|
|||||||||
| You are here: Home > Publications > Newsletter > Archives > 1999-5-May > | ||||||||||||||||||
LETTER TO THE EDITOR  
Animal reintroduction experiments: the case of jinxed lynx In Colorado, Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) recently have been reintroduced. Critics believe that this effort is hurried and ill-planned. There may not be enough food for translocated lynx, and it has been estimated that at least half of them will die. Should such experiments be conducted given these poor odds of success? Colorado's controversial project brings to light many concerns about reintroduction efforts. I argue that it is unethical to perform reintroduction experiments when it's believed that many animals will die. It's also unethical to undertake reintroduction programs simply to prevent species from being listed under the Endangered Species Act. One way to forestall federal intervention is to attempt to reintroduce animals to keep their numbers up. An article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (12 September 1998, page 5), for example, noted that "Idaho officials acknowledge granting permission to relocate lynx is partly an effort to block possible Endangered Species Act restrictions in the state." Rushing into reintroduction efforts because of political and other pressures is ill-advised. Moving slowly and carefully is essential. For example, it's vital to know whether individuals are flexible enough to adapt to ecosystems that differ in climate, vegetation, and food resources. It's also critical that suitable habitat be protected indefinitely. A juvenile male lynx was found dead of starvation in February 1999. As of 23 March, an additional two lynx had starved. Let's hope the lynx aren't jinxed from the start. Reintroduction programs also raise other questions. For example, it's not clear that species preservation and conservation always have to be valued, why "more is better," why biodiversity should be conserved, or if we can improve nature. Given that even many experts are extremely skeptical that the goals of reintroduction efforts can be attained, it's important to reassess what we are doing and why. There are numerous factors beyond the control of scientists and others who so dearly want these efforts to succeed. The importance of blending rigorous science and public support in reintroduction programs can't be emphasized too strongly. I deeply appreciate the good intentions and efforts of those involved in reintroduction programs, but sometimes good intentions aren't enough. The issues at hand aren't as clear as many people want them to be. There aren't any simple, quick methods for tinkering with nature. Successful proactive planning and making compassionate choices require patience and restraint. When trying to conserve species or restore ecosystems we must be concerned with all animals, not only human-centered goals. Many lives are at stake. Should individuals be moved and perhaps suffer and die because of what we want? Should individuals be traded for the good of their species? Should individuals who have lived without certain predators or competitors be confronted with them? Should systems that have developed and sustained themselves in the absence of predators be altered? It may not always be possible to regain what has been lost or to re-create what once existed. Marc Bekoff
More information is available at http://InsideDenver.com/news/0329lynx6.cfm & http://cfapps.insidedenver.com/opinion/8.cfm.
|
|
||
|
|
||
Copyright © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB)
Direct questions, comments, and technical problems to the webmaster SCB is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization |