Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:24:40 -0700
Mike Asher states:
'Your first point that DDT affects bird populations is an oft-repeated
falsehood as well. During the years of heaviest DDT usage (from 1941
to 1971) annual bird population counts conducted by the Audobon
Society showed increasing population for every single common bird
species: 8X increase for blackbirds, 131X for grackles, 21X increase
for cowbirds, and a 12 percent increase in robins. The increase in
robin populations is interesting, because the Environmental Defense
Fund, who testified in the 1971 DDT hearing, claimed that robins were
'doomed' by DDT and-- even if the ban was implemented-- likely faced
extinction.
After this information was released, environmentalists moved their
focus to 'birds of prey': the osprey, bald eagle, and especially the
peregrine falcon, all who had populations that were undoubtable
declining. However, Dr. Joseph Hickey, who also testified at the
1971 hearing, showed that peregrine levels had showed a consistent
decline since 1890, far outdating the use of DDT, and that hawks, for
instance, had increased over 1200% from 1957 to 1967.
The specific agent claimed by environmentalists for declining
populations was shell-thinning. This is a common phenomenon among
birds, caused by stress, diet, disease, and temperature variations.
As thin shells were being noted in several bird species, it seemed to
be easy to blame this on DDT. But all studies attempting to link
shell-thinning to DDT were unsuccessful and one (embarassing) study
done to link shell-thinning to declining bird populations determined
that a moderate degree of shell-thinning actually increased hatching
and survival rates.'
To which I reply:
You've presented a lot of information and assertions, so it will take
some time to examine all of the sources in detail. I note, however,
that there are some web pages dealing with the issue of DDT which can
be found easily using a net search engine. Of note is the U.S. Fish
and Wildlifer Service page regarding the Artic Perigrine falcon at
bluegoose.arw.r9.fws.gov/NWRSFiles/WildlifeMgmt/etc. Read it and tell
me what you think. Meanwhile here's a summary:
- DDE, the principle metabolyte of DDT, prevents normal calcium
deposition during eggshell formation. Since everyone agrees on this,
we're ok so far..
- pivotal action in the recovery of the peregrine falcon was
regulation of organochlorine pesticides..a point of contention here,
- shells in artic Alaska still remain 12.5% thinner than pre-DDT era
shells,..you don't deny it
-'noticable increase in productivity occurred in Alaska within a few
years following restrictions on the use of organochlorines in the
U.S.,..uh oh.. a point of contention...
References are provided on the webpage. This report is a part of a
study examining arguments to remove the falcon from the endangered
species list. The species had been in steep decline, a trend
apparently reversed by the DDT ban. There is also a set of
measurements presented which indicates a cause and effect between
shell thinning and DDT. The next step will be to examine primary
sources and, as far as possible, experimental techniques. Have you
done this with your sources?
Subject: "Parks Are For People"
From: Mike Vandeman
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:51:01 -0700
October 24, 1995
Board of Directors and Planning/Stewardship Department
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
P.O. Box 5381
Oakland, California 94605-0381
Re: Draft Master Plan 1996
Gentlepersons:
I just re-read my November 9, 1995 letter to you on this
Master Plan revision. One hundred percent of it is still valid.
Please append that letter to my current comments. In other words,
you didn't listen to any of it. It is obvious that you have no
intention of listening to any comments, unless they conform to your
basic goal of turning all of our parks and the precious resources
they contain into human playgrounds. Although you pay it lip
service, protection and restoration of wildlife and wildlife
habitat is your lowest priority. This is clearly visible in your
conversion of essential habitat to golf curses (was that typo just
an accident?), campgrounds, picnic areas, parking lots, roads
(which you euphemistically call "trails"), and "firebreaks". It is
blatant, when a threatened Alameda whipsnake is killed by a
mountain biker at Black Diamond Mines, and your park supervisor
says it's "not significant".
We are in the midst of an extinction crisis. The IUCN
(International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources), publisher of the Red Data Books, recently reported that
______________
one quarter of all animal species in the world are threatened with
extinction. But you needn't worry about that, because, as Director
Jocelyn Combs says, "Parks Are For People".
Most of this threat is due to loss of habitat. This can
consist of complete destruction of the habitat, such as when it is
turned into a campground, or simply the presence of too many people
too much of the time, causing the wildlife to abandon the area. In
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, where your parks are located,
wildlife have already lost approximately 95% of their habitat. The
regional parks, and a few other "protected" areas, are their last
refuge. Obviously, they can't afford to lose any more. But, of
course, that is not your concern, since "Parks Are For People".
Why is this important? Besides the obvious moral obligation to
protect the other species with whom we share the Earth, and on
which we are heavily dependent, you can't have a "park" without
wildlife (i.e., all nonhuman, nondomesticated species). It would be
nothing but a pile of rocks! Have you visited a quarry lately? Did
you have fun? Just as you can't have much of a marriage unless you
ensure that your spouse is healthy and happy, wildlife need to be
given top priority in our parks and other remnant habitat areas. (I
____________
see no reason why protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat couldn't
be the only purpose of the Park District; that is the sine qua non
____ ____________
that makes all other park uses possible!) The East Bay Municipal
Utility District manages to do that, on their watershed lands; why
can't you? Oh, I forgot: parks are for people.
Expanding the park system seems like a good thing, until one
realizes that your primary goal is to increase human access to the
_____________________
parks. When dealing with wildlife, the most important viewpoint is
that of the wildlife themselves. Clearly, they prefer, and hence
need, to be left alone. Fostering expanding the number of human
(and domesticated animal) visitors to the parks, expanding our area
of influence, expanding "visiting hours" (e.g. by allowing
overnight camping), and allowing mechanical aids (e.g. mountain
bikes or climbing equipment) that make access to wilderness areas
easier, can only drive our local wildlife closer to extinction.
Humans are relatively flexible; we can satisfy our needs in
many ways. In particular, most of the "needs" that are satisfied by
the parks (e.g. for golfing, archery, horseback riding, bicycling,
swimming, camping, and picnicking, etc.) can also be met by other
means, and therefore should be met by other means. Parks are not
______
profit-making businesses, that have to continually attract new uses
and new users, and maximize the exploitation of their available
resources. If they were, they would soon be bankrupt, just as the
____
rest of our society is experiencing (running out of wood, seafood,
drinking water, oil, farmland, etc.). Parks and other preserves
must operate on exactly the opposite principle: protect and
preserve all existing resources, since they cannot be recreated.
Unlike us, wildlife are not very flexible, and cannot be. They need
______
the natural environment in which they evolved -- basically, as it
was when man first arrived here. They have no choice; not only
can't they evolve fast enough to keep up with our changes to their
environment, but they have nowhere else to go! But since parks are
for people, who cares?
For some reason, a large proportion of the District staff,
from General Manager Bob Doyle on down, seem to believe that they
are operating a major resource-exploiting corporation, and that
they need to maximize the use of those resources (by humans, of
______
course!), and in particular, that they need to devote a great deal
of energy to protecting and perpetuating their jobs, rather than to
____
protecting the natural resources on which the entire "empire" is
constructed. Where did they get these crazy ideas? Certainly not by
___
consulting the wildlife.
Anyone who loves nature will be sickened by this master plan.
________
It is basically a blank check to allow the Park District to do
anything they want -- to continue moving the District toward the
Disneyland or Marine World model -- to give the public anything it
wants. It doesn't contain a single restraint or performance
____________________________________________________
standard! We are apparently just supposed to trust you! The Draft
_________
document is full of lies and meaningless words: "expanding ...
camping opportunities by carefully adding new sites" (p.22),
_________
"provide a balanced system of regional parks" (p.25), "strike the
________
appropriate balance between protection and recreation", "the ...
___________ _______
level of resource protection or recreational use appropriate for
___________
the area", and "will classify ... parklands" (p.31), "create
________
strategies ... that improve service to the region" (p.39), and
_______
"growing demand for services (p.50). None of these vague,
______ ____
propagandistic terms are defined. Since you don't promise to adhere
to any performance standards, we have no way to tell if, for
example, you have added a new campsite "carefully" enough! You have
proven untrustworthy many times in the past (e.g. Assistant General
Manager Jerry Kent cut down a tree on top of Vollmer Peak, and then
called it "trimming" the tree). Why should we trust you in the
______________________________
future?
_______
The problem with letting the "public" dictate what happens in
the parks is that the most important part of that "public" is never
consulted, in fact is never even "at the table": wildlife. (I guess
that's because parks are for people.) Almost every speaker at the
hearing I attended was asking you to satisfy some selfish need of
theirs. (E.g. the mountain bikers wanted you to change the term
"footpath" to "single-track trail", because they think that will
make it easier for them to get access to those trails!) You should
______
listen to people, but you should be able to put their requests in
the proper perspective, and not feel that you have to comply with
every request. And you should pay the most attention to people like
____
me and Mr. Flasher, who speak up for those who can't defend
themselves -- wildlife, for example, and the dead (fossils and
________
native American remains). You are under no obligation to satisfy
every human need within the parks. Parks are, in fact, for
satisfying needs that cannot be satisfied elsewhere.
______
The most disturbing thing about the plan is that it is full of
lies. This is the kind of thing we expect from a dictatorship or
"banana republic", not from a supposedly democratic institution! Is
preserving your jobs that critical, that you are willing to
____
jettison all of the values that made this country great?
Premier among those lies is the one big lie on which the
entire plan is based: that you can have your cake, and eat it, too:
that you can use natural resources, and at the same time preserve
them: "to maintain a careful balance between the recreational use
of parklands and the need to protect and conserve them for all to
enjoy" (p.1). The key to maintaining this lie is that you call all
of your incremental changes "insignificant" (such as the killing of
a threatened snake), ignoring the fact that, since the parks are
finite, those so-called "insignificant" changes soon add up to very
______ ____
significant damage. A sampling of other lies: "Populations of
listed species will be monitored through periodic observations of
their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution"
(p.11); "Park improvements will be designed to avoid or minimize
impacts on wildlife habitats, plant populations, and other
resources" (p.40); and "lower intensity recreational activities
(like ... backpack and horseback camping, riding, and bicycling)"
(p.42).
Also disturbing is the great emphasis you place on money. The
only reason you require so much of it, is that the parks are
managed like human playgrounds. Almost every Board agenda contains
a request for the purchase of another motor vehicle! One dangerous
aspect of this trend is that you are now considering "selling" the
parks to the highest bidder: "the District will seek gifts, grants,
and other forms of financial and operational support, including
possible site development and operation by others" (p.22); "Leases
will be negotiated to ... maximize revenue to the District" (p.48);
"Actively seek individual, business and corporate sponsorships"
(p.52). If you don't have any performance standards, and haven't
lived up to those you had in the past, I can imagine how well
outside commercial and other interests will be concerned with
protecting the natural resources in the parks!
The bottom line is that the plan has a lot of verbiage
dedicated to making a good impression, but current District
_______
management is not sustainable, so the expanded resource
________
exploitation proposed in this plan, containing even fewer standards
and constraints than exist today, will be even less sustainable.
____
And I can't see how this situation can be fixed, short of firing
the current General Manager and Assistant General Manager, and
starting over. Does the Board have the guts to tell the truth, and
do what is right? I doubt it, because most of them seem to agree
that "Parks Are For People".
Sincerely,
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
References:
Foreman, Dave Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, New York: Harmony
_____________________________
Books, c. 1991
Jamison, Deborah, Species in Danger in our Own Backyard, Volume I.
_________________________________________________
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species in the South San Francisco
___________________________________________________________________
Bay Area, Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation, Palo Alto, CA,
________
1992.
Life on the Edge -- Volume I: Wildlife.
______________________________________
Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden
___________________________________
City, NY: Anchor Books, c. 1984
Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing
Roads", Earth First!
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
_______________________
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
_____________________________________
California, 1994.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Dissolved Oxygen Probe Resisting Pressure
Back
--------------470D67C73D95--