Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 16 Mar 2003 to 17 Mar 2003 (#2003-74)
There are 21 messages totalling 2143 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. ESA and DU? (7)
2. On war...let me rephrase this... (5)
3. Job Announcement Extension
4. Final call for RMBL Symposium on Model Ecosystems
5. ESA and war/non-profit status
6. Plant dispersal references
7. Job at Tennessee State
8. Graduate Assistantship at UF
9. Request
10. Job Ad: Part-time Urban Bird Census Positions in Phoenix (CAP LTER)
11. New issue of fisheries transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:48:49 -0600
From: Christopher J Wells <chris_wells@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
Hard to imagine anyone in favor of nuclear contamination.
I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I suppose
one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods that can
be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential is not
worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of changing
weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be tough to
convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment is more
important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few folks
who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant increase
in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they're just
ignorant kids.
Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of America to
send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
---chris
Christopher J Wells, Geographer
National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
700 Cajundome Blvd
Lafayette, LA 70506
337 266 8651
chris_wells@usgs.gov
Dave Whitacre
<dwhitacre@PEREGRI To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSE
V.UMD.EDU
NEFUND.ORG> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
"Ecological
Society of
America: grants,
jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV
.UMD.EDU>
03/14/03 09:26 AM
Please respond to
Dave Whitacre
I agree fully with Mike Aliotta that the ESA might--at the very
least--weigh in
publicly on the issue of contaminating a portion of the planet's surface
with
tons of depleted uranium (a portion inhabitated by a goodly number of
people).
Surely within the ranks of the ESA is someone who is familiar to some depth
with
the characteristics of "depleted" uranium, and the public and environmental
health hazards entailed in its use in munitions--such that they could
spearhead
the drafting of such a statement.
I also agree that such weaponry should be globally banned.
Dave Whitacre
mike aliotta wrote:
> One serious, but seemingly overlooked, social and ecological
consideration
> that maybe worth commenting upon, regardless of the cost/benefit analys
s
> applied to such controversial issues as bird migrations and water quali
y
> over the spoils of war or the relative impacts of munitions and fuel wh
n
> used in destroying infrastructure and moving troops instead of building
> dams and powering cars, is the effects of dispersing tons of depleted
> uranium all over the cities and deserts. Perhaps this is a such an
> uncontestable moral, social and ecological issue that the ESA, as a
whole,
> would have no contention in addressing.
>
> I, for one, would vote for a total moratorium on the use of such weapon
>
> Mike Aliotta
>
> At 04:05 PM 3/12/03, Dave McNeely wrote:
> >Jay,
> >
> >I have no problem with addressing these questions as a private citi
en.
I
> >also have no problem if ESA wishes to examine the relationship of w
r to
> >ecological matters and make a statement concerning it based on memb
r
input.
> >getting a statement that all members might support would be very
difficult,
> >I suspect.
> >
> >For example, bombing might disrupt bird migrations. The products o
battle,
> >or of troop concentrations, might effect water quality. But I am a
little
> >confused as to what exactly you are asking us to do in the present
instance,
> >and I have a hard time resolving whether we are the professional gr
up
best
> >prepared to address whatever it is you want addressed, especially s
nce
you
> >mention "social disruption." If you refer to the problems that pre
ent
> >actions regarding student visas are creating, then there are defini
e
> >concerns we can address.
> >
> >BTW, I don't mind saying, but I don't think this is something ESA c
n
use in
> >the way you seem to be proposing, that I find the whole idea of goi
g to
war
> >repugnant, and beyond my understanding of what I think the United S
ates
is
> >supposed to stand for in the world community. But my personal conc
rns
on
> >that are political, social, human, and so on. I am not sure they a
e
> >ecological. Though I have a fairly intense feeling that the resourc
s
> >dedicated to a war effort must impact environment in a negative way
(after
> >all, explosives, fuel, and so on come from some where and they must
have
the
> >same effects when used for destruction that they have when used for
> >development, or peaceful transportation), I don't know that I could
provide
> >a crisp analysis that would convince others. I believe in these
regards, we
> >are best served by acting in other arenas -- and some of us might f
el
and
> >act very differently from how I might feel and act.
> >
> >You are welcome to use my thoughts so long as they are not distorte
and
are
> >not used to support positions or ideas that I don't support. But s
nce
I am
> >not sure what my thoughts mean, or what positions or ideas they sup
ort
> >................. .
> >
> >Maybe we are straying too far from ESA's purpose? Maybe the member
hip
> >would rather we focus on experimental design, or primary productivi
y?
> >
> >Dave McNeely
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Jay Bancroft" <jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov>
> >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> >Subject: press
> >
> >
> > > I would like to challenge Ecologists to take a few minutes an
think
> > > about how their work is affected by the Iraq conflict. This i
a
touchy
> > > subject, but ESA has a minor role to play. I would love to se
ESA
put a
> > > press release or position paper at
> > > http://www.esa.org/pao/press_releases/
> > > There is no doubt current policy has effects on our work, and
I think
> > > the stature of the society would be helped by elucidating thi
. We
might
> > > specify that member input address mass destruction in Iraq an
> > > widespread social disruption. I suspect the message summary w
uld
give
> > > voice to concerns of society members, which would be a nice n
te of
> > > caution for the world.
> > > -Jay Bancroft Ph.D. http://jsb95003.tripod.com/
--
David F. Whitacre
The Peregrine Fund
5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
Boise, Idaho 83709
(208) 362-3716
dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:23:28 -0500
From: Charles Andrew Cole <cac13@PSU.EDU>
Subject: On war...let me rephrase this...
Hi,
Everyone seems to have focused upon my (wrong) statement about 501(c)(3)
status for ESA. Ok...take that out. ESA should have no business taking a
stand on this issue unless it is only focused on the ecological effects of
war. I do not want to see the premier ecological group in the county taking
political stands. We should be talking solely about the science. Anything
less reduces our credibility.
Andy Cole
Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D.
Associate Director - Center for Watershed Stewardship
Penn State University
227 East Calder Way
State College, PA 16801
814-865-5735
814-865-1378 (fax)
cac13@psu.edu
"Do you want two lanes or four?" Anonymous
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:41:08 EST
From: BighrnInst@AOL.COM
Subject: Job Announcement Extension
We are extending the Assistant Biologist Position announcement through March
31, 2003.
Assistant Biologist Position
Bighorn Institute, Palm Desert, CA
Bighorn Institute (www.BighornInstitute.org) is a non-profit research and
conservation organization established in 1982, and located in Palm Desert,
CA. Our research is focused on the recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep,
which were federally listed as endangered in 1998. We maintain a captive
breeding herd of Peninsular bighorn for population augmentation and conduct
ongoing field studies of free-ranging bighorn.
JOB DESCRIPTION: A dedicated individual with excellent writing and computer
skills and an interest in field work is needed immediately to fill the
position of assistant biologist. The position is full time permanent and
will be approximately 50% office work and 50% field work. Responsibilities
would include, but not be limited to frequent letter writing, data entry,
writing grant proposals and reports, writing newsletter articles, corresp
ondence with members, general public, and resource agencies, tracking
radiocollared bighorn via foot and fixed wing aircraft, and caring for the
captive herd. Cleaning and some maintenance work are expected.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: B.S. or B.A. in biological sciences or related field.
Excellent writing skills and proficiency with Word, Excel, and Access are
required. The successful applicant must be in good physical condition and be
able to hike in a harsh desert environment where summer temperatures
frequently exceed 110 F. Applicant must be willing to work long hours and
perform a wide variety of tasks. A positive attitude and the ability to wor
independently as well as in team situations are essential.
SALARY: Starting salary $ 2,000 per month or commensurate with experience.
Minimum hours 6 am - 5:00 pm 5 days/week. Weekend work is expected.
Benefits include housing, health insurance after 6 months, 1 week paid
vacation after 1 year, and a retirement plan at 1 year.
CLOSING DATE: March 31, 2003
APPLICATION PROCEDURE: To apply, send or fax a cover letter, resume, list o
3 references (address, phone number, and email address if applicable),
transcripts and a scientific writing sample to: Jim DeForge, Executive
Director, Bighorn Institute P.O. Box 262, Palm Desert, CA 92261. Fax:
(760) 340-3987. No phone calls please. Email inquiries may be addressed to
the attention of Aimee at BI@BighornInstitute.org. Please do not email your
application packet. Selected applicants will be contacted for a phone
interview followed by a personal interview for final candidates.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:19:09 -0600
From: Ian Billick <ibillick@RMBL.ORG>
Subject: Final call for RMBL Symposium on Model Ecosystems
Final Call for Papers
RMBL Symposium on Model Ecosystems
The Rocky Mountain Biological Lab (RMBL) will celebrate its 75th
anniversary by hosting a symposium Aug. 14-17, 2003 to explore the value of
conducting science in model ecosystems. We define a model ecosystem as a
geographic area in which a wide range of research topics, from molecular to
ecosystem processes, have been studied for a significant amount of time by
a large number of independently working researchers. While we expect many
talks will focus on the Gunnison Basin, home of the RMBL, we invite
scientists with interests in or experience with model ecosystems from
around the world to join us in exploring this theme.
Sessions will be chaired by Dr. David Inouye (University of Maryland), Dr.
Michael Kelrick (Truman State University), Dr. Ward Watt (Stanford
University), Dr. John Harte (UC- Berkeley), and Dr. Michael Soule. Drs.
Peter and Rosemary Grant (Princeton University) will provide the keynote
address. Other speakers include Dr. Tom Whitham (Northern Arizona
University), Dr. Hilary Swain (Archbold Field Station), Dr. Richard Knight
(Colorado State University), Dr. Patricia Fall (Arizona State University),
Dr. Ken Armitage (University of Kansas), Dr. Ann Kinzig (Arizona State
University), Dr. Scott Saleska (Harvard University), Dr. Marc Fischer
(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Dr. Scott Wissinger (Allegheny
College), Dr. Howard Whiteman (Murray State College), Mike Phillips
(Director of the Turner Endangered Species Fund), Ms. Jean Hilten (Discover
Life in America), and Dr. Stephen Trombulak (Middlebury College)
Abstracts due April 1. For more information, visit our website at
www.rmbl.org/modelecosystem/modelecosystems.html or contact Dr. Ian
Billick, (970) 349-7231 (director@rmbl.org).
Ian Billick, Ph.D.
Director. Rocky Mountain Biological Lab
PO Box 519, Crested Butte, CO 81224
phone/fax (970) 349-7231
www.rmbl.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:11:28 -0600
From: Christopher J Wells <chris_wells@USGS.GOV>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
Interesting that the way in which one frames the question leads to
divergent conclusions.
I know a man who worked in armored combat and he seemed to think that the
immediacy of destroying an enemy bent on his destruction was more important
than a statistical probability associated with uranium contamination.
But heck, this is why we value objectivity in science--to take the
pasionate view out of the argument and to derive scientific truth from
verifiable facts.
---chris
Christopher J Wells, Geographer
National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
700 Cajundome Blvd
Lafayette, LA 70506
337 266 8651
chris_wells@usgs.gov
mike aliotta
<bornxeyed@bellso To: Christopher J We
ls <chris_wells@USGS.GOV>,
uth.net> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
cc:
03/17/03 12:48 PM Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
I think the question is not one of safety to soldiers versus environmental
contamination. Depleted uranium shells are NOT increasing the
survivability of friendly forces unless one counts not being blown to
pieces by an undestroyed enemy tank only to die later from lung or bone or
lymph cancer from uranium contamination as "survivability." It is. in fact,
soldiers from both sides who are most at risk from the fallout dust of
uranium shells.
The true question is if the ability to pierce hardened tanks is worth the
future harm to soldiers, civilians and the environment.
The only thing that makes uranium cased shells cost effective is that the U
238 is a waste product of the nuclear power and weapons industry and just
like fluorine (from the aluminum and fertilizer industry) and slag from
uranium mines (which was used as fertilizer on tobacco fields) would result
in millions of dollars in disposal costs if industry hadn't found a means
to make it an, albeit toxic, commodity.
Mike Aliotta
At 07:48 AM 3/17/03, Christopher J Wells wrote:
>Hard to imagine anyone in favor of nuclear contamination.
>
>I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I suppo
e
>one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods that
can
>be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential is n
t
>worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of changing
>weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be tough
o
>convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment is
more
>important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few folk
>who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant increas
>in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they're
just
>ignorant kids.
>
>Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of America
o
>send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
>
>---chris
>
>Christopher J Wells, Geographer
>National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
>700 Cajundome Blvd
>Lafayette, LA 70506
>
>337 266 8651
>chris_wells@usgs.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Whitacre
> <dwhitacre@PEREGRI To:
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> NEFUND.ORG> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: ESA and D
?
> "Ecological
> Society of
> America: grants,
> jobs, news"
> <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV
> .UMD.EDU>
>
>
> 03/14/03 09:26 AM
> Please respond to
> Dave Whitacre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I agree fully with Mike Aliotta that the ESA might--at the very
>least--weigh in
>publicly on the issue of contaminating a portion of the planet's surfac
>with
>tons of depleted uranium (a portion inhabitated by a goodly number of
>people).
>Surely within the ranks of the ESA is someone who is familiar to some
depth
>with
>the characteristics of "depleted" uranium, and the public and
environmental
>health hazards entailed in its use in munitions--such that they could
>spearhead
>the drafting of such a statement.
>
>I also agree that such weaponry should be globally banned.
>
>Dave Whitacre
>
>mike aliotta wrote:
>
> > One serious, but seemingly overlooked, social and ecological
>consideration
> > that maybe worth commenting upon, regardless of the cost/benefit
analyses
> > applied to such controversial issues as bird migrations and water
quality
> > over the spoils of war or the relative impacts of munitions and fu
l
when
> > used in destroying infrastructure and moving troops instead of bui
ding
> > dams and powering cars, is the effects of dispersing tons of deple
ed
> > uranium all over the cities and deserts. Perhaps this is a such a
> > uncontestable moral, social and ecological issue that the ESA, as
>whole,
> > would have no contention in addressing.
> >
> > I, for one, would vote for a total moratorium on the use of such
weapons
> >
> > Mike Aliotta
> >
> > At 04:05 PM 3/12/03, Dave McNeely wrote:
> > >Jay,
> > >
> > >I have no problem with addressing these questions as a private
citizen.
>I
> > >also have no problem if ESA wishes to examine the relationship
of war
to
> > >ecological matters and make a statement concerning it based on
member
>input.
> > >getting a statement that all members might support would be ve
y
>difficult,
> > >I suspect.
> > >
> > >For example, bombing might disrupt bird migrations. The produ
ts of
>battle,
> > >or of troop concentrations, might effect water quality. But I
am a
>little
> > >confused as to what exactly you are asking us to do in the pre
ent
>instance,
> > >and I have a hard time resolving whether we are the profession
l group
>best
> > >prepared to address whatever it is you want addressed, especia
ly
since
>you
> > >mention "social disruption." If you refer to the problems tha
present
> > >actions regarding student visas are creating, then there are d
finite
> > >concerns we can address.
> > >
> > >BTW, I don't mind saying, but I don't think this is something
SA can
>use in
> > >the way you seem to be proposing, that I find the whole idea o
going
to
>war
> > >repugnant, and beyond my understanding of what I think the Uni
ed
States
>is
> > >supposed to stand for in the world community. But my personal
concerns
>on
> > >that are political, social, human, and so on. I am not sure t
ey are
> > >ecological. Though I have a fairly intense feeling that the re
ources
> > >dedicated to a war effort must impact environment in a negativ
way
>(after
> > >all, explosives, fuel, and so on come from some where and they
must
have
>the
> > >same effects when used for destruction that they have when use
for
> > >development, or peaceful transportation), I don't know that I
ould
>provide
> > >a crisp analysis that would convince others. I believe in the
e
>regards, we
> > >are best served by acting in other arenas -- and some of us mi
ht feel
>and
> > >act very differently from how I might feel and act.
> > >
> > >You are welcome to use my thoughts so long as they are not dis
orted
and
>are
> > >not used to support positions or ideas that I don't support.
ut
since
>I am
> > >not sure what my thoughts mean, or what positions or ideas the
support
> > >................. .
> > >
> > >Maybe we are straying too far from ESA's purpose? Maybe the
membership
> > >would rather we focus on experimental design, or primary produ
tivity?
> > >
> > >Dave McNeely
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Jay Bancroft" <jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov>
> > >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> > >Subject: press
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would like to challenge Ecologists to take a few minut
s and
think
> > > > about how their work is affected by the Iraq conflict. T
is is a
>touchy
> > > > subject, but ESA has a minor role to play. I would love
o see ESA
>put a
> > > > press release or position paper at
> > > > http://www.esa.org/pao/press_releases/
> > > > There is no doubt current policy has effects on our work
and I
think
> > > > the stature of the society would be helped by elucidatin
this. We
>might
> > > > specify that member input address mass destruction in Ir
q and
> > > > widespread social disruption. I suspect the message summ
ry would
>give
> > > > voice to concerns of society members, which would be a n
ce note of
> > > > caution for the world.
> > > > -Jay Bancroft Ph.D. http://jsb95003.tripod.com/
>
>--
>David F. Whitacre
>
>The Peregrine Fund
>5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
>Boise, Idaho 83709
>(208) 362-3716
>dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:05:16 -0800
From: Amartya Saha <bhoomm@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: ESA and war/non-profit status
>If it becomes the least bit political,
>then ESA has no business whatsoever making such a statement, if for no
>other reason than risking non-profit status.
The ESA is concerned with ecology; ecosystems can be impacted by wartime act
vities as well as activities in times of peace. By mentioning probable envir
nmental impacts and ecological consequences of war does in no way imply that
ESA is taking political sides. It is just stating a possible reality.
Besides war is the failure of politics. It is not a political issue, but a v
ry human one. But that is another discussion...
Peace
Amartya
Steve Erickson <wean@WHIDBEY.NET> wrote:>If it becomes the least b
t political,
>then ESA has no business whatsoever making such a statement, if for no
>other reason than risking non-profit status.
As a board member of two 501(c)3 non-profit organisations, one a
professional society and the other an environmental advocacy group,
I've become quite familiar with the the legal restrictions on tax
exempt non-profit organizations' advocacy.
The statement in the above e-mail is totally erroneous. The primary
restriction on advocacy by tax exept NGOs in the US are of donations
to partisan political campaigns (i.e. Candidate X the Demublican
against Candidate Y the Republicrat). There is also a restriction on
the percentage of its total budget a non-profit tax exempt
organization may spend on direct legislative lobbying (i.e. regarding
a specific legislative proposal). That limit is 20% of its total
budget.
The proposed (as I write this, it has not happened yet, so I will be
optimistic) invasion of Iraq by the US is not a legislative proposal
and it is not a campaign involving political candidacies. The ESA
could take a position on this issue and shout it to heavens if the
ESA so desired! If the war was a legislative proposal or political
campaign the ESA could also take a position, but spend no more than
20% of its total budget on creating and disseminating the position.
So, the ESA's non-profit status really does not enter into the
question of whether to take a position on the proposed invasion.
-Steve Erickson
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Box 53, Langley, WA 98260
(360) 579-2332
wean@whidbey.net
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:04:38 -0500
From: Bruce Stallsmith <fundulus@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
>I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I suppo
e
>one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods that
an
>be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential is n
t
>worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of changing
>weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be tough
o
>convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment is m
re
>important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few folk
>who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant increas
>in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they're j
st
>ignorant kids.
>
>Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of America
o
>send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
>
>---chris
>
>Christopher J Wells, Geographer
>National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
>700 Cajundome Blvd
>Lafayette, LA 70506
There's an unfortunate 1984-ish logic to using DU in this war so that some
amount of radiocontamination is left (as well as other weaponry); do we have
to destroy a country to save it? I guess the U.S. government is lucky that
Iraqi civilians won't get standing in U.S. courts, much less the local
ecosphere. It's even worse if Saddam does a scorched earth policy and
releases chemicals, oil fires, etc. How could the ESA be in the wrong for
pointing out the obvious? But we're in strange times...
--Bruce Stallsmith
Biological Sciences
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL, US of A
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:55:41 -0500
From: "Straw, William" <William.Straw@FEMA.GOV>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
Favor nuclear contamination? When, where, why, how much, what desired and
undesired results? The answers depend on the particular situation and many
complex decision-making factors.
The best time for DU risk-benefit analysis probably was before the DU
munitions, etc. were developed, manufactured & deployed. That was done
20-30 years ago. Still, the arguments have merit & we could change future
policy, etc.
They're just ignorant kids? With all due respect to all of us, and
considering how far we could go, who isn't?
We can raise DU munitions arguments in appropriate fora, and I recommend
doing so as individuals and/or members of various advocacy groups.
I consider ESA to be a professional/scientific society, not an advocacy
group. I became an ESA member for this reason. I'm a member of various
advocacy groups for other reasons. I'd like ESA to stick to science.
William Straw, Ph.D.
DHS-FEMA R4 Regional Envir Ofcr
3003 Chamblee Tucker Rd
Atlanta GA 30341-4130
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher J Wells [mailto:chris_wells@USGS.GOV]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:49 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
Hard to imagine anyone in favor of nuclear contamination.
I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I suppose
one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods that can
be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential is not
worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of changing
weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be tough to
convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment is more
important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few folks
who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant increase
in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they're just
ignorant kids.
Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of America to
send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
---chris
Christopher J Wells, Geographer
National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
700 Cajundome Blvd
Lafayette, LA 70506
337 266 8651
chris_wells@usgs.gov
Dave Whitacre
<dwhitacre@PEREGRI To:
ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
NEFUND.ORG> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
"Ecological
Society of
America: grants,
jobs, news"
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV
.UMD.EDU>
03/14/03 09:26 AM
Please respond to
Dave Whitacre
I agree fully with Mike Aliotta that the ESA might--at the very
least--weigh in
publicly on the issue of contaminating a portion of the planet's surface
with
tons of depleted uranium (a portion inhabitated by a goodly number of
people).
Surely within the ranks of the ESA is someone who is familiar to some depth
with
the characteristics of "depleted" uranium, and the public and environmental
health hazards entailed in its use in munitions--such that they could
spearhead
the drafting of such a statement.
I also agree that such weaponry should be globally banned.
Dave Whitacre
mike aliotta wrote:
> One serious, but seemingly overlooked, social and ecological
consideration
> that maybe worth commenting upon, regardless of the cost/benefit analys
s
> applied to such controversial issues as bird migrations and water quali
y
> over the spoils of war or the relative impacts of munitions and fuel wh
n
> used in destroying infrastructure and moving troops instead of building
> dams and powering cars, is the effects of dispersing tons of depleted
> uranium all over the cities and deserts. Perhaps this is a such an
> uncontestable moral, social and ecological issue that the ESA, as a
whole,
> would have no contention in addressing.
>
> I, for one, would vote for a total moratorium on the use of such weapon
>
> Mike Aliotta
>
> At 04:05 PM 3/12/03, Dave McNeely wrote:
> >Jay,
> >
> >I have no problem with addressing these questions as a private citi
en.
I
> >also have no problem if ESA wishes to examine the relationship of w
r to
> >ecological matters and make a statement concerning it based on memb
r
input.
> >getting a statement that all members might support would be very
difficult,
> >I suspect.
> >
> >For example, bombing might disrupt bird migrations. The products o
battle,
> >or of troop concentrations, might effect water quality. But I am a
little
> >confused as to what exactly you are asking us to do in the present
instance,
> >and I have a hard time resolving whether we are the professional gr
up
best
> >prepared to address whatever it is you want addressed, especially s
nce
you
> >mention "social disruption." If you refer to the problems that pre
ent
> >actions regarding student visas are creating, then there are defini
e
> >concerns we can address.
> >
> >BTW, I don't mind saying, but I don't think this is something ESA c
n
use in
> >the way you seem to be proposing, that I find the whole idea of goi
g to
war
> >repugnant, and beyond my understanding of what I think the United S
ates
is
> >supposed to stand for in the world community. But my personal conc
rns
on
> >that are political, social, human, and so on. I am not sure they a
e
> >ecological. Though I have a fairly intense feeling that the resourc
s
> >dedicated to a war effort must impact environment in a negative way
(after
> >all, explosives, fuel, and so on come from some where and they must
have
the
> >same effects when used for destruction that they have when used for
> >development, or peaceful transportation), I don't know that I could
provide
> >a crisp analysis that would convince others. I believe in these
regards, we
> >are best served by acting in other arenas -- and some of us might f
el
and
> >act very differently from how I might feel and act.
> >
> >You are welcome to use my thoughts so long as they are not distorte
and
are
> >not used to support positions or ideas that I don't support. But s
nce
I am
> >not sure what my thoughts mean, or what positions or ideas they sup
ort
> >................. .
> >
> >Maybe we are straying too far from ESA's purpose? Maybe the member
hip
> >would rather we focus on experimental design, or primary productivi
y?
> >
> >Dave McNeely
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Jay Bancroft" <jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov>
> >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> >Subject: press
> >
> >
> > > I would like to challenge Ecologists to take a few minutes an
think
> > > about how their work is affected by the Iraq conflict. This i
a
touchy
> > > subject, but ESA has a minor role to play. I would love to se
ESA
put a
> > > press release or position paper at
> > > http://www.esa.org/pao/press_releases/
> > > There is no doubt current policy has effects on our work, and
I think
> > > the stature of the society would be helped by elucidating thi
. We
might
> > > specify that member input address mass destruction in Iraq an
> > > widespread social disruption. I suspect the message summary w
uld
give
> > > voice to concerns of society members, which would be a nice n
te of
> > > caution for the world.
> > > -Jay Bancroft Ph.D. http://jsb95003.tripod.com/
--
David F. Whitacre
The Peregrine Fund
5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
Boise, Idaho 83709
(208) 362-3716
dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:48:07 -0500
From: "Michael S. Batcher" <mbatcher@NETHEAVEN.COM>
Subject: Re: On war...let me rephrase this...
I have been following the various articles on the lack of preparation to
address humanitarian issues, including refugees, internally displaced people
(within Iraq), and the general lack of preparation on the part of government
agencies and nongoverment organizations. I have seen little on any
preparation to address ecological impacts of the war. Perhaps, we, or ESA or
whomever, could begin to advocate for planning (understandably a bit late
now) to address ecological impacts, environmental remediation and other
issues. What organizations even do that kind of work at the scale we're
talking about?
Michael S. Batcher, M.S., A.I.C.P.
Ecologist and Environmental Planner
1907 Buskirk-West Hoosick Rd.
Buskirk, NY 12028
(518) 686-5868 (Phone)
(518) 686-1802 (Fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Charles Andrew Cole
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:23 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: On war...let me rephrase this...
Hi,
Everyone seems to have focused upon my (wrong) statement about 501(c)(3)
status for ESA. Ok...take that out. ESA should have no business taking a
stand on this issue unless it is only focused on the ecological effects of
war. I do not want to see the premier ecological group in the county taking
political stands. We should be talking solely about the science. Anything
less reduces our credibility.
Andy Cole
Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D.
Associate Director - Center for Watershed Stewardship
Penn State University
227 East Calder Way
State College, PA 16801
814-865-5735
814-865-1378 (fax)
cac13@psu.edu
"Do you want two lanes or four?" Anonymous
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:03:16 -0500
From: leslie teeling <lmt25@ATTBI.COM>
Subject: Re: Plant dispersal references
Heather, a great paper on dispersal modes in NE forest spp is:
Matlack, G. R. 1994. Plant species migrations in a mixed-history forest
landscape in eastern North America. Ecology 75(5): 1491-1502.
And for the classic book on the subject (with lots of species-specific
references), try:
Ridley, H. N. 1930. The Dispersal of Plants. William Clowes and Sons, =
Ltd.
London.
Leslie M. Teeling-Adams
Dept. Plant Biology
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
lmt25@attbi.com
603/659-6177
Leslie M. Teeling - Adams
University of New Hampshire=20
Department of Plant Biology
G28 Spaulding Life Sciences Building
Durham, NH 03824
(Home Office) 603/659-6177
(Fax) 603/862-4757
http://home.attbi.com/~lmt25/index.htm
lteeling@hopper.unh.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:39:35 -0600
From: Phil Ganter <pganter@TNSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Job at Tennessee State
Tenure-track position in the Department of Biological Sciences, Tennessee
State University, available August 2003. The individual is expected to
teach undergraduate major and graduate courses in ecology, biostatistics and
area of expertise; to establish an externally funded ongoing research
program; and to direct undergraduate and graduate studentsš research
projects. Required is a Ph.D. degree in biology or related field with two or
more years of postdoctoral experience. Also required is evidence of
commitment to teaching with demonstrated research capability in ecology or
environmental science and experience with advanced statistical methodology
and modeling. Applicants must complete and submit a TSU EMPLOYMENT
APPLICATION along with CV, copies of graduate transcripts, statement of
research and teaching interests, and three letters of recommendation to:
TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, 3500 JOHN A. MERRITT
BLVD. NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37209-1561.
Contact Dr. Terry Johnson for further information:
tjohnson@tnstate.edu
Jobs are also posted on the TSU website, www.tnstate.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:59:48 -0500
From: jmoya2@UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: On war...let me rephrase this...
Can the decrease in numbers of a population of Homo sapiens be considered
ecology, or at the very least, an environmental issue?
I am not American, I am Spanish, and believe me... in Spain any association
hat has
to say something about how wrong this war is, is saying it... specially sinc
our
president is supporting this war without the support of his people...
Jordi Moya-Laraņo
University of Kentucky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:43:00 -0600
From: Shibu Jose <sjose@MAIL.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Graduate Assistantship at UF
GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIP IN FOREST ECOLOGY
A half-time M.S. or Ph.D. assistantship is available (beginning summer or
fall 2003) at the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University
of Florida, Gainesville. The successful applicant will undertake a
research project examining the ecological determinants of cogongrass
(Imperata cylindirca) invasion in southeastern ecosystems. Minimum
qualifications include a B.S. or M.S. in forestry or in any biological
sciences with strong interests in ecology, good written and oral
communication skills, 3.0 GPA, and a GRE score of 1000 (Verbal and
Quantitative). Interested students should send a letter of interest,
resume, transcripts (photocopy is acceptable at this point), GRE score
(photocopy is acceptable), and names and addresses of three references to
Dr. Shibu Jose, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, 5988 Hwy 90,
Building 4900, University of Florida, Milton, FL 32583. Phone (850) 983
5216 ext. 107, Fax (850) 983 5774, email: sjose@ufl.edu. For more
information on Jose's lab group visit:
http://wfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty/jose_research.htm
Shibu Jose, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
5988 Hwy 90, Bldg. 4900
University of Florida
Milton, FL 32583
Phone: (850) 983 5216 ext. 107
Fax: (850) 983 5774
sjose@ufl.edu
http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/faculty.html
http://wfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty/jose.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:48:53 -0500
From: mike aliotta <bornxeyed@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
I think the question is not one of safety to soldiers versus environmental
contamination. Depleted uranium shells are NOT increasing the
survivability of friendly forces unless one counts not being blown to
pieces by an undestroyed enemy tank only to die later from lung or bone or
lymph cancer from uranium contamination as "survivability." It is. in fact,
soldiers from both sides who are most at risk from the fallout dust of
uranium shells.
The true question is if the ability to pierce hardened tanks is worth the
future harm to soldiers, civilians and the environment.
The only thing that makes uranium cased shells cost effective is that the U
238 is a waste product of the nuclear power and weapons industry and just
like fluorine (from the aluminum and fertilizer industry) and slag from
uranium mines (which was used as fertilizer on tobacco fields) would result
in millions of dollars in disposal costs if industry hadn't found a means
to make it an, albeit toxic, commodity.
Mike Aliotta
At 07:48 AM 3/17/03, Christopher J Wells wrote:
>Hard to imagine anyone in favor of nuclear contamination.
>
>I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I suppo
e
>one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods that
an
>be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential is n
t
>worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of changing
>weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be tough
o
>convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment is m
re
>important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few folk
>who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant increas
>in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they're j
st
>ignorant kids.
>
>Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of America
o
>send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
>
>---chris
>
>Christopher J Wells, Geographer
>National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
>700 Cajundome Blvd
>Lafayette, LA 70506
>
>337 266 8651
>chris_wells@usgs.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Whitacre
> <dwhitacre@PEREGRI To:
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> NEFUND.ORG> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: ESA and D
?
> "Ecological
> Society of
> America: grants,
> jobs, news"
> <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV
> .UMD.EDU>
>
>
> 03/14/03 09:26 AM
> Please respond to
> Dave Whitacre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I agree fully with Mike Aliotta that the ESA might--at the very
>least--weigh in
>publicly on the issue of contaminating a portion of the planet's surfac
>with
>tons of depleted uranium (a portion inhabitated by a goodly number of
>people).
>Surely within the ranks of the ESA is someone who is familiar to some de
th
>with
>the characteristics of "depleted" uranium, and the public and environmen
al
>health hazards entailed in its use in munitions--such that they could
>spearhead
>the drafting of such a statement.
>
>I also agree that such weaponry should be globally banned.
>
>Dave Whitacre
>
>mike aliotta wrote:
>
> > One serious, but seemingly overlooked, social and ecological
>consideration
> > that maybe worth commenting upon, regardless of the cost/benefit a
alyses
> > applied to such controversial issues as bird migrations and water
uality
> > over the spoils of war or the relative impacts of munitions and fu
l when
> > used in destroying infrastructure and moving troops instead of bui
ding
> > dams and powering cars, is the effects of dispersing tons of deple
ed
> > uranium all over the cities and deserts. Perhaps this is a such a
> > uncontestable moral, social and ecological issue that the ESA, as
>whole,
> > would have no contention in addressing.
> >
> > I, for one, would vote for a total moratorium on the use of such w
apons
> >
> > Mike Aliotta
> >
> > At 04:05 PM 3/12/03, Dave McNeely wrote:
> > >Jay,
> > >
> > >I have no problem with addressing these questions as a private
citizen.
>I
> > >also have no problem if ESA wishes to examine the relationship
of war to
> > >ecological matters and make a statement concerning it based on
member
>input.
> > >getting a statement that all members might support would be ve
y
>difficult,
> > >I suspect.
> > >
> > >For example, bombing might disrupt bird migrations. The produ
ts of
>battle,
> > >or of troop concentrations, might effect water quality. But I
am a
>little
> > >confused as to what exactly you are asking us to do in the pre
ent
>instance,
> > >and I have a hard time resolving whether we are the profession
l group
>best
> > >prepared to address whatever it is you want addressed, especia
ly since
>you
> > >mention "social disruption." If you refer to the problems tha
present
> > >actions regarding student visas are creating, then there are d
finite
> > >concerns we can address.
> > >
> > >BTW, I don't mind saying, but I don't think this is something
SA can
>use in
> > >the way you seem to be proposing, that I find the whole idea o
going to
>war
> > >repugnant, and beyond my understanding of what I think the Uni
ed States
>is
> > >supposed to stand for in the world community. But my personal
concerns
>on
> > >that are political, social, human, and so on. I am not sure t
ey are
> > >ecological. Though I have a fairly intense feeling that the re
ources
> > >dedicated to a war effort must impact environment in a negativ
way
>(after
> > >all, explosives, fuel, and so on come from some where and they
must have
>the
> > >same effects when used for destruction that they have when use
for
> > >development, or peaceful transportation), I don't know that I
ould
>provide
> > >a crisp analysis that would convince others. I believe in the
e
>regards, we
> > >are best served by acting in other arenas -- and some of us mi
ht feel
>and
> > >act very differently from how I might feel and act.
> > >
> > >You are welcome to use my thoughts so long as they are not dis
orted and
>are
> > >not used to support positions or ideas that I don't support.
ut since
>I am
> > >not sure what my thoughts mean, or what positions or ideas the
support
> > >................. .
> > >
> > >Maybe we are straying too far from ESA's purpose? Maybe the m
mbership
> > >would rather we focus on experimental design, or primary produ
tivity?
> > >
> > >Dave McNeely
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Jay Bancroft" <jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov>
> > >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> > >Subject: press
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would like to challenge Ecologists to take a few minut
s and think
> > > > about how their work is affected by the Iraq conflict. T
is is a
>touchy
> > > > subject, but ESA has a minor role to play. I would love
o see ESA
>put a
> > > > press release or position paper at
> > > > http://www.esa.org/pao/press_releases/
> > > > There is no doubt current policy has effects on our work
and I think
> > > > the stature of the society would be helped by elucidatin
this. We
>might
> > > > specify that member input address mass destruction in Ir
q and
> > > > widespread social disruption. I suspect the message summ
ry would
>give
> > > > voice to concerns of society members, which would be a n
ce note of
> > > > caution for the world.
> > > > -Jay Bancroft Ph.D. http://jsb95003.tripod.com/
>
>--
>David F. Whitacre
>
>The Peregrine Fund
>5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
>Boise, Idaho 83709
>(208) 362-3716
>dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:51:21 -0500
From: Annie Drinkard <Annie@ESA.ORG>
Subject: Request
Good afternoon:
I have reporter working on a story about conditions of the wetlands in
Iraq and the possible plans to restore them - I believe there was some
mention of the draining of the wetlands in southern Iraq in the New York
Times recently. He was wondering if there is anyone else proposing
ecological restoration projects in the country, or possible
research/efforts that have been going on in Iraq. If you or someone you
know has information, please contact me at this email address and I will
put you in touch.
Thank you,
Annie
************************************
Annie Drinkard
Public Affairs Officer
Ecological Society of America
202-833-8773 x211
************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:59:37 -0700
From: Madhusudan Katti <mkatti@ASU.EDU>
Subject: Job Ad: Part-time Urban Bird Census Positions in Phoenix (CAP LTER)
Research Aide-Birder
Staff JOB #O-110849
Part-Time $8.59/hour
The Central Arizona - Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project at
Arizona State University is seeking research aides (up to 3) to conduct
seasonal point counts for birds across the Phoenix metro area beginning
April 1, 2003. These positions are seasonal and part-time (up to 19
hrs/week) and are part of our ongoing long-term monitoring, bird
censuses are conducted at fixed locations during January, April, July,
and October. Duties include identifying bird species by sight and
sound, locating exact census points in relatively undifferentiated
tracts of desert using hand-held GPS tools, and conducting
distance-based bird census techniques, such as point counts.
Minimum Qualifications: Any combination of experience and/or education
totaling one year (one year refers to 40 hours a week for 12 months).
Desired Qualifications: Demonstrated: birding knowledge, orienteering
knowledge using GPS tools; familiarity with distance-based bird census
techniques, such as point counts.
General Information: Work will entail early morning travel within the
city and outlying areas, as well as work in adverse field conditions,
especially during the summer. Must use 4-WD vehicle to access birding
locations. Will need to coordinate work schedules and work as part of a
team. Position is contingent upon the availability of funding. Work
hours to be determined by the project.
To apply, submit cover letter, resume and addresses, and phone numbers
of 3 relevant references. Specify job title and the job number and send
the above requested material to Arizona State University, Box 875612,
Tempe, AZ 85287-5612. Fax is 480-965-6640 or email to resumes@asu.edu .
For the complete official job advertisement, point your browser to:
http://www.hr.asu.edu/vacancy_notice/vacancy_posting.asp?id=110849
For additional information contact:
Dr. Madhusudan Katti, Email: mkatti@asu.edu or call 480-965-8198.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Some additional notes:
-----------------------------
This is part of our continuing monitoring of birds in the Phoenix Metro
area. Censuses are conducted during January, April, July, and October.
The jobs start on April 1, so please apply ASAP. In the case, however,
that you are interested in doing this, but not available for this
April, please do contact us so that we can consider you for a future
census. Depending on your skills and inclinations, there may be
additional field / lab work opportunities within CAP LTER. Feel free to
contact me for any other information (see contact info below).
Madhu
______________________________________________
Madhusudan Katti
Central Arizona - Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project
Center for Environmental Studies
Arizona State University
929 S. Mill Ave. Ste. 151
Tempe, AZ 85287-3211, USA
Tel: +1 (480) 965-8198
Fax: +1 (480) 965-8087
Email: mkatti@asu.edu
http://javelina.asu.edu/~madhu/
http://caplter.asu.edu/
______________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:56:37 -0700
From: Marco Musiani <mmusiani@UCALGARY.CA>
Subject: Re: On war...let me rephrase this...
Dear Members,
Please try to read the below message that Jordi just sent. These words are
simple, but not banal.
Moreover, why thinking of restoring Iraqi habitat now? Why not focusing on
NOT destroying habitat?
Why a war? I understand that your media tell you that (preventive) war is
inevitable. But are you sure? Please think ecologically...
Marco
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 jmoya2@UKY.EDU wrote:
>
> Can the decrease in numbers of a population of Homo sapiens be consider
d
> ecology, or at the very least, an environmental issue?
>
> I am not American, I am Spanish, and believe me... in Spain any associa
ion that has
> to say something about how wrong this war is, is saying it... specially
since our
> president is supporting this war without the support of his people...
>
> Jordi Moya-Laraņo
> University of Kentucky
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:15:35 -0500
From: Gus Rassam <grassam@FISHERIES.ORG>
Subject: New issue of fisheries transactions
The following issue is now available at AFS Online
Journal: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (0002-8487)
Volume: 132
Issue: 2
Reproductive Demographics and Factors that Influence Length at Sexual
Maturity of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Idaho. Kevin A. Meyer, Daniel J.
Schill, F. Steven Elle, James A. Lamansky, pages 183-195.
Population Structure of Atlantic Salmon in Maine with Reference to
Populations from Atlantic Canada. A. P. Spidle, S. T. Kalinowski, B. A.
Lubinski, D. L. Perkins, K. F. Beland, J. F. Kocik, T. L. King, pages
196-209.
The Effect of Catch-and-Release Angling on the Parental Care Behavior of
Male Smallmouth Bass. C. D. Suski, J. H. Svec, J. B. Ludden, F. J. S.
Phelan, D. P. Philipp, pages 210-218.
Trophic Relationships among Lean and Siscowet Lake Trout in Lake Superior.
Chris J. Harvey, Stephen T. Schram, James F. Kitchell, pages 219-228.
Impacts of Introduced Salmonids on Native Galaxiids in New Zealand Upland
Streams: A New Look at an Old Problem. R. M. McDowall, pages 229-238.
An Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for Pacific Northwest Rivers.
Christopher A. Mebane, Terry R. Maret, Robert M. Hughes, pages 239-261.
Bigger Is Not Always Better for Overwintering Young-of-Year Steelhead.
Patrick J. Connolly, James H. Petersen, pages 262-274.
Relative Vulnerability to Avian Predation of Juvenile Salmonids Tagged with
Passive Integrated Transponders in the Columbia River Estuary,
1998[ndash ]2000. Brad A. Ryan, Steven G. Smith, JoAnne M. Butzerin, John W.
Ferguson, pages 275-288.
Natural Disturbances and Fish: Local and Regional Influences on Winterkill
of Fathead Minnows in Boreal Lakes. Andy J. Danylchuk, William M. Tonn,
pages 289-298.
Electroshocking-Induced Mortality of Four Fish Species during Posthatching
Development. Theodore B. Henry, John M. Grizzle, Michael J. Maceina, pages
299-306.
Stock-Specific Growth and Length Frequency Bimodality in Brown Trout. K. A.
Glover, O. T. Skilbrei, [Oslash]. Skaala, pages 307-315.
Development and Laboratory Evaluation of a Bioenergetics Model for Subadult
and Adult Smallmouth Bass. Gregory W. Whitledge, Robert S. Hayward, Richard
D. Zweifel, Charles F. Rabeni, pages 316-325.
Passage of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Other Fish Species through Archimedes
Lifts and a Hidrostal Pump at Red Bluff, California. C. D. McNabb, C. R.
Liston, S. M. Borthwick, pages 326-334.
Growth Rates of Juvenile Winter Flounder under Varying Environmental
Conditions. C. J. Meise, D. L. Johnson, L. L. Stehlik, J. Manderson, P.
Shaheen, pages 335-345.
The Effects of Growth, Predation, and First-Winter Mortality on Recruitment
of Bluegill Cohorts. Victor J. Santucci, David H. Wahl, pages 346-360.
Estimation of Surplus Biomass of Clupeids in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia.
Michael Cyterski, John Ney, Michael Duval, pages 361-370.
Marine Subsidies in Freshwater Ecosystems: Salmon Carcasses Increase the
Growth Rates of Stream-Resident Salmonids. Mark S. Wipfli, John P. Hudson,
John P. Caouette, Dominic T. Chaloner, pages 371-381.
Development of a Regional Stock[ndash ]Recruitment Model for Understanding
Factors Affecting Walleye Recruitment in Northern Wisconsin Lakes. T.
Douglas Beard, Michael J. Hansen, Stephen R. Carpenter, pages 382-391.
Critical Swimming Speed and Behavior of Juvenile Shovelnose Sturgeon and
Pallid Sturgeon. S. Reid Adams, Ginny L. Adams, Glenn R. Parsons, pages
392-397.
Mechanisms Underlying Habitat Use of Juvenile Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth
Bass. Mark H. Olson, Brian P. Young, Kevin D. Blinkoff, pages 398-405.
Freshwater Fish Distribution. Stephen T. Ross, pages 406-406.
Migration of Freshwater Fishes. Roger A. Rulifson, pages 407-407.
Biology of Freshwater Crayfish. Guenter A. Schuster, pages 408-408.
To visit the site, go to: http://afs.allenpress.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:10:17 -0700
From: Dave Whitacre <dwhitacre@PEREGRINEFUND.ORG>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
Yes....maaaybe...
topics such as the environmental effects of DU ammunition should be the foc
s
only of advocacy groups. On the other hand, when, say, "Nukes R-NOT-US" seek
to do their advocacy job, they may wish to have a statement from an august b
dy
such as the ESA, that speaks of the known environmental effects of DU. And t
ey
deserve to have such a statement. In my mind, this is one of the functions o
a
scientific society--to make their science available to the public who--lets
remember--pays for much of it.
I'm not arguing strenuously that ESA take this on, but if ESA ever makes
pronouncements about environmental impacts of anything, this would seem to
qualify--and to be a sufficiently serious problem to merit attention.
To point out the known facts regarding what DU's properties are, where it en
s
up, how long it lasts, and predictable and/or known effects on people and th
biosphere most definitely falls well within the realm of science, not
politics--science put forward for societal use, shall we say.
My dos centavos,
Dave Whitacre
"Straw, William" wrote:
> Favor nuclear contamination? When, where, why, how much, what desired
nd
> undesired results? The answers depend on the particular situation and
any
> complex decision-making factors.
>
> The best time for DU risk-benefit analysis probably was before the DU
> munitions, etc. were developed, manufactured & deployed. That was done
> 20-30 years ago. Still, the arguments have merit & we could change fut
re
> policy, etc.
>
> They're just ignorant kids? With all due respect to all of us, and
> considering how far we could go, who isn't?
>
> We can raise DU munitions arguments in appropriate fora, and I recommen
> doing so as individuals and/or members of various advocacy groups.
>
> I consider ESA to be a professional/scientific society, not an advocacy
> group. I became an ESA member for this reason. I'm a member of variou
> advocacy groups for other reasons. I'd like ESA to stick to science.
>
> William Straw, Ph.D.
> DHS-FEMA R4 Regional Envir Ofcr
> 3003 Chamblee Tucker Rd
> Atlanta GA 30341-4130
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher J Wells [mailto:chris_wells@USGS.GOV]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:49 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
>
> Hard to imagine anyone in favor of nuclear contamination.
>
> I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I supp
se
> one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods that
can
> be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential is
ot
> worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of changin
> weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be tough
to
> convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment is
ore
> important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few fol
s
> who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant increa
e
> in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they're
ust
> ignorant kids.
>
> Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of America
to
> send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
>
> ---chris
>
> Christopher J Wells, Geographer
> National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
> 700 Cajundome Blvd
> Lafayette, LA 70506
>
> 337 266 8651
> chris_wells@usgs.gov
>
> Dave Whitacre
> <dwhitacre@PEREGRI To:
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> NEFUND.ORG> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: ESA and D
?
> "Ecological
> Society of
> America: grants,
> jobs, news"
> <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV
> .UMD.EDU>
>
> 03/14/03 09:26 AM
> Please respond to
> Dave Whitacre
>
> I agree fully with Mike Aliotta that the ESA might--at the very
> least--weigh in
> publicly on the issue of contaminating a portion of the planet's surfa
e
> with
> tons of depleted uranium (a portion inhabitated by a goodly number of
> people).
> Surely within the ranks of the ESA is someone who is familiar to some d
pth
> with
> the characteristics of "depleted" uranium, and the public and environme
tal
> health hazards entailed in its use in munitions--such that they could
> spearhead
> the drafting of such a statement.
>
> I also agree that such weaponry should be globally banned.
>
> Dave Whitacre
>
> mike aliotta wrote:
>
> > One serious, but seemingly overlooked, social and ecological
> consideration
> > that maybe worth commenting upon, regardless of the cost/benefit a
alyses
> > applied to such controversial issues as bird migrations and water
uality
> > over the spoils of war or the relative impacts of munitions and fu
l when
> > used in destroying infrastructure and moving troops instead of bui
ding
> > dams and powering cars, is the effects of dispersing tons of deple
ed
> > uranium all over the cities and deserts. Perhaps this is a such a
> > uncontestable moral, social and ecological issue that the ESA, as
> whole,
> > would have no contention in addressing.
> >
> > I, for one, would vote for a total moratorium on the use of such w
apons
> >
> > Mike Aliotta
> >
> > At 04:05 PM 3/12/03, Dave McNeely wrote:
> > >Jay,
> > >
> > >I have no problem with addressing these questions as a private
citizen.
> I
> > >also have no problem if ESA wishes to examine the relationship
of war to
> > >ecological matters and make a statement concerning it based on
member
> input.
> > >getting a statement that all members might support would be ve
y
> difficult,
> > >I suspect.
> > >
> > >For example, bombing might disrupt bird migrations. The produ
ts of
> battle,
> > >or of troop concentrations, might effect water quality. But I
am a
> little
> > >confused as to what exactly you are asking us to do in the pre
ent
> instance,
> > >and I have a hard time resolving whether we are the profession
l group
> best
> > >prepared to address whatever it is you want addressed, especia
ly since
> you
> > >mention "social disruption." If you refer to the problems tha
present
> > >actions regarding student visas are creating, then there are d
finite
> > >concerns we can address.
> > >
> > >BTW, I don't mind saying, but I don't think this is something
SA can
> use in
> > >the way you seem to be proposing, that I find the whole idea o
going to
> war
> > >repugnant, and beyond my understanding of what I think the Uni
ed States
> is
> > >supposed to stand for in the world community. But my personal
concerns
> on
> > >that are political, social, human, and so on. I am not sure t
ey are
> > >ecological. Though I have a fairly intense feeling that the re
ources
> > >dedicated to a war effort must impact environment in a negativ
way
> (after
> > >all, explosives, fuel, and so on come from some where and they
must have
> the
> > >same effects when used for destruction that they have when use
for
> > >development, or peaceful transportation), I don't know that I
ould
> provide
> > >a crisp analysis that would convince others. I believe in the
e
> regards, we
> > >are best served by acting in other arenas -- and some of us mi
ht feel
> and
> > >act very differently from how I might feel and act.
> > >
> > >You are welcome to use my thoughts so long as they are not dis
orted and
> are
> > >not used to support positions or ideas that I don't support.
ut since
> I am
> > >not sure what my thoughts mean, or what positions or ideas the
support
> > >................. .
> > >
> > >Maybe we are straying too far from ESA's purpose? Maybe the m
mbership
> > >would rather we focus on experimental design, or primary produ
tivity?
> > >
> > >Dave McNeely
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Jay Bancroft" <jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov>
> > >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> > >Subject: press
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would like to challenge Ecologists to take a few minut
s and think
> > > > about how their work is affected by the Iraq conflict. T
is is a
> touchy
> > > > subject, but ESA has a minor role to play. I would love
o see ESA
> put a
> > > > press release or position paper at
> > > > http://www.esa.org/pao/press_releases/
> > > > There is no doubt current policy has effects on our work
and I think
> > > > the stature of the society would be helped by elucidatin
this. We
> might
> > > > specify that member input address mass destruction in Ir
q and
> > > > widespread social disruption. I suspect the message summ
ry would
> give
> > > > voice to concerns of society members, which would be a n
ce note of
> > > > caution for the world.
> > > > -Jay Bancroft Ph.D. http://jsb95003.tripod.com/
>
> --
> David F. Whitacre
>
> The Peregrine Fund
> 5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
> Boise, Idaho 83709
> (208) 362-3716
> dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
--
David F. Whitacre
The Peregrine Fund
5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
Boise, Idaho 83709
(208) 362-3716
dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:10:36 -0500
From: mike aliotta <bornxeyed@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: ESA and DU?
I suppose his view presupposes no other way to destroy a tank or the actual
need to destroy the tank in the first place. Taken to the extreme, a few
tactical nuclear warheads will certainly accomplish the former and,
perhaps, reduce the the latter, in the future, to zero, while creating only
"statistical" problems from their use. Should we toss a few now and let
the statistics work themselves out in the future? Wouldn't it be better to
have no need for tanks or their destruction? In my opinion, I think
governments are far too quick to use the general population as guinea pigs
whether it comes to the safety of drugs, weapons, biotechnology, the latest
version of "bringing good things to better living through chemistry", or
realpolitik
Mike Aliotta
At 04:11 PM 3/17/03, Christopher J Wells wrote:
>Interesting that the way in which one frames the question leads to
>divergent conclusions.
>
>I know a man who worked in armored combat and he seemed to think that th
>immediacy of destroying an enemy bent on his destruction was more import
nt
>than a statistical probability associated with uranium contamination.
>
>But heck, this is why we value objectivity in science--to take the
>pasionate view out of the argument and to derive scientific truth from
>verifiable facts.
>
>
>---chris
>
>Christopher J Wells, Geographer
>National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
>700 Cajundome Blvd
>Lafayette, LA 70506
>
>337 266 8651
>chris_wells@usgs.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> mike aliotta
> <bornxeyed@bellso To: Christopher
J
> Wells <chris_wells@USGS.GOV>,
> uth.net> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UM
.EDU
> cc:
> 03/17/03 12:48 PM Subject: Re: ESA and DU
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I think the question is not one of safety to soldiers versus environment
l
>contamination. Depleted uranium shells are NOT increasing the
>survivability of friendly forces unless one counts not being blown to
>pieces by an undestroyed enemy tank only to die later from lung or bone
r
>lymph cancer from uranium contamination as "survivability." It is. in fa
t,
>
>soldiers from both sides who are most at risk from the fallout dust of
>uranium shells.
>
>The true question is if the ability to pierce hardened tanks is worth th
>future harm to soldiers, civilians and the environment.
>The only thing that makes uranium cased shells cost effective is that th
U
>
>238 is a waste product of the nuclear power and weapons industry and jus
>like fluorine (from the aluminum and fertilizer industry) and slag from
>uranium mines (which was used as fertilizer on tobacco fields) would res
lt
>
>in millions of dollars in disposal costs if industry hadn't found a mean
>to make it an, albeit toxic, commodity.
>
>
>Mike Aliotta
>
>
>At 07:48 AM 3/17/03, Christopher J Wells wrote:
> >Hard to imagine anyone in favor of nuclear contamination.
> >
> >I wonder if its amenable to some sort of risk-benefit argument? I
uppose
> >one would have to argue that there are other mechanisms or methods
hat
>can
> >be used to lieu of depleted uranium; that the remediation potential
is not
> >worth the risk; that the loss of soldier's lives as a result of cha
ging
> >weaponry is worth less than the risk to the environment (might be t
ugh to
> >convince some kid about to enter mortal danger that the environment
is
>more
> >important than his life...); etc. I have a feeling there are a few
folks
> >who would rather have a weapon that offers them some significant in
rease
> >in survivorship over some long-term environmental benefit. But they
re
>just
> >ignorant kids.
> >
> >Should be an interesting argument for the Ecological Society of Ame
ica to
> >send, on the eve of our young men and women facing mortal battle.
> >
> >---chris
> >
> >Christopher J Wells, Geographer
> >National Wetlands Research Center, USGS
> >700 Cajundome Blvd
> >Lafayette, LA 70506
> >
> >337 266 8651
> >chris_wells@usgs.gov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Whitacre
> > <dwhitacre@PEREGRI To:
> > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > NEFUND.ORG> cc:
> > Sent by: Subject: Re: ESA
nd DU?
> > "Ecological
> > Society of
> > America: grants,
> > jobs, news"
> > <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV
> > .UMD.EDU>
> >
> >
> > 03/14/03 09:26 AM
> > Please respond to
> > Dave Whitacre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I agree fully with Mike Aliotta that the ESA might--at the very
> >least--weigh in
> >publicly on the issue of contaminating a portion of the planet's s
rface
> >with
> >tons of depleted uranium (a portion inhabitated by a goodly number
f
> >people).
> >Surely within the ranks of the ESA is someone who is familiar to so
e
>depth
> >with
> >the characteristics of "depleted" uranium, and the public and
>environmental
> >health hazards entailed in its use in munitions--such that they cou
d
> >spearhead
> >the drafting of such a statement.
> >
> >I also agree that such weaponry should be globally banned.
> >
> >Dave Whitacre
> >
> >mike aliotta wrote:
> >
> > > One serious, but seemingly overlooked, social and ecological
> >consideration
> > > that maybe worth commenting upon, regardless of the cost/bene
it
>analyses
> > > applied to such controversial issues as bird migrations and w
ter
>quality
> > > over the spoils of war or the relative impacts of munitions a
d fuel
>when
> > > used in destroying infrastructure and moving troops instead o
building
> > > dams and powering cars, is the effects of dispersing tons of
epleted
> > > uranium all over the cities and deserts. Perhaps this is a s
ch an
> > > uncontestable moral, social and ecological issue that the ESA
as a
> >whole,
> > > would have no contention in addressing.
> > >
> > > I, for one, would vote for a total moratorium on the use of s
ch
>weapons
> > >
> > > Mike Aliotta
> > >
> > > At 04:05 PM 3/12/03, Dave McNeely wrote:
> > > >Jay,
> > > >
> > > >I have no problem with addressing these questions as a pr
vate
>citizen.
> >I
> > > >also have no problem if ESA wishes to examine the relatio
ship of war
>to
> > > >ecological matters and make a statement concerning it bas
d on member
> >input.
> > > >getting a statement that all members might support would
e very
> >difficult,
> > > >I suspect.
> > > >
> > > >For example, bombing might disrupt bird migrations. The
roducts of
> >battle,
> > > >or of troop concentrations, might effect water quality.
ut I am a
> >little
> > > >confused as to what exactly you are asking us to do in th
present
> >instance,
> > > >and I have a hard time resolving whether we are the profe
sional group
> >best
> > > >prepared to address whatever it is you want addressed, es
ecially
>since
> >you
> > > >mention "social disruption." If you refer to the problem
that
>present
> > > >actions regarding student visas are creating, then there
re definite
> > > >concerns we can address.
> > > >
> > > >BTW, I don't mind saying, but I don't think this is somet
ing ESA can
> >use in
> > > >the way you seem to be proposing, that I find the whole i
ea of going
>to
> >war
> > > >repugnant, and beyond my understanding of what I think th
United
>States
> >is
> > > >supposed to stand for in the world community. But my per
onal
>concerns
> >on
> > > >that are political, social, human, and so on. I am not s
re they are
> > > >ecological. Though I have a fairly intense feeling that t
e resources
> > > >dedicated to a war effort must impact environment in a ne
ative way
> >(after
> > > >all, explosives, fuel, and so on come from some where and
they must
>have
> >the
> > > >same effects when used for destruction that they have whe
used for
> > > >development, or peaceful transportation), I don't know th
t I could
> >provide
> > > >a crisp analysis that would convince others. I believe i
these
> >regards, we
> > > >are best served by acting in other arenas -- and some of
s might feel
> >and
> > > >act very differently from how I might feel and act.
> > > >
> > > >You are welcome to use my thoughts so long as they are no
distorted
>and
> >are
> > > >not used to support positions or ideas that I don't suppo
t. But
>since
> >I am
> > > >not sure what my thoughts mean, or what positions or idea
they
>support
> > > >................. .
> > > >
> > > >Maybe we are straying too far from ESA's purpose? Maybe
he
>membership
> > > >would rather we focus on experimental design, or primary
roductivity?
> > > >
> > > >Dave McNeely
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Jay Bancroft" <jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov>
> > > >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:48 PM
> > > >Subject: press
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to challenge Ecologists to take a few
inutes and
>think
> > > > > about how their work is affected by the Iraq confli
t. This is a
> >touchy
> > > > > subject, but ESA has a minor role to play. I would
ove to see ESA
> >put a
> > > > > press release or position paper at
> > > > > http://www.esa.org/pao/press_releases/
> > > > > There is no doubt current policy has effects on our
work, and I
>think
> > > > > the stature of the society would be helped by eluci
ating this. We
> >might
> > > > > specify that member input address mass destruction
n Iraq and
> > > > > widespread social disruption. I suspect the message
summary would
> >give
> > > > > voice to concerns of society members, which would b
a nice note of
> > > > > caution for the world.
> > > > > -Jay Bancroft Ph.D. http://jsb95003.tripod.com/
> >
> >--
> >David F. Whitacre
> >
> >The Peregrine Fund
> >5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane
> >Boise, Idaho 83709
> >(208) 362-3716
> >dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:01:19 -0500
From: mike aliotta <bornxeyed@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: On war...let me rephrase this...
>Can the decrease in numbers of a population of Homo sapiens be considere
>ecology, or at the very least, an environmental issue?
>
>Jordi Moya-Laraņo
>University of Kentucky
I would think any change in human population would surely be a ecological
issue. Since, simplistically, every kilogram of homo sapiens pretty much
means one less kilogram of some other species, a decrease in human
population would be a boon to biodiversity. However, it would ultimately
depend on how the change came about. A few strategic nuclear weapons won't
do the biosphere much good but a nice species specific virus would probably
be cause for celebration amongst the the remainder of earth's species.
Mike Aliotta
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 16 Mar 2003 to 17 Mar 2003 (#2003-74)
**************************************************************
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙
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