Professor Arthur Shapiro Comments on the Environmental Impact Report of the Natural Areas Program in San Francisco

19 Oct 2011 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in native plant program Tags: , ,

Mission Blue Butterfly from Wikimedia Commons

These comments to the Environmental Impact Report of the Natural Areas Program in San Francisco by Professor Arthur M. Shapiro, are posted with his permission, and re-posted from two other websites: Death of a Million Trees, and Save Mount Sutro Forest. These two websites are loaded with pertinent information on this subject. Shapiro is Distinguished Professor of Evolution and Ecology at UC Davis and a renowned expert on the butterflies of California.  Please be aware of his credentials as you read this.  Hopefully, these comments will inspire you to write your own comment by the deadline, which has been extended to October 31, 2011.  Details about how to submit your comment are available from the Death of a Million Trees website here. I am republishing this because of my concern for existing animal habitat which is being replaced in our so-called “natural areas” with native grasses which have no habitat value at all for the wildlife existing in our parks.

========================

October 6, 2011
Mr. Bill Wycko:
San Francisco Planning Department
Re: DRAFT EIR, NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM

Dear Mr. Wycko:

Consistent with the policy of the University of California, I wish to state at the outset that the opinions stated in this letter are my own and should not be construed as being those of the Regents, the University of California, or any administrative entity thereof. My affiliation is presented for purposes of identification only. However, my academic qualifications are relevant to what I am about to say. I am a professional ecologist (B.A. University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Cornell University) and have been on the faculty of U.C. Davis since 1971, where I have taught General Ecology, Evolutionary Ecology, Community Ecology, Philosophy of Biology, Biogeography, Tropical Ecology, Paleoecology, Global Change, Chemical Ecology, and Principles of Systematics. I have trained some 15 Ph.D.s, many of whom are now tenured faculty at institutions including the University of Massachusetts, University of Tennessee, University of Nevada-Reno, Texas State University, and Long Beach State University, and some of whom are now in government agencies or in private consulting or industry. I am an or the author of some 350 scientific publications and reviews. The point is that I do have the bona fides to say what I am about to say.

At a time when public funds are exceedingly scarce and strict prioritization is mandatory, I am frankly appalled that San Francisco is considering major expenditures directed toward so-called “restoration ecology.” “Restoration ecology” is a euphemism for a kind of gardening informed by an almost cultish veneration of the “native” and abhorrence of the naturalized, which is commonly characterized as “invasive.” Let me make this clear: neither “restoration” nor conservation can be mandated by science—only informed by it. The decision of what actions to take may be motivated by many things, including politics, esthetics, economics and even religion, but it cannot be science-driven.

In the case of “restoration ecology,” the goal is the creation of a simulacrum of what is believed to have been present at some (essentially arbitrary) point in the past. I say a simulacrum, because almost always there are no studies of what was actually there from a functional standpoint; usually there are no studies at all beyond the merely (and superficially) descriptive. Whatever the reason for desiring to create such a simulacrum, it must be recognized that it is just as much a garden as any home rock garden and will almost never be capable of being self-sustaining without constant maintenance; it is not going to be a “natural,” self-regulating ecosystem. The reason for that is that the ground rules today are not those that obtained when the prototype is thought to have existed. The context has changed; the climate has changed; the pool of potential colonizing species has changed, often drastically. Attempts to “restore” prairie in the upper Midwest in the face of European Blackthorn invasion have proven Sisyphean. And they are the norm, not the exception.

The creation of small, easily managed, and educational simulacra of presumed pre-European vegetation on San Francisco public lands is a thoroughly worthwhile and, to me, desirable project. Wholesale habitat conversion is not.

A significant reaction against the excesses of the “native plant movement” is setting up within the profession of ecology, and there has been a recent spate of articles arguing that hostility to “invasives” has gone too far—that many exotic species are providing valuable ecological services and that, as in cases I have studied and published on, in the altered context of our so-called “Anthropocene Epoch” such services are not merely valuable but essential. This is a letter, not a monograph, but I would be glad to expand on this point if asked to do so.

I am an evolutionary ecologist, housed in a Department of Evolution and Ecology. The two should be joined at the proverbial hip. Existing ecological communities are freeze-frames from a very long movie. They have not existed for eternity, and many have existed only a few thousand years. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about interspecific associations. Ecological change is the norm, not the exception. Species and communities come and go. The ideology (or is it faith?) that informs “restoration ecology” basically seeks to deny evolution and prohibit change. But change will happen in any case, and it is foolish to squander scarce resources in pursuit of what are ideological, not scientific, goals with no practical benefit to anyone and only psychological “benefits” to their adherents.

If that were the only argument, perhaps it could be rebutted effectively. But the proposed wholesale habitat conversion advocated here does serious harm, both locally (in terms of community enjoyment of public resources) and globally (in terms of carbon balance-urban forests sequester lots of carbon; artificial grasslands do not). At both levels, wholesale tree removal, except for reasons of public safety, is sheer folly. Aging, decrepit, unstable Monterey Pines and Monterey Cypresses are unquestionably a potential hazard. Removing them for that reason is a very different matter from removing them to actualize someone’s dream of a pristine San Francisco (that probably never existed).

Sociologists and social psychologists talk about the “idealization of the underclass,” the “noble savage” concept, and other terms referring to the guilt-driven self-hatred that infects many members of society. Feeling the moral onus of consumption and luxury, people idolize that which they conceive as pure and untainted. That may be a helpful personal catharsis. It is not a basis for public policy.

Many years ago I co-hosted John Harper, a distinguished British plant ecologist, on his visit to Davis. We took him on a field trip up I-80. On the way up several students began apologizing for the extent to which the Valley and foothill landscapes were dominated by naturalized exotic weeds, mainly Mediterranean annual grasses. Finally Harper couldn’t take it any more. “Why do you insist on treating this as a calamity, rather than a vast evolutionary opportunity?” he asked. Those of us who know the detailed history of vegetation for the past few million years—particularly since the end of Pleistocene glaciation—understand this. “Restoration ecology” is plowing the sea.

Get real.

Sincerely,
Arthur M. Shapiro
Distinguished Professor of Evolution and Ecology

Our EXISTING Wildlife Habitat Is Being Destroyed For Native Plants

29 May 2011 3 Comments

by yipps:janetkessler in native plant program

 

“Lamented Changes In Our Garber Park Neighborhood”, by Diana

I have been thinking about our Garber Park neighborhood and how it has changed over the past 25 years that we have lived here on Evergreen Lane. I have been thinking how habitat has altered since 1986 and how the overstory of greenery has declined.

In 1986, Evergreen Lane was truly evergreen. In September of 1987, I recall that our neighbor, Mr. Garfield, a professor at Cal, described it as a “magic street.” At that time the street looked like a green tunnel, with big trees on both sides all the way down to Garber Park. A giant eucalyptus tree stood majestically at the intersection of Evergreen and Slater Lane. The air was cool and fresh, invigorating with the moisture of shaded land.

For several years after we moved into our house, deer abounded. There were spots below our home where they rested during the day. When the heat became extreme in late summer, the deer found cool places to sleep under our house. Often, in the fall, we would see male deer butting heads down the hill, while the does hid in the deeper tree growth.

There were raptors perched in the oak trees and hawks flying across the skies. We would see bats fly by the windows at night. And, at certain times of the year, we would hear owls calling to each other in the dark as they waited to spy mice and other small night-time venturers. Every night, we would be greeted by a mother raccoon and three babies eager to hunt for crumbs that might have dropped from the picnic table on the deck.

Mobs of robins arrived to find berries before they embarked on their migratory journeys. We enjoyed watching the abundance of spiders, tiny orange fellows that would spin their webs on plants in summer, adding dashes of color among the greenery. It was beautiful to watch them spin their slivery architecture; their webs were jewels that reflected the dappled sunlight.

Wild bumble bees built a hive under the house, and yellow jackets would visit us when lunch was outdoors, snatching tiny bits of food from the tablecloth. We had a water snake living in our garden for several years. In the garden, we also hosted voles and, once in a while, we would spot the woodland pack rat, an intelligent, clean animal.

Now, when we look around us, we see changes everywhere. Nature no longer seems as close as it used to be. When we look down at the arena where the bucks once battled, it is empty. It has been years since those scenes occurred. The path between houses here where we often saw three or four deer ambling down together is seldom used. We had one doe and a fawn visit last summer under the house, but they stayed for only a day, then disappeared. We spotted one deer resting down the hill this last year.

We know fatalities have occurred due to heavier and faster traffic on Claremont Avenue; that may account for part of the loss. But we suspect that the deer may miss the trees and bushes that have been removed over the years. Careless pruning has opened up much of the green overstory that once existed.

The raccoon population was bothering a neighbor so raccoon families were trapped and taken away as nuisances. Few have been our way since that time. This last year I counted only four or five cobwebs in the garden.The bumble bees have disappeared, as have the yellow jackets. Wild bees’ nests were destroyed by people who believe that bees’ nests house “dangerous pests.” Someone used a shovel to kill the water snake. Its body was left to rot in the sun. The robin activity was much lower this year. Perhaps they miss the berries; many of the berry bushes have been removed because they are said to be invasive; they are “not the right kind,” except that the robins really liked them.

We read that rat poison is spread in parks discourage rodents. The poison moves up the food chain to destroy other species. We have never used pesticides or any other materials that would harm the abundant life that the park and the overhanging trees on Evergreen Lane once supported. Yet, the majority of the wildlife described above has disappeared.

Granted, the 1991 fire (which thankfully did not reach Evergreen Lane or go into Garber Park) and construction in surrounding areas have occurred in the intervening years since we have taken up residence here.

But the raptors are leaving us; a few hawks roam the area but lately I have seen or heard only one. Now, with more eucalyptus trees removed, the evening dance of the bats has also disappeared. We have no idea why so many animals, birds, and insects have left us.

Something in the environment has removed what they needed. We don’t know what it is. We know we miss the spontaneous and vibrant natural environment that greeted us here in 1986. Now we are scrubbed and clean. The bothersome species have been banished.

We miss the cool, scented evenings filled with moist, clean air. Dust is much more a part of our life now, seeping into our house through any crack or cranny, making us think twice before we throw open the sliders for fresh(?) air.

With all respect to those who have come to restore Garber Park to its “native” beginnings and have worked hard to remove built up debris, we can’t help but long for that time when venturing into the Park was a near wilderness experience with dark, cool overhead coverings and the unexpected rush of an animal disturbed in its quiet retreat from the heat. I understand that the work that is going on in Garber Park is well intended… I also feel the magic slipping away.

[Reprinted with permission from  Spring issue of Hills Conservation Network’s newsletter and Save Mount Sutro. The same changes described in this article are taking place in too many of our Bay Area parks: Sutro Forest, Twin Peaks, McLaren Park, Mount Davidson, Glen Canyon. Ecological destruction, whether from building and traffic, or from native plant experiments in “restorations” inevitably impacts wildlife and atmosphere. Garber Park photo credit Bindu Frank].

Lost Alpha Status?

16 Apr 2011 1 Comment

by yipps:janetkessler in coyote behavior, coyote living areas, human behavior, native plant program

I’ve followed a female coyote for several years now — I’ll call her “mom”.  She had puppies the first year and the second year — they all grew up and eventually dispersed. But the third year and this year there were no puppies. Why? We are told that only “alpha” coyotes reproduce. So, might no puppies be due to her having lost her “alpha” status and might this also have something to do with the possibility that a new family group of coyotes might now be using this same territory?

Coyotes form nuclear family groups which exclude other coyotes from their groups and from their territories. I’ve watched this mother coyote raise her various families. Never have we seen other coyote faces within her family group, or other coyotes in her territory.

The theory of lost status occurred to me due to a rumor — unsubstantiated at this point — that a new coyote group, including juveniles, might have been spotted recently, passing through what has been her territory. I have not seen a new group at all. Coyote rumors are rampant in this area: they often spin into a life of their own. So my theory is speculative, at the moment, and will have to remain that way until we verify what we have heard through the grapevine. But I wanted to explore this possibility of loss of alpha status, even if it exists only as a theoretical possibility. I have noticed changes in behavior that might be explained by a loss of alpha status.

Coyote groups are always family groups: genetically-related individuals with the same parents. They are not like dog packs, where unrelated individual dogs form groups for survival purposes. If a new group of coyotes was seen that included juveniles, the young ones would have had to have been born last year, when our mother had no pups. They would have been born to another alpha since only alphas breed.

The presence of another family might also explain why our mom coyote’s forays into the larger part of a park have dwindled, if not totally ceased — she has been limiting her outings to a smaller area now, and I’ve seen her eyeing the adjacent area where the new coyotes were purportedly spotted.

Why might she have lost her alpha status? Could this have happened when her mate was killed? We are assuming it was her mate who was found poisoned two years ago, right at about the time her second set of puppies was born. We assumed this because we never saw a male in her territory after that event. We only saw her and her growing pups. Was her status tied to his status, and then lost when he died?  Or could she have lost her status because there was no male, whatever his status? Or might she have lost it by another means — for instance, she was badly injured by a car two years ago, which might have compromised her ability to remain an alpha?

Then again, she might be too old now for pups, or she might have sustained internal injuries from that car accident that prevent her from having more puppies. One theory brought up in the literature is that coyotes self-regulate their population sizes. If an area has all the coyotes it can support, coyotes will have very tiny litters, or none at all.

So, no puppies, and the possible sighting of another family group including juveniles makes me think of the possibility of lost alpha status. In addition, the previous bolder behavior which suggested an alpha is no longer what I am seeing in our mom. We will never know the answer to the “whys”. But we do know that this very proud, aware and responsible mother coyote has stopped having pups altogether for the past couple of years and she has retreated to a smaller territorial area where she has been less visible than she used to be. Time will tell how long this situation will last — it might be very temporary, or it could be long-term.

Habitat destruction could be driving coyotes out of their previous homes and into new areas.

Habitat Destruction. Habitat destruction is the single most harmful human activity to wild animals. Many of us are upset at the very short-sighted policies causing this habitat destruction which lead to displacement of our wild animals. The “native plant programs” is a case in point: dense animal habitat is being removed in order to plant native plants which offer little if any habitat value — these are mostly dune-type plants. Animal habitat consists of dense areas of growth, brambles and underbrush which are impenetrable to humans and dogs — this is what makes it a safe habitat for animals. In San Francisco we have vast areas of our Presidio which are now being cleared of their forested areas for the benefit of native plants — this means lost habitat. In addition, the remodeling of Doyle Drive, and its attendant habitat destruction, may be driving coyotes out of their original homes close to the periphery of the city, and causing them to move deeper into the heart of the city to find new places to live. If new groups of coyotes are being seen in some areas, this is the strongest explanation.

Wild Animals Need Thick Areas of Growth Where They Can Hide or Seek Protection

13 Feb 2011 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in coyote living areas, native plant program

Coyotes require both open fields where they can hunt for the rodents which they live on, and they need thicket areas where they can retreat to for protection and rest. The top row of photos shows coyotes retreating into overgrown thicket areas. Coyotes especially need these protected areas when they live in urban environments: they need to be able to escape from dogs which chase them and they need to be able to keep away from people for their own safety.

Much of the original native flora of this area consisted of sparse, low lying shrubbery and dune plants — plants which grew and thrived in the sandy soil. Non-native trees and vegetation were introduced into the area to control winds, keep the sand from blowing around, add variety and to provide visual breaks. This non-native vegetation proliferated and created wonderful habitat and protection for creatures who might not otherwise have been able to move into the area which is now so heavily urbanized.

In recent years there has been a strong trend to reintroduce native plants and clear out non-native thickets. There is no thought given to the critters who live in these wild overgrown areas. When entire areas are cleared out for the purpose of introducing native plants, the homes of our wild animals are destroyed. Since our furry wild animals are not on any “endangered list”, they have no legal protection. The bottom row of photos shows areas where entire thickets have been cleared out, and either left bare under tall trees or planted with low lying native shrubbery — neither of which provide protection for coyotes, where protection once existed.

Preserving Wildlife Habitat vs. A Native Plants Craze

28 Jan 2011 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in native plant program

I’ve been fighting to preserve wildlife habitat in our parks for a long time. This includes thickets, forests and underbrush, all of which are being removed and thinned as part of the present “native plant” craze. The native plants of California include mostly low lying grasses and dune plants. Those of us who care about the furry critters which inhabit non-native thickets have not been able to do too much about it. This is because furry critters are on no “endangered” lists. What IS on the endangered list are butterflies and damselflies. So habitats for them take precedence over what already is in place for harboring furry critters.

I think we all would like to see native plants preserved and prosper, but the program in our area is much too extreme: entire forests and thicket areas in our various parks are being removed simply because they are not native — even though they are beautiful and serve as habitats. They are being removed in favor of planting fragile native plants which provide little if any harbor for our furry wild critters. Here are a couple of articles, finally, backing what I have been advocating for so long! Also a couple of superb blogs loaded with relevant information on this same issue, and an analysis of the Scientific American article.

A Friend to Aliens – February 2011 – Scientific American

How alien invasion could save the Earth – 20 January 2011 – New Scientist

http://milliontrees.wordpress.com/

http://sutroforest.com/

Mark Davis, A Friend To Aliens, Analysis

My Position In Relation To Coyotes

15 Jul 2010 17 Comments

by yipps:janetkessler in human behavior, Janet Kessler

Dear  Blog:

People continue to ask me if they could “come along” on my observations, to “study” or “photograph”  or  “just observe”.  Apparently everybody has a worthy project that would benefit from this “hands on” involvement.

I need everyone to know where I am coming from regarding all coyotes, but especially regarding the coyotes I have been able to follow. I am extremely protective of them and their space. I do not advertise their locations, and I make a blanket policy of not taking anyone with me on my outings. This is important in order to be fair to the coyotes. I’m sure everyone can understand this and I’m sure everyone wants this for the coyotes — to keep their lives as even as possible. We need to think about the coyotes first.

Coyotes do not need more and more people intruding on them. When anyone approaches a coyote, or even when people are around, a coyote’s alertness intensifies and its behaviors change. It may flee. This heightened alertness and behavior change are indications of stress. All interventions and intrusions that I have seen disrupt the normal behavior I’m trying to document — this is why I work alone.

I’ve spent thousands of hours in various parks where I seem to have “earned” an “ignored place”, at a safe distance, from a number of coyotes. Even bringing my husband a couple of times to several of the parks changed that whole dynamic: coyotes are much too aware not to be affected by everyone’s presence.  My project is not conducive to group activity — I hope everyone can respect that. I want to continue doing my part in taking photos and writing my observations, as a means of advocating for the coyotes in the Bay Area, but I need to do this alone. Nevertheless, everybody who wants can help. We ALL can spread respect for coyotes and all wildlife, and we all can preserve habitat that is already in place, by leaving it alone, and not by re-creating it in the image of just the “native plant” advocates.

I began this blog to share information with those who might feel apprehensive about coyotes generally, and about urban coyotes specifically. My purpose is to show, through my photos and observations, that coyotes have character and personality. They have a tight-knit family life which is very worthy of our respect.  They display the qualities which we value in ourselves.  I’m trying to help people relate to them in ways which they may not have been able to before. At the same time, I need to remind everyone that these are not cuddly stuffed animals. They are WILD. They are VERY wild. We need to respect this about them: give them space and keep our dogs off of them — co-existence requires just this little from us.

Two incidents recently have distressed me. One was a high school teacher who, before leaving his students to explore in one of the parks, admonished them to “please don’t pet the coyotes.” Do people really think that these are cuddly little animals that can be approached in this manner? They cannot. They could bite if they have to protect themselves.

The second incident involved a father with four pre-teens. I was so pleased to point out a coyote for them — but I should not have. I advised the father that the coyotes were not aggressive, but that we need to give them space. Immediately, this man walked straight up to where the coyote was. The coyote, relaxing on a hill, saw him coming and bolted up to a tense sitting position. The man got closer and closer until the coyote fled. Although most people seem to respect the needs of our coyotes, there are the aggressive few who think it is their right to intrude on the coyotes — you have intruded upon a coyote if you have caused it to alter its normal flow of behavior. We need to remember that the coyotes are not tame farm animals and they do not want to be approached.

Coyotes dislike most dogs: dogs are threats to them and put the coyotes on heightened alert. Even so, I have seen coyotes “hand pick” a couple of dogs as friends — it is always the dogs who show little interest in them!! A lot of my observations involve coyote and dog reactions to each other: in all except a couple of instances this has been antagonistic. Regarding people, coyotes are not interested in people except to stay away from them. Dogs are a different story: because they are a threat to coyotes, dogs are more interesting to them. Coyotes treat dogs the same as they do “outsider” coyotes who would be competing for the territory and its resources. If we keep our dogs leashed in coyote areas, these threats can be kept to a minimum.

One last point I would like to make regarding animal habitats. My policy would be to leave nature alone, the way it is — nature is smarter than humans, who, I have found, feel they need to control and manage everything. My problem with human intervention is that they try too often hide behind the guise of “science”, when science does not have all the answers — science is a human phenomenon and humans do not have all the answers. The plans they come up with often do more harm than good. The Gulf oil spill is a disaster we could have avoided — but we listened to the “sound science” behind the technology involved in deep water drilling. Another is the “native” plant programs which purport to be “scientific” when in fact they are extreme, arbitrary and one-dimensional. Animals live in our thick wooded areas where the balances have been achieved over a long period of time. Mount Sutro Forest, for example, needs to be preserved, not ripped out and re-created. Please see the blog dedicated to preserving this cloud forest. Please do what you can to preserve it. Thanks for listening.  Janet

Charles Wood Coyote Photos

13 Jul 2010 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in coyote behavior, photography

Charles Wood discovered that “his” coyote family has seven pups, when less than a week ago he thought there were only four!! Here is his wonderful photo of what he found.  Visit his website for this and more coyote photos: Charles Wood. His work is copyrighted and may only be used with his explicit permission.

Poisons Used by San Francisco’s “Natural Areas Program”

02 Jun 2010 1 Comment

by yipps:janetkessler in native plant program Tags:

Poisons are being used in San Francisco public parks to get rid of plants. And plants are being yanked up along paths leaving large areas of bare ground which then becomes prone to erosion. The photos above make sections look like a war zone. Whatever happened to sustainability and being environmentally friendly? What about including those of us who use the parks in their planning?

The Natural Areas Program is a “politically correct” program run by small organized groups. It is a misnomer: there is nothing “natural” about the program. They use whatever methods they want to reach their ends. They are actually decreasing biodiversity and polluting the ground in the name of a program that few people really want. We all wanted native plants, but never did anyone agree to ripping everything else out, and never did we agree for poisons to be used. The poisons are being washed into the water systems of the parks. The poisons are affecting the food chain from the bottom up. They are toxic — all poisons are.

Who uses these methods? Our Parks and Recreation Department has ceded authority to volunteers, who, at their own discretion, are creating parks in the image they want without including those of us who actually use the parks.

The wild character of several of our parks is what makes them so special. The underbrush and overgrowth which has been removed served as protection and as habitat for all sorts of animals. Huge areas which were protected from humans and dogs because of their growth can now be walked through easily. This means animals homes were destroyed. Why?

In the news!!

14 Mar 2010 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in Janet Kessler

Janet Kessler, looking for wildlife on the slopes of Twin Peaks, keeps herself grounded in nature. Credit Laura Morton for The New York Times

Janet Kessler, looking for wildlife on the slopes of Twin Peaks, keeps herself grounded in nature. Credit Laura Morton for The New York Times

Taking Walks On The Wild Side, in The New York Times on Sunday, March 14, 2010. Click on the article title to be taken to it, or press here for the PDF version.

Clearings open ways for dogs to chase coyotes

26 Jan 2010 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in coyote behavior, native plant program Tags: ,

At 1:00 pm one of the residents residing along one of the parks called me. A coyote was yipping in a way she had not heard before — she was wondering if it was injured. I could hear the yipping over the telephone!

I went to check it out. The coyote was still yipping when I got to the park, which is what helped me locate it. I saw it only briefly before it ran off. But it was not the coyote which distressed me — the coyote sounded fine except that it was complaining. It is the situation which was distressing to me. Coyotes yip when they have been intruded upon: almost always because a dog has chased them.  Although I came too late to see the cause of the yipping, I later found out that it had been due to a dog. My real discovery was that any dog can now run into this previously very protected area. Only six months ago it was an area in which I could barely get through because it was so dense with thorny branches, underbrush and poison oak. It is an area where no one ever went — there was no reason or need to go there, and there was no need or reason to clear it. It was a perfect animal habitat with all sorts of protection for them. Now, any dog can run through there. This area is known to be a den area.

People have wondered why coyotes are more visible lately in our parks. Might it be that the secluded areas where these animals hung out are no longer secluded? When the coyotes first chose this area of this park in 2006-2007 they chose a well protected area, dense with growth, where dogs or humans would not and could not disturb them. They were seldom seen. We have since cleared out these areas which has made their once secluded areas very accessible now.

High School, Where Interests Develop

24 Dec 2009 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in human behavior, promoting teenage interests

As I photographed a cooperative coyote, Melissa approached. She had never in her life seen a coyote before. We watched together. She was very quiet, so I told her what I knew: basically that they were not aggressive unless chased by dogs, that they just went about their lives as we do.  I asked her if she was in high school, and she said yes, Mission High School. I asked her if she liked the school. She did. I asked her if her courses were interesting, and she again said yes. I asked her what she was interested in and she immediately said animals! She asked if the coyote had a family and I told her probably so, but they were not in this spot at this time. Ah, I remembered my own interest in animals in high school, and why I did not pursue this.

So I told her of my own interest in animals, especially my interest in animal behavior, and specifically that of dolphins when I was her age. BUT, I told her that in biology class, we had to dissect a live fish, and I could not do it. Frogs would be next, so this was the end of my career in biology. Melissa told me that she could not dissect live animals either, no matter that they didn’t know what was going on. So I told her that nowadays, she could still study animals without going the biology route — possibly animal behavior, ecology or animal psychology. She seemed interested. She was quiet, but wide-eyed. I hope her coyote encounter and chat with me were doors that opened new possibilities for her. Good luck to Melissa!

A New Mural in San Francisco: Urban Wildlife

02 Dec 2009 1 Comment

by yipps:janetkessler in urban wildlife mural Tags: , ,

This mural is located at Market and 6th Streets in downtown San Francisco. It is called Find Yourself In Natural History. It consists of charming animal “cutout” figures juxtaposed on a setting of urban architecture. The artists are Leanne C. Miller and Helen Bayly. I think it is fabulous, not only for its conception, design and execution, but because it brings wonderful awareness to our urban wild animals. Please let’s respect and take care of these wild critters in our midst!!

About myself, with animals, observing

19 Nov 2009 Leave a comment

by yipps:janetkessler in Janet Kessler, photography

I thought I should let people know where I am coming from, and why I am interested in coyotes.

