[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Navy Threatens Nat Wildlife Refuge



On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Juan A. Pons wrote:
>
> The locals ARE in turmoil. They are protesting at the state capital this
> thursday!
>
> Stu Gibeau wrote:
> >   I doubt the local citizens are in turmoil

Hi Carolinabirders,

The locals are in turmoil, but not over the threat to the wildlife refuge.
They are upset about the 30,000 acres of farmland which will be lost to
the military facility. That's not to say that conservationists and farmers
cannot join forces against this plan, but we should not confuse one source
of opposition with another.

And we should keep in mind that, in some cases, the military has been an
excellent steward of wildlife habitat and endangered species. Fort Bragg,
in particular, comes to mind:
http://www.bragg.army.mil/esb/default.htm
I used to work on Fort Bliss in New Mexico, which also handled its natural
resources fairly well except where they were hamstrung by the same sort of
long-term cattle-grazing leases which damage so much BLM and National
Forest land out west. Several other bases also do well to varying degrees,
like Fort Hood in Texas which devotes great effort to managing for
Golden-cheeked Warblers and Black-capped Vireos.

Yes, there are examples to the contrary, where the military has proposed
or carried out actions which have further endangered rare species; yes,
many of the positive examples may have been coerced by the Clinton
administration; and yes, the people currently in charge of our government
would just as soon eat a Red-cockaded Woodpecker as photograph one. But
the point is, they can do a good job as well as a bad one. And if the
effort to stop the airfield fails - and in the current political climate,
it's hard to be an optimist about anything our federal or state government
is doing - we may have to think about making lemonade out of a 30,000 acre
lemon.

So while we shouldn't stop writing letters in opposition to the airfield -
or the interstate through the Green Swamp, or military exemptions from the
Endangered Species Act, or raids on the state environmental trust funds,
or any other of our government's bad ideas - we should keep Stu's points
in mind. The current value to wildlife of those 30,000 acres of farmland
is currently very limited; geese and swans forage on crop waste, raptors
and mammalian carnivores fatten up on agricultural rodents. If this land
were in military hands, how would it turn out? If neglected, it might be
taken over by invasive exotic weeds, and be even worse than it currently
is, though perhaps with less runoff and chemical pollution. But if it were
regrown into Longleaf Pine savannah, like at Fort Bragg? Or maintained as
grassland, like around the Voice of America towers? Or swamp forest, like
surrounds the bombing range within the Alligator River NWR? These sorts of
habitats would not attract the huge flocks of waterfowl from Mattamuskeet
and Pocosin Lakes that gather on neighboring grain fields, but would
harbor all kinds of less plane-suceptible species...

Under the current economy, and political leadership, and cultural climate,
our ability to protect current wildlife habitat, much less increase it, is
much less than it should be. So, *if* this fight against the airfield goes
the wrong way, we might want to think about making the best of it.

Just a few ideas...

Josh


Joshua S. Rose
Duke University
Department of Biology (Zoology, R.I.P.)

jsr6@duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jsr6/