MSN story about wildlife biologists rescuing the smalleye and sharpnose shiners from the Brazos River in west Texas which is almost dry from the extreme drought.
Rescuing Shiners In Texas
Started by
Guest_fundulus_*
, Sep 16 2011 05:23 PM
16 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 September 2011 - 06:20 PM
It's such a mess in Texas right now. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. A gawd-awful mess.
I'm in Louisiana now because nobody was hiring fish biologists in Texas in 2010 when I was looking for work. Go figure. I guess it won't matter when there is absolutely no water left.
I'm in Louisiana now because nobody was hiring fish biologists in Texas in 2010 when I was looking for work. Go figure. I guess it won't matter when there is absolutely no water left.
#3
Guest_Newt_*
Guest_Newt_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 08:06 AM
It's great that they're making the effort. I hope it works.
It's sad that these sort of articles always have to justify conservation efforts with something like potential impact to gamefish. I have several friends working with bats, and they always have pest-destruction arguments ready to present to people asking, "Why should my taxpayer dollars be spent to save this organism?" Ask not what your ecosystem can do for you....
It's sad that these sort of articles always have to justify conservation efforts with something like potential impact to gamefish. I have several friends working with bats, and they always have pest-destruction arguments ready to present to people asking, "Why should my taxpayer dollars be spent to save this organism?" Ask not what your ecosystem can do for you....
#4
Guest_MichiJim_*
Guest_MichiJim_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 10:23 AM
Amen to that. I am currently at odds with my township over turning a beautiful wetland/grassland complex into a dog park. What's that you say? There are frogs living there? We've got lots of frogs. Who needs more?
Why not protect the habitat just because it is there and it costs no one anything to do so?
Why not protect the habitat just because it is there and it costs no one anything to do so?
#5
Guest_nativeplanter_*
Guest_nativeplanter_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 10:35 AM
Amen to that. I am currently at odds with my township over turning a beautiful wetland/grassland complex into a dog park. What's that you say? There are frogs living there? We've got lots of frogs. Who needs more?
Why not protect the habitat just because it is there and it costs no one anything to do so?
I don't know the state regulations for Michigan (or any local ordinances you may have), but you may be able to get them to modify the dog park plans by reviewing applicable regulations. Does your state or local town/county require a vegetated buffer around wetlands? What uses of wetlands are permitted in Michigan? Are they planning fences/walkways within a wetland (or buffer, if applicable) area? If they are putting walkways in non-isolated wetlands (even gravel ones), or using machinery to clear woody vegetation, or anything else that could be described as "fill" they will need a federal permit.
#6
Guest_pylodictis_*
Guest_pylodictis_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 12:10 PM
It's great that they're making the effort. I hope it works.
It's sad that these sort of articles always have to justify conservation efforts with something like potential impact to gamefish. I have several friends working with bats, and they always have pest-destruction arguments ready to present to people asking, "Why should my taxpayer dollars be spent to save this organism?" Ask not what your ecosystem can do for you....
Granted, and there should be parks, but you can not preserve all habitat. People have to live. I have a wonderful river flowing through my town, the the suburban mansions and downtown lofts and I'd love to see it 400 years ago, but we'll never be back to that. It's a shame, but a necessary one.
#7
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 12:45 PM
I hope it works too. The same drought is affecting many of the endangered and endemic Eurycea of the Edwards Plateau, especially E. nana (San Marcos Salamander) and E. sosorum (Barton Springs Salamander). Like the cyprinids, the state is prepared to evacuate these species if the drought worsens (which it has, I just haven't heard anything more recent).
Sadly, these caudates never recovered from the 08-09 drought and now they're in a worse one! Lab studies showed that at 5-6 mg/L O2 (the typical amount in these springs), the salamanders were fine. At 4.4 mg/L O2, growth rates dipped, and at 3.6 mg/L O2, about 25% of them died. The springs are now around 3.4-3.6 mg/L O2....
Nathan is spot on with his last statement.
Sadly, these caudates never recovered from the 08-09 drought and now they're in a worse one! Lab studies showed that at 5-6 mg/L O2 (the typical amount in these springs), the salamanders were fine. At 4.4 mg/L O2, growth rates dipped, and at 3.6 mg/L O2, about 25% of them died. The springs are now around 3.4-3.6 mg/L O2....
Nathan is spot on with his last statement.
Edited by blakemarkwell, 19 September 2011 - 12:48 PM.
#8
Guest_MichiJim_*
Guest_MichiJim_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:15 PM
Thanks for the tips, Blake. We have the regulatory aspect lined up, but there is still a little room to cause problems. The wetlands are protected, but what I am concerned about now is the associated uplands, which certain species for frogs need. Since they don't fall in the endangered or threatened species lists, they are seen as unimportant.
What irks me is that a public land stewardship agency, like a parks commission, can't just grasp that sometimes meeting the letter of the law is not adequate. It seams a shame we have to use state statute to keep them in line.
Sorry to hijack this post for my rant.
What irks me is that a public land stewardship agency, like a parks commission, can't just grasp that sometimes meeting the letter of the law is not adequate. It seams a shame we have to use state statute to keep them in line.
Sorry to hijack this post for my rant.
#9
Guest_nativeplanter_*
Guest_nativeplanter_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:27 PM
Thanks for the tips, Blake. We have the regulatory aspect lined up, but there is still a little room to cause problems. The wetlands are protected, but what I am concerned about now is the associated uplands, which certain species for frogs need. Since they don't fall in the endangered or threatened species lists, they are seen as unimportant.
It's "Laura", but that's OK. I take it your town/county does not have a buffer ordinance.
No argument here!!!What irks me is that a public land stewardship agency, like a parks commission, can't just grasp that sometimes meeting the letter of the law is not adequate. It seams a shame we have to use state statute to keep them in line.
Likewise.Sorry to hijack this post for my rant.
#10
Guest_Newt_*
Guest_Newt_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 04:03 PM
Granted, and there should be parks, but you can not preserve all habitat. People have to live. I have a wonderful river flowing through my town, the the suburban mansions and downtown lofts and I'd love to see it 400 years ago, but we'll never be back to that. It's a shame, but a necessary one.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this.
Parks are hardly the only management tool available. More reasonable water usage limits would be of much greater benefit to these animals- they've survived many a drought before, but the base flows of these streams have been reduced by human impacts that could be mitigated if the political will were present, or if the water consumers were more concerned about their downstream impacts. Those factors in turn depend on us placing a cultural value on nature- not a fiscal one. Ecosystem service estimates and the like are fine and good, but people are much more likely to work to preserve what they believe is intrinsically valuable- like we fight to preserve freedom, or privacy, or other cultural values that cannot be described in terms of dollars.
#11
Guest_frogwhacker_*
Guest_frogwhacker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 04:52 PM
people are much more likely to work to preserve what they believe is intrinsically valuable-
Now we're talking education, and I think of all the great reports I've read here of folks cleaning river systems and working hard to educate about the environment, our native fishes, and watershed systems, not to mention this open website to help educate and encourage people. So, what more can be done? We all have an obligation to help educate and encourage people to appreciate our natural systems and understand how everyone's individual actions make a difference.
Good stuff. Discussions like this in an open website can go a long way.
Steve.
#12
Guest_Usil_*
Guest_Usil_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 05:27 PM
Preservation of wetlands is important but based on the natural progression of freshwater wetlands it takes more than just preservation/isolation methodologies. It takes active establishment and reestablishment of these areas to preserve them and with budgets as they are this may leave many areas to progress through the natural process to slowly receed and in some areas disappear. I am not sure how this will all sort out in the next 50 to 100 years but there is no doubt that there will be fewer wetlands for both natural and commercial reasons.
Usil
Usil
Edited by Usil, 19 September 2011 - 05:36 PM.
#13
Guest_MichiJim_*
Guest_MichiJim_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 07:04 PM
First, sorry to nativeplanter. Sometimes I type faster than I think. My apologies.
Nathan and Steve are spot on. Like doctors, we should push for a do no harm policy on land management. In Michigan, and many other states, we allow "replacement" wetlands in exchange for wetland loss. I do not like this policy, since I think there is a very good reason why a wetland developed where it did. I don't believe we can engineer a better nature.
And getting back to one of the original points in this thread, we lose the species that are not economically important. Or on a protected list. Which are the species that people on this forum care about.
Nathan and Steve are spot on. Like doctors, we should push for a do no harm policy on land management. In Michigan, and many other states, we allow "replacement" wetlands in exchange for wetland loss. I do not like this policy, since I think there is a very good reason why a wetland developed where it did. I don't believe we can engineer a better nature.
And getting back to one of the original points in this thread, we lose the species that are not economically important. Or on a protected list. Which are the species that people on this forum care about.
#14
Guest_EricaWieser_*
Guest_EricaWieser_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 09:01 PM
It is sometimes hard convincing my friends that fish are cute. But they are ^_^And getting back to one of the original points in this thread, we lose the species that are not economically important. Or on a protected list. Which are the species that people on this forum care about.
Best way to not become extinct? Be cute.
I like that the people in the article related how the small fish are important to the sport fish. The more people you can make want to protect something you want to protect, the better.
#15
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 September 2011 - 11:08 PM
I like that the people in the article related how the small fish are important to the sport fish. The more people you can make want to protect something you want to protect, the better.
I think you're missing Nathan's point. Every country should want to protect it's natural heritages regardless of their immediate benefit to humans. The fact that such statements have become a standard in reports (news, grants, etc) reflects the current outlook on biodiversity. While these statements do provide some outreach, it degrades the species in question and shows one of the great hindrances to conservation, as little can be done without understanding citizens. We need to start looking at biodiversity holistically, and realize that minnows do more than feed bass; amphibians do more than harbor anticancer molecules; snakes do more than feed on rodents; and bats do more than feed on biting insects....
#16
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 September 2011 - 09:14 AM
It is frustrating having to find justifications for nongame research by using a gamefish angle. I'm also sick of the Feds, even to people in the scientific community, parroting the "cure for cancer" line when it comes to protecting species. As others have stated, there's an intrinsic value to biodiversity that should be protected. The view that something should be kept around just because it benefits me (as in it feeds my bass or might cure my cancer) is very selfish and short sighted.
#17
Guest_Usil_*
Guest_Usil_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 September 2011 - 09:35 AM
I could not add up all the times in my life from childhood onward of the real enjoyment I have had walking a creek or investigating some small habitat. To me - the joy of seeing frogs at the side of a spring and salamanders in the rocks and darters in the stream are all that I need to 'justify' that they deserved to be there and should be preserved. Unfortunately, when I went to university there were many I met who had never experianced what I did. I thought what dull lives they had chosen to live. What wonders they had missed when they were growing up that were right under their noses. And now, they set the boundaries and limitations within governments and communities.
Usil
Usil
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
