quote:

---

“What we found is that with the extinction of a bird, or a mammal or a plant, you aren't just necessarily wiping out just one, single species. We're also allowing all these unsung dependent species to be wiped out as well,” one member of the team, Heather Proctor of the University of Alberta, said in a statement.

---

Do we really need major studies to figure this out?

For one thing, there can be value in such a study from a strategic point of view. Once you have quantitative data supporting your "common sense" idea, you have a better chance at influencing public policy, because your arguments will carry more weight. If a carefully performed scientific study indicates that policies X, Y, and Z ought to be implemented, there is a better chance of it actually being done.

New study shows being poor leads to more illness, more depression, shorter lifespan.

Smoking bad for health.

Babies cry means something.

D'uh!!!!

For example: I live in an area that is still highly populated by coyotes. This is a GOOD thing, as it maintains a balance between the various field eating rodents and the integrity of said fields, that would otherwise be more prone to wild fires if not for the coyotes.

However, there are many, many ranchers here that consider coyotes a plague to their livestock, and proceed to kill them at will in order to insure their own profit and sustenance. thus far, coyotes are not protected here, and are not under gaming jurisdictions either.

Anyway, to make a long eco story short, these ranchers have compromised the integrity of their land to such a degree that fire is now a much more prevalent threat than the coyotes!

But, though this would seem to be dictated under "common sense" (as a fire can wipe out EVERYTHING far faster than a few coyotes could ever hope to), they continue on their vigilent hunt, and then proceed to use up what small amounts of water are available during *fire season* to thwart the threat of fire damage.

It's going to take many, many decades to reconcile the damage these ranchers (and I don't HATE all ranchers; I am actually related to a few) have already caused in the few short decades they've waged war against these creatures.

I strayed a bit off topic, but this is just one illustration of how everything is, in fact, interconnected, and how *human* common sense isn't always so common.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crimson:
For example: I live in an area that is still highly populated by coyotes. This is a GOOD thing, as it maintains a balance between the various field eating rodents and the integrity of said fields, that would otherwise be more prone to wild fires if not for the coyotes.

---

The rodents eat back the fresh (moisture laden) field foliage to the point where it's either dead, dry or non-existant...making the area very prone to fires. Coyotes tend to subsist on these smaller creatures (prairie dogs, mice, moles, voles, hares, marmots, etc.), which goes a long way toward keeping the balance in check.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crimson:

But, though this would seem to be dictated under "common sense" (as a fire can wipe out EVERYTHING far faster than a few coyotes could ever hope to), they continue on their vigilent hunt, and then proceed to use up what small amounts of water are available during *fire season* to thwart the threat of fire damage.

---

You can listen to it here, in mp3 format.

After listening to the interview, I can only disagree with the dismissive tone of the first post in this thread. Sure, we all vaguely know that different species depend on each other, and that the extinction of one can lead to the extinction of others. That doesn't mean that this is not a worthy subject of study.

How many and what kinds of species can be expected to go extinct when some other species goes extinct? This hasn't really been examined in much depth. Sure, the average person may have a hard time caring about primate lung fungus, lice, beetles and moths, but it is important to know the dependencies among species.

[ 22 September 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]

If you ever want to see human activity doing unknown and unknowable damage to the interconnectedness of life, look into the West Coast trawl fishery. Dragging big nets across the bottom as much as 6000 feet below the surface, scooping everything up and keeping the marketable bits is not good ecological management, or even awareness. We have no idea what the fish are doing down there, how they interrelate with each other and the many bizarre nonvertebrates that come up in the nets. We have no idea how old most of the fish are, where they spawn, where or what they eat, anything. We do, however, know that they are worth up to $13/lb in the sushi market. Sigh.

[ 23 September 2004: Message edited by: arborman ]