Ecological engineering is a bourgeoning field these days. Everything from
reforestation/ prairie restoration to the creation of artificial wetlands.
unfortunately this does not always jive with the radical environmental agenda
which sees the world in terms of fighting tooth and nail to save tiny fragments
of what once was as opposed to concentrating on the overall health of the
ecosystem. For better or worse the damage has been done. But natural
systems are
even more resiliant than we sometimes imagine. They can recover and with help
they can be brought back more quickly. Intelligently applied,
eco-engineering and
translocation of rare taxa to created refugia can be useful tools for conserving
biodiversity as well as making human environments more livable and humane.
That's an issue I would like to see be debated among environmentalists.
Not only
would it be the start of a contest for the soul of the movement, but it might
even be a winning ticket for mainstream politics as well!
As for the issue of government bashing, there once was a time when state and
federal agencies were highly regarded for their role in assisting land owners
with things like ponds and reforestation. From the perspective of our
time, a lot
of these programs were sometimes wrong-headed or detrimental to
biodiversity- but
in their day they were a step in the right direction. Today private
resources can
probably do better at the restoration of small parcels of land than governments.
Environmentalists ought to be more active at promoting these things at the
community scale - did we somehow forget about 'think globally- act
locally' while
we were busy lobbying the federal and state legislatures? And why can't the
states and feds be more helpful to people who come to them?
Isn't that what they're supposed to be there for?
Jeff
Ty_Hall_at_eFunds.Com wrote:
> Great idea, but............(why is there always a but?) I am in the process
> of designing and planning a pond and wildlife area for my back yard. The
> pond will be approx 1 1/2 acres in size and the wildlife area would take up
> another acre or two. Trees, prairie grasses, wildflowers and such. Anyway,
> I have written to both the DNR and the Fish and Wildlife Service and in
> both cases have received nothing but a bunch of negative attitudes. All
> they want to do is talk about permits and crap. No helpful advice, no words
> of encouragement. The very agencies that are supposed to be encouraging the
> responsible use of our native resources and they are not even the least bit
> concerned with trying to help someone return some land back to a natural,
> wildlife friendly, state. It's almost like they would prefer that I had all
> this land tied up in a useless expanse of turf grass. Very frustrating.
>
> I agree with what Jeff goes on to say, but am still frustrated by the lack
> of not only assistance, but even minimal encouragment or guidance. Maybe in
> the scheme of things my little few acres don't mean squat to the big DNR
> and F&WS but don't you have to start somewhere? The opportunities to save
> and restore thousands or even hundreds of acres are practically gone. It's
> time for these agencies to start helping the smaller projects. What's the
> old saying, "if you watch the pennies the dollars take care of themselves."
>
> Sorry, I'm venting, but I do feel better after typing it out.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org