Wild horses, feral hogs, and even native species in the wrong places. The impacts of wild horses on desert ecosystems — Conservation Maven. Bison on Catalina Island versus endemic native plants.  Valuable discussion on the conservation of popula…

I certainly understand the complexities involved in modern conservation and this admittedly is a complex issue. However, I am still concerned that in promoting these non-native animals the Conservancy is building a constituency that considers destructive non-natives an acceptable part of the landscape, even when such animals threaten sensitive natural habitats and endangered flora. Given this same reasoning, should we tolerate nutria, feral cats, Burmese pythons, rats, mute swans, and axis deer in our sensitive national parks and other protected areas?

What was the direct or indirect role of animal activists in your decision? Unfortunately, some conservation organizations have been known to take the easy way out to avoid confrontation, even when it is not in the best interests of the resource. You rationalize the situation by stating that “Conservation is a complex human endeavor, in which science and biology are but one of the main players.” True, but at what cost? As I have pointed out in numerous blogs, animal rights and conservation are antithetical concepts. If conservation organizations, like the Conservancy, are going to base their future wildlife and habitat management decisions on political pressure from animal rights advocates and/or economic gain, then let’s just agree that many of our native species have no future. Indeed, if promoting tourism is the main goal, then why not throw in a few giraffe and wildebeest as well? That might draw even more tourists.

As far as the scientific value of the herd is concerned, there are plenty of other places where biologists can study bison behavior and genetics. That is not a cogent argument for keeping them on the island. For my doctoral work, I studied an introduced population of mountain goats in Olympic National Park, WA. While it was a great experience, I’ve never argued that these non-native herbivores should be maintained in the park, where they threaten several species of endemic plants. Just the opposite–I think they need to be eliminated from the park to protect its world heritage biodiversity.

Also, if these bison are so important to conservation, as you say, then why not translocate all of them to Native American tribal lands within their historic range? The Conservancy–to their credit–apparently recognizes that returning bison to Native American tribal lands is an important social and ecological goal, particularly because our government and citizens were responsible for the bison’s near demise. If they are not important to conservation (you did not state whether these bison are pure or if there is evidence of cattle genetic introgression), then what is the harm of chemical euthanasia–a humane method of population reduction approved by the AVMA? Effective conservation involves making hard decisions. From the conservationist’s perspective, a failure to make such decisions is going to leave us with a decidedly more depauperate world. That being said, I do appreciate the difficult situation the Conservancy is in–the words between a rock and a hard place do come to mind.

Thanks for the civil discussion. Much appreciated.

Carlos de la Rosa, Chief Conservation and Education Officer, Catalina Island Conservancy

December 12, 2009

This is a response to the comments made by Mr. Hutchins on the value (or lack thereof) of keeping a small herd of bison on Catalina Island and using contraception to manage the population growth. Mr. Hutchins makes a number of valid statements and we share his concerns about the importance of native, endemic and rare plants on the Island. In fact, the protection of these plants, the habitats they characterize and all other native species (endemic or not) is our primary goal. However, this goal needs to be accomplished with a clear understanding and incorporation on the decision-making process of the current and historical context of the Island.

Mr. Hutchins expresses that the Conservancy’s “primary goal should be to conserve the region’s natural heritage.” Well, actually this is close to being correct. The Conservancy’s mission is to be a responsible steward of its lands (which comprise 88% of the roughly 48,000 acres of the Island) through a balance of conservation, education and recreation. So, it is stated in our mission that we seek to achieve a balance between the ecosystem needs and the human needs. This Island has been inhabited by humans for at least 9,000 years, the last 200 or so heavily impacted by a variety of extractive and “heavy-hand” uses. Since the arrival of modern man, the Island has received sheep, goats, pigs, deer, antelope, cattle, horses, bison, more than 200 species of non-native plants (including grasses brought in for the cattle industry as well as many horticultural and agricultural species) and other landscape changes, including roads, trails, buildings, firebreaks, an airport, telecommunication towers, etc. Additionally, the Island has been a major recreational hub for nearly a century, currently with some 4,000 residents and nearly a million visitors a year. So, the Island is quite far from being a pristine location, although this does not reduce its importance when talking about its unique biological riches.

The Island, then, has an important cultural and historical component, from the long-present Native American presence (that left hundreds of important archaeological sites) to key historical periods, including ranching, mining, tourism in various forms (including strong ecotourism) that literally drives the economy of the entire Island, and environmental education. This is the context in which our conservation work takes place. Every decision we make takes into consideration ecological, cultural and economic perspectives, and we strive to come up with solutions that benefit all three (or at least do not unduly negatively impact any of them).

Additionally, the Conservancy prides itself in being a science-based, collaborative and humanitarian organization, one which takes into consideration social, economical and even political concerns as well as the more usual biological concerns when time comes to make decisions.

Now, a few facts about the bison. While they were introduced for a particular reason (the making of a silent movie more than 80 years ago), their permanence on the Island has made them an important touristic attraction. Moreover, their isolation for so many years has attracted the attention of geneticists and bison biologists that seek to learn more about the species – information that can serve to make better decisions about the other herds of bison around the United States. Rather than treating the animals as cattle (for beef) we decided to seek better and more humanitarian solutions to their negative impacts, while still maximizing the benefits (for the public and for science) of maintaining a small herd. Currently, the herd is maintained at 100 to 150 animals and confined to about one halfof the Island. These parameters may change in the future.

I disagree with a number of statements in Mr. Hutchins’ letter. Bison are not “…a common animal that is raised domestically and sold in restaurants for its meat.” Bison are an American native species that almost became extinct due to extraordinary shortsightedness of our recent ancestors. The species is still not out of the woods with respect to their conservation. It is true that there are bison grown for the beef market, but most wild bison populations are not exposed to this extractive use.

The Conservancy is using contraception on its resident herd for various reasons, none of which were mentioned by Mr. Hutchins. Contraception on females will not reduce the population size (this has been accomplished by shipping hundreds of individuals to poor Native American tribes for their management and use) but will reduce the growth rate of the population. Also, pregnancy avoidance will improve the health of the females and avoid the traumatic process of round ups and shipping to other locations the excess bison.

Finally, the remaining bison do perform a positive service to the Conservancy by feeding on non-native grasses that were introduced earlier to feed the then existing cattle herds. Obviously, the presence of bison also brings with it visitors and their dollars, which help us support other conservation and education programs.

In all, I agree with Mr. Hutchins that bison are non-native to Catalina Island and that they have a negative impact on the soil and some of the vegetation. However, not all impacts are negative. Conservation is a complex human endeavor, in which science and biology are but one of the main players. Economy, ecology, social and political concerns go hand in hand in this modern conservation world. We appreciate and value our native irreplaceable resources, and we make a huge effort in securing their protection against major threats. The three main threats to the native populations of plants on Catalina Island are invasive species, non-native browsers (mule deer) and fire. We have programs on each of these fields, as well as on the bison.