This particular activity opened for me two years ago when I met my first coyote on a walk here in San Francisco. At the time, my habit was to get up before dawn and take an hour-and-a-half hike up to the center of our city — always with my dog. Dawn is a great time of day. The world is quiet, it is peaceful. The world belongs to you and to the wildlife which is beginning to stir again after a night’s rest. There is a magic about it, especially as you climb the hills, with all the bright lights below looking something like Christmas, Diwali or Hanukkah, or looking like the approach to a city from an airplane.

Two years ago, during my morning walk, as I was rounding the bend of a path, what should I see on the trail in front of me but a coyote, a young coyote. Right in the middle of a city. In a large, hilly park-like area. Coyotes were just returning to the city after many years of absence  -– we had heard of only a couple of them in the newspapers, so the surprise was overwhelming. This coyote was so excited to see us, me and my dog. It did not run off. It did keep its distance. It bounced up and down, up and down, like a ball. It ran down the path and back, and down again where it lay, sphinx-like, watching us until its excitement made it get up and repeat the bouncing. I sat on a rock, mesmerized, with my dog next to me. For 20 minutes we watched the coyote, and the coyote watched us. I didn’t have my camera that day, but that would never happen again. Exactly a month later, we ran into the same coyote. This is when I started taking photos. The photos were less of the coyote, at least in my eyes, than of the coyote’s behavior. I actually started photography as a record-keeping device: I was interested in character, personality, behavior, motives, etc. The first coyote I met had offered a little of itself to us — I needed to find out more.

So, this is what I do now for a few hours each day, most days: during my walks, I observe and photograph urban wildlife, mostly coyotes. But I have always been around animals, both my own pets and wild animals that were injured which I took care of and released as soon as possible so as not to rob them of their wildness. The exciting thing about animals for me has been not only their wildness: their ability to do everything necessary to survive on their own, but also their rich emotional lives: they feel with all the intensity we humans feel. All species, I have found, have a culture in common, and a culture apart from us humans. We share a lot with them, and we are different. If we observe them, and if we are interested enough, we can understand them — the same way cultural anthropologists do, the same way Jane Goodall did: understanding individual animals through empathy.

My special interest has always been coyotes, though I watch all animals. After lots of observing, nuances take shape and you begin to be able to read a few things that you could not read before.

I have probably spent hundreds of hours in the parks, watching them — using my camera to focus my attention, and then reviewing at home. My camera is like a notebook for me. What I have learned regarding the coyotes is that these are individuals, that generalizations might not necessarily hold. Watching coyotes is like watching the same dogs in a park for a while: you get to know certain things about them — they each have their personality quirks. Does one dog have more in common with the other dogs or less? For each individual animal it is different.

For the most part I know what a coyote is doing, if it is busy or not, that they are communicating. I was aware when one tested me. I know they can “read” most dogs and can assess each individual dog from a distance. They keep a safe distance from people who they also assess — either cautiously trusting them at a distance, or avoiding them.  I know how important the coyote family unit is — I’ve seen them greet one another, I’ve seen them work as a team,  I know that a mother will protect her young, I’ve seen a yearling act as a sentry and warn a mother if an intruder is coming her way. I know food is marked as foul by urinating on it. I know what dog activity upsets certain coyotes, which coyotes are shy, which ones are more curious or daring. I can tell them apart by their facial features — mostly — at least at certain times. I have seen a barking coyote look out of the corner of its eye, to see how it is affecting an onlooker — I could see that part of this is bluff.  I have been allowed to be on the same side as a coyote when a it was chased by a dog. And there is so much more to become aware of — I’m just beginning to scratch the surface. I am getting to know the behavior of individual coyotes, and I am making sense of it all.

Other things about myself: I grew up in South America. My husband and I live with our 15 year-old dog in the center of San Francisco where we have been for over 30 years. We have a front yard garden where we grow corn (200 ears a season) and have an apple tree which gives us over 300 apples a season. We have grown wheat which we made into sprouted wheatberry bread — nine full loaves, we succeeded with one cotton plant — it produced one boll — we were able to make one Q-tip!, we have tomatoes sometimes. We have two grown sons who live in the Bay Area. We both love the urban environment and our walks. I took up the harp when my kids went off to college.

Please see article in The New York Times which appeared on March 14, 2010: Taking Walks on the Wild Side.

Coyotes Return to SF: the story expands

13 Nov 2009 1 Comment

by yipps:janetkessler in history of coyote in SF Tags: , ,

Where did our coyotes come from when they returned to this area shortly before 2003, and how did they get here? There was a long period of time before this time when they were not seen at all in the city. Apparently there is more to it than the very interesting story which we have all heard up until now.

The story that we’ve heard states that our coyotes did not come up over the land from the south as might be expected. Rather, they came into San Francisco from north of the city, which means that their route involved crossing over the Golden Gate Bridge. This is a seemingly unlikely scenario, but there is information which supports it, if the information is correct.  A coyote was apparently seen crossing the bridge — the under-part of the bridge — at night by a ranger. And, there is a video clip of a deer crossing the bridge, so why could not a coyote do so? In addition, there has been DNA testing by Dr. Ben Sacks of UC Davis, linking our San Francisco coyotes to the northern coyotes, the DNA is different from that of the southern coyotes. So this is the story which we are hearing:  that our coyotes came from the north over Golden Gate Bridge. It really is a very exciting story.

However, it appears that this is not the entire story. A totally trustworthy, older friend of mine revealed to me that he knows how the coyotes really got here. He told me that he knows the fellow, a ranger, who absolutely “swears” that he brought them in himself — at least some of them. My friend wanted me to know this because I told him how they might have crossed the bridge — he let me know this was not the whole truth. His revelation can never be reported fully because of its being an illegal activity. No one is going to say anything about it officially, and no names will ever be given — there is only a small, tight group that even knows about it. My friend only told me this much and would reveal no more.

My own feeling is that if some of our coyotes were brought into the city in this manner, it should be known. Unless all possibilities are taken into account, you are “creating” a false history. I would rather consider all possibilities that might lead us to know how they really got here. Although there seems to be little evidence to support it, several people have suggested to me that coyotes have always been here — that because their population was sparser, people just didn’t take note of them. I have noticed in the last few years that voles and gophers are rampant in the parks as never before  – could this plentiful food supply be an incentive for the coyotes to reproduce? Should we keep this possibility in mind? “It does seem possible that coyotes have been traveling through San Francisco for a while,” Erin Boydston, USGS, said in a 2003 SF Chronicle interview.

Addendum: I was contacted because of this posting by someone associated with what went on — read on: http://coyoteyipps.com/category/how-coyotes-came-to-san-francisco/

Photography aids observation: some thoughts

05 Nov 2009 3 Comments

by yipps:janetkessler in Janet Kessler, photography Tags: ,

I get requests from people and groups asking me to take them with me while I photograph. I am truly honored at these requests — highly honored that they like the photos I have taken well enough to want to come along. However, I have to tell them that this “led safari” type of situation is not what I do. I take walks by myself or with my husband, and I have a camera. What I have come across I find by being outside and exploring. You have to love to be out in nature and be part of it, and you have to spend many hours in the settings where animals live. Ultimately, it is the wildlife that is so thrilling — the camera is a tool which enhances my participation in nature. Photography enhances my ability to see wildlife. It focuses my concentration and awareness. I bring it home where I study the details. It serves as my notebook. When I’m done, I post some of my “stuff” so others might enjoy what I have been able to observe. Right now I’m engaged in a study of coyote behavior, less for its usefulness than for my own curiosity and understanding. Practically, though, I might find something that could ease the coexistence issue. There are aspects of this issue, including dog and human issues, that have not been looked at thoroughly enough to reveal much understanding.

I do my photographing alone, because I try to become part of the space I am working with, actually studying situations and behavior, and I can’t do so with others next to me. Also, with fewer people around you become less intrusive for the animal. It is very important not to intrude on an animal you decide to photograph — you have intruded if you have caused it to change its behavior, flinch or flee. Also, to protect the animals, I never give the locations of any of the animals I photograph.  My ultimate goal is to try to photograph beyond what could become a “pretty picture” and grab the behavior, personality or character of what I find — it takes plenty of time and lots of awareness. I try to capture what the animals reveal to me about themselves, and I’m not always successful. This is not something one can teach someone else. One learns by being interested.

My suggestion to everyone who wants to photograph wildlife is to simply take walks and find your own mode that works for you. This way you will be growing into something that is exclusively yours. Start with any wild animal you see — even common starlings. Work with one animal, never interfering with its behavior, and try to learn its ways and capture this on film. I never took any photography courses — I just plunged into doing what I wanted to do and saved what I liked. Except for a good zoom lens, you don’t need a lot of fancy equipment, you just need to love what you do.

I like to crop my photos considerably — because I like framing them as “portraits”. The photos have to be really sharply focused if you want to crop. However, sharp focus can only be achieved when you have plenty of light. The left-hand images are versions of the same photo taken in fairly low light — notice that there is not a lot of detail. The photo on the right was taken in very good light, and the cropped version shows lots of detail and is sharp. Photography is about light. A lot of animal activity occurs during twilight hours, when the light is not good. When there is a distance involved, a flash does not work, and anyway it would be intrusive to the animals. Anything that interferes with the light, such as fog and haze and twilight, makes it harder to achieve a sharp photo.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries