Devil's Hole Pupfish Editorial 



Back on March 17, our local paper, The Review Journal, ran an article on the plight of the Devil's Hole pupfish: Link .
 
"A month after authorities held a closed meeting in which they discussed recovery efforts and declined to allow media to attend, state and federal conservation officials held a news conference Thursday at Devil's Hole. The cavern, which holds about seven dozen of the fish, is in a detached unit of Death Valley National Park about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 
 
Not only is the population of fish in the natural habitat of Devil's Hole dwindling, but the numbers are going down in three tanks, known as refugia, where scientists have maintained "backup" populations of the species. 
 
Williams said one of conservationists' highest priorities is increasing the population of Devil's Hole pupfish in the refugia tanks." 
 
All in all, it was a responsible and newsworthy article. Then the radical right-wing libertarian editorial staff of the paper decided to weigh in on the issue (link): 
 
Years ago, Southern Nevadans would visit the desert oasis of Devil's Hole to swim, camp, and picnic -- possibly mimicking the behaviors of prehistoric man in that forbidding section of the Mojave, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in today's Death Valley National Monument. Animals visited the springs at night. In the cavern springs lived tiny pupfish, which managed to survive these "assaults" for a very long time. 
 
Then wise government functionaries decided to step in and fence off the area, in order to "protect" the minnow. 
 
You're ahead of us, aren't you? 
 
Disruption inadvertently caused by scientists trying to study the pupfish are among the factors cited for the fact the creatures -- which numbered 533 when the G-men went to work and which still counted in the hundreds only two years ago -- now number only 84 and appear to be nearing extinction. 
 
My response is probably too long for them to publish but it felt good to write: 

To the editor:

Your article titled “Experts Thin Out the Pupfish” in Sunday, March 19’s Review Journal was full of errors and distortions of fact. First of all, it is obvious the RJ hasn’t sent a reporter to cover Desert Tortoise Council’s [link] yearly symposium in which researchers share their findings and research. You would find that over the last two decades, evidence overwhelmingly shows that overgrazing has had significant negative effects on the tortoise. The old argument, “everyone knows tortoises eat cow poop” has been thoroughly refuted. A 1998 study observed counted over 30,000 bites of food items in an area where tortoises and cows coexisted. Only 231 bites were on cow dung. Another similar study in 1994 showed no bites on cow dung. Furthermore, a study in which desert tortoises were offered only cow dung to eat for a month, 71% of the tortoises refused to eat at all. Read the 2002 USGS document “Threats to Desert Tortoise Populations: A Critical Review of the Literature” by William Boarman [link] for information on these and other studies.

As for the Devil’s Hole pupfish, government and other researchers have been studying and protecting the pupfish for over 30 years. In fact, a UNLV biologist, James Deacon, was instrumental in obtaining a court order to maintain the water level of Devil’s Hole. If it weren’t for government agencies obeying the court order protecting the area’s groundwater, the Devil’s Hole pupfish would have probably gone extinct already. The accident with the fish traps was just that, an accident. Accidents happen, which is why we need to keep separate viable populations in different places to ensure that an accident doesn’t wipe out the species.

The evidence of breeding between the Devil’s Hole pupfish and other pupfish does not mean that they are the same species. Hybridization in an artificial environment does not mean they would interbreed in the wild or that the offspring would be as well adapted to the unique conditions of Devil’s Hole. The important issue is that the Devils’ Hole pupfish is genetically distinct from other pupfish and, in the wild; it would have no chance of naturally interbreeding with other pupfish.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service [link], in 2004 total federal expenditures on the Devil’s Hole pupfish were $131,420 and state expenditures were $6,400 for a total of $137,820. That’s about the cost of one traffic signal. The yearly cost per US citizen is $0.000046. I don’t understand why you are concerned about that level of spending especially when we are spending $200,000,000 per day on the war.

You should be proud that we have such a marvelous and wonderful fish in such an unlikely location in our backyard. Just last week, I took my college-age nephew to Devil’s Hole to show him just how amazing that spot is. As a native Nevadan, I am proud that we have such an incredible diversity of life in our desert and I believe it is critical to save these wonders for future generations.

Sincerely,

David J. Syzdek 
 

Posted: Mon - March 20, 2006 at 06:10 PM          

©