Our family recently walked along the Cape Roger Curtis shore, ending up at the beach at the end of Roger Curtis Lane. As we looked towards the North, one of the controversial docks blocked the horizon line, and we remarked that this was somewhat regrettable.
However, as a biologist, I was immediately drawn to the dock’s pilings, which are covered with barnacles, mussels, and other creatures common in the intertidal zone. I reminded my family of an article that I had written to The Undercurrent at the first round of debates on docks – “Docks, memories, and why they matter”. We biologists know that the value of intertidal “real estate” is probably infinitely greater than that of the real estate in Vancouver, for its value is measured in the challenge of life or death! One of the premises of Darwin’s famous argument is that “Resources are limited” and in the intertidal zone, space is a limited resource.
As a scientist, I examine the world using the scientific method: propose a falsifiable hypothesis, devise a method to test that hypothesis, collect data, and then test the hypothesis using statistical methods. Regrettably, this approach has — so far — not been evident to me on Bowen, especially in relation to decisions with an ecological implication.
Let’s take the issue of docks. It is claimed that the docks on Cape Roger Curtis negatively impact the “ecological value” of the habitat. First, I have seen no definition of “ecological value”, nor have I seen any data presented to demonstrate that these particular docks have or will have a negative impact on the “ecological value” of this environment.
Let me propose a definition of “ecological value”: the level of benefits that the space, water, minerals, biota, and all other factors provide to support native life forms. Under this definition, the naval ship sunk in Howe Sound has beneficial “ecological value”: it measurably benefits the biota by providing reef-like habitat for organisms of Howe Sound. I hypothesize that the docks on Cape Roger Curtis, in the same way, would benefit the intertidal community there: that is, the dock at the beach at the end of Roger Curtis Lane would have beneficial “ecological value”. While I have not counted them, I would wager that on only one piling of the six or more on that dock, there are more barnacles, mussels, and small crustaceans than there are people on Bowen. And, I have not even considered the microbial world on each piling, a number that would undoubtedly outnumber the population of the Earth on each piling!
So do these pilings have beneficial “ecological value”? If we could interview the hundreds of thousands of organisms on those pilings and ask them whether the place they call “home” has “ecological value”, I would imagine they would all say “Yes”, and certainly better than the alternative, which is death.
As a biologist, however, I must be dispassionate. Perhaps my hypothesis is supported. While I could count all the organisms on these pilings, to what do I compare these numbers to determine whether the increase is statistically significant and therefore “beneficial”? Should it be to the abundances on one side of the beach, should it be to the abundances on both sides of the beach, should it be to the entire shoreline along Cape Roger Curtis? Given measurement errors, it is unlikely I could provide statistical support for the hypothesis that these pilings have measurably increased abundances or have had a beneficial “ecological value” even in relation to ONE SIDE of the beach! But, it is safe to say that they have not had a negative “ecological value” for the organisms that have chosen to live and thrive there.
Can the opponents of these docks provide any arguments or measurements that would convince me as a biologist that any of the docks have had or even will have a significant negative impact on the “ecological value” of the habitat?
I suspect, as our former mayor Jack Adelaar claimed, that this is a matter not of “ecological values” but of “esthetic values”. I am prepared to consider and argue this matter on esthetic grounds. However, let us not appeal to “ecological value” to justify opposition to the docks without providing at least some empirical data to demonstrate the negative impact that these docks might have in this particular place, at this particular time.
Denis Lynn
