View
33
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
An ILP project (Information Literacy Project) I did at Rosa International Middle School on Wildlife Relocation
Citation preview
Wang 1
Gordon WangAC2Mrs. Halden/Mrs. Lind17 January 2011
Wildlife Relocation: A Risky Move
Many words have been used to describe wildlife relocation. These include, but are not
limited to: ineffective, inhumane, cruel, hasty, disease-spreading, biologically unsound,
ecologically destructive, havoc wreaking, out of control, and etc. In 1997, the Humane
Society of the United States called relocation "one of the least understood and most
problematic wildlife 'control' practices we know of. Not only might the trapping and
movement of the animal cause it harm or even bring it death, but the activity might
adversely affect other wild animals as well” (Wildlife Relocation: Not a Solution). Many
times, an attempt at wildlife relocation has brought with it negative side effects and
unforeseen consequences. For example, toads brought in from Hawaii with the intent of
eliminating a pest beetle became pests themselves (Wildlife Relocation). Camels
exported to the southwestern US -- expected to thrive in the arid desert environment, and
to provide use as packing animals -- died off without reproducing. Even some of the most
thoroughly thought out wildlife relocations have failed. Compared to all the unsuccessful
wildlife relocations, there have been relatively few success stories besides the
reintroduction of the gray wolf to Wyoming (Wolf-Reintroduction Program). Now there
has been a simply absurd proposal to transport African mammals to America (Wildlife
Relocation). How would letting lions and elephants to roam our backyards work at all?
Nature placed animals on certain continents, and in certain areas for a reason. Whenever
an animal is transported from its original habitat not by the cause of nature’s doing, it
Wang 2
disrupts the natural order, and balance of things. Relocating wildlife should not happen
regardless of circumstances. Relocated animals might carry infectious diseases or
bacteria to uninfected animals and humans, have to adapt to new environments, while
avoiding predators and death, or become invasive pests that compete with local animal
populations.
The earliest known attempts at wildlife relocation were mostly harmless. When
relocating wildlife became more common, environmental issues emerged. Two common
scenarios: either the newly-introduced wildlife were unsuited to the new environment and
failed to reproduce, or the introduced species multiplied rapidly, thrived in their new
environment and brewed trouble in the native ecosystem. The first notable attempt at
wildlife relocation occurred in North America in the 1800’s (Wildlife Relocation).
American settlers traveling westward sought to import camels for the use of hauling
possessions across the desert. The settlers were sure that the camels would thrive in the
west’s arid climate. They didn’t, and all the camels died off by the turn of the century. In
the mid-1800’s, after the establishment of a British colony in Australia, rabbits were
introduced. The rabbits -- unchecked by predators -- proliferated causing the destruction
of large areas of land, and making fields useless for farming. Some native species were
pushed to the point of extinction. In the 1930’s, Australia repeated the same mistake by
importing poisonous cane toads from Hawaii to fight the destruction of sugar cane crops
by the native cane beetle. Again, the population spiraled out of control, and later on the
toads were blamed for the sharp dip in native wildlife populations. Towards the end of
the 20th century, conservationists in the U.S. began several wildlife relocation efforts to
Wang 3
preserve and restore what was left of the ecosystems in the western and mid-western U.S
that had been damaged by human activity. The conservationists tried to reintroduce
formerly native animals back to their original habitats. Although protesting ranchers and
residents stopped several of these efforts, one proved successful: the reintroduction of the
endangered gray wolf in Wyoming (Wolf Reintroduction Program). In the 1990’s,
conservationists released some gray wolves near Yellowstone National Park despite
opposition. The wolves henceforth successfully reproduced in the wild, and the
population has risen. In 2005, a controversial wildlife relocation proposal by ecologists at
Cornell University in New York was published in the August issue of the journal Nature
(Donlan, Josh, et al.). The plan proposed large endangered African mammals to be
transported into the American Midwest to boost biodiversity levels. The mixed responses
generated from the scientific community and the public have sparked a major debate over
the advantages and drawbacks of wildlife relocation.
One major problem, relocation raises, involves the potential of spreading disease to
native animals and even humans. In one case, flea-infected rats unintentionally
translocated in the 1340’s from Asia via the boats of sailors to Europe caused the Black
Death, a form of bubonic plague (Perlin, David, and Ann Cohen). Many variants of the
plague struck until the 18th Century, causing millions of deaths and the elimination of
over half of Europe’s population. More recently, grey squirrels infected with squirrel pox
transported from North America to the UK have led to the endangerment and decline of
the red squirrel population (‘Friend’). Zebras affected with African horse sickness that
were shipped from Africa to Spain caused this disease to become rampant in Spanish
Wang 4
horses. As a result, Spanish horse breeders lost an estimated $20 million. Yet another
example is Whirling disease, which is a protozoa disease that occurs in trout. It has
become enzootic-or constantly present in the population, in the U.S, after being
introduced from Germany. All species of trout are affected by this disease. Rainbow trout
that have been transferred from the U.S. have also caused this disease to infect trout
elsewhere in the UK, for example. Relocating animals with good intentions may instead
help spread disease. Just as humans can spread disease among populations by traveling,
animals can do likewise in their relocated habitats.
Another problem with animal relocation is the need of the relocated animal to
familiarize itself with its new environment. This can be harrowing and very stressful.
According to FWC, “they may experience elevated heart rates and breathing rates, high
blood pressure, acute changes in blood chemistry and depressed appetites.” Besides
having to deal with stress, the relocated animal has a whole lot of other things to do. It
has to find new food sources to feed itself in an entirely new environment (Noonan).
They have to find new shelter in a new environment. This is especially crucial during the
cold winter months. In winter, relocated animals have little time to find shelter. Relocated
animals have to find shelter and food sources while avoiding predators. If the predator is
unfamiliar to them, it is even more difficult. Also, the relocated animals have to complete
these tasks before weather, food, and water conditions take their toll and cause death.
Relocation may inadvertently result in the death of the animal’s young from starvation,
because of the separation from its mother. The relocated animals may fail to adapt to their
Wang 5
new environment, or reproduce, and in the end die off. Wildlife relocation may spell
death instead of life for many animals.
Successful relocation raises another potential problem. These animals may thrive in
their new environment, and endanger the lives of native species by becoming invasive
pests that compete for food. Many animals introduced to new areas have thrived, while
greatly diminishing the populations of native animals. One example is the brown tree
snake with origins in the South Pacific and Australia. Since its introduction in the 1940’s
on the island of Guam, 10 of 13 native bird species, 6 of 12 native lizard species, and 2 or
3 bat species on the island are now extinct. (Thomas) The Pacific Islands had hundreds of
snail species that were endemic to those islands. “Endemic” means they are found
nowhere else in the world. When the giant African land snail was introduced to many of
the islands as a food source, the snails escaped and rapidly fed on the local snails.
Populations of the native snails plummeted, so a second foreign snail species - the rosy
wolf snail - was introduced to eliminate the giant African land snail. No one expected that
they would eat the local endemic species far more often than they would eat the African
snails. Seventy-one percent of Hawaii’s endemic snail species are extinct and, on Tahiti,
many species of the endemic snail Partula are extinct. The impact of invasive relocated
wildlife is much greater. Not only do they threaten many species with extinction, “they
interfere with the species that make up ecosystems and change the way they function.
They have negative impacts on the resources we rely on to live, such as food, clean
water, and shelter” (Dovey). They can impact on species humans rely on for money like
crops and farm animals. They “dilute the genetic composition of native species through
Wang 6
hybridization” (Swearingen). Invasive species is the greatest threat to biodiversity second
only to habitat destruction. “Introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity
than pollution, harvest and disease combined”. The IUCN states that “the impacts of alien
invasive species are immense, insidious, and usually irreversible.” Invasive species are a
direct result of wildlife relocation. Wildlife relocation may have been causing an
estimated $137 billion loss per year to just the US economy (Simberloff). Do you really
still support wildlife relocation?
Proponents of Wildlife Relocation argue that endangered animals should be relocated to
areas where they can be better protected as a way of preventing extinction (Wildlife
Relocation). Proponents say relocation could help boost biodiversity levels, and help
reverse a number of environmental problems including habitat loss, pollution, and
extinction. Relocating endangered wildlife, advocates claim, can create a healthier planet.
Some point to Cornell University’s plan to relocate African predators to North America
as a positive. However, these supporters fail to understand that relocation of “endangered
species is fraught with risk because humans cannot be sure of how animals will react
once they are released into a new ecosystem” (Wildlife Relocation). In fact, many past
attempts at translocating wildlife have resulted in harm to both animals and their
surroundings. You can never know if relocation will actually succeed, whether animals
will multiply, turn out to be invasive pests, fail to adapt and reproduce, die out, become
predators that drive the native animals to extinction, or destroy native plants and the
ecosystem. If they are invasive species, according to IUCN, they are the second greatest
threat to biodiversity, when they are supposed to maintain and boost levels of
Wang 7
biodiversity. If they fail to adapt, then they make already endangered animals even more
endangered, with the result that the biodiversity decreases. These are two extremes that
most introduced species will fall into. The middle ground is almost nonexistent. Neither
extreme maintains or increases biodiversity. By supporting wildlife relocation,
conservationists may achieve the exact opposite of what they want.
