9.1 INTRODUCTION

One can hardly pick up a newspaper or news magazine without encountering at least one article on some conservation controversy. It seems as if almost all human activity endangers the existence of one species or another. Our heightened awareness of the consequences of our actions has led many to believe that human activities that threaten other animals (and sometimes plants) should be curtailed or eliminated altogether. But the growing human population requires the same resources that other animals need to survive; hence, the battles over whether to protect wildlife and its habitat.

The parties involved in conservation disputes represent a wide range of interests: environmental groups, outdoor recreation groups, government agencies, businesses and industries, and agricultural operations. Although a war paradigm like that of Salwasser (above) can be used to describe how these battles unfold and alliances are formed, alliances change from case to case. In one battle we might see an industry opposing an alliance of government agencies and environmentalists, yet in another battle we might see an industry and the same government agencies allied against environmental groups. On the surface these groupings may seem capricious, but an understanding of the underlying ethics that dictate the behavior of various interest groups renders their actions predictable. The actions that lead to endangerment, the changing alliances, and the arguments used in support of each position all have ethical foundations. The ethics of those involved in conservation battles are not always easy to determine from public statements or arguments made in court. This is due in part to alliances publicly supporting more moderate positions than the individual organizations might take on their own, but it is mostly due to the utilitarian format that our political system uses to resolve these disputes.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that says that in choosing which action to take when several alternatives are available, the ethically correct action is the one that results in the most "happiness" for the "greatest number." The debates over whether to protect wildlife usually center around defining "happiness" and "greatest number." Does "happiness" mean economic gain only? Or does it include recreation or participation in nature? Does aesthetic appreciation of nature count? Are animals included in "greatest number" and, if so, does their "happiness" count as much as human "happiness"?

This chapter will examine three conservation controversies: the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, the mountain lion in California, and winter run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River. In each case the relevant biological background will be given, followed by a presentation of arguments supporting and opposing protecting these species. Through examination of these arguments, we can gain insight into the ethics that lead people to support or oppose protecting threatened species and perhaps gain a better understanding of our own ethical views on nature and wildlife.

9.2 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

9.2.1 Introduction

If the effort to save endangered species is a war, then the effort to save the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) is a major battle (Figure 14.1). On one side there is the powerful forest products industry whose goals seemingly are mutually exclusive with the spotted owl's survival. Aligned with the forest products industry is the United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service which seems reluctant to protect the owl. The opposition is an alliance of conservation groups and scientists including the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and conservation biologists. The acrimony between the two camps is apparent in official statements, advertisements, and actions made by both sides on this issue. The forest products industry refers to conservationists and environmentalists as CAVEs - citizens against virtually everything - while extreme environmentalists drive steel spikes into trees, ostensibly to prevent logging but also endangering loggers. Despite the animosity in this conflict, there is reason for optimism; the spotted owl can be saved and this case can be used as a blueprint to resolve future conflicts in efforts to save endangered species.

Figure 9.1 Northern spotted owl.

In understanding this or any other conservation battle, it is helpful to understand the conditions that led to the decline of the threatened species and biological

characteristics that must be considered in any protection or recovery plan. To this end, we will examine the ecology of the spotted owl, the history of logging in the Pacific Northwest, the current conflict between the spotted owl and the forest products industry, the ethical foundation of arguments for and against protecting the owl, and attempts at resolution.

9.2.2 Life History and Ecology of the Spotted Owl

The traditional range of the northern spotted owl is bounded on the south by northwestern California and by British Columbia on the north. The owl is associated almost exclusively with old-growth forest, i.e. forest that is 350-750 years old and dominated by large western hemlock and Douglas fir. These ancient trees provide cover and habitat for the owl's primary prey: flying squirrels, red tree voles, deer mice, and wood rats. Spotted owl breeding success is dependent on the availability of these prey.

Spotted owls are monogamous and typically begin breeding at age two, generally nesting every other year and producing two chicks on average. The juvenile owls have very high mortality rates in their first year. The primary causes of death are predation by hawks and horned owls, starvation, disease, and human predation, i.e. nests destroyed by logging. The adult owls are vulnerable to the same mortality factors as the juveniles, but to a much lesser degree; thus adult spotted owls tend to be long lived.

When foraging conditions are favorable, males do most of the hunting and the females guard the nests. When prey populations are low, females leave the nests to help with hunting. As one would expect, juvenile mortality due to predation increases dramatically under these conditions.

Foraging conditions are determined by climate and the extent of the nesting pairs' home range. Studies have shown that a nesting pair of spotted owls require between 2000 and 4200 acres of old growth forest to survive and reproduce. Even in the absence of logging, the low reproductive rates and high juvenile mortality rates result in low overall population growth rates. Logging further lowers reproduction by reducing foraging area and further increases juvenile mortality through nest destruction and by forcing females to leave the nests unguarded; the reduced reproduction and increased mortality cause populations to decline.

After fledging, the juveniles leave the nests to search for territories of their own. This is the critical stage of spotted owl life history; those young adults that do find territories have high survival rates and relatively high reproductive rates; those without territories usually die. Additionally, the young owls are vulnerable to predation during the search for territories, this vulnerability is exacerbated if available territories are scattered. Thus any management plan to protect the spotted owl from extinction must set aside large areas of contiguous old-growth forest.

With the exception of the forest products industry and its allies, there is a consensus that spotted owl survival and breeding success is dependent on large areas of old-growth forest; however, there is much debate over why this is true. There are currently five hypotheses: the nesting hypothesis, temperature hypothesis, predation hypothesis, prey abundance availability hypothesis, and the adaptation hypothesis.

