Sarkhaan
18-07-2008, 06:48
We've all heard of them at some time or another...species moved (be it by accident or knowingly) from their home territory and released into the wild in a new location, only to dominate. Kudzu in the US Southeast from Japan, Green crabs along the US east coast from China, rats in most of the world from Asia and Europe...they're everywhere.
Now, what about doing it for conservation? I have heard it proposed for a large number of African animals, moving them to the American southwest to something of a national park/animal refuge. The argument is that the two areas are similar, and relatives of many of these species once existed in these areas.
More recently, however, it has been suggested as a way to protect animals from climate change.
"But now, as the reality of global warming sinks in, and species are already becoming endangered and even going extinct because of climate change, I'm seeing a new willingness in the conservation community to at least talk about the possibility of helping out species by moving them around,"
There are plenty of risks in moving plants and animals to new locations. They may not survive, or they may become invasive, growing wildly without predators and crowding out natives of their new location.
When deciding which species to save and which to watch die, Root said one key is uniqueness. That's why she said she'd save the odd-looking Tuatara of New Zealand, a lizard-like creature with almost no living relatives, over the common sparrow.
The risk of extinction has to be balanced by the potential hazard to the community where a species is relocated as well as the time and cost of making the move, Parmesan says.
"Ultimately, the decision about whether to actively assist the movement of a species into new territories will rest on ethical and aesthetic grounds as much as on hard science," she said in a statement.
"Passively assisting coral reef migration may be acceptable, but transplanting polar bears to Antarctica, where they would likely drive native penguins to extinction, would not be acceptable," she said.
"Conservation has never been an exact science, but preserving biodiversity in the face of climate change is likely to require a fundamental rethinking of what it means to preserve biodiversity," Parmesan said.
So what say you, NSG? Is it okay to save a species by moving it to a similar habitat? Or would we just be asking for more problems?
It seems to me that, in our attempts to solve problems by moving species around, we have continuously caused a new set of problems. I don't see it as a particularly wise idea.
Now, what about doing it for conservation? I have heard it proposed for a large number of African animals, moving them to the American southwest to something of a national park/animal refuge. The argument is that the two areas are similar, and relatives of many of these species once existed in these areas.
More recently, however, it has been suggested as a way to protect animals from climate change.
"But now, as the reality of global warming sinks in, and species are already becoming endangered and even going extinct because of climate change, I'm seeing a new willingness in the conservation community to at least talk about the possibility of helping out species by moving them around,"
There are plenty of risks in moving plants and animals to new locations. They may not survive, or they may become invasive, growing wildly without predators and crowding out natives of their new location.
When deciding which species to save and which to watch die, Root said one key is uniqueness. That's why she said she'd save the odd-looking Tuatara of New Zealand, a lizard-like creature with almost no living relatives, over the common sparrow.
The risk of extinction has to be balanced by the potential hazard to the community where a species is relocated as well as the time and cost of making the move, Parmesan says.
"Ultimately, the decision about whether to actively assist the movement of a species into new territories will rest on ethical and aesthetic grounds as much as on hard science," she said in a statement.
"Passively assisting coral reef migration may be acceptable, but transplanting polar bears to Antarctica, where they would likely drive native penguins to extinction, would not be acceptable," she said.
"Conservation has never been an exact science, but preserving biodiversity in the face of climate change is likely to require a fundamental rethinking of what it means to preserve biodiversity," Parmesan said.
So what say you, NSG? Is it okay to save a species by moving it to a similar habitat? Or would we just be asking for more problems?
It seems to me that, in our attempts to solve problems by moving species around, we have continuously caused a new set of problems. I don't see it as a particularly wise idea.