Glassberg, Heppner, tanks, bombs, and Prairie Chickens

[James Kruse]

on 1/10/02 7:26 AM, Heath, Fred at Fred.Heath at power-one.com wrote:

> Thank you. Just so that I am completely clear: Glassberg did not say
> that (or imply) that the current situation was caused in any way by
> collectors.  

I did not find this 'evidence' in the Miami news article either, and I do
not think that Heppner quoted that. Heppner quoted Glassberg's editorial and
the Mitchell's Satyr article in his essay (both American Butterflies, 9(3),
2001).

> but I think a rational person could see
> that a fairly small localized colony could possibly be driven extinct by a
> determined and totally irresponsible individual.

Sure, for the sake of argument I'll concede this condition-loaded sentence
(but look at Neil's post for the amount of effort required!), but what drove
the species to that low point? Wasn't the habitat also disappearing? In
healthy habitat, the reproductive abilities of these insects would far
outpace any removal by predatory pressure (to use Neil's arguable analogy).
During natural down-cycles (which are often unpredictable and for no
apparent reason - see monarch history) the predator would be unable to find
the numbers of specimens necessary to inflict damage to the population, and
would be "feeding" on other species present as consolation prizes... or
going home disgusted like Burras.

Realize that many listed species are usually subspecies of widespread
species at the periphery of their range, and usually with periodic influxes
of conspecific individuals from other populations to mix genes with (I am
NOT saying that these peripherals are of lesser conservation value, just
that their position is precarious by nature -with or without man- and would
go extinct and may be recolonized in time when the proper habitat is in
place!). Listing of such subspecies is often the "judges sentence" for
stopping valuable research and for these populations to begin a long, slow
and languishing death by habitat succession. Note the efforts to remove
control of certain habitats from the military because they dare drive tanks
and drop bombs on the habitats... well, the reason why those habitats exist
is because they are kept in/returned to- early successional stages by said
tanks and bombs that are often valuable to species extirpated by habitat
loss elsewhere. Besides, if these well-meaning people's habitat protection
plans were so much better, they wouldn't need to go after the military for
more land to "protect"...

It is also valuable to note that the management practices for some listed
species are incompatible. For example, in Wisconsin, natural resource
management personnel routinely make the decision to either burn the State
threatened/endangered Regal Fritillaries to reduce the prairie to early
successional stages to allow the Federally endangered Karner Blue to
colonize it, or to allow Karner Blue populations to be snuffed out in a
couple years by habitat succession to tall grass prairie, which is needed to
support the Regals. Of course the endangered Greater Prairie Chickens will
eat either without the social penalties suffered by certain other two-legged
predators.

For background, Wisconsin prairies run on an approximately 10 year
successional cycle from complete burn off in year one (Karners are into
years 2-4) to thick dead grass and trees starting to come in around year 10
if there is no fire (Regals like tall grass prairie, years 7-9). Grazing by
cows is said to hold the prairie in early successional stages favorable to
Karner Blues- around year 3 or so, but whomever thinks grazing by cows is
akin to buffalo grazing doesn't know cattle or buffalo.

James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
tel 907.474.5579
fax 907.474.1987
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl