Rigor Vitae: Life Unyielding

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

EXHIBITION IN THE GREATER NYC AREA

BIODIVERSITY in the ART of CAREL PIETER BREST van KEMPEN is now up at the Hiram Blauvelt Art Museum in Oradell, New Jersey. The show includes 50 original paintings spanning over twenty years. If you'll be in the New York City area between now and the end of March, please consider visiting. Otherwise, you can see the show online. There will be a public reception at the museum on March 4th.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

THE MOST VULNERABLE ONES

Ninety-seven years ago this month, a pigeon named Martha died in the Cincinnati Zoo. She was the last member of a species that had numbered around 5 billion just a century earlier—the most abundant bird on the planet. Exterminated for its impact on agriculture and commercially hunted for food, the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) was completely eradicated in a few decades with 19th century technology.. How was such a thing possible?

Three and a half years later, the same zoo lost another resident. “Inca” was the last Carolina Parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis), a notorious raider of orchards and another once plentiful species brought to extinction in surprisingly short order. These two birds certainly weren't the only animals to have been subjected to intense hunting pressures, which begs the question, why did they succumb? What enabled egrets to survive a similar onslaught during the seller's market for their plumes? Why do jackrabbits and pocket-gophers continue to thrive in the face of centuries of concerted efforts to effect their elimination?

Over the past few centuries, hundreds of species have fallen victim to the changes wrought by Humans. Very few of these, though, could have been called plentiful. What was it about the American Bison that made it possible to reduce its vast herds from 50 million to a few hundred individuals within a century? Last century, the US Government's program to eradicate Gray Wolves and Coyotes managed to wipe the former species from the lower 48 within 35 years while Coyotes, seemingly oblivious to the campaign, increased their numbers to fill the gap. What can explain this?

If you haven't yet figured out the common thread, it's that all of these creatures are extremely social. We all understand the advantages of societies, but they come with their liabilities, too. Obviously, living in social groups makes it possible for large numbers of animals to perish in a single event, but probably more important is the fact that social creatures are dependent on their societies. Once a society is fragmented beyond a certain point, it ceases to be viable. Ancient Roman generals understood this principle when they practiced decimation, the killing of ten percent of a newly conquered population, weakening the culture to the point that assimilation was possible. Fragment the society further and it becomes moribund.I contemplate these gregarious ghosts of the past as Utah's congressional delegation lobs the latest volley in the ongoing war over the Utah Prairie Dog (Cynomys parvidens), smallest and rarest of the five prairie dog species. It is restricted to parts of six counties in southwestern Utah, a region with one of the fastest-growing human populations in the country. Poisoning campaigns reduced an estimated 95,000 adults occupying 1,800 sq. km. in 1920 to a current population estimated at just under 8,000 adults occupying 28 sq. km. and falling. The IUCN lists the Utah Prairie Dog as endangered, but the USFWS, under the influence of agricultural lobbying, continues to list the species as threatened. Worst of all for the prairie dogs, they're extremely social.
_____________________
upper: Passenger Pigeon (1898) by J.G. Hubbard (public domain)
lower: White-tailed Prairie Dog (closest relative of the Utah Prairie Dog 2004) by CPBvK

Friday, September 09, 2011

TODAY'S LOGIC QUIZ


Yesterday, Matt from Florida phoned in to “Talk of the Nation,” National Public Radio's weekday call-in show. The topic concerned the effects of government policies on hiring in the private sector. Here's the excerpted transcript of Matt's conversation with host Neal Conan:

MATT: I am a dock photographer, or I own the dock photography businesses down here on the marina. Two years ago - my last two didn't really count, with the oil spill. But three years ago, we had 72 days of snapper season, which is a busy time of the year. Almost every boat goes out and charter fishes. This year, we only had 48 days. So I had two less employees. We're 30 less days this year because of federal regulations.
CONAN: And that's presumably to prevent overfishing?
MATT: Presumably, yes. The fish were - have never been bigger, and have never been more plentiful as they have been this year. I actually went on a scientific mission with the Florida Wildlife - Fish and Wildlife here. And in an eight-hour trip, we caught 302 red snappers. I caught 50-some that day. These were all catch and release. But they were very plentiful out there. Hopefully, the science will catch up with the regulations soon enough. But, yes, directly because of federal regulations, I don't have two more employees for 30 extra days this year.


