| The Magazine of the CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES |
|
|
|
|
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Motherly devotion David Lukas ("Naturalist’s Almanac," Winter 2004) comes up with some amazing stuff. He stated that “The antelope use a secret strategy to keep their young hidden. After a fawn suckles from its mother, it will urinate and defecate into its mother’s mouth to avoid creating a scent in its hiding place.” How is this possible? I would think gravity would prevent the mother from accomplishing this. Please explain how she does this. I would also appreciate knowing your source of information. Maria Scott David Lukas replies: Your question prompted me to investigate further and learn some intriguing facts. Immediately after the fawn’s first feeding, the mother begins avidly licking the fawn’s anus and urinary orifice. In response the still-damp, barely standing youngster lowers its front end, spreads its hind legs, and raises its rump to defecate and urinate into the mother’s mouth. Feces and urine come out under the tail and it’s straightforward for the female to lick these up. This keeps the fawn’s hiding place free of distinctive odors and helps the female imprint on her baby’s own smell. Another surprising advantage is that if the fawn has intestinal or urinary tract infections those microbes trigger an immune response in the female and her body makes antibodies that show up in her milk. In effect she custom-designs needed antibodies! These and other fascinating aspects of pronghorn life history are detailed in a wonderful new book Built for Speed: A Year in the Life of Pronghorn, by John A. Byers. Ballona struggles I was dismayed to read the article on the Ballona wetlands by Gordy Slack (“Habitats,” Winter 2004). There is a lot of misinformation out in the world about Ballona and it was dismaying to see that the only two people Mr. Slack seemed to rely upon for information were Roy van de Hoek and Marcia Hanscom—two passionate, but glib and articulate, opponents of every habitat restoration effort out here, and by no means solely responsible for preservation of the Ballona wetlands. Additionally, any thoughtful biologist who is truly familiar with the resources here would question Van de Hoek’s statements regarding coyotes—their introduction to Ballona would be utterly disastrous in such a small area. Please, if you insist on reporting such things, do not hesitate to contact me or the Friends of Ballona Wetlands to provide additional information. Edith Read Thank you for your article about the recent purchase of the Ballona Wetlands by the state. After 27 years, it is both a delight and a relief for us to see Ballona safe at last. Unfortunately, the article has several errors we would like to correct. Our settlement agreement was not with Summa. Summa was the original landowner and we sued them in 1984. However, it was not until 1989, when Councilmember Ruth Galanter was elected, that they sold to MaguireThomas Partners. A year and a half later we reached an agreement that saved over 300 acres of salt marsh, dunes, freshwater marsh, riparian corridor, bluffside and uplands. Contrary to Hanscom’s and Van de Hoek’s accusation, the Friends were not required to support the development. We were (and this is a quote from the agreement): “at all times entitled to exercise their [our] legal rights to comment including, without limitation, submitting comments to draft EIRs.” In addition, we never gave up pushing for more acreage. I’m astonished that Hanscom and van de Hoek now claim the starring role in the purchase. The Friends had worked for Prop 50 and urged the public to support Ballona’s purchase. But we were worried because of so much sniping by WAN [Wetlands Action Network]. Hanscom sent e-mails saying: “We should not give developers a ‘gift of public land’ they can not build on anyway...” and “Why aren’t we asking Playa Vista to give to the public these 193 acres of land they are now trying to sell in return for the impacts they are inflicting to our quality of life?” I warned everyone that if WAN and others didn’t stop badmouthing it, we could lose the deal. On February 6, 2003 I received a phone call from Bruce Robertson speaking for Hanscom. Robertson said he and Hanscom would go along with the state's estimate. After this, Hanscom suddenly became the champion of the deal. Fine. Although it was belated, I'm glad she went the rounds in Sacramento. I don't discount the value of political pressure. But revisionist history is a different thing. I was also disappointed because virtually nothing I said to your reporter was in the article. Your readers must think the Friends and the wetland both just sat there for 27 years. Over 40,000 Friends volunteers have restored the dune element at Ballona with native plants. The new freshwater marsh, once plowed fields, teems with wildlife. Over 141 species of birds are now frequenting this new habitat. New flexible tide-gates allow some salt water into the parched wetland. The Friends, with the support of Congresswoman Jane Harman, Ruth Galanter, and Heal the Bay secured this Corps of Engineers project. All three of these environmental improvements were opposed by Hanscom and Van de Hoek. Now it’s time to work on restoration planning. Good science must prevail. Ruth Lansfod Gordy Slack replies: Ruth Lansford is right, Friends of Ballona did settle with Maguire- Thomas Partners, not Summa Corp., which sold its Ballona holdings during the suit. I regret the error. But Lansford is unfair to say that my story contains “several” errors. Her pique, and that of Edith Read, seems fueled more by not having been featured in the story than by any inaccuracies. I inevitably conduct many more interviews than I have room to print. Certainly both Lansford and Read, and their organizations, deserve much credit for the success at Ballona, as do Marcia Hanscom and WAN. Now, if only they could all stop battling for credit and put that energy into improving and implementing the Ballona plan, perhaps we could see a healing of Los Angeles’ fragmented environmental community as well as a restoration of a degraded marsh. |