So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
Ideally, we would try to save every species, but our resources for conservation work are scarce, and must be allocated to where they'll have the most benefit. The term "conservation triage" refers simply to the efficient allocation of conservation resources, and the abandonment of conservation efforts is a product of those resources being limited, which is dictated in large part by government policy. So, while I agree with the principle of conservation triage, the bottom line is that there are not enough resources available to manage threatened species, and not enough being done to limit factors driving extinction such as climate change, habitat loss, and invasive species, in the first place. One of the problems I have with triage is that it basically gives governments a license to allocate less funding, because the situation suddenly appears less urgent once we ignore those species that are already critically close to extinction.
Triage? Most endangered species are only in that predicament because of the actions of humans. l find the idea of us selecting some species while allowing others to become extinct more than a sad excuse, it is disgrace, an indictment on humans and just how badly we have mismanaged the planet and the animals that are supposedly in our care. lf we did less about killing them off in large numbers they would probably all be able to survive, as nature would once again find a balance.
Triage? Most endangered species are only in that predicament because of the actions of humans. l find the idea of us selecting some species while allowing others to become extinct more than a sad excuse, it is disgrace, an indictment on humans and just how badly we have mismanaged the planet and the animals that are supposedly in our care. lf we did less about killing them off in large numbers they would probably all be able to survive, as nature would once again find a balance.
Exactly, but that's the problem. It's gotten to the point where we have to start having these conversations, despite how ugly the concept is.
I agree with what Kozza's saying though - concept of triage is basically happening now anyway, but to push policy around it gives license to cut spending even more (or redirect it completely if people deem a whole bunch of species not worth saying).
This is where the government has to actually start listening to science for a change and develop policy around empirical, scientific evidence. But unfortunately we're not seeing that at the moment.
Triage? Most endangered species are only in that predicament because of the actions of humans. l find the idea of us selecting some species while allowing others to become extinct more than a sad excuse, it is disgrace, an indictment on humans and just how badly we have mismanaged the planet and the animals that are supposedly in our care. lf we did less about killing them off in large numbers they would probably all be able to survive, as nature would once again find a balance.
How do you figure that? I can't really think of another apex predetor that goes out of it's way to save struggling species.
Not that I think we shouldn't, just that that reasoning is rather odd.
Triage? Most endangered species are only in that predicament because of the actions of humans. l find the idea of us selecting some species while allowing others to become extinct more than a sad excuse, it is disgrace, an indictment on humans and just how badly we have mismanaged the planet and the animals that are supposedly in our care. lf we did less about killing them off in large numbers they would probably all be able to survive, as nature would once again find a balance.
How do you figure that? I can't really think of another apex predetor that goes out of it's way to save struggling species.
Not that I think we shouldn't, just that that reasoning is rather odd.
But no other Apex predator has the means to save them.
So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
I am not an ecologist type, but these days aren't efforts more about maintaining and enhancing habitat rather than saving individual species?
So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
I am not an ecologist type, but these days aren't efforts more about maintaining and enhancing habitat rather than saving individual species?
Bit from column a, bit from column b.
Generally the two are pretty syonymous - most often, habitat destruction is one of the major causes of pressure on any given individual endangered species. And if by 'enhancing habitat' you mean 'shooting the foxes and cats' then you've covered most of the rest.
So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
I am not an ecologist type, but these days aren't efforts more about maintaining and enhancing habitat rather than saving individual species?
Bit from column a, bit from column b.
Generally the two are pretty syonymous - most often, habitat destruction is one of the major causes of pressure on any given individual endangered species. And if by 'enhancing habitat' you mean 'shooting the foxes and cats' then you've covered most of the rest.
That's only part of what I thought enhancing habitat was. I thought it would also include maintaining water quality, controlling weeds, vegetation diversity, 'hollow logs', soil biology etc.
If resources are scarce, I would probably prefer them spent on these things rather than understanding the biology of 'charismatic' plants or animals and efforts to save them. The problem is that the 'charismatic' species can be used to obtain non public funds. So maybe a mixture?
I'd like to see some kind of genetic survey happening similar to what happens with the Kew Millennium Seedbank for plants.
I also wonder if it's worthwhile persisting anyway with most species just to try and learn. Maybe we'll lose one species from a population of 50, but still learn a lesson that will help save a similar species from a population of 100.
So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
I am not an ecologist type, but these days aren't efforts more about maintaining and enhancing habitat rather than saving individual species?
Depends on the organisation / department doing the work.
Generally you'll find that government departments are focused on habitat restoration with a focus on helping a bunch of species, while you get the smaller groups focusing on their favourite species (i.e. Leadbeaters Possum or Orange Bellied Parrot).
Problem is, we've been following that regime for a few decades now and it's most certainly working. Most ecologists agree that with a bit more support and funding we'd be able to achieve a lot more but the government are unwilling and for the general public conservation of native species isn't a priority.
It's all about apathy. Thing I can't get my head around is trying to work out whether people really care that little about environmental issues such as this or it's just out of not knowing.
What would make you guys want to get up and start doing things for some of our animals? Or does losing species like the Tassie Devil etc. not really fuss you?
Just an example; it's estimated that reallocating 3% of Australia's defence budget to environmental conservation would be enough money to save nearly all of our critically endangered species.
So there's talk among some fairly prominent ecologists at the moment that Australia should be looking at triaging endangered species (i.e. picking and choosing which ones to try and save from extinction, while letting ones that are nearly gone just die).
It's obviously a fairly controversial topic as it may mean letting a species with not many individuals left that doesn't perform an essential ecological function (i.e. Northern Hairy Nose Wombat - only a couple of hundred left) in favour of saving an insect that's essential in pollinating crops or other plants.
Given i'm in this sort of field, i'm interested in hearing what other, non ecologist types think.
Would you be okay with losing a charismatic species (i.e. the Bilby) if it meant saving another, more ecologically important species that you may never see?
Is triage a good idea? Or should we still try and save all species?
I am not an ecologist type, but these days aren't efforts more about maintaining and enhancing habitat rather than saving individual species?
Depends on the organisation / department doing the work.
Generally you'll find that government departments are focused on habitat restoration with a focus on helping a bunch of species, while you get the smaller groups focusing on their favourite species (i.e. Leadbeaters Possum or Orange Bellied Parrot).
Problem is, we've been following that regime for a few decades now and it's most certainly working. Most ecologists agree that with a bit more support and funding we'd be able to achieve a lot more but the government are unwilling and for the general public conservation of native species isn't a priority.
It's all about apathy. Thing I can't get my head around is trying to work out whether people really care that little about environmental issues such as this or it's just out of not knowing.
What would make you guys want to get up and start doing things for some of our animals? Or does losing species like the Tassie Devil etc. not really fuss you?
I reckon that losing a species like the tassie devil can be and is a powerful motivating factor to make 'us' get up and do something. My proviso would be that the loss needs to be understood to be a consequence of habitat destruction and/or degradation.
The thing is, we won't 'lose' the Tassie Devil. It just won't happen. No matter how bad the facial tumour disease gets, no matter if there's not a devil alive in tassie outside of zoos and isolated island populations - the devil will not be allowed to go extinct, simply because is IS too iconic. There'll be captive breeding programs and zoo animals and cloning efforts and the species will hang on in double or triple-figure numbers, but in such small populations it'll be completely unable to perform its ecological role. And probably as a result, foxes will get a foothold in Tassie and cat populations will explode, and will exterminate a dozen different species of small brown boring bandicoots and possums and gliders and antechinuses and quolls and ground birds so forth, and nobody will give a damn - because there's still two dozen sad domesticated devils who've never seen the bush, sitting in a pen in San Diego Zoo.
vooligan is probably right about the relatively small cost of saving endangered species. But what does 'saving' mean? Unless it means saving them in viable numbers so they can act as a meaningful part of a fully functioning ecosystem, and in sufficient numbers and distribution range so that they can survive natural disasters such as fire or disease outbreak, then the whole exercise is a bit pointless. And that's where conservation starts to run into opposition with some serious money. Finding some extra cash in the federal budget is one thing, but putting meaningful and PERMANENT limitations on landclearing, development, pollution and mining is quite another.
I agree with all you say HM. The issues are more complex than just ‘saving’ a species. But they are not so complex that they can’t be understood by the general public. A big part of the answer, I spose, is education and more resources, IMO these are linked.
I agree with all you say HM. The issues are more complex than just 'saving' a species. But they are not so complex that they can't be understood by the general public. A big part of the answer, I spose, is education and more resources, IMO these are linked.
Good luck with getting the resources. We live in a society that is willing to starve our pensioners, pillory people in distress, etc. Can't see a massive investment ever being made to save a "non glamorous" species.
I agree with all you say HM. The issues are more complex than just 'saving' a species. But they are not so complex that they can't be understood by the general public. A big part of the answer, I spose, is education and more resources, IMO these are linked.
Good luck with getting the resources. We live in a society that is willing to starve our pensioners, pillory people in distress, etc. Can't see a massive investment ever being made to save a "non glamorous" species.
Unless they were trying to 'invade' the country by boat... then we'll find some money.
I think what you are saying is that hard decisions need to be made, because (for example) all the money going towards the Devil (possibly doomed to exist in any sort of meaningful way anyway, as HM said), could be used much more effectively to preserve more ecologically important animals. And I am all for that. As much as I love Taz.
I think what you are saying is that hard decisions need to be made, because (for example) all the money going towards the Devil (possibly doomed to exist in any sort of meaningful way anyway, as HM said), could be used much more effectively to preserve more ecologically important animals. And I am all for that. As much as I love Taz.
That's the thing. Most scientists are giving the Tassie Devils ~20 years left in the wild because the facial tumour is that bad.
Adding to that, Devils are the most ecologically important species in Tasmania. Where they still occur, they do a great job of scaring foxes and cats away because of how aggressive they are. That, combined with the fact that they feed on carrion and the odd wallaby is a huge benefit for the smaller native mammals in the region (i.e. bandicoots + pademelons) because they aren't getting the same predation pressure as they would when foxes and cats are around in normal numbers.
HM's right in that we wont ever loose Devils in the literal sense. There's insurance populations in a bunch of different zoos are reserves, but what's the point of having them in Zoos if they're not in the wild. Thats where the whole zombie species argument comes in.