Ohio
BIRDER
RESOURCES

to the Ohio-birds listserv

Publications

Ohio-birds listserv essays

Commentary on Avian introductions to Ohio with emphasis on the origin of the "Giant" Canada Goose and its parallels with the Ohio Trumpeter Swan Program.

Table of Contents

Introductions: Epilogue

>From August Froehlich
"Is the effort directed towards the reintroduction of high-profile species effort which could produce greater benefit if directed elsewhere?"

"are we allowing the "charismatic megafauna" to detract us from other equally attainable objectives?

These are questions that get at the strategic planning for Ohio's wildlife and as such embrace more than the Ohio-birds forum is prepared to handle. I do wish to make clear to this forum that I make a distinction between strategic planning and tactical implementation of said plans. While the big picture is best dealt with elsewhere, discrete tactical issues are very much within the purview of this forum. Among the 460 regular readers there are dozens of academics/students, at least 12 ODNR staff members, persons with The Nature Conservancy, natural history museums, about 2 dozen county park districts, and officers with National and local Audubons, etc. It would be a waste not to make use of this talent.

Jen Dension posted 29 August "It just amazes me that folks seemingly interested in all wildlife can be so critical and hypocritical at the same time." in reference to her perception of the comments listed in "Introduction:Prologue" as unduly negative toward the Ohio Division of Wildlife.

It is perhaps the failure to see the distinction between the perceived support I or others may have toward the shared goals of enhancing biodiversity, and the legitimate differences of opinion that arise in prioritizing those goals, and determining the best way of achieving them. This is not hypocrisy, it is how disparate experiences are voiced, examined, tested, discarded, modified, and pursued toward those goals.

And finally from Mike Zuilhoff . . .

"I see charismatic species as nature's emissaries, evoking in previously unconcerned people a curiosity that may in some cases grow into an interest in other species and perhaps the ultimate understanding that more habit must be protected from excessive human impact and that humans must bring their own species under control. Protecting and restoring vast areas of habit is far more efficient, effective and sustainable than high-intensity coddling of individual species."

Mike Zuilhof explores a different side of the issue of species restoration, not a biological one but a societal one; different but equally valid. As much as I recognize the reality of Mike's statement, I cannot but wonder whether the time is right for society to re-evaluate this approach. I suppose you could argue that CARA is part of that re-evaluation. How much longer will we need to use "charismatic megafauna" to bolster our natural resources?

To illustrate . . . Let's assume I am a biologist with an interest in protecting Ohio's prairies but recognize my aims may be better served using a glamorous poster-friendly species, better yet two.

Consider this hypothetical letter:

  
       Dear Mr. & Mrs. Multi-millionaire


  It has come to my attention that after exercising some 
  dot.com stock options you are looking for a friendly tax 
  shelter. You have identified your preference to fund an 
  environmenal legacy. Well it so happens that Ohio's 
  biodiversity could use your help. You see we once had two 
  gorgeous birds-of-prey inhabiting the skies over Ohio's 
  prairies. Sleek and graceful, the Mississippi Kite and 
  the Swallow-tailed Kite were sadly lost to the enjoyment 
  of all at the time of human encroachment. What we need from 
  you is an endowment, say $10 million for starters, to create 
  The Kite Society or the KiteFUND or better yet the Mr. & 
  Mrs. Millionaire KiteFUND. First off a hundred thousand 
  would bankroll nicely the preliminary report evaluating 
  the ancestral status of the species in Ohio and we would 
  publish this in our very own journal. But not to worry, 
  in the case of the Mississippi Kite there is plenty 
  of archaeological evidence of its existence here. What's 
  more the species has been expanding in recent years and 
  now breeds regularly in southern Illinois. To top it it 
  off, we annually see waifs, I mean propagules*, in the 
  Lake Erie basin. Why just this summer there was a bird 
  in appropriate nesting habitat near Cincinnati. And as 
  for the Swallow-tailed Kite there is no shortage of 
  historical accounts attesting to how common they were in 
  Ohio right up to 1820. Just look at what Alexander Wilson 
  (father of American ornithology) had to say in 1812 . . . 
  "is very abundant in South Carolina and Georgia, and still 
  more so in West Florida, and the extensive prairies of Ohio 
  and the Indiana Territory". We even know it was once 
  numerous in Crawford, Stark, and Portage Counties. Now 
  working with these birds should present little difficulty 
  given the vast storehouse of knowledge involving raptor 
  biology and of course there is the coolness factor - why 
  we could have kite cams on the WWW in no time.
 
* propagules - don't worry about it, its one of those big 
long words the Feds in Washington like to see in their permit applications.
   
  So what do you think?


                          Yours truly, Underpaid Biologist
 
--------

Now if that bit of fiction seems just a little absurd then I think you can appreciate the concern August Froehlich expressed when he said . . .

"Consider the effort involved with these reintroductions and imagine if we were able to apply similar effort to other land management practices, say, increasing habitat for migrating shorebirds. Is the effort directed towards the reintroduction of high-profile species effort which could produce greater benefit if directed elsewhere?"

If on the other hand you do not find it all that absurd . . . . . ummmm . . . Let's do lunch.

If biological principles are the foundation/rock of species restoration then society is the hard place with wildlife managers wedged squarely in between. Academics can choose to sit on their rock and look down on the managers or offer them a hand. Society can choose to value flash over substance or ease up on the cash crunch preventing the most cost-effective means of enhancing biodiversity namely habitat restoration. Its your choice.

Victor W. Fazio, III
Ohio Birds & Natural History, //aves.net/magazine/
18722 Newell St., Floor 2
Shaker Hts., OH 44122