He wasn't called on it, but what's the critical error in Matt's thinking?

A transcript of the entire program can be found here.
_____________________
illustration: THREE MORE WORLDS--RAINBOW TROUT & OSPREY (2000) acrylic on illustration boards 30" x 20"

Thursday, August 25, 2011

CONSERVATION vs. MANAGEMENT

Forming good natural resource policies first requires looking to the future, and establishing what objectives we want to reach and what kind of outcomes we want to avoid. I like to divide the strategies we use to reach the goals we set into two categories: conservation and management. Conservation strategies seek to halt change to natural systems, while management manipulates those systems to try to reach an outcome. Where conservation is passive, management is active. Since these systems involve lots of chaos, conservation strategies are far safer: their outcomes are more predictable and less likely to backfire. As relative newcomers to planet Earth, our species has come to thrive in the ecological climate as it currently exists. It's fair to assume that any random change to that climate will be detrimental to us as a species. So the underlying principle of our policies should be one of conservation; i.e., mitigating change. This should be particularly easy for us, since we humans are the main agent of ecological change today.

Let's test these ideas against the two biggest management projects in recent U.S. History. In 1982, a meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation made the decision to trap the entire population of California Condors (Gymnogyps californianus) and attempt to breed them intensively, with the ultimate goal of reestablishing a greater number of them in the wild. This was a bold and unprecedented scheme, but times were desperate; the total population of the species was a mere 22 birds. Ten years after the condor plan, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the same agency that had launched a successful campaign in 1914 to eradicate Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) from the United States, decided to replace them. When the first Canadian wolves were released in Yellowstone's Lamar Valley in 1995, the wolf population along the border was already on the increase. Having once been eliminated from the southern Canadian Rockies, they retook the area on their own, then advanced on the U.S. By the time the reintroduction began, 70 of them already called Montana home, with a few in northern Idaho as well.

Both projects have been huge, expensive, and far more successful than anyone could have hoped. Today, the California Condor population totals 384 birds, including 181 in the wild, two of which were hatched in the wild, while the number of Wolves in the U.S. Northern Rockies has topped an impressive 1,651. Continued careful management of both species can be expected, to keep wolves from interfering too much with Human interests, and simply to keep the Condors from collapsing.So how well do these reintroductions square with our underlying principle of conservation—of minimizing change? California Condors are relicts from a successful group of large, carrion-eating birds that dwindled from their Pleistocene zenith to a single North American species that probably numbered no more than a couple of thousand by the time Christopher Columbus set sail. The species has basically outlived its niche. Good arguments could be made on conservationist grounds both for the policy of saving the species or for allowing its natural demise. It's much harder to justify the Wolf reintroduction as a conservation project under these definitions. Both examples underscore an unavoidable contradiction: that change is a basic characteristic of nature, and every time we work to keep ecosystems from changing, we impede to some degree their normal adaptation to change. It can be tempting for wildlife managers to look for a template in centuries past, as in the “Rewilding” proposals of Josh Donlan and others, but ecosystems can no more go back in time than can we. There are no clear rules to guide us in our policies, and there is no way that nature is “supposed” to look. Our California Condor and Gray Wolf projects were not designed as routes to nature as it should be, but to nature as we decided we want it.
_____________________
upper: CALIFORNIA CONDOR (2007) acrylic 30" x 20"
lower: CALIFORNIA CONDOR (2004) oil 72" x 108"

Friday, May 06, 2011

REFECTIONS ON CONSERVATION, PART I: WHY CONSERVE?

Cŏn-sērve', v. to keep in a safe or sound state; to save, to preserve from loss, decay, waste, or injury; to defend from violation.” -Webster's Dictionary


At a recent public meeting, I was accused of caring more about tortoises than people. It wasn't the first time I'd had such charges leveled against me; in fact, it's the rare argument against conservation that leaves this rhetorical barb in the quiver. Of course, if it came down to an actual choice between the lives of tortoises and people (rather than between tortoises and the further enriching of a handful of fat-cats), I'd have to side with my own species. But the real fallacy of this accusation is that at its core, conservation is a practice based in self-interest.

Our sustenance-culture forebears engaged personally each day with the resources they consumed. To them, the conservation of nature was basic common sense. Those cultures that consumed resources faster than they could replenish themselves simply died out. It was a folly analogous to outspending our own weekly paychecks. In today's industrial world, most of us consume resources gathered from far away lands, and gauging the sustainability of their harvest is difficult. Still, by the Nineteenth Century, as the global population passed one billion, the alarming decline of the of the Northern Hemisphere's forests alerted visionaries like Henry David Thoreau and George Perkins Marsh to the need for a new conservation philosophy. This philosophy was informed by two assumptions: first, the undeniable fact that Humans, as facets of ecological systems, are dependent on those systems, and have a vested interest in their remaining healthy and operational, and that Humans have an intrinsic need—call it spiritual, biological or psychological—for nature. The ecologist Edward O. Wilson called it “biophilia.”

Since the days of Marsh and Thoreau, the Human population has expanded exponentially, more than doubling during my own lifetime, stressing the biological systems that ultimately support us all. In addition to increasing resource consumption, population growth exacerbates the non-consumptive displacement and stress caused by human activities, elevating innocuous enterprises to ecologically devastating ones. Adding to this is the increasing per capita rate of consumption, which is harder to assess. It's probably best measured with the closely related indicators of standard of living and economic growth, which are usually expressed with the soft metric of currency, but its rise over time has, if anything, exceeded that of population.Conventional wisdom has told us that economic growth will alleviate the problems of overpopulation and ecological degradation. Standard models predicted the Human population stabilizing at about 9 billion by the middle of this century. The latest U. N. study, just released on May 3, casts doubt on this assumption, predicting continued growth, and a population exceeding 10 billion before century's end. More dubious yet is the oft-cited idea that as poor countries become wealthier, the state of their ecological systems improves. While it's true that more efficient technologies become available to the masses with increased wealth, along with better education, which depresses fertility, most of the fuel for this hypothetical process comes from the historical fact that as their living standards improved, northern nations looking increasingly beyond their own shores for natural resources, relieving themselves of many of the downsides of resource extraction. This option will not be open to the currently developing world. Where the natural impact of Humans in wealthy countries is global, that of poor countries is local. While the ecologically devastating land-use practices of a few very poor nations like Madagascar skew the picture, the ecological health of the world's poor nations is inversely proportional to their wealth, just as the planet's total ecological health is inversely proportional to the overall wealth of its Human population: a sobering realization.As ecology defines how energy circulates among organisms, economics defines how wealth circulates among individuals, and the same principles govern both sciences. It's the outstripping of resource renewal by consumption-- that same paradigm we call “economic growth,” and are used to seeing as an amenity--that makes conservation necessary. Clearly, the primary goal of any conservation philosophy must be to reach a point of economic equilibrium. Planning a route to that equilibrium will cause hardship, but failing to plan for it will ensure that same hardship in spades. Those of us in wealthy countries have the most power to act for the ultimate good of all, and each of us as individuals must decide how much of the burden we're willing to shoulder. It's not for the tortoises, it's for ourselves.

Next up in the series: Conservation vs. Management
_____________________
upper: DESERT TORTOISES (2008) acrylic 20" x 30"
center: Graph from Wikimedia, adapted by CPBvK
lower: BIOPHILIA--WESTERN LOWLAND GORILLA & CRESTED CHAMELEON (2001) acrylic 20" x 15"

Sunday, January 09, 2011

...DROP TOGETHER

While walking home yesterday, I noticed a dark, cylindrical form teetering on the sidewalk's edge. The fresh carcass of a European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) was cool but still limp. Finding one of these common birds dead under its perch after a very cold night is hardly surprising, yet my thoughts turned immediately to Beebe, Arkansas and the dead blackbirds that we've all heard so much about. That was a surprising story that gave us all a new context through which to view something like this single unfortunate starling. It's only natural to make connections about such things, and connections we've been making. Newspapers reported a separate accident on January 3rd that befell another mixed flock of Red-winged Blackbirds in Louisiana, as well as what appears to have been around 100 dispersed, unrelated bird deaths in Kentucky. These were just the first of many to come. Accounts of the numbers and species have varied wildly. Reported bird deaths in Manitoba have ranged from 400 to “tens of thousands.” Dead corvids in Falköping, Sweden seem to number around 100. Add to this reports of fish die-offs--100,000 Freshwater Drums in the Arkansas River and 2 million fish of various species in the Chesapeake Bay--and you've got plenty of potential connections to make. I've been trying hard to make some of my own, but to no avail.

Most of these stories seem like the starling I found: mundane events that would normally merit little more than a shoulder shrug. The limited supply of reliable information makes it hard to piece together what caused these various deaths, but a common thread is hard to conjure. The Louisiana incident appears to have been a single accident that befell a flock of birds, as does another near Tyler, Texas. During the winter, blackbirds and many other bird species live at high density. In such a flock there's safety, but a disaster can take a staggering toll. Cold weather is deadly for birds as well, especially ones that aren't in the best of health to begin with. Only a small percentage of the birds that hatch each year survive to the next summer, and many, if not most of these deaths occur during winter cold snaps. I don't suspect that the dispersed Manitoba deaths fall outside of normal winter events. Like Tarzan said, “Life in jungle no bowl of cherries.” Cold weather, winter flocking and West Nile Virus seem a likely explanation for Sweden's dead Jackdaws. For now, I'm assuming that the phenomenon we're witnessing is not an ecological, but a psychological and social one.

That's also the line that Wildlife authorities are taking in articles like this one. They explain the cause of the Arkansas die-off as firework-shy birds panicking and flying into objects. Here, though, I think their confidence is overstated. Most birds, including blackbirds, employ a unique type of flapping, approaching a hover, when flying blind. Typically they will fly in circles, rising for a while before gently descending to a crash landing. The blind flight of a blackbird is nowhere near the 25 mph cited in the article. I wouldn't expect more than a handful of deaths from a thousand frightened, blindfolded blackbirds charging into a brick wall. Judging from the numerous accounts, the Beebe flock sustained losses of around 10%, maybe more. It's difficult for me to imagine this effect from a dozen fireworks, even if they all exploded in the middle of the flock. I used to work at Tracy Aviary, which is located in a park in the heart of Salt Lake City. For years, despite our annual protests, the city launched its 4th of July fireworks and the even bigger 24th of July fireworks right next to the aviary. The birds were subjected to around a half-hour long barrage, the entirety of which they spent smashing themselves against the walls and wires of their enclosures. Unlike the wild blackbirds, they were unable to escape the source of their anxiety, but losses were invariably below 1%, excluding broken and unincubated eggs and young birds that became hypothermic when their brooding parent left them. Birds in large flight cages that could potentially reach high speeds fared much better than birds in smaller enclosures, which were frequently battered, but rarely killed.

It seems likely to me that fireworks were what launched the Beebe birds from their roosts, but I think there must have been at least one secondary factor involved, although I can't offer any good suggestions. An updraft could have carried them high into a storm where rapid decompression, high-altitude hail, or perhaps just cold wet conditions did them in, or a strong crosswind could have increased their speed to the point that the wildlife management explanation becomes more credible—who knows? The Arkansas State Veterinarian stated that the birds his office necropsied showed no damage except for internal hemorrhaging. This was inferred as being caused by “blunt force trauma,” a phrase that has been picked up as the cause of death in most subsequent accounts.

Perhaps the Beebe deaths will forever remain a mystery, but for now I see no evidence of a single epidemiological, toxicological or any kind of logical factor that that has caused these deaths, or even that there have been an unusually high number of them in the past week. Nonetheless, as varied reports of mass Turtle Dove deaths in Italy flow in, I can't help but continue to try to draw those connecting lines.
_____________________
illustration: WORKING THE FLOCK--MERLIN & STARLINGS (1988) acrylic 30" x 20"

Sunday, November 28, 2010

TECHNOLOGY OFFERS HOPE FOR CURBING CLIMATE CHANGE

Just a few examples in honor of all the delegates who've jetted down to Cancun to pretend there's an agreement to hammer out...





_____________________
images ripped off from the internet by CPBvK