Should We Leave Certain Species Behind?

Theologia Papadelias

Should we let certain endangered species die out? Scientists have long stated that biodiversity is significant in maintaining a healthy ecosystem, but some are taking a seemingly unintuitive view that has been termed conservation triage. Conservation triage focuses resources on animals that can realistically be saved, and giving up on the rest. Those that fall into the too-expensive-to-save category might include the panda and the tiger.

Unfortunately, economic factors must be taken into consideration and some species require more money to save than others. For example, the California condor population saw an increase to 381, with 192 living in the wild, since 1987. An ongoing monitoring and maintenance program that costs more than $4 million a year helps keep them going. But is this program a success or merely a waste of finite resources?

If the conservation triage approach were to be accepted as the majority view, however, what would happen to those species that were deemed to be too expensive and left behind?  And more importantly, what if a particular endangered or threatened species was a keystone species? Keystone species play an essential role in the structure, functioning or productivity of an ecosystem and keeps the ecosystem from falling apart. Keystone species don’t earn their distinction because of abundance, but because of influence and they can be carnivores, herbivores, plant or animal, marine or terrestrial.

Therefore, if the wrong species is chosen to be saved, and another, more costly species is ignored, there could be catastrophic effects on entire ecosystems.  It seems, if cost must be given any weight at all, it would be the most cost-effective to discover and evaluate the underlying reasons of why certain species become threatened or endangered. Whether these reasons stem from habitat destruction or lack of regulation on the uses of animals, this approach would allow for a natural re-balancing to occur and mitigate the ongoing costs that most species require in order to keep population numbers up.

4 Responses

  1. The number one cause for any nonhuman animal extinction is humans.

  2. It can get complicated, because extinction is also a natural process, and was happening long before modern humans showed up.

  3. Hal is correct, and I’d add that we’ve *already* left certain species behind, because we’ve *already* caused numerous extinctions.

    All the same though, it’s worth noting that the US’s Endangered Species Act was originally intended to protect species *regardless* of economics. This conservation triage business is just another way of saying that human economic interest trumps animals’ lives: an old old old argument. It is also vulnerable to the ole “slippery slope” problem — if the tiger or panda is too expensive this year to save, there will be other animals next year that’s too expensive to save, and some the year after that, etc. etc.

    I’m not saying the economics of this is in any way simple, it is problematic. But the whole triage thing reminds me of the arguments over global warming: Too expensive last year to do anything about it, too expensive this year, and too expensive next year. Economic considerations have a way of watering down protections in every sphere, and it really is time to rethink our commitment to endless growth at the expense of everything else.

  4. […] Our thanks to Animal Blawg, where this post originally appeared on December 7, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: