Conflicts, consensus, and confusion in preserving species
Contributed by Patrick Keenan, Biologist and Outreach Director at Biodiversity Research InstituteRecently I've become perplexed by a series of wildlife conservation/management related issues before me. They range from national to local to darn-near personal. The three represent a range of perspectives, issues, and challenges that are worthy of linking together here.
Weeks ago NPR aired a segment about Spotted Owl conservation methods. As it turns out, one plan that has been enacted is to remove, by shooting, Barred Owls that are expanding their range and overtaking Spotted Owl habitat. In this story, Barred Owls are recognized as invaders using aggression and a reproductive advantage (by raising more young in equivalent time) to drive out the “mild mannered” Spotted Owl. This issue represents a notable trap for state and federal wildlife officials—at once they are mandated to preserve Spotted Owls, which are recognized as endangered species, but by adopting a favored and experimental management method of shooting owls they are in conflict with the long-standing Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a Federal Act that protects, with notable exceptions, migratory birds from harvest. The conservation management issue here represents an ethical quagmire that has pitted environmentalists against one another. Indeed, lawsuits are prepared against the action of shooting Barred Owls even if it may be a noble undertaking for Spotted Owl conservation. No matter your viewpoint, this is happening and it is a real issue.
In cases of managing plants for to provide native habitats the control and eradication of introduced and invasive species is undertaken with ruthlessness. While many people may have strong feelings for Barred Owls, many fewer view invasive buckthorn, bittersweet, or multiflora rose with the same open heart. By nearly all accounts, the eradication and removal of invasive plants is a “war” that must be waged to maintain native plant and animal populations and healthy ecosystem function. At River Point Conservation Area, it is well recognized that invasive, introduced plant species have encroached native vegetation. To maintain and restore the native habitat the Town of Falmouth responded. Volunteers have been trained to cut, remove, and spray the stalks of invasive species in order to control and eradicate them from the property and restore native habitats.
In thinking about what appear to be inconsistent perspectives toward managing species, I feel compelled to introduce the plight of a resident population of Red Crossbill in Southern Idaho. Important background is that I spent several years studying these birds as part of the Benkman Lab at the University of Wyoming. Briefly, there is a resident population of Red Crossbills in an isolated mountain range in southern Idaho. Like other Red Crossbills they rely exclusively on conifer seeds survival and reproduction. Importantly, the ecological adaptation of these birds to the local lodgepole pine cones and seeds makes it unlikely that they could survive outside of their current range. Climate change models predict that in the coming decades decreased precipitation in this region may result in the loss of forest habitats that are already restricted to high elevation. So, as the pines disappear so will crossbills. In this case there is no invading plant, or aggressive owl to place in the crosshairs. There is no Sisyphean task that will quell the demise of the South Hills or Idaho crossbill.
These examples summarize cases of management action and inaction that are complex and exist within their own political, economic, and cultural horizons. Perhaps the real message is...Controversy exists. Decisions are made. Protocols are followed. Science plays a key role in our understanding of plant and animal behavior and offers methods for management to achieve desired outcomes. Ultimately, we are people who have values, who make decisions, and, for better or worse, who must accept our decisions and their outcomes.