Wildlife should not be relocated regardless of the arguments by conservationists.
Wildlife relocation poses too many risks: the inadvertent spread of infectious diseases,
failed adaptations, reduction of native species and environments, to name a few. The idea
of wildlife relocation has major flaws that threaten the Earth’s already fragile ecosystem.
If we continue to use wildlife relocation to try to solve our problems, to try to save
endangered animals, to try to maintain biodiversity levels, we will travel further from,
instead of closer to, in achieving the preservation of our planet.
Wang 8
Works Cited
Donlan, Josh, et al. “Re-wildling North America.” Nature 18 Aug. 2005: 913-914. PDF
file.
Dovey, Liz. “Invasive alien species: the biggest threat to Pacific biodiversity.”
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Pacific Regional
Environment Programme, Dec. 2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://www.sprep.org/
topic/ Invasive_p.htm>.
Friend, Milton, et al. Disease Emergence and Resurgence: The Wildlife-Human
Connection. N.p.: US Department of the Interior/ USGS, 2006. USGS National
Wildlife Health Center. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://nwhc.er.usgs.gov/
publications/ disease_emergence/>.
“Invasive Species.” IUCN. International Union for Conservation of Nature, 11 Jan. 2010.
Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.iucn.org/ about/ union/ secretariat/ offices/
iucnmed/ iucn_med_programme/ species/ invasive_species/>.
Noonan, Bob. “Relocating Problem Wild Animals.” Internet Center for Wildlife Damage
Management. University of Nebraska-Lincoln/ Cornell University/ Clemson
University/ Utah University, 2005. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. <http://icwdm.org/ wildlife/
euthanasia/ relocation.asp>.
Wang 9
Perlin, David, and Ann Cohen. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dangerous Diseases and
Epidemics. N.p.: Alpha , 2002. Print.
“Relocating Wildlife.” MyFWC. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://myfwc.com/ wildlifehabitats/
SpeciesInfo_Relocation.htm>.
Simberloff, Daniel. “Introduced Species: The Threat to Biodiversity & What Can Be
Done.” Action Bioscience. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Jan. 2011.
Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/ biodiversity/
simberloff.html#primer>.
Swearingen, Jil M. “Factsheet: What the heck is an invasive plant?” National Park
Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 11 May 2007. Web. 17 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.nps.gov/ plants/ alien/ pubs/ whatis.pdf>.
Thomas, Ellen. “Biodiversity Lecture 2: Invasive/ exotic species.” Earth and
Environmental Services 199. Weseleyan University, 24 Apr. 2002. Web. 17 Dec.
2010. <http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ ees123/ invasive_species.htm>.
“Wildlife Relocation.” Issues and Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 4 Aug.
2006. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://www.2facts.com/ article/ i1100430>.
Wang 10
“Wildlife Relocation: Not a Solution.” Audubon Society of Portland. Audubon Society of
Portland, 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://audubonportland.org/
backyardwildlife/ brochures/ relocation>.
“Wolf-Reintroduction Program.” Issues & Controversies On File. Facts On File News
Services, 23 Sept. 2002. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.2facts.com/ article/
i0102020>.
Wang 11
Works Consulted
Dolan, Cori, and Bill Mannan. “Invasive Wildlife.” College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences. University of Arizona, Oct. 2009. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.
<http://cals.arizona.edu/ pubs/ natresources/ az1481e>.
Hoddle, Mark S. “Frequently Asked Questions About Invasive Species.” Center of
Invasive Species Research. University of California, Riverside, 12 Aug. 2009.
Web. 17 Jan. 2011. <http://cisr.ucr.edu/ invasive_species_faqs.html>.
“Impact of Alien Invasive Species.” WWF. World Wide Fund For Nature, n.d. Web. 17
Dec. 2010. <http://wwf.panda.org/ about_our_earth/ species/ problems/
invasive_species/>.
Leighton, FA. Health Risk Assessment of the Translocation of Wild Animals. OIE, 21
Apr. 2002. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. <http://www.oie.int/ boutique/ extrait/
faleighton.pdf>.
Powell, Devin. “Should Species be Relocated to Prevent Extinction?” Live Science.
American Institute of Physics, 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.livescience.com/ environment/ 090824-assisted-migration.html>.
Recommended