Why species on the edge should be preserved

Often the political boundaries of states and countries do not align with any biologically relevant boundaries, and so species often occur sporadically or rarely in one state, while being extremely abundant in an adjacent state. These species are considered “peripheral species” and are often derided by developers and biologists alike as being unworthy of special regulatory protection.

Peripheral species often occur in habitat conditions that are not ideal for the species. For instance, many of the peripheral fish species in Kansas are surviving in waters that are almost too saline for the species to survive.

In some cases I tend to agree. Species which are not threatened, when their entire range is considered, should generally not be the focus of threatened and endangered species regulations. However, a number of fairly compelling arguments can be made to support the case that peripheral species deserve more protection than we might at first believe. Biologically, I know of three biological reasons for protecting peripheral species:

1. When species collapse, it appears that populations on the edge are more persistent. This is a counter-intuitive effect, and, in fact, I have no good feeling for why it occurs (in general). Some species may have been intentionally targeted (i.e., sea otters) and therefore it wasn’t profitable to visit peripheral ranges. Other peripheral populations may be isolated, and therefore unaffected by disease or invasive species that are decimating the ‘core’ range. Fraser (1999; the paper which got me thinking about this) compiled a number of examples where both vertebrates and invertebrates became extirpated within the “core” of their range, but persist at the edges. Obviously, if an entire species is at risk, preserving the peripheral populations may be extremely important.

2. Populations at the edge of the species’ range may be reservoirs of important genetic diversity. An example of this could be the Broadhead Skink, a peripheral Kansas species that is more common in Missouri. However, the Broadhead Skink in Kansas may experience hotter and generally more prairie-type conditions. As a result, genes that favor those conditions likely occur more frequently in those populations. Each peripheral population may have different gene frequencies than the core population and other peripheral populations. These populations are each adapted to unique stressors that may become more widespread with environmental changes. For instance, increasing global temperatures are driving many species northward. Those species that will be most likely to lead that forced migration are the ones located in peripheral areas, and having genes that allow them to exploit the new conditions most effectively. Alternatively, if conditions change and no migration is possible, then peripheral species may have the genes necessary for the entire species to survive.

3. Peripheral species may also be endangered elsewhere. For the most part, political boundaries determine the scope of influence for any state or government, but those political boundaries are rarely important biologically. A species endangered throughout its range should also be protected on the periphery of its range.

In addition, there are some more pragmatic reasons to list peripheral species. Listing a species automatically attracts scientific attention to it due to the increased availability of funding and ‘practical application.’ Occasionally, we have discovered a peripheral species occurs much more widely than previously thought (rendering its ‘peripheral’ status obsolete), other times we have learned the species is not as threatened as originally believed.

There is also a considerable amount of eco-tourism that is derived from peripheral species. Birds and mammals in particular attract considerable attention that is substantially focused on areas of high diversity (i.e., transitional landscapes).

I’m not saying this means every peripheral species should be protected, but I am arguing that merely designating a species “peripheral” is not justification to avoid protecting it.

Fraser, D.F. 2000. Species at the edge: the case for listing of “peripheral” species. pp 49-53 in L.M. Darling (ed.) Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Kamloops, B.C., Canada.

Explanations: The difference between belief and evidence

(Update: Greg Laden pointed out in an email that the term "special knowledge" which I use extensively here, is similar to the term "received knowledge" in the social sciences)

I am occasionally asked what I think about the whole “Creationism” issue. Considering the typically caustic nature of this issue, I have often wrestled with how to approach it. Here’s what I try to say:

Imagine a painting of a man. Let’s just assume the man is older, say, in his 50s. You can tell he is in his 50s by the color of his hair and the wrinkles on his face (EDIT: I'm being told men in their 50s don't have wrinkles..sorry!). The man is wearing a certain set of clothes, which may also indicate his age or his profession or his socio-economic status. By examining the painting carefully, you can construct a plausible understanding about the man’s life.

Of course, all of those clues were put there by an artist who wanted to cultivate a certain perception within your mind about the man in the painting. The painting itself may not be 50 years old, it may be 10 or 500 years old.

Now imagine, instead of a painting, you were looking at a humanoid robot. The robot looks and talks and moves like a man. There is no visible clue that this robot is anything but a perfectly ordinary man. Even a detailed medical examination would reveal nothing that indicates the robot is not a human. In fact, all of the possible evidence indicates that the robot is human. Only those with a special knowledge realize the robot is not human. No one can independently verify that knowledge, because all the evidence indicates the robot is human. That special knowledge must have been given by either the creator of the robot, or one who was present when the robot was created.

The Bible is special knowledge, as are all other religious texts. Those texts purport to be written by an agent of the creator, who was present when the universe was created. If you have faith in the source of such special knowledge, then you need no evidence to support that belief. Simply put: independent verification is irrelevant to special knowledge.

Science, on the other hand, is constructed solely from evidence. That evidence must be of a form that anyone could reproduce. In a philosophical sense, this severely limits the scope of science. Science is based on some assumptions, but the primary assumption is that an objective reality exists. No such assumptions are necessary to believe in special knowledge.

The frequent and misguided attacks on science by believers in special knowledge seem to assume that science ought to support special knowledge. This simply isn’t the case. Science may support that special knowledge, or it may not, but the only requirement of science is that all the evidence be independently verifiable.

Now, interestingly enough, this does not necessarily mean the results of science are correct. To go back to the example of the robot: Even if all the evidence points to the robot being a human, that doesn’t make it so. Similarly, even though all the evidence points to a billions-year-old universe, evolutionarily-derived biodiversity, and mankind descending from apes, that doesn’t preclude the possibility that some omni-potent agent created the universe…but that omni-potent agent must have made the universe look like it works this way.

Based upon this understanding, I do not believe a person is an idiot just because they have a literal belief in a creation story. On the other hand, saying that the evidence supports such a belief indicates idiocy or ignorance. Any individual can believe anything they want to believe, but that doesn’t change the fact that science must be based on independently verified evidence. If that independent verification isn’t available, then it isn’t science, and therefore it shouldn’t be in a science class.

Explanations: Conservation Easements

Whenever a project will be destroying critical habitat for a state-listed species, the project sponsor is required to replace the lost habitat. This can be done in a number of ways, but one of the critical components is insuring that the replaced habitat will not just be torn down once KDWP isn’t looking. As a result, I’ve been running into projects where conservation easements are likely to be a critical component.

An easement is a legal document attached to a title/deed, specifying a certain condition or use of the property. A conservation easement is, obviously, used to specify conditions or usage that will accomplish conservation goals. The property is still owned by the deed-holder, but the owner must abide by the terms of the easement.

Existing habitat can actually be used as “replacement” of lost habitat if the existing habitat will be managed in a way that improves its quality. For example: Cattle grazing is detrimental to Broadhead Skinks. A conservation easement may require an area be fenced off and grazing stopped, which would greatly improve the habitat quality for the Skink.

The issues with easements start with their length. We at KDWP have a mandate to preserve habitat in perpetuity. Landowners in Kansas (especially Western Kansas for some reason), tend to get really nervous when you talk about perpetuity. In the past, we’ve done easements for various lengths of time: 100, 50, or even as little as 25 years. The difference between 100 years and perpetuity is significant, but sometimes 100 years is all you can get. Considering the statutes regulating T&E in Kansas have only been around ~30 years, preserving/enhancing habitat on the 100 year scale is probably pretty good.

However, all these inconsistencies in past easements have made my job difficult. See, project sponsors like to see consistently. “Why can’t I do a 25 year easement if my neighbor did?” This is an understandable concern, and on numerous issues in this job, I’ve tried to make a point of following the precedents we’ve set previously. I’ve done this because I wanted to get my feet wet before stirring things up. Finally, this week we’ve collectively made the decision that we’re just not going to accept easements for less than perpetuity.

Personally, I feel like this is the right thing to do. The KS statutes refer to perpetuity, and the habitats ought to be preserved indefinitely. Even beyond T&E species, Kansas and the U.S. has a need to maintain ecosystem integrity, and maintaining conservation easements in perpetuity also accomplishes that.

Explanations: Why you can't convince me to not do my job.

I consistently hear complaints from residential developers, engineers, and builders that environmental legislation causes unnecessary “delays.” Occasionally these complainers will attempt to argue with me about whether or not I should require mitigation for the loss of wildlife areas. I find these complainers to be borderline offensive, for the following reasons.

First, and perhaps foremost, I am not the one requiring mitigation, and I am not the one causing the delays. The elected officials of the state of Kansas passed into law the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1975 and since then the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) has been required by law to require mitigation for loss of habitat. Since 1975, the citizens of Kansas (and the U.S. as a whole) have repeatedly been polled to gauge the level of support for this legislation, and have consistently responded that they favor such laws. Environmental regulations are no different than regulations governing workplace safety or speed limits. The majority of Kansas citizens want such regulations to prevent irresponsible practices.

Secondly, whether or not I personally believe that each species should be regulated, or that KDWP regulations represent the best science, I am obligated to regulate based on the KDWP-approved methods. Now that I’m a part of the process, and because I’m a scientist, I will work to make sure that the methods KDWP uses are objective and transparent. In many ways, what we do can’t be improved upon. In other ways they can. What’s true in all cases, though, is that I’m obligated to not use my own methods, but methods that KDWP has approved.

Finally, this country needs environmental regulation. The evidence from the past suggests that various industries will pollute as much as they are allowed, even when that pollution is the source of human and environmental health concerns, so long as it increases profit. The reasons are many, but ultimately it is because any industry governed by market forces will punish those who willingly forgo an advantage. Without environmental regulation, any industry that benefits from immoral polluting will be at a competitive disadvantage to those companies that will pollute immorally. Regulations insure that all competition occurs on a level playing field that the majority of society agrees is fair. A similar line of logic exists for developers, agriculturalists, etc.
To sum up: I’m going to protect the threatened and endangered species of Kansas. Nothing you say or do will convince me otherwise. As a result, feel free to keep your meaningless grumbling to yourself.