Move Species to Save Them?

Thursday, Jul. 17, 2008Move Species to Save Them?By AP/RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
(WASHINGTON) — With climate change increasingly threatening the survival of plants and animals, scientists say it may become necessary to move some species to save them. Dubbed assisted colonization or assisted migration, the idea is to decide how severe the threat is to various species, and if they need help to deal with it.
"When I first brought up this idea some 10 years ago in conservation meetings, most people were horrified," said Camille Parmesan, a biology professor at the University of Texas.
"But now, as the reality of global warming sinks in, and species are already becoming endangered and even going extinct because of climate change, I'm seeing a new willingness in the conservation community to at least talk about the possibility of helping out species by moving them around," she said. Parmesan discusses the idea in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
It's an idea that makes conservation biologists nervous.
There are plenty of risks in moving plants and animals to new locations. They may not survive, or they may become invasive, growing wildly without predators and crowding out natives of their new location.
And it's not possible to relocate every species that may need it, so how to decide who gets moved and who gets left behind to become extinct?
Stanford biologist Terry Root has been traveling the country urging her colleagues to come up with a plan for "triage" to decide which species should be saved from global warming and which can't. After other biologists complained about the word "triage," Root said she now calls it prioritizing which species should be saved.
"We've got to work on the ones we have a prayer of saving," Root said.
Some species will have to be written off, she suggested, such as threatened and endangered species of the Sky Islands in Arizona and New Mexico because "they don't have any place to move to."
"Those species are functionally extinct right now," Root said. "They're toast."
When deciding which species to save and which to watch die, Root said one key is uniqueness. That's why she said she'd save the odd-looking Tuatara of New Zealand, a lizard-like creature with almost no living relatives, over the common sparrow.
The risk of extinction has to be balanced by the potential hazard to the community where a species is relocated as well as the time and cost of making the move, Parmesan says.
"Ultimately, the decision about whether to actively assist the movement of a species into new territories will rest on ethical and aesthetic grounds as much as on hard science," she said in a statement.
"Passively assisting coral reef migration may be acceptable, but transplanting polar bears to Antarctica, where they would likely drive native penguins to extinction, would not be acceptable," she said.
"Conservation has never been an exact science, but preserving biodiversity in the face of climate change is likely to require a fundamental rethinking of what it means to preserve biodiversity," Parmesan said.
AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.

Dumb idea!
I agree that this is a really dumb idea. Not only does it feed in to the whole false presumption that animals are here for us to use for our pleasure and do whatever we want with, but it's also just plain impractical.
If global warming is indeed the cause of an animal die-off (as opposed to destruction of their habitat by humans, or wholesale poaching and slaughter by humans), then just where are they going to move them? If it's too freaking hot for polar bears to survive, what are we going to do? We can't move them somewhere colder, because there isn't anywhere colder.
"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living." - Mary Harris "Mother" Jones
C'mon now! Don't you think
C'mon now!
Don't you think it would be fun to mix things up a little bit?
It's awfully static of ya'll to draw lines as to where one thing belongs and where another thing belongs. Way to put right and wrong back in the hands of the plurality.
Here's my idea. If it works, great, if it doesn't work, think of all the volunteer hours than can be spent pulling hyacinths out of the bayou! The millions of dollars and dozens of jobs we'll inject into the economy to fix our mistakes! Ain't it glorious?
Afraid to take a chance? Or afraid to chance a Take?

The Emperor's New Climate
This is the scariest kind of madness. The situation is so out of control that this seems like the only sensical solution to these educated people. It's like a mob roaming through a city setting fire to their own houses without any of them thinking it's a bad idea and then one of them saying, "wow, we really have to do something to save some of these old houses," and without taking a break from burning down the city, spending millions of dollars to re-locate a couple of heritage houses.
Stop, drop and roll people. Stop. Back the fuck up. Look at what you're doing. Stop what you're doing. And then go from there. Otherwise we're going to have gazelles running around Texas... ohhhhhhhh... too late.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt