The Fate of the Critters
By Pat Racimora on January 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM in Current Affairs, Endangered Species, Environment
Who do you want making decisions as to which animal species remain protected and which will become endangered or let to go forever?
You have two choices:
(1) Scientists who understand ecology and the balances in nature, or
(2) Bureaucrats with urgent project agendas.
Well, guess what? In his few remaining days in office using “Midnight Resolutions”–the opportunity to sneak last-minute in changes before leaving office that Congress is not fast enough to deal with with so they pass right into law–President Bush has pounded another nail into the Endangered Species Act.
This time he removed a provision that requires Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to make sure that endangered species won’t be harmed by federally approved logging, mining, and road-building projects. So now the fate of any critters “in the way” will be decided by other federal agencies, like the Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Highway Administration.
However, I have to be realistic and admit the anguished reality that not every living creature is going to survive the human takeover of the environment, including some forms of positive progress. Creating alternative energy sources, for example, will endanger some species. That’s just a sad fact. As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger lamented on a recent 60 Minutes, environmentalists are upset with a solar project in the year-round hyper-sunny federally-owned land in California’s Mojave Desert. Why? Because the Mohave ground squirrel and the desert tortoise, both protected by state and federal law, may be adversely affected.
Here’s the problem. Many worry that non-scientists will tend to make decisions based only on moving along the agenda at hand. Build that road. Take down that forest. Strip that land. I like to believe that scientists would be more circumspect as they are trained to be—seeking truth rather than the answer someone else wants.
And here is where the big rub comes in. What can save lives and can keep our habitat balanced allowing for a sustainable planet is not always as it seems at first blush to the rest of us, including those now empowered to make decisions about which critters remain protected and which ones we will soon never see again, such as the lovely creatures portrayed in my toon.
Let me offer a couple of examples as to why non-scientists should not be making these decisions.
What is the most disgusting living thing you can think of? My choice is maggots. Without knowing more, people would probably be OK if they were extinct because they are ugly, useless and cause problems. Turns out they can greatly enhance the healing of burn wounds by attacking only dead tissue, and are especially useful when patients cannot tolerate antibiotics. MDT (Maggot Debridement Therapy) is saving lives.
Other critters that many see as disgusting or scary or annoying are essential and beneficial to our planet. Although not endangered (yet?), bats (unfortunately portrayed as frightening and evil, thanks to vampire fantasies in unending variety) provide an excellent example of critters that many see a unlikable and might not care if their numbers were reduced to zero. But bats are natural enemies of night-flying insect pests, and protect animals and us from such diseases as malaria, equine infectious anemia, and heartworms. Bats are pollinators of plants and are agents of seed dispersal, both of which contribute to the health of the environment. Bats guano is a nitrogen-rich fertilizer. Other examples include bees, worms, and bottom feeders of any sort that have their place as keeping planet life in balance. Even flies are second only to the bees and wasps, in the useful function of pollination.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued the warning: “Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water, and many other products and services we depend upon every day. Yet nearly one-third of native species in the United States are at risk of disappearing.”
Not good news for critters–or for us and our planet.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
and there was the story about the pelicans on nbc last evening..told my husband i dont watch the news……..the world is a great gorgeous diverse planet of beauty….we all need to take care of it and we all need to see that it all stays here it is all a great cycle of life…it is truly a paradise if one would open the eyes and see………….
Great post, as usual, Pat: You’ve been studying up on your “critters”, especially the maggots! There are so many critters that take care of other critters, and it’s a shame that the pesticides take care of all of them. Some caterpillars evolve into the most beautiful butterflies. I am a gardener (Master Gardener), but have been working the soil for a good many years, and what a shame the pesticides have almost wiped out the pollinators: honey bees. Some critters aereate the soil for good root growth and leave their residue for fertilizer, while others chew the leaves and blooms of beautiful flowers. There are people, also, who are good for this planet, and others are not so good, but we were all put here for a purpose. I’m for protecting the planet and it’s beauty while protecting our own existence.
Another concern is the recent decision to allow mountain top removal dumping into streams in the Appalachians. BHO promised to end MTR: write and hold him to this pledge. A good all around source for this issue is:
http://ilovemountains.org/ (has a link to email him & also WV’s governor)
also Wendell Berry plans a march on DC on Mar 2, 2009 to protest MTR. (A lot of literature for this concerns climate change, but even if one is skeptical on this front, MTR is still an enormous environmental catastrophe: the places where it has occurred are moonscapes, forever).
It’s simple, really: chop off the mountaintops and dump them into the valleys: lots more rolling plains on which the buffalo can roam free, and the deer and the antelope can play. We might even fit in a Wal-Mart or two here and there . . .
Thanks Pat for this post.
A typical Bush manuever to do it while no one is looking. Good thing you were. I’m writing my Congress people today to complain.
yeah right, leave the judgement to the scientists. they themselves are divided over various issues and biases. sorry, that isn’t practical.
we need sound judgement. period. and leaving the decision to the scientists is basically stupid. whichever scientists are in the majority (basically nos.) will try and prove that they are true.
But Benny, I’d rather have them dike it out than those who don’t care at all one way or the other.
The problem is that they can duke it out for so long that it will not make any difference what they decide since it will be to late.
Rich
But Benny, I’d rather have them duke it out than those who don’t care at all one way or the other.
These last minute changes have very little long term validity.
All it takes is the new congress changing the rules again which they no doubt will.
The natural world will be doing much better in the coming years as we see the collapse of the consumer economy world wide.
In fact we might see a reduction of perhaps 30% in total industrial output throughout the world which is good for the environment but very bad for containing civil strife.
The reduction of industrial output could also lead to a cool down or mini ice age like what happened in the 16th century. Back then up to 90% of all Central and South Americans died do to desease like smallpox brought by Europeans. The resulting collapse of agriculture led to the forests regrowing and cooling the atmosphere do to absorption of carbon dioxide.
RE: Congress changing midnight resolutions it doesn’t like. That can take months or years. And they have a lot on their plate. I have a hunch most of what Bush has pushed through in recent days will sit for a long while.
Pat,
If memory serves me wasn’t Bush able to undermine most of the Clinton environmental laws in the first few months.
Anyone notice the irony of a PUMA (aka panther) being on the endangered list?
While it is illogical and destructive for mankind to rampage through the environment and biosphere like a bull in a china shop, it is equally illogical and pointless for men to attempt to maintain a “biological” status quo. Trying to freeze the biosphere at it’s present state is just as unnatural as capriciously eliminating species like the Dodo or Passenger Pigeon. 99% of all life that ever existed on this planet was extinct before the advent of modern man.
Currently the Northern spotted owl subspecies is being replaced by the more robust barred owl. Scientists are at a loss on how to prevent this, and for all they know, it may be a natural event, and only regrettable from an anthropocentric perspective. The biosphere is far too complicated for even the most brilliant scientists to understand, and it is the pinnacle of hubris to claim that they can. Every attempt, no matter how well intended, to manipulate species and environment, has been met with arguably negative unintended consequences. Preventing forrest fires may seem to be the right thing to do, but forrest fires are natural and necessary for the life cycles of many species.
While I agree that many questions regarding species extinction are better answered by scientists, don’t give them more than skeptical credibility. Sometimes resources and manpower are more efficiently applied to situations with a more reasonable cost benefit, than they are if applied to a lost cause. It makes little sense to spend a fortune, re-route highways, or drastically alter our lives to preserve a microenvironment that contains several dozen of a subspecies of pupfish. I’m not saying just kill the little buggers, just find a reasonable balance using the limited knowledge that we have.
As for the Florida Panther… It is probably already gone. Tests on some of the remaining “panthers” show they to be a mixture of other sub species of cougars. This may have happened with released pets and escaped ones as well mated with the existing Florida cougar.
The Federal Government brought Texas cougars into Florida, behind Floridians backs. This act endangered pets, livestock and people. I know of which I speak.
The plan was to mate the Florida Panther with another sub species of cougar. What they would have gained is NOT a Florida panther but another sub species of cougar. Cougars are not endangered. (There are already more than 20 sub species.)
The Federal/State Government could have used these genetically engendered cougars to take our land under the Endangered Species Act.
Farmers and ranchers are among the best stewards of the land and have been repaid by the seizure of their lands, by restrictions.
I am a strong advocate for animals,and nature, but I hate lies and liars and acts of aggression under the guise of helping animals, clean water and global warming.
With a slight edit:
LOL! Good one.
Probably many of us would have liked to see some kind of animal, bird or bug extinguished forever from the planet at some time in our lives. As a kid growing up in Kansas in the 30’s, I would have loved to have had blister beetles, grasshoppers and locusts extinguished forever as theywere persistent annoying pests that systematically turned cornfields into broomsticks and devoured everything in their path.
There are many instances throughout history and the world of a particular species getting out of balance to the point they become a plague. Should we preserve pirrhanas, black widow spiders? There will always be people who say, no, good riddance. And there will always be people (scientists and/or politicians and/or environmentalists) that will fight to preserve them for some (often esoteric) reason. Debate on these issues is healthy, but there is often no easy answer. The crucial decisions on the fate of a species seems to be left more often in the hands of the politicians and pressure groups than in the hands of the scientists.
As for Bush’s decisions and last minute push throughs, well, it will be left to the new administration to decide whether to push to repeal them. Some of these can be done quickly and some will take some time. Personally, I would like to see the ability of Presidents to push their agendas into law before leaving office curtailed or eliminated.
This planet will be around long after we are gone. There is nothing man can do to end all life. Some species will survive, but we won’t. Unfortunately, it is all about energy now and the demand for it will keep rising along with the population.
Wars will be fought over it, hastening the end of our species. We can never take greed out of the equation, so I see no other alternative..
Sorry for the doom and gloom, but I think I’m right.
Ouch, clairtx–but you may well be right indeed!
I like the cartoon and subject matter.I like the cartoon and subject matter. I would choose that scientists should be a big part of the decision process, if only they would agree more often on just about any issue, and could do it in a timely way like one year.
What concerns me is that a politician could decide to get rid of a species just because it is a problem for them, regardless of the impact on the environment, which they may have little knowledge about. I do not like gofers, but I know that getting ride of all gofers, molds, and mice could create a serious problem for many other animals. So if a politician got bit by a mesquite, or wasp, or even a bee, they may want to get ride of what ever they see as a problem. Then what happens next, could it be birds that pups on his head when he walks?
So there we are. Someone has to have the ability to make a decision and with our kind of politics it is seldom an expert.
Rich
Great toon, Pat! Love it.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Very thoughtful analysis.