As a fresh out of college 20 year old, I’ve learned very quickly the realities of living on my own.  Conserving energy is more important than ever, especially now that I pay my own bills. Rent and housing prices are outrageous, really limiting my options and anchoring me to specific areas of town.  I wish there was a way for me to get off the grid; to choose exactly where I want to live, all while saving money and also living comfortably.  After doing a little research, I think I found my answer, and maybe someday I can turn this little dream into reality.

So many people today have the McMansion mentality, and I believe there is no surer way of destroying our planet than embracing this view.  Why not head in the opposite direction?  Downsize your home, generate your own power, and maybe even make the structure completely mobile, so you can travel wherever and whenever you want.  I’m not talking about living in a trailer, but rather, a Tiny House.

Jay Schafer of Tumbleweed Tiny House Company standing in front of his Tiny House. Photo courtesy of Tiny House Blog.

A Tiny House is a structure that ranges from 50-750 square feet.  It can moved as desired and support alternative energy generation.  A fully inhabitable Tiny House can be built for as little as $20,000.  You can design and build your own, or go through a company such as Tumbleweed Tiny House Company in Sebastopol, California.  Strict building codes can make it difficult to construct the perfect Tiny House, but websites such as tinyhouseblog.com provide tips and advice to work with and around them.

Easy to transport anywhere your adventures take you. Photo courtesy of Tumbleweed Tiny House Company.

Perhaps my favorite feature of these houses is the fact that they are so alternative energy friendly.  In the video below, a Tiny House is powered by a mobile solar generator called the SolMan.  For those houses in areas with less predictable weather, you could instead use a solar/gas combo generator such as the SolMan Action Packer to insure that you’ll always have available energy reserves.  You could also easily install solar panels on the roof to utilize the available space, essentially taking yourself off the grid and making you completely energy independent.

A Tiny House seems like a great solution to a number of problems many people, including myself, are currently facing.  Becoming a more energy efficient, sustainable individual would be such a freeing experience, and I don’t know about you, but I’m more than up to the challenge.

Mobile generators are necessary for countless applications, from powering shelters during a natural disaster to providing energy to heat a rural cabin in the woods.    But what are the environmental implications of this technology?  Although it would seem that generators are much less harmful than the traditional grid power of a home or business, they carry just as many, if not more negative environmental effects.

Typical mobile generators run on gas.  Any fossil fuel burning device emits greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and ozone into the atmosphere, causing health issues. The process of burning fossil fuels is also the driving force behind global climate change. Additionally, mobile generators produce large amounts of noise pollution.  Noise pollution harbors many negative effects for wildlife, causing them stress, decreasing the usability of their habitat, and disrupting the naturalness of ecosystems.  Noise pollution also creates just as many negative effects on humans.

Exhaust from gas generators can also produce poisonous carbon monoxide gases that can kill if concentrated in high enough levels in poorly ventilated areas.  It is also extremely dangerous to operate mobile generators in moist areas.  On top of this, they can be very heavy and difficult to transport, making them inconvenient for the very purposes they are needed for most.

With all of these negative aspects, the need for an alternative mobile generating solution is great.  Luckily, there is a solar solution.  Solar-powered mobile generators are emission free, lightweight, and use energy from a completely renewable, free energy source.  Also, advances in solar cell technology have made solar panels a much more affordable energy option.

SolMan mobile solar energy generator.

One such mobile solar generator solution is the SolMan, made by a northern California company called SolSolutions.  This all-in-one integrated unit can deliver up to 1200 watts of AC power and 12 volts of DC power.  The design includes a 135 watt photovoltaic panel, three 100 amp/hour deep cycle sealed batteries, a solar charge controller, a watt Meter, a 1500 watt inverter/charger, and external AC/DC plugs, all contained in a light, easily transportable two-wheel cart.  It’s an extremely affordable model made locally out of long-lasting and environmentally friendly aluminum, not plastic.

Mobile solar generators are not the technology of the future—they are the technology of today, and should be used as commonly as hybrid vehicles and reusable shopping bags.  Join other sustainability advocates and support this revolutionary technology, and together, along with the sun, we can rid our earth’s atmosphere of pollution, one SolMan at a time.

For more information about the SolMan, visit SolSolutions’ website.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were both groundbreaking statutory decisions passed during a time of growing environmental awareness and concern. Although both laws had big goals, the clarity of how to reach them was far from crystalline. Because of this, the future of the environment and the wildlife that depend on its health is still in limbo, and unless severe changes are made to both laws, the future looks grim.

The Endangered Species Act’s primary goal is to protect species by “prohibiting the ‘take’ of endangered or threatened species on both public and private lands and to extend the law’s protection to species beyond those directly threatened by hunting and trade” (Watt et al, pg 355). Take is defined in the law as any action that would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” a species (Watt et al). Because of these new policies, it was thought that thousands of species would be saved from extinction and remain in stable, healthy populations for many years to come.

The National Environmental Policy Act’s primary goal is to protect the environment by requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of every major activity they undertake (Kusbasek). If an activity is found to have a significant impact on the environment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. This time-consuming process was thought to make agencies seriously consider their projects, and hopefully design them so that they could avoid the EIS process altogether. This is possible by preparing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or a mitigated FONSI, in which if the project was found to have significant impacts, those impacts could be mitigated so they lessen the overall negative effects on the environment (Kusbasek).

Although both of these laws have broad reach and tough tactics (Watt et al), they fail at truly achieving their primary goals. Under Section 10 of the ESA, an “incidental take permit” can be issued, allowing take of a species to occur. Although completion of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is required in order for the permit to be granted, it is still a loophole in the law and the species protection process. Completion of an HCP does not necessarily mean that said HCP will actually positively affect the remaining population/habitat of the species being taken. As for the NEPA process, once an EIS is completed and it is determined that a project will have significant impacts on the environment, the project can still be executed. So in the end, NEPA doesn’t truly protect the environment, it just makes the lead agency consider it.

Big changes are necessary to make these laws more effective in protecting the environment. For the ESA, no take should be permitted and there should be no issuance of incidental take permits, regardless of whether an HCP is completed or not. The definition of take should also be changed to include habitat destruction. As for NEPA, any project that is found to have significant impacts on the environment should not be completed until the lead agency sufficiently mitigates the impact or the project in such a way that no significant impact on the environment would occur. These ideas might not seem politically realistic, but to be honest, nothing that can truly get anything done really is. By continuing to make middle ground, incremental decisions we will continue to have ineffective policies. Both the ESA and NEPA are reactive policies, and until we pass policies that are much more proactive, the environment and wildlife will continue to suffer.

Sources:

Watt et al, “Reflections on Preserving Ecological and Cultural Landscapes”.

Kusbasek, “Environmental Law”. Prentice Hall. 2007.

When I think of government agencies that deal with conservation, I think of similar authorities with equal goals, powers, and expectations.  This, however, is far from the case.  Each agency has their own responsibilities, and the regulatory powers they possess vary greatly between them.  Collectively, they act like a system of conservation checks and balances that allow and sometimes hinder one another to accomplish their stated goals.

There are four main roles of state and regional agencies.  Trusteeship, in which agencies are responsible for a resource that requires direct management or ownership authority; regulatory authority, in which agencies grant permits, approve plans, and regulate behavior; planning authority, in which agencies coordinate amongst multiple agencies; and funding, in which agencies give and get money and assistance where needed.  There are many great local examples of agencies that possess and play each of these roles.  Armstrong Woods State Park is managed by California State Parks.  They have trusteeship and are responsible for managing the various biological resources of the park, such as the black-tailed deer population, old-growth redwood trees, and non-native, invasive plant species out-competing the native ones.  Although California State Parks manages resources, they have no regulatory authority over those said resources.  All regulatory authority regarding these resources is possessed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).  For example, say the black-tailed deer population of the park was exploding due to the absence of large predators in that ecosystem, so much so that the deer over-grazed the park’s vegetation to the point that their population and those of other, lower trophic levels were experiencing massive die-offs due to starvation.  California State Parks could write a black-tailed deer population management plan that proposed the use of injectable contraceptives, but could NOT enforce this plan unless it was approved by the CDFG.

Another great example of a specific agency role is that of the Coastal Conservancy, which provides grants, funding, and assistance to agencies and non-profits that need it.  Let’s say that a large ranch connecting Armstrong Woods to the Jenner Headlands just went on the market.  The parcel is privately owned and contains sections of the Russian River and surrounding watershed, and valuable potential public coastal access.  Armstrong Woods is a state park and therefore has no budget to purchase this land (Proposition 21 was a nice thought!), but can work together with a non-profit conservation group such as Save the Redwoods League, and the Coastal Conservancy, a state agency dedicated to protecting and enhancing the coast.  By working together, the land could be obtained and eventually Armstrong Woods could be expanded.  The Coastal Conservancy could give Save the Redwoods League a grant to purchase the land, and then the League could donate the land to Armstrong Woods State Park.  It bothers me that it takes the cooperation of so many agencies in order to meet a main conservation goal, because the longer it takes for the agencies to come together and agree on a plan, the more likely certain land parcels could be bought by private parties for development or other, non-conservation purposes.  With that being said, I still like the way that different roles of government agencies create this system of checks and balances, because I feel that this way, no agency can get too powerful and make decisions without the approval and agreement of other agencies, and this creates better conservation decisions in the long run.

If I magically got a job in a government agency, I would without a doubt choose the California Department of Fish and Game.  I love that this agency has both the responsibility of managing resources AND has regulation authority to grant permits, approve plans, and regulate behavior.  My dream position there would be a mixture of both roles.  I would manage the California mountain lion population, with my ultimate goal being to GPS collar every lion in California so that the entire state’s population could be studied and tracked in great detail.  This would be extremely useful in determining how the lions move throughout their ranges using corridors of what’s left of the habitat in the state and monitoring their behaviors and actions, especially when a human-predator conflict occurs.  To accompany this wildlife management role, I would also oversee the issuance of depredation permits, which are the only approved means of mountain lion hunting besides self-defense as regulated by the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990.  Since all mountain lions would be collared, I could locate and move any mountain lion involved in a conflict with humans (such as causing a rancher grief) to a different, uninhabited range, far away from humans (and livestock) so that the problem was solved and this important species wouldn’t have to be killed.  I feel that this dream position is the perfect way to interrelate both roles of the CDFG, and by working with other government agencies that possess other, different but equally important roles, we could truly make a positive difference for the California mountain lion population.

Due to recent unfortunate events in the mountain lion world and being overloaded with environmental planning jargon, I wrote this small summary about the need for wildlife corridor planning to ensure the safety and success of large predators (like my favorite animal of all time, which you all should know by now!).

The most common fate for a mountain lion that enters the “territory” of humans is death.  These large, stealthy predators evoke fear and uncertainty among us, rendering them doomed if they ever cross our paths, regardless of whether they were doing any harm.  What people don’t really understand is that mountain lions aren’t suddenly entering human territory, we are entering theirs.  Urban sprawl and exurban growth is increasing the chances of mountain lion sightings and encounters immensely. The only way to lessen the chance of encounters is to plan ahead when designing neighborhoods in known mountain lion habitat (or not putting neighborhoods there at all….hey, a girl can dream).  This can be done by incorporating wildlife habitat corridors in and around exurban areas.  Corridors are tracts of land that create separation and protection for animal populations from human development.  It is much easier to design wildlife corridors before development occurs instead of realizing the need for them and trying to design them after development, so I hope that in the future, planning for the safe and successful existence of biodiversity is taken into much greater consideration.   What if we designed neighborhoods based on the needs of wildlife populations of that area?  We determined the biologically optimal wildlife corridor for each population using GIS, and then designed the neighborhood around the corridor.  Naturally, the houses closest to the corridor would pose a greater risk for humans, but those interested in living in them would be warned of this beforehand.  A family with small children or people who leave their pets outside probably wouldn’t want to live in a house closest to the corridor.  Knowing the risks before living in the area and designing neighborhoods that take these risks into consideration would greatly reduce human-predator conflicts.  Leaving space for wildlife to roam would also lessen the chances of encounters.  By planning ahead, we could ensure the success of large predator populations, and in turn, entire ecosystems that greatly benefit from the presence of these keystone species.

Habitat loss is the number one threat to biodiversity.  With increasing human population growth and urbanization, wildlife habitat continues to decline and become fragmented.  Fragmentation and isolation can have dramatically negative effects on plant and wildlife populations, ranging from decreased genetic diversity to extinction.  Restoring and protecting existing habitat and providing linkages between fragmented areas is becoming critically important to the continued existence of many species.  Wildlife habitat corridors allow populations to interact, interbreed, and, as climate changes, to shift their geographic range.  Planning, designing, and implementing wildlife corridors can be difficult, but GIS technology is helping to streamline the process.

It didn’t take long for Northern Arizona University’s School of Forestry professor Paul Beier to realize the importance of wildlife corridors. While studying mountain lion populations in the Santa Ana Mountain Range during 1988-1992, Beier noted habitat fragmentation was the biggest problem the big cats were facing. Without habitat corridor links  between mountain ranges, the Southern California mountain lion population would be doomed. “I documented that based on their demography they must have connectivity, and that based on animal movement, they’d use linkages that were available if we gave them half a chance,” said Beier.  “They were using some highly degraded existing corridors, and so I got really excited at the prospect of, what if we designed corridors on purpose?  Wouldn’t that be terrific?”

Mountain Lion mother and cubs,  Caspers Wilderness Park, Orange County, California.  Captured by motion activated camera, photo credit Donna Krucki.

Years later at Northern Arizona University, Dan Majka began working with Beier.   Majka created corridor models using GIS based on methodology designed by Beier and South Coast Wildlands, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring functional habitat connectivity. To improve workflow and analysis speed, Majka refined, enhanced, and implemented the organization’s tools into a toolset called CorridorDesigner.

A GIS-based Toolbox

CorridorDesigner is a suite of tools for ArcGIS for creating habitat and corridor models.  It provides a user friendly, three step process that applies least cost modeling for multiple focal species.   The core input is habitat suitability modeling, which allows users to assess the quality of habitat for a species within the study area or a modeled corridor and masks out any unsuitable habitat.

Modeled biologically best corridor and habitat suitability for mountain lion between Hualapai and Peacock Mountains, Arizona.

GIS habitat suitability models relate suitability to raster-based layers such as land use/land cover, elevation, topographic position, human disturbance (e.g. distance from roads, road density, housing density, etc), or other relevant data. Using this data and a habitat suitability threshold that ranks habitat quality for breeding, the user can model a single species corridor and then repeat the procedure for other species.   Next, the user can join the single-species corridor models to create a preliminary linkage design. This union of corridor data is the most obvious way to ensure that all target species are included.

Multispecies linkage design between Hualapai and Peacock Mountains, Arizona.

The CorridorDesigner tools connect the best available habitat for individual wildlife species between two larger habitat blocks.  All would be well if this exact region could be conserved. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons the best choice areas are usually not available for corridor development, so the model is best used as a baseline to compare alternatives.

GIS consultant Jeff Jenness, GISP, joined the project and lent his expertise by creating an ArcMap extension for CorridorDesigner that provides a set of tools to evaluate the “best” corridors and to compare them with more realistic alternatives.  These tools include calculation of patch-to-patch distances, bottleneck analysis, size-weighted general statistics, size-weighted histogram statistics, size-weighted cross-tabulation statistics, and cumulative surface tools.  These statistics help land managers and conservation investors make educated decisions about what to conserve.  By factoring in the reality conservationists face every day, this extension ensures that the optimal corridor is designed using what land is available.

Climate and Transportation Concerns

New concerns about a changing climate have forced wildlife managers to rethink how corridors should be designed for the success of species in the future.  In response, spatial analyst Brian Brost and Jenness have added another set of tools to the CorridorDesigner toolbox, including the ArcGIS extension “Land Facet CorridorDesigner” and a set of complementary Land Facet functions that run in R.  Land facets are based only on topographic and soil features on the landscape, which don’t change over time and will not change as climate changes. “Until now, corridors were primarily designed to encourage movement of focal species through present land cover maps,” said Jenness.  “Because of the strong possibility that land cover maps will change in this century, any corridor linkage based on those maps might fail due to climate change.”   It is thought that future vegetation (and, indirectly, animal assemblages) will be determined primarily by the interaction among land facets and future climate regimes.  This Land Facet approach is a valuable geographic approach to designing wildlife corridors that considers the future effects of climate change.

Wildlife corridors don’t just conserve connectivity; they also provide ways to make highways safer for both people and wildlife.  The CorridorDesigner tools can be useful in helping to determine the ideal location of wildlife crossings for various species along major thoroughfares and highways.  Building these crossings reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions, leading to a decrease in mortality on highways for countless animals while keeping drivers safe. “For large mammals like mountain lions that tend to occur in low densities and take several years to raise their young, the loss of an individual can have a snowball effect on a local population” said Emily Garding, a wildlife biologist/GIS analyst for the Arizona Missing Linkages Project who has worked extensively with the CorridorDesigner tools.  “I’m excited that our work promotes developing a more wildlife-friendly transportation infrastructure that will contribute to maintaining sustainable wildlife populations. I hope to see the trend toward building safer highways continue across the nation.”

An artist’s rendering of proposed Tucson-Tortolita-Santa Catalina wildlife overpass crossing structure in Pima County Arizona. Photo credit Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection.

The significance of wildlife corridors is clear.  “Corridors are important because they provide a way of connecting species and habitats in a changing world,” said Dan Majka.  “They provide a possible way to deal with increased pressures, whether its urbanization or fragmentation, increased transportation, and climate change.” GIS-based tools have significantly streamlined the design and implementation of corridors. With GIS, CorridorDesigner, and the continued support and enthusiasm from people like those who work on and with these tools, wildlife can look forward to a sustainable, connected future.

More Information

For more information, contact Dan Majka (email: dan@corridordesign.org) or Jeff Jenness (email: jeffj@jennessent.com or Brian Brost (email: bmbrost@gmail.com).  To download the CorridorDesigner tools for free, visit corridordesign.org.

Special thanks to Dan Majka, Jeff Jenness, Paul Beier, and Emily Garding for all of their help, support, and amazing work they’ve done for wildlife and corridors.

National Parks were established under extreme forms of control and manipulation, catering to the romantic expectations of park visitors.  Americans viewed parks as places of perfection; untouched landscapes filled with all-natural beauties where they could escape from the growing urbanization and disappearing frontier of the western world. “The Park Service practiced a selective kind of preservation, promoting some elements of nature and opposing others–altering natural conditions largely in an attempt to meet the public’s expectations and enjoyment of the parks” (Sellars 1997).  By catering to the clouded visions of what National Parks were dreamt to be, the Park Service essentially turned them into something far from what they should have been; largely unnatural, completely managed lands that required the constant control of humans.

For many people, the process of conquest and nation building seemed to alter the essential nature of the west, so the first National Parks were seen as places to share national identity and an appreciation for natural beauty (Spence 1999). But of course, wilderness preservation went hand in hand with native dispossession, and uninhabited wilderness had to be created before it was preserved (Spence 1999).  Many Americans viewed wilderness as an unpopulated Eden that should be set aside for the benefit and enjoyment of vacationing people (Spence 1999).  “The fact that Indians continued to hunt and light fires in such places seemed only to demonstrate a marked inability to appreciate natural beauty.  To guard against these ’violations‘, the establishment of the first National Parks entailed the exclusion or removal of native peoples” (Spence 1999 pg 4). Wilderness concepts seemingly forgot that native peoples shaped the environments for centuries, giving rise to parks that were more representative of old fantasies about a continent awaiting “discovery” than actual conditions at the time of early European detection (Spence 1999).  When it came down to it, Americans cared more about the scenic grandeur of a landscape than for the well-being of the natives who called these landscapes home.  Indians truly distinguished the landscape, but Americans were much more concerned with the colossal mountains, giant trees, and majestic waterfalls that surpassed everything else in the known world, and with the bragging rights that came with them (Spence 1999).  The concept of monumentalism fueled expectations, and wilderness became more of an American invention than an actual existing entity (Spence 1999).

America’s perception of a human-less wilderness spread beyond the removal of Indians towards the removal of visitor impact in the parks. The national embarrassment of the commercialization of Niagara Falls inspired the idea that naturalness needed to be maintained in areas of high scenic interest (Spence 1999).  Because of this, the first true professions to emerge in the National Park Service were engineers and landscape architects, who purposely avoided intruding on scenery, but also aimed to display scenery to its best advantage with the proper placement of buildings, roads, and trails (Sellars 1997).  They designed plans “to screen unattractive developments from view, and planned intensively developed areas, with parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, lawns, and gardens.  The resolve to blend new construction with natural surroundings—to develop the parks without destroying their beauty—formed the basis of landscape architecture’s central role in National Park development” (Sellars 1997 pg 50).  In reality, scenery was the key attribute that sets a National Park aside to be protected and conserved for all generations, not biodiversity and its preservation and continued success.

Destruction in National Parks frequently occurred to enhance the enjoyment of visitors.  Road and structure building was an acceptable practice as long as it was coordinated with the aesthetics and scenery of the Park  (Sellars 1997).  Wildlife and their habitat were not taken into account, and the understanding of ecology was usually incomplete (Warren 1997). “It is important to note that while the Park Service was steadily building up its landscape architecture and engineering capability, it was content to only borrow scientists from other bureaus to manage National Park flora and fauna–a telling reflection of how much greater the Service’s interest was in recreational tourism than in fostering innovative strategies in nature preservation” (Sellars 1997 pg 70).   The fact that the Park Service cared more about scenic value and tourism than it did for the plants and animals that inhabited a park is alarming, but soon enough wildlife was also looked upon as a valuable resource (Warren 1997).

“Visions of bountiful wildlife was the lure of the western land, and as such, close to the heart of America’s westering experience” (Warren 1997 pg 4).  Maintaining such a situation required heavily manipulated management–preserving the scenic facade of nature and wilderness, the primary basis for public enjoyment (Sellars 1997).  “The Service’s treatment of large-mammal populations did not follow a policy of letting nature take its course; rather, it involved frequent and sometimes intensive handling, such as killing predators or nurturing favored species” (Sellars 1997 pg 75). The Park Service conducted ranching and farming operations to maintain the presence and success of favored species, and those species that threatened the favored plants and animals were eradicated or reduced to a point where they would not affect populations of the more favored creatures.  Bison in Yellowstone were treated like domesticated livestock (Sellars 1997). They were fed hay farmed on approximately six hundred acres of Park land, and population sizes were controlled by slaughtering for meat or donations to parks and zoos (Sellars 1997). “The Service valued Park grasslands mainly as pasturage for ungulates, rather than as areas biologically important for plants and other life forms” (Sellars 1997 pg 70). To enhance the food supply and entice animals to stay in the Park boundaries of Yellowstone, winter feeding of deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep was implemented, which used fifteen hundred tons of hay during a 15 year period (Sellars 1997).  To further meet visitors’ expectations, the Service set up zoos in the Parks to guarantee that tourists would have a chance to see the more popular animals (Sellars 1997). For example, the Park Service imported a small herd of Tule elk to Yosemite, which were not native to the park and were kept behind fences (Sellars 1997).  Regardless of naturalness or integrity, the Park Service did anything and everything they could to match the pre-conceived expectations that Americans carried about National Parks.

The most controversial management practice of the Park Service was the killing of predators in order to protect more popular species (Sellars 1997).  “Determined to keep the National Parks unimpaired, the Service acted as though the predators themselves were impairments–threats to be dealt with before they destroyed the peaceful scenes it wished to maintain” (Sellars 1997 pg 71).  Predator control was seen as a means of protecting those “species of animals desirable for public observation and enjoyment,” and that the “enemies” of those species must be controlled (Sellars 1997 pg 72). The rangers responsible for predator control were often allowed to sell for personal profit a percentage of the hides and pelts of the predators that they killed (Sellars 1997). In addition, the Parks sometimes hired predator hunters.  To ensure the satisfaction of tourists, the Park Service killed thousands of animals that it should have been protecting, all because of this skewed perception of “wild”.

More extensively than any other wildlife, the Park Service manipulated fish populations (Sellars 1997). Their goal was to make fishing a leading National Park attraction and a major aspect of tourism management (Sellars 1997).  “Although the Service sought to halt the poaching of mammals in the Parks, it enthusiastically sanctioned not only the regulated taking of fish but also the introduction of numerous non-native species” (Sellars 1997 pg 80). The Park Service planted millions of fish into various lakes and rivers, including non-native rainbow, brown, brook, and lake trout (Sellars 1997). Non-native fish planting was practiced regularly along with introduction of non-native trees, shrubs, and grasses for landscaping developed areas (Sellars 1997). Introducing non-native species can have dramatically negative impacts on native populations that can be out-competed by the non-natives, causing negative effects on an entire ecosystem.  The careless, ignorant, attitude of the Park Service towards non-native species provides further proof of the true intentions of National Park establishment.

The historical implications of Park and wildlife management can be seen as an underlying theme of the deception and greed of early America.  Nothing influences action more powerfully than economic benefit and growth of our country, and for this growth, the western landscape and those “lesser beings” who call it home have continually paid the price.  Once we re-visit the historical operations of Parks and truly understand the wrongness of their management, we can continue to restore a more ecological, scientific approach to Park management and finally put to rest the embarrassing façade that once defined our National Parks.

Sources:

Spence, Mark D. 1999. “Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of National Parks.

Sellars, Richard. 1997.  “Preserving Nature in National Parks: A History.

Warren, Louis. 1997. “The Hunter’s Game: Poachers and Conservationists in the Twentieth Century America.”

Introduction
Evidence of human growth and urbanization can be seen through the impacts on virtually every species on planet earth. Effects of this growth and urbanization, such as “species decline, endangerment and extinction of enormous proportions, and widespread deterioration in the quality of air, water and soils – the basic resources on which all of life depends”, are causing sheer chaos in the natural world (Bennet pg 16 2003).  Possibly no species are more affected than the world’s large, carnivorous predators.  These animals are extremely important to the overall health and function of an ecosystem, but conservation and restoration of them and their habitat is a giant grey area that can be seen as a metaphor for balancing humans and nature.  We can no longer wait to address this growing environmental and ethical issue, and by establishing clear goals and outlooks we can ensure the future of these species and ecosystems along with the continuing growth and success of our own.

The Importance of Large Predators to Ecosystems
Ecosystem veracity is regularly dependent on the functional presence of large carnivores (Foreman 2004).  Predators are “keystone species”, or species whose loss would have widespread ecological effects on their entire ecosystem (Bennet 2003).  Because of this, they exert a controlling influence on species at lower trophic levels (such as prey, what their prey eats, etc.) called top-down regulation (Beschta 2009).  Studies have found that large carnivores are major regulators of prey species numbers—“the opposite of the once-upon-a-time ecological orthodoxy that saw them as unimportant” (Foreman 2004 pg. 120). The loss of large predators in an ecosystem can eventually lead to the rapid increase in population of wild ungulates which in turn greatly impacts plant communities (Beschta 2009). A successful ecosystem contains a natural system of checks and balances.  Without large carnivores keeping their prey level populations in check, the ecosystem would be an unbalanced, deteriorating entity.

Restoring Large Predators
Biodiversity is heavily impacted when ecosystems lack large carnivores.  Forests in the eastern United States are so overrun with white-tailed deer that the regeneration of these forests has been made virtually impossible due to the deer’s consumption of trees and herbs (Foreman 2004).   This complex array of problems has a very simple solution: restore large carnivores, such as wolves and mountain lions, to the ecosystem.  This would reduce white-tailed deer numbers, allowing the forest to return to more natural patterns of succession and species richness (Foreman 2004).  On certain Venezuelan islands, howler monkey populations have exploded to more than ten times their historic densities due to lack of large predators (such as jaguar, puma, and harpy eagle) (Foreman  2004).  The result is that only five or less tree species out of seventy reach the sapling stage, and although the mature trees are able to reproduce, their seeds and seedlings are eaten by herbivores (Foreman 2004).  If the current situation continues, most of the plant and animal species in this population will go extinct within one or two tree replacement cycles (Foreman 2004). Without the return of predators, these ecosystems are well on the path to devastation or disappearance.

The absence of large carnivores also has unfathomed effects on humans.  In parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, leopard and lion populations have been decimated, allowing an uncontrolled rise in the baboon population (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). Baboon packs are notorious for raiding crop fields, and in some cases children are now being kept home from school to guard family gardens from baboons (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009).  In another example, the elimination of wolves in certain ranching towns has led to a significant increase in coyotes, a predator once kept in check by the wolves (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). The coyotes attack domestic sheep and pronghorn antelope, and attempts to control them have been incredibly expensive, costing hundreds of millions of dollars (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). These unforeseen economic impacts could be mitigated simply by the restoration of carnivorous predators.  Who knew that the absence of large predators could have such huge effects on the very species that removed them in the first place?

Perhaps the best example in which restoring large predators begins to heal damaged ecosystems is the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone.  Since elk populations lacked consistent predators after the elimination of wolves from the ecosystem (grizzly bears and mountain lions do prey on elk, but much less frequently), they became sluggish and careless, loafing in sizeable herds in river meadows (Foreman 2004).  Lack of large predators not only increased their numbers, but also changed their behaviors.  They overgrazed grasslands and willow shoots, an important food source of beavers, which in turn made the beaver populations decline sharply (Foreman 2004).  After reintroducing wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem, elk behavior returned to a more natural state; beavers are beginning to re-establish themselves; and grasslands are no longer overgrazed and are harboring a more diverse mix of plant species (Foreman 2004).   The wolves’ return has virtually saved this once dying ecosystem, and this case should be used as a prime example of how important restoration of large carnivores is to the successful and prosperous function of an ecosystem.

The Importance of Corridors in Large Predator Restoration

It is obvious that large predators are important to an ecosystem, but restoring them isn’t as simple as one may think.  Large predators are wide ranging species in that they require a significant area of habitat in order to survive. A mountain lion’s home range often spans more than 100 square miles (“Mountain Lions”). A grizzly bear’s territory can range between 70 and 400 square miles (“Grizzly Bear”). A wolf pack’s territory may cover 20 to 120 square miles (Wydeven date unknown).  Requiring such a large amount of territory can create problems for predators, especially when their ranges are fragmented by human encroachment, which is only increasing with population increase and new development.  In the United States alone, “twenty-seven ecosystem types have declined by as much as 98 percent or more since Europeans settled North America” (Terris 1999).  And yet the same force that has caused such massive devastation to wildlife habitats might very well be the only force that can reverse the damage and aid species with their last chance of survival.  Unfortunately, this is easier said than done when in the context of large predator restoration.  Predators have a very different reputation than species such as penguins, bunnies, and pandas.  Because humans feel threatened by their presence, large carnivorous predators have been persecuted since humans evolved.

Finding the balance between preserving and restoring nature and growing and expanding the human empire is a constant challenge that in many instances has been addressed unsuccessfully, and with new restoration theories and techniques this balance is being tested once again. Wildlife corridors are now being implemented as a means of connecting fragmented populations.  “Corridors are used by species to migrate, breed, and feed, and are increasingly believed to be one of the most effective tools available today for the conservation of biological diversity, especially in urban areas (Scholtterbeck 2001).” This restoration method is causing much debate among humans by truly testing this wildlife/human equilibrium.

A corridor is defined as a linear habitat that connects two or more larger blocks of habitat (Noss 1998). Human growth has decreased habitat patch size and has made habitats more isolated from other patches.  Small, isolated habitat patches are not as successful as large, inter-connected patches and have a much higher extinction rate. Small populations are more sensitive to disturbance.  Movement between patches can be detrimental to large predator populations since large, undisturbed ranges are very rare. Less movement between patches creates less genetic diversity, creating unhealthy populations that experience higher rates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression (Ernest et al 2003).  Corridors are an attempt to restore the environment and a population to what it once was: a healthy collection of metapopulations not artificially fragmented by human development and activity.  Restoring ecosystems through corridors in theory helps decrease problems within populations by lowering extinction rates in the sense of the equilibrium theory, lessening demographic stochasticity, stemming inbreeding depression, and fulfilling an inherent need for movement (Simberloff 1992). The thought is that once movement corridors are restored, populations can once again interact, increase, and move at higher rates than before, benefiting their population, the surrounding ecosystem as a whole, and even the entire species.

Corridor Restoration Example
There are many examples of corridor restoration projects in effect today, but perhaps the most famous case is the Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor Conservation Initiative (Y2Y).   Y2Y is a Canadian and U.S. non-profit organization “that seeks to preserve and maintain the wildlife, native plants, wilderness and natural processes of the mountainous region from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon Territory” (Cushman 2009). Y2Y stretches almost 2,000 linear miles from Wyoming to the Arctic circle, encompassing nearly half of a million square miles in area, including 11 national parks in two countries and a multitude of reserves, preserves, forest units, wilderness areas, state parks, and private lands (“Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative—About Us”).

(“Yellowstone-to-Yukon” 2010)
The Y2Y area is home to a myriad of predator species such as grizzly bear, lynx, wolf, cougar, and wolverine. Due to encroachment of human development on their natural habitats, these wide-range species are being forced to live in small, increasingly isolated pockets of wild habitat which drastically decreases their rate of survival (Cushman 2009).  By preserving and restoring corridors within this region, animals in the ecosystems of the Y2Y region are able to move between these human-isolated habitats, providing them with a much higher rate of long-term survival and fecundity (“Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative—About Us”).  Having such a large area of successful corridors and interacting populations is a giant victory to the world of conservation, and this project has since been acting as a benchmark case for corridor restoration.

