[obol] Re: Charismatic megafauna in urbanized areas, really?
- From: David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>
- To: OBOL Oregon Birders Online <obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 04:16:20 +0000
Joel and Lars,
I think there is merit to both sides of this debate. I will take it a different
direction. It seems pretty clear to me that urbanization and adaptation
occurring with some megafauna is directly correlated to population size, which
in most cases can be traced directly to human impacts and persecution. Let's
start with ravens, wolves, coyotes and even Bald Eagle as examples. These
organisms are generalists in terms of habitat and they are for the most part
opportunistic carnivores. So long as some animal is dying or there to hunt,
they are eating. They are not tied to specific habitats or prey/food bases.
Take away historic human persecution and global scale environmental poisoning
(DDT) and there seems to be no obvious barrier to these creatures reaching
their respective carrying capacities. Clearly, when wolves and coyotes start
coming into more frequent and mutually threatening contact with humans, there
will be some human push back. This normally translates to some form of bounty
hunting or eradication. Black birds in general have always been a bit reviled
in large part due to their color. As a result, they've been shot at for no
reason other than killing them. No one ever baked them in a pie, at least not
on this side of the pond. It may be that the expansions of some of these
animals into areas of significant human density will inspire another round of
human push back. This is already happening in response to the growing
population of and recolonization of former range by North American wolves.
Many of the examples Joel pointed to are species that are more specialized with
regard to habitat and prey/food base. There is no reason to believe that
Greater Sage-Grouse ever occupied more than a particular habitat niche. Barred
Owl is certainly a generalist in terms of habitat requirements, but there is no
indication that Spotted Owl was ever this adaptable. I haven't done any study
of wolverines, fishers, pine martens, but it would surprise me to learn that
any of these species ever ranged as far and wide as the coyote or the wolf.
I can't speak for Lars, but I did not get the impression from his original post
that he believes all of the globe's megafauna can or will find a way live in
concert with dense human population. I do agree with him on one point. The fact
that at least some of these animals are able to thrive in and around urban area
can be viewed as "good news" from the standpoint that it suggests they are
getting closer to their natural carrying capacity. Prior to the era of
high-powered hunting rifles and helicopter tracking and shooting, wolves likely
did quite well around the fringes of dense human settlement.
Any time someone makes a general point, it's not hard to come up with specific
exceptions that are contrary to that more general point. Lars was painting with
a broad brush and referencing a rather narrow group of creatures that seem to
be more adaptable than most. He wasn't donning his rose-colored glasses and
suggesting that all is well with the natural world.
Finally, it is widely believed that cockroaches and black rats will inherit the
Earth. Are we prepared to say to ourselves that these are lesser creatures than
the fisher, the pine marten, or the Oregon Vesper Sparrow, or that their
ability to adapt and persist side-by-side with humans has no value when
compared to those organisms that can't adapt in a similar fashion? The fact
that some if not many organisms can adapt to living in urban or semi-urban
areas should not be treated as an 'inconvenient truth' that should be ignored
because it somehow undermines the conservation efforts directed at those
creatures that are less adaptable. One has nothing to do with the other.
Unfortunately, conservation efforts succeed or fail on the basis how much fear,
concern, and emotional response we can generate among those who will fund and
do the work. You can point to this in the spending of millions looking for the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker (already extinct) and took away money and effort that
would have been better invested in the effort to save extant populations. Of
course we all wanted to believe that somehow this magnificent creature was
still in our midst. What it would have taken to get folks equally excited about
a couple of little dirt-brown birds in the Willamette Valley (Oregon Vesper
Sparrow and Streaked Horned Lark)? Not happening! I've always felt that it's
slippery slope when we start applying human value judgments or value
hierarchies to organisms. In the grand scheme of things, is there a difference
between the value of a European Starling and the value of a Giant Panda? I
don't think so, but try making that argument with the average person.
Dave Irons
Portland, OR
Other related posts:
