whitham. In 2011, he received the Eminent Ecologist award from the Ecological Society of America. ANY of his work in the last 15 years, including multiple publications in Nature and Science, are relevant in a discussion of Community Ecology, structure, genomics, heritablility, etc. I'll include (again) a link to his website and one reference in particular, as searches on ANY of these other authors will lead to plenty more work on the aforementioned topics. Frankly, I'm a bit concerned at the lack of response to the negative comments on my Community Evolution "suggestion". This is an enormous body of work, and is hardly "put to rest". Dr. Whitham and the NSF would be surprised to hear the news (NSF-Foundations in Biological Research grant). If films are your thing, also check out http://athousandinvisiblecords.org/about-the-film/biographies. Really cool stuff. http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/Biology/Faculty-Staff/Faculty-Pages/Whitham/ Whitham, T. G., DiFazio, S. P., Schweitzer, J. A., Shuster, S. M., Allan, G. J., Bailey, J. K., & Woolbright, S. A. (2008). Extending genomics to natural communities and ecosystems. Science, 320(5875), 492-495. Regards, Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 08:14:11 -0800 > From: landr...@cox.net > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions EVOLUTION > Meaning and Understanding > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Ecolog: > > I believe that I understand Cruzan "perfectly" well because I am able to > understand the meaning of his terminology in context.* I hope that he (and > others?) will take up the challenge of writing all this up (perhaps a > multi-authored "popular" publication?) for "public" consumption. (Of course > we still don't have any data on some pretty simple questions like "Is the > 'modern' human 'superior' to the 'primitive' human? My straw polls are not > scientific, and there're some other questions and refinements that need to be > done.) I'm thinking in terms of an "antidote" for the damage done by the 1965 > Time-Life book on human evolution and the huge pile of pseudo- and > quasi-intellectual bazz-fazz that go 'way back--at least to Spencer and > Hobbes, and beyond . . . > > What say y'all? (The worst thing would be a book written by a committee, as I > suspect the Time-Life book might have been. As I remember through the mists > of my fading memory, however, much of the book contained good information.) > > WT > > *I am reserving comment now for the sake of simplicity. > > - Original Message - > From: "Mitch Cruzan" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:29 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions > > > > Point taken, although I think that the general public and perhaps many > > scientists without much training in the principles of evolution would > > take the meaning of "progress" to be the former, with a connotation of > > "superior." My goal in jumping into this discourse was to make two points: > > > > 1. Not much as changed over the last 3 billion years - at least not in > > any fundamental way. We can infer this because by that time the three > > major lineages (Bacteria, Archeaea, and Eukarya) had emerged from the > > LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor - probably a collection of > > ancestors) the fundamental processes of heredity, gene expression, and > > metabolism had been established and have not changed much since then. > > It was upon this basic framework that the vast diversity of life was > > built. Yes, there are some basic differences among these three major > &
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
Tom; could you clarify? I would argue that communities evolve. Read anything from the Cottonwood Ecology group out of Northern Arizona University and Tom Whitam. Best-Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:45:23 + > From: thomas.w.culli...@aphis.usda.gov > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > You might want to rephrase your question #3, for it's not organisms that > evolve, but populations. > > Tom Culliney > > USDA-APHIS, PPQ > Center for Plant Health Science and Technology > Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory > 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 > Raleigh, NC 27606 U.S.A. > (919) 855-7506 > (919) 855-7595 (Fax) > thomas.w.culli...@aphis.usda.gov > > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of jason.strickland > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:38 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions > > Dear group, > > I have compiled some of the ideas that were given to me about my discussion > panel. The response was much lower than I expected so if you have any ideas, > feel free to share those as well. Thank you to all those that contributed. > > > 1. Will most organisms be capable of adapting quickly enough to respond > to climate change/sea level rise to be evolutionarily relevant? > > 2. What impact will Genetically Modified Organisms have on the ecology > and evolution of the modified species and other species? > > 3. Do organisms progress/improve/advance through evolution? > > 4. Do ecological processes/interactions last long enough to have any > meaningful impact on the evolutionary trajectory of a species? > > Please share your thoughts on these topics or suggest others. > > Cheers, > Jason Strickland > jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu > > From: jason.strickland > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:59 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions > > Dear group, > > I am currently working on forming a discussion panel that will include two > ecologists and two evolutionary biologists to discuss topics that involve > merging ecology and evolution. The discussion will be in front of 150-200 > students ranging from undergraduates to post-docs (all in biology). The panel > will happen on a Saturday morning so it needs to be an exciting discussion to > hold the audience's interest and cause them to ask questions. > > I am looking for topics/questions that the two fields do not completely agree > on. The goal is to have the panel disagree on topics to allow the students to > learn and be entertained. If anyone can suggest topics or questions that > ecologists and evolutionary biologists have different viewpoints on, they > would be greatly appreciated. I have a few topics already, but wanted to ask > a larger audience to suggest topics to determine if there are certain > topics/questions that come up frequently. Feel free to email me directly > (jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto:jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu>) > or respond to this post with your suggestions. > > Thank you in advance for your help, > > Jason Strickland > jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto:jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu> > > > > > > This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for > the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the > use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and > subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email > immediately.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
I cant help but find irony in that in one breath (read: keystroke) we cannot agree on a definition of an "invasive species" "invasion" or the like, or, seemingly, even if there is such a thing as invasive species when put into the context of evolutionary time. At the same time, there is the opinion at least being discussed here, that there are species that are so successful as to be "eradicable". eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:03:25 -0700 > From: landr...@cox.net > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or > progression? > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Ecolog and Joshua: > > Being cocksure about anything is a bad habit for anybody to cultivate, is > damnfoolish for ecologists, and verboten for scientists. Egocentrism and > science do not mix, but lo, the plethora of contradictions of this statement > that exist in the really, really unreal world of civilization. Had we been > possessed of better angels, we might have rejected the mess of culture > (cultivation--enslavement of plants and animals) at the outset and would > still be residing in Eden, laughing and loving and standing in awe of this > awesome Earth and Universe, calling our place in it, and seeing it as, good. > > We might be extinct. Maybe we are, in ecological terms. For the most part we > have become wholly dependent upon the products of culture--and these pixels > are proof of that, at least in this instance? Irony anyone? > > With respect to plants (more irony, at least in ambiguity), I am astonished, > nay, blown away, that the concept of "natives" "invading" a place where they > evolved, exists at all. I must be missing something, but I'll be damned if I > can guess what it is. > > WT > > > - Original Message - > From: "Joshua Wilson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:11 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or > progression? > > > > Good evening, > > > > First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped > > to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all > > responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. > > The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so > > thank you again. > > > > Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an > > invasive > > species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and > > insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is > > beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing > > towards a more complex and stronger state. > > > > The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species > > that > > becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem > > to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these > > instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard > > through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and > > restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its > > course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and > > self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and > > influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've > > learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to > > determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. > > Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly > > contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that > > need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we > > cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. > > > > On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen > > benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even > > with > > the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, > > invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or > > benefits). > > One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of > > stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair > > competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. > > > > I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some > > might > > like. My knowledge and experiences are limited,
[ECOLOG-L] Data Analysis Question
