AFS政策主管,汤姆部长

不是每个人都敬畏大自然?当然,有些可能不是和我一样坠入爱河,但我怀疑大多数AFS成员感谢母亲的能力把事情做好。在阅读关于科学和政策栖息地的保护(保护和恢复),我开始一个主题,或者至少想象。如果这只是我的想象,我很乐意接受开始一种趋势。这个想法我跳我审查一份手稿Bilkovic et al。(新闻)从弗吉尼亚海洋科学研究所。他们的工作在“活海岸线”总结了日益增长的兴趣在保护和恢复我们的海岸用天然materials-native植被,当地的基质,等等。同时,我听到更多关于“自然基础设施“作为一个生态系统工具FY16联邦预算。老派的理论是“硬”方法,如垂直海堤,混凝土护岸和caged-wire篾筐不满足社会的需求等“软”系统的植物和沉积物提供一种更自然的斜率和质地。另外,柔软的环境可以迁移,以应对任何大自然为我们存储在未来几十年。看,我甚至没有提到相对海平面上升或卡特里娜飓风,但你知道我在说什么。我们需要有弹性,自然提供了一些明显的建议基于最好的科学时,当考虑管理应用程序,在开发政策。这个概念远远超出生活海岸线,最常用于缓解不可避免的在湿地生境损失与联邦相关施工许可或水道。托比et al。(2010)痕迹自然方法返回超过十年之久。现在,这种潜在的趋势还在愈演愈烈。在从业人员中,标题和方法各有不同,但基本的成分是consistent-diverse,也许non-regulatory,经常跨学科,通常更便宜,适用在多个地理尺度上,从传统主义者和后通常接受必要的挑战。例子比比皆是,分化的强度和时间的问题。 Nature can work in a backyard, during the spring melt, in a watershed or basin, or in a Great Lake or reservoir. An action on land may have intended affects downhill, downwind, or downstream. If we’re patient, we’ll see natural solutions to many problems facing our fish and fisheries. No doubt, human intervention can hasten our progress, but it seems rare that an exotic solution (non-native in any respect) meets expectations over any timeframe. Of course, that axiom doesn’t hold true if your goal is to grow a lush marsh or increase angling opportunities, with secondary concern about whether those plants are invasive or the fish are competing with native strains. As I’ve already stated, I lean toward Mother Nature, not toward artificial. Opportunities abound. How about creating special management areas with reduced fishing pressure so fish populations can get a head start on recovery from overharvest or some catastrophic event; setting instream flow standards to let a river provide its ecosystem services; planting shellfish “gardens” to clean waters and perhaps provide an occasional meal; or encouraging consumption of nasty invasives like lionfish (which provided a nice dinner for many at the AFS Governing Board meeting in Savannah, Georgia, back in March)? Could Asian carp kabobs or snakehead sushi be far behind? In my mind, those “natural” alternatives are better than labor-intensive, structure-oriented, enforcement-driven catch restrictions or simply just worth trying rather than settling for more of the same. Now, I know structure is the basis of most fish habitat and stocking is a basic tenet of fishery management, but we can build natural habitat and stock with native species. Why make our jobs more difficult than they are? A common thread through these ideas is common sense. Why not rely more on nature’s powers rather than pinning our hopes a bit too much on technology and wizardry? I’m certainly not against advances across all natural resource fields, but sometimes the costs don’t seem to support the results, or should I say, projected results, since our hopes are often elusive. For example, when envisioning the New Jersey shore post-Superstorm Sandy, why would we rely overly on habitat restoration (costly and oftentimes requiring decades for acceptable results) when protection of existing habitat might retain the same ecosystem services we hope to mimic through restoration, creation, or some other approach? Especially when the logic behind protection was made evident by every wildlife refuge, salt marsh, and dune system? When we see those areas absorb storm surge and protect at-risk neighborhoods, why not invest in protecting nature rather than attempting to reinvent it? Let’s give natural, oftentimes simpler, solutions a fair chance. Whether instream flows, living shorelines, native plants, or another nature-tested option, let us consider them before jumping to an alternative that may not be a good or cost-effective solution over the long haul. REFERENCES Bilkovic et al. (in press). The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. In: Special Issue on “Conserving Coastal and Estuarine Habitats.” Thomas E. Bigford and TyAnn Lee, editors. Coastal Management. Tobey, J., P. Rubinoff, D. Robadue Jr., G. Ricci, R. Volk, J. Furlow, and G. Anderson. 2010. Practicing coastal adaptation to climate change: lessons from integrated coastal management. Coastal Management 38(3): 317–335. Policy Column Tom Bigford, Policy Director,(电子邮件保护)