THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES (PART 1)

How many of us, in a personal, family, business or management decision, have had things blow up, when our intentions were quite good? I certainly have. There is what is widely known as the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences, which says, “It is a certainty that no matter what action is taken (by an individual, a group, organization, government, etc.), there will be unintended consequences.”

Especially in the biological world, there are numerous examples of unintended consequences: “results of an action that you didn’t anticipate happening.” As I write this column in early March, I just finished watching (via ZOOM!) a Ph.D. dissertation defense at Texas A&M University. This doctoral candidate’s Ph.D. project looked at the transmissibility and potential impacts of respiratory pathogens passed between aoudad and desert bighorn sheep.

As explored in great depth at the WSF-supported April 2022 Symposium on the Ecology, Management, and Economics of Desert Bighorn and Aoudad, held at Texas Tech in Lubbock, there have certainly been unintended consequences from Texas Parks & Wildlife’s 1950s introduction of aoudad into Palo Duro Canyon. Current estimates are approximately 1,300 desert bighorn sheep in the Trans-Pecos Region, contrasted with approximately 8,000 aoudad in just those shared mountain ranges.

Unintended consequences may either be positive or negative. While aoudad have certainly provided hunting opportunities for many (i.e., “poor man’s sheep hunt”), and landowners, guides, and outfitters have realized significant economic gains from having aoudad on their landscapes, the unintended consequences of aoudad introduction and subsequent expansion have resulted in adverse impacts and continuing management challenges for desert bighorn sheep. Both opportunities and challenges have arisen, and this reality, while not insoluble, calls for clear-headed and forward-thinking approaches over the short- and long-term horizons.

Many classify three types of unintended consequences:

1) A positive, unexpected good effect (i.e., “good luck”);

2) A negative, unanticipated bad effect (i.e., “oh s#%*!); and

3) An unforeseen effect outside the scope of, or opposite to, what was intended to happen.

Although there are certainly holdouts, most people think invention and widespread use of the automobile has been a clear sign of progress, and in some cases, an absolute necessity. Who could have anticipated our issues with automotive exhaust, traffic congestion, deaths/injuries from car accidents, and impacts on global climates? And who hasn’t hit the beach on a sunny day with their families and friends, only to come home with a painful, peeling sunburn? We all need to make choices. Good, better choices.

A clear example of biologicallysignificant unintended consequences was widespread use of the pesticide DDT to control mosquitos and minimize malaria, both seemingly good ideas. This issue led to Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking 1962 book Silent Spring, and the subsequent banning of DDT use, in much of the world. Eggshell thinning and poor chick survival critically impacted bald eagles, which have made an incredible comeback after DDT use was banned 40 years ago in the United States. Residual human health impacts and continuing presence of DDT residue in many food products reinforce the decision that was made to widely ban DDT. Alternative strategies and chemical compounds have necessarily been developed and implemented to battle malaria, with less significant side impacts.

As wildlife undergrads, I’m sure many of us learned the story of the 1859 introduction of rabbits into Australia, for ostensibly good reasons (i.e., food, hunting opportunities, etc.). But with no natural predators and litters of five or more baby bunnies seven times a year, soon there was a rabbit plague. Farmers ripped their warrens, laid poison and shot them, but still they multiplied. By the late 1940s, rabbits had reached plague proportions, and were ravaging vast areas of Australia. In many places, not a blade of grass remained, and even bushes were stripped bare of leaves and bark. By 1950, the myxoma virus was intentionally released, dramatically reducing rabbit populations, but also prompting human health scares. By the 1980s, trials were conducted on a new rabbit control agent (calicivirus), but this virus escaped (likely via an insect vector) and spread rapidly. In the end, the calicivirus did the job it was predicted to do (eliminating rabbits), apparently without adverse impacts to Australian people, fauna or flora.

And, of course, we all know the saga of wolf reintroduction to the northern

Rockies, subsequent management challenges, and the many unintended consequences.

The fancy definition of Adaptive Management is to have an intentional approach to making decisions and adjustments, in response to new information. The simplest way to put this is: “learn from your mistakes, then do something different.” It’s what we learn as kids (or, sometimes, later in life!). Albert Einstein is widely credited with the saying “insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.”

All of us, including the Wild Sheep Foundation, need to carefully and strategically think through our planned actions, and comprehensively analyze the known, likely, possible (and, unintended) consequences of our decisions. Doing “right” by our wild sheep resource collectively rests on all our heads and shoulders. I will follow up in the next Biologist’s Corner column with some further thoughts about unintended consequences, specific to wild sheep conservation and management. Stand by! WS

Editor’s Note: A free-range aoudad qualifies for WSF Mountain Monarch Awards. Consequently, since the launch of the <1 Club® in 2012, taking a free range aoudad in North America would get the hunter “Kicked Out” of the <1 Club® (but not the <1 iClub® which is outside of North America.) In light of the management need to harvest more aoudad which negatively impact desert bighorn sheep, the <1 Club® Committee has changed the <1 Club® rules effective with the 2023-24 program.

Effective immediately, taking an aoudad under free range conditions DOES NOT disqualify a hunter from <1 Club® membership and/or entry into the 2024 hunt drawings! Go hunt aoudad and join the <1 Club®!”

The Marco Polo Society® (MPS) is the Wild Sheep Foundation’s premier major giving “society” whose members have given and/or pledged a minimum of $100,000 to the Foundation. Gifts are donor-directed, tax-deductible and can be made to the WSLF Endowment Fund, WSF Conservation Fund, or Area of Greatest Need. Additionally, funds may be allocated to specific grant-inaid, education or advocacy initiatives and programs. The $100,000 pledge can be contributed in annual installments up to a maximum of 10 years.

Since its inception in 2008, more than $8 million in MPS gifts/ pledges have been directed to WSF and mission programs. WSF’s objective is 100 Marco Polo Society members resulting in a $10 million major gift campaign.

WSF SALUTES OUR MARCO POLO SOCIETY® MEMBERS TO DATE - Alphabetical Order

Kip & Sue Slaugh (UT)

Kevin & Tuesdy Small (CA)

J. Alain Smith (WA)

Mike Snider (MI)

Daryll & Shauna Southwick (CO)

Brandon & Kristi Stokes (OR)

Jelindo & Sandee Tiberti (NV)

Matt Tomseth (OR)

Mark Watkins (MN)

Tim & Ruth Van Der Weide (IA)

Ken & Anna Vorisek (AK)

Gabriela Peterson (MI)

Ron & Vicki Pomeroy (WY)

Larry & Brenda Potterfield (MO)

Rancho La Palmosa (MEX)

Joni & Gary W. Raba (TX)

Terry Rathert (TX)

Gary & Yvonne Rigotti (OR)

Christopher Ring (TX)

Kevin & Janine Rinke (MI)

Alan & Barbara Sackman (NY)

Doug & Shelly Sayer (ID)

Roger Segebrecht (WI)

Mark Watkins (MN)

Jay & Martha Webster (TX)

Craig West (NC)

Steven & Ardyce Whisler (MT)

Clayton & Modesta Williams (TX)

Lyle & Jennifer Wood (AB)

Russ & Debi Young (TX)

Gary & Penny Young (WV)

Alan Young (YT)