Contingency Planning in Conservation

Wildlife and plant conservation is more complicated than ever in the twenty-first century. Outright habitat loss from agriculture, urbanization, resource extraction, water diversion, the introduction of non-native species, and other endeavors continues nearly unabated. Now, we have the added effects from climate change. Consequently, habitat protection is less predictable. We know change is going to happen, probably more rapidly than anticipated by our government, business, and cultural institutions. How best do we cover our bases?

Habitat of the Filigree Skimmer dragonfly in Colorado Springs, ironically enhanced by an aging drop structure in the streambed.

The experience that got me thinking about this was my discovery of the only known breeding population of the Filigree Skimmer dragonfly, Pseudoleon superbus, in Colorado. The documentation of the species just up the hill from my home in Colorado Springs represented a significant northern range extension for the species. I am using past tense because it is almost certain that the population will perish during or after a stormwater mitigation project slated for execution by Colorado Springs Utilities.

This situation was at the forefront of my mind in deciding whether to vote in favor of the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf to Colorado. The citizen-generated initiative made it onto the ballot in November, 2020, and passed by the narrowest of margins. It represents an attempt at restoration of historical ecosystems, and the historical range of Canis lupus in the Lower Forty-eight states. It could also be interpreted as contingency planning should wolves re-establish on their own, which seems to be the trend since the re-introduction of the species to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

In the absence of reliable predictive modeling for shifts in the geographic distribution of organisms, and therefore shifts in the composition of ecosystems, it is prudent to be as immediately responsive as possible when changes arise. The more preemptive actions that can be taken to facilitate those responses, the better. The wolf reintroduction bill at least forces the hand of Colorado Parks and Wildlife to manage wolves one way or the other, with the advantage going to the wolf and its human advocates. Similar legislation is needed at an ecosystem level to guard against both continued exploitation of natural resources by business interests, and to mitigate probable climate-driven catastrophes such as prolonged drought and wildfires.

A male Filigree Skimmer, Pseudoleon superbus

Back to the dragonfly for a moment. The Colorado Springs occurrence could be viewed as a disjunct population, far removed from the historical range of the species in canyons of the deep southwestern U.S. It could be that this is the “new normal” for the species. If the species is progressing northward, is something happening farther south that is driving it northward? Such outlier populations deserve consideration of protection, regardless of whether the species is currently listed as threatened or endangered in any part of its existing range.

I explored every recourse I could think of to get protection for the dragonfly population up the hill, but to no avail. It is tragically ironic that we demand a species to be already in peril before we give authority for its interests to be considered. Thus, the rights of a given species do not matter until the very last minute. What of the rights of humans to other species? What of our rights to experience other species in nature, in a passive fashion? Why do those rights not count at all? Many a human being would elevate the experience of immersion in wild ecosystems above mere recreation and into the realm of necessity for one’s mental health and physical well-being.

The time has come to raise the bar in proper stewardship of a constantly changing landscape, and give priority to preservation of not just species, but populations of each species. The maintenance of genetic diversity has never been so critical. There has never been such an urgent need to preserve as much remaining habitat as possible because climate change is diminishing viable ecosystems wholesale.

Conservation organizations and environmental law professionals, take note. The old standards and methods no longer apply. It is time to be creative, with innovative approaches to legislation, the forging of new partnerships with indigenous peoples to restore the “history” in “natural history,” and the assertion of urgency to preserve wildlands not for future generations, but to honor present and previous generations of ecological advocates. Get to work.

A Letter to Senator Cory Gardner

© HuffingtonPost.com

Clever. Clever, but cruel and cowardly to draft, in secret, healthcare legislation that will impact millions of citizens. Who could complain about a bill that they haven't even seen? Shucks, not even most senators have been privy to the plan. Maybe that is what the President means when he says this is a "mean" bill. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to do what? Rely on what the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is telling us? No matter, given past and present trends and tendencies of this session of Congress and this presidential administration, we can piece together what we are in for if this bill passes the Senate. So, please understand that the overwhelming majority of your constituents, including this one, are vehemently opposed to this bill and we expect your vote to reflect this. You need to defeat this bill.

May I politely, but assertively, remind you that you were not elected to guarantee increased profits for insurance companies, their CEOs and shareholders, and others who are affluent enough that they can pay for their own healthcare. You were not elected to argue for the interests of pharmaceutical companies, their CEOs, and shareholders, either. You were not elected to weaken environmental, consumer, and labor regulations so that the working class would face more risk without recourse to affordable healthcare. You were not elected to compromise the reproductive health choices of your female constituents. You were not elected to make firearms more accessible to citizens of dubious capacity who could endanger large numbers of citizens through acts of domestic terrorism. Indeed, you were not elected to shrink affordable mental healthcare. You were not elected to return us to the unsustainable era of fossil fuel dominance that has put us in a climate crisis of multiple yearly natural disasters. In short, you were not elected to put obscene corporate profits above the rights of individual citizens from all walks of life, rich and poor, men and women, children who do not even have voting rights, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered persons, and people of all ethnicities, religions, countries of origin, and political party persuasions (or lack thereof). You do not represent lobbyists, either. We do not elect lobbyists, and our tax dollars are paying for you to listen to us, not them.

This goes beyond party politics. Democrats have also been all talk and no action, at least tacitly approving of legislation that undermines the welfare of our citizens. We can see through the rhetoric because actions speak louder than words and those actions of late have been highly detrimental to domestic and foreign policy. Right now, the "America first" slogan applies only to rich, Caucasian, and mostly male Americans, and everyone else is left to fight among themselves for the scraps from the feast at the top. This is an irresponsible, repugnant, and intolerable approach to governance. Charity begins at home, and that means that government should be concerned first for its most vulnerable citizens. Children, the elderly, and the destitute will suffer the most from the healthcare bill put before you now. How in good conscience can you approve of this oppressive bill?

A pre-existing condition of many politicians appears to be extreme focus on survival of the financially fittest, but even natural selection is a random force. Life is not fair you say, but I say that our purpose on this planet is to at least try and make it more fair, to increase opportunities for working class families and individuals to prosper. No one can prosper without good physical and mental health. Undermining options for healthcare only weakens the consumer economy. How can you and your colleagues not see that? Should you wish for your own political career to survive, it is in your best interest to start mirroring your home state citizens' wishes, and distance yourself from the influence of industry lobbyists. Thank you.

Just Shoot Me

I try to avoid rants on this blog. I prefer a thoughtful, well-reasoned approach to even the most controversial topics. I am not sure I can hold it together much longer, though, when it comes to the current subject of guns, gun control, and gun ownership. I am dismayed by how many of my “friends” on Facebook are posting so aggressively to defend their Second Amendment “right” to bear arms. This debate, if you can call the mudslinging and vitriol a debate, spawns of course from another massacre at an elementary school, carried out by yet another disturbed male individual armed with automatic weapons.

The fear in the wake of this event astounds me. Not the fear that there could be more of these incidents if we continue down our present cultural, social, and legal paths, but the fear gun owners have of losing their weapons, or losing the right to buy still more guns, and more powerful ones at that.

First of all, absolutely nothing has been done yet by our President or congress. No restrictive laws have been enacted. Elected officials are consulting with all parties, including the National Rifle Association, which is more than I would do if I was in a position of authority. I generally don’t find lobbyists of any stripe to be beneficial to legislation. So, why is there so much outrage already?

Secondly, what quantity of arms is enough? The Second Amendment was written at a time in history when the Revolutionary War was still fresh in the minds of the newly-free American citizenry. The goal was to avoid having to go through that again. So, the law was meant to insure that “well-organized militias” had access to arms to defend the greater good of freedom and liberty. Today, this “right” has been twisted in its meaning. We conveniently interpret it to mean defense of our personal lives, the lives of our family members, and, most importantly, our property and material belongings. I am not saying that one should not be able to defend themselves or loved ones from bodily harm, of course, but it is important to note the spirit of the law here.

Another problem today is that our well-organized militias are all too often street gangs, drug cartels, survivalists, racists, religious cults, and other hate groups using arms not for defense but for intimidation and aggression. Our collective priority as citizens should be to do whatever it takes to keep guns out of the hands of these organizations and individuals, even if it entails an inconvenience (background check, psychological exam) to our own rights as law-abiding citizens.

It has rightly been pointed out by more reasoned people in this debate that our mental health system is suffering from severe neglect. We clearly need to address the mental health aspect of this trend toward mass shootings. Personally, I would prefer having a potentially violent person, clinically diagnosed as such, incarcerated instead of someone convicted of possession of marijuana, for instance. The point is we need to have all options on the table as to how to prevent more tragedies on any scale, be it a single murder or a massacre.

We also have to change our collective mentality about our individual rights, and our tolerance for violence in all aspects of our society. Why do we find violence entertaining in movies, music lyrics, and video games? Why are we so obsessed with material wealth, fame, and power to the extent that we are willing to use violence to achieve these “goals,” or protect them once we have them? Yes, I am more afraid of armed corporations and the groups I mentioned earlier than I am paranoid over the government seizing what few assets I have. Unfortunately, government and corporate America seem to be getting increasingly cozy, but that is a topic for another blog.

My bottom line, for now, is this: Until you have concrete evidence that your rights as a gun-owner are under attack, your hue and cry is useless and immature at best. Second, take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself what you are really afraid of, and why. The answer won’t likely be “the government.” Don’t agree with me? Then just shoot me. Go ahead, I dare you.

A Banner Day for Wilderness Protection

I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter for the Tucson chapter of the Arizona Native Plant Society, and I have the editor, Nancy Zierenberg, to thank for informing me of today’s passage of “monumental” wilderness legislation by the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC. It is expected that President Obama will ratify the measure without qualification.

Known as the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, this represents the greatest expansion of wilderness lands in over a decade. More than two million acres will be permanently protected in nine states, from coast to coast.

But wait, there’s more! The act also includes the National Landscape Conservation System, which, through the Bureau of Land Management, will administer 1.2 million additional acres of watersheds and forests in the Bridger-Teton National Forest of western Wyoming. Now how much would you pay (in tax dollars)?!

The legislation is not without its flaws (a portion of wilderness in Alaska was removed from protection to allow for the construction of a road), but all in all this is a significant milestone.

I will have more to say about wilderness and land conservation in future blogs, but in the meantime, you can learn more about this historic bill from the Wilderness Society blog.