Concentration
Influences of human-built boundaries on wildlife migratory patterns
- Questions:
- Descriptive: What are the main boundaries that influence habitat size and migratory patterns of wildlife? When were these boundaries created? How negotiable are migratory patterns of wildlife?
- Explanatory: Why were these boundaries created? What was the motivation behind the creation of the these boundaries?
- Evaluative: How is the creation of accommodating infrastructure possible on a national scale? In instances where it is necessary, how do we decide what species to prioritize?
- Instrumental: Which types of boundaries can be changed to be accommodating to native species? Which types can’t? How could accommodating infrastructure slow habitat loss as well as aiding at risk species.
- Courses
- History 239- Constructing The American Landscape.
- History 261- Global Environmental History.
- History 336- Wilderness and the American West.
- Environmental Studies 350- Environmental Theory.
- Summary
- For my concentration I am interested in exploring boundaries that are created by humans and how the effect the migratory habits of wildlife. My interest in this was piqued in ENVS 160 where I investigated dams influence on how the native salmon of the Pacific Northwest reached their spawning grounds. Salmon populations are good indicators of river health as well as a renewable food source for a growing population. Boundaries tend to take shape in not only physical forms, they take immaterial forms to restrict the movements of people and animals on a legal basis. The physical boundaries take the form of urban and industrial structures. These most commonly look like highways, suburban sprawl, and railways on the urban side. On the industrial side these most commonly look like hydro-electric dams, fields of wind turbines, and other similar structures that are used to generate power. On the intangible side of boundaries, legislation tends to focus on controlling where certain species can migrate and travel to. For example, in Oregon it was legal to kill wolves if they were on your property and seem as a danger to you livestock. While the anti wolf sentiment during this time never manifested itself into physical borders to restrict their movement. It allowed farmers and other to create an intangible boundary so if a wolf came onto your land you could kill it. In addition to reducing the wild wolf population in this area it also forced wolves to expand their hunting grounds as to not impose on areas where they would be killed by people. The main example I plan on investigating is how the construction of dams in the mountain west and pacific northwest has impacted local salmon species. The “major causes of mortality were passage through turbines at dams, predation, and delays in migration through reservoirs in low-flow years, and prolonged exposure to lethal concentrations of dissolved gases caused by spilling at dams during high-flow years” (Raymond, 2011). This demonstrates that the dams are the primary impediments responsible reducing native salmon. To tie this into my my history major I plan on looking at these boundaries through a historical context. Most importantly, when were these boundaries created? And why? In addition to looking at these boundaries through a historical lens I also plan on looking towards the future. Since the major impediment of looking at something through a historical lens is the absence of providing solutions, I plan on concluding my concentration with looking into accommodating infrastructure. It seems impossible to retrofit all old infrastructure to become more accommodating the best steps to take going forward would be to make the newly created infrastructure more accommodating for wildlife. More specifically fighting the “Extract-and-dump nature of the current industrial system, in which materials and energy are extracted, processed, used, and ‘dumped’ in a linear flow into, through, and out of the economy” (Gertler, 1993). The extract and dump nature of industry is exactly what is poisoning the salmon in the Pacific Northwest. In a global context, the world’s urban population has been growing at a steady increase since the 1960s (World Bank, 2018). With consistent urban growth across the globe, comes a need for more domestic infrastructure. The creation of infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing urban population poses a serious threat to the wildlife that inhabit the areas that surround urban areas. The threats to wildlife are not exclusive to the habitats that border urban areas, but rather all habitats. Deforestation is happening on a mass scale to fuel industrial and urban growth which causes all wildlife to relocate. The large issue around the relationship between migratory habits and industrial structures is that the issue itself is unsolvable without a large scale reduction in population and infrastructure. Which in the current day and age is impossible. Take highways for example. Many states across the U.S are beginning to look into and implement highways that allow wildlife to cross over and under without being put in danger by passing traffic. While this is a good step forward this progression proposes other issues. Outlined by Jackson and Griffin in their 2000 report titled “A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Impacts on Wildlife” they assert that “the effectiveness of highway mitigation systems has not been evaluated with respect to the vast majority of wildlife. It is probable that some species do not require specific design features while others will require careful attention to factors such as placement, size, substrate, noise, temperature, light and moisture.” (Jackson and Griffin, 2000). This demonstrates that while progressions are being made to construct more accommodating infrastructure, these issues are multifaceted and providing one solution often creates a series of smaller issues. In areas that have a high density of roads and highways “conservation of particular species may be of lesser concern than the maintenance of overall habitat connectivity” (Jackson and Griffin, 2000). In summation, the presence of a rapidly growing urban population makes it nearly impossible to eliminate the effects of boundaries on local wildlife. In order to work towards aiding wildlife we must look at adjusting existing infrastructure to become more accommodating as well as taking wildlife into more consideration when constructing infrastructure in the future. Again, these considerations provide more issues where the health of some species must be prioritized over others as well as the costs of accommodating infrastructure may be well beyond the United States’ financial ability.
Sources
Alexander, S.M. and N.M. Waters. 1999. Decision support applications for evaluating placement requisites and effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures. Pp. 237-246 In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Andrews, A. 1990. Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a review. Aust. Zool. 26(3&4):130-141.
Bennett, A.F. 1991. Roads, roadsides, and wildlife conservation: a review. Pp. 99-118 In D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (eds.) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, London.
Evidence of negative effects of anthropogenic structures on wildlife: a review of grouse survival and behaviour.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659(1979)108%3C505%3AEODAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Keefer, M A, et al. “High-Head Dams Affect Downstream Fish Passage, Timing, and Survival in the Middle Fork Willamette River.” River Research and Application, vol. 29, no. 4, 6 Jan. 2012, pp. 483–492., doi:10.1002/rra.1613.
Proctor, James D. 2010. “True Sustainability Means Going beyond Campus Boundaries.” Chronicle of Higher Education, December 3, 2010. http://chronicle.com.watzekpx.lclark.edu/article/True-Sustainability-Means/125484/.
Schroeder, R. Kirk, et al. “Juvenile Life-History Diversity and Population Stability of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 73, 17 Nov. 2015, pp. 921–934, web.b.ebscohost.com.watzekpx.lclark.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=a75c65ce-9ace-411f-a716-4be215e19def%40sessionmgr120.
United States, Congress, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Dave Jepson. “Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead.”Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011, pp. 1–32.
Andrews, A. 1990. Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a review. Aust. Zool. 26(3&4):130-141.
Bennett, A.F. 1991. Roads, roadsides, and wildlife conservation: a review. Pp. 99-118 In D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (eds.) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, London.
Evidence of negative effects of anthropogenic structures on wildlife: a review of grouse survival and behaviour.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659(1979)108%3C505%3AEODAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Keefer, M A, et al. “High-Head Dams Affect Downstream Fish Passage, Timing, and Survival in the Middle Fork Willamette River.” River Research and Application, vol. 29, no. 4, 6 Jan. 2012, pp. 483–492., doi:10.1002/rra.1613.
Proctor, James D. 2010. “True Sustainability Means Going beyond Campus Boundaries.” Chronicle of Higher Education, December 3, 2010. http://chronicle.com.watzekpx.lclark.edu/article/True-Sustainability-Means/125484/.
Schroeder, R. Kirk, et al. “Juvenile Life-History Diversity and Population Stability of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol. 73, 17 Nov. 2015, pp. 921–934, web.b.ebscohost.com.watzekpx.lclark.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=a75c65ce-9ace-411f-a716-4be215e19def%40sessionmgr120.
United States, Congress, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Dave Jepson. “Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead.”Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011, pp. 1–32.