Rescuing Shiners In Texas
#2 Guest_rjmtx_*
Posted 16 September 2011 - 06:20 PM
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_*
Posted 19 September 2011 - 08:06 AM
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_*
Posted 19 September 2011 - 10:23 AM
Why not protect the habitat just because it is there and it costs no one anything to do so?
#5 Guest_nativeplanter_*
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_*
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_*
Posted 19 September 2011 - 12:45 PM
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_*
Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:15 PM
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_*
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_*
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_*
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_*
Posted 19 September 2011 - 05:27 PM
Usil
Edited by Usil, 19 September 2011 - 05:36 PM.
#13 Guest_MichiJim_*
Posted 19 September 2011 - 07:04 PM
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_*
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_*
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_*
Posted 20 September 2011 - 09:14 AM
#17 Guest_Usil_*
Posted 20 September 2011 - 09:35 AM
Usil
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users