Sunday, December 9, 2007

I didn't make blog entries for a couple of months over the holidays. In January, I enrolled in college and am taking natural resource classes. Since I have to study course materials, I am using this empty blog space for review.

Book Notes:  The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

Notes on Chapter Three: Nature's Last Stand

---

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Book Notes:  The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

Notes on Chapter 3: Nature's Last Stand

"The wealth of the world, if measured by domestic product and per-capita consumption, is rising. But if calculated from the condition of the biosphere, it is falling."

The health of the biosphere is measured by the condition of the world's forest, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Living Planet Index -- from 1970 to 1995, fell 30 percent, calculated the World Wide Fund for Nature.

---

Thurssday, December 6, 2007

The book notes on The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson will be continued next week.

Human and Natural Resources Relationships
Additions to lecture notes

Here's an article by Karen Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The pace of human evolution has been increasing at a stunning rate since our ancestors began spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago, quickening to 100 times historic levels after agriculture became widespread, according to a study being published today.

By examining more than 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people, researchers identified about 1,800 genes that have been widely adopted in relatively recent times because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Until recently, anthropologists believed that evolutionary pressures on humans eased after the transition to a more stable agrarian lifestyle. But in the past few years, they realized the opposite was true - diseases swept through societies in which large groups lived in close quarters for a long period. Altogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7 percent of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The advantage of all but about 100 of these genes remains a mystery, said University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks, who led the study. But the research team was able to conclude that infectious diseases and the introduction of new foods were the primary reasons that some genes swept through populations with such speed.

"If there were not a mismatch between the population and the environment, there wouldn't be any selection," Hawks said. "Dietary changes, disease changes - those create circumstances where selection can happen." One of the most famous examples is the spread of a gene that allows adults to digest milk. Although children were able to drink milk, they typically developed lactose intolerance as they grew up. But after cattle and goats were domesticated in Europe and yaks and mares were domesticated in Asia, adults with a mutation that allowed them to digest milk had a nutritional advantage over those who didn't. As a result, they were more likely to have healthy offspring, prompting the mutation to spread, Hawks said.

The mechanism also explains why genetic resistance to malaria has spread among Africans - who live where disease-carrying mosquitoes are prevalent - but not among Europeans or Asians.

Most of the genetic changes the researchers identified were found in only one geographic group or another. Races as we know them today didn't exist until fewer than 20,000 years ago, when genes involved in skin pigmentation emerged, Hawks said. Paler skin allowed people in northern latitudes to absorb more sunlight to make vitamin D.

"As populations expanded into new environments, the pressures faced in those environments would have been different," said Noah Rosenberg, a human geneticist at the University of Michigan, who wasn't involved in the study. "So it stands to reason that in different parts of the world, different genes will appear to have experienced natural selection."

Hawks and colleagues from UC Irvine, the University of Utah and Santa Clara-based gene chipmaker Affymetrix Inc. examined genetic data collected by the International HapMap Consortium, which cataloged single-letter differences among the 3 billion letters of human DNA in people of Nigerian, Japanese, Chinese and European descent. The researchers looked for long stretches of DNA that were identical in many people, suggesting that a gene was widely adopted and that it spread relatively recently, before random mutations among individuals had a chance to occur. They found that the more the population grew, the faster human genes evolved. That's because more people created more opportunities for a beneficial mutation to arise, Hawks said.

In the past 5,000 to 10,000 years, as agriculture was able to support increasingly large societies, the rate of evolutionary change rose to more than 100 times historical levels, the study concluded. Among the fastest-evolving genes are those related to brain development, but the researchers aren't sure what made them so desirable, Hawks said.

There are other mysteries, too. "Nobody 10,000 years ago had blue eyes," Hawks said. "Why is it that blue-eyed people had a 5 percent advantage in reproducing compared to non-blue-eyed people? I have no idea."

---

Friday, December 7, 2007

Human and Natural Resources Relationships
Lecture notes with additions

Advent of agriculture about 14,000 years ago.

• changed from nomadic / migratory to sedentary
• change in dependence on wild nature
• competition with wild nature
• more managed environment
• calories per unit area greatly increased
• religious views changed from earth-centered toward human-centered
• populations increased dramatically
• diversification of societies ( specialists)

Major Eras of Human-Natural Resource Relationships in the U.S.

Era of Abundance - until 1800/1850

• continent looked unlimited - inexhaustible
• no regulation

Exploitation - 1800 - 1900 - for example, Bison 10's of millions to about 200

• Railroad
• Repeating firearms
• Passanger Pigeon - last one died in 1913 in a zoo - habitat removed - overhunting

Protection

Yellowstone (1872) 2,176,000 acres

Supported by railroad companies, and with assistance from members of the Washburn expedition and others, Ferdinand V. Hayden promoted legislation in Congress in 1871 and 1872 to protect approximately two million acres of the land "lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River". On March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the law declaring that this area would forever be preserved: "dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." The world's first national park had been born!

Forest Reserve Act (1891)

• president given authority by conress to set aside land as forest reserves
• Teddy Roosevelt with Gifford Pinchot set aside 3/4 of national forest today
• From Wikipedia
  The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 allowed the president to set aside forest reserves from the land in the public domain. It was passed by Benjamin Harrison. Harrison put 13 million acres (53,000 kmē) of land into National forests; Cleveland put in 25 and McKinley put in 7.

Lacey Act
16 U.S.C. § 701, May 25, 1900.

Dunk: Anti-hunting -- could not transport legal or illegal dead birds across stte boundaries. Authority under interstate commerce clause.

Overview. This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to adopt measures to aid in restoring game and other birds in parts of the U.S. where they have become scarce or extinct and to regulate the introduction of birds and animals in areas where they had not existed. All sections but one of the original 1900 Act have been repealed and either restated in or reenacted by other code provisions. This is a summary of the one remaining section of the original Lacey Act. The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 are summarized separately.

Game and Wild Bird Preservation. The purposes of the Act are to aid in the restoration of game and other wild birds in parts of the U.S. where they have become scarce or extinct and to regulate the introduction of American or foreign birds or animals in localities where they have not previously existed. The duties and powers of the Department of the Interior include the preservation, distribution, introduction and restoration of game and other wild birds.

The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to collect and publish information regarding the propagation, uses and preservation of game and other wild birds and adopt rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act. § 701.

Editor's Note. A related statute, 16 U.S.C. § 702, enacted in 1902, grants the Secretary the power to authorize the importation of game birds' eggs for propagation and directs the Secretary to adopt rules and regulations on importation for this purpose.

Dunk: Anti-hunting -- could not transport legal or illegal dead birds across stte boundaries. Authority under interstate commerce clause.

Game & Wild Birds Preservation & Disposition Act of 1900 (The Lacey Act)
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378). This Act provides authority to the Secretary of the Interior to designate injurious wildlife and ensure the humane treatment of wildlife shipped to the United States. Further, it prohibits the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, or purchase of fish and wildlife taken or possessed in violation of State, Federal, Indian tribal, and foreign laws. The Amendments strengthen and improve the enforcement of Federal wildlife laws and improve Federal assistance to the States and foreign governments in the enforcement of their wildlife laws. Also, the act provides an important tool in the effort to gain control of smuggling and trade in illegally taken fish and wildlife.

---

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Protection (continued)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

• prior to Act, states set own laws
• bird populations declined
• feds took over with MBTA to coordinate protection
• states lost power
• successful -- now treaties with many foreign governments
• ducks, geese, swans

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

Overview. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful.

Prohibited Acts. Unless permitted by regulations, the Act provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Subject to limitations in the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may adopt regulations determining the extent to which, if at all, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, purchasing, shipping, transporting or exporting of any migratory bird, part, nest or egg will be allowed, having regard for temperature zones, distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits and migratory flight patterns. Regulations are effective upon Presidential approval. §§ 703 and 704.

The Act makes it unlawful to: ship, transport or carry from one state, territory or district to another, or through a foreign country, any bird, part, nest or egg that was captured, killed, taken, shipped, transported or carried contrary to the laws from where it was obtained; import from Canada any bird, part, nest or egg obtained contrary to the laws of the province from which it was obtained. § 705.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Except as allowed by implementing regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, including the feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or migratory bird products.

Duck Stamp Act (water fowl) -- generates money for refuges, etc.

The Federal Duck Stamp is a United States program to generate revenue to protect wetlands. In 1934, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, was passed by Congress. The Act requires the purchase of a stamp by waterfowl hunters for each bird that they kill. Revenue generated by the stamp is used to acquire important wetlands. Since its inception, the program has resulted in the protection of approximately 4.5 million acres (18,000 kmē) of waterfowl habitat. While the primary purpose of the duck stamp is to provide proof of the requisite fee paid to the FWS for a waterfowl kill, hunters are not the only purchasers of duck stamps. They are also bought by collectors and visitors to federal wildlife refuges, since displaying a current duck stamp provides free admission. Each year a contest is held, in which thousands of wildlife artists compete to design the new duck stamp. In 2000, over $25 million of revenue was generated by duck stamps alone.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act of 1934)
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as amended -- The "Duck Stamp Act," as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to appropriations.

Pittman-Robertson Act -- 1937

• modeled after Duck Stamp Act
• generates money from sales of sporting arms and ammo
• 11% excise tax -- goes to F&WS
• money goes back to states 3:1 ratio with states putting up the 1 share
• money cannot go into general fund
• 92% money back to states, no more than 8% toward administration
• distributed according to state size and number of licenses sold -- no more than 5% per year
• to be done within 2 years -- becomes state property
• limited to research, land acquisition, restoration, hunter education
• can't be used for preidtor control, law enforcement, game frming, fisheries
• about $3.5 to $4 billion since inception

• In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Resoration Act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. This law placed an 11 percent excise tax on rifles, shotguns and ammunition.

  In 1970, Congress amended the act to include a 10 percent tax on handguns and archery equipment.

  Like hunting license fees, Pittman-Robertson revenues do not go into the general treasury; they go directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where, by law, they must be apportioned to the states according to a formula that depends on the amount of land a state has set aside for conservation purposes and the number of hunting licenses the state sells.

  The state must then use these funds for conservation related activities including hunting and hunter education. The statute also contains a provision requiring states to dedicate their hunting licenses revenues to the operation of the state wildlife agency in order to be eligible to receive Pittman-Robertson money.

  It is estimated that nationwide, less than 10 percent of the budgets of state wildlife agencies comes from income taxes, general sales taxes, or other forms of across-the-board taxation. A minuscule amount comes from donations, bequests, product sales, and other limited sources; while the remainder comes from licenses fees and revenues from the Pittman-Robertson Act and a companion law relating to sport fishing.

  Since the first payouts in 1939, states have received a total of $4.4 billion in Pittman-Robertson funds. Fiscal year 2003 payouts totaled $213 million, an all-time high, and up from $189 million in fiscal year 2002.

  From 1937 until 1970, the bulk of Pittman-Robertson taxes were, in fact, paid by hunters. But when Congress covered handguns under the Act, the situation changed dramatically.

  According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2001 only 13 million American hunted. How many Americans own legal firearms is not known with any precision, but most estimates place that number at between 65 and 70 million, all of whom paid the Pittman-Robertson tax.

  For more than three decades, only a small portion of Pittman-Robertson money has come from hunters. The majority has been paid by target shooters, collectors, and people who buy guns for protection.

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman - Robertson Act)
This Act, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i; 50 Stat. 917) of September 2, 1937, is commonly called the "Pittman-Robertson Act." It has been amended several times, and provides Federal aid to States for management and restoration of wildlife. Funds from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition [Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis for paying up to 75 percent of the cost approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges.

Dingell-Johnson Act (1950)

• Like Pittman-Robertson except for fish
• 94% of revenue to states
• Wikipedia: The Dingell-Johnson Act, also called the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, is a United States federal law (16 U.S.C. §§ 777-777l) from 1950 that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration and management plans and projects.[1] The Act has been amended 11 times, the last of which was in 1992.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 (Dingell - Johnson Act)
This Act, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777k, 64 Stat. 430), as amended. This August 9, 1950, Act has been amended several times and was commonly called the Dingell-Johnson Act. It provides Federal aid to the States for management and restoration of fish having "material value in connection with sport or recreation in the marine and/or fresh waters of the United States." Funds from a 10-percent excise tax on certain items of sport fishing tackle (Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161) are permanently appropriated (see P.L. 136, August 31, 1951; 65 Stat. 262) to the Secretary of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis for paying up to 75 percent of the cost of approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of sport fish habitat, stocking of fish, research into fishery resource problems, surveys and inventories of sport fish populations, and acquisition and development of access facilities for public use.

---