Last week a scientist on the east coast sequenced mammoth DNA from a mammoth hair--one step forward for science. The next day the front page in our paper proclaimed "Mammoths could be cloned, and soon"--a step backward for science and the whole human race. With any luck this talk will die out just like the talk about cloning dinosaurs did after the movie version of Jurassic Park came out. Sure, it makes a great fantasy and some terrific science fiction, but in reality it poses some pretty serious problems. My very favorite line from Jurassic Park is, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." It's something we've been struggling with since the advent of human cloning, but it seems to fade in importance when we're talking about anything else. Consider the following:
1) The habitat has changed pretty drastically since mammoths and mastodons roamed the earth. They went extinct for a reason, and when anything goes extinct it usually means there isn't enough habitat to support the critter. If we figure in that we've chopped up the available habitat with roads and towns, how can we expect to support a mammoth population with less habitat than it had when it went extinct?
2) Mammoths are pretty big, we don't necessarily know what they eat, and a lot of their original food has probably gone extinct. Assuming we could keep them in captivity and manufacture the food they need, we'd be looking at a pretty expensive venture.
3) Mammoths are covered with fur. The climate is getting hotter. Is it worth bringing back a large animal just to have it die because it cannot stand the climate?
4) Ask anybody in India or Africa, and that person will probably tell you that the farming villages have been having a lot of trouble with elephants damaging their crops. A free-ranging mammoth population could potentially wreak at least as much if not more havoc on nearby farms.
5) With all the difficulty we're having with the wildlife we have now, would it really be beneficial to add another, especially considering that this other species under consideration could do severe damage to the habitat these other species need?
The idea of "reintroducing" supposedly "native" animals is not new. A couple of years ago Nature published an article suggesting that megafauna (elephants, giraffes, etc.) could be "reintroduced" to North America because the roamed the continent back when it was part of Pangaea. None of the practicing scientists I knew thought that was feasible, and I was surprised that a PhD would suggest such a thing and actually get it published in North America's premiere scientific journal. Yes, things were like that then, but they aren't now. So goes coevolution.
Scientists have been accused of playing God. What about everybody else, the people whose opinions are driving scientists to even contemplate these crazy things? Yes, I think that this pipe dream should, and will, be nothing more than an interesting fantasy.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It don't mean a thing without the habitat
Hard to believe, but the Wyoming legislature has passed legislation (*gasp!*) allowing farmers to raise sage grouse. This really bothered me when I first heard about it, for three reasons: 1) the grouse was passed over for ESA listing a couple of years ago, 2) just because it's there doesn't make it wild, and 3) this does nothing to save habitat.
Seriously, why should there be a need to farm-raise sage grouse if they aren't endangered? Of course, those of us in the biology field know that they're threatened at the very least, but the Bush Administration doesn't agree. I guess we shouldn't be surprised since this administration prefers to bury its head in the sand and pretend there isn't anything bad happening. If the agencies in this state see something fundamentally wrong, though, maybe they should do something about it, something that doesn't include farm raising the birds.
My opposition to the idea of pen-raising "wild" birds comes from my experience with pen-raising "wild" fish. Studies show behavioral differences between hatchery-raised and pen-raised fish. Why should it be any different with birds? Obviously, there are pen-raised birds that are released to the wild, but those birds are raised by people who are experts on the animal and in hand-raising animals to be released. Forgive me if I doubt that farmers possess that specialized knowledge or will have much interest in obtaining it. (Yes, I realize there are always exceptions to the rule.) A caveat in the new law is that pen-reared birds are not intended to be released into the wild. Well then, what's the point? Why go to all the trouble to raise them if they can't be released? Just to have them to eat, I guess. Why not raise chickens? It just goes to show how far wildlife has fallen in our list of values (not to mention the people who would like to hunt them.
Keeping the birds around makes little sense unless they can be released into the wild, and we can't do that without the right habitat. There is no easy way around this. The birds don't like to nest within three miles of a disturbance, and that includes oil and gas drilling. At some point the values will have to be dealt with; gas drilling or wildlife? This is yet another great example of a legislative body trying to avoid dealing with a thorny problem. I would argue it is also yet another example of the golden rule; whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Seriously, why should there be a need to farm-raise sage grouse if they aren't endangered? Of course, those of us in the biology field know that they're threatened at the very least, but the Bush Administration doesn't agree. I guess we shouldn't be surprised since this administration prefers to bury its head in the sand and pretend there isn't anything bad happening. If the agencies in this state see something fundamentally wrong, though, maybe they should do something about it, something that doesn't include farm raising the birds.
My opposition to the idea of pen-raising "wild" birds comes from my experience with pen-raising "wild" fish. Studies show behavioral differences between hatchery-raised and pen-raised fish. Why should it be any different with birds? Obviously, there are pen-raised birds that are released to the wild, but those birds are raised by people who are experts on the animal and in hand-raising animals to be released. Forgive me if I doubt that farmers possess that specialized knowledge or will have much interest in obtaining it. (Yes, I realize there are always exceptions to the rule.) A caveat in the new law is that pen-reared birds are not intended to be released into the wild. Well then, what's the point? Why go to all the trouble to raise them if they can't be released? Just to have them to eat, I guess. Why not raise chickens? It just goes to show how far wildlife has fallen in our list of values (not to mention the people who would like to hunt them.
Keeping the birds around makes little sense unless they can be released into the wild, and we can't do that without the right habitat. There is no easy way around this. The birds don't like to nest within three miles of a disturbance, and that includes oil and gas drilling. At some point the values will have to be dealt with; gas drilling or wildlife? This is yet another great example of a legislative body trying to avoid dealing with a thorny problem. I would argue it is also yet another example of the golden rule; whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Because we don't want to live that way, that's why!
A few weeks ago my boss mentioned that he had been to a meeting where a woman who worked for a wind energy company was singing the praises of how great wind energy would be for the state. When objections were raised, the BLM had to run interference to keep a riot from breaking out. Later, he heard the woman say, "I don't know what they're so worried about. It's just a few bats and some birds." Disregarding the ecological ignorance of that statement for a moment, it seems to me important to know the attitudes of the population you're dealing with before making that kind of a statement. Yes, Wyoming is a very windy state, and yes, it is a state full of people looking to make money off of energy, but it is also a state of hunters and fishermen who value the stuff that might get killed off. Those "few birds" are a very big deal to the people who hunt them.
The reason that oil and gas (and wind) development is such a big issue around here is that Wyoming has a lot of open space left, and open space is getting pretty scarce. Many people who live here value that open space, and as the dollar signs that obscured their vision when the oil companies first came knocking are starting to disappear as they realize exactly what they will be giving up--beautiful views, clean air, good hunting and fishing opportunities. (I know a few people who have been chased out of "development areas" while hunting.)
When I drove into Bethesda, Maryland on my way to Washington, my first thought was, "My God, you can't see the city for the buildings!" Don't misunderstand me--Washington, DC is an awesome place. Where else can you get all that history all in one place? I know a lot of people who love it. I think I could be persuaded to live the rest of my life there if I could find a single bedroom apartment for less than a paycheck and a half every month and I didn't end up spending four hours a day on public transportation or stuck in traffic. But for those of us who weren't raised in the area, it can get really claustrophobic after a while. The point is that if we wanted to live in big cities and developed areas, we would. That should count for something.
The reason that oil and gas (and wind) development is such a big issue around here is that Wyoming has a lot of open space left, and open space is getting pretty scarce. Many people who live here value that open space, and as the dollar signs that obscured their vision when the oil companies first came knocking are starting to disappear as they realize exactly what they will be giving up--beautiful views, clean air, good hunting and fishing opportunities. (I know a few people who have been chased out of "development areas" while hunting.)
When I drove into Bethesda, Maryland on my way to Washington, my first thought was, "My God, you can't see the city for the buildings!" Don't misunderstand me--Washington, DC is an awesome place. Where else can you get all that history all in one place? I know a lot of people who love it. I think I could be persuaded to live the rest of my life there if I could find a single bedroom apartment for less than a paycheck and a half every month and I didn't end up spending four hours a day on public transportation or stuck in traffic. But for those of us who weren't raised in the area, it can get really claustrophobic after a while. The point is that if we wanted to live in big cities and developed areas, we would. That should count for something.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Individuals vs. Populations
I've been thinking a lot about individuals and populations lately. This has a lot to do with the fact that I've been reading a handbook (or a great big 3-inch ring binder-full of information) on wildlife rehabilitation and some to do with the fact that I've been talking to the game wardens.
A few years ago I was volunteering at the Game and Fish Department, stuffing moose licenses into envelopes. I had told the conservation officer that I'd really like to go along if he had any wildlife cases, and as it happened, a couple of hours later he did. I confess I was pretty disappointed. We'd been called out because a cat had gotten hold of a songbird in some body's front yard, and he seemes to be holding out hope that the bird could be saved. We took it to the local vet and had it euthanized, just because it was good public relations. When I told the warden the story, he countered that that was a lot of expense and wasted time, and that he would never tell anyone that there was anything he could do for the animal. Apparently he has been called some nasty names because he couldn't (or in the view of that particular person, wouldn't) save the animal.
There are people who save animals and return them to the wild. They're called wildlife rehabilitators. Yet even these people must euthanize animals when it is determined that they can never be functional in the wild again. It's just realism, plain and simple. I have no doubt that veterinarians would like to be able to save all their patients, and I've even seen some vets take some pretty extreme measures (like giving CPR to a dog). However, when that patient has a leg that's been partially detached by fishing line or two broken wings or has no suitable habitat in the area, it's crueler to release it as it will most likely die anyway, and in greater discomfort than it would be at a rehab center.
Nearly every government wildlife agency deals in populations, not individuals. As long as the population is healthy, the individuals comprising it will be, too. The cycle of life and death in healthy populations hinges on natural selection, something that humans have tried to combat with medications and hospitals and have been fairly successful with. There are six billion of us on the planet now, with more to come. This is going to sound extremely cruel, but I sometimes wonder what things would be like if we managed our population like we manage other populations. There would certainly be fewer of us if we just let nature take its course, and perhaps then there would be more room for the wildlife.
It may be an interesting pipe dream, but it's never going to happen. However, people have to becomne accustomed to the fact that fawns and adult deer are going to get hit crossing the road, legs and wings will be broken, things will feed on other things. Every so often someone will be killed after hitting a deer or an elk. Them's the facts. Sometimes we can rehabilitate the animal (or person) and sometimes we can't. That's life. But if the population survives there will be other deer and other people. Awful as it may seem, it's the reality we deal with on a daily basis. If we can keep the population alive, we've done our job.
A few years ago I was volunteering at the Game and Fish Department, stuffing moose licenses into envelopes. I had told the conservation officer that I'd really like to go along if he had any wildlife cases, and as it happened, a couple of hours later he did. I confess I was pretty disappointed. We'd been called out because a cat had gotten hold of a songbird in some body's front yard, and he seemes to be holding out hope that the bird could be saved. We took it to the local vet and had it euthanized, just because it was good public relations. When I told the warden the story, he countered that that was a lot of expense and wasted time, and that he would never tell anyone that there was anything he could do for the animal. Apparently he has been called some nasty names because he couldn't (or in the view of that particular person, wouldn't) save the animal.
There are people who save animals and return them to the wild. They're called wildlife rehabilitators. Yet even these people must euthanize animals when it is determined that they can never be functional in the wild again. It's just realism, plain and simple. I have no doubt that veterinarians would like to be able to save all their patients, and I've even seen some vets take some pretty extreme measures (like giving CPR to a dog). However, when that patient has a leg that's been partially detached by fishing line or two broken wings or has no suitable habitat in the area, it's crueler to release it as it will most likely die anyway, and in greater discomfort than it would be at a rehab center.
Nearly every government wildlife agency deals in populations, not individuals. As long as the population is healthy, the individuals comprising it will be, too. The cycle of life and death in healthy populations hinges on natural selection, something that humans have tried to combat with medications and hospitals and have been fairly successful with. There are six billion of us on the planet now, with more to come. This is going to sound extremely cruel, but I sometimes wonder what things would be like if we managed our population like we manage other populations. There would certainly be fewer of us if we just let nature take its course, and perhaps then there would be more room for the wildlife.
It may be an interesting pipe dream, but it's never going to happen. However, people have to becomne accustomed to the fact that fawns and adult deer are going to get hit crossing the road, legs and wings will be broken, things will feed on other things. Every so often someone will be killed after hitting a deer or an elk. Them's the facts. Sometimes we can rehabilitate the animal (or person) and sometimes we can't. That's life. But if the population survives there will be other deer and other people. Awful as it may seem, it's the reality we deal with on a daily basis. If we can keep the population alive, we've done our job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)