Newcomers

Why do we fear some, over others?

By DENNIS APRILL, Outdoors Columnist

Wild turkeys, sea lampreys,  brown trout, zebra mussels they all have at least one thing in common: they are species that were not native to northern New York when the first Europeans colonized the North Country. Instead, these species were brought here by humans in either a conscious introduction program or by accident. 

There are other species that have moved in on their own;  these include coyotes, opossums and moose. In each case, when a species establishes itself in a new ecosystem, there has to be a reason: a void perhaps left by a species extirpated, a change in habitat, for human gratification,  or, in the case of self-introduction, a species that just bulls its w y in and takes over. 

Even the smallest change in an ecosystem has some effect on the environment. The question is,  why do we accept certain species,  even welcome them, while others are frowned upon?  Dr. Chuck List is a professor of philosophy at Plattsburgh State University. List is an avid angler and hunter. He teaches classes in environment ethics at the college. I recently posed that question to him. 

For one possible answer, List looked to Aldo Leopold’s writings. 

Leopold is one of the most influential environmental philosophers of the 20th Century. In his classic "A Sand County Almanac," Leopold put forth his environmental philosophy that had a major impact on views of nature in the latter part of the 20th century and that influence continues today. List says that one of the basic points of Leopold’s philosophy is his Land Ethic, which states as one of its premises, "A thing is right if it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community." The two basic criteria, List says,  for evaluating the addition of a new species to the North Country, or any other ecosystem, are as follows: Is the science and research there to support such an introduction; that is, in the case of human-initiated introductions,  is there a good scientific reason for doing so, and second, do the human values agree with the scientific goal?" To put this in terms easier to follow, List uses the sea lampreys in Lake Champlain as an example. "They came here from the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of miles away, not on their own, but on ships using the St. Lawrence River. Since becoming established,  they have harmed the fish in the lake, and most residents want to see them controlled, differing only on the method of doing so. Most people want lampricide used, others want barriers or even sterilization. Obviously, the sea lampreys’ value to society is low. 

Wild turkeys, on the other hand, "List continues," were brought in because research presumably showed there was a place for them in the ecosystem where they would not cause a major disruption. And not only hunters, but also birders like to have them around. I don’t know of anyone who objects to wild turkeys."

Brown trout is another species that passes both the scientific and value criteria. Browns, native to Europe, were first raised in a New York fish hatchery in 1883, and released soon thereafter. They are more tolerant to warmer water than native brook trout, and will easily out-compete the brookies because the browns eat almost everything available. But, because they inhabit a niche not likely used by brook trout, the warmer parts of a stream or pond, and because of their angling values,  brown trout are a favored and sought after non-native fish. In fact, the legendary streams that made the Catskills famous are dominated by brown trout. 

Rainbow trout, Kokanee salmon in the North Country and Chinooks and Coho salmon of the Great Lakes are other examples of scientifically successful introductions supported by the majority of people, as are eagles and peregrine falcons. 

There have been other attempts at bringing in a once native species that had been extirpated, some not very successful. 

The lynx restoration program of the late 1980’s comes to mind. . 

This proposal really didn’t generate a lot of public opposition,  even though a predator was being put back into a supposedly open niche in the higher Adirondacks where snowshoe hares, a favorite lynx food, were plentiful. Anyone who was around back then knows what happened. The reintroduced lynx took off,  were hit by cars, shot near chicken coops —-the list goes on. 

No one knows if any survived or, if a couple did, where they wound up. The program ran out of money a few years later. In this instance, the public did not question the value of doing a reintroduction, but the science was wrong. Now we know lynx in northern Canada and Alaska travel widely. 

This brings us to one of the most controversial reintroductions ever suggested -bringing wolves back to the Adirondacks. 

In 1996, Defenders of Wildlife at a Wolf Conference in Albany first proposed the idea. The public reaction that followed has been mixed as proven by Defenders own commissioned survey (the split was almost 50-50), but even if there was overwhelming support, such a program probably wouldn’t work based on the current scientific research. If we were to put back the wolf that once roamed here-the small eastern Canadian (Red)wolf -all research shows these animals would breed with coyotes, ruining the initiative. The latter has moved in to fill the void left after wolves were extirpated in the late 1890’s. 

One introduction, caused indirectly by man, may prove to be the litmus test for Leopold’s Land Ethic in the North Country. In the mid 1990’s a small,  exotic fish, the tench, raised in a Quebec pond as a marketable food source, escaped during a flood and wound up in the Richelieu River. The tench is a popular game fish in Europe. 

Its habits are similar to carp. It can survive in stagnant water and water temperatures of between 35 and 80 degrees. It hibernates in the mud of a lake bottom in winter and is extremely hardy. Tench average one to four pounds. 

If this species takes hold, as it apparently has in the river, and eventually infiltrates Lake Champlain, the question will be:  Is it good, value-wise, and scientifically what species will it compete with and maybe even displace? Then, of course, if the impact is negative we will have to decide what to do about it. There are no easy answers when it comes to these types of biological events. 

As Chuck List concludes, "Leopold’s Land Ethic provides no definitive answers on what to do in situations like these, but it can help guide us in asking the right questions."