Musings from the Midcoast

Milk - The Good, The Bad, and the Not-So-Pretty (Part 2)

2012-02-07T10:59:00.000-08:00

The Bad - Lactose

Yep, for quite a few people across the world, lactose is the primary reason we don't consume dairy products.

What is lactose? Lactose is the sugar in milk that requires a special enzyme (lactase) in our digestive tract in order to break it down. If we lack the enzyme, we're unable to digest the lactose component of milk and all kinds of "fun" symptoms can result - nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, bloating, and more.

The digestive systems of young mammals (including humans) naturally contain large amounts of the lactase enzyme. Makes sense, right? Young mammals feed exclusively on mom's milk for awhile, then they are gradually weaned from it onto their adult diets. So most adult mammals, all save humans that is, don't need to digest lactose because they have been weaned off mom's milk.

But some populations of humans decided a long time ago that cow's milk would be a great addition to their diets (especially the peoples of northern and western Europe). Over time, and yes, through evolution, these populations of humans maintained their abilities to produce the lactase enzyme from childhood into adulthood. Notice that these are the pastoralists - groups of people who raised domesticated livestock (including cattle) as a source of both food and labor.

According to the National Library of Medicine, nearly 30 Million Americans have some form of lactose intolerance by the time they reach 20 years old. This form of food intolerance is more common among Americans of Asian, African, Native American, or Mediterranean ancestry than it is among descendants of the pastoral cultures of Europe.

Lactose intolerance likely won't kill you but it can make you darn uncomfortable.

In the next installment we'll explore the good and bad of the milk proteins, casein and whey.

Milk - The Good, the Bad, and the Not-So-Pretty (Part 1)

2012-02-04T13:40:00.000-08:00

I grew up in the Upper Midwestern US - dairy capital of the country. It was almost mandatory to have various forms of cow’s milk as a central part of our diets back then (in the 70s and 80s). Milk on our cereal for breakfast, milk to drink for lunch, cheese on our sandwiches, maybe some yogurt for a snack (or more cheese), then milk and cookies after school, and sometimes ice cream for dessert after dinner.

Milk was yummy, it was good for us (so we thought), and it provided a decent living to many of the families in our small town. I thought milk was a good thing too...until I was about 16 and noticed that every time after I drank milk I started to feel pretty ill. Nausea and stomach cramps became an everyday occurrence for me for about a year. Around age 17 I was diagnosed with both stomach ulcers and lactose intolerance at the same time. I had never heard of lactose intolerance and had no idea that cow’s milk could make some people ill because of a seemingly harmless thing like milk sugar.

So I found out that for some of us, cow’s milk isn’t such a good thing.

But a lot of Americans still consume dairy products and yes, cow’s milk does have some good things going for it. It’s yummy, no doubt about it, especially the fattier whole milk products. I don’t think there is much that can compare to a nice creme brulee, ice cream, gelato, or a cold glass of milk on a warm summer afternoon.

What are some of the good things in dairy?

Aside from the factor of a yummy taste, cow’s milk is a potential source of some positive things in our diets: protein (casein and whey), several vitamins and minerals (calcium, biotin, magnesium, potassium, and selenium, among others), conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), carbohydrates, and of course, fats. And yes, fats can be a good thing to have in our diets (the right ones, that is).

Several studies have linked CLA to protection from arterial disease, some cancers, hypertension, and can improve immune function. The composition of milk can also aid post-exercise muscle recovery and can spur gains in muscle growth. And of course, our bodies need both calcium and magnesium for strong bones. While we can get all of these things from other food sources, to have them all packaged in one good-tasting food makes milk pretty convenient and an easy way to get these nutrients.

While on the surface cow’s milk seems to be a truly amazing addition to our diets, there are also a significant number of medical studies that seem to indicate a cause for some concern. We’ll start looking at those in the next installment.

^ Lp, Clement; Scimeca, Joseph A.; Thompson, Henry J. (1994). "Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anticarcinogen from animal fat sources". Cancer 74 (3 Suppl): 1050–4. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19940801)74:3+<1050::AID-CNCR2820741512>3.0.CO;2-I. PMID 8039138.
^ a b Kritchevsky, D (2000). "Antimutagenic and some other effects of conjugated linoleic acid". The British journal of nutrition 83 (5): 459–65. PMID 10953669.
^ Roy BD (2008). "Milk: the new sports drink? A Review". J Int Soc Sports Nutr 5: 15. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-5-15. PMC 2569005. PMID 18831752.
^ Ferguson-Stegall L, McCleave E, Doerner PG, Ding Z, Dessard B, Kammer L, Wang B, Liu Y, Ivy JL (2010). "Effects of Chocolate Milk Supplementation on Recovery from Cycling Exercise and Subsequent Time Trial Performance". International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Abstract Submissions 2 (2).
^ Component in common dairy foods may cut diabetes risk, study suggests. Sciencedaily.com (2010-12-23). Retrieved on 2011-01-14.

Changing Focus...Just a Little

2012-01-22T06:48:00.000-08:00

After letting this blog go inactive over the crazy-busy holiday season, I've given a little thought as to where I want to take this over the coming year. I'm going to change the focus of this, just a little.

I'll be focusing a little more on new discoveries in health and biology...a little less on "pure" environmental stuff.

Why the change?

First, I figure if we humans can't learn how to take care of our own health, how are we going to effectively take care of the health of the planet? The health of the general populations of many of the world's industrialized countries is abysmal...and getting worse. Rates of obesity, overweight, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease are skyrocketing and it's my personal belief that the power to stop this lay in the hands of the citizens - NOT in the hands of the doctors or medical establishment. Each one of us has health and nutrition choices to make every day that only we can make - I want readers to have the latest findings (unfiltered through Big Food) so that we can make informed choices.

Second, The New York Times (online edition) and a host of other publications do an amazing job publishing the latest in findings on the environment and environmental topics. In some respects I feel as though I'm duplicating what they are already doing so well.

Third, scientists around the world have been publishing some amazing health and biology discoveries of late that haven't made it to the popular press... I'd like to share this information in a format that's easier to understand than what's seen in the scientific and medical literature. Again, I'm doing this so that each one of us can make informed choices.

Third...a lot of these discoveries bring up bigger questions with regards to areas like ethics, healthcare, the general population, medical costs, and animal welfare. While I don't intend for this blog to be a debate forum, I'd at least like people to have some background on what's happening so they can think about the issues intelligently and make better-informed decisions.

The first topics on my radar: the biochemistry of wheat and related grains; do birds have internal compasses and how do they work; are extracts from dirt leading the path to longer life; how does your digestion differ depending on the food you eat; why are some foods so darn addictive; what are neurotransmitters and how are they affected by the foods you eat; why all this sudden talk about inflammation; a rundown of common herbicides and pesticides and the effects they have on living organisms....

If there is a topic that you'd like to suggest, by all means send me a note via email or drop a comment here on this blog.

One thing to note: While I am a scientist, I am not a physician and will not dispense medical advice in this blog, via email, or in any other fashion. That job is for folks who have been through medical school. This blog is intended to relate the current scientific understanding behind health, biology, and other related topics...in no way is it intended to diagnose and/or treat a medical condition you may have.

New Bill in the US Regarding Traveling Circuses

2011-11-09T05:04:00.000-08:00

This piece on circus animals by Marc Bekoff speaks for itself:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201111/circuses-wild-animals-do-not-belong-in-the-cruelest-show-earth

Marc is a world-reknown biologist based out of Colorado, USA, and has done extensive work on animal behavior and emotion. With Jane Goodall, he co-founded "Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."

I also applaud the sponsors of the bill here in the USA, particularly Rep. James Moran of Virginia who said:

"Based upon publicly available research, including video and photographic evidence, it is clear that traveling circuses cannot provide the proper living conditions for exotic animals ... Keeping elephants in chains, confining lions and tigers in small cages, forcing them to perform unnatural tricks for the sole purpose of human amusement is increasingly difficult to justify the more we learn about these intelligent, social creatures."

I rememer seeing my first traveling circus when I was about 8 years old. Before the show, my mom took me and my little sister out in back of the tents to see the animals. I cried when I saw the bears and lions and tigers kept in cages barely big enough for them to lay down, and the elephants chained to stakes in the ground, unable to move. I also wasn't that impressed with the show itself, honestly, and I haven't been to a circus since. However, that experience has led me to actively support orginizations that work to give abused circus animals permanent, safe, and sane places to live.

The Wild Animal Sanctuary: http://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/

The Elephant Sanctuary: http://www.elephants.com/

One or Two People Can Make a Difference - Michael Pollan and Barbara Kingsolver

2011-10-17T16:34:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I spent a fabulous hour at the local farmer's market (Crystal Springs, Brunswick, Maine). The market was packed - it was a sunny Saturday morning, the farmers beautifully displayed their fruits, vegetables, meats, and eggs, and hoards of shoppers crowded the stalls trying to get their pick of the bounty before everything sold out. I love seeing this kind of activity over locally raised foods - by purchasing directly from farmers, more $ are going directly into their pockets. This means that our money stays local rather than being sent to wealthy corporations several states away.

I realized that a good portion of the sudden rise in popularity of farmer's markets is due to two American authors: Barbara Kingsolver (Animal, Vegetable, Miracle) and Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma).

Granted, in many of the more rural areas of the country, farmer's markets and farmstands seem to have always been a part of the landscape. Growing up in rural northern Illinois, what we didn't grow ourselves we often bought from the Schulz Family Farm down the road. Besides raising pigs, cows, and chickens, they had a large market garden that produced the most delectable cantaloupe and sweet corn I've ever tasted.

But I left Illinois in my early 20s and moved west. In many of the western states in the mid to late 90s, farmer's markets were almost unheard of. You bought your food at a grocery store where the lettuce was trucked in from California and the corn from Kansas. In some areas I could buy local peaches or apples certain times of the year, but the season for local food was limited and little to none was organic.

Fast forward to today. Local food is the "in" thing in many areas of the country. New England is home to many fine restaurants who buy as much locally as possible. Portland, Maine, is a foodie's dream-come-true in that regard. Supporting the New England economy is just what we do, and the farmer's markets and farmstands do a pretty good business. While maybe not the most glamorous of professions, most small farmers find it very rewarding to make a living off the land by supplying townsfolk like me with good-tasting, nutritious food.

But the movement is also taking hold in other areas - Portland Oregon and the Hood River are becoming quite the local foodies' hotspots. The farmer's market in Boulder, CO, is one of the largest I've ever seen. Festivals of locally grown food are starting to happen across the country, and more restaurants are realizing that buying locally means fresher, and often more tasty, ingredients. The farmer's market in Olympia, WA is open all year is housed in a dedicated building at the center of the waterfront.

According to the USDA, the number of farmer's markets grew 18% in the two years between 2004 and 2006. To date, there are over 7,000 farmer's markets across the country, up from 4,300 in 2006.

Kingsolver's and Pollan's books, both published in 2007, undoubtedly helped to spur this more recent growth in market numbers. But I believe it's more than just two books. I think these authors helped give many of us a good reason to buy locally whenever possible - they were able to answer questions that many of us have wondered about for so long. Does it make a difference where my lettuce comes from? Why does that store-bought tomato taste like cardboard...and does anyone sell a decent tomato these days? And why should we care about small family farms anyway? Kingsolver and Pollan also prompted many of us to think a little more about our food choices - not only what we eat, but where does it come from? How many miles was that lettuce on a truck before it became part of my salad?

The more we think about our choices, the more we will make conscious rather than unconscious decisions about how to spend our money. And the more consciously we spend our money, the more we as consumers will have our voices heard. Remember, every time you shop you vote with your wallet.

One Person Can Make a Difference: Pat Craig

2011-09-23T17:20:00.000-07:00

Did you know that in the United States, 15,000 tigers live outside of the zoo system under private ownership? That's more than double the world population of wild tigers, estimated to be around 7,000!

Did you also know that another 15,000 non-tiger wild predators (bears, lions, lynx, wolves, etc.) also live in the US under private ownership?

What do I mean by private ownership? These are animals owned by people like you and I, people who breed and raise these wild predators as "pets," showpieces, or even status symbols. Your neighbor down the road may have a tiger or two kept in small cages on his property, or someone a few miles away may be keeping a grizzly bear as a "pet" in a small shed in her backyard. Still another might have a wolf tied to a stake, living out its life in solitude and misery at the end of a 10 foot chain.

These animals are often abused, neglected, and live lives of pain, suffering, and anguish all because someone thinks it's cool to have a wild predator for a pet. Well, one man doesn't think it's cool and for the last 30 years has been doing something about it. His name is Pat Craig.

Pat grew up in Boulder, Colorado, and at an early age became aware of the captive wildlife crisis in the US. And it is a true crisis. With over 30,000 wild predators kept by private citizens (over 575 animals per state) in spotty, often dangerous and abusive conditions, it's a true crisis. Right now, the illegal trade in exotic wildlife in the US is third only to drugs and weapons in scope.

Pat hopes to change all of this. He had an early start by legally rescuing and giving sanctuary to his first animal, a jaguar cub, when he was a college student of 19 years old. Today, Pat's passion and vision has become the 700+ acre Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keensburg, Colorado.

Pat continues to lead the nation in bringing attention to the captive wildlife crisis in this country. He has pioneered how we go about rescuing and rehabilitating these animals, how best to give them long-term sanctuary so they can live out their lives in peace, and also the use of truly large enclosures (10-20 acres or more) combined with a stimulating environment to allow these predators room to roam and a chance to remain mentally sound (or in some cases, regain sanity).

The circumstances he and his team rescue these animals from are often horrific. I won't recount all of the stories here but you can read about many of them on their website:

http://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/home.html

Most of the animals Pat rescues have come from situations of extreme abuse and neglect - a pair of adult African Lions kept as "pets" in the back of a horse trailer....a female black leopard caged on a fur farm in Minnesota...a mountain lion chained by the neck in the backyard of a Montana man....a pair of grizzly bears who were housed in a truck and were kept addicted to nicotine (used as a training aid)....I guarantee that if you have any kind of heart at all and read some of these stories, you will feel sadness and disbelief - probably a healthy dose of anger too. And perhaps you'll also be left with a need to help in some small way.

While Pat and his team have a passion for rescuing these animals and giving them a loving, safe place to live out their lives, his main goal is to make himself and the sanctuary obsolete.

Yes, you read that right!

His hope is that someday soon, his educational efforts will help everyone realize that keeping wild animals, especially wild predators, as pets is just not a good idea...that we as a society will give up our need to have these animals in unsafe and inhumane conditions and prefer to see them as part of thriving, wild populations: free, in the wild, where they belong.

Pat's leading the way but you can help: support his efforts at the sanctuary; teach your kids and their friends that domestic cats and dogs are fine as pets but tigers and bears are not; support the passage of laws that restrict or eliminate the keeping of wild predators by private citizens.

He wants his sanctuary to be unnecessary. Soon.

We can all help him. Start by educating your own family and friends and see where that takes you.

One person CAN make a difference!

2011-09-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago, one of my acquaintances was feeling pretty low about the state of the environment, basically saying that it seemed like all of the environmental news kept getting worse and did our efforts actually have a positive influence at all? I've heard similar sentiments from other environmentally-conscious people I know, people with their hearts in the right place who want to make a difference for future generations but get discouraged at the overwhelming negative news.

Can one person really make a difference?

Yes, I can honestly say that one person CAN make a difference. I'm going to explore this question for a few posts to, I hope, encourage and inspire people to continue their efforts to make a difference for their chosen causes. My primary concerns are wildlife & the environment, as well as the treatment of women & children worldwide. Your causes are probably different but the message is the same: one person can be a catalyst for positive changes.

Instead of profiling well-known motivators like Rachel Carson, Rev. Martin Luther king Jr., or the Dalai Lama, I'll focus on people who could easily be your neighbors - people like you and me who have decided to forward a cause and whose passion and persistence has made a difference.

Bicycle Shop Owner, Environmental Activist, Catalyst for Change

Let me introduce you first to a humble man from Colorado Springs, Colorado, whose quiet leadership has helped to spur positive change locally.

Pike's Peak looms over Old Town Bike Shop, owned by John Crandall. Although he looks 20 years younger, John is somewhere between 65 and 70 years old and has owned his shop since the early 70s. John is the neighbor we all wish we had: quiet, kind, accepting, energetic, logical, rational, positive, outspoken, encouraging, and inspiring.

His shop serves as an informal meeting place for like-minded, rational, environmentally-concerned citizens of this small city. One day I might find John speaking with a retired PhD chemist who was instrumental in having CFCs removed from aerosol propellants. Another time it's a congressional candidate who's also a retired USAF Captain, or perhaps a Native American healer, or even a recently-graduated college student who has convinced her new employer to remodel their offices to LEED standards (and helped them make it a reality). I know I'm not alone in having had many thought-provoking, insightful, and mind-bending discussions in John's shop while overlooking racks of shiny, new, Cannondale bikes.

John quietly influences the community through action, not through hateful rhetoric or fear. His was the first business in Colorado Springs to install PV panels because "it was the right thing to do" and he's happy to give tours of the installation to anyone interested. He leads by gently showing what's possible, and being able to back up his stance with logic and data doesn't hurt either.

He is also a tireless letter-writer whose well-researched content is an example for any of us who wish to influence others through our writing. John knows that emotional appeals don't consistently create positive change for the environment - science, research, and data go much further in influencing thinking and action than do emotional appeals.

Another thing I admire in John is his unflagging example of patience and persistence. He knows that change is often measured in baby steps and that patience and persistence will often "win" where fear-based appeals fail. He also knows and demonstrates that small changes over time do make a difference. After being quietly vocal about renewable energy for many years, and backing up his words with actions (installing the PV panels and choosing to have his electricity sourced 100% through renewable sources), one by one other businesses in Colorado Springs are beginning to follow his example.

Perhaps John's most important contribution to the community is in his encouragement and support of both individuals and local sustainability projects. John is a great sounding board, encouraging each person to make a difference and inspiring each of us to think beyond limitations or boundaries. He very willingly shares his experience, knowledge, lessons learned, and often personal contacts in order to make a project or an idea a success. He sponsors causes and events that further his environmental interests. And many times he has put me in touch with just the person I needed to speak with in order to finish a bit of research or make a decision on a project.

John and his business have been recognized locally and throughout the state of Colorado for lifetime achievement in Green Initiatives and Sustainability, but that's not why he does what he does. To him, making a difference AND helping others to make a difference are just the right things to do.

http://www.oldtownbikeshop.com/

http://ppsbn.org/index.php/community/business-cases

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-profiles/Old-Town-Bike-Shop.php

http://www.catamountinstitute.org/events/28-veda-salons-eco-fashion-show

Prairie Dreams - Restoring Prairies to Conserve Water

2011-08-22T08:20:00.000-07:00

Let's consider another reason to restore prairies: water conservation.

When comparing how bison and cattle graze and use water, it's apparent that bison are much more adapted to drier rangeland than cattle, and are a bit lighter on the land as well.

Bison have been shown to move from area to area more frequently than cattle, and sometimes considerable distances. Studies done in Canada, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado show that even with a preferred home territory, bison move frequently, seldom staying in the same area for more than 48 hours. Some movements were up to 32 km in a short amount of time.

Bison also spend much less time near water than cattle, usually only heading for water once a day and spending an hour or less at or near the watering hole. In contrast, the ancestors of moden cattle evolved in moister, more tropical woodlands and still retain an affinity for water and wetter areas. Cattle are less efficient water users and have been shown to spend 75% or more of their time within a few hundred yards of water or wetter (riparian) areas when they are available.

What does this mean for the west? Since only about 1% of the area of the prairie is riparian, this means that cattle tend to concentrate around water sources and negatively impact the wetlands much more than the same number of bison would. On the other hand, it's unclear as to whether bison actually consume less water than cattle on the range - I haven't been able to find any definitive studies either way. What IS clear is that feedlot cattle consume about double the water of their rangeland counterparts.

But the most significant water conservation comes not from the introduction of bison, but from the restoration of the prairie itself.

Much of the Great Plains were plowed under and turned to farmland because the native priarie soil was rich and deep. Anyone driving across the Midwest can recount stories about driving across hundreds of miles of cornfields, wheat farms, or soybeans. Agricultural crops grow well here as long as there is enough water - but that's the problem. There often isn't enough rainfall to grow crops so often these miles and miles of fields are irrigated.

The main reason the Great Plains were prairie and not forest is that they are in the rainshadow of the Rocky Mountains. Rain and snow are relatively scarce and unpredictable. Grasses and prairie plants evolved to need less water than trees and shrubs. It's not until we approach the area of the Mississippi River that there is consistent-enough rainfall for crops. Average yearly precipitation in Denver, CO (the western edge of the Great Plains) is less than 18 inches per year (rain and water-equivalent of snow combined)...average precipitation in Chicago is over 35 inches per year at the eastern edge of the Great Plains.

Serveral of the aquifers (groundwater systems) that underlie the Great Plains are in serious decline or locally dry due in large part to crop irrigation. It's becoming clear that we need to deal with this issue now while we have time to plan, rather than waiting for another dustbowl.

Am I suggesting eliminating all of the farmlands on the Great Plains and converting it all to prairie?

No, obviously we need to eat, and the Great Plains is where much of our wheat, corn, and beans are grown. What I will suggest is a three-pronged approach:

Eat food from as close to your home as possible (covered in another post).
As a continent, the US and Canada need to develop better dryland farming practices that allow us to farm with little or no irrigation.
And, as a part of the plan, restore some of the most sensitive or problematic areas of the Great Plains to prairie and raise bison on these restored area to both maintain the prairie and as a source of high-quality, grass-fed meat.

To be continued...

Prairie Dreams: Restoring Prairie Ecosystems

2011-05-13T10:16:00.000-07:00

So why is now a good time to be restoring these prairie ecosystems?

Several factors are coming together to make NOW a great time to start this effort to restore large prairie ecosystems. Carbon. Water. Wildlife. Land Use. Economics. Ecotourism.

Let's consider carbon first - carbon dioxide to be precise.

Mature prairies, or more specifically, the soils under a mature prairie, are the subject of serious interest as a possible carbon sink in the reduction of atmospheric CO2. These soils have the ability to store large amounts of carbon pulled from the atmosphere via the prairie grasses and forbs.

In fact, the tilling of native prairie to grow biofuels appears to a losing battle in terms of CO2 emissions. If a farmer tills under a mature native prairie to grow corn for biofuel, it would take 93 years of constant corn & biofuel production on that plot to regain the CO2 emitted from the soil in the destruction of that prairie. In essence, the prairie is much more efficient at trapping and storing carbon – moreso than the corn plus emission gains from using the corn biofuel. It’s better to keep the prairie in prairie than to convert it to biofuels production, and then use the biofuels to power our vehicles.

Perhaps we could figure out a happy medium for some areas of prairie. Perhaps convert farmland to prairie? Let bison and other wildlife roam that converted farmland for a few years once that prairie becomes established, then every few years after that, harvest the mature grasses for biofuel. This might only be feasible in areas where switchgrass (a native Prairie grass) can grow as it’s a premiere source of biofuels.

Once an area is harvested, put it on a several year cycle of growth/pasturage alternated with harvest. Add a fire in every several years if needed to keep the prairie close to its natural state (this could be done after a harvest) and it seems like we have a more sustainable “cropland”. Let the prairie give us its gifts rather than forcing it to be something less.

This type of land management would accomplish several goals: aid in the re-establishment of prairie wildlife, in turn the wildlife would help naturally “manage” the land by adding fertilizer, cropping the grasses and aerating the soil (prairie dogs, badgers, ground squirrels), and the grasses would periodically be converted to biofuels to power vehicles.

If we choose the land wisely, we might obtain other benefits from this alternative management scheme. Marginal areas (land not easily farmed, or those prone to flooding) seem prime candidates for prairie restoration and biofuels production. Lands that would normally flood often, destroying crops, would make sense to convert to prairie. The prairie doesn’t care if it gets periodically flooded, but corn, soy, or wheat crops often don’t survive moderate to severe flooding. We’d also drastically cut down on the amounts of fertilizers and pesticides running off into our rivers because prairies don’t need these amendments.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/07/little-carbon-sink-on-the-prairie/

Prairie Dreams

2011-04-02T18:04:00.000-07:00

I admit to being a bit of an odd duck when I was a kid. Instead of playing with dolls or mom's make-up, I spent as much time as I could outside, roaming the woods, farmlands, and the leftover bits of prairie around our home in rural northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. I spent my days watching deer, birds, and squirrels, but dreamed of being able to see that land, the tallgrass prairie, before the European settlers arrived.

What did it look like with grasses eight or more feet tall in places? What did it sound like to have the wind rustle the stalks or to have thousands of bison trying to outrun a prairie fire? Were there more birds, and was spring the raucous chorus that some folks claim it was?

It's unfortunate that I was born about 250 years too late to experience the real tallgrass prairie.

By the time I started walking, most folks had forgotten that northern Illinois even had bison in the past, let alone wolves, elk, black bear, and even cougar. But I knew, even if others had forgotten, and I dreamed of someday being able to recreate that healthy tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Unfortunately the dream died a slow death the older I became - the ever-expanding cities of Chicago and Milwaukee devoured the once-rural areas I called home. I didn't think I could convince the residents of the Chicago suburbs to abandon their homes so bison and 8 ft tall grasses could take over what once were their backyards!

Later as a college student I studied geology, but at every opportunity I took conservation biology classes and volunteered on small scale prairie restoration projects in central Illinois. The prairie snippets we restored were small - 30 acres to 300 acres - enough to give a visitor a glimpse of some native birds, prairie plants, and maybe a fox or coyote. Not large enough to host a herd of bison. And frankly, some of my fellow students thought I was crazy for even suggesting the return of large portions of the prairie, and its most famous resident, the bison.

I didn't think it was crazy at all to bring back the herds - it just made sense from my viewpoint (more about that later).

Bison. For some reason, I've had an affinity for these huge animals since I was very young. Pronghorns also fascinated me, as did wolves and griz, but not as much as the American bison. For me, they are the defining animal members of the prairie. They are big, tough as nails, able to weather 100 F in the summer and -30 F (or colder) in the bleakest of winters, yet they are capable of great tenderness, playfulness, power, and speed. They have attitude.

In their pre-1800s numbers, the American bison were the most numerous single species of large land mammal on earth.

Think about that for a second.

Bison were more numerous than the African wildebeast. How many of us pay thousands of dollars to travel to Tanzania to see those great herds? Or watch nature films about Africa with awe? All of those animals...great herds of them roaming across the Serengeti. Wildebeasts braving the rain-swollen rivers during migration. Elegant antelope running and jumping high to avoid predatory lions and wild dogs.

We had something very similar in America not so long ago. Less than ten human generations have passed since the American plains were, in places, black with herds of bison. Pronghorn antelope, deer, and elk roamed the plains and forest edges. Prairie dogs churned the soil. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, black bear, ferrets, grizzlies, and cougar maintained the balance. Prairie chickens, sage grouse, hawks, eagles, owls, turkeys, sparrows, meadowlarks, and countless other bird species brought life and sound to the air.

I don't blame you if you're unable to picture this. It's tough for those of us alive now to imagine standing on our American prairie when a herd of bison were spooked from a storm or fire. If you were close enough, you'd be able to feel the ground shaking from the pounding of a million feet. If you visit Yellowstone National Park, you'll get a small sense of what it might have been like to see the herds - a very small sense - but there are not enough bison in Yellowstone to let you experience that thunder. For now, that's a thing of the past on this continent.

Africa had nothing on America, that is until Caucasian settlers decimated the bison herds. Numbers of bison went from over 60 million (60,000,000) to less than 1,000 in just a couple of human generations.

Absolute carnage.

And I, in my youthful daydreams, wanted to bring back that feeling of a real prairie, complete with thundering herds. Crazy you say?

Perhaps not...I would argue that now is the perfect time to resurrect this dream and begin the immense and rewarding work of making it a reality.

To be continued...

All text and graphics copyright Nancy Rynes, 2011. You may not copy or reprint any of this material without my written consent. Be nice, don't plagiarize.

Native Birds vs Domestic Cats

2011-03-21T09:41:00.000-07:00

U.S. wild bird losses to domestic, free-roaming cats may very well blow your mind. Scientific studies have estimated approximately 500 million birds in the U.S. alone are killed every year by both feline house pets and feral domestic cats. That's about 500,000,000 bird deaths per year.

Let's put that into perspective.

The human population of the U.S. is just over 300 million people as of 2010.

Or how about this...there are about 72 million pet dogs in the U.S. and about 82 million pet cats, for a total of about 154 million canine and feline pets currently (numbers of feral cats are unknown).

It's hard to say how many of these half a billion bird deaths are of introduced species such as starlings and some types of sparrow rather than our native birds (American Robins, warblers, Mourning Doves, etc.) - or how many are unfledged baby birds rather than adults. Perhaps the 0verall numbers are a bit lower as well - I've seen lower-end estimates put at about 300,000,000 bird deaths per year in the U.S. as a result of the tabby cat. In my mind, whether the real number is 250 million or 500 million per year, it doesn't matter. We still have a problem to face and issues to consider.

In comparison, wind turbines have been documented to kill less than 500,000 birds per year and as a nation we seem very worried about those losses. In fact I've seen this number used as reasoning against the use of wind turbines as alternative sources of electricity. Don't get me wrong, I want to see bird deaths from turbines minimized or eliminated as well, but my point is that we have an even bigger issue than wind turbines.

The ancient Egyptians were the first civilization to "domesticate" cats from a wild species in Africa so in no way are our pets "native" on this continent. Our domestic cats were brought to North America with the first European settlers just a few hundred years ago, so the native populations of wild birds have not had a chance to evolve to evade these very effective, silent predators.

Some might say "survival of the fittest." Perhaps, but are we mentally and emotionally prepared to lose many of the unique bird species that make this continent what it is? Or are we OK instead with it looking and feeling like Europe with only house sparrows and starlings at our feeders? Our native sparrows, finches, meadowlarks, buntings, warblers, wrens, robins, and wading birds (among others) have taken a huge hit from cats - are we OK with these losses?

If you think extinction can't possibly happen I'll say this one thing to you:

Remember the passenger pigeon?

I love cats, I really do. I love dogs too. But I love our native wild birds and mammals at least as much as I love domestic pets. With the kind of onslaught birds are having to contend with from our pets (and feral animals), our native wild birds don't stand a chance. When the wild birds are gone, they're gone. There is no getting them back. I know I am not prepared for a springtime with no bird songs, nor would I be thrilled with the loss of the variety of birds we have. I can't imagine going on a walk and seeing only starlings and European sparrows. I love seeing robins, warblers, thrushes, shorebirds, and so much more. The great variety of birds we have here on this continent is truly amazing - a gift from Nature. I'd like to give that same gift to the next several generations of Americans as well.

When I walk my dogs, I'm a responsible dog owner and keep my canines leashed so they don't scare other people or chase other animals. Please, do the same with your cats - keep them indoors or somehow under control. Don't let them roam (I can hear the objections already). Besides preventing them from killing birds and small mammals (and dropping them on your pillow as an offering), keeping your cats indoors prevents them from being run over by cars, eaten by coyotes, or poisoned by chemicals or rodent poisons.

Bells firmly attached to a cat's collar might be another option. There is conflicting evidence as to whether it really works to scare off birds but it may be worth a try.

If an indoor cat needs outdoor time and you have the space, you could build an outdoor enclosure for her - something similar to a large aviary, but to keep the cat in rather than a bird. Another option is to walk your cat on a leash. While walking a cat on a leash may sound silly I've seen this done many times. Yes, cats get used to it. One of my neighbors here in Maine does this a few times a day with her tabby. Granted, this isn't a fitness-excursion for the owner, but it gives her cat some quality time outdoors while keeping birds safe.

One other reason to keep your cat inside? Life expectancy. The average life expectancy of a pet outdoor cat is about 5 years. Indoor cats' average life expectancy is over 12 years.

http://www.cat-world.com.au/indoor-vs-outdoor-cats

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/science/21birds.html?ref=science

http://cats.about.com/od/indoorsvsoutdoors/tp/keepindoors.htm

Wildlands and Wilderness

2011-03-14T18:40:00.000-07:00

I want to start this post by saying my heart and thoughts go out to the people in Japan who continue to be affected by the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear reactor disasters. I will post more about some of those things at a later time but for now, I send my best wishes to the other side of the planet tonight and move on to the post I had intended to write last week.

I've been living along the east coast of the USA now for a little over a year. I started off in New Jersey, near Parsippany, not too far from the Big Apple, then moved to Maine in June of 2010. Prior to that I'd been living in the western US since 1992 - mostly Colorado, but with stints in Washington (state) and Montana. While I lived in the western states I traveled extensively in the Rocky Mountains. Over time, my favorite places became the wildlands and wilderness areas - places like Indian Peaks Wilderness, the remote areas of Rocky Mountain National Park, the North Cascades, the Rockies in Montana, Banff and Jasper Parks in Canada, and of course, the wilderness of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks.

The western US is changing, but it still has vast areas of wildland, if not wilderness. Of course Alaska undeniably has the most wilderness of any state. While beautiful and truly wild, it's fairly inaccessible to most folks in the Lower 48. And that's probably a good thing for the Alaskan wilderness!

I guess I'd grown used to being near wild areas or wilderness, perhaps even taken them for granted in some respects. Whenever I wanted to get away, I just picked a wild area and I was there within an hour or two, my spirit once again quiet and restored. But now that I live on the eastern seaboard I realize just what it is that I, and everyone else here, is missing by living in a part of the country that has been well and thoroughly tamed.

We're missing our visceral connection to our roots as humans - our tie to Nature at it deepest level. Being in the wilderness can be meditative, it restores some part of our spirit that we didn't know we had, or had forgotten long ago. And it has a magic that just can't be put into words.

I have watched city kids go from being utterly bored by the concept of Yellowstone to the most avid animal of enthusiasts in the space of about an hour. Show them a bison calf being born, or a wolf taking meat to a den full of cubs, or an elk baby learning to walk, and their attitudes are transformed almost instantly to excitement and awe. Many an adult biologist I know was turned on to the profession as a child - and many while visiting a place such as Yellowstone.

Unfortunately there is nothing like Yellowstone anymore on the east coast.

Locals tell me that the northern areas of Maine are really the only "wild" areas left here. Perhaps. But how wild can they be when all of the large animals have been exterminated? Yes, there may be many acres where not a home is to be seen, but the woods are quiet. Where is the bugling of the male elk in rut? The howl of wolves? And now, even the sound of deer hooves on the forest floor may be a thing of the past in the Pine Tree State. Most people in Maine are surprised to learn that not so long ago, herds of elk and caribou roamed the forests here. They've been completely wiped out in the last several decades due to hunting and development. Gone too are the wolves, sea mink, cougar, timber rattlesnake, Labrador duck, great auk, passenger pigeon, Eskimo curlew, and common murre. And now the white-tailed deer population is being heavily impacted.

Maine has been tamed. Many of the wild animals are gone. Wilderness and human development are mutually exclusive.

What I've come to realize is that for me, the animals really define and personify the wildlands and wilderness. If they are gone, so too is that sense of wilderness. More than simply a gauge to the health of the ecosystem, to me they are much of the life, the energy that makes up a place. What would Yellowstone be without its bison, elk, moose, bear, and wolves? Or Glacier without its mountain goats? Or Rocky Mountain National Park without its bighorns? In my mind, they would just be big, pretty, but empty spaces devoid of their most vibrant living energy.

Many people who have lived in the eastern states for most of their lives, or only in major cities in the west, don't even have a concept of what wilderness is, what it means, and how important it is to us as humans. More than just a vacation spot, for me wilderness reminds me there is more to this planet than just me and my fellow humans. I come to understand that animals (including humans), ecosystems, and even the planet itself are all living, breathing entities just by being in the wilderness and observing. Like us, wild animals are born, they play with their friends, they feel physical and emotional pain, they try to raise their families as best as they can, they sometimes suffer, and eventually, also like us, they die.

We are more like the wild animals than most of us humans care to admit. But being like wild animals makes sense, because we are also a product of Nature...except that we choose to ignore that fact most of the time.

It's scary to realize we're part of the same web of life on Earth that we seem to be intent on dismantling.

It's easier just to ignore our roots in Nature when we're chopping down a forest to get to the tar sands below it, to feed our petroleum addiction for a few more months. It's easier just to ignore our connection to the sea when we're taking krill out of the mouths of whales in order to feed our health food addiction with one more unproven "miracle cure."

We would do ourselves a huge favor if we as a species made decisions by thinking as the Iroquois Confederacy did - considering the impact of the decision for seven generations to come. And I would add: not just human generations, but also the wilderness and its animal generations as well.

Wilderness should be our benchmark - the standard we measure ourselves against. The standard we keep in mind when we make decisions as a species. Its presence or absence tells us how much we value, and acknowledge, our connection to our roots - our connection to the other life on this planet. If we ignore that connection to Nature, we take a huge risk in my opinion.

It's likely too late to re-create wilderness in the eastern US, but I would love it if, as a country, we make it a priority to preserve the wildlands, wilderness, and wild animals we still have in the west and in Alaska. Our children, grandchildren, and 5 more generations will thank us for allowing them a chance to experience a little bit of Nature as it was when humans were just learning how to make fire from stone.

Financial Responsibility and "Green"

2011-02-16T11:16:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, the company I work for started sponsoring classes in managing personal finances. About 20 of us signed up for the 13 week course that teaches how to live on a cash-only basis, how to invest wisely in these turbulent economic times, how to get/stay out of debt, how to achieve financial peace, etc., and how to do this without driving yourself crazy.

The course has been wonderfully insightful - I have been wanting to live on cash-only for a while but just didn't know how to make a sane transition away from this world of plastic. The course lays out a way to move to cash in a way that makes sense AND is liveable for the long-term.

One important thing that I learned both from the class materials and my own personal experience, is that using cash to pay for things rather than plastic really makes me think long and hard about my potential purchases. And because I think more about what I'm considering purchasing, I buy less. According to the author of the program, paying with cash, on average, causes people to spend between 15 and 20% less than they would if they were using plastic or writing checks. The average was 18% less! Having the money in my hands feels "more real", and spending it feels like more of an impact...it brings a reality to my cash flow that I just can't get with plastic, even though I do pay off my credit card balances every month.

Having that cash in hand and knowing there is no more influx until next payday made me realize that a lot of my purchases were wants, not needs. And many of them were wants I wondered if I even wanted (like a DVD I'd watch once and never view again). The hardest part of the process was committing to no more credit cards and then structuring a detailed, realistic budget to support that commitment. But once I made the transition, seeing the many different benefits just cements my resolve to keep living this way.

Now I see some of the benefits of going to cash-only that financial folks don't mention - not only spending less and having more money in the bank, but buying less new stuff which also means leaving a lighter footprint on the Earth. Think about that. Having your finances under control (i.e., being more mindful of your spending) and living on cash can help you buy less stuff and live more "green!"

Some examples....I have noticed that since I am paying for my gasoline with cash, my driving habits have changed considerably. I no longer drive above the speed limit on the highway (driving at 70 MPH uses 20-30% more gas than driving at 50 MPH as an example). I often walk to do my errands rather than drive (I live in town so walking is an option). I am more mindful of combining trips and putting errands on hold until I CAN combine trips, and I am constantly trying to figure out how I can get better mileage or drive less. And no, I haven't become a total tightwad...I still drive to go skiing or hiking (but less often) and am saving money in advance for vacations and trips rather than pay for them with plastic.

My food bills have also dropped a bit...I am stocking up less and planning my menus more closely. While I still commit to buy organic and local, I buy frivolous items (to me, anyway) less, like tortilla chips or imported cheeses, and focus more on "needs" like local and organic salad greens and vegetables. I am also eating out less, and avoiding expensive beverages at coffee shops. While I still enjoy Sunday mornings at the local cafe, I buy a medium-sized drip coffee for $1.25 rather than a mocha for $4.00 or more. Same cafe experience, but less cash out and fewer calories in!

My book and video purchases have dropped substantially - I rely more on the local library now for books, services like NetFlix and RedBox for DVDs, and when I really do "need" a book or video of my own, which is rare, I either buy it used or wait and make a conscious choice to buy new...after checking it out of the library to see if I really still want it.

The point isn't to live a totally frugal, un-fun, monastic life, but to be mindful of where I am directing my money. Being cash-only can bring a consciousness and mindfulness to spending money, and also acquiring "stuff", that using credit cards may be difficult to achieve.

Green Purchasing - Gently Used Clothes

2011-01-27T04:22:00.000-08:00

At the bank a few days ago the teller, a young woman probably of 25, made a complimentary comment to me about the sweater I was wearing. It's a dark green, hooded, wool sweater made in Norway and has a beautiful pattern of black dragons all over it.

I thanked her for her comment and not being able to keep quiet about it, told her I had found it used at Goodwill several years ago. The expression on her face was priceless youth - first she looked horrified, then embarrassed, and quickly moved on to the next customer. She acted as if I'd just told her I had a contagious disease!

By now I'm used to this reaction. During more prosperous times, especially in the more affluent Colorado (my previous home), women were, for the most part, horrified and bewildered that I'd purchase used clothing. But they were also fascinated in some way by what I found...barely-worn cashmere sweaters for $3.99, brand-new designer dresses with tags still on for $6.99, a barely-worn long wool and cashmere winter coat for $9.99, a new wool tartan skirt with original price tag still on for $9.99 (a $200+ skirt).

What I've noted is that after the economic meltdown of the last few years, I'm getting the horrified reaction much less often than during the boom times. Now folks are envious of the gems I find at thrift stores, which to me means I'm making a little progress changing viewpoints.

I do purchase a majority of my clothing gently used - at commercial thrift stores such as Goodwill and at small resale/consignment shops.

Why buy used, especially when I can well afford new?

First, more money stays in my bank account to save for later.

Second, I intensely dislike shopping malls, big box stores, and major retail outlets and avoid them as much as possible. They are a waste of time for me and designed to try to sell you stuff you don't need...which, for me, is almost everything they stock.

Third, at a good thrift or consignment store, the variety of clothing available is much wider than anything you can find at a retail outlet. A thrift store pools the tastes from a wide variety of people, not just one buyer at one store.

Fourth, it's good for the environment. By purchasing gently used clothing, I am part of the Reduce - Reuse - Recycle movement. I am re-using clothing, not demanding that more be manufactured just so I can say I bought new.

I AM very picky with what I purchase used. I only buy top-quality, very gently worn items that I know I will wear for a long time. Everything needs to fit AND look good. I make sure there are no stains, tears, or other blemishes. And before any clothes go into my closet, they either go to the dry cleaner (I know, not the most environmentally-friendly option) or through a commercial laundry - this, I hope anyway, eliminates bringing home those stray critters such as bedbugs that are plaguing urban areas again. By the way, you CAN bring bedbugs home on new clothing if the retail store is infested so it's a good idea to clean or launder ALL clothing, new or used, before bringing it into your home.

I do have some things I exclusively buy new: white dress shirts, dress pants (I'm short and athletic, so hard to fit), athletic clothing (for cycling, skiing, etc.), socks, most shoes, and lingerie (of course).Other than that, the vast majority of what I wear comes to me via recycled routes - which is mildly amusing since I resisted wearing hand-me-downs when I was a kid!

The other thing I ask myself before any clothing purchse (or ANY purchse for that matter) is: do I really need it? Right now I don't need any clothing so I won't be going shopping - for either new OR used clothes. I have enough of everything so why waste time and money and resources buying more?

Related Reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/business/01apparel.html?_r=1&hpw

Home alone

2011-01-13T10:03:00.001-08:00

So many of us are parents of teens so I'm going to pose something for you to think about...

You and your spouse have 18 year old twins, a boy and a girl. They are about ready to go off to college in a few months but still live at home, under your roof, on your dime. They've essentially been able to take care of themselves now for at least a couple of years, maybe more. You think they're adult enough to stay at home by themselves for a long weekend while you and your spouse go to take care of some out-of-town family business. From previous experience of being left for a day or two at a time, they seem to be responsible and listen to your requests to keep the house in good shape, so you think 3 days alone should be OK. After all, you're not going to be that far away - about a 2 hour drive.

I'd think that most of you would tell your kids to take care of the place while you're gone. You've left enough food in the fridge to last a week, and some money in the desk drawer just in case. You tell them that they can have a couple of friends over but no big parties. Both kids drive and will be able to get around on their own. Both kids also have summer jobs so should be busy for all of the 3 days you'll be gone. You have some pets - a dog, two cats, and a couple of parakeets. The kids have been taking care of all of the pets for several years on their own so you're not worried about the animals.

You leave - you know this is a big test for your children but you trust them to do what you've asked since they have been responsible in the past.

Sunday afternoon you come home to find the house almost completely trashed. Furniture destroyed, floors dirty and worn, all of the food gone, refrigerator standing open, no food to be seen, kitchen cabinets smashed in, bathrooms are a mess, garbage all over the house, the pool in the backyard is filthy and smelly with about 1/2 of the water gone. What's worse is that the parakeets are dead, the dog is very ill, and the cats nowhere to be found.

You've left your grown kids in charge of the house for 3 days and they've almost completely trashed the place!

How do you react? Are you angry, disappointed, or something else? What are you going to say to your kids?

"What happened? We left you in charge for 3 days and you've almost destroyed our home?"

The Healing Power of the Ocean

2010-12-19T13:38:00.000-08:00

Today I set aside my paints and canvas and took a friend on a hike to one of my favorite shorelines along Maine's Midcoast. When I woke this morning, I knew I needed to be by the sea. I needed some clarity in one area of my life and knew I needed to be outside to get that clarity. Yes, even though the temperature was well below freezing and a snowstorm was predicted I wanted to be at the shore. To think, to meditate, to do my version of praying, to see what visions might come in response to my questions. My friend Eric called me this morning to tell me his girlfriend had left him so I invited him to come too. I hoped the sea would work its magic on both of us.

Whenever I have decisions to make, serious questions to ponder (usually romantic ones), or need space to allow answers to unfold, I go to the sea. Walking along the shore, paddling a sea kayak, or sailing somehow seems to allow clarity to unfold in my mind. I go to the sea too when I have grieved a loss, such as the death of my father or the end of a long term relationship. My friend Alison tells me I go to the sea during these times because I'm a Scorpio, a water sign, but I'm not sure if I buy that* ;) Perhaps it's simply some form of genetic memory.

Recent archaeological digs have found that the ancient Celts of Scotland and England regularly gave offerings to the sea, rivers, and lakes. No one really knows what prayers or questions the offerings held...we just know that at sacred sites througout Britain, the ancients offered gifts of precious possessions to the waters around them. My lineage is mostly Scot, Irish, and English so perhaps, through some quirk of biology, that urge to make prayers to the sea survived and resurfaced in me.

Eric and I quietly walked the 2 miles through the woods and over the marsh, just taking in the stillness of Nature. I could tell he was hurting, badly, so I just offered support by my presence rather than with words (and for anyone who knows me, that's a feat). We heard the crashing waves about 100 yards before seeing the beach. The scent of the salt water made me feel like I was home.

The beach here is quite sandy, but with a granite outcrop near the trail's exit. Rocky islands loomed gray off in the distance. Gulls drifted and played on the shore breeze and occasionally the silence was cut by one of their shrill cries.

Eric and I walked the shore for a bit, then climbed a ways up the granite hill to contemplate the Atlantic....and our perceived problems. We meditated together, then he talked a little about his girlfriend of 8 months. My heart nearly broke for him, going through a grieving, and at this time of the year. But as we sat and watched the water he began to admit the breakup was probably for the best. She was a city girl, he an outdoors, country guy and they could just no longer reconcile the differences. His love of sea kayaking drove her nuts. Her love of shopping in the big city did the same to him. The glimmer of healing started.

Perhaps the ocean heals us because of its vastness and its age. Physically, it's bigger than we can even imagine, covering over 2/3 of the planet. And its age is perhaps billions of years old. The ocean basins have shifted around, but the ocean itself is almost as old as the planet. The first life appears to have originated in the oceans well over a billion years ago. 100 million years ago, large reptiles like the pleisosaurs swam in the oceans. Its age dwarfs a human lifespan and makes me and my "problems" seem insignificant in comparison.

I left Eric and wandered the shore to ponder my own questions, romantic and otherwise. Unfortunately the lightning bolt of clarity didn't strike me as I'd hoped it would. Instead as I walked along the all-sand beach, I said to the Universe that if I ran into a stone in the next several yards I'd tell the stone my requests and throw it (and them) into the sea. And within a few feet was a lone, fist-sized rock on this beach of sand. I picked it up, cradled it with both hands, and told it my three requests. And tossed it into the sea where it belonged.

An hour later, Eric and I walked the two miles back to my car, both of us somehow feeling better. My Celtic ancestors would probably understand.

*There are actually 13 signs of the Zodiac, not 12, so in reality I'm a Libra!

A Different Take on Climate Warming

2010-12-11T15:11:00.000-08:00

A little earlier this week I discussed the changing climate with a new friend of mine. His background is not in earth sciences but in medical sciences, so he wanted to get my take on the issues surrounding a changing climate. I could tell he was a bit skeptical about some of the doom-and-gloom predictions, but then again I am too. Even knowing that global climate is changing doesn't make me fearful or panic-stricken. Concerned, yes, panicked, no.

We talked about the distant past on Earth, 65+ million years ago, back in the Cretaceous when global carbon dioxide levels were 4-5 times what they are now. Yes, the climate was warmer and yes, life on Earth and in the ocean thrived on a warmer planet with more carbon in the atmosphere. Given that then, why should we be concerned with a changing (warming) climate? Won't life thrive under warmer conditions?

Well yes, it will, eventually.

It finally occurred to me that what's not talked about much in this debate is the rapidity of the change, and the species adaptations that we see around us.

The species on this planet now have evolved, for the most part, in a climate that is overall cooler and lower in carbon dioxide than existed during the Cretaceous. This climate took millions of years to cool from its Creatceous high, and that overall gradual cooling allowed species to evolve to cope. Some species didn't survive the cooling climate. Other, new species evolved that were better-adpted.

The pace of warming today is fairly rapid, much more rapid than scientists even 20 years ago were predicting. So the problem really is that the climate may be changing faster than species can evolve to cope with that change. Life on Earth will survive, but it will probably look different from what we know today.

We will have to make peace with some amount of species loss. This isn't doom-and-gloom but reality. Humans have impacted the Earth so much already, not just in terms of carbon dioxide but also by expanding populations forcing species out of their territories, that it may already be too late for some species. Should we try to minimize the impacts? Yes, definitely, but we must also face the reality that with humans around, the Earth won't be what it was 5 million years ago. It doesn't have to be "bad" with us here, but it will be "different."

We can (and in my mind, should) take responsibility for minimizing our impact on the environment as much as possible - not just for the plants and animals, but for us too. Whether we realize it or not, our survival is intertwined with our environment - we need a world that is healthy in order to survive as a species.

The real question is - how will we as humans cope while the climate comes to some sort of new equilibrium? We are adaptable - perhaps the most adaptable species on the planet. We have some fairly advanced thinking skills that we will need to employ to solve the problems as they arise. A changing climate will mean that we will have to learn to work together for perhaps the first time in our history. Can we do this? Yes, I believe we can.

Will we? Well, that's up to us...

Shrimp Bycatch - Why Care?

2010-11-26T12:33:00.000-08:00

Next time you see that pound of wild-caught shrimp at the grocer or fish market, think a bit before putting it into your shopping cart. That pound of wild-caught shrimp may have cost the lives of up to 20 pounds of other marine life including sea turtles, rays, crab, coral, sponges, bony fish like flounder and herring, and occasionally a sea mammal or large fish like a shark. These other animals caught incidentally when fishing for a commercial species are called "bycatch."

What's the problem? Aren't these animals re-released to go about their lives?

While yes, these other, "undesirable" animals are usually thrown back into the sea as discard, most are already dead or dying by the time they make it on board the shrimp trawler. So that pound of wild-caught shrimp on your table also caused the deaths of up to 20 pounds of other species. The discarded animals become food for marine scavengers...they don't go back to leading their normal lives, swimming or crawling along the bottom happily-ever-after. And obviously, because they are killed, they are removed from the breeding population of their species thus depleting that species numbers even further.

The amount of bycatch varies from region to region and the type of fish that is the intended catch. Shrimp trawling causes the largest ratio of bycatch. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization has documented shrimp trawling bycatch rates of up to 20:1 (20 pounds of other species are caught and discarded for every 1 pound of shrimp). They calculate the world average at just about 6:1. Shrimp trawlers in the USA have bycatch ratios that average between 3:1 and 15:1. To put this into perspective, in the Gulf of Mexico alone, being caught in shrimp tral nets kills from 25 - 45 million red snapper per year...and that isn't the only species in the bycatch.

In some areas of the USA, progress is being made to reduce bycatch by shrimp trawlers. One example is in the Gulf of Maine and the introduction of a new type of trawling net that doesn't have a top (conveniently called "topless trawl"). This new type of trawl net can reduce bycatch from about 30% of the total catch ( or 3:7 bycatch to shrimp ratio), down to about 10% of the total catch (1:9 bycatch to shrimp ratio). While most of the bycatch decreases with this new type of net, the flounder bycatch actually increases.

Yes, this new net is a little ray of good news. Other good news comes from shrimp fisheries with tight regulations, such as (again) the Gulf of Maine. But don't reach for that second pound of shrimp quite yet - bottom trawling has other effects that I'll bring up in a future post.

So what's a responsible consumer to do?

The first thing I'd like you to do is think before you buy. Think of every dollar you spend at the grocery store or fish market as a vote. By purchasing something, you are giving a big YES vote to how it's captured, processed, packaged, shipped, and marketed. Know what you are voting for. Also, research what you eat - I will continue to post on ocean topics here, but I encourage you to do your own research. Search the library, the internet, talk to local fishermen if you can, inform and educate yourself. Don't believe everything you hear or read :) Use the brain you were given to discover the facts, then decide for yourself how you want to shop, based on your own values system.

My personal philosophy is now to severely limit my consumption of commercial, wild-caught sea fish, down to almost nothing. I will perhaps eat a pound of local, Maine pink shrimp when they are in season, or a Maine lobster now and again, but I won't purchase and eat anything my research has shown me to be unsustainable. Is that the right choice for you? I don't know...that's for you to decide.

For further information:

He, P., D. Goethel, and T. Smith. 2007. Design and test of a topless shrimp trawl to reduce pelagic fish bycatch in the Gulf of Maine pink shrimp fishery. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 38: 13–21. doi:10.2960/J.v38.m591

^ "Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper: Assessment Summary Report.". Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Stock Assessment Report of SEDAR. 2005. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S7SAR_FINALreduce.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

Morgan, LE; Chuenpagdee, R (2003). Shifting Gears. Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters.

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/factsheets/Bycatch.html

Gratitude

2010-11-24T10:56:00.000-08:00

I admit to having a slightly different take on Thanksgiving Day than most Americans do. While I think it's a lovely thing that we have set aside one day to be with family and celebrate what we have, this is something I take time to do every day. I know, I know, it's also a day to stuff yourself with food, veg out in front of the TV, and do nothing all day. At no other time of the year is this considered "normal." Ah, yes, life in the 'States :)

But in the spirit of the day, I thought I would share with you some of the things I'm grateful for right now:

My family and friends who journey with me on this precious blue dot we call home (Earth)
Living in the beautiful state of Maine, having a super job, and awesome co-workers
That I can smell the clean scent of the sea when I step outside in the morning
Being healthy in mind and body
Seeing a spectacular sunset over Boothbay Harbor
The Living Waterfront
The World is Blue by Sylvia Earle
Folks like those at the Center for Wildlife in Cape Neddick, ME, who rescue, rehabilitate, and release injured wildlife and marine animals
That there are folks actually doing something about cleaning up oceans, protecting habitat, climate warming, oil disasters, overfishing, and land use issues. Thank you, each and every one.
That I live in a country where I can write these words without fear of government reprisals or censorship.

My challenge to you is to think about 3 things you're grateful for each and every day, not just Thanksgiving Day.

Return to an Age of Sail, part 2

2010-11-21T05:45:00.000-08:00

Bringing back an sailing ships to transport good sounds crazy, doesn't it? Here we are in 2010, and as a society, we can't remember back just 100 or 150 years ago to a time when most goods were shipped using only the wind as power. No carbon emissions, no spilling of oil or fuel into the oceans, no concerns about rising fuel costs.

What's changed since then?

The world population has exploded from just under 2 billion people in 1900, to just around 7 billion today. Because of this, goods and raw materials are being shipped overseas in quantities previously unfathomable. The sailing ships of 1900 couldn't keep up with the demands of the modern era...at least with old-style thinking and old-style architecture.

So let's think outside of the box for a moment? Let's ask "How can we?"

First, why can't the best designers alive today re-architect a new breed of sailing ship? A type of ship that can haul more cargo, sail faster, go into shallower ports, or heck, even have solar collectors onboard, maybe even built into the sails themselves...?

Would these new sailing cargo vessels be able to haul as much as a modern container ship? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a shipbuilder or architect, so I don't know what is beyond possible with sail. But I think to get ourselves out of the corner we've backed ourselves into, we need to think differently. Old thinking got us where we are today: rampant consumers shipping millions of tons of goods and resources across the world, at a huge cost to the atmosphere and oceans.

One thought: perhaps if we curbed our voracious appetites for new "stuff", sailing ships might be feasible again.

Another: let's throw our prejudices about sailing ships out of the window before looking at the problem. Why can't we design a new type of ship that can haul large quantities of goods? Maybe it has 2 or 3 hulls instead of just one. These new ships don't have to look or sail like the ones of 150 years ago - they can be as different from the Cutty Sark as a modern cargo ship is from The Lynx.

Perhaps we ship smaller quantities of higher-priced or specialty goods via sail, saving container ships for the cheap, mass-produced stuff. Or use sail for the shorter hops within a continent, leaving the longer voyages for the modern, massive cargo ships. Or redesign containers to be lighter and fit into smaller vessels.

I really think it's possible to redesign the way we ship good and resources, but it's going to take time, effort, money, and the willingness of all of us to rethink our approach to many different things. Can we do it? Yes, I think we can...as a society, though, we need to both believe that we can AND see the need for doing it.

If you'd like to read a stunning book on why we should be thinking differently, and why we should be protecting the oceans, I urge you to read Sylvia Earle's The World is Blue. It's been a lifechanging book for me, and I'll be examining it in more depth in upcoming posts.

This post and its photos are copyright Nancy Rynes, 2010.

A New Age of Sail? Part 1

2010-11-10T05:55:00.000-08:00

The privateer "Lynx" rests before me at the shipyard, tied at the pier waiting to set sail again in a few days. Gentle swells lap at her black, wooden sides. She's quiet for the evening - sails gathered and secured, the US flag flying over her stern, her two tall masts and seeming tangle of lines stand in contrast to the apricot colored evening sky behind her.

I sit on the edge of a tall concrete embankment with my feet hanging out over the water and next to the Boothbay Shipyard where Lynx is moored. In this area of Maine the first ships were built in the early 1600s and was the start of the local ship and boatbuilding tradition. Maine has a long shipbuilding history that continues to today here in Boothbay, and in Rockport, Rockland, Thomaston, and even in Bath where US Navy ships are still constructed.

The Lynx is a young ship. Launched in Rockport, Maine, in 2001, she sails the oceans as a sail training ship. She's an 1812 version of a Baltimore Clipper Schooner, built for Woodson K Woods by Rockport Marine, and designed by Melbourne Smith. At 72 feet at the waterline, she's somewhat on the small side as tall ships go, but small doesn't keep her from being a beauty.

Something about tall ships has always enchanted me. From the time I was a little girl I dreamed of sailing a tea clipper like the Cutty Sark, full with a load of precious cargo with only the wind as a source of power. Nope, I wasn't enchanted with with the life of a pirate like a lot of kids might be, I just wanted to sail a clipper. Alas, I was born much too late and the wrong gender to make that my life's work :)

The fleets of schooners and tall ships that sail today are typically used as private yachts, cruise vessels, or sail-training ships like the Lynx. Maine has a fair contingent of schooners, relatively small, two to 3 masted sailing ships built sleekly, typically to carry passengers in short voyages along the coast of New England. No one here in the US, at least as far as I've been able to find out, is still using sailing ships to carry legal cargo (I'll leave contraband out of the mix for now).

As I sit here and stare with awe at the Lynx, I wonder if perhaps a new age of sail might just be over the horizon? Commercial shipping accounts for 4.5% of global CO2 emissions by last count. Using the wind exclusively causes no emissions. I wonder...why can't we clever humans design and build a new breed of merchant sailing ships to carry goods across the oceans?

Helping the Redknot and Horseshoe Crab

2010-10-26T17:54:00.000-07:00

If you want to help the Redknot and Hoseshoe Crab, the single best thing you can do is to vote with your wallet. Legislation can certainly help, and so can donating to conservation organizations. But really, the most effective thing you can do is to think carefully about what you buy and eat. If you want to help the Redknot and Crab, send a clear message by:

Stop consuming all sea eel and conch products:

Sushi that contains eel or conch
Eel food products (check ingredients in sauces, fish pastes, prepared foods)
Eel and conch on the menus at any restaurant
Eel-skin products
Conch shells

Don't "collect" Horseshoe Crabs, of any size, ever, and don't purchase collected Horseshoe Crab specimens from someone else. They take almost a decade from birth until they are old enough to breed. Right now the eastern US shoreline needs all of the Horseshoe Crabs we can get...so do you if you want to continue to have uncontaminated vaccines, IV drug therapies, and other medications and treatments.

Provide donations or volunteer support to organizations that:

Protect horseshoe crab habitat
Protect shorebird migration and nesting areas
Provide cleanup to marine habitat where the Horseshoe Crabs live
Research shorebirds, horseshoe crabs, or their habitat
Research alternative baits for eels
See "Resources" below for more information

Don't disturb migrating shorebirds - keep your distance.

Obey all beach closings during spring and fall migrations. During their migrations, shorebirds are often starved and exhausted. Once they land, they need to eat and don't have energy to spare keeping away from humans who get too close. If the birds start to fidget as you approach, you are too close. Back off.

Educate yourself, your family, and friends. Watch the Nova special called "Crash", available on DVD through PBS or DVD retailers.

Further Reading:

Science Daily on Redknots: ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070816162204.htm )
Science Daily on Horseshoe Crabs: ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060221235120.htm )
NOAA: ( http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_delaware.html )
Local citizens organize to protect habitat: ( http://www.capegazette.com/storiescurrent/200910/primehook02.html )
Human-caused changes to habitat: ( http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/horseshoecrab/Fisheries/habitatchange.html )
MA asks for public help with Crab habitat: ( http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeapressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Eoeea&b=pressrelease&f=090521_pr_horseshoe&csid=Eoeea )
DE Fisheries Management: ( http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/horseshoecrab/Fisheries/regulations.html )
NJ Helps Redknot: ( http://www.3rbc.org/news/2008/RedKnotRecovery.pdf )

Resouces:

http://www.horseshoecrab.org/misc/erdg.html
Fledgling Birders: ( http://www.fledgingbirders.org/RedKnot2.html )
Bird-a-Thon: ( http://www.birdfellow.com/journal/2009/04/28/delmarva_ornithological_society_bird_a_thon )
The Nature Conservancy
The Audubon Society
Local land trusts along the east coast of the US
Local conservation organizations

A Miner's Canary

2010-10-16T06:13:00.000-07:00

Why should we care about one little wading bird going extinct?

Why shouldn't we care? I'm of the viewpoint that every species on this planet has just as much a right to live as humans do. Why does a species have to be somehow "special" or "useful" before we deem it important enough to have a right to be here? No, the Redknot isn't large and majestic like the eagle, nor is it "useful" to human hunters as are gamebirds. It's not flashy nor does it have the melodious song of a warbler. It's just a wading bird - a wading bird that happens to migrate up to 20,000 miles in a single year, from South America to the Arctic and back again.

The Redknots' journey is the clue to the answer to my first question - why should we care?

On its northward migration during the northern hemisphere's spring, the Redknot undertakes some incredible, non-stop, sea-crossing flights. There is no snack service, no stopovers, no beverage cart, no RADAR to avoid bad weather. They fly, completely of their own power, for as long as it takes to reach their destination. Some don't complete the crossing - they didn't get enough to eat before the journey so they perished along the way. Each Redknot has to build up a sizeable fat reserve in order to power those wings for the flight - no fat, no safe landfall.

The two major non-stop legs for the Redknot over the ocean are from South America to the Atlantic shores of the USA, and from there up to the Canadian Arctic. Once the Redknots reach the shores of the USA, they must turn into eating machines in order to make the second leg of the trip up to the Arctic. Their fat reserves depleted, the Redknots set about gobbling up their main food source - the eggs of Horseshoe Crabs. You see, the Redknots' landing in the USA is incredibly timed to coincide with the spawning of the Horseshoe Crabs along the Atlantic Coast. The little travelering birds, along with many other species of shorebirds, are almost totally dependent on the eggs of the crab in order to make their journey to the Arctic, alive.

And therein lies the rub.

Humans have been, and continue, to decimate the Horseshoe Crab population. We seem to be of the mindset that since they've been around hundreds of millions of years, that they will survive no matter what we do to them.

Unfortunately that's not the case. The Horseshoe Crab was ancient well before the dinosaurs began to evolve. It's survived many mass extinctions, but it's now being decimated by humans.

Why?

Because we humans seem to have a lust for eating eels and conchs. You see, the Horseshoe Crab is being slaughtered by the millions to become bait for eel and conch fishing. From the late 1980s to 2004, the annual Horseshoe Crab harvest increased from 500,000 pounds per year to 5 to 7 million pounds per year. Scientific surveying has shown a 90% decline in Horseshoe Crab populations from 1990 to 2004.

Not surprisingly during this same time period, Redknot numbers plummeted from over 100,000 individuals to about 13,000. Latest estimates put that number well below 10,000 - perhaps too small for the species to survive.

It was the plummeting of the Redknot populations that keyed scientists in to the plight of the Horseshoe Crab. The crab population plummeted, so there weren't as many crabs to lay eggs and therefore, far fewer eggs for the Redknots to eat on their migration. Fewer eggs to eat meant that more Redknots perish before they reach their breeding grounds in the Arctic. What we have is a negative feedback loop.

Why should we care about one species of crab?

Horseshoe Crabs are vital to human health.

Currently, the medical industry uses a part of the blood of Horseshoe Crabs to test all injectible medications and devices for bacterial contamination. If you have received a vaccine (like the flu vaccine) or an injectible or IV drug (such as an IV antibiotic), you owe your health to the Horseshoe Crab. Other medical uses for Horseshoe Crab blood are in the works, including possible cancer treatments, anti-virals, anti-fungals, and antibiotics. In order to obtain this extract, Horsesheoe crabs are captured, bled, and released. Most survive to breed, some do not. Crab deaths from being bled are estimated to be from 2-15%. Still, much better than the 100% mortality rate of those caught to become bait.

Now are you concerned by the drop in Horseshoe Crab numbers? You should be. We have no other reliable way to test for bacterial contamination in our vaccines and injectible drugs than with the derivative of the Horseshoe Crab's blood.

So, the Redknot was, in a sense, the miner's canary. It's population crash alerted us to the crash in Horseshoe Crab numbers. It's also a wake-up call - we can't continue to decimate crab populations without putting ourselves in danger.

It's not too late to act - what we can do about this is the subject of my next post.

This post Copyright 2010, Nancy Rynes. No portion of this post may be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Nancy Rynes.

For more information, check out:

http://www.horseshoecrab.org/med/med.html

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/redknot.htm

Does anyone really care?

2010-10-13T18:58:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I took my road bike out on a long, wandering route through the Midcoast region here in Maine. The day was gorgeous - cobalt blue skies, trees blazing with reds, oranges, and yellows, and a light breeze coming off the ocean. The breeze brought with it the scent of the sea. Some here find that scent - of kelp, sea life, and wet mud - somehow distasteful or even foul. Me? Well, I think it's the second-greatest scent on earth...a very close second to the aroma of a beautiful old garden rose.

The scent of the sea lured me to pedal out to one of mud flats on Maquoit Bay. By the human clock, the time was mid-afternoon, the tide was fully out, and the low angle of the sun made the islands in the bay a study in warm gray silhouettes. Here, mudflats extend for perhaps 500 meters from shore at low tide. A few gulls picked at clams or other bits of lunch on the mudflats, while another group of perhaps 25 gulls napped on the asphalt of the parking area where I stood. They didn't ruffle a feather while I stood not ten feet from them, enjoying the view.

Several minutes passed and I noticed a small flock of shorebirds looking for a place to land near the gulls. The little group darted back and forth in front of the entrance to the mud flat as if they were one organism - the communication among the individuals appeared to me, anyway, to happen instantaneously. How in the world could a flock change direction 90 degrees, or even 180 degrees, as a single unit? Just a little mystery that perhaps someone, someday, will figure out. After a few passes by the parking area, the little group of shorebirds settled on a place to land - out on an old slab of concrete about 25 feet from where I stood.

I noticed something a little different about this group of birds once they landed - they didn't do anything. They stood in place in exactly the spots they landed, just appearing to rest. It took me a moment to realize they were probably in the middle of their autumn migration. Who knows where they had been that morning - Nova Scotia? The Bay of Fundy? Further north? A wave of amazement and appreciation passed through me. These little birds, not much bigger than a good-sized robin, had recently left their breeding grounds far to the north of here and were on their way to warmer climates for the winter. And they were powered by their own wings. No cars, buses, or planes to take them to their destinations, just an unerring sense of direction, muscle power, and a little bit of stored fat.

The migrants definitely looked tired - they stood in place for ten or so minutes, barely moving a muscle. I stood as still as possible, not wanting to disturb them, but this also let me get a good view of them. To my surprise they appeared to be Redknots! This amazed me even more because the east coast poplation is in serious trouble at the moment. Numbers of Redknots are declining rapidly due to a loss of habitat and prey species (horseshoe crab eggs) at migration staging areas. But more on that later...

After studying these little guys for about 10 minutes, a car pulled into the parking area behind me and out popped 2 parents, one dog, and 3 teens, one a boy of about 14 and two girls, about 16 and perhaps 10. The boy immediately wanted to go chase the birds, gulls and redknots both, while his father told him in a half-hearted voice to leave the birds alone. The boy called back to his father "They're just birds" and ran pell-mell right into the middle of the flock of gulls. The father and mother just turned their heads and looked the other way while, I admit, anger grew inside of me. The girls sat on rocks and looked disinterested in this whole "nature" thing. After about 30 seconds, the oldest asked if they were done and could they please go to McDonald's now?

The Redknots took off immediately and flew back and forth along the shore, seemingly confused. It appeared they really wanted to rest at this particular spot but were disturbed (rightly so) by the presence of a family of humans who didn't care. For my part, I should have marched right up to the father and told him about the redknots and their migration, how these poor birds were tired and just wanted a place to rest and eat before continuing their long journey south. I didn't. I didn't because, quite frankly, I thought I'd be wasting my breath on these 5 people. I immediately wondered if there was anyone in the US who really cared.

The Redknots flew off and I turned my bike and started the long pedal home.

The questions that I'll be exploring next are...does anyone really care? And, more importantly, why should we care? Why should we care about one bird species going extinct along the Atlantic coast? Why should we care about changes in ocean chemistry, methane levels in the air, or changing ocean currents?

This post copyight 2010, Nancy Rynes. No portion of this post may be copied, transmitted, or otherwise distributed, in any form, without express written consent of Nancy Rynes.