ENHS Nature Trails Jan. 98 Article 2

President's Column: Smelly Swamps, Buggy Bogs, or Wonderful Wetlands?
by Nathan Tublitz

"What a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself."
Mollie H. Beattie, 1947-1996

As usual, kids tell it like it is, unencumbered by social graces and prevailing political correctness. So when a group of 3 children (my kids, ages 9, 11, and 14) were asked to describe their impressions of a wetland, they replied "Its disgusting, crocodile infested, with annoying bugs, frogs jumping off your sleeves, a muddy heaven, a kid's magnet." And when queried with the follow-up "Should wetlands be preserved?" their terse answers were in typical teen/pre-teen dialect: "yup", "I don't care", and "aw maybe". In spite of this non-random sampling, these comments eerily mirror the viewpoints of the adult US population. We are unequivocally equivocal about the nature and future of wetlands. At the local level, those of us in Lane County-a county blessed with significant, productive wetlands-are similarly ambiguous. The variety of common names for wetlands-marshes, bogs, swamps, potholes, fens, and pocosins-attests to the diversity of attitudes about these unique habitats. How can we be expected to make long term decisions about these places if we hold such a diverse set of opinions? Perhaps some information would be useful to formulate a collective decision about this biologically essential and, until recently, much neglected type of habitat.

Wetlands are characterized and distinguished by soil, hydrology, salinity, vegetation, and other factors. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines wetlands as those lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems with the following three attributes: 1) the land predominantly supports wetland (aquatic) plants at least periodically; 2) the ground consists of undrained hydric soils; and 3) at some time during the growing season, the ground is saturated with and/or covered by water. Estimates by the National Wetlands Survey indicate that 5% of the lands of the contiguous lower 48 states is wetlands, mostly located in the Southeast coastal plain, Lower Mississippi Valley, the Prairie Potholes Region, and Great Lakes States. The same survey identifies 4% of Oregon as wetlands.

Why do we need wetlands? After all, the anti-wetland crowd, a loose knit consortium of land developers and the natural product extraction industries, claim that wetlands are over-rated and under-productive, and that 5% of our country's precious land is way too much to be given protected status. How valid are these claims?

As is my bent, let's start with a bit of old fashioned, but ever so important history. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory recent report on changes in wetlands during our nation's history is illuminating. Between the 1780s and 1970s, what eventually became the 48 contiguous United States lost 54 percent of the estimated original 221 million acres of wetlands--a loss amounting to about 60 acres an hour for 200 years. Between the 1950s and 1970s, the lower 48 States lost an estimated 458,000 acres of wetlands each year; from the 1970s to the 1980s, the annual loss amounted to about 290,000 acres. A new USF&WS report issued this week (Jan `98) notes that the US is continuing to lose wetlands at a net rate of 117,000 acres per year, mostly in highly productive freshwater vegetated wetlands. This net figure includes the 78,000 acres of questionable wetland being created annually due to wetland restoration and mitigation activities. For the first time in the Nation's history, there are fewer than 50 million acres of freshwater vegetated wetlands in the conterminous United States.

Wetlands underpin the health of our environment and our economy. Every species of freshwater fish depends on wetlands either directly for food, habitat or breeding, or indirectly by consuming prey raised in wetland environs. 50-75% of marine fish are similarly dependent on wetlands. And fishing is big business: The American Sportfishing Association reported that in 1991 fresh and marine anglers contributed $24 billion in direct purchases and $69 billion in economic output to the US economy.

Given its impact on fisheries, it is not surprising that wetlands have been called the "cradle of life". In addition to fish, it is the primary source for our nation's waterfowl, countless small birds and mammals, and a wide variety of plant life. Many species currently listed on federal and state endangered species lists are primarily if not exclusively found in wetlands. Because of their importance to wildlife, wetlands provide recreational opportunities for hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, canoeists and other outdoor enthusiasts. These activities are crucial to many tourist-based economies. For example, migratory bird hunter and bird watchers support over 220,000 jobs in the US and directly contribute $9 billion each year to the national economy compared to the $5.9 billion Americans spend annually on tickets to sporting events. Preserving wetlands makes biological and economic sense.

Our nation also benefits from healthy wetlands in several other crucial aspects. Wetlands catch and hold water after floods and snow melts. By acting as giant sponges, wetlands absorb excess water in the flood season and release it slowly, thereby reducing flood damage. Wetlands are also vital to the nation's water supplies. They act as natural filters, trapping sediment and capturing essential nutrients. Wetlands filter out up to 98% of the nitrogen and up to 100% of heavy metals in water. Wetlands also play a crucial role in recharging the nation's groundwater, assuring abundant supplies of fresh water and creating groundwater pressure to exclude salt water from coastal aquifers. Obviously, man-made measures, such as flood and pollution controls and water purification and desalinization plants, can achieve the same results, but preservation of existing wetlands is a much more cost effective and beneficial solution to these problems.

These are but a few of the numerous positive benefits from wetlands. Healthy wetlands are not only good for our environment, business, economy, and wildlife, they are essential for preserving our nation's future. Isn't that enough justification to actively support activities that protect and improve our nation's wetlands? Having read this, my kids are now convinced. Are you?

[ Back ]

Page last modified: 08 May 1998
Location: http://biology.uoregon.edu/enhs/archive/jan98/jan982.html
E-mail the WebSpinner: aloysius@gladstone.uoregon.edu