Esteemed Colleagues- I gathered categorical data (5 categories of total percent cover) on 6 plant species at 70 sites being surveyed for Chryxus Acrtic, a Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Northern Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. These species were selected as they were the most common species at these sites, and included the butterflys' host plant (Danthonia spicata) and several others that were the common nectar sources. I am trying to develop a Rapid Asessment Protocol for future suvrvey sites to help better predict the possible occurrence of this species, as its flight time is very early and very short. I've also got abundance data on the other co-occuring butterfly species at these sites that I could include in the analyses as well, but I was hoping to use plants as they are more persistent and more easily rapidly asessed. I'm not sure how to analyse my data in order to produce the predictability measures, and would appreciate any feedback. Best-Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
I take issue with the statement that "no one" in Environmental Science talks about ANY one thing. That is a generalization and we, as scientists particularly in todays' political climate, know how damaging and at the same time demeaning generalizations can be. As stated before, the meaning we give to natural is a moot point. Maybe it makes more sense in the context of "returning a system to a more natural state". In that context, as it is often used and as well pertains to the "degrees of impairment" idea mentioned, a natural state happens when the major system processes are those we would expect if fully controlled by nature in the said system. The corollary would be an anthropogenic view where man moves everything around everywhere and the resulting species assemblages are what they are. I had no idea there was so much discourse among us where invasive species were concerned. I remember having these philosophical discussions in my head 15 years ago as an undergrad, but very quickly came to terms with the realities of modern day conservation. Maybe I was just lucky to read lots and lots of Leopold... eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:26:54 -0500 > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species > From: malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org > To: xcs...@hotmail.com > CC: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > What is NATURAL? > > In environmental science no one talks about NATURAL. > You have impaired, unimpaired, and degrees of impairment because that > has a meaning. > Natural is too nebulous and subjective. > > Malcolm McCallum > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Eric North wrote: > > This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best > > to brief. > > > > I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species > > do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that > > favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a > > "successful" species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range > > and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the > > limiting factors in all species' distributions, then "everything" would be > > "everywhere". How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph > > drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, > > the plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following > > the retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium? > > > > I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and > > not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no > > way "natural" when they are impinged upon by species that have been > > introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions > > within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as Wisconsinite > > to not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about > > "the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts". Sure, > > we've given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no > > reason to just throw up our hands in "invasives" defeat. I wouldn't even > > begin to claim even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we > > could and have set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of > > "pre-settlement" has changed. It's much less of a "setting the clock back > > to a frontier state because we want big trees again", and more of an idea > > of trying to restore SOME SEMBLANCE of a region of working systems. Up here > > in the north, we clear cut EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, > > there's not much left for praries, but there's LOTS of corn and soybean > > farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The whole sciences of Conservation > > Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to name a few) were spawned in > > hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some respectable state, that > > which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). These sciences, as all > > science is designed to do, evolves. > > > > So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii > > and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of "letting nature > > take its course" smacks too much of the "god will provide" idea in the > > Bible. > > > > Please correct me on or off l
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
This is a troubling thread to me in far too many respects. I'll do my best to brief. I would argue that Mr. Cruzan misses a big point that WT points to. Species do expand their ranges, yes. BUT, they will only do so into conditions that favor them. Sure, speciation will create others. But, what constitutes a "successful" species? A species, within a group, that has the largest range and broadest niche breadth? If dispersal and random chance were the limiting factors in all species' distributions, then "everything" would be "everywhere". How would we be able to show in say, NMDS analyses, that ph drives a species' occurrence at certain sites? How many species, in say, the plant kingdom, have shown to expand their ranges northward following the retreat of glaciers, while others languish in glacial refugium? I couldnt agree more with the statement of preserving natural processes and not systems. However, my understanding is that certain processes are in no way "natural" when they are impinged upon by species that have been introduced by man and cause immeasurable damage to trophic interactions within a normally coevolving system. I should be ashamed as Wisconsinite to not have to the quote tattooed on my hand, but Aldo Leopold's line about "the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the parts". Sure, we've given up on Dandelions, and many others, but that's CERTAINLY no reason to just throw up our hands in "invasives" defeat. I wouldn't even begin to claim even remote knowledge of every invaded system, but surely we could and have set parameters on how to measure invasiveness. The idea of "pre-settlement" has changed. It's much less of a "setting the clock back to a frontier state because we want big trees again", and more of an idea of trying to restore SOME SEMBLANCE of a region of working systems. Up here in the north, we clear cut EVERYTHING a hundred years ago. South of us, there's not much left for praries, but there's LOTS of corn and soybean farms. C'mon folks, lets be real here. The whole sciences of Conservation Biology, Resource Management and Forestry (to name a few) were spawned in hopes of devising ways of bringing back to some respectable state, that which we have destroyed and denuded (or nearly so). These sciences, as all science is designed to do, evolves. So are we okay with deforestation of Madagascar? Should we write off Hawaii and whats left of its endemic species? All this talk of "letting nature take its course" smacks too much of the "god will provide" idea in the Bible. Please correct me on or off list. Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:03:51 -0700 > From: landr...@cox.net > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Ecolog: > > There is such a fundamental and pervasive misunderstanding of this point that > to challenge the ecoillogical concept of "pristine" is broadly considered > treasonous heresy. Freezing ecosystems in time has strong roots in the > presumption that gardening and landscaping are related to ecology. I tried to > make this point at a 1986 meeting (in Berkeley?) called "Conservation and > Management of Rare & Endangered Plants." The reception ranged from chilly to > freezing. One highly respected professor objected to my being permitted to > speak at all. I no longer have an electronic copy (The Restoration of > California: A Practical Guide), and I couldn't find one on the Internet, but > I did find an old draft in my files. The book is available through > bookfinder.com for fifteen bucks or so (one site has it for $240+!). Here's > an excerpt, laboriously pecked out on my keyboard: "What's wrong with > landscaping? Nothing is really wrong with it, but it is only cosmetic. The > trouble is, most people think that it is natural, just like Yosemite Valley, > and don't recognize it for what it is--an artificial decoration on the land > that happens to be constructed of living organisms. The fact that the plant > assemblage does not function biologically [ecologically] is lost in the > simple lust for the desired [sic] phantasy." > > It is simply not widely recognized, as Cruzan points out, that ecosystems are > not static. Many biologists and not a few ecologists apparently believe that > they are. Again, as Cruzan says, ". . . we should focus on conserving natural > processes, not entities." I might only add that where conditions that match > an organism's requirements exist, the major problem will not be getting them > to oc
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics of spousal hires (was Re: [ECOLOG-L] Job Announcement: US Forest Service Ecologist)
Honestly, with all due respect to Mr. Dossey, do you believe in economics? It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that universities exist to MAKE MONEY. They take cuts of grants received, pay grad students a fairly minimal wage for teaching responsibilities, and often try to "cater" to different areas of student interest; the subjects often in the highest demand and/or the highest paying in the job markets. As we know, not all Biology departments are created equal, which is not to say that they are "selected against" as "not fit" but may not necessarily be the focal department in a university as a whole. Even if it is the focal department, the University may not have the name recognition as others with no less intelligent and gifted faculty. This is where the "star power" (not my phrase) comes in. Big names draw more kids ready to spend bigger dollars to study or be affiliated with said "big shot". It's not readily apparent that you need to be a "star" to qualify to have your spouse considered for a position. Maybe just a good fit for what they're looking for in a candidate. My guess is that a hiring committee wouldn't dare hire with out knowing that it was a good investment. And that includes "taking a chance" on a lesser name. Doesn't it stand to reason that a hiring committe of biology department heads and faculty stand to gain by hiring someone who is going to positively effect enrollment of Biology Majors and potentially increase tuition revenues? I find it ironic that this discussion stemmed from a thread about a FEDERAL position hiring practices. Nope...no spousal hiring there! Take it from someone with NO interest in academia, 15 years experience in multiple disciplines having worked in dozens of US states and Canada, there's not much happening out here either. I've applied for untold number of positions and have come close ONCE last yearI was one of two candidates given an interview for a wetland ecologist position and the DIDN'T FILL the position. It may be time for a career change. It's capitalism. I'm not needed here, so it's retool and go elsewhere. Best of luck and peace to all of you... Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:23:33 -0400 > From: k...@kimvdlinde.com > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics of spousal hires (was Re: [ECOLOG-L] Job > Announcement: US Forest Service Ecologist) > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > On 8/20/2011 11:32 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: > > Personal interests like "but my wife/child/friend wants a job too!" > > should not be a consideration of any hiring entity. > > I think it should be. You do not want your new faculty member leave > after two years for a place closer to her partner. After she spend most > of the setup money and forcing you to go through a new hiring round (any > idea how expensive they are money and time wise?). > > > Where does it end? Is it ok for a chair and group of faculty to > > decide only to hire members of their church or their own religion, > > or only hire other atheists? Is it ok for them to only hire their > > friends to the exclusion of all other applicants regardless of > > QUANTITATIVE qualification/skill/talent? Maybe a department wishes to > > be all white, or all Chinese, or all Jewish? Kosher? > > You seem to miss the point. A spousal hire is not a prerequisite set by > the university before they can hire someone; it is a added issue that > needs to be resolved before someone is willing to come. It is not a > university set requirement but an applicant set requirement. Having a > specific religion etc are university set requirements. > > > Spousal hiring is not benign, it is not a victimless crime. It is an > > unethical tragedy which is leading to many very good hard working > > scientists to leave the field and their dreams, some of us who have > > worked hard all our lives toward this goal of starting our own lab > > one day, and were the first in our families to even go to graduate > > school (and second to college at all). > > I would argue that the opposite takes place. Many highly qualified > scientists left and still leave the field when forced to choose between > love and passion. > > But really, when you apply without a spouse needing a job, and you are > passed by for a guy who also demands a job for his wife, I think you > better start thinking about the quality difference between you and that > person. The problem with this discussion is that this is a non-issue. > Universities do not ALWAYS hire a spouse. No, they weigh that on a > case-by-case basis. > > > > The &q
[ECOLOG-L] Community Data Analysis Exercise
Hello All In an attempt to both better ensure that I'm using the most appropriate and up-to-date analyses available, and also to provide a bit of an exercise to point out just how many ways/opinions there are to analyse data like this, I'd like to posit an exercise for the list. I am in the final throes of a project that I have gathered richness and abundance data for a community of organisms, with several treatments. I have exhaustively sought help from others on how to best look at my data, and have received, let's just say, an interesting number of ideas. As such, I thought as this seems to be a very quickly evolving and somewhat more common field, I'd like to also point out maybe to others the most up-to-date means of crunching their numbers through feedback on my project from the listserv. I have abundance and richness data for 30-some total species at 18 sites in three elevation zones (6 sites in each zone). Each site consists of spring and non-spring habitat, for which there were 6 samples taken in the spring habitat and 6 in the non-spring. I also have data on litter depth, canopy cover, pillbug presence and grazing presence. I want to see how communitites change from the spring to the non-spring habitats within an elevation range and also between ranges, and what effect each of the treatments contributes to this relationship. Keep in mind nestedness with certain treatments. As I said, I've finished the bulk of the analyses, but thought maybe one last effort was worthwhile. Rather the say what I've done, I'll wait to get feedback and then see how the list thinks this jives with what they think! Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098
[ECOLOG-L] Looking for references
Hello all: I am in search of references relating to the following topics: Land Mollusca as components of soil building Land Mollusca as forage (prey) ANY papers using diversity indices to look at land mollusca communities THANK YOU in advance! Best- Eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 _ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
It seems folks may be missing the main point of the initial question here. Paraphrasing, "Are ecologists part of the problem?" Related to, environmental footprint and lifestyle choices. Einstein was a great scientist because his thoughts were generally consumed by scientific ideas. Same goes for Beethoven with music, Emerson for writing or even Ghandi for righteousness. My point is that in being ecologists our thoughts influence our choices. I couldn't think of another course of thought that would guide choices in as positive a way (related to our footprint and lifestyle choices) as profoundly as Ecology. Just the fact that this thread has continued for so long is shows us how concerned we are about our choices. Whether or not we can effect change in others remains to be seen, but I still feel like anything other than optimism is unacceptable. One never knows... Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 > Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:50:46 -0400 > From: chami...@uwsp.edu > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem? > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > I'm not sure being ecologists makes any of us that much more grounded than > the average person. Look at all of these posts about lifestyle choices to > trim our footprint. Only two even refer to the number of humans leaving a > footprint as a potential problem. _ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
[ECOLOG-L] Doyle the Environmentalist???
