Ghosts of the 21st century

Disappearing owls, threatened forests, and the city-country conflict 6

"Ghost" is a word field biologists use to describe a species near the end of its time on earth.

Often these endangered species are birds, but in a spectacular essay in a newly internet-friendly issue of the English literary journal Granta, Robert MacFarlane slightly expands the meaning of the word.

He visits an obscure low-lying region of U.K., the Norfolk Fens, not far from the Wash, where numerous varieties of locals -- including plants, animals, and types of people -- are on the verge of being wiped out by modern agriculture, by climate change, and by indifference. He brings along a photographer, Justin Partyka, who has made capturing this land his life's work. And along the way he describes the biological concept of ghost:

A 'ghost' is a species that has been out-evolved by its environment, such that, while it continues to exist, it has little prospect of avoiding extinction. Ghosts endure only in what conservation scientists call 'non-viable populations'. They are the last of their lines.

It's a spooky concept, but well-established -- the journal Science uses the word, for example, to describe the now-famous Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.

These sort of ghosts can jolt authorities into drastic action. In the Southeast, for example, the federal government says it is prepared to spend $27 million on a plan to bring back the large, charismatic woodpecker long thought to be extinct. As of 2005, one male was known to exist, although the bird has not been captured clearly on film in decades.

(Back in the l940s, this bird was rarely seen outside a Louisiana forest known as the Singer Tract. Despite vigorous protests, the Singer sewing machine company leased this tract to loggers who clear cut the forest, reports Jay Rosen in his fascinating book The Life of the Skies: Birding at the End of Nature. Rosen, a New York City resident, became obsessed with seeing the iconic bird, and like many bird lovers spent hours and days in swampy Arkansas forests hoping to find it.)

Today in the Pacific Northwest, history is threatening to repeat this old story in a new way. Millions of acres of national forest were set aside as protected habitat to save the Spotted Owl under the Clinton administration, but, in a bitter irony, as the bird becomes increasingly rare, it becomes easier to argue that much of this forest is no longer owl habitat and shouldn't be protected.

"There really isn't any evidence to suggest that creating more habitat reserves will alter adult (owl) survivorship," said Joan Jewett, [a Bush administration spokesperson for U.S. Fish and Wildlife].

She mentioned this in the context of a new Forest Service plan to sharply cut Spotted Owl forest habitat.

Catch that?

In one remarkably bland and Cheney-esque sentence, Jewett suggests that more habitat is being proposed for the endangered spotted owl. This misleads, to put it politely, because in fact the government wants to cut the existing protected habitat by 1.6 million acres.

More than one million acres in Oregon alone would be no longer be considered owl habitat, according to a first-rate story in The Seattle Times by environmental reporter Warren Cromwell.

This move towards logging has a demographic and political logic to it, and it's much the same logic that led GOP candidate John McCain to choose the young governor of Alaska to be his running mate.

Yet another terrific essay in Granta, this one by Seattle writer Jonathan Raban, explains why:

The West is in the middle of a furious conflict between the city and the country, in part a class war, in part a generational one, which has significant political consequences. In the 2004 general election, every city in the United States with more than 500,000 inhabitants returned a majority vote for John Kerry. The election was won for Bush and the Republicans in the outer suburbs and the rural hinterlands. Much was made of 'red states' and 'blue states', but the great rift was between the blue cities and the red countryside. Environmental politics, in the form of fervent local quarrels over land use, were at the heart of this division. Beneath the talk of Iraq, health care, terrorism, gun control, abortion and all the rest lay a barely articulated but passionate dispute about the nature of nature in America.

An Oregon biologist clarified the details for me:

The ESA [Endangered Species Act] was an easy way to stop Federal logging, but at a great cost. It made all the rural voters hate endangered species, because besides losing their logging and mill jobs, their schools and county services are starving without federal timber receipt money; the Forest Service staffs are a fraction of what they were a decade ago, the logging simply shifted to private timber lands, and the situation is primed for Bush to sell off National Forest land.

To be fair, the government isn't directly killing the owls; it's just taking advantage of their problems.

The spotted owl, it turns out, is being targeted by an aggressive and invasive exotic species from the East, the barred owl. In one forest, Fish and Wildlife biologists even took to shotgunning the barred owl, to give the natives a chance.

In a preliminary test in Northern California, researchers shot seven barred owls near former spotted-owl nesting sites. Spotted owls returned to all the sites ...

Lowell Diller, a biologist with Green Diamond Resource Co., which owns the forest where the shootings took place, thinks it's a worthwhile experiment, even if it's controversial ...

"As a society we may choose not to control barred owls. But we ought to do it with the knowledge of what would it take and is it feasible," he said.

It's not the Bush administration's fault that the barred owl is picking on the spotted owl. But few biologists believe that cutting spotted owl habitat will help. Even peer-reviewers within the Forest Service doubt the logic of the ruling:

Two reviewers questioned whether the reduction of more than 1.5 million acres was consistent with the best scientific understanding of the species' conservation needs, and asked how we can justify dropping critical habitat from the current designation when the species is continuing to decline. One reviewer pointed to the work of Carroll and Johnson (in press), which indicates the current proposal will result in reduced habitat as well as reduced abundance of owls.

This admission can be found within the ruling released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in August, which was published in the Federal Register.

Still, although this large owl may be disappearing at the rate of 4 percent a year, it's still with us now. In a video sidebar to The Seattle Times story, a biologist finds a nest, and introduces us to the owlets.

It's a living reminder that the controversy over setting aside forest for the sake of the spotted owl hasn't gone away, as much as some in Washington, D.C., might wish it would.

The time may have come for bird-lovers to visit these woods, while this charismatic bird is still around, and before it becomes little more than a ghost, like its distant relative the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 5:53 am
    02 Sep 2008

    This is breathtakingGreat post, and this: In the 2004 general election, every city in the United States with more than 500,000 inhabitants returned a majority vote for John Kerry. The election was won for Bush and the Republicans in the outer suburbs and the rural hinterlands. is why the Republicans have a fit when anyone mentions transit or helping the cities.  They know what that means.
  2. Whiskerfish Posted 6:21 am
    02 Sep 2008

    Zombie speciesis, I think, a better term than 'ghost' species, and also used by ecologists to describe species that have no real chance of escaping near-term extinction.
    Whiskerfish
  3. Wolverine Posted 10:04 am
    02 Sep 2008

    Tough IssueThe West is in the middle of a furious conflict between the city and the country, in part a class war, in part a generational one, which has significant political consequences ... The ESA [Endangered Species Act] was an easy way to stop Federal logging, but at a great cost. It made all the rural voters hate endangered species, because besides losing their logging and mill jobs, their schools and county services are starving without federal timber receipt money; the Forest Service staffs are a fraction of what they were a decade ago, the logging simply shifted to private timber lands, and the situation is primed for Bush to sell off National Forest land.


    This raises some tough issues.  If we oppose logging, we're being hypocritical unless we also refrain from using wood products.  And shifting logging to private lands is almost always worse than allowing it on federal lands, because private lands have even fewer regulations.  There is also the issue that the timber companies, through their lackeys in government, made schools and county services dependent on logging revenues, creating a situation where few if any rural residents would be brave and self-sacrificing enough to oppose logging.
    But the bigger issue here is that European-Americans invaded the Americas with the same attitudes with which they destroyed the natural environments in Europe.  The Native Americans of the northwest did not kill trees in any noticeable numbers, nor did they mine or graze non-native animals like cattle.  Unfortunately, white people don't seem to know how to live without destroying everything natural (thus the question from a 19th century Native American, "Why do white people hate everything in nature?"), so now we have a situation where when environmentalists try to protect the natural world, rural people are up in arms.  And to make matters worse, it's not just rural people, but everyone who consumes the products that are a result of environmental destruction, and most of those live in cities.
    This shows just how screwed up things are.  It's not that these problems can't be solved, but doing so will take major changes in our societies and how we all live.  We must stop consuming things like large numbers of dead trees, and learn to live a lot more simply.  Otherwise, we will continue to be the cause of the sixth great extinction, with humans almost certainly being one of the extinct species.
  4. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 10:32 am
    02 Sep 2008

    Nitpicking time againan obscure region of U.K., the Norfolk Fens, not far from WalesThough by American standards nothing in the UK is very far from anything else, this is an oddly misleading statement. Wales and the Norfolk Fens are on opposite sides of the British mainland. Not an auspicious beginning to a report on environmental politics. Could this be Stolz's careless misreading for the Wash, a wide estuarine region just north of the Fens?

    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
  5. Kit Stolz's avatar

    Kit Stolz Posted 11:06 am
    02 Sep 2008

    Right, the Wash (not Wales)Spaceshaper is correct: it's corrected above.
  6. caniscandida Posted 5:14 pm
    02 Sep 2008

    Fens; owls; ghostsI would not swear to it, but I think the opening episode of Dickens's "Great Expectations," in which Pip meets the escaped convict, and, whether through terror or pity, brings him food, and tools to break his shackle, with terrific consequences later on, is supposed to take place in the Fens.  Anyway the scene is definitely some remote seaside wetland.
    Cf. also Ralph Vaughan Williams's moody fantasia of 1904, "In the Fen Country."  That is what the musicians in the band on board the Titanic wanted to play, though they were directed to play "Nearer My God to Thee," and obediently did so.
    On Barred Owls vs. Spotted Owls: The Barred Owls are indeed well established in the eastern US, but they are also well established across Canada's boreal forest, all the way to the Alaskan panhandle.  Those that are moving into the traditional range of the Spotted Owls are moving southward from British Columbia, not westward from the Mississippi valley.
    On the term "invasive": Is that term used accurately of wild animals and plants that happen to be expanding their ranges purely through "natural" conditions and circumstances, without conscious human assistance?  A good argument could be made that that is an OK usage; but it is possible that, technically, some specifically human agency is required.
    On "ghosts": Another ecological term which it is vitally important to define.  Kit Stolz does well to quote Robert MacFarlane on that.
    We need always to ask ourselves if conservation efforts on behalf of any species are inevitably going to be futile, because the species' ecosystem has changed in some crucial way.  But it is not easy to answer that.  Are Spotted Owls "ghosts" now?  Are Africa's rhinos and cheetahs "ghosts," as some suggest?  Perhaps; but that is hardly obvious to everyone.  And meanwhile, the ethical guideline should be Dum spiro, spero -- So long as I am breathing, I have hope.

    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement