Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Ecology is Science, politics is gutter

4 views

Skip to first unread message

Doug Bashford

unread,

Oct 11, 2009, 12:48:00 PM10/11/09

a mish mash, including "Ecocentral 1" and a post
before Mike Vandeman flipped out on trail bikes.

� Area: U_Environmen
��
Msg#: 56 Date: 12-30-93 22:08
From: Dean Alaska Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: New forest service chief
��

Well, Dean Alaska said to All on 12-30-93 22:08
about: New forest service chief....

DA> From: de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
DA> Subject: New Forest Service Chief Starts Work
DA> Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

DA> In article <97...@verdix.verdix.com> do...@verdix.com (Don Baccus)
DA> writes: >In article <1993Dec30.1...@vexcel.com>
>de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>Another interesting factoid in the Forest Wars is that the
administration
>>went to the coalition of forest groups in the Northwest and asked them
to
>>choose which areas would be opened to logging. The administration
wanted
>>to show that they had brought the various groups together.
>
>Well, I think you've accidently created a faketoid out of a couple
>of factoids.
>
>First, timber and conservation groups were all invited to the
>Forest Summit earlier this year. They actually talked to each
>other. In mostly loud voices, of course.
>
>Second, you are confusing reaction to the various options with
>an event which centers around a very significant lawsuit.

DA> I believe that Option 9 will be presented to Judge Dwyer as a solution
DA> to the injunction and I read that the administration request to the
DA> plaintiffs related to the specifics of that solution. What you have
DA> written below says that the request to the plaintiffs was to remove
DA> some forest from consideration of the courts. This is not how I
DA> understood the article I read but thanks for the clarification.
>
>Now, recently Clinton approached the plaintiffs in this suit,
>which includes the Portland Audubon Society of which I'm a
>Board Member, and asked them to release some sales as an
>act of good faith.
>
>>These groups had grown used to taking (and receiving) a
>>defiant position when facing the
>>Reagan/Watt/Bush/... axis and do not know how to deal with compromise.
>
>Despite our (genetic?) inability to compromise, we took action that
>looks, sniffs, walks, and talks like compromise. We agreed to
>release a few sales - less than the administration requested, about
>1/3 as much I believe - if the administration would agree that they'd
>be harvested according to the logging techniques ("new forestry") and
>streamside protection requirements of Option 9 (as they were old sales
>held up by the injunction, they would have been logged under the older,
>looser rules otherwise).

DA> As of the printing of the article I read (High Country News), no
DA> agreement had yet been reached among the plaintiffs on how to respond
DA> to the administration request. I'm glad a consensus was reached and I
DA> hope the plaintiffs aren't upset with each other.
>
>You may be aware that the adminstration was threatening to push
>legislation through Congress to severely limit citizen access to
>the courts for environmental cases if we refused, and it appeared
>they had a good chance of having it pass. It was no idle threat.

DA> The article described this "rider" as also specifically opening up
DA> some forest for logging.
>
>The agreement to release these sales in no way changes the opposition
>to Option 9 of the groups involved, nor were any rights in the
>injunction given up. The timber was released, and we are back in
>the status quo with the injunction in full force.

DA> I'm glad that this issue is separate from Option 9. Can you describe
DA> what sales were released (in terms of the type of sale: down wood,
DA> etc.)? >
>This has caused a bit of furor in the conservation community by
>those who are not plaintiffs in the suit (it required unanimous
>agreement by the eight or so groups which are plaintiffs). It
>will blow over. It does, of course, illuminate the reality that
>the conservation community is comprised of groups and individuals
>of widely varying beliefs. Some people are surprised by this.
>Activists are not, as differences in opinion are the norm.
>
DA> Its a lot easier to take an extreme position if you are not a
DA> plaintiff but I think there is quite a variety even among the
DA> plaintiffs. The article had many quotes from members of plaintiff
DA> groups. >
>> Of course, it may be a valid viewpoint that a 70% chance of survival
simply
>>does not meet the requirement of the law in the ESA, but nevertheless,
>>these groups are faced with a different "operating environment" and they
>>are having diffivulty adjusting.
>
>Portland Audubon has had no difficulty adjusting. We still evaluate
>issues with emphasis on science, relying heavily on the expertise
>of David Marshall, a retired wildlife biologist who, among otherthings,
>ran the Endangered Species portion of the USFW under the Carter
>administration, reporting directly to the head of the USFW. As well
>as being a member of our Board, he has the distinction of having written
>the Forest Service an official memoradum in the early 1970s warning
>them that the spotted owl would not survive if forest practices were
>not changed eventually. This was before the ESA was passed. As
>we all know, the USFS ignored the timely USFW warning. He also has
>the best ears of any birder I have ever met.

DA> If Clinton likes Option 9, he can hold the same weapon over you to
DA> drop opposition to Option 9 that he did to get the release of some
DA> sales. When does Option 9 get submitted to Judge Dwyer?

DA> --
DA> -- Dean Myerson (de...@vexcel.com)

DA> -!-
DA> ! Origin: Usenet<->Fidonet, +1 310 815-2644, calcom.socal.com
DA> (1:102/645)

� Area: U_Environmen
��
Msg#: 59 Date: 12-31-93 00:37
From: Don Baccus Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: New forest service chief
��

Well, Don Baccus said to All on 12-31-93 00:37
about: New forest service chief....

DB> From: do...@verdix.com (Don Baccus)
DB> Subject: New Forest Service Chief Starts Work
DB> Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha OR

DB> In article <1993Dec30.2...@vexcel.com>
DB> de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>I believe that Option 9 will be presented to Judge Dwyer as a solution
>to the injunction and I read that the administration request to the
>plaintiffs related to the specifics of that solution. What you have
>written below says that the request to the plaintiffs was to remove
>some forest from consideration of the courts. This is not how I
>understood the article I read but thanks for the clarification.

DB> As plaintiffs we have a lot of control over the case. For instance,
DB> the groups involved could decide to just drop it. (Don't worry;
DB> they won't). I'm not a lawyer nor am I heavily involved in the
DB> nitty-gritty maneuvering and legal-eagling but I believed the
DB> plaintiffs just dropped those sales from the suit.

>As of the printing of the article I read (High Country News), no
>agreement had yet been reached among the plaintiffs on how to respond
>to the administration request. I'm glad a consensus was reached and I
>hope the plaintiffs aren't upset with each other.

DB> It was a difficult decision for all concerned. No one was
DB> particularly happy about it. Some non-plaintiffs have accused the
DB> plaintiffs of "selling out" but that is just life, I guess. None of
DB> this stuff is easy - the time for easy decision making was twenty
years
DB> ago. It didn't happen. Well, actually the timber industry and USFS
DB> thought it had - turn the forest into a tree farm. Attitudes
DB> have changed.

>I'm glad that this issue is separate from Option 9. Can you describe
>what sales were released (in terms of the type of sale: down wood, etc.)?

DB> Sorry, I don't have the specific sales - the technoids from the
DB> various groups (including our technoid) dealt with that level of
DB> detail. It was all standing timber, though. By the way, when
DB> you say "down wood" you may be thinking of what is called a
DB> "salvage sale" by the USFS. Such "salvage sales" often contain
DB> upwards of 90% live trees.

>If Clinton likes Option 9, he can hold the same weapon over you to drop
>opposition to Option 9 that he did to get the release of some sales.
>When does Option 9 get submitted to Judge Dwyer?

DB> True, but he says he won't and has been told it will be the catfight
DB> from hell if he tries. Option 9 - or its offspring, more likely -
DB> will not be submitted until legislation is passed as it, by itself,
DB> does not satisfy the requirements of the ESA. I.E. some habitat loss,
DB> and some further shrinkage of population, will be part of a solution.
DB> It appears unavoidable that this will be the case, though
DB> conservationists would rapidly support a solution that would not
result
DB> in further shrinkage of habitat!

DB> -!-
DB> ! Origin: Usenet<->Fidonet, +1 310 815-2644, calcom.socal.com
DB> (1:102/645)

� Area: U_Environmen
��
Msg#: 73 Date: 01-02-94 00:49
From: Don Baccus Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: If you liked the spotted
��

Well, Don Baccus said to All on 01-02-94 00:49
about: If you liked the spotted....

DB> From: do...@verdix.com (Don Baccus)
DB> Subject: If you liked the spotted owl, you're going to love ...
DB> Organization: Verdix Western Operations, Aloha OR

DB> In article <2g4ptp$o...@triton.unm.edu> myc...@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
> Does this bird only nest in old growth because its a cavity nester like
>Spotted Owls, or something else? I observed marbled murrelets on rocks

DB> Actually, neither are cavity nesters - 'ole spotty nests in old nest
DB> platforms, cliffs (esp in SW), broken-topped trees, etc. Don't
DB> feel bad, since many smaller woodland owls are cavity nesters.
DB> At least you don't claim they nest in old junkyards as an
DB> editorial in the Bend, OR daily paper did a few years ago!

DB> Actually, given a large enough cavity they might take advantage,
DB> but little in the forest will make a hole that large.

DB> Anyway, they need a big tree as they make their nest on a limb
DB> something like 30-50 ft up (not sure of exact avg ht). The nest is
DB> built ON a limb, not a fork etc, so the limb needs to be big.

>(not nesting) in Gardner Canal, British Columbia two years ago, about 40
>miles from the coast... didn't see one along waterways where the forests
>had been logged off. I thought the heavy silt load from logging erosion
>may have depleted some of their preferred prey. Now I'm wondering if it
>may have been related to nesting habitat after all(?)

DB> Yes, nesting habitat most likely. The oceans off the heavily-logged
DB> Oregon Coast support vast numbers of corms, puffins etc which also
DB> feed on fishes etc. Siltation is an in-stream problem, salmon
DB> being the #1 looser (eggs get smothered).

>
> Do murrelets follow waterways from the coast or just fly inland until
>they find suitable habitat?

DB> They just fly inland.

DB> -!-
DB> ! Origin: Usenet<->Fidonet, +1 310 815-2644, calcom.socal.com
DB> (1:102/645)

� Area: Sci.Environm
��
Msg#: 51 Date: 01-31-94 17:26
From: Alan Mcgowen Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: Re: extinction events
��

Well, Alan Mcgowen said to All on 01-31-94 17:26
about: Re: extinction events....

AM> From: al...@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
AM> Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA

AM> James B. Shearer writes:

> Wilson uses this relation [a power law for the species-area
>relation] to derive eventual species loss from
>habitat losses (ie for example losing 90% of the habitat will lead to
>the eventual loss of 50% of the species). Two debatable assumptions in
>doing this are:
> 1. The argument assumes the starting condition is in
>equilibrium. If it isn't the whole argument breaks down. If as Raup
>suggests rain forest area has fluctuated wildly in the last 50000 years
>this equilibrium assumption appears dubious.

AM> The general applicability of power law relations to diversity-area is
AM> the result of literally hundreds of field studies of many different
AM> kinds. It is not hanging by one theoretical thread as Shearer seems
to
AM> think. It can be regarded as an observed fact. It is also less than
AM> earthshaking; such relations (a linear regression fit to a scatter on
a
AM> log-log plot) are pretty common in biology -- they are typical medium
AM> precision results, and show up everywhere; e.g. many physiological
AM> parameters obey power law relationships to body weight across a
variety
AM> of species. Living systems tend to have many characteristics that
AM> scale that way.
> 2. The argument assumes that habitat destruction is not
>accompanied by fragmentation. Note by the nonlinear form of the area-
>species relation, many small islands can support more different species
>than a single big island of the same area. Again this assumption
>appears somewhat doubtful.

AM> The current best thinking on how to handle the reserve design problem
AM> (which is what Shearer has stumbled on an old corner of with this
AM> point) was given by Reed Noss in his paper on the Wildland Project.
AM> Other things being equal, i.e. assuming all diversity hotspots have
AM> been included in a reserve system:
AM> 1.Species well distributed across their native range are less
AM> susceptible to extinction than species confined to small portions
AM> of their range.

AM> 2. Large blocks of habitat, containing large populations of a
AM> target species, are superior to small blocks of habitat
AM> containing small populations.

AM> 3. Blocks of habitat close together are better than blocks far
AM> apart.

AM> 4. Habitat in contiguous blocks is better than fragmented
AM> habitat.

AM> 5. Interconnected blocks of habitat are better than isolated
AM> blocks; corridors or linkages function better when habitat within
AM> them resembles that preferred by target species.

AM> 6. Blocks of habitat that are roadless or otherwise inaccessible
AM> to humans are better than roaded and accessible habitat blocks.

AM> It would take too long to explain the above rules. Suffice it to say
AM> that there is more that has to considered than just the applicability
AM> of one power relation.

AM> -!----------
AM> Alan McGowen

AM> -!-
AM> ! Origin: ONE WORLD Usenet<->Fidonet (1:102/129.1)

� Area: Sci.Environm
��
Msg#: 11 Date: 02-13-94 18:58
From: Mike Vandeman Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: Road ripping conference
��

Well, Mike Vandeman said to All on 02-13-94 18:58
about: Road ripping conference....

MV> From: mjv...@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
MV> Organization: Pacific * Bell

MV> February 12, 1994
MV> Auto-Free Bay Area Coalition / "Going Clean Journal"
MV> P.O. Box 10141
MV> Berkeley, California 94709

MV> Re: February 9-11, 1994 "Road-Ripping Conference"

MV> Gentlepersons:

MV> Officially titled a "Road-Fighting Strategy Session", this
MV> invitation-only conference put on by the Alliance for a Paving
MV> Moratorium brought together 30 of the best minds in the pro-
MV> wildlife, anti-road movement. Its goal was simple: identify the
MV> roads most damaging to wildlife, and plan a campaign to get them
MV> closed (obliterated and revegetated).

MV> I can't imagine a more important or exciting mission. Roads
MV> are the greatest current threat to the continued existence of life
MV> on Earth. Besides the millions of animals killed daily while
MV> attempting to cross a road, roads also fragment wildlife habitat,
MV> reducing biodiversity (because many animals are afraid to cross
MV> such an open space), and bring with them numerous toxic chemicals
MV> (herbicides used to clear the shoulders, oil dripping from
MV> vehicles, chemical spills, etc.), exotic (nonnative) species,
MV> hunters, poachers, tourists, etc.

MV> In other words, large, undisturbed wildlife reserves (roadless
MV> core areas containing the most important habitat, surrounded by
MV> buffer zones hosting only low-impact human uses, and linked by
MV> wildlife corridors) need to be created by expanding and linking all
MV> currently protected areas and removing all the roads that stand in
MV> the way.

MV> Take, for example, Route 75 in Florida. It regularly causes
MV> the death of alligators and the endangered Florida panther. At this
MV> moment, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to build
MV> parking lots along it designed to allow the launching of off-road
MV> vehicles! Or the Selkirk Boundary Creek Road in Idaho and Canada,
MV> which inhibits the movement of grizzlies.

MV> Dave Foreman gave a history of the road-fighting movement from
MV> Aldo Leopold on. Conservation biologist Reed Noss explained the
MV> scientific basis for the need to close roads. (Justice William O.
MV> Douglas: "Any road is a dagger pointed at the heart of
MV> wilderness".) Activist Keith Hammer described how the Forest
MV> Service's regulations set standards for maximum road densities on
MV> FS lands, and provide a procedure for closing any roads above that
MV> limit. (The FS is the largest road manager in the world, with
MV> 350,000 miles of roads!) Jasper Carlton of the Biodiversity Legal
MV> Foundation explained how anyone can get roads closed by applying
MV> the Endangered Species Act: preserving endangered species takes
MV> precedence over all other human concerns!

MV> In short, the procedure is to study the literature on all of
MV> the species of the area and review their status (endangered,
MV> threatened, or sensitive?), then analyze what is needed to allow
MV> the endangered species to recover. Particularly important (to the
MV> preservation of wilderness) are species that need a large
MV> territory, such as the grizzly. But due to species interdependence,
MV> plants and invertebrates are also extremely important. The habitat
MV> conservation map that results from this analysis indicates which
MV> roads need to be closed.

MV> Our initial list of especially damaging roads includes the
MV> Steele Pass Corridor in Death Valley, the San Joaquin Toll Road
MV> (under construction) in southern CA, Route 96 in NW CA, the
MV> Northstar Road in the greater Gila region, the Magruder Corridor in
MV> the Selway-Bitteroot (ID/MT), the Ashton, ID - Flagg Road in the
MV> greater Yellowstone region, Route 20 through the Cascades in NW WA,
MV> and the Taylor Pass and Schofield Pass roads in CO.

MV> Sincerely,

MV> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
MV> mjv...@pbhye.pacbell.com

MV> References: "The Wildlands Project", a Special Issue of "Wild
MV> Earth" (P.O. Box 492, Canton, NY 13617, 315-379-9940), published by
MV> The Cenozoic Society; Special "Obliterate! Revegetate!" Issue of
MV> Preserve Appalachian Wilderness ("featuring the new and improved
MV> road ripper's guide") (published by PAW NET, 117 Main St.,
MV> Brattleboro, VT 05301, 802-257-4878); Biodiversity Legal
MV> Foundation, P.O. Box 18327, Boulder, CO 80308-8327, 303-442-3037)

MV> -!-
MV> ! Origin: ONE WORLD Usenet<->Fidonet (1:102/129.1)

� Area: Sci.Environm
��
Msg#: 9 Date: 02-23-94 13:40
From: Peter Montague Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: Rachel: unethical policie
��
From: mont...@world.std.com (Peter Montague)

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #378
-!-February 24, 1994-!-
HEADLINES:
Today's Toxics Policies Are "Ethically Unacceptable"
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: e...@igc.apc.org
==========
Back issues available via anonymous ftp from
world.std.com/periodicals/rachel
and via gopher server at world.std.com.
=================================================================

TODAY'S TOXICS POLICIES ARE "ETHICALLY
UNACCEPTABLE," SAYS GREAT LAKES COMMISSION

The long-awaited 7th biennial report of the International Joint
Commission (IJC) was issued last week. The IJC is a government
body with responsibility for maintaining and restoring
environmental quality in the Great Lakes. Past IJC reports have
recommended policies that, taken together, define an entirely new
approach to the problem of persistent toxic substances.

The 7th IJC report once again calls for:

** phase-out ("sunsetting") of all persistent toxic substances
from the Great Lakes ecosystem;

** a ban on the manufacture and use of chlorine;

** an end to reliance on risk assessment;

** a ban on solid waste incineration;

** a reversal of the policy that assumes chemicals are innocent
until proven guilty;

** adoption of the principle of precautionary action (which says:
wherever it is acknowledged that a practice could cause harm,
even without conclusive scientific proof that it does cause harm,
the practice should be prevented and eliminated);

** An end to chemical-by-chemical regulation, substituting an
approach that eliminates whole classes of chemicals by
"strategically preventing the formation of the persistent toxic
substance in the first place."

The IJC defines toxic substances as anything that can "cause
death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or physical
deformities in any organism, or its offspring, or which can
become poisonous after concentrating in the food chain or in
combination with other substances." The IJC defines a PERSISTENT
toxic substance as one with a half-life in any medium (air,
water, soil, sediment, or living things) greater than 8 weeks, or
one that bioaccumulates in the tissue of living organisms. The
half-life of a substance is the time it takes for half of the
substance to degrade, go away or disappear.

The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, signed by the
federal governments of the U.S. and Canada, insists that, "The
discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited and
the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be
virtually eliminated." In its SIXTH BIENNIAL REPORT in 1992 the
IJC said, "This statement is the cornerstone of the Agreement."

The 7th IJC report says that "conventional scientific concepts of
dose-response and acceptable 'risk' can no longer be defined as
'good' scientific and management bases for defining acceptable
levels of pollution. They are outmoded and inappropriate ways of
thinking about persistent toxics," the report says.

"The production and release of [persistent toxic] substances into
the environment must, therefore, be considered contrary to the
[1978 Water Quality] Agreement legally, unsupportable
ecologically, and dangerous to health generally. Above all, they
are ethically and morally unacceptable," the report says. It
goes on to stress the need for a zero discharge policy for
persistent toxic substances: "The limits of allowable quantities
of these substances entering the environment must be effectively
zero, and the primary means to achieve zero should be the
prevention of their production, use and release, rather than
their subsequent removal."

The IJC was created in 1909 by the governments of Canada and the
U.S. to oversee the Boundary Waters Treaty, which guides Great
Lakes-related behavior of the two nations. Starting in 1912, and
again in 1945 and 1964 the IJC was asked by the two governments
to report on water quality of the lakes. The studies revealed
progressive deterioration. In 1972 and again in 1978 the two
nations signed Water Quality Agreements aimed specifically at
improving water quality in the lakes. The goal of the 1978
Agreement was broad: "to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem." It is up to the IJC to manage and monitor
efforts to achieve the goals of the 1978 Agreement. In 1981, the
IJC began issuing a report every two years, describing the
condition of the lakes in relation to the goals of the 1978
Agreement.

The new (7th) report says, "The theme of this report is that the
time has arrived for a major shift in the way decision-making
takes place for the Great Lakes ecosystem. In particular,
society must adopt a clear and comprehensive action plan to
virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances that are
threatening human health and the future of the Great Lakes
ecosystem."

Early in the report, the IJC asks what might happen if people
refuse to control persistent toxic substances? Here is a long,
verbatim quotation from the report:

"We do not know what ALL of the effects of human exposure will be
over many years. Future research will clarify whether low-level
and long-term exposures, repeated exposures, or isolated
short-term exposures at sensitive stages of fetal development are
most critical. For the Commission, however, there is sufficient
evidence NOW to infer a real risk of serious impacts in humans.
Increasingly, human data support this conclusion.

"The questions then become: what--if any--risks of injury are we
as individuals and as a society willing to accept? How long can
we afford to wait before we act? Why take any risks of having
such potentially devastating results? In this vein, the
Commission poses a number of other specific but very fundamental
questions:

"** What if, as current research suggests, the startling decrease
in sperm count and the alarming increase in the incidence of male
genital tract disorders are in fact caused in part as a result of
IN UTERO [in the womb] exposure to elevated levels of
environmental estrogens?

"** What if, as current research suggests, the epidemic in breast
cancer is a result in part of the great numbers and quantities of
estrogen-like compounds that have been and are being released
into the environment?

"** What if the documented declining learning performance and
increasing incidence of problem behaviour in school children are
not functions of the educational system? What if they are the
result of exposure to developmental toxicants that have been and
are being released into the children's and parents' environment,
or to which they have been exposed IN UTERO [in the womb]?

"The implications of ANY of the above questions being answered in
the affirmative are overwhelming. The implications of ALL of the
above questions being answered in the affirmative are
catastrophic, in terms of human suffering and the potential
liability for that suffering and attendant health costs.
Mounting evidence points to the latter possibility. Surely,
there can be no more compelling self interest to force us to come
to grips with this problem than the spectre of damaging the
integrity of our own species and its entire environment," the IJC
said.

The new report puts risk assessment into perspective: "Risk
assessment is useful in decision-making, especially in setting
action priorities, but is not directly relevant to the basic
virtual elimination commitment. The Commission does not accept
the argument that the elimination of persistent toxic substances
should be subject to a risk-benefit calculation, as that is not
the approach of the [1978 Great Lakes Water Quality] Agreement,"
the report says.

Users and producers of persistent toxic substances had told the
Commission that phase-out of toxic substances would cause job
loss outweighing any long-term health benefits. They said
risk-benefit analysis showed that virtual elimination of
persistent toxic substances would not pay. The Commission
rejected that argument explicitly, saying, "to continue resisting
a strategy that changes our production and consumption habits and
moves away from reliance on persistent toxic substances, will be
disastrous in the long term from all perspectives."

The Commission called upon industry representatives to stop
denying toxics problems and to focus on solutions:
"Representatives of industry, when presented with evidence of
ecosystem health concerns about substances used in commerce,
should react by embracing open dialogue, data sharing and fact
finding, to resolve rather than deny, concerns and effect an
orderly and timely transition to those solutions," the IJC says.

The Commission called for an end to incineration anywhere in
North America that could affect the Great Lakes: "A growing
number of incinerators operate within the Great Lakes region,
contributing significantly to the load of contaminants,
especially from the low-temperature incineration of industrial,
commercial and household refuse containing plastics and solvents,
coated papers and many other products," the report says. "Any
strategy towards virtual elimination and zero discharge of
persistent toxic substances must address the significant inputs
from incineration," the report says. "The Commission urges the
stringent regulation of existing facilities throughout North
America, taking into account the need to ensure the zero
discharge of persistent toxic substances from those stacks to the
Great Lakes."

The report calls upon "Governments, industry and labour [to]
begin devising plans to cope with economic and social dislocation
that may occur as a result of sunsetting persistent toxic
substances." It calls upon "Labour unions [to] include in their
negotiations the issue of transition to a sustainable economy
without persistent toxic substances." And it calls upon citizens
to get involved: "Citizens should constantly ask political,
social and industrial leaders about the effects of the use and
discharge of pollutants on this and future generations," the
report says, noting that "The patience of many citizens seems to
be near a breaking point."

"Maintaining a healthy society means more than failing to
discover disease," the report says.

GET: International Joint Commission, SEVENTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY (Washington, DC and Ottawa, Ontario:
International Joint Commission, 1994), 58 pages, available free
from the International Joint Commission, 1250 23rd Street, N.W.,
Suite 100, Washington, DC 20440; telephone: (202) 736-9000.
--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: international joint commission; ijc; waler
quality; water pollution; treaties; cn; canada; u.s.; regulation;
toxic susbatnces; toxics; sunsetting; chlorine; incineration;
bans; zero discharge; reverse onus; precautionary principle;
principle of precautionary action; persistence defined;

-!-
! Origin: ONE WORLD Usenet<->Fidonet (1:102/129.1)

� Area: Sci.Environm
��
Msg#: 44 Date: 03-12-94 16:19
From: Alan Mcgowen Read: Yes Replied:
No
To: All Mark:

Subj: Ecocentral 1
��

Well, Alan Mcgowen said to All on 03-12-94 16:19
about: Ecocentral 1....

AM> From: Alan McGowen <al...@igc.apc.org>

AM>
AM> /* Written 1:05 pm Apr 1, 1992 by alanm in cdp:sci.environmen */
AM> /* ---------- "ECO CENTRAL 1" ---------- */
AM> For some time I have been considering starting an irregular series
AM> of strictly (well, or mostly) informative posts on topics in ecology,
AM> evolution, conservation biology, and population biology in general.
AM> There are a great many potential subjects: group and kin selection,
AM> the evolution of altruism, of prudential behavior in predators,
AM> extinction processes, speciation, the importance of habitat space, the
AM> relation between diversity and area, the concept of carrying capacity,
AM> coevolution, community ecology, ecosystem restoration.... A need for
AM> posts in each of these areas has arisen at some time in the past few
AM> months. It is impossible to generate all the posts needed at the time
AM> the need arises.
AM>
AM> Instead, I propose to write a series of posts on these sorts of
AM> subjects as the mood strikes me. I will keep copies of each of them,
AM> so that I will be able to reproduce the appropriate ones as the
AM> shifting debates warrant it.
AM>
AM> This is the first such post. I am reading Rachel Carson's _Silent
AM> Spring_ (for the first time, in fact) and I have DDT on the brain.
AM> So I've decided to start the series with a good old standby: what
AM> predator theory has to say about pesticides.
AM>
AM> To distinguish these from my usual warhorse posts, I've decided to
AM> give the series a catchy title: ECO CENTRAL. I hope to do at least
AM> one ECO CENTRAL per week from now on, but no promises.
AM>
AM> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AM>
AM> ECO CENTRAL 1
AM>
AM> Predators, Prey, and General Pesticides
AM>
AM>
AM> The basic form of a Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model is:
AM>
AM> 1) dV/dt = (growth rate of prey population in absence of predator)
AM> - (capture rate of prey per predator)P
AM>
AM> 2) dP/dt = (rate at which captured prey is converted into predator
AM> births per predator)P - (death rate of predators in
AM> absence of prey)
AM>
AM> The coefficient of the second term in 1) is known as the predator's
AM> *functional response* to the prey. The coefficient of the first term
AM> in 2) is called the *numerical response* of the predator to the prey.
AM>
AM> We can construct an extremely simple LV predator-prey model by making
AM> the following assumptions: the prey grows exponentially in the absence
AM> of the predator at rate r, the functional response is linear in the
AM> prey density with constant slope A (i.e. there is a fixed capture
AM> probability A for each prey), the numerical response is a constant
AM> fraction B of the functional response (i.e. the fraction B of each
AM> prey
AM> captured is converted into predators), and the death rate of predators
AM> is a constant D. Then
AM>
AM> 3) dV/dt = rV - (AV)P
AM>
AM> 4) dP/dt = B(AV)P - DP
AM>
AM> Some observations about this model:
AM>
AM> Observation I:
AM>
AM> dV/dt = 0 when P = r/A
AM> dV/dt > 0 when P < r/A
AM> dV/dt < 0 when P > r/A
AM>
AM> likewise
AM> dP/dt = 0 when V = D/(AB)
AM> dP/dt > 0 when V > D/(AB)
AM> dP/dt < 0 when V < D/(AB)
AM>
AM> I.e. the prey increases when predators are below r/A, and decreases
AM> when predators are above r/A.
AM>
AM> Observation II:
AM>
AM> Solutions of 3) and 4) exhibit sustained oscillations except at the
AM> initial values P = r/A and V = D/(AB). The amplitude of the
AM> oscillations results only from the initial values and can be changed
by
AM> perturbations: perturbations do not damp out with time. This means
that
AM> the model is not stabilized against extinction due to stochasticity.
AM> Sooner or later a predator governed by 3) and 4) will become extinct.
AM>
AM> Since not all predator-prey systems oscillate, and many natural
AM> systems persist for long periods of time, much longer than would be
AM> expected than if they were not stabilized in any way, it follows that
AM> the system 3) and 4) is neither very general nor very realistic.
AM> Nevertheless it exhibits features in common with more realistic
models.
AM>
AM> Common Features:
AM>
AM> LV predator-prey models can oscillate.
AM>
AM> For the system 3) and 4), if the amplitude of the oscillations is
AM> small, the time average of P and V are roughly equal to the
AM> quasistable equilibrium values given by
AM>
AM> 5) P = r/A
AM> 6) V = D/(AB)
AM>
AM> I.e. the expected predator population is a function only of the prey
AM> rate of growth, not of the predator rate of growth. Likewise the
AM> expected prey population is a function only of predator parameters,
and
AM> is proportional to predator death rate.
AM>
AM> In LV predator-prey models generally, the predator population is most

AM> strongly governed by the prey growth rate, and the prey population by
AM> the predator death rate. Increasing the efficiency of the predator
AM> -- increasing A -- decreases both the predator and prey populations,
AM> thereby rendering the system more prone to extinction by stochasticity
AM> (to which smaller populations are more vulnerable).
AM>
AM> An Application of the Theory: the Effect of a General Pesticide.
AM>
AM> Insect crop pests are herbivores and are preyed upon by insect
AM> carnivores. A general pesticide is one which kills both herbivores and
AM> carnivores equally -- i.e. an application of a general pesticide
AM> increases the predator death rate. By 6) above, we see that the
AM> expected result will be an *increase* in the number of herbivore
pests,
AM> the opposite of the desired effect!
AM>
AM> This is what in fact results when modest applications of general
AM> pesticides are used on predator-limited crop pests. As a result, very
AM> large applications of general pesticides are required to reduce the
AM> pest populations briefly, and as V moves back up towards its
AM> pesticide-enhanced equilibrium, the applications must be repeated.
AM>
AM> This annoying property of LV predator-prey dynamics can be sidestepped
AM> by integrated pest control which uses predator and competitor checks,
AM> polyculture (which reduces the vulnerability of the total crop and
AM> increases the competitive opportunities) and by using judicious
AM> applications of specific pesticides which kill only the herbivores.
AM> [Of course, whether this property is annoying depends on whether you
AM> are a pesticide consumer or producer: it has done a great deal to
AM> enrich the agrochemical industry!]
AM> Ref.
AM>
AM> Roughgarden, Johnathan. _Theory of Population Genetics and
AM> Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction_, MacMillian.
AM>
AM> -!----------
AM> Alan McGowen
AM>
AM>
AM>
AM> -!-- */

AM> -!-
AM> ! Origin: ONE WORLD Usenet<->Fidonet (1:102/129.1)

- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.

0 new messages