Conservation and Science

The last two weeks were busy, and many interesting things happened in the world of conservation and science. For starters, the lowering of protection status for wolves is back on the agenda in Europe. I covered this topic in great detail in episode 163, so it was only fitting to include that episode in last week's replay series. The decision to move wolves from Annex IV to Annex V seems to be all but decided. I'm worried about the result of this decision, although I can see some good coming out of it as well. If you want to learn more, I'd refer you to an exclusive series of five interviews with guests from different backgrounds, representing ecology, hunting, NGOs, social sciences and farming, to get a full picture of the issue and its potential effects on the wolf population, wolf ecology and coexistence with wolves in Europe.

€15.00 €5.50 The EU Review of Wolf Protection StatusA Five-Episode Exclusive Exclusive interviews about the proposal to reduce the protection of wolves in the EU. Hear from a wildlife biologist, a... Read more Get it now!

​

In this newsletter, you will also find a full article with my musings on the concept of historic range. It was inspired by online conversations related to the topic of wolf conservation in Europe.

Another highlight of the past week was the All-Ireland Mammal Symposium 2024 organised by Atlantic Technical University's Department of Natural Resources and Environment. The event was revived after a long absence, and when I looked at the lineup of speakers, I knew it was the place to be! It was a great opportunity to meet many people in person who had previously been guests on my podcast. It was also a chance to meet those of you whom I only knew online. As always in such cases, I met many listeners of the podcast too. It never ceases to surprise and delight me when people recognise me and say they listen to my podcast.

Finally, and staying in the realm of science, I'm bringing you a new episode where we talk about issues with the peer review process and academic publishing in general. But we don't stop there, as our guest Dr David Green has the solution! An innovative scientific journal that revolutionises not only the peer review process but also makes publishing results of research more accessible, fulfilling and fun.

Enjoy this week's newsletter and, as always, if you have any comments, suggestions or just want to drop me a line, please feel free to reply to this email. I read all replies!

Peer Review Reimagined - How Stacks Journal is Transforming Scientific Publishing

Is scientific publishing broken? How can we make it more accessible and inclusive? And what if peer review could be collaborative and efficient instead of opaque and burdensome? In this episode, we dive into the world of academic publishing with Dr David Green, founder of Stacks Journal. We talk about how the current system is failing researchers and science enthusiasts alike, with over half of all research never getting published and exorbitant costs imposed by a handful of publishers who monopolise the industry.

David describes how Stacks Journal is revolutionising peer review through a community-based, transparent approach that empowers scientists by eliminating gatekeepers, reducing bias, and making publishing affordable. We also explore known issues like the publish or perish culture, resistance to paradigm-shifting ideas, and the impact of AI on academic writing. Finally, we try to answer the question of whether science really progresses one funeral at a time.

This episode offers valuable insights into the changing landscape of scientific publishing. David shares his vision for the future of open access and provides inspiring advice for early-career researchers feeling discouraged by the system. Whether you're a seasoned academic or simply curious about how scientific knowledge advances, this episode is a must-listen.

188: Peer Review Reimagined - How Stacks Journal is Transforming Scientific Publishing

The Myth of Historic Range in Wolf Conservation

As you might know, the European Commission is moving forward with the proposal to lower the protection status of wolves in the EU. This reliably sparks fierce discussions online. Here, I want to focus on a specific element of these discussions: the historic range. The term is used in various contexts, but the underlying argument is usually the same. It is used to argue that wolf population recovery in Europe is insufficient and, therefore, lowering their protection status is unsubstantiated or even harmful and contrary to the conservation objectives set out by the Habitats Directive.

There is a big problem with that concept, though. The issue is that it is impossible to place it in time and therefore understand what it was. While in the case of the North American continent or Australia, we might anchor the historic range at the time of the arrival of Europeans (despite this being a rather colonial point of view, ignoring peoples living in those lands before), it equally makes no sense in the case of Europe, which species of Homo have inhabited for 400,000 years.

The real issue here is that a portion of conservationists and nature restoration fans are treating ecosystems or species restoration as finite projects. In their view, a conservation or restoration effort has a natural end when it can be deemed completed. The same thinking seems to be applied to the ecosystems. Assuming that there was, in the past, a stable and static natural state and that we should strive in our restoration efforts to go back to it. Of course, anyone who knows anything about ecology knows this notion is nonsensical.

Ecosystems change all the time. They are influenced by an immense number of factors, some of which are unknown or have an unknown influence on other factors. Some parameters of such systems are irreversibly changed over time. This makes attempts to go back in time futile. I'm not saying that knowledge of the previous state of the ecosystem or distribution of species is not useful, or that it cannot or shouldn't be used as guidance. But guidance is the operative word here. Forgive me for stating the obvious, we're not going to turn back time. The only way is forward, and that means taking into account conditions, factors and constraints that exist at present.

And so, I observed with a mixture of bafflement and amusement arguments breaking out over whether wolves should be restored to their historic range or native range. Of course, both notions are reflections of human wants and desires. They are essentially the same thing, the difference is only in people's minds arbitrarily placing a dot on the timeline of the past. Wolves don't know anything about this and will do what wolves do, as they have done for millennia.

Projects like wolf conservation or restoration are not finite. For example, if we decide to restore the wolf population to the British Isles, that project will only ever be complete in one of two cases. Wolves will be extirpated all over again or all humans will be gone. This point of view inevitably captures the very nature of such projects. They are human-driven but, more importantly, human-centric. Such a project is a human action to counter the results of past human actions. Without humans, there would be no wolf restoration or wolf extirpation - depending on where one would like to put their arbitrary and highly subjective point of reference in time.

I strive to deliver the most interesting and educational conversations with the most engaging guests about the natural environment. It is my goal to continue to deliver this content at no cost to you. However, the production of the podcast requires a significant investment of time and money. So I would appreciate any help you can give me.

Support My Work! Join the wonderful group of people who have already donated. Simply buy me a coffee!

113 Cherry St #92768, Seattle, WA 98104-2205
​Unsubscribe · Preferences​