The Wall

archfotos, many of your questions are ably answered above.

Roads and lots of other things definitely fragment habitat and prevent many species from crossing. That is bad for wildlife - and so would be a border wall bad for habitat. Some roads can be crossed by some animals say at night when traffic is lessened or via culverts that go under the road etc. But some species might find road an impermeable barrier. To me, that is an argument to create road crossing structures like they have in Banff National Park in Canada rather than a justification that the border wall is not any worse than roads. And of course, Trump's vision of the wall would have it go all across the continent.

Many flying things can make it across roads. Many flying things cannot make it over an 18 foot concrete wall. Even something like a roadrunner would find crossing the wall difficult to impossible since they are low and weak flying. There is a rare pygmy owl that is not expected to be able to cross the wall. Many flying insects would not be able to get that high.

As for the Air Force lands, species that are not too sensitive to noise would no doubt have benefited from the protection of their habitat against development. But as noted above, habitat along the border wall is not going to be protected, it is going to be cleared, roaded, flood lighted and patrolled regularly by US border guards/troops etc.

If the wall were to be built (hopefully not) it would be nice if there were provisions made in its construction to allow passage of wildlife, water etc. Given Trump's willingness to exempt the wall from various environmental considerations including the Endangered Species Act, I find it hard to imagine such provisions being any sort of priority. Not only that, with the habitat cleared along the wall, many small delicate creatures (amphibians for example) could desiccate to death before they even crossed the cleared area to get to the wall.

As for the Great Wall of China, it seems that at the very least it was a barrier to certain plant species. Subpopulations on either side of the wall have become genetically differentiated as a result of segregration due to the wall. https://www.nature.com/articles/6800237

Here is an interesting article about various other walls around the world and their impacts on wildlife, mostly negative with few exceptions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ani ... 6a31eaa1c5

Any artificial barrier impacts wildlife one way or the other by fragmenting habitat. Think about pronghorn when the North American west was first fenced. Pronghorn were no longer able to migrate to their winter range or to water sources and many died until someone figured out that pronghorn cannot leap over fences. To move past fences, they have to go under them and if the bottom wire is too close to the ground, they cannot get underneath. Once ranchers started raising the bottom wire at least 18 inches above the ground, the pronghorn could get where they needed to go. Though I myself have watched the poignant spectacle of pronghorn in Colorado running for miles along a roadway, testing the fences along the way frequently until they finally found a spot where they could get under. Not sure if the fence was too low or if all the tumbleweeds trapped along the fence prevented them from crossing the fence but it was sad to see them frantically searching for escape from all the traffic on the road. https://blog.nature.org/science/2017/06 ... nectivity/

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.nevespook.com

archfotos wrote:it also seems to me instead of the two sides discussing and working through the problems such as designing in ways for animals to cross both sides act like children pouting with no compromise.

Jeff
If a way was designed to allow animals to cross every few miles or so, wouldn’t it be logical that people would find it even easier to cross? That would never satisfy the proponents of the wall!

If you want to really be informed on the effects of the wall, please follow the links we have posted and your eyes will be opened. This is definitely not “little children pouting with no compromise”. The biggest problem I see is that people are too lazy to research the issue, but sure do eat up the propaganda of the talking heads. Another major issue being overlooked in a blatant way is that the real bad guys will always figure out a way to enter our country. These are not ignorant dunces by any means. Look at how El Chapo could break out of prison through a tunnel bored right into his cell. Look at all the tunnels already bored under the border and into homes in the US. Look at the way some people have flown out of prisons in helicopters. Money can buy a lot of ingenuity and labor. This all reminds me of something that happened here in Santa Fe a few years ago. Prairie dogs were burrowing into a cemetery and bringing up hardware from caskets. A three foot trench was dug around the perimeter and filled with concrete to keep them out of the cemetery. Did these geniuses not take into consideration that the Prairie dogs were bringing up things from much deeper than three feet??? Brilliant!!!!!

Please don’t take any of this as being directed at you offensively. It is not meant to be personally directed in any way.

Joe

Has anyone looked into the fact that the real problem is the economic situation in Central America where these migrants are coming from? This country, with all of its great wealth and opportunity, is just reacting to the migrant situation in a short-sighted manner. The solution to the problem may not be an impenetrable wall, but instead be some level of economic help from the U.S. to get our neighbors on the right track so that their citizens would not want to leave their homeland.

Paul

Paul Fusco wrote:Has anyone looked into the fact that the real problem is the economic situation in Central America where these migrants are coming from? This country, with all of its great wealth and opportunity, is just reacting to the migrant situation in a short-sighted manner. The solution to the problem may not be an impenetrable wall, but instead be some level of economic help from the U.S. to get our neighbors on the right track so that their citizens would not want to leave their homeland.

Paul

Sounds good to me. And I am sure many people have considered this. But the chances of a Trump administration helping a Latin American country, even for ultimately selfish reasons, are slim to none. Just does not fit in with his "America First" platform.

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.neverspook.com

While I agree with all of thisneverspook wrote:

Paul Fusco wrote:Has anyone looked into the fact that the real problem is the economic situation in Central America where these migrants are coming from? This country, with all of its great wealth and opportunity, is just reacting to the migrant situation in a short-sighted manner. The solution to the problem may not be an impenetrable wall, but instead be some level of economic help from the U.S. to get our neighbors on the right track so that their citizens would not want to leave their homeland.

Paul

Sounds good to me. And I am sure many people have considered this. But the chances of a Trump administration helping a Latin American country, even for ultimately selfish reasons, are slim to none. Just does not fit in with his "America First" platform.

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.neverspook.com

While I agree with all of this, I’m afraid we’re straying into politics and heading toward a locked topic.  

Not a lot new here, but it tells how researchers from Mexico feel:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/experts-w ... order-wall

And from Stanford:

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-would-border-wall-affect-wildlife

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:Not a lot new here, but it tells how researchers from Mexico feel:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/experts-w ... order-wall

And from Stanford:

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-would-border-wall-affect-wildlife

Joe

Well written article - and interesting that this appeared in Fox News!

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.neverspook.com

And 2700 scientists from 47 countries oppose the wall:

https://qz.com/1334546/the-us-mexico-bo ... l-species/

And a whole bunch more articles here:

More

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:And 2700 scientists from 47 countries oppose the wall:

Joe

The discounting of science, facts and logic is a dangerous area to be in.

How about the media coverage? Seems to me that the general/mainstream media do not have knowledge of and do not cover the ecological damage, including to wildlife species, that this WALL would impact.

Paul

Paul Fusco wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:And 2700 scientists from 47 countries oppose the wall:

Joe

The discounting of science, facts and logic is a dangerous area to be in.

How about the media coverage? Seems to me that the general/mainstream media do not have knowledge of and do not cover the ecological damage, including to wildlife species, that this WALL would impact.

Paul

Hey Paul
What I consider the biggest problem in getting attention for the ecological aspect of this barrier, is that very few people know about what the areas involved even look like and the life of the deserts and other areas involved. They think of it as a desolate wasteland that is totally disposable with no consequences. The desert is an amazing place and the species living there are survivors that must endure extreme conditions. The variety of bird life is amazing and creatures like Coati Mundi, javelina, coyotes, jaguars, desert bighorn sheep, pronghorns and Coues whitetail deer in Arizona and New Mexico are tough creatures to survive the harsh conditions. Other areas are not as dry, but still are harsh in their own ways. In south Texas, there are so many kinds of birds that must endure extreme migrations. Several of the photography ranches there thrive because of the birds and native wildlife, as well. Just look at the images posted by Gene Gwin on the birds and other forums here at NSN from the Laguna Seca Ranch. The Santa Clara Ranch and others are also located there. 

A film that is well worth watching to give you an idea of life in the Sonoran Desert is used by PBS in it’s fundraisers and is called “Desert Dreams: Celebrating the Five Seasons in the Sonoran Desert”. It can be found online. Here’s a link to a trailer:

https://www.wildhorizons.com/wp/media/desertdreams/

It’s well worth watching. The video and stills are amazing. If city dwellers far from the border see things like that, they would be more aware of what’s at stake, although they just might not care the way we do. The media just seems to focus on the political and humanitarian aspects, but forgets, for the most part, that we dwell with other forms of life that are impacted by our actions.

Joe

Paul Fusco wrote:
The discounting of science, facts and logic is a dangerous area to be in.

How about the media coverage? Seems to me that the general/mainstream media do not have knowledge of and do not cover the ecological damage, including to wildlife species, that this WALL would impact.

Paul

The media today, with increasingly rare exception, cares little about reporting, (much less researching,) objective truths - they’re largely about spinning to pander to a target base in order to bump readership / viewership in order to sell more advertising airtime, page space, or clicks.  KUDOS to NPR and the like, but they’re never going to reach an audience that’s looking for affirmation of their biases and easy “fixes” not in their backyard.

This is in response to the above statement starting with “Kudos”. The quote was lost in posting.

Exactly right! If anything is contrary to what they have been shown to believe, they shut it out of their closed minds, facts notwithstanding. When there is doubt about something in my mind, I ask for evidence to convince me otherwise. Nobody is always right, but facts are harder to dispute than lies.

Joe

So is this subject really not about politics? 

Even though I believe it is admirable to have concerns over the effect to flora and fauna if this border wall was built, I have become much more concerned over the loss of natural habitat Countrywide due to agriculture and population growth.

I live in the heart of the most endangered ecosystem of North America and see it dwindling year after year. What was once the greatest prairie ecosystem of North America, stretching from Texas to Saskatchewan is now but a fragment of what it used to be. The loss of prairies through the central plains and into Canada has suffered a 96% reduction from a few generations ago. We have destroyed 96% of our natural prairies and the flora and fauna that live within them because “we” have chosen to either plow them or pave them away.

Why is this not in the news? Why does this not cause a serious debate? Why are people not outraged by this?
I can only guess it is ignored by the media and therefore by the citizenship because it does not have the divisive political overtones to it such as a border wall does.

You can say you are concerned about the ecological impact of a border wall, but if you are ignoring the tremendous and ongoing depletion of our natural habitat due to agriculture and population growth, with all due respect, you are being hypocritical at worse or political at best.

Hey Brad
There is a difference between what you are talking about and the southern border. Yes, they are both about habitat loss and the effects on species. The loss of habitat in the prairies and interior affects a few vulnerable species, e.g. Prairie Chickens, Sage Grouse and others. What one of the primary differences is is that there are no impenetrable barriers to totally restrict movements in the interior of the country. Species suffer, instead, primarily from loss of habitat. The wall on the southerm border prevents movements of endangered and rare animals within their territories. The Jaguar moves over immense areas to seek individual territories and for seeking a mate. The Desert Bighorn Sheep use water holes near the border that would be cut off from them by the wall, as shown in prior links that were posted. The endangered Ocelots, Mexican Gray Wolves and Pronghorn subspecies cross the borders because their domain is on both sides of the border. The possibility of limiting the gene pool by isolating populations separately on each side of the border is much different from the interior where no impenetrable wall exists. Many of the migratory birds arrive in the spring so exhausted from their journey that they land and can hardly move. Will they be able to fly over a wall at that point or will they fly into it? I don’t know that answer. Many owls fly at a very low altitude and may have problems with the wall, but that is also speculation. There are species of plants that are limited in range to the affected areas. There will be a wide swath cut right through their home range. There is very little consideration given to private refuges and butterfly conservation areas. The list goes on and on. So, yes, the interior is vitally important, but the wall is unique in it’s effects on wildlife.

Re: Hypocrisy
If you go back and check the ECE forums here:

https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=37

you will see that many of us on this thread have fought for environmental causes regarding life and land both in the US and elsewhere for a long time. This includes loss of habitat due to farming and even plastic pollution in the oceans and on land. I know you posted there as well:

https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=257655&p=2413097#p2413097

I really like what you stated in that particular post and it is worth reading.

So you see, we are sincere and not biased due to personal political agendas.


Joe

How about a new gallery depicting habitat loss and degradation anywhere and everywhere?

Paul

And Brad, this thread you posted is pertinent to this discussion, as well.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=257647

Joe

bradmangas wrote:So is this subject really not about politics? 

Even though I believe it is admirable to have concerns over the effect to flora and fauna if this border wall was built, I have become much more concerned over the loss of natural habitat Countrywide due to agriculture and population growth.

I live in the heart of the most endangered ecosystem of North America and see it dwindling year after year. What was once the greatest prairie ecosystem of North America, stretching from Texas to Saskatchewan is now but a fragment of what it used to be. The loss of prairies through the central plains and into Canada has suffered a 96% reduction from a few generations ago. We have destroyed 96% of our natural prairies and the flora and fauna that live within them because “we” have chosen to either plow them or pave them away.

Why is this not in the news? Why does this not cause a serious debate? Why are people not outraged by this?
I can only guess it is ignored by the media and therefore by the citizenship because it does not have the divisive political overtones to it such as a border wall does.

You can say you are concerned about the ecological impact of a border wall, but if you are ignoring the tremendous and ongoing depletion of our natural habitat due to agriculture and population growth, with all due respect, you are being hypocritical at worse or political at best.

I agree that the prairie grasslands are one of the most endangered habitats in North America with a very high number of endangered species including many prairie songbirds, grouse. herptiles.... Habitat loss and fragmentation is of significant concern there and has been since Europeans settled the Great Plains, built fences, ploughed the grasslands (equivalent to clearcutting old growth forest), eradicated bison and prairie wolves, gridded most of the prairie with roads every mile running both N-S and E-W, and now huge numbers of fracking wells, oil and and gas development etc etc. And all of that correlates with too many people there and everywhere on the planet.

So I share your concern about the prairies and indeed donate to the Nature Conservancy in Saskatchewan for protecting prairie habitat.

But that does not negate the fact that the border wall is also a legitimate issue. It is not "either/or" but "and/and". Habitat and species loss worldwide is of crucial concern wherever it occurs. All of it is worthy of attention. And none of these issues get sufficient coverage in the mainstream media as far as I am concerned.

Prairie issues in the USA are arguably also political with Trump lessening protection for sage grouse habitat, opening up more grassland (as well as polar, coastal, desert etc etc) areas for fossil fuel extraction, gutting ESA protections that affect prairie species etc etc etc.

As for the border wall being more of an issue because it is an impenetrable barrier to species migration... Certainly the border wall is an issue for that reason, but that does not mean there is free movement across the prairies for all species just because there is no wall per se. Ploughed fields are a barrier to small species that cannot cross such altered areas without desiccating, fences and roads are impermeable barriers for some species. Anytime there is habitat fragmentation, some species won't be able to make it from one "island" of suitable habitat across the "sea" of altered habitat to the next suitable "island. 

But the border wall by its very nature is arguably a greater barrier to a wider variety of species than fences and roads are in the prairies. (Though Trumps new "steel slats" vision of the border wall may allow small things like beetles and salamanders through as long as the habitat clearing along border does not deter their passage (which it well might).

So all habitat loss/fragementation and species declines everywhere are ecological losses worth preventing and fighting against.

Roberta Olenick
Vancouver, BC
www.neverspook.com

As some of you have surmised, we are keeping a close eye on this thread as it could easily spin out of control. As such I have removed one inappropriate post and it's quoted replies.

Thank you, E. J.!!!!

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:Thank you, E. J.!!!!

Joe

Ditto