Nesting hypothesis. The nesting hypothesis follows from observations that the spotted owl does not build nests and thus must find naturally occurring platforms for nesting. These platforms must be large enough to hold the female and the young and high enough to offer protection against terrestrial predators. The cavities and depressions naturally found in old-growth trees are ideal nesting locations. If this were the sole cause of the owl's dependence on old-growth stands, artificial nesting sites could be built. However, attempts to provide nesting sites have failed so far: spotted owls will only nest in large trees.

Temperature hypothesis. Northern spotted owls are intolerant of temperatures above 82 degrees. The multilayered canopy in old-growth stands creates cooler temperatures at medium to low levels and provides nesting sites high enough to offer protection from terrestrial predators. Additionally, old-growth stands may provide cover from harsh winter conditions. Large old-growth stands are not unique in providing shelter; small stands or shaded canopies in canyons also offer refuge from heat stress. Spotted owls do occasionally use these sites for nesting but select them only if they are adjacent to trees. Temperature conditions are clearly an important (but not the sole) factor contributing to the spotted owl's preference for old-growth stands.

Predation hypothesis. Great horned owls and goshawks prey on juvenile spotted owls. The multilayered canopy of old-growth forests provides refuge for young spotted owls from these large predatory birds.

Prey abundance and availability hypothesis. Studies have shown that the spotted owl's preferred prey, wood rats and flying squirrels, are more abundant in very old (greater than 250 years old) or very young (shrub-sapling stage) forests. Despite adequate prey in shrub-sapling stage forests, spotted owls lack the maneuverability to hunt effectively enough capture prey in these densely vegetated areas. Thus the abundance of prey combined with the openness of old-growth stands make this the most likely primary reason why the spotted owl requires large tracks of old-growth forest. This hypothesis has important implications for management. If abundance and availability of prey does vary with forest age, then proposals to supply only enough old-growth forest for nesting in the belief that younger forests are adequate for foraging could have disastrous effects on owl populations.

Adaptation hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that spotted owls evolved with old-growth forests and are ecologically adapted to these forests. This is essentially a combination of the other hypotheses that speculates how spotted owls became dependent on old growth forests, not why this might be so. However, the implications for management are: because spotted owls have evolved specializations to live in old-growth forest, they cannot live outside it.

9.2.3 History of Logging in the Pacific Northwest

Logging as an industry in the Pacific Northwest was started in the 1780's by fur traders and shippers who saw the trees only as material to repair damaged ships. Other early settlers saw the trees as a nuisance, weeds to be cleared away so that crops could be planted and towns could be built. No one could envision the fortunes that these forests would provide.

It wasn't until the 1830's that commercial logging began: the Hudson Bay Company began harvesting timber and exporting it to Hawaii and China. Seeing the success of this operation, other logging companies and saw mills sprung up in British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington. Most of these logging companies and saw mills were small operations until the early 1850's when the California gold rush and its boom towns created a huge demand for timber. Ironically, gold was first discovered in Northern California during construction of a saw mill.

The forest products industry's economic and political power in the Pacific Northwest continued to grow. National economic booms after World Wars I and II created tremendous demand for timber, so much so that much of the economy of the region was tied to timber. Even today, after some economic diversification, 44% of Oregon's economy and 28% of Washington's is based on timber. Logging companies and saw mills collectively became so powerful that they could run their operations without regard to human safety, let alone the health of the forests and the creatures they supported.

This furious logging activity is estimated to have reduced old-growth forests from 15 million acres in the 1800's to 5 million acres in 1985. Of this 5 million acres, 4.8 million are on federal lands, i.e. logging companies have harvested virtually all of the old-growth on private lands. In order to delay a regional economic crisis, the federal government has allowed logging companies to harvest timber on federal lands; in fact, the forest products industry receives indirect subsidies to harvest publicly owned old-growth forests through federally financed access roads and tariffs on Canadian lumber. With much of the operational costs borne by American taxpayers, it is profitable for logging companies to harvest old-growth forests when it might not otherwise be so.

9.2.4 The Spotted Owl Conservation Battle

The forest products industry refers to the conservationists fighting to save the spotted owl as "six hanging under every rock," and say "if they don't stop turning this state into a park, we'll all be out of business." Conservation groups are also guilty of using propaganda, asserting that the forest products industry's ". . . destruction of forests will eliminate species and allow rats and cockroaches to flourish." With a few extreme exceptions, it is doubtful that conservationists wish to destroy the forest products industry or that the forest products industry would choose to condemn old-growth species to extinction, and yet to both sides their interests seem to be at odds. An analysis of possible resolutions to this conflict requires an understanding of the current scientific evidence and the arguments of both sides.

Very little was known about the spotted owl prior to 1970 when work on the Endangered Species Act and proposals that spotted owls be listed as endangered or threatened under this legislation sparked a frenzy of research. This early research grossly underestimated the spotted owl's requirement for large areas of old-growth forest and created doubts about the need for a federal listing; however, the spotted owl was listed as threatened by Oregon.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 resulted in the Forest Service giving the spotted owls special consideration as a "management indicator species," i.e., declines in the spotted owl population are an indication of the negative effects of management programs and reflect how well other species that are dependent on old-growth forests fare under these programs. Through this act, the Forest Service was responsible for developing a plan to ensure the species' survival.

The Forest Service's initial plan in 1984 was to reduce and maintain populations at 375 nesting pairs by providing 1000 acre territories for each pair - $2 billion worth of timber. Even the Forest Service admitted that the long-term (>150 years) survival of a population of this size is unlikely. Predictably, both the forest products industry and conservationists opposed this plan.

The National Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups filed suit against this plan on the grounds that it did not provide for the long-term survival of the spotted owl. Greenworld also petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the spotted owl as endangered. The Forest Service proposed increasing the number of habitat areas in 1986 to 550 and again in 1988 to 2000 without specifying how these territories were to be arranged. Although an improvement over the initial proposal, the species' probability of surviving past 150 years is still low. Despite this scientific evidence, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied the petition to list the owl as endangered. However, in June 1990 the spotted owl was listed as a threatened species, a listing with somewhat less stringent protection than that for an endangered species.

Any plan to protect the spotted owl must set aside large areas of contiguous old-growth forest; not surprisingly, the forest products industry opposes any such plan. Its argument against this particular plan is threefold: (1) sequestering this much timber to protect the owl will cost billions of dollars and eliminate thousands of jobs, (2) the spotted owl does not require as much old-growth as most scientists believe, and (3) owl populations can be maintained or even increased through proper management without withdrawing so much forest from commercial use.

An acre of old-growth timber was worth approximately $4000 in 1985. Simple mathematics shows that protecting 2000 acres per nesting pair and providing for 2000 pairs withdraws $16 billion in timber from harvesting. If this "asset" is taken away, industry experts predict that over 12,000 jobs will be lost.

Further, industry representatives argue, the spotted owl does not require nearly as much old-growth forest as current estimates suggest; in fact, the species may not require old-growth forests at all. This conclusion is based on an industry biologist's study that consisted of two field surveys and concluded that there were more spotted owls remaining on the 4.8 million acres of publicly owned old-growth forest than previous studies had estimated and suggested that the owl's requirement for old-growth may be less than previously thought. Another industry study observed young spotted owls trying to nest in younger forests. This observation, combined with disagreement on the reasons for the owl's dependence on old-growth forests within the scientific community, led the forest products industry to conclude that the spotted owl may not require, but simply prefer, old-growth forests.

Timber industry groups also suggest that spotted owl populations could be maintained or increased through three management strategies: providing artificial nesting sites in lieu of reserving old-growth forests for the birds, artificially enhancing prey density, and moving owls from areas to be harvested.

Conservationists' arguments and rebuttals are simple and supported by strong scientific evidence. The basic argument is that most credible scientific research suggests that the spotted owl will go extinct unless logging operations in old-growth forests are severely curtailed. According to the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service must prevent any indicator species for going extinct without regard to cost. Thus the required action, reserving large areas of suitable habitat, must be taken.

Scientific evidence suggests that there is currently not enough old-growth forest left even to support present owl populations. Any plan to protect populations through management in lieu of reserving habitat contradicts the whole notion of a management indicator species, i.e., artificially providing for the owl's needs, even if it were possible, would inhibit the owl's ability to accurately reflect the health of the old-growth forest ecosystem. Conservation groups rebut the forest products industry's forecast of economic hardship by suggesting that harvesting old-growth forests only postpones an inevitable economic crisis, and then the owls would be gone as well. It is not clear that continued harvesting of old-growth timber would protect jobs anyway: from 1980 to 1986 timber production in the Pacific northwest increased 35% but 11,000 jobs were lost due to mechanization and exports of unprocessed logs.

9.2.5 Ethics and the Spotted Owl

In this conflict, an examination of the ethical foundation of the involved parties' arguments offers much insight into the sources of friction. It is quite easy to see why an ethically anthropocentric (human centered) logger would clash with an ethically biocentric (biodiversity centered) conservationist. What is not so easy to see is any middle ground.

The forest products industry's argument seems to be based on Lockean property ethics and utilitarian calculus with human "happiness" having a higher value than the "happiness" (read "survival") of other species. The Lockean ethical theory (see Chapter 13) considers the earth, and in this case its forests, as raw materials to be harvested and used as man chooses. We can infer from the forest products industry's argument that they view the reservation of old-growth timber as a violation of their property rights, that despite virtually all of this forest being on public land, loggers by virtue of their labor have the right to harvest these trees with little regard to the rights of others.

One could argue that the spotted owl also has a right to these forests. The forest products industry's argument that the spotted owl does not require as much old-growth forest as environmentalists claim is tacit agreement that the spotted owl is entitled to enough old-growth forest to survive. But combined with its economic arguments, we can infer that it believes that the owl's right to survive does not carry as much weight as a logger's right to cut down the forest.

It is difficult to categorize conservationists ethically. Any number of ethical views could lead one to believe that spotted owls should be protected, e.g., utilitarian views where either future generations' or spotted owls' "happiness" counts; a Deep Ecology view where spotted owl's have intrinsic value; or a view where humans assign value to the spotted owl as an indicator species. But regardless of ethical orientation, all of those in favor of protecting the spotted owl believe that the owls' right to survive supersedes the forest products industry's right to harvest old-growth.

Environmentalists do not altogether disregard the economic hardship that loggers face. This is reflected in their argument that economic hardship is inevitable, so the spotted owl should not be sacrificed simply to postpone an economic crisis. This clearly reflects an ethic that gives more "happiness" value to spotted owls' survival than to loggers' economic well-being.

9.2.6 Conclusion

The rhetoric and animosity in this conservation battle belie the ethical similarity between the two sides. The forest products industry's arguments imply that the owl does have the right to survive, albeit less of a right than the right of loggers to employment. Environmental groups do not challenge the rights of loggers, they just assign more value to the rights of the owl.

Unfortunately the ethical similarities in this case do not lead to a viable compromise. Scientific evidence suggests that the spotted owl cannot survive if the harvesting of old-growth forest continues, but if harvesting is prevented, timber industry jobs will be lost. Fortunately, some mill owners and loggers have begun to realize that communities that have developed to support the timber industry are inevitably going to experience some economic hardships. These people have begun to lobby for the reduction of logging in old-growth forests concurrent with aid to assist them in reducing their communities' dependence on timber. If they are successful, the compromise forged in this conservation conflict could be used as a blueprint to resolve future disputes.

9.3 MOUNTAIN LION IN CALIFORNIA

9.3.1 Introduction

The mountain lion, also known as cougar or puma, has a long history of conflict with humans (Figure 9.2). In the past 50 years, however, public attitudes toward it have changed dramatically. It is no longer regarded by most people as a dangerous pest that should be eliminated but as a noble predator fighting for its survival. Because of this shift in public opinion, virtually no one advocates eliminating the lion altogether. Instead conflict arises from disagreement over whether mountain lion populations can withstand hunting and the magnitude of the threat that unhunted mountain lion populations pose to livestock and people. This conflict is most apparent in California with its rapidly growing and increasingly urbanized population. The California Department of Fish and Game and the National Rifle Association support hunting; the Sierra Club, the Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation, and other environmental groups oppose hunting of mountain lions. This case history will examine the life history and ecology of the

mountain lion in California, the bounties and sport hunting pressures that caused populations to decline, and the arguments and ethics of those groups involved in the ongoing debate.

Figure 9.2. Mountain lion as depicted in the literature of the Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation, 1987.

9.3.2 Ecology of the California Mountain Lion

Mountain lions were once found throughout North America in a wide variety of habitats, but today they are found mainly in the more remote parts of the western half of the continent. In California, the mountain lion inhabits mountain ranges at intermediate elevations. There are currently three areas of high concentration: the northwestern coastal range from Mendocino County to Del Norte and Siskiyou counties, Los Padres National Forest in Monterey and Santa Barbara counties, and the west side of the Sierra Nevada from Madera County to Kern County. All of these areas have relatively low human densities, good cover, and high prey populations.

The California mountain lion's primary prey is mule deer. When mule deer are unavailable or uncatchable, lions have been known to prey on almost anything that they can catch, e.g., horses, burro, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, house cats, dogs, squirrels, skunks, beavers, porcupines, rabbits, foxes, feral pigs, pigeons, and peacocks. There are even anecdotes of mountain lions catching carp from ponds! Most healthy mountain lions eschew these alternate prey items, including livestock, as long as mule deer are available. However, once a mountain lion discovers that livestock are easy prey, it tends to continue to prey on them. The taking of livestock is called depredation.

Lions hunt primarily at night, but they will occasionally roam during daylight. Mountain lions are territorial, with the males having territories up to 300 square miles and females' having somewhat smaller ones. The males protect their territories from other males but allow any number of females' territories to overlap. These females are potential mates.

Mating can occur any time during the year but is most likely from February to June. Gestation periods are about 90 days, so most litters are born between May and September. There are usually two or three kittens per litter, with litter sizes of one and four being the extremes. Females have one litter every other year.  With such infrequent breeding and small litter sizes, the overall reproductive rate of this species is low. The young are cared for exclusively by the female and stay with her until they are sexually mature and able to fend for themselves, about one year on average. The young reach full adult size (6-7 ft long, 110-165 lbs) in two to three years and usually begin breeding at the same age.

9.3.3 History

Not much is known about mountain lion populations prior to 1907, but they were large enough to be considered a threat to California's livestock and deer populations. In October 1907, the California Fish and Game Commission began paying bounties on each mountain lion killed. The purpose of the bounties was to eliminate the mountain lion altogether; the rationale behind this policy was that the lions were a threat to livestock, lion fur and meat had no economic value, the lion generally did not prey on pests such as mice and rats, and each mountain lion was a liability that "costs" the state thousands of dollars a year in deer meat (Bruce, 1925). In addition to the bounties, the state hired hunter-trappers to kill lions.

The state eliminated their last hunter-trapper position in 1959 and bounties in 1963. In the 56 years that the bounties were in effect, 12,641 lions were turned in for a total of $389,345. Estimates indicate that the 1959 mountain lion population of 1200 doubled between 1959 and 1971, leading many experts to conclude that hunting was the major factor causing mountain lion populations to decline.

In 1971, the California Assembly passed a bill that put a 4-year moratorium on hunting while providing for an evaluation of the status of the mountain lion in California as a game animal. There were also provisions in the act for depredation control permits, i.e., temporary licenses issued to ranchers allowing hunting of mountain lions that prey on livestock. The moratorium on hunting was extended twice and finally expired in 1986. Prior to the expiration, a bill was introduced in the California legislature to continue the moratorium on sport hunting of lions. It passed the legislature but was vetoed by the governor. This left the responsibility for determining management policy, hence the decision whether to allow a hunt, with the California Department of Fish and Game.

In 1987, the Department of Fish and Game released a "Cumulative Environmental Impact Report" which concluded that mountain lion populations could withstand removals through sport hunting of 190 lions a year without any significant impact to the population. Environmental groups filed suit and successfully stopped the 1987 hunting season. The Department of Fish and Game counter sued in 1988 to reinstitute a mountain lion hunt but the courts ruled that the evidence presented did not justify the conclusion that it was now safe to remove lions, thus preventing a hunt in 1988 and 1989. In 1990 the Wildlife Protection Initiative, which outlaws sport hunting of mountain lions, was overwhelmingly passed by California voters. This essentially ended the controversy in California but it continues in other states.

9.3.4 The Debate

The debate over allowing hunting of mountain lions centers around the population's ability to withstand hunting; the pro-hunting groups maintain that it can, environmental groups argue that not enough accurate data have been collected to justify this conclusion. Some groups in favor of hunting also argue that unhunted mountain lion populations pose a threat to deer populations, livestock, and humans. In the following section, we present the arguments supporting and opposing the hunting of mountain lions in California.

9.3.5 Mountain Lion Populations and Hunting

Pro-hunting argument. The California Department of Fish and Game argued that a hunt taking 190 mountain lions per year would not significantly impact lion populations. These 190 lions would represent only 4% of the state's estimated population of 5,100 lions, and it is unlikely that all 190 of the hunters receiving permits would be successful. Studies have shown that other states' lion populations that were subjected to 30% removals suffered no decline. In addition, a "realistic" population model predicts no negative long-term impacts on lion populations because of hunting primarily because hunting mortality is compensated for by a reduction in mortality from other factors.

Anti-hunting argument. The population data that have been collected to date are not sufficient to support a hunt for mountain lions. For example, current estimates of population size, mortality rates, and reproductive rates are not very precise; thus, any conclusions drawn from a model that uses these estimates cannot be deemed reliable. In addition, there is no evidence to support the assumption that hunting mortality is compensated for by a reduction in natural mortality. Finally, just because a population can withstand hunting does not mean that it should be hunted. For example, most robin populations could withstand hunting, but no one advocates a robin hunt.

9.3.6 Reduction of Deer Populations

Pro-hunting argument. Large uncontrolled mountain lion populations cause declines in deer populations. For example, deer populations in the Sierra National Forest's North Kings Area declined from 17,000 in the 1950's to 2,000 in 1985. This decline coincided with the hunting moratorium and was caused by increasing lion populations. Thus allowing hunting of mountain lions in this and other areas would allow deer populations to recover to their former levels. (Note: the California Department of Fish and Game does not support this argument. Instead they argue that removal of lions will have no negative impact on deer populations).

Anti-hunting argument. Studies have shown that mountain lion populations are not capable of depressing deer populations. The North Kings area (see above) suffered from extensive loss of habitat during the years of the hunting moratorium, and loss of habitat is recognized as a major cause of declining deer populations. Also California deer populations decreased most during the years that there were bounties on mountain lions, which suggests that something else besides the mountain lion is affecting deer numbers.

9.3.7 Depredation

Prohunting argument. Experts have reported that decreasing mountain lion populations result in decreased depredation. Reported livestock depredation incidents have increased since the hunting moratorium started in 1971, and mountain lions are the major cause of depredation losses. Sport hunting decreases mountain lion populations and thus would decrease depredation, and the revenues received from the sale of hunting permits could supply funds to compensate for depredation losses. This would also decrease the likelihood of attacks on humans.

Anti-hunting argument. Depredation is a bigger problem in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, which allow sport hunting of mountain lions, than it is in California, which does not. In fact Nevada state biologists have ruled out sport hunting as a method of controlling depredation. Sport hunting randomly removes lions from the population, whereas very few lions prey on livestock. Thus hunting is unlikely to remove those lions responsible for depredation. The current practice of killing lions known to have preyed on livestock is far more effective, albeit after some loss has occurred. These losses will probably occur in either case, and the sale of hunting permits would not even generate enough revenue to cover the costs of administering the hunting program and would leave nothing for depredation compensation. Although depredation reports have increased, this is due to better reporting procedures and rancher participation, not an actual increase in depredation incidents. In fact, only 8% of ranchers consider the mountain lion as a cause of livestock loss.

9.3.8 Ethics

Even though there is heated debate over the wisdom of allowing a mountain lion hunt, it is accepted by both parties that it is ethically incorrect to take action that would endanger the existence of this species. Unlike the years when bounties were paid for killing lions, even the pro-hunting lobby desires the survival of the species. Instead, in this case disagreement arises over two basic issues: (1) does the proposed action endanger the existence of mountain lions? and (2) even if it may not, do the benefits to humans justify either the risk that hunting will endanger the lion or the pain inflicted on lions by a hunt?

The first question is basically a scientific one and even though population data are poor on lions, hunting probably would not threaten lion populations. The second question is basically an ethical one: should a hunt be allowed based on the costs and benefits to humans, or should its effects on individual lions be taken into account?

9.3.8.1 Pro-hunt ethics

Prohunting ethics considers anything that has economic or recreational value to be a benefit. In addition, actions that are environmentally sound also are benefits, albeit of less value than economics or recreation. This lesser value assigned to the environment stems from a view of nature as a source of resources to be utilized, managed, manipulated, or conserved for human benefit. This is exemplified by comments of a Fish and Game official arguing for a hunt, "We don't think the animal is rare. In fact, we think it's fairly abundant. They're a renewable resource and some number can be taken without depleting that resource."

These ethical values clearly manifest themselves in pro-hunting arguments. They propose that a mountain lion hunt has economic benefit to man in two ways: the reduction of economic loss by ranchers and the generation of revenue to compensate those ranchers that do suffer loss from depredation. The recreational benefits are the hunt itself, but also there is an implied recreational benefit that reduced mountain lion populations will allow deer populations to flourish, thus allowing more people access to the joys of deer hunting. The environmental benefits accrue from healthier lion populations and larger deer populations, i.e., hunting can impart stability to ecosystems that have been modified by man.

If one accepts that these benefits are valid and believes that hunting generally is a part of our cultural heritage that allows hunters to participate in nature, it is easy to conclude that a mountain lion hunt is ethically sound (assuming that the hunt does not threaten the existence of the species). And despite anti-hunting rhetoric to the contrary, most hunting supporters are not insensitive to the suffering of individual animals. However, the hunting ethic does view the costs paid by individual lions as being insignificant relative to the benefits to hunter, ranchers, and the environment.

9.3.8.2 Anti-hunting ethics

Just as pro-hunting groups do not dispute the mountain lion's right to exist as a species, in this case most anti-hunting groups do not dispute that hunters have the right to hunt. Instead they argue that any benefits that may result from hunting do not justify the risk to the mountain lion's existence. Clearly anti-hunting groups view mountain lions as a species as having rights and value similar to those of individual humans, i.e., to institute any policy that threatens the life of a human being would clearly be a violation of that individual's rights. Anti-hunting ethics give this same right to the mountain lion species, hunting ethics do not. A more utilitarian ethical approach is that is is wrong to hunt an animal just for the sake of killing it or as a test of manhood. For most acceptable forms of hunting, the animal killed is also eaten. The preparation of a deer or duck for consumption and the eating of it is as much a part of the hunting ritual as stalking and killing it. In the case of lion hunting, the animal killed is rarely eaten, although the meat is reputed be excellent. This is because in our society, we have a strong taboo against eating predators (such as dogs and cats). At best, the lion killed by a hunter may be mounted as a snarling trophy. More often, the carcass is simply discarded.

Arguments and statements made opposing a mountain lion hunt indicate that some members of these groups believe that individual lions also have rights. Statements illustrating the pain and suffering endured by individual lions imply that inflicting such pain is violating a lion's rights. The Earth First! campaign to save individual animals by having members apply for mountain lion hunting permits, thus saving a lion, also reflects a belief that individual lions are important. However, practicality dictates that this not be the primary point in the anti-hunting argument because such environmentally extreme viewpoints do not fare well in court.

9.3.7 Conclusion

The controversy in California over mountain lion sport hunting is settled for now. In June 1990, California voters overwhelmingly (68% vs 32%) passed Proposition 117 that banned the sport hunting of mountain lions. This reflects a heightened public awareness of environmental issues and a change in attitudes about nature. No longer are wilderness and wild animals viewed as things to be conquered and tamed, but rather as things to be admired and respected. This case illustrates this shift in attitudes. The mountain lion was once considered a pest with no economic value and so was bountied and almost eliminated. Now this predator's right to exist and play its role in nature is rarely questioned even by those who support hunting it. The change in attitudes and policies toward the mountain lion should inspire optimism for conservation efforts everywhere.

9.4 WINTER RUN CHINOOK SALMON IN THE SACRAMENTO RIVER

9.4.1 Introduction

Chinook salmon (Figure 9.3) have been part of Northern California's culture for centuries. Native Americans used salmon in rituals, for food, and as barter. Early European settlers were first fascinated by such large numbers of huge aggressive fish, but they soon realized the economic potential of this resource and began harvesting. In support of favorable water policies, today's troll fishermen speak more of their "way of life" than of the economic value of the salmon fishing industry. But California's rapid growth and the resulting increased demand for water has led to water management practices that have driven some salmon runs to extinction and threaten the existence of many others. The winter run of chinook salmon (also called king salmon) on the Sacramento River is in danger of extinction. The story of this subspecies of salmon shows how water policy has caused declines in the populations of not only other salmon runs, but also of many other species of fish in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems.

Figure 9.3. Chinook salmon, spawning male (64 cm SL) and female (60 cm SL), American River, Sacramento County; parr (9 cm SL), Mill Creek, Fresno County.

Unlike the spotted owl and the mountain lion, salmon have significant economic value. And salmon require adequate river flows and spawning habitat to reproduce successfully. But cheap and readily available water is a tremendous economic benefit to agriculture, industry, and municipal water districts, so the water in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems is often diverted to meet human needs at the expense of the fish. The organizations responsible for providing water, the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the California Water Resources Board, view providing water for fish as subordinate to providing inexpensive water to farms, factories, and cities. Commercial fishermen and environmental groups argue that a vital part of California's economy and heritage, salmon fishing, is being sacrificed for the convenience of agribusiness, industry, and water managers.  Government agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game try to find a compromise that protects salmon habitat and allows water projects to continue. The following case history will cover the ecology of salmon, the history of water diversions in California, the conflict between those supporting water management policies that protect fish and those opposed, and the ethics of both sides.

9.4.2 Salmon Ecology

Salmon are anadromous fish, i.e. they migrate from salt-water seas up fresh water rivers to spawn. There are four runs of chinook salmon on the Sacramento River: fall, late fall, spring, and winter. The salmon runs are distinguished from each other by the timing of their upstream migrations to spawn. The winter run chinook migrate upstream December through March and spawn from April until June.

The salmon lay their eggs in nests (redds) dug in the gravel of river beds. Clean and plentiful gravel is required to provide adequate substrate for laying eggs and to protect the eggs from predators while still allowing oxygen-rich water to aerate the eggs. The eggs hatch into small fish with yolk sacs, then the yolk sacs are absorbed and the fish, now called fry, emerge from the gravel. The fry develop into parr, identified by a series of bars on their sides called parr marks. The parr transform into smolts and migrate out to the ocean where, in the case of winter run chinook salmon, they remain for two or three years as they gradually become mature adults. The mature adults migrate or "run" up the rivers of their births to spawn.

Salmon have evolved so that their life history patterns are suited to the natural conditions of the Sacramento river system. The essential elements for successful winter run chinook salmon reproduction are the availability of clean gravel, adequate flows of clean oxygenated water between 42 and 58 degrees Fahrenheit in the spawning area for egg development, and unobstructed water passages to allow smolts to migrate to the ocean and adults to migrate back to the spawning grounds.

9.4.3 History of Winter Run Chinook Salmon

The winter run historically spawned in the cool waters of the McCloud River from April to June. Here they found suitable spawning habitat and adequate water flows for successful reproduction. Human manipulation of the Sacramento River and its tributaries has changed this. The construction of dams, gravel mining, and water diversion degraded much of the suitable habitat.

In 1943, the Shasta Dam was constructed at the confluence of the Sacramento and Pit Rivers, downstream of the winter run spawning grounds. Because there were no fish passage facilities included in the dam, this blocked the winter run from its traditional spawning grounds. Keswick Dam, completed in 1955 downstream of Shasta Dam, also has no fish passage facilities and thus further reduced access to the traditional spawning grounds. Both of these dams release cool water to generate electricity. This cool water created suitable habitat downstream of the Keswick Dam where water temperatures had previously been too warm to allow for successful spawning. There is disagreement over whether the release of cool water from the dams actually increased winter run populations or just maintained them at stable levels. Because there are no credible population estimates for the winter run prior to 1967, it is impossible to resolve this debate. However, it is agreed that the winter run was over 80,000 fish per year by the mid 1960's.

In 1966 the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) was constructed 50 miles downstream of Keswick Dam. This dam was built with fish passage facilities. Despite these facilities, the winter run has declined from about 80,000 in the mid 1960's, to a few thousand in the early 1980's, then to a few hundred in the late 1980's. This decline is caused primarily by poorly designed fish ladders at RBDD that block the upstream migration of almost 40% of the fish that encounter the dam, and those fish that do pass are delayed an average of 18 days. This dramatically reduces the overall reproductive rate of the population: water temperatures below RBDD are lethal to salmon eggs and even if fish make it pass RBDD they experience physiological stress that reduces their fecundity.

Once the salmon do pass RBDD they encounter spawning grounds that have been depleted of gravel. Historically, gravel from the tributaries above the spawning grounds was washed downstream, ensuring an adequate supply. The construction of Shasta and Keswick Dams blocked the flow of gravel from upstream, and gravel mining in tributaries downstream of the dams reduced the amount available for replenishing the supply in the spawning area. The result is further reduction of suitable spawning habitat.

Water diversions also significantly reduce salmon populations. For the winter run, the Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa diversion canals are devastating. The pumps that divert water from the Sacramento River into the Glenn-Colusa canal alone are believed to kill 20% of all the smolts trying to migrate downstream by sucking them pass the inadequate fish screens installed there. There are over 300 more unscreened or inadequately screened diversions between Redding and Sacramento that collectively kill a high percentage of the salmon migrating to the ocean.

Dam construction and water diversions are the primary causes of plummeting salmon populations in California's central valley. Suitable spawning habitat has been reduced from 6000 miles to 300 miles resulting in the Sacramento River winter run declining from tens of thousands to a few hundred in just twenty years. Unless changes are made in the way water is managed in California, the winter run will soon be extinct. As a consequence, the state declared winter run chinook to be an endangered species in 1989.

9.4.4 The History of Water Diversion in California

Viewing Southern California and California's Central Valley from the air would reveal a patchwork of farms in the country, a plethora of golf courses and swimming pools in the suburbs, and abundant business and industry in the cities. It is hard to believe that this plush landscape is actually arid and semi-arid land that would naturally be covered with desert scrub or dry chaparral instead of crops and cities. It is only through California's massive water diversion system that the Central Valley and Southern California as we know it are possible. This huge diversion system became necessary because of the growth of farming in the Central Valley and population growth in Southern California. The cheap and accessible water provided by the diversion system fueled further agricultural and population growth.

The first large migration of American settlers to California occurred during the gold rush of 1849. Many of these early migrants settled in the Central Valley after the gold rush and became farmers and ranchers. They found a climate that was not well suited to agriculture because of highly variable precipitation. In an average year, heavy rains in the winter flooded much of the valley, creating marshes that lasted through the spring. As temperatures rose in the late spring and early summer the marshes dried up, leaving prairie land with grasses and scrub brush through the summer and fall. As inhospitable as an average year was, the wide variation from year to year in rainfall caused greater problems. Early ranchers and farmers experienced years of drought followed by years of flood that dried up or drowned cattle and crops. Successful ranching and farming would require storing the water from the wet winters (and wet years) for use during the dry summers (and dry years).

Local irrigation districts were created in the early 1900's to deal with the problem piecemeal. Most of these irrigation districts relied on ground water to meet their needs. Heavy pumping and a severe drought in the 1920's lowered the water table to the point that ground water was no longer a viable option for agriculture.

About the same time that wells were running dry, Colonel Bradford Marshall submitted a report to the State Irrigation Association proposing major diversions of water from northern California to the Central Valley and southern California. The California legislature reviewed and approved the plan, now called the Central Valley Project, in 1933 and submitted a $170 million bond to the voters for approval. The bond was passed, but because of the depression, the state could not find buyers for the bonds. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was announced about this time and federal financing for the Central Valley Project was secured. Thus the massive water diversion project in California fell under the control of the federal government and its Bureau of Reclamation. In 1938 the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation started construction of Shasta Dam and the modern era of water diversion began.

9.4.5 The Conflict between Water Diversion and Fish

Water diversion has caused a decline in many fish populations, most notably salmon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems. Because both salmon and diverted water have substantial economic value, the debate over how water should be managed is largely on economic grounds. This conservation battle has three sides: water diversion advocates (the Bureau of Reclamation, California Water Resources Control Board, agriculture and industry groups, and municipal water districts) that believe that agricultural, industrial, and urban water requirements take precedence over the needs of fish; a coalition of environmental groups, anglers, and commercial fishermen that support water management policies that give more value to fish than current policies; and the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game which seek compromise.

The argument of water advocates is simple: water diversions create more (economic) value than they destroy. This is evident in the actions of the Bureau of Reclamation. In 1987 the Bureau agreed to raise the gates at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam to facilitate the passage of winter run chinook to suitable spawning grounds upstream of the dam. In 1988, the Bureau reneged on this agreement when conflicts with water contracts became apparent. In 1989, the Bureau refused to release enough water through Keswick Dam to support the fry and eggs downstream, arguing that the water must be saved due to the drought. The Bureau continues to forge ahead with more water development projects and continues to market water to its primary customers: agriculture and urban water districts. Agriculture spokespersons support these actions by asserting that they have a moral right to water.

Fish supporters have recently began using economic analysis to bolster their biological arguments. They assert that traditional cost-benefit analysis has not assigned appropriate economic value to fisheries. If the appropriate values are assigned, the analysis shows that full implementation of salmon restoration plans would add $150 million per year and 8000 jobs to the state's economy. Environmental groups filed lawsuits to list the winter run under the Endangered Species Act regardless of economics. They asserted that the winter run is biologically in danger of extinction and should be protected without regard to economic considerations.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game try to balance these opposing views and find a compromise. They have been reluctant to list the winter run as endangered because listing would curtail water development projects and prevent commercial harvesting. These agencies have opted for informal agreements in lieu of formal listing because it allows more flexibility for compromise. Unfortunately, these informal agreements have generally been ineffective because the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reneges on any informal agreement if it perceives that its interests are being compromised. Because of the ineffectiveness of these informal agreements and the precipitous decline in winter run populations, the winter run chinook salmon on the Sacramento River were listed in 1989 as endangered by the state of California and as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

9.4.6 Ethics

An ethical principle that is important in understanding this debate is the concept of the "public trust doctrine." This means simply that a "sovereign," in this case the state and federal governments, is responsible for preserving the public's rights and interests in the utilization of public natural resources. The sovereign may grant use rights to an organization or an individual, but only when it is in the public's best interest. Fundamental to the public trust doctrine is that the resources, in this case water, are owned by the public. Court cases involving disputes over the proper utilization of publicly owned natural resources are usually decided based on this principle.

In the case of the winter run chinook salmon, the basic disagreement is over the proper use of the state's natural water resource. In other words, is it morally correct (according to the public trust doctrine) for water to be diverted to meet all the needs of cities and agriculture, or should the water needs of fish be included in the public trust? This disagreement is what agriculture spokespeople are referring to when they claim a "moral right to use this water."

Historically, this moral right of agriculture would not have been disputed. In fact, this ethical view and the belief that nature is a reservoir of resources for humans are principles on which the Bureau of Reclamation was founded. According to this ethic, the Bureau of Reclamation is acting correctly when it refuses to compromise human requirements for water for the needs of the winter run chinook. The agency's purpose is to "reclaim" unusual resources for human use.

Environmental groups' ethics are consistent with the ethics they exhibit in the other case histories. In this view the winter run chinook as a species have rights commensurate with humans', i.e., the rights and interests of the winter run in California's water must be considered as part of the public trust. Thus this public trust is being violated if we continue to divert so much water that we drive this salmon run to extinction.

A further ethical consideration is that by reducing the salmon populations, agricultural interests are depriving commerical fishermen of their livlihood and sport fishermen of their sport. Furthermore, salmon populations are renewable every year whereas irrigated agriculture has a finite life span. In many areas, salt build-up in the soils may make growing crops impossible in 50 to 200 years (Reisner, 1986). Should we sacrifice the long-term yields of fisheries for the enormous short-term yields of agriculture, especially when a better balance of water use might be better for both fisheries and agriculture?

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game play the role of sovereign in this case. This is consistent with their designation as management agencies. As sovereign, these agencies view human needs as paramount and fish as a resource that should be preserved. Their initial attempts to forge a compromise outside of the Endangered Species Act, which clearly grants rights to species, reflects these views. From this perspective, the public trust involves utilizing the state's water resources to meet the needs of people and to preserve the salmon resource.

The conflict over the winter run chinook salmon is not just a fight to save fish, it is also a debate over water management policies in California. The state's industry, population distribution, recreation, and lifestyle have been made possible largely by water diversion. Even though it is clear that the prevailing policies have led to the decline and endangerment of the winter run of chinook salmon on the Sacramento River, many other species have suffered also such as delta smelt, striped bass, and other runs of salmon.

This conflict violates the war paradigm; the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are clearly in the "middle ground." They attempted to find a compromise that would restore fish populations outside of the constraints of the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, the informal agreements they arranged with water management agencies were not kept and salmon populations continued to decline, forcing listing on both state and federal levels. As a result, new water diversion policies that provide for fish are being developed. As of 1990, there is still considerable debate over just how much water the fish need. Fortunately, management agencies are living up to their responsibilities as sovereign and protecting the public trust. As long as the public supports protection of wildlife, this part of the state's heritage will be preserved.

9.5 CONCLUSION

In our society, individual ethics do not dictate law or policy. But collectively our ethics do determine how our government determines what is right. Petitions, ballot initiatives, changing lifestyles (e.g., recycling), and the new notoriety of environmental groups are all reflections of our collective environmental ethics.

In these case histories, we can easily see how public sentiment affects government policy toward the environment. Nature is no longer viewed as simply a reservoir of resources to be used as man sees fit. The overwhelming passage of the initiative to protect the mountain lion from sport hunting is a reflection of our changing views, as is the listing of the spotted owl and the winter-run chinook salmon as threatened species.

But what happens when the needs of wildlife conflict with the needs of humans? Our growing population is going to require more and more resources. How can we reconcile these needs? It is easy to blame big business for our environmental woes, but we create the demand for goods that make it profitable for big business to exploit the environment. If we collectively develop an ethic that respects the rights of nature, particularly the right of other creatures to exist, and act on this ethic, our government and industries will begin to reflect our changing attitudes.

Contrary to the war paradigm, recent events have shown that there is often middle ground and considerable cause to be optimistic about the future of the environment. Earth First!, perhaps the most radical of the environmental groups, has renounced tree spiking because it endangers human life. Environmentalists and loggers in Montana have reached a compromise that preserves some old-growth forest on federal land while permitting logging in other areas. Many loggers in the Northwest are no longer subscribing to the management rhetoric that characterizes the dispute as "jobs vs. wildlife."

But perhaps the biggest reason for optimism is that environmental disputes are no longer resolved on a purely economic basis. Historically, any project that had more economic benefits than costs would proceed without regard to the environmental consequences. This is no longer true. Public sentiment is slowly shifting toward preserving biological diversity and recognizing the rights of wildlife. This shift has caused conflicts and made us aware that there is much work to be done, but as these case histories show, the needs of man and the needs of wildlife can be balanced if we all develop an environmental ethic that respects nature and all its creatures.

LITERATURE CITED