Effects of Corridors on Wildlife Populations
Corridors provide many benefits to populations, and “an array of studies have demonstrated that habitat corridors can facilitate the movement of wildlife” (Laurance pg 4 date unknown).” Dispersal is important for population dynamics because it allows individuals to immigrate to new populations or to recolonize locally extinct populations, which can lead to increased genetic diversity (Laurance date unkown). “A fragmented landscape that is interconnected is more likely to support viable plant and animal populations and integral ecological processes, than a landscape that is comprised of only isolated fragments” (as cited by Laurance date unknown pg 2).  “Corridors assist animals to cross local barriers and to maintain local movements through environments that are ecologically inhospitable, assist species to maintain traditional migratory movements between different geographic areas, and allow species to recolonize habitats by increasing dispersal and immigration (Bennett 2003 pg 38).” With all of these positive effects, it’s hard not to support the implementation of corridors.  Perhaps Keith Hay of the Conservation Fund says it best: “Corridors hold more promise for the management of the diversity of life than any other management factor except stabilization of the human population.” (as cited by Plummer 1995).

Sometimes connecting populations can also create unforeseen negative effects.  In some cases, corridors can allow disease and exotic species to spread through a metapopulation easier than they could through isolated populations (Plummer 1995). Natural disasters such as fires can also travel to habitats more easily along corridors than to habitats that are isolated.  Also, “although corridors are known to increase genetic diversity among populations, they may also function to decrease it, because the migration among individual populations may end up genetically homogenizing the metapopulation as a whole” (Plummer 1995 pg 1).  Even so, there are no significant studies in which these outcomes surface, so their likelihood seems somewhat slim.

Some research has been done to prove the positive changes corridors can induce on large predator populations.  As stated earlier in this paper, large predators can have effects on animals of lower trophic levels, so when predator populations benefit, so too can prey populations.  One study done in Japer National Park in Alberta, Canada examined how corridor restoration through a golf course changes the distribution of wolves and their prey.  Before the restoration of the corridor, wolves avoided humans and traveled around the golf course, using the mountainside to connect valley-bottom habitat (Shepherd 2006). As a result, elk densities were highest in the golf course (Shepherd 2006). “After restoration, wolves shifted most of their movement to the golf course corridor, whereas elk dispersed along the corridor and mountainside” (Shepherd 2006 pg 5). When traveling through the study area, wolves chose areas with high prey abundance, low elevations, and low levels of human activity (Shepherd 2006).

(Shepherd 2006 pg 5)
Corridor restoration increased the area of high quality habitat available to wolves, increased their access to elk and deer at low elevations, and increased deer numbers.  These results corroborate other studies suggesting that wolves and elk quickly adapt to landscape changes and that corridor restoration can improve habitat quality and reduce habitat fragmentation (Shepherd 2006).  This study is a great example of the effectiveness of corridors on large predators and their prey.
Unfortunately, not enough studies have been done that show the after-effects of corridors on wildlife populations.  Establishing corridors is a fairly new restoration approach, and after implementation it can take some time before conclusive results are seen.  Hopefully with time more research will be conducted and results will be available to the public that show just how beneficial corridors are to wildlife, ecosystems, and humans.

Effects of Corridors on Human Populations
Although restoring corridors is mostly seen as having positive effects on wildlife, it can also have many positive effects on human populations.  There has been much interest in the use of corridors because they are seen as a visible solution to a visible problem (Bennet 2003). “Habitat corridors can be protected, managed, or restored at the level at which individuals or community groups are able to carry out conservation works. It is feasible for local communities to actually ‘do something about’ managing linkages in their local environment and to see visible environmental change as a result” (Bennet 2003 pg 5). Other environmental issues on a more global scale–such as climate change, population growth, loss of tropical forests, and desertification of arid lands–can seem outside the realm of individual or community action (Bennet 2003). Corridors allow communities to get involved in restoring their local environment and make them feel like they are truly making a difference.  Habitat corridors can also provide ecosystem services such as protecting watersheds and stream quality and providing windbreaks (Laurance date unknown). They also enhance property values and improve the overall quality of life by providing scenic, serine views of nature and open space (Tamasi date unknown).

Perhaps the most important benefit that corridors provide to humans is that they lessen dangerous encounters with predators.  When humans enter the territory of large predators, they are always taking a risk.  Last April, a young woman jogging in the foothills behind her house was stalked and pulled from the trail by a female mountain lion, who quickly mauled her to death (as cited by Cronon 1996).  Houses being built along hillsides have become a more common practice due to urban sprawl, and unfortunately they are often built adjacent to prime predator habitat.  If corridors were implemented in these areas, predators would have more options and thus would be more likely to avoid humans, staying farther away from them and their homes.  Corridors provide a safe passage for wildlife and while doing so make neighborhoods in or near predator habitat safer as well.  Although there are some arguments that implementing corridors can bear high economic costs (Simberloff 1992), I believe the pros outweigh the cons.

Once corridors are established, many people want to use them for recreational purposes like hiking.  This, of course, defeats one of the original purposes for the implementation of a corridor: to allow animals to move between populations AWAY from humans.  A study done on a Rio Grande trail that was closed to the public during the winter to protect wildlife used motion-sensor cameras that have since caught an immense array of wildlife (Frey 2010).  Having inaccessible wilderness areas is quite controversial to many, simply because people love wilderness when they are able to “experience it” for themselves.  But evidence that corridors are used more frequently once human activity decreases can’t be ignored. Humans must begin to understand that there are places appropriate for recreation and other places that are not (Frey 2010), and that we need to accept these trade-offs in order to successfully coexist with large predators.

Conclusions and Further Research
Corridors are a positive restoration strategy that can have many benefits to large predators as well as to other species in an ecosystem.  After doing my research, I believe we should definitely continue to pursue corridors as a method of conservation and restoration.  In doing so, certain things need to be considered when looking at the design and feasibility of such corridors. Suitable habitat for species should occur on both sides of and within the crossing structure (as cited by Beier et al 2008).  Appropriate vegetation cover and space should be present to encourage animal movement through the corridor.  Also, human activity should be managed near each crossing structure (Beier et al 2008).  Limiting the amount of foot traffic and human presence in corridors is important to ensure animals are not disturbed. Although there is plenty of research about how to implement corridors, case studies where corridors were successful are few and far between, making this restoration approach not as obviously desirable as I would have wished.

