Conservation Conversations

Ellary M. is a Graduate student at the University of Michigan's School for Environment and Sustainability. She holds a Bachelor's of Science from Michigan State University in Fisheries and Wildlife Management. She runs Conservation Conversations in order to engage people on current issues of conservation. While she has a vast array of interests, she is particularly concerned with the issues surrounding freshwater ecosystems, particularly around her home in the Great Lakes region She also loves fish, reptiles, and cats. Twitter:@ConservationCo6

[conservationconversations-blog1]

Neogobius melanostomus: A Well “Rounded” Case Study for the Great Lakes Region

In recent history, numerous invasive aquatic species have travelled to the Laurentian Great Lakes and brought with them a host of environmental, economic, and social problems. Round goby, aka Neogobius melanostomus (pictured above), has joined creatures such as zebra mussels, sea lamprey, and phragmites on the long list of organisms than have set up shop in the Great Lakes region despite the fact that they definitely aren’t supposed to be there. So, let’s talk about round goby, the damage they cause, and the potential lessons we can learn from them.

First discovered in the Great Lakes region in the St. Clair River in 1990, the round goby has covered a lot of ground: they now occupy all five Great Lakes and have entered the mouths of many connected rivers as well. Like their fellow invaders, the zebra mussel, the round goby is native to the Caspian Sea, Black Sea, and the Sea of Azov in Eastern Europe. Coincidentally, most managers believe that the two arrived in the Great Lakes in the same way: in the ballast water discharge from international shipping vessels.

These little fish aren’t very striking: young gobies tend to be gray, while older fish are mottled black and brown. Their pelvic fins are fused, acting like a suction cup so that the fish may hold on to stones. The only notable markings they have is the single spot on their first dorsal fin. However, insignificant as they may look, they have had disastrous consequences for the Great Lakes’ native fishes.

What’s so bad about round goby?

Round gobies are ravenous eaters of native fishes and their young. Goby feed on young fish and fish eggs, causing declines smaller native fishes (like sculpins, darters, and logperch) and sport fishes. In addition to preying on small native fishes, goby also compete with them for food and habitat.

Round goby can easily adapt their appetites to fit whatever food source is most abundant, which in many cases is zebra mussels (picture below, encroaching on a native mussel). While this may seem like a positive aspect, this means that goby have a greater number of possible food sources to pull from, allowing them to outcompete native fishes.

There is also concern over the round goby’s abilities to act as a vector for disease and toxins. How is this possible?

1.            Zebra mussels can act as hubs for avian botulism. As round gobies consume mussels, they may distribute the neurotoxin to birds that consume them

2.            When gobies consume mussels, they may acquire sediment related toxins that could be transferred to predators higher up on the food chain

Who cares?

I imagine that, by this point, you may be tired of hearing about invasive species in the Great Lakes. I completely understand. Our beloved Great Lakes have become so inundated with disruptive organisms that it can be very easy to dismiss one more fish that decided to hitchhike. After all, if you don’t fish, why should you care about round goby?

While it easy to think about invasive species in ecological or environmental terms, the tendrils of their impact often extends far beyond the lakes that they inhabit. For Great Lakes states, a thriving fish population is the lifeblood of a healthy economy. According to the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University, recreation fishing has an estimated value range of $393 million to $1.47 billion per year in the Great Lakes region (and this is in 2012 dollars!). This value is not restricted to the fish themselves, rather, it expands into the tourist industry that has been built around fishing in the Great Lakes. Every time someone decides to take a fishing trip, not only do they buy a license and fishing gear, they also purchase gas, food, and lodging. Many towns around the Great Lakes have been built on the foundation of a healthy fish population.

These benefits extend to people who commercially fish the Great Lakes as well (pictured below). The value of fish sold by state and tribal commercial operations is estimated to be worth 10-12 million dollars per year in the state of Michigan, with the overall impact on the economy estimated to be 4-5 times greater. While there are far fewer commercial fishers than recreational ones, commercial fishers bring their own value to their communities. For example, in this Great Lakes Now video Net Income, a commercial fisher-woman reports that commercial fishing can offer crucial access to protein for those who lack the money, time, or physical ability to go fishing themselves.

What can we do about round goby?

Unfortunately, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the round goby is here to stay. Given that the gobies live on the floors of the lakes and there is no way to control them without hurting other fish, there is little that can be done to get rid of them. Currently, natural resource managers are more concerned with preventing round goby from spreading to other bodies of freshwater. If you would like to know how you can help, here’s how:

·         If you come across Round Goby in a water body, and you are unsure if it has been documented there before, report it to your local conservation author

·         don’t use round goby as bait-live round goby are illegal bait in Great Lakes states

·         if you are using live bait, dispose of it properly

·         wash boating and angling equipment after each use

·         tell your neighbors about round goby and the effects they can have

Next Steps:

If there is a lesson to take from the proliferation of the Round Goby, it is one of preparation. It is no secret that humans have irreversibly affected the world around us, and invasive species such as the round goby add on to that long list of examples. However, we still have the potential to learn from our mistakes. The beautiful thing about scientific research is that we can use the data we have amassed from studying round goby and other invasive species to ensure to the best of our abilities that invasions will not happen again. In addition, we can choose to support policies the protect our native ecosystems.

According to an article published in Annual Review of Environment and Resources, preventing invasive species from entering new habitat is more cost-effective policy than attempting to get rid of them after the fact. While it is too late for us to do this with round goby, speaking to your local and state representatives about these issues can prevent history from repeating itself. You can advocate for some of the below actions to be taken in order to keep the Great Lakes great.

·         Regulations on the trade of live organisms (this could include the pet or agricultural trade)

·         Monitoring of modes of transportation that could potentially carry invasive species, both internationally and locally

·         Monitoring of highly trafficked areas so invasive species can be detected early

·         International agreements to prevent the movement of invasive species

Some of these ideas are already being addressed. For example, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 was created, in part, to stop ships from spreading invasive species with ballast water (which is what got this whole round goby issue started to begin with). Part of what set this off was the invasion of zebra mussels which were first sited in the Great Lakes in 1988, 2 years before round goby. Perhaps if some of the above strategies had been implemented with gusto after the mussels were first found, our present situation would have been avoided and we would not be talking about round goby.

If you are interested in learning more about round goby, invasive species, or the importance of healthy fish populations, please feel free to check out the sources I used (listed below). I also encourage you to do some investigating of your own!

References:

David M. Lodge, Paul W. Simonin, Stanley W. Burgiel, Reuben P. Keller, Jonathan M. Bossenbroek, Christopher L. Jerde, Andrew M. Kramer, Edward S. Rutherford, Matthew A. Barnes, Marion E. Wittmann, W. Lindsay Chadderton, Jenny L. Apriesnig, Dmitry Beletsky, Roger M. Cooke, John M. Drake, Scott P. Egan, David C. Finnoff, Crysta A. Gantz, Erin K. Grey, Michael H. Hoff, Jennifer G. Howeth, Richard A. Jensen, Eric R. Larson, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Doran M. Mason, Felix A. Martinez, Tammy J. Newcomb, John D. Rothlisberger, Andrew J. Tucker, Travis W. Warziniack, Hongyan Zhang. 2016. Risk Analysis and Bioeconomics of Invasive Species to Inform Policy and Management. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:1, 453-488.

Poe, G.L., T.B. Lauber, N.A. Connelly, S. Creamer, R.C. Ready, and R.C. Stedman. 2013. Net benefits of recreational fishing in the Great Lakes Basin: A review of the literature. HDRU Publ. No. 13-10. Dept. of Nat. Resour., N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 79 pp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrC6KYJ_bb0

https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=5

https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=713

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79136_79236_80538_80541-424724--,00.html

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-ais-neogobius-melanostomus_499884_7.pdf

https://tucanada.org/stop-the-spread-the-round-goby/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c8f5/bbfeecaeb8d3a7ca41a8271eda58b41f22b3.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/4283/text/enr

[conservationconversations-blog1]

What is the public trust doctrine, and why should Americans care about it?

When I, as an American, thinks of my given rights, there are a few that immediately spring to mind: freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, the right to an attorney, etc. However, one right that I feel many Americans are often forgetful of is our right to access to public land and resources. Strap in, we’re about to journey through the legal history of how public resources became so important to the United States.

In the United States of America, public land and resources are regulated by what is known as the Public Trust Doctrine. Public Trust Doctrine, which falls under the common law (or judge-made law) of the United States was first established in the 1800s. Public Trust Doctrine is defined as follows:

“ The principle that certain natural and cultural resources are preserved for public use, and that the government owns and must protect and maintain these resources for the public's use. For example, under this doctrine, the government holds title to all submerged land under navigable waters. Thus, any use or sale of such land must be in the public interest.”

This, in short, means that public trust doctrine gives the ownership of natural resources to the people of the United States, and the government is to be held accountable for maintaining and protecting those resources. American citizens elect government officials to maintain a trust specifically for public use.

The History of American Public Trust Doctrine

Public Trust Doctrine has a long history, extending even back to the Byzantine Empire in which Emperor Justinian “held that the sea, the shores of the sea, the air and running water was common to everyone.” Seabeds and fisheries were owned by nobility in England until the establishment of the Magna Carta in 1215, which gave those resources to the public. However, the first case to establish public ownership of resources in the United States was that of Martin v Waddell (1842)

Martin V Waddell (1842) was, believe it or not, the first case before the US Supreme Court. Martin v. Waddell, in short, gave the ownership of fishing resources to the state and thus the public had a right to fish in navigable and tidal waters. This decision was reaffirmed in the 1894 case of Shelby v. Bowlby, declaring the all states, not just the original 13 states, owned their resources in order to guarantee their continued use for the people. 

The 1892 case of Illinois Central Co. v State of Illinois City of Chicago established the roles of states as public trustees, stating the trustees could not abandon their authority over public land but could grant public land to private endeavors if it was in the interest of the public. 

The United States Supreme Court would continue to rule in favor of states rights when it came to protecting fisheries and water resources, and in the 1896 case of Geer v. Connecticut the Supreme Court extended these rights in include wildlife as well when the court ruled the Geer couldn’t take game birds he had hunted outside of the state.

The Lacey Act of 1900, which is still in effect today, was the first time the federal government clearly asserted authority over natural resources. It prevents the trade of illegally taken plants, fish, and wildlife. In addition, it regulates the introduction of animals to new areas and authorizes the Department of the Interior to assist in the reintroduction of wildlife to places where said wildlife is rare or extinct. After the creation of the Lacey Act, the regulation and protection of natural resources has increased federal importance (we see this by their use of the property clause, treaty clause, and common clause). 

We see this in the case Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979), which overturned Geer v. Connecticut (1896), when the Supreme Court ruled that a law preventing minnows from Oklahoma being sold outside the state was in violation of the commerce clause, because only congress has the authority to regulate commerce between states. (other cases that rule in favor of federal government include Hunt v. United States (1928), New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall (1969), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976)). One other factor of note is the time during which Hughes v. Oklahoma takes place: The 1970s were a decade of increased environmental regulation by the federal government. For example, the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1972, and there was also the creation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

There are whole legal classes dedicated to this subject. The nature of public trust doctrine has always open to interpretation by American law and this has made it a center of debate surrounding natural resource use and property rights. For example, proponents of public trust doctrine state that the doctrine prevents exploitation, while opponents state that it is impossible to hold people accountable in a public trust system and that expanding public trust impedes on 5th amendment rights. 

There is validity to both of these arguments! In my opinion, it is worth it for members of the judicial branch to sit down and establish what the hard and fast rules of Public Trust Doctrine are, and how they affect Americans. Does the shrinking of Bear’s Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument an example of trustees giving public land to private owners in the interest of the people? Or is it the case of the government abandoning their authority as trustees? What about the EPA permitting the Pebble Mining Company to threaten Bristol Bay, the largest natural salmon fishery in the world?

Public Trust Doctrine is designed to protect the needs of the American people, and we need to discuss what role it can play in public access to American resources in the future. 

Americans are easily ignited when it comes to infringement upon their first and second amendment rights, yet there is not much knowledge in the public sphere surrounding why it is important to the American people to maintain their access to resources. Do you like hiking? Fishing? Beaches that are free to attend? Clean air and water? If so, then you should be concerned about Public Trust Doctrine. 

There is good news though: trustees are elected officials. You, as an individual, have the power to cast your vote and make decisions on public resources. In addition, you can contact elected officials and tell them why you care about public resources. Midterms are just around the corner, and you have the opportunity to give you input on how our public resources should be managed. 

[conservationconversations-blog1]

America’s Petroleum Addiction

Global climate change has led to a worldwide push for pursuing more clean energy and leaving fossil fuels behind. Thankfully, this push is making progress! According to the International Energy Agency “in the next five years, growth in renewable generation will be twice as large as that of gas and coal combined.” In addition, renewable energy sources are expected to halve their gap with coal by the year 2022.

However, petroleum isn’t just a player in the energy market, but in many other markets as well. Looking at a comprehensive list of petroleum containing products-and trust me, it’s a lot more than you think-gives us insight into what a large task America has when it comes to kicking its petroleum addiction. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a 42 gallon barrel of oil makes around 45 gallons of petroleum. Of these 45 gallons, about 20 become gasoline. The other 25 gallons become things like jet fuel, hydrocarbon gas liquids, and ultra low sulfur distillate (as can be seen in the picture below). You may also notice the vaguely labeled “other products” uses 6 of the 45 gallons of petroleum. What are these other products?

Steve Pryor, “Consultant Energy Asset Optimization & ETRM Projects” (according to his linked in profile), posted “A Partial list of the over 6,000 products made from one barrel of oil (after creating 19 gallons of gasoline)” and the vast scope of items on the list is daunting. If you only have time for a short read, the magazine Wealth Management published the article “144 Products Made From Petroleum And 4 That May Shock You”

Some items that caught my eye in particular are:

Lipstick! Believe it or not, your berry sorbet shade of lipstick started in the same place as the gasoline in your car. Lipstick can contain petroleum jelly (petrolatum) and mineral oil, both petroleum products. Mineral Oil can cause irritation of the skin and lungs when breathed in. 

Aspirin-petroleum has been applied in biological settings as well as industrial ones. The acetylsalicylic acid derived from petroleum shares the same pain relief properties as the historically used salicin in willow bark.

Toothpaste contains compounds such as poloxamer 407 and propylene glycol, both of which are derived from petroleum. Propylene glycol has been associated with dermatitis and irritation of eyes, skin, and lungs.

Antihistimines-Beyond the fact that antihistamines are a form of medicine that many people use every day, remember that the importance of petroleum in manufacturing pharmaceuticals means that a change in the supply of petroleum can affect healthcare prices as a whole.

Approximately 3% of petroleum production is used for pharmaceutical manufacture, but nearly 99% of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived from petrochemicals (oral communication, Joyce Easter, PhD, Virginia Wesleyan College, December 2010).

I’m sure you’ve noticed that the products I decided to focus on are health/beauty related. For me, these items are noteworthy because it is very easy for them to be ingested or they come into direct contact with skin, which means that petroleum has direct access to your body. Remember that your skin has the capability to absorb things that it comes into contact with (like lotion). It’s like wearing a nicotine patch, except instead of nicotine you’re getting a dose of petroleum.  

While most of us are aware that gasoline is a petroleum product, the applications that petroleum has beyond energy is impressive. This is largely due to the chemical nature of petroleum. The majority of synthetic organic compounds are derived from petroleum (these are called petrochemicals). The importance of organic (carbon containing) compounds lie in their ability to form long chains. This allows for the creation of polymers (such as plastics and rubbers) which are extremely durable.

Polymers are valuable when it comes to manufacturing because they create a cheap, durable product. However, the beauty of these products may also be considered a detriment where the environment is concerned. The stability of organic compounds in petroleum based products is why it takes so incredibly long for a plastic bag to break down-you may hear estimates of 1000 years. 

The truth is that we don’t know exactly how long it takes for a plastic bag to break down. An article by Slate states that scientists cannot describe a specific decomposition rate because normal experiments using bacteria don’t work: most bacteria that occur naturally in landfills don’t recognize plastic as a food source, meaning plastic doesn’t get broken down. Instead, we must rely on UV radiation from the sun to break down plastics, and since plastic bags have only been around for a short time, it’s not yet possible to say how long it will take for the sun to complete the photo-degradation process. 

So, is promoting clean energy important for the end of fossil fuel dependency? Absolutely, but America’s dependency on petroleum goes a lot further than fuel. In order to create a society that produces less plastics a more biodegradable products, there is going to need to be a huge push from innovators working to create compostable products to replace the single use plastic that threatens to fill our oceans in the coming future. In the mean time, try to avoid single use plastic and try to be conscious of the materials being used in what you buy.

The good news is that there are some compostable plastics that already exist. While many of these plastics are derived from plants, there are some petroleum based compostable plastics that are certified as compostable, as well as microbial based plastics. The plastics are expected to decompose by 60% after 180 days in a commercial composting facility. However, these plastics have not yet been applied to every petroleum containing product on the market, and in some cases they may be less accessible. 

I understand that in some cases this can be asking a lot. Petroleum products are cheap, and not everyone has the means to be selective about what they buy. However, if you do have the means, at the very least try to check out the ingredients in things like your makeup, your lotion, and your toothpaste. America has been on a petroleum kick for a long time, and we are all going to have to contribute to the best of our ability if we mean to break from it. 

[textless]

[conservationconversations-blog1]

Thanos was wrong about population growth, and here’s why

So if you’re beholden to the Marvel Cinematic Universe like myself, you probably saw the movie Infinity War. If you did not, here’s a summation of the plot: a big purple guy wants to kill half the people in the universe to prevent the inevitable apocalypse/population crash due to a lack of resources, and a bunch of superheroes try to stop him. It also gave rise to a bunch of these memes:

Even though Infinity War is movie about superheroes in tights with magical powers, unregulated population growth as a theme of environmental downfall isn’t anything new. In the 1980s, biologist Paul Erlich (author of the famous book The Population Bomb) and business professor Julian Simon made a bet about whether or not growing population would drive the global economy into the ground. Simon won (If you’d like to read more about that, click here). In October of 2015, population growth was once again brought to the forefront when China ended its infamous one child policy.

However, Thanos’ fears of unregulated population growth resonate a lot with Thomas Malthus, an English scholar who wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. The basic principle of his essay was that, while population grows exponentially, food production could only grow linearly. This is demonstrated in the below graph. 

Eventually population would overshoot its resources and disaster would ensue. Malthus’ solutions include preventative checks, which lower birth rate, and positive checks, which raise death rate. These checks would be performed through actions such as promoting celibacy, contraception, delaying marriage, and, on a more extreme end, hunger, disease, and war.

While it is undeniable there is a limited number of people that the planet can support, the question we are dealing with right now is what that number actually is. The answer, as it is for so many tough questions, appears to be flexible. The United Nations projects that the world population will reach 8.9 billion people by the year 2050, and the majority of this growth will come from developing countries. Whether or not the earth can support this number of people is reliant on the amount of resources that each person consumes. 

There is also the fact that consumption is largely unequal. The World Watch institute writes:

 “ While the consumer class thrives, great disparities remain. The 12 percent of the world’s population that lives in North America and Western Europe accounts for 60 percent of private consumption spending, while the one-third living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2 percent.”

However, the amount of resources consumed per household is not only growing in developed countries, but also continues to climb globally. World wide, consumption expenditures grew by four times between 1960 and 2000, topping $20 trillion. This means there is a greater desire for items of a particular status, such as televisions, devices that access the internet, and a larger amount of meat in diets. This is not to say that consumption is becoming more equal. For instance, even though China and India have more consumers than Western Europe, the average European still consumes more. 

It is not news to anybody that there is disparity in accessibility to resources across the world. However, limiting over consumption, along with technological advances (such as genetically modified crops, new recycling techniques, and clean power), can help create equal opportunities for people in the world who have less, and can shift our fears away from population growth. The growing consumer class needs to find a way to eliminate things that they do not need, or simply find more efficient ways to consume that are less destructive to the environment. So, we who have access to bountiful resources need to learn that we don’t need to consume as much as we do and work to implement systems that promote sustainable living.

In addition, by providing more equitable access to resources we can also initiate one of Malthus’ less harmful solutions: using education to delay pregnancy. The World Bank states that, as a general trend, the more educated a woman is, the fewer children she is likely to bear. And if you think resource inequality and education don’t have anything to do with each other, think again. According to The World Bank:

“One randomized control trial found that reducing the cost of school uniforms in Kenya not only reduced dropout rates, but also reduced teenage marriage and childbearing.”

Providing equal access to education is no longer just a matter of human rights, it may be a matter of survival for the planet as a whole. Women are biologically necessary to produce children, and its important to remember that helping a woman achieve higher education can not only prevent unwanted pregnancy but also make the world a better place.

So, if you’d like to do your part to fight Thanos, you don’t need a magic ax or a shield made of extremely rare metal. You need something much more radical: a global society that emphasizes equal access to resources and education opportunities for all. 

If you’d like to get started on contributing towards a world that consumes less wastefully, here are a few things you can do:

Shop smart: buy only what you need, try to prevent food waste and consume perishables as fast as possible 

Consume fewer animal products

Purchase items in packaging that can easily be re-purposed or recycled, or purchase items that have no packaging at all. You can even bring your own bags or containers! Try to avoid single use plastic. 

Walk, cycle, or use public transportation if you can. Fly as infrequently as possible

Recycle!

Create wildlife habitat in your yard or garden if you have the space

This is the MOST important. Reduce! Think about what you actually need when shopping. The developed world is a very accommodating place, and if you have the ability to consume less, do what you can to prevent buying unnecessary things.