Are you kidding me? Now- correct me if I'm wrong. Governor Doyle sided with Rep. Mark Green from the Green Bay district, in pushing through a new law that would give private utilities the power of emminent domain over publilc land. This law addresssed a resolution that the Douglas Couty board had passed. In this resolution, they would not allow a now completed and recently powered-up powerline to cross any of the county land in Douglas County. Now mind you, every other county along the full length of the line had done the same thing. In these other counties, the WPS (Wisconsin Public Service) found private land to use for the corridor. Douglas Couunty was the only one that could not be crossed without using public land. So, as Doyle was not willing to consider any alternatives, especially alternative energy, he and other conservatives gave Wisconsinites a project they unanimously rejected. I once attended a "public hearing" that was extended from its original 2 hour format to 4.5 hours, due to the amount of public allendance. In the four-plus hours, not one individual spoke in favor of the project. ALL were against it. And, as for the invasive species initiative. with the quick spread of aquatic invasives here, he had no choice but to act on premediation and prevention programs, or risk not being re-elected. Ever hear of property value?? Well, the mighty high here if you're living on water. And, drastically reduced on Lakes with known populations of invasives. If you can't swim or fish there- no buyer is gonna want it. So, this is the first I've heard of this award, but will be looking now to here that Mark Green has been nominated as well. Best- EricEric [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008
Field-Worthy SUV
I have to concur with the idea of 4 wheel drive being unneccessary for field work. It tends to make one go where they shouldn't. If you're using 4wd, you probably degrading a road or trail, and aren't we all here to protect resources?? I've worked in temperatures and environments from Northern Michigan at -20F to the Grand Canyon at 123F, carrying all my own gear, and I've found that the most reliable SUV you can use are your own frickin' legs!! If you can't haul all your own stuff, then HIRE SOMEONE TO HELP YOU! Lots to drink, plenty to eat, and the right clothing. Hopefully Informative- Eric Eric North Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University P.O. Box 5640 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Office: 928.523.7247 Cell:928.607.3098 FAX: 928.523.7500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here. http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
total station info
A colleague and I use total stations frequently. We have another colleague in the USGS who is VERY knowledgeable in their application. He has worked in the Grand Canyon for many years. As for their portability, yeah it's not so good, but I've done huge hikes in and out of the canyon, in one day, and it can be done- in heavy brush, where I've also used them in British Columbia, they are more of a hassle. But, it really comes down to the application. We used them to model stage-discharge relations with vegetation succession in a reservoir, and they were the only way to accurately do the calculations and modeling. If you'd like more info, contact me off-list. Best- eric Eric North Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University P.O. Box 5640 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Office: 928.523.7247 Cell:928.607.3098 FAX: 928.523.7500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN In Concert today. http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline
Mollusc biomass cycling
Greetings- I am trying to track down information quantifying the amount of biomass cycled (produced) by land mollusca. More specifically, I'm trying to understand the role they paly in the environment. I'm also interested in aritcles studying competition between snail species and/or their other competitors. My apologies for cross-posting, and thanks for your feedback in advance! Best- Eric Eric North Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University P.O. Box 5640 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Office: 928.523.7247 Cell:928.607.3098 FAX: 928.523.7500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07
