NationStates Jolt Archive

In another move that is sure to anger enviro-wackos, the Bush administration cut back the protected habitat for the Snowy Plover, whatever that is. This has made more of the coastline available for recreation for humans instead of Snowy Plover things. Good decison.

From Yahoo,

GRANTS PASS, Ore. - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Monday announced that West Coast beach-front critical habitat for the threatened western snowy plover will be cut back by nearly 40 percent, continuing a Bush administration policy of reducing habitat protections for threatened and endangered species to reduce economic losses.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bulk of the cutbacks came from beaches in California on Monterey Bay, Morro Bay and the San Diego Bay island city of Coronado, where a report had estimated that protecting nesting areas from development and human contact would cost nearly $200 million over the next 20 years due primarily to limiting recreation.

So you won't be reincarnated as the last threatened western snowy plover in the USA?

That guy is an absolute disaster in so many ways. :(

In another move that is sure to anger enviro-wackos, the Bush administration cut back the protected habitat for the Snowy Plover, whatever that is. This has made more of the coastline available for recreation for humans instead of Snowy Plover things. Good decison.

From Yahoo,

This costs $200 million exactly how? It costs nothing, but means that the richest country in the world can't indulge itself a little more than it already does? Which means some deadhead developer doesn't end up with $200 million in profit (that doesn't currently exist).
Shame if your recreation is birdwatching, eh?

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/news/2003-09-25d.jpg

Goodbye little friend. Nice knowing you, but as of yet non-existent profit is more important than the survival of your species.

CLASSIFICATION: Federal Threatened Species (Federal Register 58:12874 (pdf); March 5, 1993)
CRITICAL HABITAT: Proposed in Federal Register 69:75607 pdf; December 17, 2004

RECOVERY PLAN: Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific Coast Population Draft Recovery Plan, August 14, 2001
DESCRIPTION:
The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) is a small shorebird distinguished from other plovers (family Charadriidae) by its small size, pale brown upper parts, dark patches on either side of the upper breast, and dark gray to blackish legs. Snowy plovers weigh between 1.2 and 2 ounces. They are about 5.9 to 6.6 inches long.

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover breeds primarily on coastal beaches from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. The nesting season extends from early March through late September. The breeding season generally begins earlier in more southerly latitudes, and may be two to four weeks earlier in southern California than in Oregon and Washington. Fledging (reaching flying age) of late-season broods may extend into the third week of September throughout the breeding range. Nests typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates. Vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse or absent. The typical clutch size is three eggs but it can range from two to six.

Snowy plover chicks leave the nest within hours after hatching to search for food. They are not able to fly for approximately 4 weeks after hatching. Adult plovers do not feed their chicks, but lead them to suitable feeding areas. Adults use distraction displays to lure predators and people away from chicks. Adult plovers signal the chicks to crouch, with calls, as another way to protect them. They may also lead chicks, especially larger ones, away from predators. Most chick mortality occurs within 6 days after hatching.

Snowy plovers are primarily visual foragers, using the run-stop-peck method of feeding typical of Charadrius species. They forage on invertebrates in the wet sand and amongst surf-cast kelp within the intertidal zone, in dry, sandy areas above the high tide, on salt pans, on spoil sites, and along the edges of salt marshes, salt ponds, and lagoons. They sometimes probe for prey in the sand and pick insects from low-growing plants.

DISTRIBUTION:
The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover is defined as those individuals that nest beside or near tidal waters, and includes all nesting colonies on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays and estuaries from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. Habitats used by nesting and non-nesting birds include sandy coastal beaches, salt pans, coastal dredged spoils sites, dry salt ponds, salt pond levees and gravel bars. Historic records suggest that nesting western snowy plovers were once more widely distributed in coastal California.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In the habitats remaining for the snowy plover, human activity continues to be a key factor adversely affecting snowy plover coastal breeding sites and breeding populations in California. Projects or management activities in plover nesting areas that cause, induce or increase human-associated disturbance during the plover's breeding season (March 1-September 14) adversely impact plovers. These activities may reduce the functional suitability of nesting, foraging and roosting areas. Activities that may adversely affect plovers include sand deposition or spreading, beach cleaning, construction of breakwaters and jetties, dune stabilization/restoration using native and nonnative vegetation or fencing, beach leveling and off-road vehicles driven in nesting areas or at night.

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/western_snowy_plover.htm

Goodbye little friend. Nice knowing you, but as of yet non-existent profit is more important than the survival of your species.
It doesn't even look like a good meal for a cat.

It doesn't even look like a good meal for a cat.

Because that is how biodiversity should be valued by the morally corrupt.

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/news/2003-09-25d.jpg

Goodbye little friend. Nice knowing you, but as of yet non-existent profit is more important than the survival of your species.

Wow, Sure is a cute little thing.

Shame...

So when will you start finding species loss alarming? When we're the last species left on Earth?

It's a shame that so many people cannot see the larger implications of this. We are destroying the long-term habitability of the planet in exchange for short-term economic gain.

The really stupid thing about this is that when people like Bush and Myrmidonisia finally wake up, guess who they will blame? Not themselves, certainly. No, it will be the very people who tried to warn them before it was too late. After all, those "enviro-whackos" said bad things would happen, so they must have caused them!

Maybe the next intelligent species on this planet will be smarter than us, and learn from our mistakes.

:rolleyes:

Why is anyone pretending to argue with Myrmidonisia?

Just post how great the Snowy Plover is an ignore him whenever he trys to talk about how imaginary, potential money is more important.

Remember, if you don't believe, the faeries stop existing.

In the immortal words of Calvin:

"By golly, how would people feel if animals started bulldozing their houses and started putting up forests?"

Outside of our town we have a snowy plover reserve on the coast, It has been there for years,
I have never seen a plover once

Why is anyone pretending to argue with Myrmidonisia?

Just post how great the Snowy Plover is an ignore him whenever he trys to talk about how imaginary, potential money is more important.

Remember, if you don't believe, the faeries stop existing.
*fingers in ears*
Na,na,na,na...

They're birds, aren't they? Well, I suppose Myrmidonesia might applaud the destruction of the last tree to make room for recreation too.

They're birds, aren't they? Well, I suppose Myrmidonesia might applaud the destruction of the last tree to make room for recreation too.
The problem I see is that too much habitat is set aside for endangered animals. There is a middle ground between human use and species protection that has been bypassed long ago in favor of species protection. Reclaiming some of this territory that has been set aside for species protection is moving us back toward the middle ground.

The problem I see is that too much habitat is set aside for endangered animals. There is a middle ground between human use and species protection that has been bypassed long ago in favor of species protection. Reclaiming some of this territory that has been set aside for species protection is moving us back toward the middle ground.Got anything to back up that too much space is being used for species protection?

The problem that I see repeatedly is that habitat protection isn't the only thing necessary to protect a species, especially since animals don't regularly confine themselves to borders, such as birds capable of flight. Scaling back on that makes things worse.

The problem I see is that too much habitat is set aside for endangered animals. There is a middle ground between human use and species protection that has been bypassed long ago in favor of species protection. Reclaiming some of this territory that has been set aside for species protection is moving us back toward the middle ground.

Except the problem is that of population growth. With modern medicine making the strides that it does, the population size of humanity is almost always at a positive level. Most other animals on the other hand, save for farm animals, don't get the benefit of life extending medication, nor do they get the usual protection from most predators that humans do.

As an end result, you get humans outgrowing much of the animal kingdom in sheer numbers. Eventually, we might reach the state where there just isn't any room left for animals due to the sheer weight of human numbers.

The bulk of the cutbacks came from beaches in California on Monterey Bay, Morro Bay and the San Diego Bay island city of Coronado, where a report had estimated that protecting nesting areas from development and human contact would cost nearly $200 million over the next 20 years due primarily to limiting recreation.
So what they're basically saying is that they need more beach space? So people can go out and lay on the beach and get sunburned, rich people can build luxury homes and we destroy some more coastal land in California?

It's also not like the habitat only supported ONE bird. Those patches of land would allow many different plants and animals to live, and now the animals will have to go somewhere else.

Go Bush.
Way to contribute to the largest global mass species extinction in the last 250 million years.
If only you Americans could vote him in again!

The problem I see is that too much habitat is set aside for endangered animals. There is a middle ground between human use and species protection that has been bypassed long ago in favor of species protection. Reclaiming some of this territory that has been set aside for species protection is moving us back toward the middle ground.

so exactly how much would you consider enough, as a percentage of total area?

Go Bush.
Way to contribute to the largest global mass species extinction in the last 250 million years.
If only you Americans could vote him in again!
:confused: How is this going to be the largest extinction since an entire planet was nearly wiped out? Cutting back on the land given to some rather stupid looking birds isn't going to exterminate half the planet. Hell, natural selection and evolution require for species to be exterminated, after all, resources being utilized by an inferior (in the sense of not being able to survive, morals are a human construct that doesn't apply to animals) species (such as plovers) aren't being used by more developed species (such as humans, cockroaches, and domesticated animals).
If its cute, domesticate it, but that is no reason to waste money on it (and, yes, money is being wasted. Land*Time=Money, in this situation, and Land and Time are being spent on nonessential birds).

At least Bush is doing something right, though he may be determined to screw everything else up.

:confused: How is this going to be the largest extinction since an entire planet was nearly wiped out?

i believe they did say 'contribute to'

this might sound bad but I don't care about some pansy bird because if it can't survive in the wild somewhere else (even a landfill) it's like the dodo a allot people say how bad Humans were for being partly responsible for killing it but how long could it be before pigs (yes pigs!) found there way onto the island (or the island found its way to the mainland)

But then again this is a good way to bash Bush so the press will love it (oh and if the economy can afford to pay for all this how come its in debt?)

survive in the wild somewhere else (even a landfill)

obviously, we have different conceptions of the term 'the wild'

Would this be a good time to introduce the concept of "Daisy World?"

This is a simulation designed to illustrate the impact of temperature on growth. It posits a world populated solely by daisys where the temperature rises, leading to first the propagation of daisys all over the planet, then to extinction due to temperatures rising too high to sustain them.

This Flash online version of Daisy World illustrates the concept quite well: http://gingerbooth.com/courseware/daisy.html. In more complex simulations where several species are introduced ( rabbits, foxes, etc. ), a rather startling observation can be made: the more species you introduce, the more ameliorated the environment becomes. Eliminate species and the environment makes wider swings between extremes of cold and heat. The lesson is obvious: biodiversity moderates climate.

I suspect the reason these more complex silmulations aren't online is the amount of computing power needed to run the simulations.

Unfortunately, little do we know, there is an enzyme in the bloodstream of the snowy plover that could cure Diabetes.

Pity we won't find out before they become extinct. :(

so exactly how much would you consider enough, as a percentage of total area?
Probably less than every single square inch that the bird has ever considered living in.

Probably less than every single square inch that the bird has ever considered living in.

ah good. we already have that and you will therefore oppose further reductions.

i think its better for us all if there is less shore property for rich people to build their houses on. i dont mind using the plover as an excuse.

Unfortunately, little do we know, there is an enzyme in the bloodstream of the snowy plover that could cure Diabetes.

Pity we won't find out before they become extinct. :(

i didn't understand what those doo-hickys did, or why i was supposed to attach the widgets to the thingamajig, so i just started chucking things out. i have utter faith that it will all work out for the best.

i think its better for us all if there is less shore property for rich people to build their houses on. i dont mind using the plover as an excuse.
What a lot of envy you have!

It's getting to the point where I'm starting to think if a Vorgon construction crew decided to demolish earth to make way for an intergalactic highway (with all humans on it). Would be a deep sense of irony though.

Seriously though, what do you want Myrmidonisia? Every single 'inconvenient' species locked away in zoos to be ogled at while we bulldoze all the forests and pave over the beaches?

I saw this statement once on a poster.

"Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last river poisoned and the last animal killed will you realize that money cannot be eaten"

I just think that this Bird isn't really our property to decide about.
This bird should be available to our kiddies, and their kiddies too. They do have economic value, but I guess you can't ask a Business Man (failed as he may be) to understand economics...

The problem I see is that too much habitat is set aside for endangered animals. There is a middle ground between human use and species protection that has been bypassed long ago in favor of species protection. Reclaiming some of this territory that has been set aside for species protection is moving us back toward the middle ground.

The reason the species are endangered in the first place is because human development has devoured so much of their habitat that they cannot be supported on the land that they have left. Any sort of middle ground was passed a long, long time ago, by human development.

:confused: How is this going to be the largest extinction since an entire planet was nearly wiped out? Cutting back on the land given to some rather stupid looking birds isn't going to exterminate half the planet. Hell, natural selection and evolution require for species to be exterminated, after all, resources being utilized by an inferior (in the sense of not being able to survive, morals are a human construct that doesn't apply to animals) species (such as plovers) aren't being used by more developed species (such as humans, cockroaches, and domesticated animals).
If its cute, domesticate it, but that is no reason to waste money on it (and, yes, money is being wasted. Land*Time=Money, in this situation, and Land and Time are being spent on nonessential birds).

At least Bush is doing something right, though he may be determined to screw everything else up.

It is theorized that we are in the midst of the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, percentage wise, and that human development is largely responsible.

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/news/2003-09-25d.jpg

Goodbye little friend. Nice knowing you, but as of yet non-existent profit is more important than the survival of your species.


That thing is waay too cute :( damn you Myrmidonsia, you are quite a prick. What's your address? We need to have a good old-fashioned fistfight.

*sigh* only three more years with this ass. :(

The problem I see is that too much habitat is set aside for endangered animals. There is a middle ground between human use and species protection that has been bypassed long ago in favor of species protection. Reclaiming some of this territory that has been set aside for species protection is moving us back toward the middle ground.


And you're stupid. Oregon has an enormous coastline (and Northern California is unpopulated for the most part), and the residence of the Snowy Plover is well out of the way of the more populated tourist areas. These things live in areas that don't ever see tourism because they're so damn inaccessible. From one person who lives near these cute little birdies to an asshole, we don't need tourism in their threatened habitats. We've got plenty of room for that further up the coast.

Depending on how the money is used, and what the habitat is reduced for....

1) Houses for rich people? Well, I wouldn't like for the forest to be bulldozed, but frankly, it just doesn't make economic sense for someone to deny themselves that much of a benefit for a little known species of bird. If you can change human nature, please go ahead, but otherwise...

2) Low income houses for poor people? Using the money to benefit poor schools? BULLDOZE.

Unfortunately, it's gonna be for option number 1.

The reason the species are endangered in the first place is because human development has devoured so much of their habitat that they cannot be supported on the land that they have left. Any sort of middle ground was passed a long, long time ago, by human development.

but look at me, i'm being reasonable. we can let nature have an entire percent of our total land area.

unless rich people want to build beach houses on it.

or we find some sort of resources under it.

or the strip mall needs a bigger parking lot because they have to make the spaces wider to fit all those hummers.

Outside of our town we have a snowy plover reserve on the coast, It has been there for years,
I have never seen a plover once
In a nod to the Bob fans 'round here ....

There is a plover named the H.R. "Bob" Plover ... name came up about a decade or so ago.
What an honor! What a country!

Outside of our town we have a snowy plover reserve on the coast, It has been there for years,
I have never seen a plover once

Gee that must mean they don't exist. :rolleyes:

I was in a tiger reserve in India and didn't see one so they really don't need that land right?