Part 1: Proposed logging operations on crown land threaten the last remaining wild population of Atlantic whitefish. The question is, what happened to the science that says so?
Looking forward to reading Part Two. This account certainly helps to explain why Paul Tufts' 1981 fieldwork report for DNR, ""An Evaluation of Moose Habitat in South Western Nova Scotia" doesn't seem to be referred to and has perhaps been "lost" -- and his recommendations to *not* build roads into and alter one of the last remaining strongholds of the Mainland Moose in SW Nova Scotia gone ignored. Somewhere a great black hole seems to be swallowing the science that should be utilized to protect endangered species in this province.
Now that's a pull-quote if I ever saw one, Beverley! "A great black hole seems to swallowing the science." Sure does. I guess that's why we can never (ever) disregard the role politics plays when we do talk about "the science" or "the consensus."
Shocking at so many levels, unfortunately not surprising. Thx for documenting it all LR, especially the 'cleansing of forestry from the Recovery document. A big difference between the 2006 and 2018 Recovery docs- the first (with forestry included) was a federal, DFO doc. The second (with forestry excluded) is a Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry (now NRR) document. Do we need any clearer demonstration of the conflicts of interest when the fox guards the henhouse?
And it also begs the question of how many other reports that aren't singing praise for the forest industry (and now mining), have somehow fallen into the great black hole, endangering even more species.
Agree, David. I too find the expunging of this information quite shocking. As I've just commented, this reminds me of the strange lack of reference to Paul Tufts fieldwork report on Mainland Moose in SW Nova Scotia in 1981. It couldn't have been any clearer that he felt that roads and industrial activity into that region were a threat to the Moose -- but look where we are today.
If you get past the first few pages of the DNRR version, you'll come to the DFO document with the DFO citation. It's confusing. I think the cleansing happened a number of years ago, prior to its publication in 2018. This is not to say the NSDRR/ DLF/ DNR didn't play a role it it, but it's not as simple of it just being taken out of the DNRR "adopted" document. As far as I can tell, the DNRR "adopted" version and the DFO version have the same content except the DNRR version appended the "Action Plan" to the end of theirs, which is also a DFO citation.
Further to your comment, David, I just received word that the version on the province’s website is their adoption of DFO’s federal plan. Given the species is also provincially listed under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act, the province has the option to either develop their own plan or to adopt an existing plan. In this case they adopted the existing plan so the content is exactly the same. Therefore, the deletions/ cleansing happened prior to the provincial adoption.
Linda, thanks for this article and all the work you are doing with the Quaking Swamp Journal. It's discouraging that the science that should be guiding our interactions with the natural world is so often being corrupted and twisted, sometimes through omission, to protect the status quo. Happy Earth Day to all!
Tetraplodon is one of two species of dung mosses that actually grow on rotting carnivore dung. They don't mimic the dung odour. This patch of dung was spotted in the Minamkeak area on an old grassed road that leads to a marvellous swamp. Spores carried to rotting dung on feet and bodies of insects, mainly flies, crawl over the dung and the spores germinate to form a new patch of the moss. This one of two species of Tetraplodon is rare.
Thank you Anne. I got the info about the mimicking of dung odour from the following site. If there is an error I'll correct (with indication that a change has been made) but I'd need further confirmation. http://blog.abmi.ca/2014/05/22/dung-mosses-masters-of-manipulation/
I think the way that the description was written made it sound like the moss was the organism that was mimicking the dung smell when in fact the dung was providing the substratum for the moss's growth. It truly is a remarkable association.
Did you get a chance to look at the info I posted? There it does say the dung moss also mimics the scent of dung to attract flies, which in turn carry the spores to other dung locations. I guess that's why they call this moss a "master of manipulation."
Further to this it states: "How do dung mosses disperse among these tiny habitats? The process seems to be all about relationships and some not-so-subtle cues or techniques. Dung mosses have evolved an incredible association with insects. Flies, which are a main disperser of many dung moss species, are attracted to the plants thanks to the colourful and inflated tissues beneath their spore capsules. These
inflated tissues actually release a scent that mimics dung and carrion. The flies are attracted to the scent and when they touch the sticky moss spores, they bind to the tiny hairs on the flies. The flies then move on and ultimately deposit the spores on piles of dung. In this way, dung mosses control what seems to be a rather one-sided relationship using a combination of visual, chemical and tactile trickery."
Looking forward to reading Part Two. This account certainly helps to explain why Paul Tufts' 1981 fieldwork report for DNR, ""An Evaluation of Moose Habitat in South Western Nova Scotia" doesn't seem to be referred to and has perhaps been "lost" -- and his recommendations to *not* build roads into and alter one of the last remaining strongholds of the Mainland Moose in SW Nova Scotia gone ignored. Somewhere a great black hole seems to be swallowing the science that should be utilized to protect endangered species in this province.
Now that's a pull-quote if I ever saw one, Beverley! "A great black hole seems to swallowing the science." Sure does. I guess that's why we can never (ever) disregard the role politics plays when we do talk about "the science" or "the consensus."
Shocking at so many levels, unfortunately not surprising. Thx for documenting it all LR, especially the 'cleansing of forestry from the Recovery document. A big difference between the 2006 and 2018 Recovery docs- the first (with forestry included) was a federal, DFO doc. The second (with forestry excluded) is a Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry (now NRR) document. Do we need any clearer demonstration of the conflicts of interest when the fox guards the henhouse?
And it also begs the question of how many other reports that aren't singing praise for the forest industry (and now mining), have somehow fallen into the great black hole, endangering even more species.
Agree, David. I too find the expunging of this information quite shocking. As I've just commented, this reminds me of the strange lack of reference to Paul Tufts fieldwork report on Mainland Moose in SW Nova Scotia in 1981. It couldn't have been any clearer that he felt that roads and industrial activity into that region were a threat to the Moose -- but look where we are today.
If you get past the first few pages of the DNRR version, you'll come to the DFO document with the DFO citation. It's confusing. I think the cleansing happened a number of years ago, prior to its publication in 2018. This is not to say the NSDRR/ DLF/ DNR didn't play a role it it, but it's not as simple of it just being taken out of the DNRR "adopted" document. As far as I can tell, the DNRR "adopted" version and the DFO version have the same content except the DNRR version appended the "Action Plan" to the end of theirs, which is also a DFO citation.
Further to your comment, David, I just received word that the version on the province’s website is their adoption of DFO’s federal plan. Given the species is also provincially listed under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act, the province has the option to either develop their own plan or to adopt an existing plan. In this case they adopted the existing plan so the content is exactly the same. Therefore, the deletions/ cleansing happened prior to the provincial adoption.
Linda, thanks for this article and all the work you are doing with the Quaking Swamp Journal. It's discouraging that the science that should be guiding our interactions with the natural world is so often being corrupted and twisted, sometimes through omission, to protect the status quo. Happy Earth Day to all!
Thank you, Wade!
first rate reporting, Linda.
Thank you, Jennifer!
Tetraplodon is one of two species of dung mosses that actually grow on rotting carnivore dung. They don't mimic the dung odour. This patch of dung was spotted in the Minamkeak area on an old grassed road that leads to a marvellous swamp. Spores carried to rotting dung on feet and bodies of insects, mainly flies, crawl over the dung and the spores germinate to form a new patch of the moss. This one of two species of Tetraplodon is rare.
Thank you Anne. I got the info about the mimicking of dung odour from the following site. If there is an error I'll correct (with indication that a change has been made) but I'd need further confirmation. http://blog.abmi.ca/2014/05/22/dung-mosses-masters-of-manipulation/
I think the way that the description was written made it sound like the moss was the organism that was mimicking the dung smell when in fact the dung was providing the substratum for the moss's growth. It truly is a remarkable association.
Did you get a chance to look at the info I posted? There it does say the dung moss also mimics the scent of dung to attract flies, which in turn carry the spores to other dung locations. I guess that's why they call this moss a "master of manipulation."
Yes, I did Linda. I must see if I can find a paper on this. Mostly though these mosses actually grow on the dung rather than impersonate the scent.
Thanks Ann...please share a link to it when you locate it. I'll never look at a moss in the same way!
Will do Linda!
Further to this it states: "How do dung mosses disperse among these tiny habitats? The process seems to be all about relationships and some not-so-subtle cues or techniques. Dung mosses have evolved an incredible association with insects. Flies, which are a main disperser of many dung moss species, are attracted to the plants thanks to the colourful and inflated tissues beneath their spore capsules. These
inflated tissues actually release a scent that mimics dung and carrion. The flies are attracted to the scent and when they touch the sticky moss spores, they bind to the tiny hairs on the flies. The flies then move on and ultimately deposit the spores on piles of dung. In this way, dung mosses control what seems to be a rather one-sided relationship using a combination of visual, chemical and tactile trickery."
Excellent Documentary on the Whitefish and habitat in the Watershed.