Wolves are one of North America’s most fascinating indigenous species but they also pose a major threat to cattle populations. While poaching wolves is illegal, culling of wolves by government officials and trophy hunting have historically been used to keep wolf populations in check. However, Guillaume Chapron of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Adrian Treves of the University of Wisconsin-Madison recently conducted a study on wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan and found that state laws that opened up legal culling actually slowed population growth–a notable problem for America’s wolf population.

The logic for legal culling is simple: it was assumed that these outlets for hunting would limit illegal poaching and would encourage Americans to coexist with the wolf population. The wolf population would continue to grow without hovering to the point of extinction, as locals will not feel the need to illegally hunt the animals. Including legal culling is a cornerstone of “carnivore management,” which deals with carnivorous populations in the wild that can pose a threat to human life but can also coexist with humans when handled correctly.

Wolves are not the only predators that conservationists have difficulty handling–African lions, grizzly bears and other large carnivores present a massive challenge. Consider that a set of brown bears released into the wild in Italy last year had to be hunted down after they attacked several humans. Whereas conservationists can hope to release animals like pandas and elephants back into the wild, large carnivores that are held for some time may never be able to return to the wild because they are so dependent on a stable ecosystem that consistently supplies them with their daily meat intake. Wolves historically could have eaten bison but now the bison is a protected animal, a population which the United States has a vested interest in preserving. When one species in the food chain becomes off limit, it is difficult to deal with its predators. Farmers across the nation are eager to receive the “right to kill” wolves who threaten their cattle but a survey conducted by Washington State University found that killing wolves who attack livestock can actually backfire. Researchers hypothesized that:

Killing an adult wolf can disrupt the entire (complicated) social system of the grey wolf pack…killing adult wolves may end up locking their offspring to the place where they were killed: without parents to keep them sexually distinct and roaming, the way they normally would, pups may settle down prematurely, having their own pups earlier than normal, and sticking to the place where they became independent — the place where their parents were killed.

These pups then go on to eat local livestock, just as their parents did, rather than roaming to different areas where they might be able to feast on rabbits and other small mammals that have no financial value for ranchers. Wolves are imperfect creatures, that simultaneously threaten human livelihood (ranching) while also desperately dependent on humans for their survival (conservation), but they are part of the American landscape and we are responsible for their future. Containing a large carnivorous species is not an easy task, but with new evidence suggesting that legal culling and “right to kill” laws are not having the desired effect, conservationists and government officials may need to rethink how best to preserve the wolf population.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Hunting American Wolves: Conservation or Extinction? appeared first on Law Street.

New York state Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced the New York State Lights Out Initiative, which is a program that couples with the Audubon Society’s efforts to reduce the light pollution that disorients birds during peak migration seasons. From April 15–May 31 and August 15–November 15 state owned buildings will turn off non-essential outdoor lighting from 11 PM to dawn. This small measure will make a big difference directly for the birds, but will also have many indirect implications in favor of conservation efforts.

A phenomenon called Fatal Light Attraction causes migratory birds, who often navigate with the stars, to become disoriented due to all the specks of light on the ground. Estimates suggests that between 500 million and one billion birds die annually as a result, mainly through flying into windows, walls, or the ground. These are direct deaths; considering that these birds are on their way to breeding grounds at the time, one can argue that the damage to their populations reverberates in the form of a lesser amount of breeding and eggs produced.

Image courtesy joiseyshowaa via Flickr

In addition to the mandatory outdoor light cutbacks, many buildings are being encouraged to draw their blinds and reduce indoor lighting when possible as well. Furthermore, private citizens are welcome to participate in any or all of these measures. It is also worth noting, from a non-bird but a general conservation standpoint, that these actions will reduce the consumption of electricity for a substantial amount of hours over the course of many months. This in and of itself is a gain as well.

As a supplement to the Lights Out measure, Governor Cuomo launched an I Love New York Birding website; a site with a plethora of information regarding bird watching techniques, ideal locations, and other information of a relevant nature. This way, people can become more educated on the importance and beauty of our birds and become more engaged with nature.

Direct engagement with nature by the populace is one of the most important measures that can be taken in the name of conservation. In addition to the increases in pollution, consumption, and other ailments of modern society that directly damage the environment, when people tend to feel more detached from the natural world it indirectly suffers from that attitude. The more people feel that nature is all around them, interact with the ecosystem, or spend time immersed in nature, the more likely they are to value and protect it. This is not an abstract theory. A study by Cornell University demonstrated that bird watchers are among the largest demographics to support conservation. While factors such as age, education, and political ideology played roles as well, they were dwarfed by influences that involve direct interaction with nature.

Image courtesy of the U.S. National Archives via Flickr

Thus the Lights Out initiative targets one of the key draws to conservation. Yet one does not have to be a bird watcher in order to care about the environment and take measures in its defense. While other outdoor activities such as hiking, biking, and water sports may also lend themselves in a similar fashion to a conservation ethos as bird watching does, any sympathetic sentiment is productive to these objectives. In the meantime, the actual act of turning off these lights will certainly benefit the local bird populations. This is a great program, and hopefully it becomes a tradition.

Feature image courtesy of [Chris Goldberg via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lights Out: These Small Steps Help Conservation Efforts appeared first on Law Street.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that a large swath of the Pacific Ocean in British territory will be delineated for protection. Focusing around the Pitcairn Islands in the center of the South Pacific, this reserve will be larger than California and represents a very momentous step forward in conservation.

Beneath the unassuming Pitcairn Island lies an aquatic wonderland. Courtesy of Fotorus via Flickr.

The marine habitat in this region is a thriving and delicate ecosystem. Due to its remoteness, human impact has been minimal; scientists are under the impression that there exist here a substantial number of species yet to be discovered. Furthermore, there are coral reefs, submerged mountains, and water quality of a cleanliness difficult to match elsewhere on Earth.

Prior to the designation as a reserve, threats to the health of the place loomed as illegal fishing activity has been drawing near in recent years. Seafloor mining is also now out of the equation. Old fashioned, low-scale fishing by the 60 or so residents of Pitcairn Island itself, most widely known as the settlement site of the mutineers in Mutiny on the Bounty, will be permitted.

So why is protecting this region such a big deal? First of all, for the sake of the locals and for the British government, the pristine, beautiful region is now guaranteed to remain so, and tourism is expected to increase. The Pitcairn Island is so remote that it is not often that people venture down there. In fact, National Geographic Explorer Enric Sala pointed out that between boats and planes it takes most people longer to arrive there than at the Moon. But applying this protective title increases its appeal. Furthermore, the loss of about $30,000 per year in fishing licenses would be easily recovered by tourist revenue and the benefits of being designated an Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific. Courtesy of USFWS-Pacific Region/Jim Maragos via Flickr.

Anything that can be done to preserve the health of an ecosystem is desirable. Just because the region around the Pitcairn Island is remote does not mean that any damage it might suffer would not affect other areas on the planet. We have already seen how human beings themselves, in addition to both aquatic and land-bound biodiversity, face threats from accumulating plastic in the oceans. A complex chain of relationships means that even a slight disturbance can cover large geographic and biological distances.

It is more difficult to think of a distant and highly inaccessible portion of the ocean as needing protection from humans, or as being vulnerable to human activity, as it is to regard portions of the land such as rainforests or mountain ranges as such. While we more easily and often see the consequences of our actions on land, we are more detached from the oceans and conditions in the water, both geographically and mentally. For this former reason, the last century has seen the creation of a wealth of national parks, UNESCO biosphere reserves, and vocal conservation organizations. These policies have done many great things to advocate for the health of the land, but only just recently have these motivations extended to the seas.

Marine reserves are oceanic equivalents of national parks. They are protected areas, encourage people to come see their beauty, and make statements as to the importance of our environments. The new Pitcairn reserve represents one of the largest manifestations of that sentiment, spreading environmental awareness and conservation to the farthest corners, yet equally interconnected, portions of the globe.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Part of the Pacific is Being Legally Protected; Here’s Why It’s Important appeared first on Law Street.

Next Monday begins the week-long tradition of the New Jersey black bear hunt. During this process, between 250-300 bears of a population that tends to dance around a total of 3,400 north of Interstate 80 are “harvested” so as to keep their numbers in check. The reasons for this hunt and the manners in which it is pursued are controversial, and there may exist more progressive and responsible alternatives.

The general argument is that black bear populations can get out of control; they encroach upon our territory and into our backyards, and the likelihood of people experiencing dangerous encounters with them increases. We do not pause to consider that human populations might be the ones getting out of control. Rampant development and overbuilding in the North Jersey area means habitat damage for all manners of local wildlife. As forests are bulldozed, bears’ homes are destroyed. Furthermore, the homes of the animals on which they prey are destroyed as well, meaning that they all must relocate. This concentrates bears into smaller areas, which might produce the illusion that there are more of them while in actuality we simply see them more frequently.

The extensive building does not effectively take into account animal geographies; that is to say, the routes and manners in which they travel, hunt, court and mate, and go about their business. As we build out of control, bears are channeled into ever narrowing corridors or their paths are completely blocked, forcing them to pass through our backyards. We should also keep in mind that leveling wooded areas might put a strain on their food supply; the common image of a black bear sifting through people’s trash might not be a result of overly aggressive and bold bears seeking out human habitat in order to feed, but a last resort to which we have reduced them.

A site of deforestation and habitat destruction. Courtesy of crustmania via Flickr.

The very concept that a large and occasionally predatory animal such as a bear is constantly undergoing a population explosion seems to run contrary to the laws of nature. The food chain is a pyramid; the things on the bottom are the most numerous and as one ascends there are fewer and fewer of those creatures that prey on them. For example, as plants are at the bottom of every food chain, their numbers are astronomical. Then, the small rodents that eat them are naturally less numerous than the plants on which they feed, and the foxes that eat those rodents are fewer still. Bears are very large and, while they feed on roots, berries, and things of that nature as well, there would first have to be population explosions at every level of the food chain below them if their own numbers were to get out of control.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council’s black bear management policy declares that it intends to consider

The cultural carrying capacity, which is the number of bears that can co-exist compatibly with the local human population in a given area in concert with the biological carrying capacity of the land to support bears.

There are two things wrong with this statement. The first, in conjunction with the previous discussion, is that it presumes to take into our own hands the bear population for the sake of the biological carrying capacity of the local environment. It assumes that the exploding bear population will overwhelm the local ecosystem and it is our responsibility to keep it in check. Again, if the population is growing rampantly it is because the ecosystem is flourishing in a manner so as to support it; the bears will not simply increase on their own. Therefore the ecosystem would maintain its balance. If for some reason at a particular point in time the bear population was unusually large, competition for food, shelter, and reproduction would increase and some bears would lose out and die off. Thus the ecosystem would self regulate. That’s the point; these things occur naturally all the time. Humans do not need to step in and play God.

The second problem with the management policy’s statement is that it assumes bear populations are the only factor in measuring the quality of the cultural carrying capacity. It declares that only a certain number of bears is suitable for a healthy carrying capacity; then if their populations get too high things go wrong. Why must this be the determining factor? Instead, if the unlikely situation arises that their populations do rise substantially, why can’t we readdress our own behavior, building policies, and attitudes and interactions with the environments of which we are a part? Why do we absolve ourselves of any responsibility? On the local level, humans aren’t exactly putting checks on their own populations; it is always others who are in the wrong and must get out of the way.

Let’s assume the bear populations are in fact rising. How is this determined? A team uses a DNA sampling technique in order to estimate the number of actively breeding bears in the region. Based on this, the total number is subsequently calculated. This method is supposedly more accurate than the more traditional catch, tag, and release systems. Be that as it may, does the hunt account for this delicate dynamic or do we shoot indiscriminately? What if, say, 80 percent of the bears killed during a particular hunt are active breeders? This could potentially devastate the bear population. It is not simply a matter of how many bears should or should not be killed, but which ones and where.

Courtesy of Tim Lumley via Flickr.

Rather than turn to black bears as scape goats, we should admit that we are causing habitat destruction and environmental damage. The validity of the black bear management policy has been questioned in the past, but to no avail. On the basis of not just science and policy but inward social reflection and questions of human behavior and value systems, it is time to challenge it again.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Change the Problematic New Jersey Black Bear Hunt appeared first on Law Street.

Plastic is an absolutely amazing material. It is durable, light, portable, and malleable. It can be made into virtually any product we can imagine. It can be recast, recycled, and reused. It plays a role in every material aspect of our modern lives. But it is usually non-biodegradable, leeches toxins, and if not handled properly can be dangerous to land and ocean environments, animals, and ourselves.

One of the factors that complicated the search for Malaysia Flight 370 last spring was the Indian Ocean Gyre. A gyre is a system of cyclically moving ocean currents, tied into trade winds and the Coriolis Effect. There are five major ones on Earth: in the North and South Atlantic, in the North and South Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The inexorable motion of the water constantly cast question marks as to where to search for the crashed plane. As the weeks dragged on, the likelihood of locating it in the predetermined locations dwindled; it could have been anywhere by then. Furthermore, search & rescue operators were deceived time and again by what they thought was plane debris. In actuality, it was plastic. The gyres are choked with floating garbage and plastic, earning them the nickname “garbage patches.”

The Earth’s major gyres, courtesy of NOAA via Wikipedia.

Among other things, the 2008 documentary “Addicted to Plastic” details an excursion to the Eastern Garbage Patch in a section of the North Pacific Gyre. Watch the trailer below.

Director Ian Connacher related that the patch is not so much a floating landfill whose contents can be systematically scooped out, but is spread out over an area the size of Western Europe requiring constant painstaking and ultimately minimally effective sifting.

Furthermore, this is not just an aesthetic problem. All new plastic begins life as a “nurdle:” a small pellet that can subsequently be made into whatever product desired. Nurdles account for a large percentage of ocean gyre garbage. In addition, plastic accumulates pollutants such as oils, toxins, and other things that we have also dumped or let run off into our oceans. To the eyes of many fish and birds, nurdles resemble fish eggs and are subsequently eaten. They can choke the animals because they are indigestible, or they can poison the animals because they are riddled with toxins. Then in a process of bioaccumulation, larger fish who eat many of the smaller fish that have ingested nurdles subsequently carry the toxins (and the plastic). Many of these fish are ones that people eat as well; the plastic and toxins work their way back to us and endanger our health, too.

Most of the plastic in the garbage patches arrived there not because it was dumped over the side of ships, but because it was carelessly tossed into the water systems or left on the shores; ocean plastic has worked its way there from the land. Therefore trying to pick all the trash out of the gyres does not stop the problem at the source. The plastic industry is highly flawed and needs to be more properly operated. Greenpeace and others have suggested that governments facilitate more recycling infrastructure and consumers be more conscientious about their use of plastic bags and purchasing products with a lot of plastic packaging. They add that a lot of potential lies with corporations, in regulating and intelligently choosing their plastics. For example, those micro beads in exfoliating products are disastrous and should be eliminated.

These things are only part of the problem, though. Connacher is of the opinion that the regulation of the recycling process and the decisions of corporations in the production process need to be more seamlessly intertwined and cooperative. That is to say, there are problems that make the recyclability of plastic less effective. The cap and ring on a soda bottle is a different type of plastic than is the container. One might be recyclable while the other is not. If they both can be recycled, that may not necessarily be at the same location or by the same means. Inevitably, things get lost in translation. There is nothing that we the consumers can do about this except put our plastics in the bins and hope that everything gets recycled–and properly. Yet these are not unsolvable problems. Scientists in parts of Europe are proposing a “circular economy” with regard to plastics, the idea of which is that “…products must be designed with end of life recovery in mind.” This process has more to do with providing incentives for people to recycle, but theoretically can be applied to the design and production process as well.

“Addicted to Plastic” also provides hope, recounting stories of people who took creative initiative in order to get some of the otherwise wasted plastic out of the environment and put it to productive use. People reduce their plastic consumption on community levels, and researchers and scientists find new types of plastic that are more biodegradable or less toxic. There are things we can do to make the production process better as well as things we can do to address the problematic plastic that is already out there. It requires more than picking it up off the ground or out of the water. It requires major changes, many of which will be difficult. A set of issues like this tends to be overlooked because it does not appear as pressing as climate change or energy regimes; however, it is operating on a global scale, and pervades every aspect of human geography and life. We can emerge victoriously out of our throwaway culture.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just How Bad is Our Culture of Plastic Obsession? appeared first on Law Street.

Stepping away from the Bedouin camp, I gingerly ventured into Israel’s Negev Desert. A sufficient number of yards out, the few lights emanating from the settlement had been reduced to a glow in the distance. Having grown up outside of New York City, the bright lights often projected a yellow-orange hue onto the night sky. Every now and then under ideal conditions, the nearest and brightest stars would puncture the cloak, enabling a view of the Big Dipper, Orion, and some others. But out in the Negev, the sky was unencumbered by such drapes and positively glittered. A pale band of light unfolded across the view, dividing the sky in half. This was the Milky Way itself; I was looking from the inside out with a horizontal view of one of the spiral arms of our galaxy. I stood there frozen in time, awestruck and amazed. Ever since human beings emerged from their caves we have stared at the sky and wondered. We have pondered what it is like out there, where we came from, and how to find out. In this amazing age of technology and intellect, we are finally in a position to start answering those questions.

The latest giant leap in the exploration of the final frontier occurred on November 12 when the Philae landing probe of the Rosetta spacecraft touched down on the surface of Comet 67P, 310 million miles away. After a ten-year journey, Rosetta and its components represent the first occasion of a man-made object rendezvousing with a comet. Launched by the European Space Agency, its mission is to answer questions such as, “What were conditions like at [the solar system’s] infancy and how did it evolve? What role did comets play in this evolution? How do comets work?”

Comets tend to be very old celestial bodies. Studying their composition and internal dynamics may shed light on what the composition of the solar system was during the early periods of its formation. Furthermore, some theories suggest that life on Earth arose as a consequence of comets, rich in carbon, passing by overhead and depositing the crucial element on the planet. Delving into the comet’s nature might help to understand if and which aspects of this assertion are reliable.

Comet 67P, Courtesy of ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM via WIkipedia.

Some people criticize space missions in their entirety, questioning their purpose. General intellectual curiosity is one of the greatest attributes of human civilization; the ability to ask questions and seek answers is what makes us successful. In addition, the quest for intelligent life beyond our own atmosphere remains a productive cause. Regardless of whether one believes that there exist such entities or not, the only way to answer the questions is to try to find them. Some people are intimidated by the vast distances between points A and B in the galaxy and the immense amounts of time it takes to get there. The ten years required to make the Rosetta mission happen is a poignant example; however, we must remember that we are still at the early stages of space exploration.

As the renowned astronomer Carl Sagan pointed out, the amount of time required to travel from the Earth to another location in the solar system is comparable to the months or more necessary for European explorers in sailing ships to travel the local seas to the far reaches of the New World. In modernity, we hop these distances in no time at all. We stand at an early and exciting stage of space exploration, due to advance our civilization and guaranteed to become more seamless with time. We are, as Sagan eloquently put it, “on the shores of the cosmic ocean.”

Furthermore, as we continue to threaten the health of our planet and our own existence therein, it might be wise to seek contingency plans. While it is a valid criticism that the search for “earth-like” planets is a narrow-minded quest for intelligent life, as there might exist other forms of life which do not require air to breathe or water to drink or are not based on carbon. We know what humans need to survive and so seeking out celestial bodies of this nature can still be to our benefit. While the idea of needing to abandon Earth because we pushed it into an inhospitable state is deplorable, it is a harsh reality for which we should not be unprepared.

On the other hand, this sounds like a get out of jail free card; we can do as we like with the Earth because we will have other places to go once we wreck it. This does not teach us to change our ways and be more responsible, as does the urgency of a one planet, one chance concept. It undercuts the entire concept of sustainability; no longer would we think of the Earth as a closed system in which it is necessary to run as close to 100 percent efficiency as possible. What’s to stop us from taking our civilization to a new planet and inflicting the same havoc there? Society is not in a position to expand its reach beyond the planet if we cannot first live healthfully, responsibly, and productively here. Who knows what kinds of consequences an industry like deep space mineral mining and importing back to Earth could have.

Yet if we are careful and insightful we can still learn and improve. Just as different types of natural and human environments are not closed systems but rather are interrelated and inextricably intertwined, the Earth in and of itself is not in fact a closed system but very much entrenched in its surrounding solar system and cosmic environment. The more we probe and explore, the better we can understand those dynamics and interactions just as we seek to understand the ones here at home. Ideally we will be a sustainable civilization by the time we officially establish our presence elsewhere, but in the meantime it is exciting and promising to look around and dream about going where no one has gone before.

The Voyager II space probe: epitome of mankind’s ambition, Courtesy of NASA/JPL via Wikipedia.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comet 67P: Small in Size, Massive in its Implications appeared first on Law Street.

The past couple of weeks saw observance of the Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which are the new year and day of repentance, respectively. As the year 5775 begins, some Jews are also noting that this is a shmita year.

The ancient Jewish agricultural cycle followed a rotation of seven years. On the seventh, reminiscent of the Creation story, a rest is mandated. This is called shmita, or “release.” The primary purpose was to let the land regenerate after six years of intensive farming. Allowing the nutrients to return to the soil would provide for more productive harvests in the future. This tradition is indicative of an early awareness of the importance of environmental conservation, long before systematic use of fertilizers or any modern concepts of sustainability.

The ancient trading empire of Phoenicia, in what is today Lebanon, was noted for its purple dye. This was a major export product and source of revenue and wealth in the Phoenician economy. Numbers:15 in the Old Testament states

“38. Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue. 39. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord…”

Like Phoenician purple, this blue dye was drawn at the time from an uncommon mollusk. When tied into economic forces and trading opportunities, the mollusk became endangered and prices for the dye skyrocketed. Eventually, pressure eased in conjunction with more steadfast observance of shmita. Herein lies an early example of biodiversity conservation. The Biblical commandment is acknowledged in modernity by the colors and patterns of the Jewish prayer shawl, called a talit.

A talit and kippah, courtesy of James MacDonald via Flickr

There were social obligations associated with shmita as well. Since farmers did not actively grow crops at this time, any fruits or edible plants that grew on their own were deemed communal. This suggests a more cooperative economic and social system. Furthermore, outstanding debts were often forgiven and many indentured servants were released from their obligations.

Rabbi Ari Enkin suggests that the Talmud, another holy Jewish text, declares that the purpose of shmita is to remember that the land does not belong to people, but to God. This is further enforced, he argues, by the fact that God provides for people even when they do not work the land. In addition, some interpretations suggest that shmita enables hardworking farmers to take a break from their burdens and refocus their energies. Often this came in the form of more religious worship and, when in conjunction with the realization that the surrounding world belongs to God, reinforces faith in Him.

Extensive farmlands in the Golan Heights, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Especially considering that this very ancient practice referred to farming, and specifically in Israel, what modern, global applications and lessons besides direct environmental ones can we glean from it? Yom Kippur is the day of repentance; Jews seek forgiveness from God and from other people for the sins they have committed over the last year. This enables for a fresh start, or a clean slate as is commonly articulated. An important component of this custom is, as an individual, to be willing to grant forgiveness to those who seek it from you. This is as vital to a modern cooperative social system as was the ancient forgiveness of debts and release of servants. Incessant burdens, bitter memories, and grudges damage the individual just as incessant agriculture damages the soil and land. Shmita is an emotional “release” as well, vital for one’s health. It is important to step back, take a break, and start over fresh after a little while.

Though the esoteric Talmudic interpretation that the land belongs to God might not be as universally appealing in 2014, the general principle that the environment is a force that operates largely on its own terms is an important lesson. Perhaps a more suitable wording would be that the environment belongs to the Earth. Just as the ancient Jews recognized that they were part of a larger system that included things beyond their control, we too exist in such a dynamic. In addition, the Hebrews of old recognized that their actions could have consequences of an environmental nature, which in turn would affect their well being and livelihoods because they were deeply intertwined with their surrounding ecologies. This remains true today, and in our technological and globalized society the severity of the consequences of our actions are more alarming than ever. Finally, the very manners in which we think, identify, and behave are inspired in part by our very environments and their roles in our lives.

The environment is not an abstract set of ideas from which we are detached. It contributes substantially to who we are; acting in its benefit is mutually beneficial. May the new year bring release and a clean slate, and kindle hopes for our futures.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Alexander Smolianitski via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shmita: The Jewish Calendar Year of Environmental Conservation appeared first on Law Street.

The five-foot high tires were insufficient to prevent the specially designed bus from jostling about as it turned off the road and toward the Columbia Ice Field in Alberta, Canada. The massive carpet of ice expanded in all directions upon disembarkation, as I walked about the sheet that was hundreds of feet thick and thousands of years old. A small stream of water meandered by. It was water only recently thawed; water that had frozen before industrialization and heavy increases in air pollution. I cupped my hands in the crystal and cold flow and sipped. It was perfect. I was eight years old, enthralled, and officially a nature lover.

The Columbia Ice Field Snow Coach, courtesy of Leonard G. via Wikipedia

Four years later we returned to the Canadian Rockies to immerse ourselves in the wilderness once more, without any doubt that we would pay a visit to the Columbia Field. The bus again turned off the road, but this time onto an expanse of grey rock. We were in the same location as last time, but the glacier was not there. It still existed, but was far in the distance. In only a few years it had melted substantially, retreating into the mountains. I was 12 years old, horrified, and officially an environmental activist.

Glaciers are the most visible manifestation of climate change. Photographer James Balog utilized this concept in an attempt to bring to the forefront the urgency of the issue. In his project Extreme Ice Survey, he and his crew mounted 25 cameras to take snapshots of glacial activity every daylight hour for three years, yielding distressing results as to the rapidity of glacial melting. The project was documented in the 2012 film Chasing Ice.

Some argue that the situation is not so severe, as glaciers ebb and flow with the seasons. The guide at the Columbia Ice Field related that the sheet rises 50 feet in the winter and melts 80 feet in the summer. Therefore, while it does grow in the cold months, there is an overall trend of recession. Further, many glaciers consistently recede regardless of season.

A study in the Yukon from 1958-2008, Chasing Ice explains, tracked 1,400 glaciers in the region. Over the course of the half century, four grew, 300 disappeared entirely, and the other 1,096 shrunk. Though they are powerful symbols of environmentalism and conservation, these figures do not solely embody a concern for saving the glaciers. Despite the fact that they are often portrayed in tandem with other champions of conservation, such as polar bears and their struggles to survive in the face of melting ice sheets, the issues at hand are a microcosm of the challenges of mitigating the causes and repairing the consequences of human-induced climate change.

A recent article in the Alaska Dispatch News explored the potential effects of climate change on said state’s tourism industry. The U.S. Forest Service in Juneau has expressed concern over the shrinkage of several notable glaciers as they withdraw from the line of sight at lookout points, reducing the number of annual visitors. Furthermore, the author relates, a study suggested that melting permafrost might increase the region’s susceptibility to invasive species and shorten ski seasons.

The study attempts to take an optimistic angle in the face of these ominous developments, suggesting that the extended summer cruise season and concept of “last chance to see it” are about to create a short-lived boom in the tourism industry there. These are very shallow cheers. A “last chance” promotion is not financially sustainable for the long term of tourism, and more importantly, it is not an acceptable response to the threats to the environment there. Nor is it acceptable to sit back and allow unnatural change to occur, capitalize on the new reality, and allow the old state of things to disappear and be destroyed. While Alaska is beautiful in the fair weather and expanded opportunities for a summertime vacation there are enticing, that is not what the place was originally like before substantial human intervention. There are plenty of locations across the globe to which one can venture for a summer retreat; Alaska should be visited for what it was, and for what it ought to remain.

A cruise ship docked in Ketchikan, AK, courtesy of blmiers2 via Flickr

What Alaska was, and ought to remain, has figured substantially in American cultural identity and early manifestations of the conservation movement. In 1879, John Muir made his first trip to the wild lands. Many followed in his footsteps, including an expedition in 1899 on which a crew of scientists noted how deforestation, clear cutting, over fishing, and animal slaughtering were already stripping Alaska of its natural resources. One of the scientists later published a study arguing that the mining activities there, as the Yukon Gold Rush was in full swing, were not sustainable in the long run; Alaska’s economic future, he prophesied, lay in wilderness (eco) tourism. Furthermore, as historian Douglas Brinkley relates, Muir believed that the more people saw of Alaska’s frozen wonders, the more likely they were to become conservationists.

These two concepts formed powerful components of Teddy Roosevelt’s platform and presidential objectives. He agreed with the naturalist William H. Dall in seeing Alaska as “…having ecological, moral, scientific, and spiritual values that would help reserve the frontier spirit.” Regardless of truth or falsehood, the frontier mythos and concepts of rugged individualism played important roles in American identity. By the early 1900s, Manifest Destiny had brought the United States border to the Pacific Coast; Alaska was dubbed the final frontier. The wilderness, presumably so vital in the development of values and Americana, had to be preserved here if American culture was to survive. Enabling people to get in touch with nature would, as writer and environmentalist Aldo Leopold stated, “build receptivity for ecosystems in human thinking.”

Teddy Roosevelt (left) and John Muir (right) in Yosemite National Park, CA. Courtesy of Library of Congress via Wikipedia.

The growing awareness and value systems resulting from human contact with nature helped in the latter’s preservation, and continues to do so to this day. It worked for me; the spiritual beauty of the glacier inspired an appreciation in my heart for the natural world and its right to survive. In order to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, it must endure in order to inspire people and societies to maintain it. The current tourism industry in Alaska must remain focused on the real environments and benefits of the North. Establishing national parks to protect lands has helped in the past, as the main threats to the environment were direct human activities such as logging. Now, the threats are more varied in source and wider in scope. It will take many actions on multiple fronts to retain an interest in the locale and take the necessary steps to maintain the state of things there. The glaciers and tundra of Alaska and the Arctic are not a desolate wasteland, but places of great aesthetic value to be admired in their own right.

As John Muir wrote:

“Though the storm beaten ground it is growing on is nearly half a mile high, the glacier centuries ago flowed over it as a river flows over a boulder; but out of all the cold darkness and glacial crushing and grinding comes this warm, abounding beauty and life to teach us that what we in our faithless ignorance and fear call destruction is creation finer and finer.”

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change, Melting Glaciers, and the Future of Alaskan Tourism appeared first on Law Street.

Deep within the heart of the notoriously dangerous and underdeveloped city of Paterson, New Jersey, lies a scenic waterfall of historical and environmental significance.

In 1778, Alexander Hamilton picnicked in the vicinity and was impressed with the power of the Passaic River and its Great Falls. The brilliant and foresighted founding father envisaged water as a source of power for the industries of the new and developing nation. Hamilton’s work, including founding an organization called the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, did in fact result in the river and waterfall providing power for the region, including the newly founded city of Paterson, which it continues to do to this day.

Alexander Hamilton: Paterson’s founder and the Great Fall’s promoter. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The Paterson Great Falls area is supervised by the National Park Service and the US Department of the Interior. Many people have not heard of this all, much less the fact that it is a national park. Granted, one might not visualize this place alongside Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, or Old Faithful; however, this is not a consequence of its inferiority or failure to provide for its visitors a transcendental experience in nature. Rather, the National Park Service, and We, the People, have forgotten about it and let it languish.

One can be easily misled by the high quality literature received upon arrival. An NPS map delineates the site along with trails and overlooks. Another references an audio guided walking tour around the park and other local points of interest. None of these things is a particularly viable option for the curious tourist or visiting family. The trails have fallen into a state of disrepair, or are completely closed for renovations, the completion dates of which are vague. The limited angles by which one can view the falls do not effectively convey their beauty. Furthermore, in order to get there one must wade through an accumulation of trash on the grassy area. At one point, I picked up and threw out a deflated balloon. This was particularly frustrating because of the dangers these items pose to local animals; a hedgehog scampered by shortly thereafter.

Minimal access in the park. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

On the day I attended, there happened to be a decent number of people present because a small lecture was scheduled. It had recently been the anniversary of the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, and so some people came out to hear the historic tale. Otherwise, I am told by some associates who had explored the park on an average day, the place tends to be relatively vacant. The brochure map indicated a visitor center across the street; I figured it would be productive to look into it and acquire more information. All I found, though, was an empty parking lot and building with no signs or indicators. Was this it? There was no evidence in any of the literature, nor at this building itself, that the center was under renovation or closed. Upon further research at home, I discerned that this empty building was in fact the Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center and its overhaul should be completed later this summer.

The Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

It is a disgrace in its own right that this historically and environmentally significant location has fallen into such a state of disrepair, under-appreciation, and under-attendance, but there are economic and social factors at play here as well. While there are many complex reasons why the city of Paterson is in such poor condition, the Great Falls provide an untapped opportunity to inject some life into the local sector. Fostering tourism via the Falls could provide a source of income to the Paterson economy. While there are many other issues that must be addressed in order to truly lift the city out of its current situation, the Falls are an easy starting point. This would also provide incentive to refurbish the locale and other points of interest, creating a self reinforcing system. As it stands, the streetwise tourist is not likely to wander around the streets of Paterson listening to an audio tour; improving the park experience and improving the local quality of life go hand in hand.

Paterson is a prime example of the social and economic ramifications of deindustrialization. There is a plethora of abandoned buildings and vacant streets, which are breeding grounds for violence, gang activity, and drug use. Aside from the fact that many people do not know of the Falls, finding one’s way there and back is relatively stressful. Once arrived, one is deterred from truly experiencing everything the site could and should offer. Rather, one is distracted by the abysmal infrastructural and human conditions that abound. These are all things that surely reduce the number of annual visitors. If many people wanted to come, the city would find more motivation to improve; if the city found more motivation to improve, many more people might want to come. However, the city of Paterson is not wholly responsible or to blame, as the Falls are a national park and the initial spark must be provided by the federal government.

A typical sight in the Great Falls vicinity. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

We must understand that the quality of our environments and the quality of our lives are intertwined. Nature is not something that only exists “out there,” but is right in our backyards. It is all around around us and is a part of us as much as we are a part of it. This nation has a culturally motivated value system that has to do with preservation of natural spaces. The Paterson Great Falls is a gem that needs polishing. It is a beautiful site that we ought to appreciate and for which we should be grateful. Revamping this gift of nature would not be just for its own aesthetic sake. A quality national park site would have a direct effect on the local conditions and continued potential for growth and improvement in the city and region.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A National Park That’s a National Disgrace appeared first on Law Street.

Environmental policy is a hollow shell if it lacks the crucial component that is the interest and engagement of the people. An Ossining, New York-based conservation organization called Riverkeeper seeks to merge these arenas by sparking communal engagement and care for their surrounding ecosystems, in particular the Hudson River, so as to more effectively pursue regulations and values that are conducive to a healthy environment and lifestyle. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in Riverkeeper’s eponymously titled biography, “…environment is not something distant and inaccessible to most Americans. It is not an issue that can be separated out and dealt with on its own. The environment is our neighborhood, our community. It is our quality of life.”

In the 1960s, a group of fishermen banded together to patrol the Hudson in search of environmental law violators. As the strength and breadth of the coalition that would become Riverkeeper grew, they became increasingly effective at pinpointing and prosecuting individuals and corporations who polluted the waters of the Hudson. After a half century, Riverkeeper is now a respected organization with various departments and manifestations throughout the country. Its founding principle of a “neighborhood watch,” which sparked its initial coalescence, remains a treasured and vital practice.

I recently joined my fellow Riverkeeper interns aboard the patrol boat, Fletcher, for an abridged estuary survey. Now in his fourteenth year at the post, Captain John Lipscomb detailed that a full patrol requires thirteen days, from New York City up to the mouth of the Mohawk River, the largest tributary of the Hudson. The key to a successful patrol, he explained, is to “…look, but also be seen looking.” Having people on the shores see the vessel and “Riverkeeper” emblazoned on the side of the hull is a deterrent; this is a powerful and often more preferable means of keeping the Hudson clean than catching violators red handed. Furthermore, it is advertising as well as policing. The boat’s presence and visibility raises environmental awareness; it gets the concepts into people’s heads and hopefully influences their behavior.

The Fletcher on patrol

Riverkeeper’s patrol has many other functions that tie into this philosophy of engaging the community. The organization seeks to empower the community with data, primarily with water quality sampling and subsequent output of its findings in reports. The EPA’s recommendations for testing in recreational waterways occasionally meets opposition on the basis that it is unnecessary because nobody swims at particular points on the river; however, designated beaches are not the only points at which people partake in river activities. During our patrol, as it was a hot and sunny day, we encountered a group of kids jumping from a low rocky precipice into the water and swimming about. The captain drew the boat near, and acquired their permission to snap a few photos. He intends to present this evidence of countless examples that clearly the people are partaking in recreational activity all along the water. This raises several points. First is that water sampling is undoubtedly warranted. Second, it speaks to the role of community members in environmental policy formulation, as well as the fact that such responsible policies are in the best interest not just of nature but the people as well.

Scenic Surprises on the Hudson

Riverkeeper has been passionately engaging the problems raised by the Tappan Zee Bridge construction project. In addition to outrage over the discovery that Albany was using clean water funds to finance the endeavor, the actual work is being done in a somewhat careless and haphazard fashion with regard to the delicate ecosystem by which it is surrounded. Captain Lipscomb has been documenting the number of dead fish discoveries, particularly the species as some teeter on the endangered list, in an effort to raise public awareness and induce a more responsible approach to the project with regard to the Hudson River’s biodiversity.

It goes without saying that an additional responsibility of the Hudson patrol involves active, first-hand clean up. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to see a substantial amount of trash choking the waterway. In fact, at one point we slowed the boat so as to draw out a fully intact television bobbing at the surface. Hopefully in time, through the work of Riverkeeper and other like-minded organizations and citizens, the amount of garbage that finds its way into the water will diminish to a negligible amount.

Captain Lipscomb wants to extend the range of the patrol into the Mohawk. If this is to be accomplished, Riverkeeper will need to cultivate relationships with other organizations in that area so as to effectively take on a mission of such large scope. This is already a philosophy of the organization. “We promote positive sustainable relationships; it is not in our best interest to sue everybody” clarified Dana Gulley, manager of the Community Outreach & Volunteer Programs at Riverkeeper. Rather, she added, it is important to communicate. Riverkeeper seeks to open dialogue and educate; if they encounter a violator, they approach them and ask if they knew they were polluting.

Beneath the Bear Mountain Bridge

These activities are not just for aesthetic conservation. More than nine million people in New York City and the surrounding area drink from the Hudson watershed. Human health and human culture are at stake in environment-society relationships. As Robert Kennedy Jr. and the first Hudson Riverkeeper John Cronin put it: “As Riverkeepers we protect nature, not so much for nature’s sake, but for the sake of humanity. Nature enriches us economically, but we have other appetites besides money. These hungers — spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic — must be fed if we want to grow as we are meant to — if we are to fulfill ourselves.”

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

All images courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Riverkeeper: Patrolling the Hudson to Keep NYC’s Water Clean appeared first on Law Street.

The onset of summer means that wildfires are likely to occur more often. Last month one raged in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. As crews sought to tame it, questions arose as to its origins, effects, and how to view such forces.

Investigators believe human activity caused the fire. This immediately puts a bad taste in our mouths, as we accuse mankind of selfishness, carelessness, and destruction of our surrounding world. Indeed, the very thought of an unattended campfire or discarded cigarette butt igniting a forest-consuming conflagration is repulsive. “Conservation” and “sustainability” have not always been popular buzzwords.

It was not until the mid 1800s that Westerners began to view the environment as a thing of beauty, and as environmental historian William Cronon put it, “…a landscape where the supernatural lay just beneath the surface…expressed in the doctrine of the sublime…” Cronon has explained that cultural perceptions of human relationships to the wilderness have shifted, and the current discourse that we embrace reflects the romantic writings of towering figures such as Thoreau, Emerson, and Muir. We think of untamed nature as a cathedral to be preserved and only lightly trodden by our feet. This preservationist ethos has its merits, as protecting vast and beautiful spaces from the development, industry, and encroachment of society is vital to preserving nature itself as well as our cultural identity that has spawned from it.

Viewing nature and civilization as separate entities raises problems, Cronon points out. The value of “sustainability” is that it allows for an interaction between the two forces, which ultimately is an unescapable and acceptable dynamic if we are to live maturely on our planet and in our environments. The key is not necessarily to leave all nature alone, but to find a responsible manner in which to interact with it. Naturally, if the Alaska wildfire was caused by human activity, this was not a responsible interaction with nature.

It would seem the logical response to fight the fire and put it out. After all, “…fire officials are worried that recreational cabins and secondary homes…may be at risk.” This raises several points of interest. First of which is the obvious implication that the primary motivation for putting out the fire is the protection of human life, human residences, and economy & tourism; this trumps the genuine concerns for the health of the environment. However, especially considering that the fire was probably caused by human activity, putting it out has been determined the right way to go. California is already experiencing an above average occurrence of fires, and predicts an active season. Consequently, they have retrofitted Black Hawk helicopters to be an extreme response mechanism, unofficially called the Firehawk.This comes partly in response to a series of large fires in the San Diego area last May.

What if the Alaska fire was ignited by natural causes? We tend to view those differently. The mindset of separation between society and nature abounds in this concern. We hesitate to intervene with natural forces, citing that the lack of human involvement denotes a need to let nature run its course. Why, then, do we also instigate controlled burns? Despite continuing struggles to find a responsible way of living in the environment, we take it upon ourselves to be the guardians of nature. When is it acceptable for us to intervene, and when should we leave things alone?

People have a difficult time accepting change. This is problematic, considering nature is constantly in flux; change is vital. The environmental historian Nancy Langston argued that “…we only perceive a crisis when we have first learned to observe, and then to value, a particular set of relationships that are about to be destroyed.” When hailing “conservation” and “preservation,” what are we trying to protect: the environment as we see and value it, or the environment as it functions? California is expecting a particularly active wildfire season, and the coming years are expected to see increased damage from fires. A report by Headwaters Economics suggests that there are climate change-induced factors such as “higher temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snowmelt, spring growth, and expanded insect and disease infestations…” In this sense, the occurrence of wildfires is broadened from a case-by-case basis to the general and wider concerns of human global impact.

When should we start fires, and when should we put them out? How sure can we be that a particular wildfire occurred naturally, by direct human activity, or secondarily by shifting ecological parameters? The Alaska wildfire and California fire season are examples of mankind’s struggle to find appropriate ways of interacting with our fragile world.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Famartin via Wikipedia]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man vs. Nature: When Do We Intervene in Wildfires? appeared first on Law Street.