🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan5.102459.939@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
   motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
 
>I've been reading the (uncharacteristically emotional for this group)
>discussion about wolves and just have a brief comment.
>
>*Let's not let our affections for our canine companions affect our judgement
>in dealing with wolves as a conservation and wildlife management issue.
>If we open ourselves up to using emotions to make decisions, we are in
>a weak position when confronted by animal rights activists.  They exploit
>this to their advantage and to our detriment.*
 
 
Very well said.  And it's a point that I'll bring up again in just
a moment.....
 
 
>Now, on the subject of "wilderness".  There is no real wilderness anymore.
>Wilderness has no boundaries.  What we have are "wilderness preserves"
>where we can pretend that there is a wilderness, but it will be affected
>by everything outside of it anyway.  The polution of the sky and the
>acid rain and the diseases carried in by animals and people and polution
>of the waters all make the "boundaries" meaningless.  There are no true
>wildernesses anymore.  There is no place on earth that we have not affected.
>We must view the "wilderness" areas as part of a larger management scheme
>and view them in the harse light of reality.  They are not isolated;  they
>are not apart.  They are integrated into the environment and need to be
>managed because of it.  We have got to stop pretending that it is otherwise.
 
Again, very well said.  And it makes a tremendous amount of common
sense.
 
 
>In August of 1973, I heard a talk given by a member of the Forest Service about
>a plan to handle the "pine beetle problem" in the Yellowstone and
>Grand Teton National Parks by letting lightning strike fires burn out
>naturally.  In May of 1974, I wrote a paper which refuted the arguments
>for letting fires burn, based mostly on the fact that the parks could be
>extensively damaged and the fact that the intense use of the areas made
>them unsuitable for the proposed "natural" management plan.  Sadly, the
>devastation of Yellowstone's forest land was the result of this misguided
>plan, and my warnings, and those of countless others concerned with
>conservation could not avert the tragedy.
 
But now we disagree.  It appears to me that you are guilty of the very
thing you had previously warned us about (letting our emotions get in
the way of what makes scientific sense).  The fact is that Yellowstone
was NOT devastated (follow me here for just a moment).  Sure, for 1 year
the area was not suitable for the purposes that people had become
accustomed to.  But in the long range, allowing the fires to burn did
far more to benefit the area than putting them out would have done
(actually, 1 year later isn't really long run, but that's how long it
took for the area to recover).  New growth forests are extremely import-
ant to areas like Yellowstone.  Therefore, IMHO, it would have been a
tragedy to have put them out.
 
 
>The point is, these parks and preserves are not truly wilderness.  Our
>concepts of them as wilderness do the land and the animal inhabitants
>a disservice.  We've got to stop pretending and face the facts that we
>have to take responsibility for managing these lands for what they are;
>parks.  They are people-created areas with people-defined boundaries
>-- boundaries which are not recognized by nature.  They may be as close
>as we can come to a real wilderness, but they do have unique non-wilderness
>characteristics which must be accepted and managed.
 
It sounds like you are aruging that all areas should be managed such
that people get the most USE from them.  I would argue that they
should be managed such that people get the most BENIFIT from them.  Do
you see the distinction?  With BENIFIT, one could argue (and I would)
that people would get more BENIFIT from having places that are treated
as "wilderness" (even though they are in fact influanced by factors
outside of that wilderness area).  That means people get more benefit
by simply having something besides human usage as the most important
determinant in managing an area such as
bears/wolves/name-your-favorite-non-popular-preditor or having the
best bio-diversity possible (such as is provided by periodic fires).
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"

In article <1993Jan5.102459.939@doug.cae.wisc.edu> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>
>Happy New Year to one and all!

Likewise, I'm sure.

>In August of 1973, I heard a talk given by a member of the Forest Service about
>a plan to handle the "pine beetle problem" in the Yellowstone and
>Grand Teton National Parks by letting lightning strike fires burn out
>naturally.  In May of 1974, I wrote a paper which refuted the arguments
>for letting fires burn, based mostly on the fact that the parks could be
>extensively damaged and the fact that the intense use of the areas made
>them unsuitable for the proposed "natural" management plan.  

With the exception of areas adjacent to the major road(s) in the Yellowstone,
most of the area is *not* intensively used.

>Sadly, the
>devastation of Yellowstone's forest land was the result of this misguided
>plan, and my warnings, and those of countless others concerned with
>conservation could not avert the tragedy.

Let's go back and look at the burned-off areas in Yellowstone
following the fires.

You will see a wider range of plant and animal life than in the
(artificially maintained) heavy timber of the pre-fire park.  Even the
burned areas are huge open expanses now, more like a series of "seas"
intermixed with archipelagos of timber.

If the fires had been fought in the old style, the end result would
have been lots of trees dead from pine beetle attack, and hungry
beetles looking for new lunch venues.

A similar problem occurred recently in southern Oregon/norther
California: another insect pest was getting out of hand and attacking
huge stands of timber.  A state plan to cut down affected trees,
restricting the spread of the insects and reducing the total loss of
trees, was stopped by activists.

*Lots* of trees died...fly over the area and see huge expanses of dead
fir and pine.

Now that the trees are dead, maybe it's time to maybe harvest at least
some of the standing dead wood?  Nope.  Plans to do so was again
blocked, and you've got a whole bunch of dead wood standing and laying
around.  Major fire hazard.  Regrowth is going to be problem for quite
a while (unless the fires clear things out), since the standing wood
blocks light and make it hard for successor plants to get established.

Conservation != *never*letanythingintheforestchangefromwhatwelike.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

In article <1993Jan8.114229.7652@doug.cae.wisc.edu> CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.102459.939@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
>   motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>The point is, these parks and preserves are not truly wilderness.  Our
>>concepts of them as wilderness do the land and the animal inhabitants
>>a disservice.  We've got to stop pretending and face the facts that we
>>have to take responsibility for managing these lands for what they are;
>>parks.  They are people-created areas with people-defined boundaries
>>-- boundaries which are not recognized by nature.  They may be as close
>>as we can come to a real wilderness, but they do have unique non-wilderness
>>characteristics which must be accepted and managed.
> 
>It sounds like you are aruging that all areas should be managed such
>that people get the most USE from them.  I would argue that they
>should be managed such that people get the most BENIFIT from them.  Do
>you see the distinction?  With BENIFIT, one could argue (and I would)
>that people would get more BENIFIT from having places that are treated
>as "wilderness" (even though they are in fact influanced by factors
>outside of that wilderness area).  That means people get more benefit
>by simply having something besides human usage as the most important
>determinant in managing an area such as
>bears/wolves/name-your-favorite-non-popular-preditor or having the
>best bio-diversity possible (such as is provided by periodic fires).
Hi, Chris.

But hold on a second.  I never said that because these are people
defined areas that we should try to ge the most USE out of them!
I'm with you on the BENEFIT picture (even if we don't agree on the
spelling!).  I just don't think we are viewing the "wilderness"
areas in light of the bigger picture.  We need to be concerned
about a *possible need* to intervene in that ecosphere in order
to protect and enhance the benefits the area provides.  For example,
if acid rain is destroying a lake in a wilderness area, does it
make sense to try to rescue the lake with a water treatment plan,
even though it is in a "wilderness" area?  I would argue yes;  other
people disagree with me, saying we should not intervene at all in
such areas.  These areas may from time to time need the help of
concerned habitat/environmental managers in order for the detrimental
effects of events outside of the area to be countered.  That's what
I was talking about.

I am not opposed whatsoever to "development-free" zones, and you can
even call them wilderness if you want to.  But I don't want to sit
idly by while they are destroyed by influx from surrounding areas
and nothing is done about it in a mistaken assumption that it is best
to do absolutely nothing proactively or reactively in those areas.


Mary Otto

In article <1993Jan11.074339.20396@doug.cae.wisc.edu<
   motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
 
<<<The point is, these parks and preserves are not truly wilderness.  Our
<<<concepts of them as wilderness do the land and the animal inhabitants
<<<a disservice.  We've got to stop pretending and face the facts that we
<<<have to take responsibility for managing these lands for what they are;
<<<parks.  They are people-created areas with people-defined boundaries
<<<-- boundaries which are not recognized by nature.  They may be as close
<<<as we can come to a real wilderness, but they do have unique non-wilderness
<<<characteristics which must be accepted and managed.
<<
<<It sounds like you are aruging that all areas should be managed such
<<that people get the most USE from them.  I would argue that they
<<should be managed such that people get the most BENIFIT from them.  Do
<<you see the distinction?  With BENIFIT, one could argue (and I would)
<<that people would get more BENIFIT from having places that are treated
<<as "wilderness" (even though they are in fact influanced by factors
<<outside of that wilderness area).  That means people get more benefit
<<by simply having something besides human usage as the most important
<<determinant in managing an area such as
<<bears/wolves/name-your-favorite-non-popular-preditor or having the
<<best bio-diversity possible (such as is provided by periodic fires).
<Hi, Chris.
<
<But hold on a second.  I never said that because these are people
<defined areas that we should try to ge the most USE out of them!
<I'm with you on the BENEFIT picture (even if we don't agree on the
<spelling!).
 
In that case, it appears that I misunderstood your meaning.  I stand
corrected.
 
 
<I just don't think we are viewing the "wilderness"
<areas in light of the bigger picture.  We need to be concerned
<about a *possible need* to intervene in that ecosphere in order
<to protect and enhance the benefits the area provides.  For example,
<if acid rain is destroying a lake in a wilderness area, does it
<make sense to try to rescue the lake with a water treatment plan,
<even though it is in a "wilderness" area?  I would argue yes;  other
<people disagree with me, saying we should not intervene at all in
<such areas.  These areas may from time to time need the help of
<concerned habitat/environmental managers in order for the detrimental
<effects of events outside of the area to be countered.  That's what
<I was talking about.
 
Then we are in agreement (happily )   :-)
 
 
<I am not opposed whatsoever to "development-free" zones, and you can
<even call them wilderness if you want to.  But I don't want to sit
<idly by while they are destroyed by influx from surrounding areas
<and nothing is done about it in a mistaken assumption that it is best
<to do absolutely nothing proactively or reactively in those areas.
 
When an area is truely in danger (or will be if conditions don't
change), I agree.  It's just that in the case of the Yellowstone
fires, I think people looked at the short term and concluded that it
was a "disaster" when in fact it was a great benifit to the area.
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"

In article <1993Jan11.074339.20396@doug.cae.wisc.edu> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
= 
= But hold on a second.  I never said that because these are people
= defined areas that we should try to ge the most USE out of them!
= I'm with you on the BENEFIT picture (even if we don't agree on the
= spelling!).  I just don't think we are viewing the "wilderness"
= areas in light of the bigger picture.  We need to be concerned
= about a *possible need* to intervene in that ecosphere in order
= to protect and enhance the benefits the area provides.  For example,
= if acid rain is destroying a lake in a wilderness area, does it
= make sense to try to rescue the lake with a water treatment plan,
= even though it is in a "wilderness" area?  I would argue yes;  other
= people disagree with me, saying we should not intervene at all in
= such areas.  These areas may from time to time need the help of
= concerned habitat/environmental managers in order for the detrimental
= effects of events outside of the area to be countered.  That's what
= I was talking about.
= 
= I am not opposed whatsoever to "development-free" zones, and you can
= even call them wilderness if you want to.  But I don't want to sit
= idly by while they are destroyed by influx from surrounding areas
= and nothing is done about it in a mistaken assumption that it is best
= to do absolutely nothing proactively or reactively in those areas.

I, at least, think that Mary's points about the effects of external
influences on "wilderness" areas are good ones.  It is one thing to
have a policy of noninterference as it pertains to internal events;
quite another with respect to the internal effects of external events.

Clearly the issues are complex and there are no simple solutions to
all problems--nor will there be.  It seems to me that we must
consider each situation individually.  In all probability, even so
not everyone will agree on what is the best course of action (or
nonaction).

I believe that the decision to do or not to do something must be
based on the objective of keeping the "wilderness" area *as though*
it were untouched, even if that means we must intervene in some
cases.  When there were few humans and only primitive technology,
there were limits to how badly we could screw things up--such
things as, for example, mass slaughter of bison herds by primitive
peoples by driving them over cliffs not withstanding.  Now we have
the technology to screw things up remotely, globally.  No area of
the planet is safe from our actions.  Unless and until we can find
a way to minimize our impact on the *global* environment, we will,
I believe, *have* to try to "unscrew" things even in areas that we're
not supposed to "touch."  I think of it as "untouching" those
areas.  If, somehow, we could prevent remote events from affecting
"wilderness" areas, and if they were large enough that a single
"natural" event such as a forest fire would *not* wipe out the
entire area,  I would be all for the hands-off approach.  But I
don't see how that can be accomplished.  Mary's acid-rain example
is an excellent case in point.

Consider another example:  Suppose that we have a "wilderness" area
that is a small patch within, say, a National Forest.  Suppose a
forest fire in the National Forest threatens to burn that entire
patch.  Should we intervene or not?  Yes, the new-growth area is
part of nature--and, globally, a necessary one--but if the entire
"wilderness" patch becomes new growth, what then?  Do we want that
to happen?  Or do we want to keep a patch of (I'm hesitant to say
"virgin") old growth as the "wilderness" patch with the new-growth
area in the surrounding National Forest?  One thing that I think
that we should keep in mind is that, since we can never instantly
stop a forest fire, it doesn't seem to me that we will ever be too
short of new-growth areas even if we do our best to stop the forest
fires--if, at least, we permit nature to take it's course in the
area that *is* (unavoidably) burnt.

Well, just a few more things to think about.


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov