http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130528-santa-cruz-island-foxes-endangered-species-california-nature-conservancy/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_tw20130609news-foxrev2&utm_campaign=Content
The article outlines how the foxes (which reside on the Channel Islands off the coast of California) were on the brink of extinction due to a long series of events which link back, once again, to humans.
In recent years there has been an increase of Golden Eagles breeding on the Channel Islands. This increase is thought to be linked to the decrease of Bald Eagles, which are intensely territorial and would have previously chased off Golden Eagles from the area. However the Bald Eagles main food supply of fish had, decades earlier, been contaminated by the insecticide DTT which had been pumped into the ocean by chemical companies during the 1940s - 70s, thus the Bald Eagles no longer reside in the area, allowing Golden Eagles to become local residents. Alongside this there was a huge increase in non-native feral pigs, descended from domestic pigs brought to the islands by farmers; this provided a huge food source for Golden Eagles who also began snacking on the endemic California Dwarf Fox... Still with me?
In order to save the California Dwarf Fox, who's numbers were down to just above 100 individuals, conservationists took action and over a course of events removed the Golden Eagles and feral pigs, and re-introduced Bald Eagles. It proved a huge success and now the species number is up to 2,500 individuals residing on the islands. As a biologist of the National Park Services, Timothy Canoon stated, "In the park services, we're mandated to save everything entrusted to our stewardship. If we let the island foxes go extinct, we might as well not be here managing anything."
However, there is now the issue in mind that since the foxes numbers decreased so dramatically there is little genetic diversity which could impact on the species abilities to deal with disease or environmental change. The controversial solution to this would be to interbreed the dwarf foxes with another subspecies island fox to bolster the genetic health of the animals.
My initial thoughts on the article were fantastic! It's great to see that when we put our minds to it we can actual do something to save a species. But as the day moved on I thought more about it, and began to consider what the costs of some conservation could mean... Do we, in our efforts to save a species at whatever cost, actually hinder the natural processes of life? Are we in fact stopping the process that has created the world as we know it today, evolution? The thoughts slipped to the back of my mind, until that evening my sister linked me to the very same article and began to ask very similar questions. To what extent should we be conserving species, where is it that we should draw the line?
Now don't get me wrong, there is not a single doubt in my mind that where humans have played a part in the demise of a species - be it destroying it's natural habitat, hunting it, poaching it - we must be doing everything we can to restore what we have damaged. In such cases as Rhinos, Elephants, Siberian Tigers, Orang-utans and so many other species I implore the world to stop it's destruction and fix what it has done. Even in the case of the Californian Dwarf Fox, which set my mind on this issue, I think we have done right to save it.
But aren't there species out there that are supposed to die out? It has been such a natural course of events throughout the history of the Earth, but as humans have we messed and muddled things up so much as to prolong, perhaps even prevent, natural evolution?
To try to organise my thoughts somewhat I read an online essay, Preserving genes, species, or ecosystems? Healing the fractured foundations of conservation policy by Brian Bowen. Here he discusses the different approaches to conservation and concludes that:
"...conservation
is not about protecting objects, it is about protecting a process:
life.”
I think this is a fundamental mindset that should be constantly considered by conservationists - Are we saving an animal just for the sake of preservation? We should be considering WHY this animal is moving towards extinction and not just the sad fact that it is going to be extinct.
What most concerns me in the case of the Californian Dwarf Fox is the consideration to interbreed it with another subspecies. This is, in my opinion, human interference gone too far. It is a practice that has already taken place with the Florida Panther, in which the species declined so far that conservationists brought in Texas Cougars to interbreed and thus create "Hybrid Panthers". This new species lives longer, and acts differently to the original species, and humans have created an animal that would not naturally occur in the area. This could severely upset the balance of natural life processes in that area.
My mind is still not set - I could not be the one to make a decision on whether a species should be preserved or not. But one thing I am clear on is that as conservationists we should not allow our minds to be marred by the devastating fact that species do die out as a process of natural selection and we must not allow ourselves to interfere to the point that we are preventing this from happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment