Time for Anglers and Hunters to be Represented in Congress and in the Media

I like to try to keep current on what other conservation bloggers are writing.  There are about six or eight conservation blogs that I try to follow.  Some of them keep me current on events or issues that I wouldn’t otherwise hear about.  Others sometimes give me a spark of inspiration for a future blog post here in Stream Hugger. Some do both.

A couple of days ago, I came across a post on the Trout Unlimited blog about a topic that I never read or heard reported in the mainstream media:  The Sportsmen's Act of 2012 (Senate Bill No. 3525).  This was a fully funded, bi-partisan piece of legislation that would have improved fish and game habitat throughout American and also would have improved accessibility of those habitats.  It would have boosted conservation on private lands and enhanced collaborative efforts between private conservation organizations (like TU) and state and federal agencies.  Would have. 

The 2012 legislative session came to a close without the Senate scheduling this bill for a vote, so the bill is now dead in it’s boots.

With looming fiscal cliffs filling the headlines of the mainstream media for the past month and hearings and press conferences about who knew what and when about the Benghazi attack, it’s easy to see how the Sportsmen’s Act could have gotten lost in the commotion on Capitol Hill over the past couple of weeks.  But passing legislation like the Sportsmen’s Act is kind of like putting a fresh coat of paint on your house.  It’s not fun, it’s not glamorous, but it has to be done periodically to preserve your investment.

Thanks to the foresight 100 years ago of conservation pioneers like Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and John Muir, the United States is rich with treasures of public lands that are open for sporting pursuits such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, kayaking, and birding.  Our public lands are a valuable asset that must be maintained just like our homes.  It’s easy to procrastinate painting our houses when other, unexpected bills arrive in our mailboxes.  But to procrastinate an over-due paint job on our dwelling for too many years in a row can be as injurious to our home as failing to maintain and make accessible the state and federal public lands that we all treasure.

As I pointed out in one of my posts a couple months ago, outdoor recreation activities annually contribute $646 billion in direct consumer spending to the U.S. economy.  This spending on outdoor activities and products supports 6.1 million jobs and generates $80 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue each year.  Being responsible for this kind of tax revenue, outdoor enthusiasts deserve to be better represented in Congress and in the mainstream media.

American anglers and hunters stand ready and willing to support a resurrected Sportsmen’s Act bill. We just need our leaders in Congress to step up and re-introduce the bill.  And we also need the mainstream media to pay attention to outdoor issues like this bill.  There are certainly enough Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation that a bill like the Sportsmen’s Act should be on the mainstream media’s radar and not limited to niche blogs like TU’s or mine.

Part of our national heritage:  the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.  I was fortunate to camp for two weeks in the Gros Ventre Wilderness Area within this National Forest in the mid-1990s. (photo credit:  U.S. Forest Service).

Pulitzer Prize Winner Thomas Hylton To Speak in Macungie About Smart Growth

I’ve been meaning to write a blog post about Smart Growth for a few months.  I’m writing it now, because I’m excited about a lecture that I’m planning on attending tomorrow evening by Tom Hylton.

Tom Hylton is a former journalist from nearby Pottstown, PA.  He won a Pulitzer prize in 1990 for a series of editorials he wrote for the Pottstown Mercury advocating for preservation of farmland and open space in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Hylton went on to write the book, Save Our Land, Save Our Towns, which is a plea for comprehensive planning to save our cities, towns, and countryside from the conventional, shortsighted land planning decisions that result in the suburban sprawl that we are presently suffering in the western end of the Lehigh Valley in eastern Pennsylvania.  Traditional planning has focused on automobile-dependent communities with detached houses on large lots in residential neighborhoods that are disconnected from each other and from commercial centers (and schools).  The results include, snarled traffic, loss of open space, and loss of a sense of community.

Hylton is an advocate of Smart Growth.  There are ten basic Smart Growth principles that should guide community planners and municipal planning commissions.  These principles recommend:

1. Mixing land uses;

2. Taking advantage of compact building design;

3. Creating a range of housing opportunities and choices;

4. Creating walkable neighborhoods;

5. Fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place;

6. Preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas;

7. Strengthening and directing development towards existing communities;

8. Providing a variety of transportation choices;

9. Making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; and

10. Encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.

  

Tom Hylton will be speaking on Monday, November 26, 2012, at 7:00 PM.  This free lectureis open to the public and will take place at the Macungie Institute, 510 East Main Street, Macungie, Pennsylvania.

If you are in the area, please join us to listen to this veteran of the Smart Growth movement.

Stoned in the Garden: The Case Against Stone Mulch

Good soil conservation practices should start in our own backyards.  This post is my take on a futile and frustrating mulching practice that persists for no reason other than that it briefly looks nice.

Some folks might assume because I’m a geologist that I’d be a fan of stone mulch on the landscaping beds around my house.  When we purchased our house eight years ago, I found it to be a novelty that one of the previous owners had put down stone mulch on all of the beds.  My opinion of stone mulch has grown over the past eight years.  From neutral to What the hell were they thinking?!?!?

