 |
     |
Bioregional Strategy for Resource Conservation
Does it Make Sense?
© 1997, 1998 Streamline Publications
Does the bioregional approach to
protection of California's diversity of plant and animal habitats and the
multitude of species living in them make sense? In some ways, yes, but the
concept is flawed in the assertion that the regions can be divided by "natural
boundaries". While this political fiction may be
organizationally expedient, it conveniently ignores "natural truths"
for the sake of harmony among groups dedicated to ecological protection.
A regular eco-terrorist you are, Marvin. First you leave the cactus seed in Lake Tahoe, then you pick a fight with a northern spotted owl. What's next, crossing into another bioregion without a license?
A September, 1991 information release
from the California Resources Agency announced a bioregional strategy Memorandum
of Understanding between 10 state and federal agencies that promised to "...fundamentally
and dramatically change the manner in which California protects its biological
and natural resources." Under this agreement California is divided into
eleven bioregions marked by natural boundaries. Local agencies are charged with
overall regional management with oversight from the state and federal levels.
The plan recognizes that there will be
some cross-regional movement of species, such as salmon, but the regions are
essentially independent of one another. The agreement seeks an integrated
approach to ecological protection with reduced emphasis on endangered species
and a greater appreciation of the entire ecosystems in which the endangered
plants and animals live. This new thinking, that includes plant communities and
ecological zones, recognizes that habitat restoration provides endangered
species the best opportunity to recover. It may also serve to mitigate the
government's zeal in protecting "verge of extinction" species.
However, single species protection is a federal mandate and the level of relief
this local strategy may provide could prove insignificant in the face of
overriding pressures from the Environmental Protection Agency—not a
signatory to the pact.
This macro-management of ecological
regions is a leap ahead of single species focus but it falls short of what is
truly needed and could prove to endanger species by isolating them. Protection
of regional biodiversity ignores the larger picture by continuing creation of
discrete areas. These areas may then be protected from "genetic pollution",
purported to threaten the unique characteristics of the local species. We disagree and hold that genetic
pollution is a myth. Let's take the example of the California Poppy—our
state flower—which can be found in abundance across bioregions, from the
Mojave Desert to the San Joaquin Valley, to the San Francisco Delta, to the
northern Klamath region bordering Oregon. In each of these regions the species
thrives as an ecotype compatible with the area. Government regulations may
prevent use of one area ecotype in another because of this supposed genetic
pollution.
Benefit of Genetic Mixing
The very nature of genetics is to
select out traits that are incompatible with the surrounding environment. The
resultant melding of separately-evolved ecotypes into a new ecotype will have
the effect of "fine tuning" the ecotype to the environment. If the
introduced "foreign" ecotype has no properties that will enhance the
native, then it will be eliminated through natural selection. The overriding
result of cross-boundary genetic mixing is improvement of the region's native
ecotype. Reliance on imaginary boundaries, even
taking into account spawning salmon that hold government-drawn lines in low
regard, is a fool's game. What of the millions of birds using the western
flyways and the seed-laden droppings they leave? What of winds and flood waters
that distribute seeds and pollen? And what about citizens who carry home
to San Francisco a packet of California Poppy seeds from a Mojave vacation? Can
"biological integrity" be protected when personal gardens contribute
to cross-boundary diversity? Policing citizens' window boxes is probably not an
undertaking the bioregional strategists are eager to adopt.
Nature's Nature We strongly support protection of the
various natural regions but believe that the only reasonable bioregional
boundaries are the ones drawn by the plant and animal species themselves.
Climate, microclimates, soils, sun, wind, altitude and other factors combine to
support regional plant communities which in turn bear on the fauna that can
thrive in that region. Inappropriate ecotypes eventually die out. In the absence of catastrophic
occurrences, natural selection— succession— defines an ecosystem's
population, especially among fast-maturing herbaceous plants. Natural
catastrophes—massive erosion, volcanic eruption, floods—may alter the
local environment causing changes in eventual climax populations. Natural
changes are not intrinsically wrong—so why should change be so strongly
resisted? The nature of nature is change. Why should that be so bothersome?
Government has a duty to be concerned
with maintaining regional environments to prevent unmitigated change by man's
activities while recognizing humans as at least as valuable as a spotted owl.
Water and air pollution and careless use of land certainly ought to be
prevented, but to spend effort attempting to preserve regional genetic diversity
by preventing cross-pollination of genetic ecotypes is an expensive, losing
game.
Choose from more articles from Albright Seed Company. All our products come with an extra ingredient at no extra cost—30 years' experience.