How do you qualify a species as "native"? This question has recently come to the forefront of the environmental conservation movement. Many people question whether or not we should reintroduce species that were recently forced out of their "natural" habitat by human actions or invasive species. While these plants and animals are traditionally seen as "native" species, that, of course, is a relative term. Ecosystems are constantly in flux, and while species that we recognize as "native" because they are currently in a specific region are not necessarily indigenous. Like us, species migrate and evolve to fit the different conditions in which they live. So, when a species that was once native to an ecosystem is removed, and that ecological community adapts to survive without its missing component, is it our job to jam nature back in its place? Is it our right to remove a "weed" that successfully out-competed what was already there, and deny it its evolutionary right to live, breed, repeat?
In the mid 1900's, not a single wolf existed within and around Yellowstone National Park, though just a century before, the park was teeming with the species. Hunting and "predator control" removed what humans believed to be threats to their safety (NPS). However, decades later people believed wolves had a right to yet again live in the park, and that it was their job as a keystone species to keep the ecosystem in balance. After approximately 45 years without this top predator in the region, the ecosystem had begun to shift to accommodate for its loss. Of the natural responses, tree species were undergoing succession due to increased grazing by herbivores that were normally preyed upon by wolves. Changes such as these scared environmentalists. It was mans' fault for killing the wolves in the first place! We have to put it back the way we found it and clear our ecological conscious! Thus, in 1994, wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. Though the National Park Service claims this program is leading to an increase in biodiversity within the park, there is no way to predict the reintroduction of wolves would not have thrown the entire tropic structure it once stood at the epicenter of off.
I think first and foremost that the most vital strategy we have to learn and incorporate into environmental conservation is a "hands off" policy. If the environment is there, and if humans are unnecessarily exploiting it, STOP! It is not our place to take resources from other living creatures. Similarly, what gives us the right to shape the environment in the vision of what we think it should, or used to, be. If we remove species a "native" species from an area, sometimes we have to step back and let nature run its course and deal with the consequences and guilt later. That being said, there is a difference between regional extirpation and mass global extinction. While global extinction can be prevented but not reversed, regional extirpation can be both prevented and reversed. Fellow humans, stay on the safe side of biodiversity, and prevent both global and regional extinctions through sustainable actions.
Sources:
United States. National Park Service. "Wolf Restoration Continued." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 20 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolfrest.htm>.
This article was be peer reviewed by Ben Cooper on April 28th.
I like this post and I think you make some really interesting points. I think the moral responsibility of humans to fix what they have ruined is a compelling topic and I also agree that if humans thought about their destructive actions beforehand, we wouldn't have to worry about restoring what we have lost. Who are we to disturb environmental communities and natural processes anyway?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think that correcting our mistakes is always the best way to approach changes occurring in ecosystems. In some cases, by reversing the effects of human actions we are actually doing animals more harm. I was particularly alarmed at the efforts to reintroduce Lynx to the Adirondacks, all of which died or went "missing" upon reintroduction. Lynx, and other free roaming animals do not live well in fragmented environments and by reintroducing them to such environments, I do not believe we really doing them any good. Instead, our focus should first be on restoring the habitat that fosters and facilitates life for animals like lynx before actually introducing them back into areas where the have been extirpated. Overall, I agree, we should try to restore environments and prevent further ecological damage; but in cases where habitats and the nature of the ecosystem have been changed dramatically, I think we need to be more methodical in approaches to restoring wildlife.