Dear Chris,
Thanks for the information concerning the dispute over the burros. Such arguments and disputes over deteriorating land, noxious plants/animals and disappearing wildlife are endless and global as I experience working in the US. Mexico, Canada, all over Africa, Australia, South America, etc. Frankly if we remove all emotion, institutional and professional egos and look objectively at nothing but the science neither side has the answers. Some of the points you are making are closer to the science but as you note are fueling conflict and disagreement that could continue for years.
For these reasons I am not going to get into the middle of this argument. However I will provide information that both sides might consider and I will suggest a way to resolve the conflict for the betterment of all wildlife and you are free to publish anything I write. David Wetzel writes “Most importantly I feel that it is imperative that we as
conservationists support science based efforts at wildlife and habitat management. The best source of that science is Texas Parks and Wildlife.” So there is a starting point in that both sides agree solutions should be science-based but are arguing over the science with TP&W regarding themselves as the authorities. I will return to this the most critical point that any solution be science-based.
The native vs non-native argument is a side issue. This concept arose for good reason because there is danger in introducing a species (especially predators to a new
environment). However this has now got out of hand implying that any organism that enters a new environment does not abide by ecological principles and thus has to be eradicated at all cost. Consequently many millions of dollars are wasted every year in the US “eradicating” non-native species with not one success that I am aware of anywhere. And as you point out because no date was set we see obviously non-native Americans are called Native Americans. In your dispute you are dealing with currently the problem is one of serious desertification blamed on the burros. That habitat concern is the issue having nothing to do with any species. I guarantee, and do so now in writing, that if all the burros are shot desertification will continue. This mistake I made in the 1960‟s when my research “proved” too many elephants were causing similar desertification in a major national parks. We shot some 20,000 and it became worse because I, and the committee of ecologists appointed to review my research and approved, was wrong. Like all scientists we interpreted the data to fit the paradigm of our training. When the US government shot 50,000 sheep to stop the desertification of the Navajo lands it became worse but despite the passage of many years the paradigm remains fixed.
These pictures published in the “Position Paper on Climate Change.
International Society for Range Management” 2009 by –Joel R. Brown, USDA – NRCS, Robert R. Blank, USDA – ARS, Guy R. McPherson, University of Arizona Kenneth W. Tate, University of California Davis are relevant to your situation.
“The picture on the top is a view of a desert grassland in southern New Mexico in 1961. The picture below is the same view in 2002. Livestock had been excluded from the site in the 1950s, but processes resulting in the replacement of grasses continued.” (Italics mine) Pictures courtesy of Jornada Experimental Range USDA.
As you will note, in a peer reviewed paper concerning the gravest problem facing humanity –climate change – the authorities refer to mysterious “processes” with no peer reviewer questioning it because the statement comes from authorities. If you or I wrote such stuff it would not pass peer review by the academic authorities. TP&W have no more idea than these authors of what is causing the desertification and habitat destruction they intend to reverse by shooting the burros.
I could send many more pictures of similar serious desertification occurring when all livestock were removed. One more will suffice.
This is wilderness area under management by National Parks Service of the US and it shows the state of the land some 70 years after removal of all livestock, and having had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on range conservation measures. Clearly the Federal NPS, like TP&W have no idea what is causing such severe desertification as bad as anything in Africa. Lately I note mainstream institutional scientists world-wide are blaming such desertification on climate change despite the fact that the climate has not yet changed and such desertification has been occurring for thousands of years before coal and oil and gas exploitation.
This is a global problem of profound importance not simply a Texas problem. Long blamed on livestock, desertification is occurring where it should not be happening – on research stations in the US, Pakistan, Africa, Australia, in countless protected plots, in national parks and wilderness areas. After many years of grappling with this mystery and following early clues in Africa while working with many scientists in their individual capacities (outside institutional peer pressures), as well as doing research beyond range science, the cause of desertification was finally discovered in about 1984. Since then
privately people have been reversing desertification over million acres on four continents. Only now are institutions rapidly beginning to collaborate with the Savory Institute on which this work is centered internationally. This was the work that won Australia‟s international Banksia Award in 2000 for doing the most for the environment on a global scale, and won last year‟s Buckminster Fuller Challenge for the work offering the greatest hope in dealing with humanity‟s most challenging issues. Texas does not function ecologically any differently so there is great hope if all involved can set aside their anger long enough to learn.
