Organic Matter - Ecology

Tigers and Bears; Lions Not So Much

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:00:48 -0800

I’ve seen so much stuff I’d love to write about that it’s actually overwhelming. This happens from time to time, and the result is ironic in that I end up writing nothing. I’ve been tempted to just post a shitload of links to all of the things I’ve found interesting lately, but for a couple of the articles in question, the shotgun effect just won’t do them justice. I’ve been tempted to write about zoos before, and indeed I wondered whether or not I had, but the search function suggests that I have not. This cannot stand.

Like most kids, I loved going to the zoo. What isn’t cool about lions, tigers, and bears? It wasn’t until I was about thirteen or fourteen that I became aware that the animals at the Los Angeles Zoo were noticeably less excited about the cross-species experience than I was. They seemed bored at best, maybe even depressed. I’m sure anyone who’s made it to this particular corner of the Internet has noticed this about confined animals. And as we all know, teenagers aren’t very well attuned to moral ambiguity – I was no different – so I decided that zoos were bad, mmmkay? Undebatably, absolutely, unequivocally, evil.

Obviously my understanding of what zoos can and do accomplish has developed since then, and while I’m still a little uncomfortable visiting them (which is why I’m unable to illustrate this post with a photo of some captive exotic species), I appreciate that they work to conserve threatened species, and introduce the public to majestic, charismatic creatures.

Obviously, the zoo news of the day is the escape of Tatiana, one of the San Francisco zoo’s Siberian tigers (Panthera tigris altaica). Her escape and subsequent killing suggests that for some species, the good work done by zoos may not always outweigh the harm.

Life in a zoo isn't necessarily oppressive for all animals. Most animals didn't evolve to explore as much space as tigers. But tigers in most zoos are like people spending their lives locked in an empty living room. They are confined to tiny spaces, with nothing to do. Life is intensely boring, year after year. Some animal observers say zoo life may also be stressful. Tigers, who like to lurk, skulk and hide, are on display, with groups of strangers staring at them. Freedom is absent, and so are choice and control.

[…]

Roberts […] has no patience with the defense of zoos, either for their genetic storage programs or their ambassador roles. "The tiger is a perfect example of the way that zoos are missing the point about conservation," he says. Money spent on zoo tigers should be spent on protecting habitat for wild tigers. "There's an expenditure of millions if not tens of millions of dollars on captive tigers. If we really want tigers and not just a shell of the beast we call the tiger, the real emphasis needs to be first and foremost in the field."

Of course, with tigers more than perhaps any other animal, protecting habitat is more complicated than simply throwing money at the problem. Like many other exotic species, tigers are sought for specific parts of their anatomy, including their bones, organs, eyes, and even their penises, all of which are thought by some medicinal traditions to have curative properties. But cultural relativism is a sensitive issue, and not at all what I sat down to write about. What actually spurred me to write about zoos was an article from Time about a different species that is raising questions about how animals live in captivity:

Earlier this week [Germany]'s tabloid press agonized over the deaths of two tiny Eisbär cubs in a Nuremberg zoo, who were presumably eaten by their inexperienced mother, Vilma, after zookeepers decided not to intervene. Then on Wednesday, a fresh round of photographs and videos revealed that a third cub at the same zoo had been "rescued" by zookeepers after another mother, Vera, showed signs of rejecting her offspring.

Much in the same way that tigers can’t behave instinctively in captivity, captive polar bears seem to have trouble properly raising cubs. And if the ‘rescued’ cub is raised by zoo employees it is deprived of the change to learn the behaviors of its species from the mother. Still, alive is better than dead, right? Or does practice make perfect’ for mother bears that need to learn how to care for their young in captivity? Is the purpose of the zoo to keep these animals alive at any cost, or is there a point at which we’ve only saved an empty husk of the beast that once was?

In other news, tomorrow is my first day at my new job. Wish me luck.

Learning to be a Bug

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:17:20 -0800

Well, it’s been more than two months since I promised more content here. I’ve told myself repeatedly that I’ll do it as soon as I finish moving, as soon as I sort out my career, or simply whenever the muse hits. None of those things have happened yet, but I’m sick of making excuses. Also, I don’t have anything better to do while I wait for my crème bruleé to set.

There are a ton of things I’d love to write about, but I won’t ever get to most of them, and you’ll never know what you missed. C’est la vie. Organic Matter used to be about slinging science around in the name of analyzing news and advocating for people and their relationship with ecosystems. I’ve been thinking much more lately about my relationship with the world than about telling people how they should relate to it. I’m not sure how many readers will be interested in me writing about that, but I’m much less worried about readership than I used to be. So tonight, for the first real content that this site has seen in almost two years, I decided to just write about what I did yesterday*. I went fly fishing. Kind of.

More on Lions and Tigers

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:15:44 -0700

How on Earth did I miss the Economist’s coverage of Josh Donlan’s proposal to introduce African megafauna to the American Great Plains? (See yesterday’s post.)

As expected, the Economist’s coverage is much more comprehensive, and as such is more persuasive (in that the substantive arguments behind both views are better represented). The author covers specific roles of extinct animals that introduced African animals are expected to fill, the proposed order of introducing species in order to make sure that the experiment goes as planned, and the trepidations many ecologists have about introducing non-native species in an attempt to ‘fix’ environmental problems.

Another detail that the CNN piece I quoted yesterday left out – the introductions would be on tracts of land referred to as reserves, which to me indicates that they might be enclosed. On the one hand, enclosing the experimental area (incredibly high costs aside) allays my concern about the potential economic damage that might be caused by a few overzealous big cats; on the other hand, it could exacerbate potential problems with an ecological experiment becoming a tourist trap or even a local big game hunting ground.

If I suddenly sound more amenable to the project, don’t be fooled. It’s a terrible idea, but I thought that I’d make some attempt to echo the more balanced perspective of the Economist on the issue, and let readers make up their own minds.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:31:09 -0700

If I was appalled when I first saw this headline – Lions and elephants on the Great Plains? – then I was especially shocked to read the lead sentence of the article: “If a group of prominent ecologists have their way, lions and elephants could someday be roaming the Great Plains of North America.” The clincher is the poll currently on CNN’s front page, where so far 44% of over 77,000 respondents support the idea (though I doubt many of them actually read the article).

The “ecological” argument behind the idea is that African megafauna might replace the North American megafauna that went extinct some 10-15,000 years ago. The definite cause of this mass extinction is unknown; though theories support both overhunting by native Americans and climatic change during the recession of the last glaciation (it’s likely that both were factors).

With regard to my staunch opposition to the idea, I’m primarily sympathetic to the ecological argument, best phrased in the article by University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson: “It is not restoration to introduce animals that were never here.” But since most Americans know lamentably little about ecology, I would think that the more effective argument would to be the economic one; even if Ted Turner foots the entire bill for introducing enough elephants and lions to support viable populations, I doubt very much that said animals care enough about private property rights to stay within the bounds of Turner’s ranches and off others’.

"Just when you think the world has gotten as weird as it can get, something like this comes along," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

"I wonder how many calves or lambs it would take to feed a family of lions for a month?" Pilcher mused. "We sort of know what it takes for wolves, but something tells me we would be in a whole new ball game."

Taxonomic Levity

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:44:09 -0700

Some were amused when a biologist recently named newly discovered slime mold beetles after Donald Rumsfeld (Agathidium rumsfeldi), Dick Cheney (A. cheneyi), and George Bush (A. bushi).

I won’t deny that those are amusing, even if they were intended to an homage (the entomologists in question appear to have a sick sense of respect), but it gets way better. A couple months ago the New York Times published an article about species naming that offered up some of the more entertaining scientific names floating around the biosphere. Traditionally a species’ name is supposed to reflect certain characteristics, but with about 1.5 million species described so far (and many millions left to describe, most of them insects), using the proper naming convention is no longer always possible...

A Vision of Hetch Hetchy 'After the Fall'

Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:29:20 -0700

Apropos of my article about the potential of draining the reservoir that floods Hetch Hetchy is this magnificent piece by novelist Greg Sarris published in yesterday’s L.A. Times. It's a longish read, but well worth your while.

The article is speculative in nature, taking place at three points in an imagined future (pay attention to the dates as you read it) in which the O'Shaughnessy Dam comes down and Hetch Hetchy is restored. The theme of restoration is ubiquitous, and the methods that Sarris describes are both fantastic and authoritarian at the same time. The idea that in thirty years we might be so ecologically minded that we would scan vehicle tires for oil deposits gives me hope, and yet the idea that Hetch Hetchy should be restored to the way it was when John Muir walked its fields is not one I agree with.

Even if we were to try, I doubt we would prove capable of restoring Hetch Hetchy to its former state. Nature is too dynamic for that. Sarris seems to agree: “There isn't – and never will be – a virgin garden.”