Humans must do more research on the effectiveness of corridors on wildlife populations.  It was difficult to find studies which recorded any type of positive or negative changes in an ecosystem.  Most studies stressed the importance of corridor implementation but had no hardcore, field-study related evidence to back up their claims.  The time to act is now: people need to stop throwing ideas around and wondering if something can work and instead, actually put some plans into action.  There is no way to tell if something will work unless we allow it to run its course and record and analyze the results.  The longer we wait to implement corridors, the more degraded predator populations will become, moving them closer to becoming endangered, or worse, extinct.  By restoring corridors now, we can ensure positive changes for predators in the future, by learning how effective corridors can be and by discovering the most effective ways to implement them.

Humans must change their views about large predators, and this can only be done through education.  Restoring them can be a delicate matter, especially if the populations in question are near recreational or residential areas.  People need to understand that predators don’t specifically prey on humans; when humans are attacked, it is because they are in the predators’ territory.  When pets or livestock are attacked, it is because the predator is naturally hunting a biologically appropriate animal that it views as its prey in its territory.  By choosing to live in areas that are known predator habitat, humans are choosing to live amongst predators and therefore must accept the responsibilities that come with living there.  If you live or are entering into predator habitat, you should never go hiking alone, always carry pepper spray, know what to do and how to act if you do encounter a predator, respect and conserve as much of their habitat as possible, never leave your pets unattended outdoors, and install predator-proof fencing around livestock. Developing a public education campaign to inform those living and working within the linkage area about living with wildlife, and the importance of maintaining ecological connectivity through corridors, is also a great way to get the public involved and on board with the project (Beier et al 2008).  By accepting these responsibilities, humans can finally learn to balance themselves with predators and successfully coexist together.

While doing research for this project, I was hit with my biggest conclusion of all that we have discussed previously in class:  Humans must redefine what we call “wilderness” and “wild”.  I believe humans see wild as something that we can’t control, which is one reason why so little wilderness is left.  Places that we consider most “wild” now are still completely controlled by human organizations such as the National Park Service, the Forest Service, or some other type of human manipulation.  Wilderness is essentially being tamed (Cronon 1995).  Healthy, successful ecosystems can only function to a certain point when under this level of control, as shown by the elimination of wolves in Yellowstone and the negative impacts that action had on the ecosystem there.  Only when we eliminate predators do we see nature as an acceptable place for humans to dominate. “Wilderness is more a state of mind than a fact of nature” (Cronon  1995 pg. 493), and we must fix this view if we wish to restore predators and the rest of the animals that directly or indirectly rely on their presence in an ecosystem.  Until we give predators the freedom to move in their own ranges by restoring corridors to their true wild potential, they will continue to struggle and decline.  In the words of Bill Cronon, “The time has come to rethink wilderness” (1995 pg 471).

Large predators need humans now more than ever before.  Although they once thrived separately from humans, their future now depends on the restoration and conservation efforts only we can provide.  Predators are an essential part of an ecosystem, and losing them for good would have dramatic, untold effects on virtually every species.  Restoring corridors might be one of the easiest methods of reversing predator decline, and although we don’t yet have an extensive body of research to prove how effective corridors can be, only through their implementation and analysis of the results will we have conclusive evidence.  “Connect our last parcels of wilderness, like pearls of a necklace, and mountain lions, bobcats, and wolves might once again roam their ancestral ranges” (Royte).

Sources

Beier, Paul, Dan Majka, Shawn Newell, and Emily Garding. “Best Management Practices for Wildlife Corridors.” Corridor Design. Northern Arizona University, Jan. 2008. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://corridordesign.org/downloads>.

Bennett, Andrew F. Linkages in the Landscape: the Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland: IUCN, 2003. Print.

Beschta, Robert L., and William J. Ripple. “Large Preditors and Trophic Cascades in the Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Western United States.” Biological Conservation (2009). Lords of Nature. College of Forestry: Oregon State University, 4 June 2009. Web. 3 May 2010.

Cushman, Samuel A., Kevin S. McKelvey, and Michael K. Schwartz. “Use of Empirically Derived Source-Destination Models to Map Regional Conservation Corridors.” Conservation Biology 23.2 (2009): 368-376. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 May 2010.

Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1995. Print.

Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton &, 1996. Print.

Ernest, Holly B., Walter M. Boyce, Vernon C. Bleich, Bernie May, San J. Stiver, and Steven G. Torres. “Genetic Structure of Mountain Lion (Puma Concolor) Populations in California.” Conservation Genetics 4.3 (2003): 353-66. SpringerLink. Springer Netherlands, 30 Oct. 2004. Web. 7 May 2010.

Foreman, Dave. Rewilding North America: a Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century. Washington: Island, 2004. Print.

Frey, David. “Candid Camera Catches Wildlife on Rio Grande Trail.” Aspen Daily News Online. 17 May 2010. Web. 22 May 2010. <http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/140629>.

“Grizzly Bear – Ursus Arctos.” Nature Works. New Hampshire Public Television. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/grizzly.htm>.

Laurance, Susan G. W. “Landscape Connectivity and Biological Corridors.” Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.andreadulko.com/rldguest/?page_id=310>.

“Mountain Lions.” Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.openspace.org/preserves/highlight_mountain_lions.asp>.

Noss, Reed F., and Paul Beier. “Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?” Conservation Biology 12.6 (1998): 1241-252. Wiley InterScience. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120714516/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>.

Plummer, Mark L., and Charles C. Mann. “Are Wildlife Corridors the Right Path?” Discovery Institute. 01 Dec. 1995. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.discovery.org/a/228>.

Schlotterbeck, Melanie Marie. “GIS Mapping of Biological Studies in the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor Including Species Diversity and Relative Abundance.” Thesis. California State University, Fullerton, 2001. Hills for Everyone-Friends of the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.hillsforeveryone.org/>.

Shepherd, B., and J. Whittington 2006. Response of wolves to corridor restoration and human use management. Ecology and Society 11(2): 1. 9 May 2010.  http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art1/

Simberloff, Daniel, James A. Farr, James Cox, and David W. Mehlman. “Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments?” Conservation Biology 6.4 (1992): 493-504. Wiley InterScience. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119332377/abstract>.

“Study: Loss Of Top Predators Causes Major Ecosystem, Economic Disruptions.” Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Bulletin. Intermountain Communications, 2 Oct. 2009. Web. 11 May 2010.

Tamasi, Judi. “The Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor.” Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority. Web. 9 May 2010. <www.habitatauthority.org/pdf/pg1-12v2b.pdf>.

Terris, Jukta. “Unwelcom (Human) Neighbors.” NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council – The Earth’s Best Defense. Aug. 1999. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/pwild.asp>.

Wydeven, Adrian P., and Richard P. Thiel. “Eastern Timber Wolf.” Timber Wolf Information Network – Interactive. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/kidsonly/wolfweb/wolf.htm>.

“Yellowstone To Yukon Conservation Initiative – About Us.” Yellowstone To Yukon Conservation Initiative – Wildlife Conservation. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.y2y.net/Default.aspx?cid=374〈=1>.

“Yellowstone-to-Yukon.” Wildlife Conservation Society Canada. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.wcscanada.org/WhatWeDo/YellowstonetoYukon/tabid/2550/Default.aspx>.

To most Americans, the early West is seen as once being the ultimate frontier; something to be discovered, explored, and established.  The frontier was the outer edge of the wave—the meeting point between savagery and civilization and the line of most effective and rapid Americanization (Limerick).  Movies, books, and stories paint a perfect yet unrealistic picture of this monumental time in history, literally draping a pretty sheet over the messy reality of what the West really was.  Even long after its establishment, certain legacies stemming from the Western frontier still exist today and have shaped American culture and life forever.

Perhaps the most puzzling image of the early West is that it was new, uninhabited, and unexplored land.  Europeans saw themselves as “discovering” the Indians, but of course, the discovery was mutual (Cronon et. al).  Native Americans had lived in the West for generations.  They had established communities, planned landscaping and propagation methods, complex social systems, and natural resource harvesting regimes.  To overlook Native American presence in the West is like overlooking an elephant in a room, and our culture rarely ever notices more than this elephant’s tail.  This land was not new, was already inhabited, and had been explored and established long ago.  But for many people, living in a frontier area evoked the feeling that one was somehow present at the creation of a new world (Cronon et. al).  This feeling helped unleash the most selfish and power-hungry traits of the human species and led to ideas and practices that are still present today.

During the frontier era, boundaries were set as ways of defining property, ways of killing animals, ways of planting fields, ways of building houses, ways of rearing children, ways of praising God: all became symbols of difference between those who stood on opposite frontier boundaries (Cronon et al).  These simple activities were perhaps even more effective than overt violence in moving Indians off their lands, for they justified land taking by giving the invaders a permanent sense of entitlement to the landscape around them (Cronon et al).  Why did these “invaders”, who had just started living in this preoccupied land, believe that they were entitled to it?  That’s akin to visiting a friend’s house, liking it, and deciding it is now yours.  Although it seems farfetched, this sense of entitlement has carried on for generations—maybe not as extreme as the case above, but still present at an alarming rate.  Our sense of entitlement to natural resources and land that is habitat to other, “lower” forms of life is shameful.  The fact that we use resources for our benefit, and our benefit only regardless of who or what we hurt in the process shows that our species hasn’t grown or learned from similar past experiences involving the brutal taking of Native American land.  Although the United States doesn’t seem like much of a frontier today, there are still millions of undisturbed areas containing bountiful resources.  Instead of treating these rich areas as “resource frontiers”, we should instead think of the health and well-being of species other than ourselves, stop being so greedy, and appreciate the last bit of “wild” Western landscape we have without completely degrading it.  But as Cronon states, “the very opportunity that frontiers offered people to abandon their old ways often put a premium on maintaining them”, and the old way of entitlement will be with our species until the end.

The “free land” of the frontier was nothing of the sort, having passed into European hands only through the violent conquest of its early Indian owners (Cronon et al).  A combination of fear and greed impelled further growth among the Western frontier, and the new immigrants let nothing or no one stand in their way (White).  If they wanted something, they took it; not by peaceful agreements and mutual respect, but by violent means. Violence was the European’s solution to land acquisition and settlement and it drove them into a power-hungry rage.  What’s most troubling is that greed-induced violence still goes on today and is in some ways an encouraged legacy of the frontier.  Children happily play cowboys and Indians (Limerick), our country has been in wars over natural resources, movies and videogames portray violence as a heroic action, and more money is spent on the military than on education.  All of these examples seem to indicate that not only does our culture accept violence, but that we encourage it, and have been doing so for hundreds of years.  The American-made cultural divide and power-hungry fear that runs through the veins of this country is a solid barrier blocking us from ever achieving peace and sustainability.

The Western frontier is a mythical world based on lies, greed, and ignorance, and yet it is where many Americans continue to locate a central core of their identity (Cronon et al).  Legacies from this time have shaped our culture and continue to do so today despite of what we think has changed within our American values.  The saying “history repeats itself” holds forever true, and perhaps someday we can look at the mistakes we’ve made by viewing resources as “our” frontiers and learn from them. Until then, our greed and violent tendencies will continue to shape the growth and existence of our country.

I decided to explore Central San Rafael on Friday.  Every time I drive past this city I can’t decide whether I like it or hate it, but by looking deeply into the landscape I was able to come to certain conclusions and understand it better than before.
Driving into town I was immediately reminded of an old town San Francisco.  There was a mix of steep, slanted streets along with level, main roads.  The slanted streets look like natural paved hillside, yet the leveled roads give the whole town a terraced feeling, like someone had purposely designed this to make it look more appealing.  Perhaps this uncommon design was created with the thought that it would bring in people who loved the feel of San Francisco but didn’t want or couldn’t afford to live in such a big city.

There is definite evidence of planned landscaping.  Non-native trees line every street neatly, spaced exactly the same length apart.  A square is physically cut out of the sidewalk where every tree grows. The unnaturalness of non-native shrubs and flowers reminds me of pimples dotting an otherwise perfect complexion.  The whole place looks too planned and very cookie-cutter.  I find it laughable then that this city, which obviously tries extremely hard to look so neat and classy, would choose above-ground telephone poles with harsh, exposed wire to line these same streets.  It seems like a giant, visible contradiction.
I was not aware of how Victorian Central San Rafael was.  I feel like I am standing on the street of an east coast town.  Beautiful, historic houses can be seen down every street, giving the whole area a very family-oriented feel.  More “modern” buildings are intermingled within the classic Victorians, reminding me of a field of wild flowers slowly being taken over by non-native, invasive weeds.  This observation said the most about the people who live here.  I feel as though San Rafael is in an identity crisis fueled by a battle of the older and younger generations.  Perhaps the younger generation is pushing for a more modernized community, slowly trying to eradicate the old town feel of the city.  But by looking at the landscape carefully, I believe it is the other way around.  Most of the “modern” buildings seem like they stemmed from the 70’s and 80’s.  Some buildings resembled those of the Brutalist style like on the Sonoma State Campus, symbolizing a time when futuristic architecture was in high demand.  With new ideas of sustainability and restoration surfacing, I think the younger generations are moving to stop the modern development of this city and preserve it for what it is: a true, historic gem.  The people of this town scream environmental consciousness, from the giant crowd shopping at the weekly farmers market to the domination of Pruises lining the streets.  The future looks amazing for this little town and I think in ten years it will have a genuine, unique identity.

Driving towards the 101, one last thing caught my eye.  Amidst the modern, drab buildings stood a wonderful Victorian house with two palm trees standing at the entrance.  This symbol of hospitality was like a glimmer of hope in my eyes and made me feel that with the help of my generation, San Rafael will someday be restored to a welcoming, naturally beautiful city.