Sea Otters: yet another slap in the face!

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

A colleague of mine sent this link to me recently. It's about the alarming population declines of California Sea Otters.

Sea otters have already been impacted by a vicious change in the food chain here in our western coastal waters: Overfishing, algae-blooms, O2 dead zones have severely depleted our marine species of fish; this, in turn, has impacted seal and sea lion populations; this has led killer whale populations to seek a dietary alternative - sea otters, small and easy targets. The food web crash does not end there. Sea otters' favorite meal (aside from clams, mussels, and abalone!) is sea urchins. Well... the sea urchins are now out of control, and since these herbivorous echinoderms love grazing on the hold-fasts of kelp, now the kelp forests that blanket the waters offshore are in severe decline. It should be known that some of these kelp beds possess a diversity of life comparable to that of a rainforest! So, without them, there goes the whole California offshore neighborhood!

Here's the link. What's Killing the Sea Otters? - KQED QUEST Television Story (http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/25)

Please pass it along. Thanks.

Steven Krause

[drache]

does that mean the price of sea urchin at sushi restaurants will come down to the level of mackerel?
sorry - couldn't help myself - I love sea urchin
as for the environment: drive less, use less plastic, buy bulk, use less plastic, use less chemicals, get a shopping bag, use glass instead of plastic when you can
I know they're all around us and we're not conscious all the time, but as much as possible - avoid plastics
it's hard to think that they've not been around that long and people managed their storage needs before then (they had less stuff too)
be conscious of which plastics are recyclable and to what extent
and remember that our market imperative to consume is in direct conflict with the environment, so we're really in a no-win situation
I've probably posted this before
The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard (http://storyofstuff.com/)
don't mean to get preachy or anything . . .

[infernalis]

I'm with you here Rhea......

Like I said before, how much longer before mother nature decides she's had enough of us??

[Stefan-A]

as for the environment: drive less, use less plastic, buy bulk, use less plastic, use less chemicals, get a shopping bag, use glass instead of plastic when you can
I know they're all around us and we're not conscious all the time, but as much as possible - avoid plastics
it's hard to think that they've not been around that long and people managed their storage needs before then (they had less stuff too)
be conscious of which plastics are recyclable and to what extent
and remember that our market imperative to consume is in direct conflict with the environment, so we're really in a no-win situation
I've probably posted this before
The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard (http://storyofstuff.com/)
don't mean to get preachy or anything . . .
There is also one environmental deed that is a complete taboo. It has to do with a certain biological imperative, and I don't think most people would seriously even consider it.

[Stefan-A]

Like I said before, how much longer before mother nature decides she's had enough of us??
She hasn't exactly been pulling any punches thus far.

[guidofatherof5]

Mother nature showes us the balance we need for our lives. Instead we opt for cheap, quick, and easy. If we look back in our history we see many examples of the balance we can have with nature and still have the "things" we need(Not just want).

[Stefan-A]

Mother nature showes us the balance we need for our lives.
I don't see it.

[Garter_Gertie]

There is also one environmental deed that is a complete taboo. It has to do with a certain biological imperative, and I don't think most people would seriously even consider it.

I've been a good girl. Granted it wasn't by choice, it just wasn't in the cards for me. And it sure wasn't for lack of trying. When that age everything known to science was used/tried and it still didn't work.

[infernalis]

Originally Posted by guidofatherof5 http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/garter-snake-lounge/4553-sea-otters-yet-another-slap-face-post89201.html#post89201)


If we look back in our history we see many examples of the balance we can have with nature and still have the "things" we need(Not just want).



I don't see it.


Back before the Europeans decided they wanted this hunk of real estate, The original native American tribes had a balance with mother nature.

It was forbidden to kill anything without a reason, The whole way of life was to revere nature and respect it.

They made the best use they could from what they had, and without waste, a harmony, a balance..

Then one day a ship pulls up on the shore, and a more "Modern" man arrived.

This modern man came from a part of the world where it was acceptable to toss garbage into the rivers, It was acceptable to claim lord over the lands, kill for fun and sport, dig up the earth to remove whatever was wanted.

Native Americans would have been better off left alone.

Excuse me, sorry to carry on....

Thanksgiving is one holiday I have a hard time with, in just over 200 years time European influence has forever ruined continents....

Not something to give thanks for.

[Stefan-A]

Not quite what I was referring to, but anyway..

[infernalis]

How is anyone supposed to know what is reffered to in a 4 word reply?

[Stefan-A]

How is anyone supposed to know what is reffered to in a 4 word reply?
How about now? I edited my reply a little.

edit: it doesn't seem like the native Americans had much of a choice either and some of the greater societies don't seem that eco-friendly either.

[guidofatherof5]

Wayne, That's a specific example and a good one. I was referring to an overall observation of conservation. Taking but putting back. Taking but also thinking of the future and not exhausting a resource. Looking at the impact before just taking. That was the intent to my post.

[infernalis]

How about now? I edited my reply a little.


As did I, However you were focusing an a different context of Steves post. Easy to do isn't it:D

[infernalis]

Wayne, That's a specific example and a good one. I was referring to an overall observation of conservation. Taking but putting back. Taking but also thinking of the future and not exhausting a resource. Looking at the impact before just taking. That was the intent to my post.

I have some mixed blood in my family, so I do tend to be less appreciative of so called progress than others.


edit: it doesn't seem like the native Americans had much of a choice either and some of the greater societies don't seem that eco-friendly either.

They had a choice, if a brave got caught taking a deer just for the antlers, he would be punished for it. Severly.

Folks from the other side of the atlantic would leave entire herds of dead buffalo to rot on the ground just for fun, target practice.

[Stefan-A]

They had a choice, if a brave got caught taking a deer just for the antlers, he would be punished for it. Severly.
Again, not what I was referring to. :D Technologically, they were far less advanced than their European contemporaries, they couldn't have done the same things even if they had wanted to. In other words, they didn't have a choice.

[infernalis]

Again, not what I was referring to. :D Technologically, they were far less advanced than their European contemporaries, they couldn't have done the same things even if they had wanted to. In other words, they didn't have a choice.

This is very true, and believe me Physics & math (2 laws that cannot be broken) are things I worship as much as nature:D

So maybe the native Americans could not build a machine from deer antlers, But look what those machines have cost our planet now.

I am not anti progress in any way, think about it, I'm debating with a man half way around the world sitting in front of a Machine made from plastic and silica....

It's the philosophy that got lost as man progressed, I just think that if Europeans and Americans (I refuse to call anyone who is not from India, and Indian) could have gotten together and exchanged thoughts as we do today, the end result may have been even slightly different.

The "superiority complex" of the Europeans forbid them from learning much from the Americans.

You live in a tent, I live in a castle so I spit in your face savage man.

[adamanteus]

There is also one environmental deed that is a complete taboo. It has to do with a certain biological imperative, and I don't think most people would seriously even consider it.

A time may come when we may have to consider it, like it or not.

[Stefan-A]

So maybe the native Americans could not build a machine from deer antlers, But look what those machines have cost our planet now.
Technology is a two-edged sword. On one hand, we can do a lot of harm with what we've created, but on the other hand what we've created isn't the only threat and what we've created has the potential to prevent those threats, or at the very least might allow us to prepare for them. I don't know if there's any point in using examples, but we would be able to notice a climate change regardless of its cause, or with a certain accuracy detect asteroids that might be a threat to us. People are actually working on ideas on how these threats could be dealt with and that's not something a primitive hunter/gatherer people could do or even imagine.


It's the philosophy that got lost as man progressed, Historically, people have rarely had a philosophy that you could call eco-friendly. Even the most primitive hunter-gatherers and early slash&burn farmers (at least some indians) of our past lived very wasteful lifestyles. It was on the magnitude of slaughtering entire herds of animals, just picking the best parts of the animal to feed a handful of people and simply leaving the rest to rot. People never really had a philosophy in the actual sense, they either didn't have the tools do something like that or they didn't live that kind of life at all.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that other animals can be just as wasteful when they get the opportunity. They rarely do, but it does happen.


The "superiority complex" of the Europeans forbid them from learning much from the Americans.Noble savage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage)

[Garter_Gertie]

Stefan, first: Wikipedia is not the end-all to everything. ANYONE can go there and post whatever.

Second: If I'm reading you correctly, I REALLY disagree with you. "Historically, people have rarely had a philosophy that you could call eco-friendly. Even the most primitive hunter-gatherers and early slash&burn farmers (at least some indians) of our past lived very wasteful lifestyles. It was on the magnitude of slaughtering entire herds of animals, just picking the best parts of the animal to feed a handful of people and simply leaving the rest to rot. People never really had a philosophy in the actual sense, they either didn't have the tools do something like that or they didn't live that kind of life at all."

To whom are your referring here? Not us -as in the first native Americans? Good heavens, man! Even sapping for maple syrup they gave thanks and only took what was needed.

Teddy Roosevelt slaughtered entire heards, not the indiginous people. He killed more buffalo in one day than the Natives took in weeks in the fall hunt! Back in the 1800s, it was SPORT to shoot buffalo out the windows of the train when going though the west.

The first people here were very eco-friendly.

Dekay, don't lose the true meaning of Thanksgiving. It truly had good intentions. It was to give thanks to those that helped the newcomers. Things may have gone down the crapper since then, but... The idea of Thanksgiving to give thanks. Give thanks for what you've done, for the animals you've saved, the friends you have.

You can't change history. And you've no part in what has happened in the last 300 years. You can only change the future. Give thanks for that.

[Stefan-A]

Stefan, first: Wikipedia is not the end-all to everything. ANYONE can go there and post whatever.
It would help a lot if you could mention something specific about the article that you consider false. I'm not really inclined to defend the wiki principle and I posted it mainly to signify that I'm skeptical about the assertions that were made.


Second: If I'm reading you correctly, I REALLY disagree with you.
I really don't have a problem with that, only the reasons if they don't make sense to me.


To whom are your referring here? Not us -as in the first native Americans? Good heavens, man! Even sapping for maple syrup they gave thanks and only took what was needed.

Teddy Roosevelt slaughtered entire heards, not the indiginous people. He killed more buffalo in one day than the Natives took in weeks in the fall hunt! Back in the 1800s, it was SPORT to shoot buffalo out the windows of the train when going though the west.
The indians are not the only primitive people that has ever existed and neither is it in any way safe to assume that the attitude was universally accepted among them nor that they had always held those views. The reason why it's important to acknowledge that, is that it completely destroys the view that eco-friendliness is something that we (humans) have forgotten.


The first people here were very eco-friendly.
Hard to verify without recorded history.

[Hornets23]

You know....sometimes I lose the point of what is trying to be said. I dont know that it matters who was eco-friendly and who wasnt. I dont even know if the point is whether we will actually suffer any consequences or not for trashing the environment. Perhaps the same changes would occur with or without us, though i strongly doubt it. I think the thing that matters is that we all, as human beings and citizen of the planet should feel some responsibility to protect what we can and do the things that we know will be beneficial for nature. I hate it when people put progress above everything and pretend that we an not adversely affecting the enviornment. Thats just a general gripe I have about society and the views I sometimes hear.

[Stefan-A]

You know....sometimes I lose the point of what is trying to be said. I dont know that it matters who was eco-friendly and who wasnt. I dont even know if the point is whether we will actually suffer any consequences or not for trashing the environment. Perhaps the same changes would occur with or without us, though i strongly doubt it. I think the thing that matters is that we all, as human beings and citizen of the planet should feel some responsibility to protect what we can and do the things that we know will be beneficial for nature. I hate it when people put progress above everything and pretend that we an not adversely affecting the enviornment. Thats just a general gripe I have about society and the views I sometimes hear.
I agree, for the most part.

