Wolves and Moose on Isle Royale

Isle Royale National Park is an island in Lake Superior reachable only by ferry from the mainland. Though part of the state of Michigan, it is much closer to Minnesota and the Canadian province of Ontario than to the Upper Peninsula. While it was formerly occupied and used for copper mining, the archipelago is now a designated Wilderness area (there are still historical structures and lighthouses, but no permanent residents or industry). It has also been the site of a long-running study of wolf and moose populations.

As a generally isolated system, the island has been an ideal setting for tracking predator-prey dynamics. However, this has led to problems, particularly for the smaller wolf population, with inbreeding and genetic diversity. In particularly cold winters it is possible for animals to cross onto and off of the island over ice bridges, but there is no guarantee that wolves or moose will do so in any given year. An introduced parvovirus wiped out a sizable number of the wolves and the remaining populations went into a precipitous decline. A lone male in the 1990s had brought some genetic diversity back to the island, but the population is now down to two. A closely inbred pair that has had little success with offspring (one recent pup that has since died was visibly deformed).

The decline in predation has led, not surprisingly, to a substantial increase in the moose population on the island. While this is in some ways good, moose on the mainland are struggling under pressure from ticks and brainworm, it can have damaging long-term consequences for the island's ecosystem and the moose population itself, from over-consumption and soil damage. Perhaps the island can provide a temporary refuge for a population, until conditions on the mainland improve (though with climate change driving many of these changes due to warmer winters that is an iffy proposition). Management of wolves and moose on the mainland in Minnesota is an even more complicated and at times controversial issue, that largely pits hunters, property owners, and conservationists against each other, but in a complicated network. For example, hunters want to hunt moose, but they also want to ensure that there are always moose to hunt. Some oppose hunting moratoriums, while others don't. Some want predators removed (like the wolves) while others want more moose brought in. It's complicated and the state Department of Natural Resources has the unenviable job of balancing the interests of all these people while also maintaining both the animal and physical resources of the state for the benefit of all the people using scientific best practices (subject to political decisions...). But I digress.

Back on Isle Royale, there is a controversy about whether wolves should be allowed to go extinct, be repopulated once they die out, or have new members introduced before they do to refresh the gene pool as a "genetic rescue." At this point, with only two remaining wolves, genetic rescue is out of the question. They are aging and too closely related with a poor track record of reproduction. It is almost certain that the wolves will die out soon, possibly even this year. What happens then? It is possible that as wolf populations increase on the mainland they will repopulate the island in search of prey and new territory. This is likely how wolves originally came to Isle Royale in the 1940s. It is also possible that they don't and that the moose population goes through cycles of boom and crash (with associated problems for plants, soils, and other species). The moose could be managed by removal or hunting, or allowed to cycle and starve. Wolves could also be reintroduced from healthy, genetically diverse populations either from the mainland or elsewhere in the country (some areas are viewed as "over populated," at least in terms of minimizing human-wildlife conflict in fringe areas).

What complicates all of these decisions, in addition to uncertainty about what will versus what could happen, is the fact that Isle Royale is a designated Wilderness, where human intervention is meant to be limited. What that means in practice varies (humans occupied and mined the island, have caused climate change, have introduced illness and other species), but generally means that there will be minimal intervention going forward, regardless of what has happened in the past. This can be contrasted with (and in some ways was a response in the 1960s to) the "Disney-fication" of some of the more popular and iconic national parks, that are actively managed to generate certain views and experiences and provide certain amenities (again, this is a side issue, but for a much longer exploration of the issue, read my undergraduate thesis on it here). My take, which appears to be in line with the current NPS position and that of many scientists, is one of "wait and see." While there are potential harms to allowing wolves to disappear and moose numbers to increase, there is also the question of what it means to return the island to a "natural" state. Should the moose also be removed and caribou and lynx reintroduced to restore the fauna of the 1800s? Should all of them be restored? While any decision, including the decision not to act, will have consequences, it seems most in line with the spirit of the island, and island ecosystems generally, to let things play out as they will, though if a moose crisis truly appears, it can be revisited (including hunting, which isn't categorically prohibited in Wilderness, though it is in National Parks).

