Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 28 Jan 2003 to 29 Jan 2003 (#2003-29)
There are 26 messages totalling 1241 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. more on research, regulations and environmental conservation
2. Research and Conservation (11)
3. News: Managing Biogenic Emissions from Agriforestry
4. Research and Environmental Conservation (5)
5. Free CV critique offer to grads
6. Assistantships available-tundra mycorrhizae and nutrient uptake
7. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Research Techinician Positions in CO
8. Postdoc ad: Global Change (2 positions)
9. Summer Field Ecology Courses
10. Science and Citizens
11. Training Opportunities Available: Ecological Genomics
12. Botanical/ecological work in the Sierra Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:10:06 EST
From: Parmeliamm@AOL.COM
Subject: more on research, regulations and environmental conservation
The following is a response to a private comment made to me by a member of=2
the list regarding my comment on Sunday. I maintain that scientists can=20
still be objective by formally voicing/writing comments during regulatory an
d=20
project-specific public comment periods. It's as Apple-Pie as voting!! And=
0
meanwhile in Massachusetts, the new Republican Governor has gagged state=20
"environmental" workers!
-melissa
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!
Thanks, Ted! =A0CBF was an impressive responder to both the new CBPA and VWP
P=20
proposals. =A0And they have active members with close ties to the VA regulat
ory=20
world. =A0But they cannot do it alone. =A0They are one of the few organizati
ons=20
that responds and they do so soundly on a scientific AND legal basis.=20
=A0Sometimes, in seeing the response to CBF's comments, they are "blown-off"
=20
because no one else suggested the same thing--the latter part is my=20
interpretation. =A0It could also be that they often suggest even stricter=20
thresholds than are proposed... but then perhaps, if another organization, o
r=20
citizens also said they wanted those stricter thresholds, CBF would be taken
=20
more seriously. =A0
And still, it's pitiful the lack of response to permitting public comment=20
periods. =A0If no one comments, the agencies often DO shrug their shoulders=
0=
and=20
rubber stamp it--as some consultant suggested tonight. =A0On the other hand,
=20
I've seen regulators' eyes get big when the mere mention of opposition is=20
made. =A0In their defense, I think they are hungry for public comment.
What are your observations in Maryland? =A0BTW, I forwarded some info about=
0=
the=20
new proposals to the ACOE's regs for the CWA to Mr. X (MD DNR), and today he
=20
BCC'ed me on his public comment to EPA and ACOE. =A0Little things like email
s=20
work!
-melissa
http://hometown.aol.com/parmeliamm/myhomepage/profile.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:36:11 -0500
From: "Karpa-Wilson, Douglas" <dkarpawi@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> Once seen as a noble
effort for the sake of "future generations", environmental advocacy has now
been successfully portrayed as a pastime for out-of-touch people variably
referred to as "granola crunchers", "tree huggers", "earth mothers",
etc..... ... My point is that
those driven by the profit motive (corporate or individual) seem to have
managed to belittle all our environmental arguments, foster an impression
that we're largely a bunch of "green" wackos, and that we don't have the
real needs of people today in mind.
Oliver
[endquote]
I would humbly suggest that part of the problem is that a fair number of gre
ns are pretty out there, which doesn't make life any easier for those of us
ore in the mainstream. Sadly, when the Earth Liberation Front blows up logg
ng equipment or burns down houses being built in the woods (here in Indiana)
they don't do the environmental movement any favors.
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:31:13 -0800
From: Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@USC.EDU>
Subject: News: Managing Biogenic Emissions from Agriforestry
[Although the news story, below, draws first attention to the "fact" that
CO2 may help, under specifc circumstances, to mitigate biogenic emissions,
the punch line seems to be that we need to be paying more attention to the
ecological consequences of the rate at which agriforestry is growing.]
* * *
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2003/2003-01-27-09.asp
Two Air Pollutants Help Balance Each Other
BOULDER, Colorado, January 27, 2003 (ENS) - Two air pollutants - carbon
dioxide and hydrocarbons emitted from agricultural forest trees - offset
each other somewhat in mitigating air quality problems, University of
Colorado at Boulder researchers have found.
The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) has been shown to reduce
"agriforest" emissions of hydrocarbons that contribute to ground based
ozone pollution. Commercial agriforests made up of trees including
poplars, eucalyptus and acacia emit high levels of isoprene, a reactive
chemical species believed to contribute to ground based ozone, the
researchers said.
"As people replace natural forests with agriforests, the species do
produce significant amounts of hydrocarbons like isoprene," said Russell
Monson, chair of CU-Boulder's EPO biology department. "The news here is
that we have found a situation where elevated CO2 concentrations work in a
positive way to reduce pollution from isoprene, that combines with
sunlight and vehicle and industrial pollution to form smog and related
lung problems in people."
While this may seem like a good thing, CU-Boulder doctoral candidate Todd
Rosenstiel, co-chief author of the study, is more cautious.
"The effects of CO2 are unpredictable," Rosenstiel explained. "The bigger
picture is the rapidly growing amount of these agriforests worldwide
emitting hydrocarbons like isoprene in much larger volumes.
"We still do not know enough about the basic chemistry and biochemistry of
isoprene to predict what may happen in the future," Rosenstiel said. "One
thing we have shown is that 'tweaking' environmental conditions where such
trees grow through changes in water consumption, temperature and soil
conditions may have significant effects on isoprene emissions."
A paper on the subject was published by "Nature" magazine this month.
Coauthor Ray Fall, a professor of the chemistry and biochemistry
department at CU-Boulder, said about 500 million tons of isoprene are
emitted into Earth's atmosphere each year.
The southeast U.S. has large amounts of forest trees contributing to the
isoprene emissions, said Fall. The CU-Boulder team's work suggests that it
may be possible to genetically engineer environmentally friendly poplar
trees by lessening their isoprene output, he added.
"As almost all commercial agriforest species emit high levels of isoprene,
proliferation of agriforest plantations has significant potential to
increase regional ozone pollution and enhance the lifetime of methane, an
important determinant of global climate," the researchers wrote in
"Nature."
* * *
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2003. All Rights Reserved.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes
only. ***
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:31:46 -0500
From: Andrew Park <andrew.park@UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Research and Conservation
Dear Ecologgers,
"Objectivity" seems to be rather like the Holy Grail. That is, we may think
that we glimpse or experience it sometimes, but can we ever really grasp it.
In the case of science, I claim that complete objectivity is impossible,
because bias begins, inevitably, with the questions that we, as scientists,
choose to ask. For example, in forestry, the majority of research up to, sa
,
1980, had to do with growth and yield, securing regeneration, effectiveness
f
insect control measures etc. Why? Because we were working with a model of
management straight out of Gifford Pinchot's rule book. Forests, natural an
man-made alike, were seen as timber farms. Fast forward to 2003, and the
forestry literature is full of wildlife, natural disturbance and climate
change. The questions that we ask have changed because the Norms that we
believe about the state of the world have changed. So, if you, as a scienti
t,
believe that one question is more important than another, you are already
biased, (at least, under a very narrow definition of the word). If perfect
objectivity existed, we could just pick scientific questions at random out o
a
hat, not caring which one we studied!
However, none of the above prevents the majority of scientists interpreting
their data in accordance with the results it yields. That, it seems to me,
s
the area in which objectivity is most important.
That's my 0.03 cnts worth (has to be 3, not 2 on account of devalued Canadia
Currency)
Andy Park Ph.D.
Post-doctoral researcher, Gorupe de Recherche en Ecologie Forestiere,
University of Quebec
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:58:29 +0800
From: =?gb2312?B?wfUgus/H2w==?= <liuheqin@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
In my thought, environmental conservation is not just a project of
ecologists, it is also the action of each people in the world.it is
important to know how to conserve our globe.however, the most important
thing is how to carried out the results of research on environmental
problem.
i don't think it shows the apathy because of lack discussion on
environmental conservation. Because more and more people realized the
importance of conserving our globe, and they has taken part in
environmental conservation on this or that field, enven on the daily life.
Heqin Liu
>From: awagoner <awagoner@VT.EDU>
>Reply-To: awagoner <awagoner@VT.EDU>
>To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>Subject: Research and Environmental Conservation
>Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:34:02 -0500
>
>The apathy that is evident in the lack of outcry for or against this lin
of
>thought is apalling and frankly depressing.
>
>That this kind of call to action goes unanswered in THIS community is wh
we
>will keep having our funding cut and why our world is in it's current
>predicament. As those who are aware and informed about these issues we
have a
>responsibility to act.
>
>Whether we choose to accept it or shirk that responsibility and make
excuses
>will lie with each of our conscience.
_________________________________________________________________
УтЗбЯТди MSN Explorer: http://explorer.msn.com/lccn/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:08:55 -0700
From: Mark Gerber <mgerber@POWERENG.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
--"those driven by the profit motive (corporate or individual) seem to have
managed to belittle all our environmental arguments, foster an impression
that we're largely a bunch of "green" wackos, and that we don't have the
real needs of people today in mind."--
There are some key words here - "those driven by the profit motive
(corporate or individual)". These are frequently large quasi-public
entities who are driven/forced by demand. As you flick a light switch or
send an email you are increasing the demand...ergo: new utilities need to be
constructed...ergo: the large quasi-public entity (who may or may not have
scientists on board) is required to navigate the quagmire of statutes and
regulations to permit projects that are required by YOUR demand. This
freaks them out. They lash out at the folks they view as "greens",
"tree-huggers" etc. as the cause of all their woes. They are required to
hire scientists to validate the impacts of their project on the environment
- often at incredible costs to them. This further turns them against the
"greens" etc. who they view 'got them into this mess, with all their enviro
mumbo jumbo'.
I forgot where I was going with this...oh yeah. Those driven by the profit
motive do not frequently deal with academic scientists, and view agency
folks as their opposition. Therefore the folks they deal with are
consultants (the ones who get called the biostitutes). These are the folks
in the trenches of the "real world" These are the folks getting in the
middle to resolve conflicts between profit and environmental conservation.
These are the folks who have the best chance to head off rampant resource
abuse. These are the folks that profit driven people are listening to.
> Mark F. Gerber
-----Original Message-----
From: Karpa-Wilson, Douglas [mailto:dkarpawi@INDIANA.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:36 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> Once seen as a noble
effort for the sake of "future generations", environmental advocacy has now
been successfully portrayed as a pastime for out-of-touch people variably
referred to as "granola crunchers", "tree huggers", "earth mothers",
etc..... ... My point is that
those driven by the profit motive (corporate or individual) seem to have
managed to belittle all our environmental arguments, foster an impression
that we're largely a bunch of "green" wackos, and that we don't have the
real needs of people today in mind.
Oliver
[endquote]
I would humbly suggest that part of the problem is that a fair number of
greens are pretty out there, which doesn't make life any easier for those of
us more in the mainstream. Sadly, when the Earth Liberation Front blows up
logging equipment or burns down houses being built in the woods (here in
Indiana), they don't do the environmental movement any favors.
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:05:13 -0500
From: David Raikow <david@RAIKOW.COM>
Subject: Free CV critique offer to grads
Very few faculty (i.e. 3) answered my request for CV information, so I'm
turning to the graduate students. I would like to use your CV's as examples
in whole or in part, with identities altered, in a book on how to write
CV's. In exchange for letting me use your CV, I will provide a free critique
of your CV (a $50 value). As a freelance resume writer, the company I write
for (The Resume Place) charges up to $125/hr for full writing services, so
this is a deal. I also ask that you answer the following questions.
1. What kind of advice have you received about CV writing?
2. What sources do you use (books, your friend's CV's, etc.)?
3. What do you want to know about writing CV's?
4. Would you be willing to buy a comprehensive guide to CV writing?
If you'd like the free critique, and grant permission to use your CV in a
book, email your CV to david@raikow.com.
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:34:11 -0600
From: johnson <johnson@KSU.EDU>
Subject: Assistantships available-tundra mycorrhizae and nutrient uptake
Please post the following ad!
Thanks!
Loretta Johnson
Graduate Research Assistantships Available to Study
Ericoid Mycorrhizal Diversity and Nutrient Uptake
Two graduate student research assistantships are available to work on a
project to determine the diversity of ericoid mycorrhizal fungi and the
importance of that diversity for plant productivity and nutrient uptake in
arctic tundra. The students will work with Kansas State University researche
s
Ari Jumpponen (Mycologist) and Loretta Johnson, (Ecosystem Ecologist). The
goals are to characterize mycorrhizal fungi from ericaceous plants using
morphological and molecular approaches as well as determine the ability of
plants and ErM fungi for uptake of complex organic sources of nitrogen under
laboratory and field conditions. The project involves a field component at t
e
Toolik Lake Long Term Ecological Research Site on Alaska's North Slope and a
laboratory component at Kansas State University. Applicants should be
available to begin work on the project during summer 2003 or at the latest
fall 2003. Applicants should have experience in plant ecology and stable
isotopes or working with pure cultures and molecular techniques. For further
information on the available positions contact Ari Jumpponen (ari@ksu.edu;
tel. 785 532 6751) or Loretta Johnson (johnson@ksu.edu; tel. 785 532 6921,
(http://www.ksu.edu/johnsonlab/).
Dr. Loretta C. Johnson
Associate Professor
Division of Biology
Ackert Hall Rm 232
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506 USA
email: johnson@ksu.edu
phone: 785-532-6921
FAX: 785-532-6653
http//www.ksu.edu/johnsonlab/
Learn about our new Ecological Genomics research initiative and student and
post-doctoral training opportunities by visiting our web page at
http://www.ksu.edu/ecogen
Learn more about the Kansas State University Stable Isotope Mass
Spectrometry Laboratory by visiting our webpage at http://www.ksu.edu/simsl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:29:49 -0600
From: Dave McNeely <dlmcneely@LUNET.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> I would humbly suggest that part of the problem is that a fair number o
greens are pretty out there, which doesn't make life any easier for those of
us more in the mainstream. Sadly, when the Earth Liberation Front blows up
logging equipment or burns down houses being built in the woods (here in
Indiana), they don't do the environmental movement any favors.
>
> Doug
And I would suggest that the anti-environmentalists have been successful at
improperly associating sober science and reasoned environmental advocacy
with goofiness and with criminal behavior in the minds of much of the
public. So long as they are successful at that, we can look forward to
continued environmental degradation. A friend and colleague just told me
this week for example that factory farming of beef, pork, poultry is here to
stay because it is essential to feeding the modern human population, and
that if only the mislead and misinformed who spread misinformation about its
health effects would stay out of the debate, then the corporate and
government interests would find the necessary ways to fix it so its
environmental problems go away. He is an honest and sober person who
believes what he said. He is a scientist. He has no financial or other
interest in factory farming except a desire to himself be well fed and for
future populations to also be well fed. Yet other people, just as sober and
with interests just as selfless as those of my friend, suggest, based on
substantial data, that (1) the corporate interests have no desire to fix the
environmental problems, (2) the human population can get by just fine thank
you on a much smaller supply of meat products than we are producing, and (2)
there are considerable health risks involved in the modern western diet.
But my friend is not persuaded, because of the association in his mind of
environmental advocacy with goofiness.
An analogy: I might advocate sober use of alcohol on the part of those who
wish to use it and can safely do so, with societal efforts to provide means
by which those who cannot safely use it can protect themselves. Maybe, with
some thought and care going into the proposal, I might propose that
alcoholic beverages be taxed to pay for the programs that provide support to
those who cannot safely use alcohol. A fringe group might advocate
outlawing the sale of alcohol, and might use axes and clubs to attack
establishments where alcohol is sold. Bar owners and beverage producers
might then associate me with the criminals who attack them, and thereby
successfully prevent the imposition of the tax I proposed.
Not all associations made in the public mind are legitimate, and the
illegitimate associations are often promoted by those who might have to pay
the costs of research and regulation, whatever the matter of concern is.
Perhaps we, as concerned citizens, should work to dissaciate our concerns
from the criminal behavior of those who just might like to burn houses or
destroy research records rather than contribute productively to solutions.
Maybe these people are just criminals, and not legitimate "greens."
Dave McNeely
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:56:02 -0500
From: Julie Stiver <jrstiver@UNLSERVE.UNL.EDU>
Subject: Gunnison Sage-Grouse Research Techinician Positions in CO
A Gunnison Sage-Grouse behavioral research project has been initiated in
the San Miguel Basin, CO. The project's main goal is to estimate variance
in male reproductive success through behavioral and genetic measures.
Major job responsibilities include: trap and radio-tag Gunnison sage-
grouse; record behavior at sage-grouse leks; tack grouse movements using
radio telemetry and GPS equipment; work in highly variable and harsh
climatic conditions; sample vegetation at nest, brood, and use sites; daily
use of 4WD ATVs and pickups. Positions starting ~1 March 2003. Pay
$11.07/hour. Contact Julie Stiver (jrstiver@unlserve.unl.edu) or Tony Apa
(tony.apa@state.co.us or 970-255-6196)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:51:55 -0600
From: Mark_Felton@URSCORP.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
<<I would humbly suggest that part of the problem is that a fair numbe
of
greens are pretty out there, which doesn't make life any easier for those
of us more in the mainstream. Sadly, when the Earth Liberation Front blows
up logging equipment or burns down houses being built in the woods (here in
Indiana), they don't do the environmental movement any favors.
Doug>>
I would suggest that, as scientists, if we "avoid" confronting some of
these issues, a vacuum develops which in turn can propel others to extremes
- either resignation on the issues or a desire to be very confrontational.
Personally, I feel science, in general, also has a responsibility to verify
that any policy basing itself on "our science" is appropriate to the
analysis. In this manner, we really must confront illogical and
inappropriate policy if it missuses or misrepresents adopted science.
Mark Felton
CPSS, PWS, AICP
World Wetlands Day - February 2, 2003
"The growth of understanding follows an ascending spiral rather than a
straight line."
--Joanna Field
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:53:11 EST
From: Aneyww@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
In a message dated 28-01-2003 16:07:47 Pacific Standard Time, eann@JUNO.COM
writes (with regard to whether any or most of us are very politically active
on our "off time."):
<< I don't believe this is true as applies to State or federal agency
employees. Because of they are perceived to represent "official" views,
they are held to a different standard. Whether implied or stated. >>
I know (as a former state empoloyee) that state and federal employees
sometimes feel they are prevented from representing other than the "official
views. I also read that one of our state university presidents doesn't want
his staff speaking out on controversial issues because it might affect the
university's perception of academic objectivity. As a private consultant, I
know there is a strong motivation to please your client. So who remains to
speak out? The unemployed and hobby scientists?
I believe that scientists, no matter who butters their bread, are obligated
to speak out authoritatively and objectively on issues on which they have
knowledge and experience. Sometimes they can do this directly and publicly;
sometimes they can only do this indirectly through professional organization
or privately in one-on-one communications with decision makers.
As a state employee, I and another employee were criticized internally and
externally because we supported wilderness designation for an area that did
not seem destined for adequate protection otherwise. Some local folks wante
to get us fired, but this Wilderness now provides a number of special values
and benefits such as a recreational bonanza instead of timber harvest and a
growing bighorn sheep population instead of domestic sheep grazing.
As part of a consultancy, I feel our job is to show clients how to best
protect and restore the resources and values affected by their activities.
We have never been asked to justify environmentally damaging activities,
although there have been instances when we have tried to educate a client on
how to do a better job. Sometimes we have had mixed success in meeting thes
goals, but I feel we've produced improved outcomes in the long run.
Warren Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:32:56 -0500
From: Jeff Klemens <jklemens@SAS.UPENN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> --"those driven by the profit motive (corporate or individual) seem to
> have
> managed to belittle all our environmental arguments, foster an
> impression
> that we're largely a bunch of "green" wackos, and that we don't have
> the
> real needs of people today in mind."--
I haven't seen this mentioned yet in the discussion, but there's a
rather more sophisticated line of attack that I have heard a couple of
times from the daytime talk radio crowd. It says, environmental
scientists invent environmental problems and overhype their seriousness
in order to increase their probability of getting government funds for
their research.
I think that argument sticks better than charges of "environmental
wackoism" because there is a tiny glimmer of truth about it. I think we
could all agree that there is an element of hype in writing successful
grant proposals. It makes logical sense to those who are even slightly
familiar with how science works, and works against the argument that
scientists (versus corporations) have nothing to gain from their
conclusions.*
I don't know how to counter this perception. It's a tricky little
argument. I do think this puts a responsibility on on those of us who
do non-applied work to help our applied ecology colleagues work against
this by speaking out on any environmental policy issues on which we are
scientifically well informed. And when we speak publicly about
environmental matters, we should explicitly point out that we have no
more stake in the outcome than any other citizen.
Jeff
UPenn
*Please note that I do not agree with this line of argument. I'm just
stating why I think it's effective.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:51:28 -0500
From: Will Cook <cwcook@DUKE.EDU>
Subject: Postdoc ad: Global Change (2 positions)
Two Postdoctoral positions: Global Change Research
Biology Department and Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth
Sciences at Duke University
We seek two biologists or physical scientists with experience in
biogeosciences or ecosystem ecology to study the interactions of global
change and the environment. The successful candidate could have
expertise in stable isotopes, nutrient transformations, remote sensing,
or other areas of expertise. One position is available at the Duke
FACE site to study belowground carbon and nitrogen dynamics at ambient
and elevated CO2, with the option to work along a grassland gradient in
atmospheric CO2 in the field (200-550 ppm). The other position is to
examine the consequences of woody plant invasions in the southwestern
U.S. and Argentina.
Applicants should send a CV, statement of research interests, and three
letters of recommendation to: Rob Jackson, Department of Biology,
Phytotron Building, Box 90340, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0340.
Applications received by March 15th, 2003 will be assured
consideration.
For more information on research in our lab see
http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson . For information on Duke's stable
isotope facility, see http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/devil/ .
Duke University is an equal opportunity employer.
--
Charles W. "Will" Cook w 919-660-7423
http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/index1.html cwcook@duke.edu
Box 90340, Biology Dept., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27708
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:46:37 -0500
From: mike aliotta <bornxeyed@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
>
> A friend and colleague just told me
>this week for example that factory farming of beef, pork, poultry is her
to
>stay because it is essential to feeding the modern human population, and
>that if only the mislead and misinformed who spread misinformation about
its
>health effects would stay out of the debate, then the corporate and
>government interests would find the necessary ways to fix it so its
>environmental problems go away. He is an honest and sober person who
>believes what he said. He is a scientist. He has no financial or other
>interest in factory farming except a desire to himself be well fed and f
r
>future populations to also be well fed. Yet other people, just as sober
and
>with interests just as selfless as those of my friend, suggest, based on
>substantial data, that (1) the corporate interests have no desire to fix
the
>environmental problems, (2) the human population can get by just fine th
nk
>you on a much smaller supply of meat products than we are producing, and
(2)
>there are considerable health risks involved in the modern western diet.
>But my friend is not persuaded, because of the association in his mind o
>environmental advocacy with goofiness.
Your friend should be informed that more people can be fed with better
nutrition and less degenerative diseases and environmental degradation with
a vegetarian diet.
Rather that thinking meat is necessary for high populations and human
health I would speculate he is more concerned with the perceived standard
of living putting "meat on the table" implies. And where does the
misconception that meat is necessary for a healthy diet come from,? From
the millions of vegetarians falling down from malnutrition in the streets?
In regard to corporate interests and the "marketplace' taking care of
environmental problems" it can be said with reasonable accuracy that no
corporation has made any environmental concessions without legislation and
not enough people make purchase choices based on a producer's environmental
record. In fact, given price as the driving force in consumer choice the
non-environmental companies have a distinct advantage over voluntary
environmentally aware ones.
Just look at the price difference between organic and non-organic produce.
Which is environmentally less destructive and which is the more
expensive? Which do environmentally unconscious persons choose in
droves. Which has been lambasted in the popular news shows on TV as being
dangerous with no regard to actual facts or circumstances?
I think it is the concerned scientists responsibility to refute factoids
with facts regardless of what those facts imply.
Mike Aliotta
non-affiliated, non-scientist
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:01:02 -0500
From: "Erin R. Lawrence" <erl2@UAKRON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
Hello ecologgers,
One major factor involved in people's opinions and levels of concern
about environmental issues is the media. Unfortunately, media for the
most part is sensationalistic and interested only in a catchy headline.
So, Earth First! torching a development site gets more attention than a
sober scientist's latest findings.
The scientific community has made a lot of discoveries regarding the
state of the planet (global warming, etc.) When was the last time this
got any *significant* media coverage? When was the last 20/20 episode
covering "Habitat Destruction and Its Impacts"? The general public is
usually only as informed as the media that speaks to them. Until major
media is convinced to cover these topics and does so in depth, people
will continue to be blasщ on the subject.
The other end of this is our willingness to speak to the media. If we
aren't seen, we aren't heard.
Another $0.02 for the pot (is anyone keeping track of the total?)
--Erin R. Lawrence
Master's Candidate
The University of Akron
Department of Biology
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:36:16 -0500
From: eann@JUNO.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:53:11 EST Aneyww@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 28-01-2003 16:07:47 Pacific Standard Time,
> As a private consultant, I know there
> is a strong motivation to please your client.
> So who remains to speak out? The
> unemployed and hobby scientists?
True enough, Warren. I have colleagues who won't so much as write a
letter to the editor for fear of alienating a potential or current
client. On the other hand, I know many more who *do* participate in the
process as volunteers on their local conservation commission, planning
board or District Board. Provided they aren't representing clients
within the jurisdiction in which they serve, there's no conflict of
interest and they serve the public's interests well. Their's may not be
an activist role in the sense of "speaking out", but it certainly is an
advocacy one.
I suspect lots of ecologists and environmental scientists are involved in
public discourse. In subtle and little noticed ways, yes, but no less
valuable.
Ann
E. Ann Poole, MS, NH#WSA-5
Ecologist and Environmental Planner
Merrimack County Conservation District Board of Supervisors
Southern NH Resource Conservation & Development Area Council, Treasurer
Concord, NH
1997 - 2002 5 years of Service
"Helping Communities Meet the Challenges of Growth"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:36:41 -0600
From: Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
My $US 0.02
For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our beliefs o
everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are certain groups out
there that believe that we must "do something" here, the fact is that we liv
in a fairly well informed democracy, and society at large is making informe
choices, and society at large will deal with the consequences, one way or a
other.
It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as possi
le. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but realize that s
ch representation of views will taint the perception of our research.
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and purely p
litical groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible, try to inform m
students as broadly as possible and work with whomever I can on conservatio
related issues, and avoid issues related to "environmentalism" as much as p
ssible. We need to manage resources as effectively as possible, but the purp
se of related research is not the promotion of some sociopolitcal viewpoint,
be it called "environmentalism" or whatever.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:54:40 -0600
From: "David S. White" <david.white@MURRAYSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Summer Field Ecology Courses
To all ecology students and their advisors:
The Hancock Biological Station on Kentucky Lake is proud to announce its
31st year of summer field ecology courses. Courses are available to all
undergraduate and graduate students. The summer session will run from May
28 - July 1, 2003.
This summer's courses include
330 PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGY
491 - 494 UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH TOPICS
506 ADVANCED FIELD BIOLOGY
546 STREAM ECOLOGY
548 WETLAND ECOLOGY
553 FIELD BOTANY
573 ORNITHOLOGY
586 LIMNOLOGY
644 GRADUATE COOPERATIVE EDUCATION
691 - 694 GRADUATE TOPICS IN BIOLOGY
To register or to find out more about the Biological Station and its
courses, visit our website at http://www.mursuky.edu/qacd/cos/hbs/hbs-sumr.h
m
For a listing of summer field study courses at more than 50 biological
stations in North America, go to the Organization of Biological Field
Stations website at http://www.obfs.org/courses/posterlink.html or
http://sql.lternet.edu/scripts/obfsdb/class.pl?string=&type=search
David S. White
Hancock Biological Station and Center for Reservoir Research
David.White@murraystate.edu
-------------------------------------------------------
David S. White
Professor, Biological Sciences, Murray State University
Director, Hancock Biological Station
Coordinator, Center for Reservoir Research
Address:
Hancock Biological Station
561 Emma Drive
Murray, KY 42071, USA
Phone 270/474-2272
FAX: 270/474-0120
Email: david.white@murraystate.edu
http://www.mursuky.edu/qacd/cos/bio/davidswhite.htm
http://www.mursuky.edu/qacd/cos/hbs/hbs.htm
http://www.mursuky.edu/qacd/cos/crr/crr-wtr.htm
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:22:44 -0500
From: ALDEN HINCKLEY <ecologist123@MSN.COM>
Subject: Science and Citizens
Yesterday, I gave a talk to 60 senior citizens at George Mason
University's Learning in Retirement Institute. It was the first
class in a four part course entitled "Science and Technology
Today." My job - tell them all about entomology in 90 minutes!
I started by giving them some general characteristics of insects,
showing how they differ from other arthropods. Then, I told them
about sources of information on insects - books, CDs, and web sites.
Next, I handed out a colorful diagram of the three major subclasses
of insects. This served as an introduction to a 21 slide show on
19 major orders of insects, which elicited some good questions
on species of special interest.
After that, I became more personal, describing projects in which I
had been involved. I had slides and handouts for the Coconut
Rhinoceros Beetle Project but only a handout for the Gypsy Moth.
This gave the class some understanding of the actual work of an
insect ecologist.
By popular demand, we ended up with a discussion of the West Nile
Virus pandemic and the general problem of invasive diseases, pests,
and weeds. So many excellent questions were generated that I did
not have time to show an amusing 35 minute video on insects.
They want me to come back for another class to talk about Global
Warming, so I must have been doing something right!
Dex Hinckley
703-354-1342
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:01:13 -0500
From: Ken Klemow <kklemow@WILKES1.WILKES.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:53:11 EST Aneyww@aol.com writes:
>
> > As a private consultant, I know there
> > is a strong motivation to please your client.
My experience, based on 15 years of consulting experience, is that
our clients are primarily interested in having us keep them out of
trouble. They don't want to break the law. They don't want to engage
in activities that might be unsustainable in the long term (e.g,
constructing a building in a wetland or near a stream). And they
don't want to be engaged in activities that are likely to be
challenged in court by environmental activists.
Therefore, a reputable consultant should be willing to be as
objective as possible, tell the client the unvarnished truth, and
have the ability to explain to the client why in the long term, it is
in his/her best interest to forego projects with significant
ecological impact (or alter plans to reduce their impact). At the
same time, we should also be willing to accept that there will be
situations in which proposed projects indeed have no significant
ecological impact. In those situations, reputable consultant should
be willing to educate those environmental activists who would
otherwise brand us as "traitors."
Honesty is the best policy.
Ken K.
--
Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D.
Certified Senior Ecologist and Botanist
Wilkes University
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766
email: kklemow@wilkes.edu
phone: 570-408-4758
fax: 570-408-7862
homepage: http://wilkes1.wilkes.edu/~kklemow
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:13:24 -0800
From: Steve Erickson <wean@WHIDBEY.NET>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
>we live in a fairly well informed democracy,
There is little evidence to support this claim and a lot that
contradicts it. For example, recent polls show that a substantial
number of US americans believe that most of the 9-11 hijackers were
Iraqis, when the facts are that none were Iraqis and most were
Saudis. That this is a widely held belief despite the incredible
amount of very widely disseminated media coverage and information to
the contrary speaks volumes about how well informed our "democracy"
is. I'll resist going down the road of rhetorically asking why the
person who got the most votes didn't win.
On the broader issues, I got into activism because I love nature,
study it, and got tired and pissed off (yep, I confess to acting on
my emotions) at seeing places that I knew and loved destroyed. If I
find a rare plant on a site proposed for ecological simplification (I
don't like to call it development) and say so at a hearing on behalf
of an environmental advocacy group, why should I have less
credibility than if I testified on behalf of those who profit from
the proposed environmental degradation? I detect a double standard
here.
-Steve Erickson
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Box 53, Langley, WA 98260
(360) 579-2332
wean@whidbey.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:42:48 -0800
From: Amartya Saha <bhoomm@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
In response to the first para of Robert Hamilton's email...
Do we live in a "fairly well-informed democracy"?
If so, then there would be far greater efforts towards biodiversity and habi
at conservation, and decreased comsumption both in the US as well as globall
, especially in the tropics, whose resources are extracted to support the in
ensive lifestyles of the industrialized nations and third world urban elite.
Is society making well-infomed choices ?
I fear not. Not at all. One has just to look around at the range of spiralli
g environmental problems worldwide, the degradation of watershed ecosystems,
marine ecosystems, life support systems, the displacement of indigenous grou
s while the news headlines swing between war on iraq, the oscars and the sup
rbowl.
Will society at large deal with the consequences ?
Sure, mankind will pay, is already paying, but not equally. People (usually
oor)whose livelihoods depend on the forests and watersheds that are destroye
, coastal zones that are overfished and polluted would pay the price. The co
sumers in the cities, be it of king prawns, malaysian lumber or nigerian oil
would simply look elsewhere for these resources.
The media has always been responsible for the lack of awareness of the publi
about the effect our consumption has on the environment. Calif farmers woul
not be subsidized by the govt to grow rice in the desert..the average perso
on the street is oftentimes simply unaware of the ecological cost of natura
resource extraction and consumption. Oftentimes when they are made aware, t
ey act accordingly. It is the media that is largely responsible for not cove
ing such items. Professional scientific and ecological bodies, as suggested
y the original poster of this thread could lead the crusade, excuse my choic
of this word, but that is what is required, if anyone is *serious* about co
servation.
Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU> wrote:My $US 0.02
For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our beliefs o
everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are certain groups out
there that believe that we must "do something" here, the fact is that we liv
in a fairly well informed democracy, and society at large is making informe
choices, and society at large will deal with the consequences, one way or a
other.
It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as possi
le. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but realize that s
ch representation of views will taint the perception of our research.
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and purely p
litical groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible, try to inform m
students as broadly as possible and work with whomever I can on conservatio
related issues, and avoid issues related to "environmentalism" as much as p
ssible. We need to manage resources as effectively as possible, but the purp
se of related research is not the promotion of some sociopolitcal viewpoint,
be it called "environmentalism" or whatever.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:27:35 -0600
From: johnson <johnson@KSU.EDU>
Subject: Training Opportunities Available: Ecological Genomics
GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS AND POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS AVAILABLE:
Ecological Genomics: Genes in Ecology and Ecology in Genes
Opportunities AVAILABLE to participate in this newly emerging field at the
interface of ecology and genomics. This research initiative will link
responses of living systems to environmental change at the genetic level. T
e
overarching goal of this research initiative is to identify the genes that a
e
involved in organismal responses to the environment.
This Ecological Genomics initiative takes advantage of existing strengths at
Kansas research universities (KSU, KU, WSU) in genetics and genomics, ecolog
and evolutionary biology to answer cross-cutting questions that lie at the
interface of genomics and ecology. This collaborative research effort will
cross both disciplines (genetics and ecology) and departments as well as
campuses. In addition, this initiative will also take advantage of
experimental manipulations at the Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Researc
(LTER) site.
Research and education opportunities exist for graduate students and
postdoctoral fellows in this large collaborative and interdisciplinary effor
.
More information about the Kansas Ecological Genomics collaborative research
groups can be found at http://www.ksu.edu/ecogen. Fifteen faculty with
interests spanning from genetics and genomics of model organisms (Arabidopsi
,
C. elegans, Drosophila) to microbial, plant and animal organismic biology, a
d
ecosystem ecology are involved in this new research initiative. For
postdoctoral fellows, we seek candidates with Ph.D.s in either ecology and/o
molecular biology. Students are encouraged to apply for Ph.D. level trainin
.
For graduate studies, we seek candidates with knowledge and interest in eith
r
ecology and/or molecular biology. Importantly, applicants should have the
interest and willingness to cross disciplines. The earliest start date for
the post-doctoral positions is March 1, 2003. Graduate positions available f
r
Fall 2003.
For more information on these opportunities, email us at ecogen@ksu.edu or
contact Loretta Johnson (johnson@ksu.edu) or Mike Herman (mherman@ksu.edu).
o
apply, send your CV and a cover letter to ecogen@ksu.edu
KSU is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer, and encourages
diversity among its employees.
Dr. Loretta C. Johnson
Associate Professor
Division of Biology
Ackert Hall Rm 232
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506 USA
email: johnson@ksu.edu
phone: 785-532-6921
FAX: 785-532-6653
http//www.ksu.edu/johnsonlab/
Learn about our new Ecological Genomics research initiative and student and
post-doctoral training opportunities by visiting our web page at
http://www.ksu.edu/ecogen
Learn more about the Kansas State University Stable Isotope Mass
Spectrometry Laboratory by visiting our webpage at http://www.ksu.edu/simsl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:24:11 -0500
From: mike aliotta <bornxeyed@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
I have to agree with you, Steve. I too find little to indicate Americans
are, for the most part, informed, willing to question their assumptions or
act in any way other than their own selfish best interest. A recent series
of programs I saw on our cable education channel indicated that most
humans, or at least High School students, were incapable of learning
anything that went against their own preconceived assumptions. When told
in detail how a simple electric circuit involving a bulb, a wire and a
battery operated very few could construct such a circuit that worked and
believed that a ceramic bulb holder was integral to the bulb
lighting. Even when shown that the bulb can be made to light with just one
wire most refused to believe some other component, such as a switch, wasn't
necessary. Can we believe that such "coagulated" thinking doesn't continue
into adult life? Can we expect that such citizens could be capable of
making complex value judgements such as those involved in good forest
management, species protection or urban land use? Does our Texas oil-man
President understand that it takes an energy source to produce the hydrogen
for all those cars he was advocating last night? Or is he planning on
mining Jupiter?
Mike Aliotta
At 06:13 PM 1/29/03, Steve Erickson wrote:
> >we live in a fairly well informed democracy,
>
>There is little evidence to support this claim and a lot that
>contradicts it. For example, recent polls show that a substantial
>number of US americans believe that most of the 9-11 hijackers were
>Iraqis, when the facts are that none were Iraqis and most were
>Saudis. That this is a widely held belief despite the incredible
>amount of very widely disseminated media coverage and information to
>the contrary speaks volumes about how well informed our "democracy"
>is. I'll resist going down the road of rhetorically asking why the
>person who got the most votes didn't win.
>
>On the broader issues, I got into activism because I love nature,
>study it, and got tired and pissed off (yep, I confess to acting on
>my emotions) at seeing places that I knew and loved destroyed. If I
>find a rare plant on a site proposed for ecological simplification (I
>don't like to call it development) and say so at a hearing on behalf
>of an environmental advocacy group, why should I have less
>credibility than if I testified on behalf of those who profit from
>the proposed environmental degradation? I detect a double standard
>here.
>-Steve Erickson
>
>Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
>Box 53, Langley, WA 98260
>(360) 579-2332
>wean@whidbey.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:39:22 -0800
From: Peggy E Moore <peggy_moore@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Botanical/ecological work in the Sierra Nevada
The U.S. Geological Survey's Yosemite Field Station is seeking applicants
for a temporary position to survey special status vascular plant taxa in
Yosemite National Park. This is the experienced field botanist's or
ecologist's dream of planning field work based on taxa prioritized for
surveying, surveying in a variety of vegetation types and terrains and
detailing results in maps and reports. Yosemite supports nearly 23% of the
flora of California along its broad elevation gradient ranging from 1,800
to over 13,000 feet. Special status plant taxa occurring in the park
include federal species of concern, state listed taxa, those listed by the
California Native Plant Society and others for reasons of limited
distribution. Habitats for these taxa range from foothill woodland to
montane forest and subalpine environments.
The position will be responsible for coordinating, facilitating, and
implementing the project, including devising and applying survey
techniques, selecting study sites, documenting results and evaluating
project goals and methods on an ongoing basis. Survey areas will range from
1,800 to over 9,000 ft. elevation. Field work will be designed to
investigate the distribution of target species and to document the
environmental site factors potentially affecting those distributions. We
are looking for excellent taxonomy skills, good physical fitness to support
potentially extensive off-trail hiking, data management skills and,
preferably, GIS skills for working with GIS models of potential habitat. We
highly prefer experience in backcountry hiking (on and off trail),
orienteering with map, compass and GPS, camping skills and wilderness
survival techniques. Good computer skills are required, including word
processing, database management, spreadsheet manipulation and, preferably,
GIS. We are seeking good writing and communication skills as well. For the
GS-9 level, two full years of graduate education leading to a Master's or
higher degree in a directly related field or a combination of graduate
level course work and experience is required. The individual will work with
USGS and National Park Service colleagues during the survey phase and work
fairly independently during the reporting phase. An official announcement
will be coming out soon. Please send inquiries to:
Peggy Moore
USGS Western Ecological Research Center
Yosemite Field Station
P. O. Box 700, El Portal, CA 95318
email: peggy_moore@usgs.gov
Ph: 209-379-1309
Fax: 209-379-1116
------------------------------
Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 29 Jan 2003 to 30 Jan 2003 (#2003-30)
There are 30 messages totalling 1831 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Research and Environmental Conservation (8)
2. concept of shade tolerance
3. Forest Ecology Research Position
4. Research and Conservation (13)
5. News: Poll Indicates Majority of Americans Want More Wilderness Protect
on
6. CFP: Airs, Waters, Places: A Transdisciplinary Conf. on Ecosystem Healt
(fwd)
7. Smithsonian Environmental Courses
8. Employment Ad
9. Two positions for fire and flux research in the NJ PIne Barrens
10. AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leader Award for graduate students in
biological sciences
11. Hiring for birder for spring migration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:10:59 -0500
From: Judith Weis <jweis@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
Where do you get the idea that EDF is a violent group? I associate those
initials with the Environmental Defense Fund, now called Environmental
Defense, which is a group with a high proportion of scientists on the
staff - a group with the most scientific credibility of all the
environmental groups in my opinion, and not known for violence.
I see no problem with scientists working with groups trying to preserve
nature and reduce pollution and destruction of the environment. If our
science can show that certain actions and behaviors are deleterious to the
environment, we should work to inform decision-makers about this (it
doesn't have to be called "lobbying" it can be called "education" ) and
improve public policy and environmental protection. There's no conflict in
trying to preserve what we study and what we love. I'm sure our colleagues
in the English department would try to stop a planned book-burning also.
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000's: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
\ \
\ \ \
- - _ - \ \ \ \ ----\
- _ - \
- - ( O \
_ - -_ __ /
- - /
-/// _ ______ ___/
/// /
Judith S. Weis, Professor Department of Biological Sciences
Rutgers University, Newark NJ 07102 jweis@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Phone: 973 353-5387 FAX 973 353-5518
http://biology-newark.rutgers.edu/weis
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robert Hamilton wrote:
> My $US 0.02
>
> For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our beli
fs on everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are certain group
out there that believe that we must "do something" here, the fact is that w
live in a fairly well informed democracy, and society at large is making in
ormed choices, and society at large will deal with the consequences, one way
or another.
>
> It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as
ossible. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but realize t
at such representation of views will taint the perception of our research.
>
> In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and pur
ly political groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible, try to inf
rm my students as broadly as possible and work with whomever I can on conser
ation related issues, and avoid issues related to "environmentalism" as much
as possible. We need to manage resources as effectively as possible, but the
purpose of related research is not the promotion of some sociopolitcal viewp
int, be it called "environmentalism" or whatever.
>
> Rob Hamilton
>
> "So easy it seemed once found, which yet
> unfound most would have thought impossible"
>
> John Milton
> ________________________________________
>
> Robert G. Hamilton
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Mississippi College
> P.O. Box 4045
> 200 South Capitol Street
> Clinton, MS 39058
> Phone: (601) 925-3872
> FAX (601) 925-3978
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 06:29:58 -0600
From: Christopher J Wells <chris_wells@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
Let me see if I've got this right: What we have here is a United States
citizenry lamentably lacking knowledge of ecology and world events. The
ignorant masses would benefit greatly from the benevolence of the
ecological intelligentsia, if only they had some real power, currently
locked away from them by the cabalistc energy companies and their political
lackeys.
---chris
PS Need I say that my views are my own?
Christopher J Wells, Geographer
National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
700 Cajundome Blvd
Lafayette, LA 70506
337 266 8651
chris_wells@usgs.gov
Amartya Saha
<bhoomm@YAHOO.COM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSER
.UMD.EDU
> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Research and En
ironmental Conservation
"Ecological
Society of
America: grants,
jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSER
V.UMD.EDU>
01/29/03 05:42 PM
Please respond to
Amartya Saha
In response to the first para of Robert Hamilton's email...
Do we live in a "fairly well-informed democracy"?
If so, then there would be far greater efforts towards biodiversity and
habitat conservation, and decreased comsumption both in the US as well as
globally, especially in the tropics, whose resources are extracted to
support the intensive lifestyles of the industrialized nations and third
world urban elite.
Is society making well-infomed choices ?
I fear not. Not at all. One has just to look around at the range of
spiralling environmental problems worldwide, the degradation of watershed
ecosystems, marine ecosystems, life support systems, the displacement of
indigenous groups while the news headlines swing between war on iraq, the
oscars and the superbowl.
Will society at large deal with the consequences ?
Sure, mankind will pay, is already paying, but not equally. People (usually
poor)whose livelihoods depend on the forests and watersheds that are
destroyed, coastal zones that are overfished and polluted would pay the
price. The consumers in the cities, be it of king prawns, malaysian lumber
or nigerian oil would simply look elsewhere for these resources.
The media has always been responsible for the lack of awareness of the
public about the effect our consumption has on the environment. Calif
farmers would not be subsidized by the govt to grow rice in the desert..the
average person on the street is oftentimes simply unaware of the ecological
cost of natural resource extraction and consumption. Oftentimes when they
are made aware, they act accordingly. It is the media that is largely
responsible for not covering such items. Professional scientific and
ecological bodies, as suggested by the original poster of this thread could
lead the crusade, excuse my choice of this word, but that is what is
required, if anyone is *serious* about conservation.
Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU> wrote:My $US 0.02
For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our beliefs
on everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are certain groups
out there that believe that we must "do something" here, the fact is that
we live in a fairly well informed democracy, and society at large is making
informed choices, and society at large will deal with the consequences, one
way or another.
It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as
possible. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but realize
that such representation of views will taint the perception of our
research.
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and purely
political groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible, try to
inform my students as broadly as possible and work with whomever I can on
conservation related issues, and avoid issues related to "environmentalism"
as much as possible. We need to manage resources as effectively as
possible, but the purpose of related research is not the promotion of some
sociopolitcal viewpoint, be it called "environmentalism" or whatever.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:23:36 -0300
From: Christopher Lusk <clusk@UDEC.CL>
Subject: concept of shade tolerance
Dear Ecologgers - does anybody know how old the concept of shade tolerance
is, and who first proposed it? The oldest definitive cite that I have is
Julius Wiesner 1907, in German. Shirley (1942) says that the concept first
appeared in the literature "over 90 years ago", indicating a mid 19th
century origin.
Anybody have the definitive citation for shade tolerance - in any language?
Thanks
Chris Lusk
Departamento de Botсnica
Universidad de Concepciѓn
Casilla 160-C
Concepciѓn
CHILE
-----
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:25:49 -0600
From: PETE JACKSON <PJACKSON@DNRMAIL.STATE.IL.US>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
For anyone who sincerely feels that we live in an informed society that
makes informed decisions on environmental issues, I would respectfully
suggest reading Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber. I just
finished it, and this excellent book tells quite a different story.
This entire debate is complicated by the fact that we all have
different definitions of key terms used. For example, my definition of
"environmentalism" is simply, "caring for the environment". It is my
belief that we all ought to care about the environment, not (just)
because of some societal-moral obligation but for entirely selfish
reasons. But others seem to use the term "environmentalism" to refer to
those who resort to extreme measures to get their point across. I
believe that the latter use is an overly restrictive use of the term and
gives it a bad name that it doesn't deserve.
>>> Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU> 01/29/03 03:36PM >>
>
My $US 0.02
For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our
beliefs on everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are
certain groups out there that believe that we must "do something" here,
the fact is that we live in a fairly well informed democracy, and
society at large is making informed choices, and society at large will
deal with the consequences, one way or another.
It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as
possible. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but
realize that such representation of views will taint the perception of
our research.
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and
purely political groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible,
try to inform my students as broadly as possible and work with whomever
I can on conservation related issues, and avoid issues related to
"environmentalism" as much as possible. We need to manage resources as
effectively as possible, but the purpose of related research is not the
promotion of some sociopolitcal viewpoint, be it called
"environmentalism" or whatever.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:51:23 -0600
From: Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
>>> Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU> 01/29/03 03:36PM >>
>
My $US 0.02
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF,
Oops! Make that ELF! I guess I still have trouble envisioning nasty elves tr
ing to force us all back into caves!
This makes my contribution worth only about $US 0.01!
Rob
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:14:19 -0600
From: Eileen Carey <ecarey@UMN.EDU>
Subject: Forest Ecology Research Position
Please pass on to anyone who might be interested. Thank you.
Position number: CNR294
Job Title: Research Associate, Research Fellow, Research Specialist
Department Name: Forest Resources, Dept of
Application Deadline: Open Until Filled
Job Description: Research Specialist (9755), Research Fellow (9703),
Research Associate (9702) LOCATION: Department of Forest Resources, St.
Paul, MN. DATE AVAILABLE: Feb 15, 2003 or until suitable candidate is found.
SALARY: $28,000-36,000 per year plus health and dental benefits. DUTIES:
Work on project to study carbon sequestration potential of old-growth forest
in the Lake States. The successful candidate will be responsible for the
collection and analysis of carbon dioxide and water vapor flux data
(including photosynthesis, soil and plant respiration, xylem sap flow) and
for the supervision of 1-2 assistants in the field. Willingness to travel to
field site located approximately six hours from the Twin Cities for extended
periods throughout the year is required. The position is currently funded
for 1 year with the possibility of extension (contingent upon funding).
For project information see: http://cheas.psu.edu/sylvania.html
Qualifications:
Required Academic: B.S. required for research specialist, M.S. required for
research fellow and Ph.D. required for research associate. Experience: Prior
research experience with measurements and instrumentation used in
ecophysiology applications including gas-exchange measurements and plant
water relations. Strong data analysis and statistics skills (SAS or JMP
preferred). Valid drivers license required.
Contact: APPLICATIONS: Send letter of interest, resume and names and contact
information of three references to: Eileen Carey, Department of Forest
Resources, University of Minnesota, 1530 Cleveland Avenue North, St. Paul,
MN 55108; Telephone: 612/624-7249; fax: 612/625-5212.
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons
shall have equal access to its programs, facilities and employment without
regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital
status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status or sexual
orientation.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:37:27 -0600
From: Joe Gathman <jgathman@PETERSONENV.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
I think that it is the duty of scientists to be activists in situations
where science is being misused or misinterpreted for political gains.
This sort of activism is about accurate portrayal of scientific ideas
and conclusions, rather than about pushing specific political goals.
Like others on the list, I emphatically do not think that most Americans
are well-informed, especially in scientific issues. Before we worry
about lobbying for environmental causes, we should be fiercely
reprimanding media outlets and propagandists who misrepresent our work.
We also have an important role in informing society about developments
in politics that affect our areas of concern. A perfect example is
recent re-interpretation of the Clean Water Act:
How many people realize that a recent Supreme Court decision (the SWANCC
decision) removed the Corps' assumed jurisdiction over the majority of
wetlands in the country? And that the present administration has now
directed the Corps to revise its jurisdictional assessments
accordingly? And that the fault, in this case, is not with this
administration or with an environmentally unfriendly court, but with the
Clean Water Act itself? The Corps' de facto jurisdiction all these
years was an over-extension on their part. The only proper solution is
to amend the CWA through Congress, because few states have stepped
forward to block the breach in wetland protection.
I think it is our role to inform the public of this. I also feel
comfortable advocating a CWA amendment, because promoting a return to
broader wetland protection hardly seems controversial on scientific
grounds. And heck, Even G. Bush Sr. was in favor of "no net loss" of
wetlands!
Joe Gathman
Peterson Environmental Consulting
St. Paul, MN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:38:42 EST
From: JenKalt@CS.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
In a message dated 1/29/2003 3:17:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kklemow@WILKES1.WILKES.EDU writes:
> My experience, based on 15 years of consulting experience, is that
> our clients are primarily interested in having us keep them out of
> trouble. They don't want to break the law. They don't want to engage
> in activities that might be unsustainable in the long term (e.g,
> constructing a building in a wetland or near a stream). And they
> don't want to be engaged in activities that are likely to be
> challenged in court by environmental activists.
>
> Therefore, a reputable consultant should be willing to be as
> objective as possible, tell the client the unvarnished truth, and
> have the ability to explain to the client why in the long term, it is
> in his/her best interest to forego projects with significant
> ecological impact (or alter plans to reduce their impact). At the
> same time, we should also be willing to accept that there will be
> situations in which proposed projects indeed have no significant
> ecological impact. In those situations, reputable consultant should
> be willing to educate those environmental activists who would
> otherwise brand us as "traitors."
>
But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, avoiding
litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then what does the
honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a paycheck?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:00:34 -0800
From: Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@USC.EDU>
Subject: News: Poll Indicates Majority of Americans Want More Wilderness
Protection
[More on the issue can be found at:
http://www.leaveitwild.org/reports/reports.html]
* * *
http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2003/2003-01-28-09.asp
Majority of Americans Want More Wilderness
WASHINGTON, DC, January 28, 2003 (ENS) - More than six in 10 Americans do
not believe enough wilderness has been protected for future generations,
according to a new poll by Zogby International.
The poll, conducted for the Campaign for America's Wilderness, shows
strong support for increased wilderness protection across political
parties, regions, age groups, ethnic and religious backgrounds.
More than two-thirds of respondents - 71 percent - believe that 10 percent
or more of all lands in the United States should be protected as
wilderness. When told that in fact only 4.7 percent of the land in the
U.S. has been permanently protected, almost two-thirds feel that is "not
enough."
A majority of Republicans - 51 percent - said that 4.7 percent is not
enough wilderness, as did 70 percent of Independents and 72 percent of
Democrats.
"The American people want to see more land preserved as wilderness, and
regardless of party or region of the country, they feel very strongly
about this," said John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International.
The new survey was released as the Bush administration increases pressure
to open much of the country's remaining unprotected wildlands to energy
exploration. Last week, the Interior Department issued a draft proposal
for widespread oil and gas leasing in the northwest part of the nation's
largest remaining block of unprotected public land: the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska, or Western Arctic Reserve. Leasing this entire area, home
to some of America's most unique wildlife and wildlands, would be the
largest single onshore offering to industry in the nation's history.
Tens of millions of acres of wildlands across the western states,
including Alaska, are at risk from another Bush directive: a rule allowing
an archaic mining law to grant private "rights of way" across public
wildlands, permitting the bulldozing of a network of roads and highways
through now pristine public lands including national parks, forests and
wildlife refuges.
"Support for permanent protection for wilderness has never been higher,"
said Mike Matz, executive director of the Campaign for America's
Wilderness, a national initiative to protect the nation's remaining
wildlands. "People from all walks of life, from every region of the
country, across political and ethnic lines value the solitude and
recreational opportunities that wilderness provides. As Americans deal
with the threat of terrorism, an impending war, and a troubled economy,
our special wild places are clearly more important to us than ever."
The poll of 1,001 likely voters chosen at random nationwide, was conducted
January 4-6 as part of a larger poll by Zogby International. The margin of
error is +/- 3.2 percent.
The new Zogby numbers are consistent with polling about wilderness issues
over the last four years, as compiled by the Campaign for America's
Wilderness and released in a report titled "A Mandate to Protect America's
Wilderness," available at: http://www.leaveitwild.org
The review, the first of its kind, includes all recent major public
opinion findings on wilderness issues by polling firms, the media, and the
U.S. Government's National Survey on Recreation and the Environment,
coordinated by the U.S. Forest Service.
"The administration and Congress must recognize that support for
wilderness is strong and deep," said Matz. "Congress can protect millions
of acres of wilderness in states like California, Idaho, Alaska, and Utah,
and they can be confident that this is exactly what their constituents
want."
* * *
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes
only. ***
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:54:39 -0800
From: Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@USC.EDU>
Subject: CFP: Airs, Waters,
Places: A Transdisciplinary Conf. on Ecosystem Health (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:52:41 -0500
From: ISEH <info@ecosystemhealth.com>
To: ecohealth@uwo.ca
Subject: Airs, Waters, Places: A Transdisciplinary Conf. on Ecosystem Health
"Airs, Waters, Places: A Transdisciplinary Conference on Ecosystem
Health"To be held at the University of Newcastle, April 14 ^ж 16 2003.
First Call for Papers
This conference encourages participants to explore, using
transdisciplinary approaches, the relationships between the ecological
and physical foundations of life and the health and status of citizens
and their communities within the Australian context. A full list of
conference themes are listed on the website.
Abstracts for papers and posters that address the conference themes are
now invited. Keynote speakers, general information and guidelines for
submissions may be found on the website at:
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/environ-life-sci/awp-ehconf/#
Please send abstracts to the AWP Conference at:
AWP-EHConf@newcastle.edu.au
For further information please contact Glenn Albrecht,
e-mail: Glenn.Albrecht@newcastle.edu.au
or phone 49216635.
**To remove yourself from the ISEH email list, please send a message to
info@ecosystemhealth.com. **
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:06:34 -0500
From: Pat Campbell <gazella@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Smithsonian Environmental Courses
The director and staff of the Smithsonian Institution's Monitoring and
Assessment of Biodiversity Program (MAB)are pleased to announce the
international biodiversity conservation curriculum for 2003.
The two complementary courses that form this year's curriculum offer a
complete and essential program for conservation biologists, ecologists,
resource managers and environmental leaders. The Biodiversity Assessment
and Monitoring for Adaptive Management course guides you through the
process of designing and implementing local and regional biodiversity
monitoring programs. The Environmental Leadership course emphasizes
communication skills to facilitate your interaction with managers,
decision-makers and resource personnel.
Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring for Adaptive Management April
30th - June 2nd, 2003
This intensive five-week MAB course is a must for resource managers,
ecologists, biologists, environmental educators and consultants. It is
led by more than 40 internationally recognized instructors and speakers.
The course is divided into eight modules, the first of which provides a
framework for biodiversity assessment and monitoring, strengthened by a
basic background in Geographical Information Systems and statistics. Six
modules follow on assessment and monitoring of vegetation, aquatic
systems, arthropods, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. The
final module integrates the preceding seven and focuses on developing
site-based multi-taxa monitoring for adaptive management.
Investment: US$4,500 covers your tuition, lodging, meals, local
transportation, and course materials. Airfare to and from Washington DC
are not included.
The Smithsonian Environmental Leadership Course
September 7th- 19th, 2003
Strong leadership skills are essential for effective conservation. The
communication skills and strategies of exceptional leaders are taught in
this course in a friendly learning environment. The Smithsonian
Environmental Leadership course includes the exploration of topics such
as Foundation Skills for the Environmental Leader, Negotiation and
Conflict Resolution Strategies, Creating Compelling Futures, and
Impactful Environmental Communication. The learning structure of the
course is composed of demonstrations, background information, and
personal and group exercises. Speakers and numerous case-specific
examples are presented.
Investment: US$2,750 covers your tuition, lodging, meals, local
transportation, and course materials. Airfare to and from Washington DC
are not included.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please see our website www.si.edu/simab
or
CONTACT:
Geri Philpott, Education and Training Coordinator
Smithsonian Institution
MAB Program
PO Box 37012, Attn: MRC 705
Washington, D.C. 20013-7012
Tel: 202.357-4793
Fax 202.786-2557
E-mail: gphilpott@ic.si.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:14:35 -0800
From: Natalie Lucero <natalie@NREL.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Employment Ad
RESEARCH SCIENTIST II SPECIAL/Remote Sensing
The Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory (NREL) at Colorado State University
seeks a Research Scientist II in remote sensing, terrestrial biosphere
dynamics and radiative transfer analysis. The successful candidate will work
with an interdisciplinary team of biogeochemists, ecosystem scientists, and
geographers to evaluate the regional land cover dynamics affecting
biogeochemical patterns around the earth. Requirements for the position
include a Ph.D. in ecological, earth system science, or geography. We
require experience in remote sensing analysis, radiative transfer schemes,
spatial analysis, and ecosystem dynamics. The successful candidate must have
experience in report writing, publications, and working in a collaborative
research team. The successful candidate must have demonstrated ability to
work as a member of a diverse interdisciplinary team. Strong oral and
written communication skills are essential, and must be willing to travel.
Salary: approximately $60,000 to $65,000/12 months, dependent on experience,
plus benefits. The position is supported for 12 months from start date.
Possibilities for extended support are pending. Start date: April 1, 2003.
Send CV, statement of research interests and experience, and contact
information for three references to Natalie Lucero, Natural Resource Ecology
Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1499, or
email natalie@nrel.colostate.edu, postmarked by March 1, 2003.
CSU is an equal opportunity employer. OEO office, 1001 Student Services.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:15:07 -0500
From: John Hom <jhom@FS.FED.US>
Subject: Two positions for fire and flux research in the NJ PIne Barrens
Please place these jobs positions on your listserver. Many thanks.
John L. Hom, Ph.D.
Deputy Program Manager
Global Change Program
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station
11 Campus Blvd., Ste. 200
Newtown Square, PA 19073
610.557.4097
610.557.4095 fax
jhom@fs.fed.us
----- Forwarded by John Hom/NE/USDAFS on 01/30/2003 01:13 PM -----
John Hom
<jhom@fs.fed.us> To: FLUXNET <
fluxnet@ornl.gov>, bodenta@ornl.gov
Sent by: cc:
fluxnet-owner@sws1.c Subject: Two positions fo
fire and flux research in the NJ PIne Barrens
td.ornl.gov
01/28/2003 12:07 PM
Please post and distribute widely! I apologize for any cross-posting.
Research Opportunities in
Fire Weather Research, Water, Carbon and Energy Flux in the New Jersey Pine
Barrens
Northern Global Change Program
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station
Two positions exist for applied research in the NJ Pinelands. The work is
located in New Lisbon, NJ, approximately 1 hour east of the FS Northeastern
Research Station in Newtown Square, PA, and 25 west of the NJ Shore.
З Refine the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) for the New
Jersey Pine Barrens using fire weather stations and eddy covariance tower
approaches
З Conduct prescribed burns over a range of conditions to monitor
microclimate and moisture content conditions in order to characterize
fuel/fire/atmosphere interactions
З Develop an application and methodology to identify and correct
problems in the fire danger rating system to other fuel models. Test the
modified fuel model to similar regional pitch pine forest types (Long
Island and Cape Cod)
З Examine forest management practices and fire impacts on fire
emissions and ecosystem carbon budget
1. Position Title/Series/Grade: Interdisciplinary to:Research
Forester/Ecologist/Meteorologist GS-0460/0408/1340-11/12/13
Salary Range: $46,732.00 - 66,603.00, ANNUAL
Open Period Ends: Feb. 13, 2003
http://jsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/summary.asp?OPMControl=IK2806
2. Position Title/Series/Grade: Forestry Technician / Biological Science
Technician / Soil Conservation Technician, GS-0462/0404/0458-5/6/7/8/9
Salary Range: $26,281-39,820, ANNUAL
Open Period ends: Feb. 13, 2003
http://jsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/summary.asp?OPMControl=IK2815
Please pass this information to any outstanding, independent,
self-motivated individuals you think may be interested!
Please contact:
John L. Hom, Ph.D.
Deputy Program Manager
Global Change Program
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station
11 Campus Blvd., Ste. 200
Newtown Square, PA 19073
610.557.4097
610.557.4095 fax
jhom@fs.fed.us
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/global/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:45:27 -0600
From: Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
I suppose that the idea here is that one who reads this book is somehow info
med. Small gestures of "care" for the environment beg the real issue. The fa
t is that our lifestyle, yours and mine, is highly destructive of the enviro
ment independent of anything anyone else does. As long as we insist on the n
ed for cheap electricity on demand, hot and cold potable water on demand, ra
id, convenient, comfortable long distance transportation on demand (from the
local bus to the personal auto to the commercial jetliner), cheap high quali
y highly refined foods in supermarkets, large comfortable personal residence
and many others things we all insist upon, we will degrade the environment
remendously. We, as ecologists are in fact making the informed decision to l
ve a lifestyle that is highly destructive to the environment, and thus are h
rdly in a position to criticise anyone else for not being informed or making
informed decisions. We are making the same decisions, and thus su!
ch decision making is hardly evidence of the degree to which the decision ma
er is informed.
We, informed ecologists, and that is myself and anyone reading this, are tas
much the problem, as anyone else, and the problem is not solved by political
action to limit drilling in arctic refuges. The problem is our demand for fu
l, not the governments actions to meet that demand; they are simply respondi
g to the choices we make. If the demand weren't there, the pressure to drill
wouldn't be there. As long as we want things like rapid transit and hot wate
, there will be political pressure to drill for energy resources in arctic r
fuges.
Obviously, I could rant on, but in any event, that's what I think of when I
hink of informed choice; you and me, not some vague third party that needs t
change their ways. We need to change our ways. Next time you think someone
sn't doing something you think is right environmentally, consider your hot w
ter heater; will you give it up? We, are choosing the way we want to live, a
d we are informed.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
>>> PETE JACKSON <PJACKSON@DNRMAIL.STATE.IL.US> 01/30/03 08:2
AM >>>
For anyone who sincerely feels that we live in an informed society that
makes informed decisions on environmental issues, I would respectfully
suggest reading Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber. I just
finished it, and this excellent book tells quite a different story.
This entire debate is complicated by the fact that we all have
different definitions of key terms used. For example, my definition of
"environmentalism" is simply, "caring for the environment". It is my
belief that we all ought to care about the environment, not (just)
because of some societal-moral obligation but for entirely selfish
reasons. But others seem to use the term "environmentalism" to refer to
those who resort to extreme measures to get their point across. I
believe that the latter use is an overly restrictive use of the term and
gives it a bad name that it doesn't deserve.
>>> Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU> 01/29/03 03:36PM >>
>
My $US 0.02
For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our
beliefs on everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are
certain groups out there that believe that we must "do something" here,
the fact is that we live in a fairly well informed democracy, and
society at large is making informed choices, and society at large will
deal with the consequences, one way or another.
It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as
possible. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but
realize that such representation of views will taint the perception of
our research.
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and
purely political groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible,
try to inform my students as broadly as possible and work with whomever
I can on conservation related issues, and avoid issues related to
"environmentalism" as much as possible. We need to manage resources as
effectively as possible, but the purpose of related research is not the
promotion of some sociopolitcal viewpoint, be it called
"environmentalism" or whatever.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:47:51 -0500
From: Parmeliamm@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
>
>But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, >avoiding
>litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then >what does
the
>honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a >paycheck?
Those people or institutions rarely seek consultants. So backatcha: Who is
esponsible then?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:51:17 -0700
From: Mark Gerber <mgerber@POWERENG.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
This was a very good comment.
If the clients are primarily interested in staying out of trouble (which
most are) they will take whichever consultant will get them as close to the
edge as they can "legally" go. I was recently removed from a large project
because I stood by my ideals instead of caving to what the client was
pushing for. I was replaced by some very unethical and unscrupulous
consultants who looked the other way in virtually every aspect of the
project. It's a very fine line that we have to walk because those who are
driven by profit will be happy to take the next guy who might not have the
same goals as we do.
-----Original Message-----
From: JenKalt@CS.COM [mailto:JenKalt@CS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:39 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
In a message dated 1/29/2003 3:17:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kklemow@WILKES1.WILKES.EDU writes:
> My experience, based on 15 years of consulting experience, is that
> our clients are primarily interested in having us keep them out of
> trouble. They don't want to break the law. They don't want to engage
> in activities that might be unsustainable in the long term (e.g,
> constructing a building in a wetland or near a stream). And they
> don't want to be engaged in activities that are likely to be
> challenged in court by environmental activists.
>
> Therefore, a reputable consultant should be willing to be as
> objective as possible, tell the client the unvarnished truth, and
> have the ability to explain to the client why in the long term, it is
> in his/her best interest to forego projects with significant
> ecological impact (or alter plans to reduce their impact). At the
> same time, we should also be willing to accept that there will be
> situations in which proposed projects indeed have no significant
> ecological impact. In those situations, reputable consultant should
> be willing to educate those environmental activists who would
> otherwise brand us as "traitors."
>
But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, avoiding
litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then what does the
honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a paycheck?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:31:23 -0500
From: David Inouye <inouye@umd.edu>
Subject: AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leader Award for graduate students in
biological sciences
AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leader Award
Applications Due by 8 a.m. EST Wednesday, 5 March 2003
As part of its focus on engaging scientists in the public policy process,
the American Institute of Biological Sciences is pleased to announce the
AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leader Award, an opportunity for graduate
students in the biological sciences to receive first-hand experience in the
policy arena. AIBS will pay travel costs and expenses for 1-2 recipients of
the award to participate in the Science, Engineering and Technology Working
Group's annual Congressional Visits Day (CVD) in Washington, D.C. on April
2-3, 2003. The CVD is a two-day annual event that brings scientists,
engineers, researchers, educators, and technology executives to Washington
to raise visibility and support for science, engineering, and technology.
CVD is hosted by more than 30 organizations spanning all scientific
disciplines. During the CVD, participants will attend briefings by key
officials from the White House and Congress and two receptions honoring
members of Congress for their work on behalf of science and biology; they
will also participate in meetings with members of Congress and their staff.
Recipients of the award will write a short article describing their
experience at CVD to be published in the AIBS journal, BioScience.
AIBS is accepting applications for the Emerging Public Policy Leader Award
from graduate students (master's or doctoral) in the biological sciences
with a demonstrated interest in and commitment to biological science and/or
science education policy. Submit applications electronically to Dr.
Adrienne Froelich, AIBS Director of Public Policy (afroelich@aibs.org) NO
LATER than 8 a.m. EST on Wednesday, 5 March. Awards will be announced by 12
March.
Applications should include the following materials:
- Cover letter. Applicants should describe their interest in science
policy issues and how participation in the CVD would further their career
goals. Applicants should also confirm their availability to attend the
April 2-3 event.
- Statement on the importance of biological research (max. 500
words). The objective of CVD is "to underscore the long-term importance of
science, engineering, and technology to the Nation through meetings with
congressional decision makers." How would you convince your congressional
delegation of the importance of biological research? Prepare a statement
that emphasizes the benefits of biological research, drawing on your own
experience and/or research area, and referencing local issues that may be
of interest to your congressional delegation as appropriate.
- Resume (1 page). Your resume should emphasize leadership and
communication experience this may include graduate, undergraduate, or
non-academic activities. Please include the following items: education
(including relevant law or policy courses), work experience, honors and
awards, and memberships. Please do not list conference presentations,
abstracts or scientific manuscripts.
- Letter of reference. Ask an individual who can attest to your
leadership and interpersonal and communication skills to send a letter on
your behalf to afroelich@aibs.org by the stated deadline. This individual
should also be familiar with your interest in or experience with science or
education policy issues.
Questions about the award should be addressed to AIBS Director of Public
Policy, Dr. Adrienne Froelich at afroelich@aibs.org or by phone at
(202)-628-1500 x232.
=============================================================
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (www.aibs.org) is an umbrella
society for 87 professional biological science societies whose 240,000
members study every subdiscipline of the biological sciences, including
botany, ecology, taxonomy and agricultural sciences. AIBS is dedicated to
promoting an understanding and appreciation of the natural living world,
including the human species and its welfare, by engaging in coalition
activities with its members in research, education, public policy, and
public outreach; publishing the peer-reviewed journal, BioScience;
providing scientific peer review and advisory services to government
agencies and other clients; convening scientific meetings; and performing
administrative and other support services for its member organizations.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-
Adrienne J. Froelich, Ph.D.
Director of Public Policy
American Institute of Biological Sciences
1444 Eye St., NW, Suite 200 Phone: 202-628-1500 x.232
Washington, D.C. 20005 FAX: 202-628-1509
www.aibs.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:27:38 -0600
From: Christopher J Wells <chris_wells@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
The problem to which Joe makes reference is with the Clean Water Act where
plaintiffs claimed enforcement as defined by CoE conflicted with the US
Constitution.
I think the relevant sections was Article 1 where Congress was granted the
power to make laws regulating international and interstate commerce. The
CoE had been given jurisdictional control over the navigable waterways;
upon which interstate commerce may depend; and later CoE was given control
of the tributaries since navigation directly depends upon water from the
tributatries. As I recall, the case involved quarries that were determined
NOT to be connected to tributaries and thus, not subject to the Commerce
Clause.
The best way to get good laws is through clear legislation. The Courts
have clarified the problem and its up to Congress to address it.
In my opinion, that is an excellent example of the way the American
government's system of checks and balances limits authoritarianism. On the
other hand, it is good to remember that American skepticism of government
power gives a great deal of sympathy to people who practice deliberate
violation of the law to effect change., which we call civil disobedience.
My favorite practioner of which, wasn't an American.
---chris
Christopher J Wells, Geographer
National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
700 Cajundome Blvd
Lafayette, LA 70506
337 266 8651
chris_wells@usgs.gov
Joe Gathman
<jgathman@PETERSO To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSER
.UMD.EDU
NENV.COM> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Research and Co
servation
"Ecological
Society of
America: grants,
jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSER
V.UMD.EDU>
01/29/03 08:37 PM
Please respond to
Joe Gathman
I think that it is the duty of scientists to be activists in situations
where science is being misused or misinterpreted for political gains.
This sort of activism is about accurate portrayal of scientific ideas
and conclusions, rather than about pushing specific political goals.
Like others on the list, I emphatically do not think that most Americans
are well-informed, especially in scientific issues. Before we worry
about lobbying for environmental causes, we should be fiercely
reprimanding media outlets and propagandists who misrepresent our work.
We also have an important role in informing society about developments
in politics that affect our areas of concern. A perfect example is
recent re-interpretation of the Clean Water Act:
How many people realize that a recent Supreme Court decision (the SWANCC
decision) removed the Corps' assumed jurisdiction over the majority of
wetlands in the country? And that the present administration has now
directed the Corps to revise its jurisdictional assessments
accordingly? And that the fault, in this case, is not with this
administration or with an environmentally unfriendly court, but with the
Clean Water Act itself? The Corps' de facto jurisdiction all these
years was an over-extension on their part. The only proper solution is
to amend the CWA through Congress, because few states have stepped
forward to block the breach in wetland protection.
I think it is our role to inform the public of this. I also feel
comfortable advocating a CWA amendment, because promoting a return to
broader wetland protection hardly seems controversial on scientific
grounds. And heck, Even G. Bush Sr. was in favor of "no net loss" of
wetlands!
Joe Gathman
Peterson Environmental Consulting
St. Paul, MN
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:36:31 -0800
From: Keith Babcock <keithb@IMPACTSCIENCES.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
That's the difference between an ethical consulting biologist and one who
isn't; between one who isn't afraid of saying "no" to a client (or
prospective client), and one who prioritizes dollars over accurate,
objective data and sound biological conclusions. Both of them exist
(unfortunately) and my optimistic side says that there are many more of the
ethical/honest consultants out there than the few who are not.
> From: JenKalt@CS.COM
> Reply-To: JenKalt@CS.COM
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:38:42 EST
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
>
> In a message dated 1/29/2003 3:17:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> kklemow@WILKES1.WILKES.EDU writes:
>
>
>> My experience, based on 15 years of consulting experience, is that
>> our clients are primarily interested in having us keep them out of
>> trouble. They don't want to break the law. They don't want to enga
e
>> in activities that might be unsustainable in the long term (e.g,
>> constructing a building in a wetland or near a stream). And they
>> don't want to be engaged in activities that are likely to be
>> challenged in court by environmental activists.
>>
>> Therefore, a reputable consultant should be willing to be as
>> objective as possible, tell the client the unvarnished truth, and
>> have the ability to explain to the client why in the long term, it
s
>> in his/her best interest to forego projects with significant
>> ecological impact (or alter plans to reduce their impact). At the
>> same time, we should also be willing to accept that there will be
>> situations in which proposed projects indeed have no significant
>> ecological impact. In those situations, reputable consultant shoul
>> be willing to educate those environmental activists who would
>> otherwise brand us as "traitors."
>>
>
> But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, avoiding
> litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then what does th
> honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a paycheck?
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:48:55 -0800
From: Amartya Saha <bhoomm@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
Rarely are companies interested in sustainability at the expense of lesser p
ofits. The central aim of a company is to make a profit, indeed that is the
eason for its existence. Thats where the government has a role. To protect t
e environment, to cease subsidizing natural resources except for the lower i
come groups.
But of course government policies must contend with all sorts of powerful ve
ted interests, and it is but human for some under the table transactions inf
uencing these policies. So thats where informed aware local communities are
equired, to serve as watchdogs, forcing the government to modify and enforce
policies. And thats where the media comes in. Travelling to other lands and
laces sometimes enlarges one's perspective, but everyone is not as fortunate
to be able to travel, so thats where the media has a responsibility. But why
should the latter day William Randolph Hearsts care for the environment ? Th
ts where groups of ecologists have to come in, bodies like the ESA and other
societies. At present, all of these are ivory towers, with hardly any presen
e in the day to day life of the man on the street.
Revolutions are violent or nonviolent. The latter requires the "masses" to b
aroused and led. Despite the grim ecological situation today, the "masses"
re not aware. We are all sawing the branch we sit on, fighting with each oth
r as to who can cut faster. In such cases, groups like ELF, Greenpeace and E
rth First need to do what they are doing, despite their approach being radic
l. It is easy to be complacent when one is not directly threatened.
Parmeliamm@AOL.COM wrote:>
>But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, >avoiding
>litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then >what does
the
>honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a >paycheck?
Those people or institutions rarely seek consultants. So backatcha: Who is r
sponsible then?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:09:25 EST
From: Aneyww@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
In a message dated 30-01-2003 10:50:23 Pacific Standard Time, JenKalt@CS.COM
writes:
<< what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, avoiding
litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then what does the
honest consulting biologist do? >>
This is exactly the case where an honest consulting biologist can do the
greatest good -- by educating a recalcitrant client on (1) the legal
consequences of breaking the law, (2) the social (public image) damage
resulting from a litigative stance, (3) the long term economic benefits of
sustaining the resource base on which the client depends. A resourceful
consultant can frequently show a client how to do a better job at little or
no additional cost or risk. Every client we've dealt with is, at some level
interested in doing a good job of protecting the environment -- the only
contention that might arise is over the best way to do this. A client who i
truly not interested in doing a good job of protecting the environment is no
going to hire a biological consultant, they are going to save their money fo
lawyers.
Warren W. Aney
Consulting Senior Wildlilfe Ecologist
Tigard, Oregon
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:58:21 -0800
From: Steve Erickson <wean@WHIDBEY.NET>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> A client who is
>truly not interested in doing a good job of protecting the environment i
not
>going to hire a biological consultant, they are going to save their mone
for
>lawyers.
NoThey'll also hire a consultant who gives them a report justifying
their action, then the lawyers will justfy this action as being
legal. In fact, I typically see the lawyers in charge of determiing
what consultants are hired, and if the first ones don't produce the
desired product then they're replaced by different consultants.
-Steve
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Box 53, Langley, WA 98260
(360) 579-2332
wean@whidbey.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:12:47 -0600
From: Mark_Felton@URSCORP.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
<<Every client we've dealt with is, at some level,
interested in doing a good job of protecting the environment -- the only
contention that might arise is over the best way to do this. A client who
is
truly not interested in doing a good job of protecting the environment is
not
going to hire a biological consultant, they are going to save their money
for
lawyers.>>
Which is also why consulting environmental professionals need to be on a
project at it's earliest inception in order to lead the work. Many of the
issues of what happens on a site are directly tied to development budgets.
If the environmental professional is in the loop early and can show their
client the benefits of more environmentally friendly development, they can
and frequently will allow for these issues in their budgets. Once they
have hit a point of selling bonds to finance a project, issues are normally
written in stone as far as they are concerned.
Therefore, often the most effective change in a corporation's thinking is
by those who are on the "inside" of a project rather than on the "outside".
It is not uncommon for a consultant to be as much educator to their client
as "permitting specialist".
Mark Felton
CPSS, PWS, AICP
World Wetlands Day - February 2, 2003
"The growth of understanding follows an ascending spiral rather than a
straight line."
--Joanna Field
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:45:33 -0500
From: eann@JUNO.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, avoiding
> litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then what does
> the honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a paycheck?
An "honest consultant" walks away. No amount of money can buy ones good
name or integrity once s/he sold it.
Ann
E. Ann Poole, MS, NH#WSA-5
Ecologist and Environmental Planner
Concord, NH
1997 - 2002 5 years of Service
"Helping Communities Meet the Challenges of Growth"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:20:09 -0700
From: Mark Gerber <mgerber@POWERENG.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
I believe it is the honest consultant who needs to stay for two reasons.
One: There is some amount of education that perhaps the client is lacking,
that the consultant can give and two: As I've stated previously, the client
will go find a consultant who is not honest and the resource will suffer.
Staying in the fight is the only way to win it. Walking away is
well...walking away. If you are going to lose money, might as well go down
fighting instead of giving up.
-----Original Message-----
From: eann@JUNO.COM [mailto:eann@JUNO.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:46 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
> But what if the client isn't interested in sustainability, avoiding
> litigation, and making sure they don't break the law? Then what does
> the honest consulting biologist do? Especially if they need a paycheck?
An "honest consultant" walks away. No amount of money can buy ones good
name or integrity once s/he sold it.
Ann
E. Ann Poole, MS, NH#WSA-5
Ecologist and Environmental Planner
Concord, NH
1997 - 2002 5 years of Service
"Helping Communities Meet the Challenges of Growth"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:32:26 -0600
From: Joe Gathman <jgathman@PETERSONENV.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Conservation
I'm pretty new to this business, but the company I work for is usually
called in on the controversial calls or gray areas. Based on what I've
seen here, clients generally are not particularly interested in
environmental protection, especially if it will cost them. They hire
us to find out what is legal and what isn't (Minnesota has comprehensive
wetland protection legislation). They aren't very interested in
niceties like environmental protection, especially in the "gray" areas
where we are called in. These usually involve expanses of reed canary
grass that may or may not have partly-broken drain tiles effectively,
maybe partially, draining them. "Is it wetland or not" is all they are
interested in, and we do our best to tell them, which is often
difficult. It's hard for anybody to get excited about preserving these
areas, yet here in the Twin Cities area they are a very common landscape
element, given the rapid, sprawling growth out into former farmlands.
It would be nice to get in on projects from the beginning, but you can't
force that on anybody. The larger and smarter developers have figured
out that it is more efficient to get us in relatively early so we can
look at their site plans and recommend changes before details are hashed
out. But they still want to push to the legal limit on the amount of
land they can develop. They only willingly set aside wetland area if
they can be convinced that it will be a profitable mitigation bank.
Just what I've seen in my limited experience.
Joe Gathman
Peterson Environmental Consulting
St. Paul, MN
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:55:11 -0800
From: Amartya Saha <bhoomm@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
About fuel demand in the US, the only way to decrease demand is to increase
he price fourfold or more. Only the government can do this. And before the p
ice hike they also HAVE to provide extensive public transportation, which is
nonexistent in this country save for a handful of cities.
How can a suburbanite decrease fuel usage, other than not driving SUVs ? Whe
e is the mass transit s/he can take ? Granted that some wasteful practices h
ve become cultural, like lawncare, subdivisions not allowing washing to be h
ng outside to dry in the sun and so on. As long as fuel is cheap, and the or
inary man not seeing with his own eyes the effects of drilling ( devastation
of ecosystems, global warming, displacement of tribals to the gulf wars and
oups in africa and latin america ), fuel consumption shall never decrease.
f you were to go and tell everyone not to keep lights burning in their homes
they'll think you're some wacko green. How are you going to change things t
at way in a market-based economy ?
The only way is to price it to say $15 per gallon from the current $1.50. Bu
which polititian would ever DARE to do this ?
Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU> wrote:I suppose that the idea here
s that one who reads this book is somehow informed. Small gestures of "care"
for the environment beg the real issue. The fact is that our lifestyle, your
and mine, is highly destructive of the environment independent of anything
nyone else does. As long as we insist on the need for cheap electricity on d
mand, hot and cold potable water on demand, rapid, convenient, comfortable l
ng distance transportation on demand (from the local bus to the personal aut
to the commercial jetliner), cheap high quality highly refined foods in sup
rmarkets, large comfortable personal residences and many others things we al
insist upon, we will degrade the environment tremendously. We, as ecologist
are in fact making the informed decision to live a lifestyle that is highly
destructive to the environment, and thus are hardly in a position to critici
e anyone else for not being informed or making informed decisions. We a!
re making the same decisions, and thus su!
ch decision making is hardly evidence of the degree to which the decision ma
er is informed.
We, informed ecologists, and that is myself and anyone reading this, are tas
much the problem, as anyone else, and the problem is not solved by political
action to limit drilling in arctic refuges. The problem is our demand for fu
l, not the governments actions to meet that demand; they are simply respondi
g to the choices we make. If the demand weren't there, the pressure to drill
wouldn't be there. As long as we want things like rapid transit and hot wate
, there will be political pressure to drill for energy resources in arctic r
fuges.
Obviously, I could rant on, but in any event, that's what I think of when I
hink of informed choice; you and me, not some vague third party that needs t
change their ways. We need to change our ways. Next time you think someone
sn't doing something you think is right environmentally, consider your hot w
ter heater; will you give it up? We, are choosing the way we want to live, a
d we are informed.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
>>> PETE JACKSON
01/30/03 08:25AM >>>
For anyone who sincerely feels that we live in an informed society that
makes informed decisions on environmental issues, I would respectfully
suggest reading Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber. I just
finished it, and this excellent book tells quite a different story.
This entire debate is complicated by the fact that we all have
different definitions of key terms used. For example, my definition of
"environmentalism" is simply, "caring for the environment". It is my
belief that we all ought to care about the environment, not (just)
because of some societal-moral obligation but for entirely selfish
reasons. But others seem to use the term "environmentalism" to refer to
those who resort to extreme measures to get their point across. I
believe that the latter use is an overly restrictive use of the term and
gives it a bad name that it doesn't deserve.
>>> Robert Hamilton 01/29/03 03:36PM >>>
My $US 0.02
For me, at least, the thought of a society where we can impose our
beliefs on everyone is quite an unpleasant thought. While there are
certain groups out there that believe that we must "do something" here,
the fact is that we live in a fairly well informed democracy, and
society at large is making informed choices, and society at large will
deal with the consequences, one way or another.
It is our role to conduct research as esponsibly and as effectively as
possible. We should represent our views as citizens, of course, but
realize that such representation of views will taint the perception of
our research.
In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, like EDF, and
purely political groups like Greenpeace. I will, as much as possible,
try to inform my students as broadly as possible and work with whomever
I can on conservation related issues, and avoid issues related to
"environmentalism" as much as possible. We need to manage resources as
effectively as possible, but the purpose of related research is not the
promotion of some sociopolitcal viewpoint, be it called
"environmentalism" or whatever.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:14:01 -0700
From: Laura McGrath <Laura.McGrath@NAU.EDU>
Subject: Hiring for birder for spring migration
WILDLIFE TECHNICIAN: One position available from 15 Mar- 15 May 2003 to
collect data from Neotropical passerines on the lower Colorado River
Corridor in SW Arizona to determine if tree phenology affects foraging
choice of en route migrants. Assistant will perform point-count surveys,
behavioral observations, insect sampling, and mist-netting to band and
obtain diet information. Operations will be based at Cibola National
Wildlife Refuge in AZ where housing is provided. Applicant must be in good
physical condition, have enthusiasm for working 10 days at a time (followed
by a 4 day break), have the ability to work well independently and in
pairs, and maintain a good attitude under difficult field conditions.
Required skill; Expert birder-identification of passerines by sight and
sound. Preferred skills; behavioral observations, banding, and Lavage. Pay
is between $9.00 and $12.00 per hour depending on qualifications
(between $1600-$1920/mo). Travel to Cibola NWR from Flagstaff reimbursed.
Please send a detailed cover letter addressing your relevant
qualifications, a resume including a summary of applicable course work, and
a list of three references (with phone numbers) that are familiar with your
professional experience and qualifications. Submit materials by email to
laura.mcgrath@nau.edu. Or by mail (e-mail prefeered)USGS Colorado Plateau
Field Station, PO Box 5614, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
86011 attn; LAURA MCGRATH. Questions can be directed to me at work
(928)-523-4842. Applications will be considered upon receipt. Closing date
is Feb. 15.
Laura McGrath (laura.mcgrath@nau.edu)
Avian Ecology
Colorado Plateau Field Station/Northern Arizona University
928-523-4842
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:16:41 EST
From: WirtAtmar@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
Amartya Saha writes:
> As long as fuel is cheap, and the ordinary man not seeing with his own
yes
> the effects of drilling ( devastation of ecosystems, global warming,
> displacement of tribals to the gulf wars and coups in africa and latin
> america ), fuel consumption shall never decrease.
Regarding the "devastation of ecosystems" wreaked by the effects of drilling
Jared Diamond wrote this very reasoned Op-Ed piece in the New York Times two
years ago:
=======================================
January 8, 2000, Saturday
Editorial Desk
The Greening of Corporate America
By Jared Diamond
At last, shared interests are producing signs of cooperation between two
warring forces in our society, business and environmentalists. On the one
hand, bad environmental policies are ultimately disastrous for businesses an
their employees. On the other hand, conservationists can't make the
environment healthy without the help of businesses.
As an environmentalist (a director of World Wildlife Fund), I have mostly
been in the position of blaming businesses for bad things. However, any
habitual blamer also incurs an obligation to give praise where praise is due
Last year, I found that opportunity in an unexpected location, the big Kikor
oil field of Papua New Guinea, managed by Chevron.
Although Chevron had enlisted World Wildlife Fund as partner to advise on
environmental issues, I expected to see a mess. Instead, I was astonished as
soon as I arrived. Flying over, I couldn't see oil wells, because almost the
whole area retains its original cover of rain forest.
Forest grows up to the edges of the few roads, camps, wells and drill sites.
Next to the camps and wells, I found New Guinea's most endangered bird and
mammal species much more abundant than outside the area leased by Chevron.
Most drill sites are tiny clearings reached by helicopter, not by roads; all
food in camps is imported, not grown in local gardens that would require
clearing forest.
Chevron derives at least three advantages from these tight environmental
policies. First, Papua New Guinea is a litigious democracy in which local
people still own the leased land and count every tree chopped down in their
bill for damages. The less forest cleared, the lower are the damage claims
against Chevron.
Second, big recent industrial disasters give warning that, in the long run,
it is far cheaper to spend modest sums each year on a clean operation than t
pay later for a catastrophe. For instance, the Exxon Valdez oil spill cost
Exxon billions of dollars.
Finally, Chevron employees themselves tend to be educated and environmentall
concerned. They don't like going home and being scorned for being part of a
dirty enterprise as soon as they mention their job. The employees feel proud
of what they are doing, and they have high morale and low job turnover.
Essential to the outcome at Kikori is the partnership between a big oil
company and a big environmental organization. As a side benefit to Chevron,
World Wildlife Fund's independent assessment of Chevron's operation is
credible to the public, whereas no one would believe it if Chevron took out
ads praising itself.
This partnership seems to me a model for business policies of the next
century. I see it already taking hold in the timber industry, emerging in
fisheries, and on the drawing boards in some other industries.
Behind this trend lies consumers' growing awareness of the risks that
environmental problems pose for the health, economies and political stabilit
of their own world and their children's world. Given a choice between buying
equally priced products from a clean company or a dirty company, of course
they would buy the clean product. But consumers are barraged with
manufacturers' claims of environmentally sound practices. How can we
distinguish the valid claims from the deceptive ones?
The solution is termed ''certification.'' As applied to the timber industry,
here's how it works. An independent, not-for-profit international entity
called the Forest Stewardship Council, established in 1993 with input from
environmental organizations as well as from loggers, formed a list of
environmentally sound logging practices.
Those practices include harvesting lumber at a rate sustainable indefinitely
maintaining old-growth forests, maintaining biodiversity, and so on. Timber
companies may choose to ask an accredited certifier to study their operation
at a particular forest.
If the operations are found to meet the stewardship council's criteria, that
forest is declared certified. Then, if timber from that forest can be traced
to consumer products, those products may carry a label with that information
This certification is catching on in a big way. There are already 40 million
acres of certified forest in 31 countries, and that area is doubling every
year, but consumer demand for the products still exceeds the supply.
Certified forests yield timber products costing no more than uncertified
products. In Britain, where this process is furthest advanced, sources
certified by the Forest Stewardship Council now account for one-quarter of
all wood supplies sold nationally.
Last August, Home Depot, the largest buyer and retailer of forest products i
the United States and in the world, announced that it would eliminate sales
of wood products from environmentally sensitive areas by the end of 2002, an
that it would give preference to certified wood.
These trends are being driven not only by shifting consumer choice but also
by business self-interest and raw necessity. Half of the world's original
forests have already been destroyed, and our remaining forests will not last
long if they continue to be harvested destructively.
The same logic is driving a similar trend in fisheries. More than half of th
world's commercially important marine fisheries are already either destroyed
or endangered, and one-quarter of the catch is currently discarded because o
sloppy practices.
Hence in 1996 Unilever, one of the world's biggest buyers of frozen fish,
became concerned for its own long-term survival, and it teamed up with World
Wildlife Fund to found a Marine Stewardship Council. By Christmas of next
year, I predict that you'll be able to buy environmentally certified seafood
at costs no higher than those of corresponding uncertified foods. A race is
on between the Alaska salmon fishery, the Australian rock lobster fishery an
the Thames herring fishery to be certified first.
In the next century, this certification will likely spread to the oil, gas
and mining industries, and to industries emitting polluting and global
warming gases. Make no mistake: this isn't a matter of ecoradical Big Brothe
ordering businesses and consumers what to do. We shall still need
environmental laws, but the essence of independent certification is that it'
voluntary at every stage. Labels of certification do nothing more than
provide credible information to consumers. If you, as a consumer, don't care
about environmental issues, then just continue to buy noncertified products.
If you, as a chief executive officer, think that certification won't increas
your company's market share, then don't apply to be certified.
But the logic driving cooperation between environmentalists and businesses
seems to me inexorable. Like the rest of us, C.E.O.'s of Fortune 500
companies breathe air, drink water, eat food and have children. Without soun
environmental practices, their businesses, health and lives will be
threatened. Without their support, environmentalists can't achieve their
goals.
=======================================
Wirt Atmar
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:44:11 -0500
From: Oliver Kilian <ollie@ACCESSV.COM>
Subject: Re: Research and Environmental Conservation
> In my case, I am adamantly opposed to violent groups, ....,
Time for another penny:
I, too, am opposed to those who resort to violence or other
unlawful/disreputable activity in the name of environmentalism. In my neck
of the woods, we have another term for such radicals - "eco-terrorists".
Their activities, admittedly borne out of a combination of frustration and
indifference to rights and laws, taint us all. Just thought I'd toss that
term into the mix, since I haven't seen it come up yet in this, what is to
my awareness, one of the most lively threads I've ever seen on this
listserv.
For those who read and/or responded to my earlier post, I'm still trying to
explain to myself why I have a gut feeling that its harder to be taken
seriously today (versus 10-15 years ago) when one articulates an
environmentally-conscious point of view, whether one's line of work is
research, consulting, or whatever. Somehow, regardless of our science or
intuitiveness, those of us who work or study in environmental fields are
being lumped in with the archetypical doomsday prophesizers (you know, the
ones wearing long gray beards and carry signs that say "the end is near"). I
have no doubt that our work is respected by the citizenry at large - we're
just not being listened to as well as we know we need to be. I find precious
little consolation in the fact that, when "the end" does come (and
environmental degradation by humans is a very plausible cause), we will all
be able to stand up and say: "told you so".
Eagerly anticipating further posts on this topic,
Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons.)
Consulting Arborist, Forest Ecologist
7 Oaks Urban Forestry Consultants, Inc.
143 Pemberton Rd.
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4C 3T6
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 29 Jan 2003 to 30 Jan 2003 (#2003-30)
**************************************************************
џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in