Drastic changes can and have occurred countless times before without our interference, but for different reasons, obviously. That doesn't mean we're not responsible for what we're doing or that we shouldn't work to prevent it from happening if we have the ability, but I know it only matters to us. "Mother Nature" couldn't care less.

[Hornets23]

Of course...I dont actually think mother nature "cares". I just think that for our own good, we should at least care. If we dont, than I would highly question our character.

[Garter_Gertie]

Stefan, you're nitpicking again and not looking at things at face value.

Wikipedia - and I've not specific article in mind as I don't need one - is based on the premise anyone can post knowledge there. There are no restraints other than "This has not been quoted from a specific source," etc. The majority of what you use to back you up is from Wikipedia. And for me, that's not good enough. *I* could go post blather on there and John Doe would be quoting me in minutes.

Glad you've no problem as I don't either. I don't understand what you don't understand or what doesn't make sense to you.

I got news for you, in the America(s) it WAS universal to give thanks and only take what was needed. If you're speaking of a specific indiginous people, state them. But here, prior to and after all hunts/forages/harversting/etc. ceremonies were preformed. For a good hunt/forage/harvest/etc. and then to give thanks for was was gotten.

And this IS recorded history. As is the reference to Teddy Roosevelt. I live in MN where we have Ojibway and Dakota natives. They've much recorded history that I've been privy to. Not to mention photographs. There's recorded history from the early whites here - and how the sky would go dark with passenger pidgeons. Hundreds would be shot from the sky at once. It would take me hours, days, weeks to find the references as these are things I've learned over the years being with the people of MN, but I probably could do it.

Sometimes, Stefan, you need to take things at face value and believe. Not everything in this world is black or white.

[Garter_Gertie]

Actually, Stefan... Maybe you're more asking people to stretch their minds than nitpicking. You ever been on a debate team? Sad if not.

[Stefan-A]

Stefan, you're nitpicking again and not looking at things at face value.


Wikipedia - and I've not specific article in mind as I don't need one - is based on the premise anyone can post knowledge there. There are no restraints other than "This has not been quoted from a specific source," etc. The majority of what you use to back you up is from Wikipedia. And for me, that's not good enough. *I* could go post blather on there and John Doe would be quoting me in minutes.Like I said, I have no desire to defend the wiki principle and I'm not quoting anything from wikipedia, either, so I absolutely reject what you're saying about me using wikipedia to back me up. I posted a link to an article on the concept of the noble savage, which is something more people definitely should be aware of, although they don't necessarily have to read about it from wikipedia alone.


I got news for you, in the America(s) it WAS universal to give thanks and only take what was needed. If you're speaking of a specific indiginous people, state them. But here, prior to and after all hunts/forages/harversting/etc. ceremonies were preformed. For a good hunt/forage/harvest/etc. and then to give thanks for was was gotten.The (pre)history of humans in the Americas go much further back than the 1490's, not to mention the rest of the world. Is it really necessary for me to point out the reason why it mattered to the discussion we were having?


Sometimes, Stefan, you need to take things at face value and believe. Not everything in this world is black or white.Come on, that's exactly what you're saying here by telling me to take it at face value: That it really is white (or black). The whole idea I've been trying to get across here, is that it's not black or white and that the truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in between.

[Stefan-A]

Actually, Stefan... Maybe you're more asking people to stretch their minds than nitpicking.
Something along those lines. :) I don't want anybody to take what I say at face value, people should feel free to reject anything I say, but it is healthy to at least test other ideas before rejecting them.


You ever been on a debate team? Sad if not.Finns don't debate. :D

[adamanteus]

Finns don't debate. :D

I beg to differ!:D

[Stefan-A]

I beg to differ!:D
An exception that proves the rule? :D Can I get away with saying that? :D

[adamanteus]

Now, now Stefan... as you know, if there are exceptions, there is no rule!;)

[drache]

I only personally know one other Finn, and I'd say he doesn't debate - he barely talks, but when he does it's usually in a lecture format
not that I think this anecdotal experience of one Finn in the US would yield adequate info about a more stereotypical depiction of the "average" Finn

[Stefan-A]

Now, now Stefan... as you know, if there are exceptions, there is no rule!;)
If there's no rule, there can be no exception, but if there's an exception, there's no rule. :D

[drache]

and if there's no exception, the rule stands

[Stefan-A]

and if there's no exception, the rule stands
Well, it could also be a coincidence that there are no exceptions.

[adamanteus]

I think it's pretty much the rule that there are exceptions.

[Hornets23]

Except for the exception of the rule that has no exceptions.....

[Stefan-A]

I think it's pretty much the rule that there are exceptions.
That's a different rule. :D

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Gee! What can of worms did I open up? I go to sleep, wake up, and there are 4 pages of posts! Yee haa! I completely forgot to mention the whole point of the link I initially posted: Don't flush your kitty spoils down the toilet! Bacteria in cat feces are killing sea otters!

But now that the worms are loose, I might insert a few points from my very own distraught brain.

First, I agree that "Mother Nature" (whatever universally driven force you want to call it) couldn't care less. Our existence is a novelty in the bigger picture of the All That Is. Sure, balance is found throughout the planet (specially evolved eco-systems that have been "balanced" for years on end), but nature abhors a vacuum, and without an upset in the balance, evolution would never happen - Something is always eating something else, and if you don't become food, you could succumb from the weather or some other changing factor. The fact that we still have redwood trees and turtles (to name a very scant few of those species derived and relatively unchanged in design since before the dinosaurs) speaks to us that certain environmental conditions that favor such ancient lineages just haven't changed enough yet. Everything is destined to "go" at some point.

Regarding humanity's role in the "balance", yes, Europeans had a head start in technology, which enabled them to conquer new lands. Fundamental mindsets placed human existence above all else: dominion over all things on earth (Oh, how I loathe the self-righteousness of organized religions!). I don't believe technology is bad; I only question the intent of how it's used.

As for Native Americans, I have to be a bit rash. I recently took Native American History, and I found my teacher (an Ojibwe) to be extremely naive. She professed that which I have seen posted here: that, through lack of understanding and respect, the new Americans upset the balance.
Her idealistic oratory on how peaceful America's indigenous people were brought bile to my throat on several occasions. She completely dismissed human nature. Overall, I have to concur that most Native Americans did indeed live a lifestyle that was more harmonious with the environment, as do many of the world's indigenous people, however... people are people, and in the long run, history has proven that all cultures are succeptable to causing waste and ruin. There was, I believe a request for an example...?

MAYA! Long before the white man arrived, environmental affairs were already way out of sync in the Americas. I guess it happens when any society gets too big for its britches. The Maya civilization (esp. the later chapter) was jamm-packed with too many people, and it changed the landscape of So. Mexico and Central America completely with deforestation and rampant sacrifice (used to appease the blood-lusted superstitious and brainwashed starving masses). Yes, there were (possibly natural) droughts, but human nature is human nature.

My teacher was also shocked to learn that Pacific Northwestern tribes also engaged in slavery. Hmmmm! Sounds eerily familiar! So, while I may generally agree that indigenous cultures are indeed more finely tuned to their environment than a larger society, I don't buy the "we Native folk have always led a harmonious life" B.S.! By the way, I got an "A" in that class.

Steve

[infernalis]

See smart people really do live in.......

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/eureka.jpg

[infernalis]

If there's no rule, there can be no exception, but if there's an exception, there's no rule. :D

I always thought rules bend, and laws must be BROKEN:D

[Stefan-A]

I always thought rules bend, and laws must be BROKEN:D
Emphasis on the word "must". :D

[infernalis]

Not really sure where else to put this, Its cut and pasted from AP news.

The environmental impact and damage to native species will surely be profound.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tenant farming was popular in rural America until the Dust Bowl years of the Depression, but the practice is making a comeback on an epic scale in much of Africa. This time, however, the "tenants" are not simply family farmers down on their luck and willing to work land they don't own; they're major international corporations and governments looking to compensate for shortages of arable land in their own countries by setting up massive industrial farms abroad. South Korea's Daewoo Logistics this week announced it had negotiated a 99-year lease on some 3.2 million acres of farmland on the dirt-poor tropical island of Madagascar (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/time/wl_time/storytext/08599186114500/29985010/SIG=122vnb389;_ylt=AjTFPFo.PVFCs9el4oXz1iy9F4l4/*http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1853303,00.html), off southern Africa's Indian Ocean coast. That's nearly half of Madagascar's arable land, according to the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization, and Daewoo plans to put about three quarters of it under corn. The remainder will be used to produce palm oil - a key commodity for the global biofuels market.

A Daewoo manager, Hong Jong-wan, told the Financial Times that the crops would "ensure our food security," and would use "totally undeveloped land which had been left untouched." Land is scarce and expensive in South Korea, which makes it the world's third-largest importer of corn. Daewoo says the Madagascar land will be leased for a price of around $12 an acre, which is a fraction of the price for farmland in the corporation's home country.

Not everyone is convinced that Daewoo's move is the most effective way of promoting food security. Riots have shaken dozens of countries across the world over the past year as poor people have found themselves unable to pay the rocketing prices for staples (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/time/wl_time/storytext/08599186114500/29985010/SIG=1204q80ad;_ylt=AhleIFfovnkxzacRnPsKZgS9F4l4/*http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811893,00.html) such as rice, corn and sugar. The U.N.'s World Food Program runs school-feeding schemes for children in Madagascar, where about 70% of the country's 20 million people live below the poverty line. The island's residents also rely on WFP emergency food relief programs because of the frequency with which they're struck by cyclones and droughts. Given those hardships, the prospect of a corporate giant growing hundreds of tons of food to be consumed by people and animals in Korea raises "ethical concerns," says David Hallam, head of the FAO'S Trade Policy Service in Rome. "If we have another world food crisis, and you have a poor country where food is produced by foreign investors, and then repatriated, that is ethically and political tricky," Hallam warns.

Those ethical quandaries have not prompted restraint on the part of other outside investors moving into Africa to exploit its agricultural potential. Several European companies have leased land during the past two years to grow crops for food and biofuels (although on a far smaller scale than Daewoo plans in Madagascar) including the British company Sun Biofuels, which is planting biofuel crops in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania.

Africa's fertile soil certainly appeals to the countries of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, whose vast deserts force them to import most of their food. "The Gulf states have an incredible surplus to invest and now that the old economies are facing recession they are looking at Africa," says Marie Bos, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. Although such wealthy countries as South Korea and the Gulf states are easily able to pay for food imports, this turmoil on global food markets may have increased the incentive for food-importing countries to secure their own sources of supply.

"[Food-importing countries] have lost trust in trade because of the price crisis this year," says Joachim von Braun, director of the International Policy Food Research Institute in Washington.

For African governments, the incentive to sign deals such as the one between Madagascar and Daewoo is equally clear. Millions of African farmers lack money for fertilizer, basic tools, fuel and transport infrastructure to efficiently grow crops get them to market. While international organizations have plowed billions into health and education, agriculture in Africa has lagged badly, hugely exacerbating the food crisis of the past year. "These governments are desperate to get capital into agriculture," says von Braun, who believes the drive by giant companies to lock up land deals could benefit poor African countries whose governments negotiate wisely. Although Daewoo plans to export the yield of the land it is leasing in Madagascar, it plans to invest about $6 billion over the next 20 years to build the port facilities, roads, power-plants and irrigation systems necessary to support its agribusiness there, and that will create jobs thousands of jobs for Madagascar's unemployed. Jobs will help the people of Madagascar earn the money to buy their own food - even if it is imported.

[Stefan-A]

The environmental impact and damage to native species will surely be profound.
That's pretty much what you can expect.

[jitami]

Guess I can cross Madagascar off my list of "must visit before I die" places.... gggrrrrrr....