Arches

So over New Year's my boyfriend and I went out to Arches National Park in the Red Rocks country of southern Utah. And it was beautiful and relaxing and immensely enjoyable. Far nicer than going to an overcrowded bar and paying way too much for drinks. While there were far more people than I would have expected for the middle of winter, the park was by no means crowded. In fact it was quite easy to avoid people entirely by taking trails that were even moderately difficult or by getting started for the day at sunrise while others waited for it to get warmer. (The weather in December and January is generally quite nice, highs in the 40s and lows in the 20s, much nicer than the regular 100+ days present in the summer season). While I often started the day with several layers, and finished it the same way, once I started hiking and the sun got higher I quickly shed them for lighter gear. Much more pleasant and easier to try to get warm than stay cool, though the dry air, even when cold, dehydrates you faster than you realize.

While we didn't slip and fall this sign is quite accurate, the rocks are very slippery.

For a park that is only three hours from Salt Lake and six from Denver and has a high yearly attendance, going at a time that minimizes crowds certainly is a priority. This is another point in favor of going in the off-season. Many trails are loops or out-and-back and therefore quite prone to congestion and crowding. As it was there was one place, Delicate Arch (famous from Utah's license plate) where the number of people all wanting to get photographed with the formation almost prevented us from getting a quality picture (I snuck mine in during the only 30 second window no one was standing in it). The rest of the park generally had some people, we were only alone on our early hikes, though there was none of the traffic or half-mile car lines waiting to park at some trailheads that some road signs indicated could occur during summer.

 

Delicate Arch

The amenities in the park are quite good. A new visitor center has excellent and interactive geology and wildlife exhibits that are accessible to kids but not boring to adults. There are also, during summer, numerous ranger-led programs including tours of the Fiery Furnace area of the park (off-limits without a special permit and inadvisable to those without knowledge of the area due to its maze-like nature and the fragility of the desert soils). Sadly we were not able to hike in the Fiery Furnace or do backcountry camping or hiking. Those will have to wait until our next visit, perhaps one that will add Colorado National Monument and Canyonlands, both nearby. There is only one campground that is first come, first served in the winter and by reservation in summer. It is quite beautiful (the best views are from the sites 20-25) but could be improved by better enforcement of park policies and the separation of trailers/RVs from tents, but those are minor issues in the grand scheme and were addressed more fully in my most recent post.

Part of the Fiery Furnace

In addition to its stunning geology the park also has the standard desert flora and fauna (we didn't see any rare ones but did see plenty of critters and the beautifully weathered desert plants, especially Utah juniper). It also has easily accessible prehistoric petroglyphs and rock art, as well as markings made by Spanish explorers and settlers. Unfortunately these are faded now because they were vandalized in the 1980s and the restoration process reduced their vibrancy. Still, well worth seeing (and a surprise to us).

Seeing cacti covered with snow was unexpected.

Junipers are long-lived and self-prune dramatically to conserve water leading to their beautiful, weathered appearance.

 

Some of the petroglyphs at Arches

It really doesn't do much justice to the park to describe it or even to post pictures, particularly since when you are there almost everything you see is so stunning you feel the need to photograph it. Indeed, it is difficult at times to put the camera away and just appreciate the place for what it is, but I did manage to do that at least a few times while I was there. I'll post a few more pictures of my trip but you'll just have to go for yourself.

Sunset from our campsite

The famous Landscape Arch

The spectacular Double Arch with Andrew for scale

Me looking off during a break on the Dark Angel trail

Campground Etiquette

On my New Year's trip to Arches National Park I stayed in the only campground in the park. It has nice, well-maintained, spacious sites with spectacular views. They are pretty close together, though some are semi-sheltered by large rocks and juniper trees. In the winter it is only half open, but at peak season it could easily have 300 people or more at any time. As it was, the available spaces were almost filled every night. It also had trash disposal and some recycling collection as well as modern bathrooms with dishwashing space. Unfortunately it also is a mixed tent/RV/trailer site with no designated areas for different types of camping and, at least in winter, little to no enforcement of noise and generator curfews. This significantly detracted from the overall experience, especially since we had initially planned on trying to get a backcountry permit at the park office. They are available but there aren't any designated sites or areas and in the winter we didn't want to deal with that without doing a bit more research. Perhaps next time we are out there.

Unless you happen to live in the vicinity, you are going to need to stay somewhere when you visit a park. Generally the options are camping in some form in the park, camping at a BLM, Forest Service, or state park in the area, or staying at a hotel in a nearby community. In the case of Arches, all are options and the town of Moab is actually a neat place, at least in the winter when it isn't overrun by tourists. It even has identifiable local businesses and eateries that actual residents support. However, many people, myself included, view camping as a major reason for visiting a park and an essential part of the experience. While sleeping in a tent and cooking on a stove or fire is real camping, it is not for everyone and there are different degrees of alternatives. Some involve elaborate tent cities and grills. Others involve unpowered camper trailers or truck bed campers. Some people use RVs or powered trailers. All of them do have conceivable uses and some people actually do other things in a park besides sit in or around their vehicles (though I did see some who appeared to spend the entire time in their trailer). But there are some guidelines people should follow to maximize the enjoyment of everyone that come down to basic courtesy and common sense.

• Keep the electronics to a minimum. Yes, I know you really want to listen to the Cowboys game or have a dance party or watch a movie on your laptop, but you can do that at home, or in a motel, or anywhere else. You may not appreciate the experience and the location, but there are many others around you who are trying. Don't disrupt them, and if you cannot last, keep it quiet and use headphones.
• On the same topic, lots of the ridiculous things you might have brought and inexplicably find essential require power. If you use your car or a generator please try to park in a cluster with others in a similar situation and leave at least part of the campground free for those who want a quieter experience and absolutely abide by the posted curfews for shutoff. Yes, it's a drag having to use a flashlight or firelight or even sit in the dark or sleep once the sun goes down, but that's part of the deal. There are great stars in the world's darker places, try looking at them.
• Please keep your pets on leash and clean up after them. I love and own dogs and have gone camping with them, but in a campground even the best behaved ones can create a problem if not controlled, especially if there are several. They love playing and exploring and it can quickly create a culture where other polices slip, waste accumulates, and the quality of the campground deteriorates. Campgrounds, especially in parks, are often islands in a sensitive ecosystem. While many people don't take warnings about fragile soils seriously, animals have no awareness of it whatsoever, nor do they have any reservation about digging or hunting indigenous wildlife. As for the people who have cats in their campers, that's just weird.
• Get your kids involved. Good for you bringing your kids out to experience the natural world, even in one of its Disneyfied, theme park forms. Now try to build an appreciation by getting them to engage with different aspects of the experience. Star gazing. Fire building. Assembling a campsite. Cooking on a stove. Taking nature walks (at Arches there is a great one that essentially leaves from the campground and can take all day if you do it in its entirety, another one gives you a few hours). Get them to do things they couldn't or wouldn't do at home. Kudos to the family that brought their bikes with them so they could take the road through the red rocks. That was much better behavior than our neighbors at the campground who brought their gymboree in their pickup and let their kids watch DVDs all night (probably to alleviate the screaming fury that resulted from any dissatisfaction).
• Clean up after yourself. At Arches the campground was generally pretty clean but I've been to some where there is garbage everywhere (don't burn it, for a lot of reasons) and it is repulsive. Additionally, just because something is food doesn't mean it is "natural" and doesn't mean it will "compost." Composting takes time and some things will not decompose in all ecosystems. You also don't want to attract animals to campgrounds. They can be nuisances and it can be unsafe for people and for the animals (many get hit by cars after being attracted to food). It is also bad to get them acculturated to human food in some seasons only to have it disappear later in the year.
•  Finally, everyone likes sex, but if you must have sex in a campground, remember that it is a semi-public space and you are in close proximity to others with very little sound barrier, so have some discretion. Loud, screaming sex is generally inappropriate for such a campground. If you want to engage in that, pick a remote, backcountry site or a hotel.

So there are some general rules of etiquette for large campgrounds. It's not exhaustive and not particularly original, but you would be shocked how many people don't realize that they are doing anything inconsiderate at all. Perhaps this will help.

P.S. Despite our immediate neighbors, the rest of the experience in the Arches campground was fantastic and I give it (in its winter form) a solid four stars, segregating tents from RVs and enforcing generator limits are the only major things I'd change.

Corporate Influence

I know this is a few weeks late but it's an important and interesting issue that continues to arise and will only become more common as park budgets continue to suffer from the misguided axe of austerity for a department with a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog that could easily provide work for thousands of unemployed Americans as was done during the Great Depression. A small amount was done, but it was a mere drop in the bucket and that funding is largely out of the system and cuts are back on the agenda. While some groups like the National Parks Conservation Association do fundraising and provide other forms of support, there is only so much they can give and in the absence of governmental support for public goods, it comes to panhandling to corporate America. However, once that money is taken, it should be no surprise that there are strings attached.

This is clearly the case (though the NPS denies it) at the Grand Canyon where the NPS killed a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water in the park after Coca Cola objected. Other bottled beverages would be unaffected and there are ample free water stations in the park to refill reusable bottles so concerns about visitor safety in a desert climate are clearly pretextual. When you also consider that the holder of the concessions contract in the park was in favor of the ban and that bottled water is an inherently ridiculous, wasteful, and predatory "commodity" designed to scam the stupid, it becomes even more obvious that Coke is calling the shots on at least some park management issues and overriding decisions made by local administrators who are veterans of the system.

I know the NPS needs money, but it is important to be wary of the sources it is able to find and vigilant about making sure that such "philanthropy" is just a way to get good press and not a backdoor into influencing policy. In this age of misguided budget cuts it would be all too easy to lose our parks to private speculators and profiteers, if not in name then certainly in character and practice.

The LATimes also jumped on this issue and was appropriately harsh and wasn't shy, like the NYT was, about drawing the connections (especially confusing since the NYT had emails essentially confirming the need for Coke's permission). It also connected this to the increasing commercialization of state parks and the spread of noxious outdoor advertising that can accompany their perpetual need for cash. The actions in California's state parks are troubling enough, there is no need to expand them and multiply them across the entire country and through the crown jewels of America's natural heritage.

Update 12/2: Thanks to FOIA some more information has come out about this and it makes the NPS look even worse.

Ideas of Nature and Social Construction

This is a topic I've been meaning to write on for quite a while and have touched on in the context of other issues repeatedly, but the time has finally come to give it direct attention. I have been fascinated for a long time by changes in conceptions of nature, what is natural, what it means to be wild, and from what source such places and concepts derive their meaning and importance (for their own sake, for the value of goods/services they can sustainably provide to humans, for the value of onetime goods/services they can provide, for their aesthetic value (and it's interesting to see how those ideas change), for their scientific value, etc.). While there is a rich and growing literature in what has come to be called environmental studies (with contributions from engineers and architects/urban planners, biologists, geologists, historians, economists, sociologists, artists, literary critics, philosophers, and theologians), a small blog is hardly the place to even pretend to summarize the field (though if you want a good place to start Donald Worster, William Cronon, and Richard White represent three distinct schools of thought and are leading thinkers in the field, at least among environmental historians).

Now that I've made the task seem overwhelming, it's time to get to actually writing. I'm a bit disappointed that right when I get ready to write on this topic the NYT goes and steals my thunder publishing a thoughtful Op-Ed by Michael Lipsky on regulation and wilderness. While his broader point is that there is nowhere in the nation, even in seemingly remote places that the reassurances of law do not comfort and the protections of regulation do not reach, he also rightly notes that the very idea of Wilderness has been codified in America, defined and protected as a place, to quote the Wilderness Act, "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" that is free of trails, permanent structures, and motors of any kind. He also paraphrases Roderick Nash's observation that wilderness is based on state of mind. This, too, is true. While federally designated (and therefore protected) wilderness has been strictly defined and given a specific set of social values, there are many other "wild" places one may encounter nature as well as ones that are not nearly as natural as they may seem.

A place of the first type can be found in my hometown (indeed my old neighborhood) of Philadelphia. There, a landscape designer has decided to let her yard "go wild," and has been cited by the city for its seemingly weedy and unkempt appearance. Clearly this is a case of social norms as to what constitutes an acceptable yard is coming up against though an alternative thinker. The benefits of a non-monoculture, unfertilized yard that attracts pollinators are clearly high, but they definitely do not mesh with the standard vision of an urban home. (This is not the most egregious case, however, that goes to Oak Park, MI, where a city planner threatened a homeowner using twisted logic for having a vegetable garden in her yard. Fortunately Julie Bass prevailed over the urban planing department). While no one will ever mistake a yard or even a city park for a wilderness, how we think about them is quite revealing of how we view nature and its role in human life and the boundary between them (if there is one). (Another very interesting project that plays on this boundary is NYC's High Line, which I highly recommend walking in its entirety should you get the chance). City parks and how they are designed is also fascinating and revealing, but that is a matter for another post.

Finally we have purportedly wild places that aren't nearly as natural as they would seem. I take as my example in this case Yosemite National Park. One of the Park Service's crown jewels, featuring giant sequoias, stunning views, easy access from the Bay Area (and the attendant crush of people) it is a truly beautiful place. It is also highly managed and while less Disneyfied than it used to be (the 1 hour photo is gone and I think the golf course is as well), it is still largely dominated by roads, parking lots, and paved trails to the best vistas. But that is not what I want to discuss (it's a bit too obvious). What caught my eye for inclusion in this post was an article at the end of July about how the NPS is managing the trees and meadows in the park with the aim of optimizing and restoring the views of the impressive peaks of Half Dome and El Capitan that were seen when the park was founded. The reason this is necessary is because a century of aggressive (and ecologically misguided) fire suppression has caused trees to fill in many of the meadows, blocking off many of the views and trails that once crisscrossed the valley. That such meadows were created and kept open by Native Americans via periodic burnings and then by settlers through grazing is alluded to but the implications for any concept of "restoration" or "natural state" skipped over by the author. While I do not know enough about the logistics of the plan to take a position for or against this logging action, I can say that it is definitely not restoring nature as it was when the park was constructed. What it is doing is restoring the image of the park as it existed when it was popularized and propagated via promotional pamphlets, artwork, movies, and televisions. The iconic image of Half Dome and El Capitan rising over the valley is what visitors expect. Many are consumers of the "postcard vista" idea of parks, best illustrated by Mount Rushmore, and are disappointed when they do not find it. While I find such people misguided, they are at least expecting something that has been protected to a small degree (though the Valley is in pretty poor shape) but has made possible the preservation of a much larger area. </digression>.

What do all of these things have in common? They all challenge ideas of what nature and wilderness are and how we think about the boundaries and interactions between our built environment and the "other" that lies outside our comfort zone. Going back to those historians, I believe it is White who has written how nature has been defined and redefined to constitute the "other" against which we define our culture and civilization. While there are many other "others" that mark boundaries between cultures, there is definite merit behind the idea of a shifting nature/man boundary that has moved as our social, aesthetic,and economic needs have changed. But that boundary is becoming more blurred and it is easy to look behind the label and examine how true or easily made those distinctions remain. What you see when you look can tell you a lot about your frame of reference, state of mind, and cultural values, and sometimes what you see might surprise you.

Update 9/20:
Apparently Memphis, Tennessee, is also under the impression that gardens are essentially stinking, unsightly wastelands that need to be scrubbed from the community. I really do not understand these people and have no idea what this neighbor could possibly be thinking. Only two things come to mind, neither flattering. One is a Stepford Wives dystopia and the other recalls the episode of The X-Files in which a garbage monster kills members of an HOA that do not conform to a ridiculously draconian code. These people need to grow up and start addressing real problems, not attacking people trying to live healthier, be outside, and give back to their community.

Point Reyes

First off, apologies to anyone who is reading for not posting in a long time. I've been busy with a number of personal projects and other issues. It's summer now and I'm going to be making a concerted effort to do more posting more regularly.

One of the things I've been working on is some pro bono work for an environmental non profit called the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin on the Point Reyes National Seashore potential wilderness issue. Essentially the issue is this: when the park was created there was an oyster farm operating in Drake's Bay, within the boundary of the park with a lease set to expire in 2012. The enabling legislation for the National Seashore was accompanied by a committee report indicating that all commercial activity in the bay should eventually come to an end. The owners of the reservation for use and occupancy (RUO) sold their lease to the Drake's Bay Oyster Company (which knew full well of the limitations and timeline for termination). Upon the cessation of oyster farming and removal of commercial equipment, this part of the park would become officially designated wilderness (as legislatively determined). However, the DBOC successfully lobbied Sen. Diane Feinstein ("D"-CA and friend to corporate interests of all types) to insert a rider into an appropriations bill granting the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to issue a ten year extension (called a special use permit) of the lease. For more detail on the history of this issue, see the NPS' background page or the EACMarin website.

Under federal law, whenever an agency takes an action that might have environmental effects, it must complete an environmental impact statement (EAS) in fulfillment of its duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).* NEPA, however, is merely a procedural statute; it does not determine outcome. The important thing is that the process is done properly and with a full review of relevant facts and meaningful input and feedback from the public. Once the EIS is complete, the Secretary can issue a decision.

What I have been doing is providing background and assistance on NEPA and challenges to a decision made under NEPA as well as providing my opinion on various aspects of the public comment process that goes into developing the EIS. The comment period has closed, now is the time to wait for the agency's decision, continue to pressure it in appropriate ways, and prepare for potential legal challenges to the outcome (there will certainly be a legal challenge either way but because of the deference courts generally give to agencies, especially regarding scientific findings in areas of agency expertise, the agency action will likely be upheld). Still, I will update once there is a resolution.


*This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are different levels of review and different types of findings, but the need for an EIS is the only relevant issue here.