Starting two years ago, I’ve been gradually trying to reclaim our landscaping beds, one bed at a time.  Two years ago in order to plant our butterfly garden in front of our house, I raked and shoveled dozens of wheelbarrows full of the three-quarter- to one-inch diameter stone out of the front bed and started a pile of the unwanted gravel at the end of my driveway.  Last year, I reclaimed a bed on the side of our deck to plant an herb garden.  This summer I reclaimed a few other beds around our deck and patio.  And last Saturday, after spending six hours engaged in mind-numbing and back-wrenching raking and shoveling, I knew that blogging about stone mulch was probably the only thing I could do to ease the frustration of how much of my free time I’ve invested over the past two years trying to rid my landscaping beds of the scourge of decorative crushed stones.

Why Bother?

Any pragmatic casual gardener who reads this rant will undoubtedly think, “Why bother?”  Fair question, my casual gardening friends; however, I consider myself more than a casual gardener.  I consider myself a deliberate gardener.  Before I grow too old and weary to do anything more than tend my vegetable garden, my goal is to have nearly all of my landscaping beds covered with native perennials that I will not have to tend year after year.  I want my beds to be brimming with perennials so that there won’t even be any bare ground showing that will need mulch, and thus no bare ground for weeds to come up among the expansive native perennials.  I can dream, can't I?

Drawbacks to Stone Mulch

Here are the drawbacks to stone mulch that might not be very apparent when someone is getting a sales pitch from a landscaping contractor.

Plant matter that falls into the spaces between stone mulch
decomposes into soil and gives weeds a growth substrate.

Weed fabric is installed on the bare soil before the stone mulch is laid down.  That might sound like a fool-proof way to weed-proof, but I’d estimate it’s good for five years tops in a temperate climate.  After five or so years, stone mulch accumulates enough leaf matter falling from above to develop brand new soil in the interstitial spaces between the stones.  Then you get weeds growing in the new soil between the stones and sending roots down into and through the weed fabric.  Weeds can’t grow up through the weed fabric from below, but both water and weed roots can get through from above the weed fabric.

My other big gripe with stone mulch is that it’s very arduous to plant anything in it.  In a bed with organic mulch and a weed fabric, it’s no big deal to dig in with a spade and make holes for bulbs or plants.  Planting in stone mulch requires extensive raking to clear even a small patch in which to penetrate the weed fabric and reach the underlying soil.  I would imagine that even casual gardeners would become frustrated by the difficulty inherent in trying to plant anything through two or three inches of stone mulch.

The way it should look.

And of course, when using stone mulch, your beds are not getting the benefits of organic mulch such as:  returning nutrients to the soil, maintaining soil moisture and temperature, and blocking light from the soil to prevent weed seedlings from becoming established (sunlight can partially penetrate into the spaces between stone mulch).  In addition, beneficial critters like my toad friends cannot burrow through stone mulch and weed fabric to hibernate for the winter. I want to do everything I can to encourage natural insect controls, like toads, to live in the beds around my house.

This is one of my toad friends that lives under our deck.

 The Rest of the Story

I still have a lot of work ahead of me in my battle to reclaim my landscaping beds from stone mulch, although I’m quite pleased with each individual bed that I reclaim.  I’m less than halfway through the battle, but I’m hoping it doesn’t take me another two years to finish.  Actually, the biggest problem I’m facing right now is what to do with all of the stones I’ve removed thus far and have yet to remove from my beds.  I estimate I’ve got about a four-ton pile so far. I’m open to suggestions, but I’m guessing I might have to resort to Craig’s List.

Any takers?

Rebuilding the Jersey Shore: Who Decides and Who Pays?

No human with a soul can fail to appreciate the human suffering and disrupted lives and livelihoods that became apparent last Tuesday morning in the coastal communities of New Jersey and New York following superstorm Sandy.

NJ Gov. Chris Christie inspecting flood damage in Sayerville.

(photo credit: njtoday.net )

Amid the official rhetoric and armchair quarterbacking about FEMA relief, discussions also arose about what to do next.  To rebuild or not to rebuild.  Although I’ve never been a fan of New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie, I respect his hands-on disaster response in some of his state’s hardest hit beach towns and his willingness to reach out for bipartisan relief coordination.  And, never one to shrink from controversy, Gov. Christie made it clear last week that he wants the beach towns to rebuild.  He was quoted last week by the Associated Press as saying, "I don't believe in a state like ours, where the Jersey Shore is such a part of life, that you just pick up and walk away."

Assuming that the immediate needs of the thousands whom Sandy left homeless are being met, that sort of resolve to reclaim what was lost, coming from someone in a leadership role, is probably comforting to property owners in those devastated beach towns.  But as a geologist, I cringe to hear people rushing to rebuild without considering that it's a new ballgame.

The scientific community is united in warning that storms like Sandy will be happening more frequently.  In addition, the sea level is rising at an alarming rate, so extensive coastal flooding will continue to be a significant factor in future storms.  New Jersey Future, a leading land planning advocacy group in the Garden State, says that 235,000 people in that state live within 5 feet of the high tide line.  And New Jersey’s gambling and convention mecca, Atlantic City, is the coastal town with the greatest population living within 5 feet of the high tide line.  As sea levels rise, the number of people who will be impacted by coastal flooding will also rise.

Destroyed houses in the barrier beach town of Ortley Beach.

(photo credit: Andrew Mills/Star Ledger)

New Jersey has about 125 miles of beaches along its Atlantic coast.  Of those 125 miles, about 5 miles are a spur at the north end of the coast that forms Sandy Hook Bay.  At the southern end of the New Jersey beaches is Cape May, the southernmost point in New Jersey.  From Cape May northward to Sandy Hook, about 96 miles of the New Jersey coast are barrier island beaches.  Some of the state’s most popular and most profitable beach towns (like Atlantic City) are located on barrier islands.

A barrier island is essentially a massive sand bar that separates the mainland from the raging waves of the ocean.  Barrier islands are built by ocean waves and currents.  They are also ripped apart by ocean waves and currents.  As their name implies, they act as barriers to dissipate the massive energy of the incoming waves during a storm, thus protecting the mainland beaches from direct hits.

The remains of an amusement pier in Seaside Heights.

(photo credit: ureport.foxnews.com)

Ocean waves and storm surges are nothing to take lightly.  I’d say that the only force of nature more powerful than oceans are volcanoes (earthquakes are up there, however).  And the remarkable thing about so-called natural disasters like hurricane-force waves and winds, and volcanoes, is that we could avoid them with relative ease.  But particularly along our coastlines, our society continually builds elaborate structures and places the highest premiums on land that is directly in harms way.

There are three responses for the state and federal government regarding rebuilding after Sandy.

1. Build engineered structures like jetties and groins to try to trap eroding sand.  The drawback is that, as sand deposits along the up-current side of an engineered structure, beach erosion is exacerbated on the down-current side of the structure.
2. Continue with beach nourishment/replenishment.  The downside is that, after spending millions of dollars to rebuild the beach, the next major storm will wash it away again.
3. Enact forward-thinking land use policies that encourage rebuilding farther away from the ocean and its destructive forces.

Tourism along the Jersey Shore was a $24 billion industry (numbers from 2008).  And the people with the highest stakes in beachfront properties are also the ones who either write the laws or have cozy relationships with the politicians who write the laws.  So beach replenishment (dredging sand from the sea floor and then pumping that sand onto eroded beaches to lure more tourists to that beach) will continue, paid for by both state and federal tax dollars.  I wonder how people from the Midwest or the West Coast feel about some of their federal tax dollars being spent to continually rebuild beaches that will get washed away again by the next tropical storm or winter storm.

Coastal storms destroy homes and businesses, and then federally-subsidized flood insurance helps the victims rebuild in the same place – back in harms way.  And if Sandy's victims rebuild, they will likely have ample opportunities to rebuild again.  And again.

Right now, while state, federal, and charitable agencies are still shipping relief supplies to displaced residents of the Jersey Shore and Staten Island, is the time for rational heads to think forward -- to step back, look at the big picture, and move swiftly to ensure that rebuilding is done intelligently.  The status quo does not work any longer.  We need a sustainable plan for our nation's coastal communities that takes into account sea level changes and intensifying coastal storms.  We need to revise federal flood insurance programs that allow property owners to continue rebuilding in the same place storm after storm.  We need our politicians to cross party lines to develop sustainable policies.

Gov. Christie has said that the government should not decide whether homes will get rebuilt in the hard-hit areas; he thinks the homeowners should decide for themselves whether they want to rebuild or accept a buyout from the government.  But that sort of hands-off land planning will only generate a patchwork of homes and empty lots – not a viable community that is capable of weathering storms because its not directly in harms way.

Chris Christie, in his anti-charismatic way, would probably tell me to keep my nose out of the debate about rebuilding the Jersey Shore coastal communities.  But I say that everyone who pays federal income taxes has a stake in this debate.  Me, sitting in Pennsylvania 100 miles away from the nearest New Jersey beach, a rancher in Wyoming, a dairy farmer in Wisconsin, or a lobster fisherman in Maine.  Anyone who pays federal income taxes should be demanding an overhaul of FEMA's flood insurance program that currently allows beachfront property owners (as well as inland property owners in floodplains) to continue making the same bad decisions to rebuild in the same spot.

Future generations will look back at superstorm Sandy as a critical time for our current generation to plan for the future.  It’s already too late for us to have been considered by our great-grandchildren as wise and proactive.  But if we can learn from this storm and change our policies and programs to minimize the damages from the future superstorms that we know are going to occur, we will have served our offspring well.

However, if we revert to the status quo, if we continue replenishing beaches that will erode away again in 3 or 4 years, or if we simply institute building code upgrades in anticipation of stronger winds while allowing the same buildings to be rebuilt where they have already fallen or been flooded out, future generations will not speak kindly of us.

Aerial view of a section of Brick Township, NJ, near Mantoloking.  Notice how the storm-driven sand has migrated from the ocean to the right across this barrier island.  There used to be cottages, similar to the ones burning, where the sand has migrated.  (photo credit: Andrew Mills/Star Ledger)