The cause of desertification when finally understood was something totally unexpected. It is simply the way humans make decisions using one Core Framework. In this all actions are taken, and policies formed, toward an objective. All actions involve using a „tool‟ and the only tools humans use to manage the environment at large are – (i) technology in some form (ii) resting environment or (iii) using fire. And all decisions are based on one or more factors - research results, expert opinion, peer pressure, friend‟s advice, intuition, cost, profitability, compromise, expediency, cultural norms, etc, etc.
In your case the authority‟s policy objective to improve the range involves the objective of shooting the burros. The tools used will be (i) technology (rifle) and (ii) increased rest of the land. And they made this decision based on research results, expert opinion, peer pressure, cost and many other factors.
There are sophisticated schools of decision making in places like Harvard, West Point, Sandhurst, etc but peel the onion and at the core is always this framework that is incredibly successful with all things we “make” – buildings, dams, bombs, computers, genetic engineering – NASA put a man on the moon using this framework. However if honest we note the core framework is less successful with things we “manage” – economies, agriculture, desertification, climate change, etc. The former are termed “complicated” and the latter “complex” in Systems Science jargon.
There are two reasons why using the core framework to form their policy as Texas P & W are doing will lead to continued desertification – first objectives never deal with complexity (of nature, society and economy) that is essential to successful policy. Secondly there is, in the core framework, no tool that can reverse desertification – no aspect of technology can ever ensure rapid biological decay essential in such
environments. And the other two tools resting land and use of fire both lead to
desertification. So in your case shooting all the burros can only cause conflict (as it is doing) and can never solve the problem. Hence my guarantee that desertification will continue. I do not want to spend time on it here but it is also the reason why the solutions you are proposing will disappoint you – you too I note have an objective and objectives, without holistic context, simply do not work in policy.
Over the years working on this problem we developed the holistic framework to enhance the core framework by addressing two flaws in the core framework that affect dealing with complexity in natural resource policies and desertification. It is the use of this holistic framework that leads people to solutions they themselves establish – just as all of
you in your conflict will do eventually. During the days of the Carter Administration USDA engaged me to train 2,000 officials in the use of the holistic framework. Training included officials from all major agencies (SCS, FS, BLM, BIA) as well as faculty from land grant colleges (TX, NM and AZ) as well as national and state parks services
including Texas. Participants brought many policy examples so they could train on their own policies. Although a great many policies from all over the US were studied – wildlife, forestry, drought, flood, noxious plants, range management mainly – participants concluded not a single policy would succeed and most would have
unintended consequences causing increased damage. One group in this training made the recorded unanimous statement “We now recognize that unsound resource management is universal in the US”. This is published (p 547) in the textbook “Holistic Management: A New Decision Making Framework” 1999 Island Press.
This finding on US policies is not my opinion but the conclusion of a great many bright people. As with all new scientific insights over centuries a handful of vocal and active people with standing as the top authorities within their institutions vigorously rejected the holistic framework. Now over 30 years later public opinion is shifting as increasingly people acknowledge that what authorities have been dictating is not working.
So where do you go from here? Looking at the research on how new scientific paradigms gain acceptance it appears you have only two alternatives:
1. Battle on in conflict. The authorities will win (As David Wetzel stated “The best source of that science is Texas Parks and Wildlife”) and they will shoot the burros - the land will continue to desertify – public knowledge will increase along with anger and demand for holistically sound policy. All are losers and much time lost along with wildlife.
2. The alternative I urge you to act on is to have the great majority of concerned people not take sides but insist on an open enquiry into the science behind US range and wildlife management. All of you if genuine in wanting science-based solution should welcome open investigation in the science supporting range and wildlife management. A congressional enquiry or by some other acceptable body with academic authorities unable to control evidence. Do not limit it to Texas because the desertification of the western US is appalling and is not only resulting in loss of wildlife, but in cultural genocide as western ranching culture dies along with the productivity of the land.
When deeply held beliefs have assumed scientific validity and people (ranchers, environmentalists, academics and government officials) have lived their lives and built their entire careers on such beliefs frankly only open public enquiry has any hope of moving ahead faster than waiting for people to die. Sayings such as - you can measure the eminence of any scientist by the number of years he/she holds up progress - develop for good reason.
No one is being stupid, objectionable or unreasonable it is simply how scientific paradigms change over time unless something like a public enquiry can speed the process. An open enquiry will I assure you lead to a win win for all after which TP&W will be able to formulate a sound policy without conflict and supported by all reasonable people and the problem desertification will start to be reversed.
Time is no longer on our side with the extent of desertification of the US and it‟s role in climate change.
Regards Allan Savory
