Which Species Will Live?
By: Michelle Nijhuis
- Dozens of these experts gathered in small conference rooms in New York City, southwestern Montana and Buenos Aires to discuss each species for its importance to its ecosystem, its economic and cultural value, and its potential to serve as a conservation emblem
- Entire groups of species were deemed valuable but not valuable enough
- As budgets shrink, environmental stresses grow, and politicians and regulators increasingly favor helping the economy over helping the planet
- Sooner or later a vulnerable species will be too hard to save
- The concept of conservation triage is based loosely on medical triage, a decision-making system
- All of them involve sorting patients for treatment in difficult situations where time, expertise
or supplies, or all three, are scarce - The Endangered Species Act of 1973 that was passed is still considered the most powerful environmental law in the world, stipulated eligibility for protection for all nonpest species, from bald eagles to beetles
- The Noah Principle: all species are fundamentally equal, and everything can and should be saved, regardless of its importance to humans
- Trouble arose in the late 1980s, when proposed endangered-species listings of the northern spotted owl and some salmon varieties threatened the economic interests of powerful timber and fishing industries, setting off a series of political and legal attempts to weaken the law
- Today triage is one of the most provocative ideas in conservation. To many, it invokes not only political threats to laws such as the Endangered Species Act but an abandonment of the
moral responsibility for nature implied in the Noah Principle - Conservationists who are pushing for explicit triage say they are bringing more systematic thinking and transparency to practices that have been carried out implicitly for a long time
- In recent years researchers have proposed several ways to make triage decisions, with the aim of providing maximum benefit for nature as a whole
- Some scientists argue for weighting species according to their role in the ecosystem, an approach we might call “function first.”
- Threatened species with a unique job, they say, or “umbrella” species whose own survival ensures the survival of many others, should be protected before those with a so-called redundant role
- The advantage of this function-first approach is that it focuses on specific ecological roles rather than raw numbers of species, giving conservationists a better chance at protecting
functioning ecosystems - As an alternative, the EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered) of Existence program run by the Zoological Society of London argues for prioritizing species at the genomic level, an approach we might call “evolution first.” Rather than focusing on well-known species with many near relatives, the EDGE program favors the most genetically unusual threatened species
- The evolution-first approach emphasizes the preservation of genetic diversity, which can help all the world’s species survive and adapt in fast-changing environmental conditions by providing a robust gene pool
- Some play a vital role in the ecosystem, some have unique genes, some provide extensive services to humans. No single criterion can capture all these qualities
- The Wildlife Conservation Society combined different triage approaches in its analyses: it gave priority to threatened species that have larger body size and wider geographic range, reasoning that protection of these creatures would likely benefit many other plants and animals
- Given the importance of protecting not simply individual animals but also the relations among them, some researchers say that triage approaches should select among ecosystems instead of species
- A software program was developed that is widely used, aims to maximize the effectiveness of conservation reserves by considering not only the presence of endemic species and the level of conservation threats but also factors such as the cost of protection and “complementarity”—the contribution of each new reserve to existing biodiversity protections
- Protected areas and parks, however, can be difficult to establish and police, and because climate change is already shifting species ranges, static boundaries may not offer the best long-term protection for some species
- Sooner or later, though, a vulnerable species or habitat will require measures too expensive for any government or group to shoulder
- The central difficulty is that, just as with battlefield triage, the line between opportunity and lost cause is almost never clear
- As climate change, population expansion and other global pressures on biodiversity continue, however, more and more species are likely to require heroic measures for survival
- Prioritizing species by ecological function, evolutionary history or other criteria will help shape conservation strategies, but for the greater good of many other species, societies will almost certainly have to consciously forgo some of the most expensive and least promising rescue efforts
There are vast amount of species in the world that play variety of unique roles in the ecosystem that we are unaware about. On a certain extent, some people find these species more on an economical standard where some are highly valued while others aren't. Many of these species are on the verge of extinction and time isn't on our side, yet people still are blinded by the economical barrier that separates us from saving the environments that they inhabit. Group of conservationists and experts have begun to sat down and discuss thoroughly on the importance of what species are worth saving. A system has been used to make those decisions which is a conservation triage that is similarly based on that of medical triage. Most importantly, the Noah Principle specifically states that all species are fundamentally equal, and everything can and should be saved, regardless of its importance to humans. However, there are people who deplore this statement as to how they see that these species should be saved accordingly. Some say that the function-first approach in which threatened species whose own survival ensures the survival of many others, should be protected. In contrast, others believe that in the evolution-first approach emphasizes the preservation of genetic diversity, which can help all the world’s species survive and adapt in fast-changing environmental conditions by providing a robust gene pool should be saved. Although there are many approaches on how to save species in the environment, there isn't a solid agreement on what way should be done. However, the Wildlife Conservation Society has made this simpler by combing the different triage approaches all into one. It explains that the priority of threatened species with larger body size and wider geographic range gives it the reason more to protect these creatures that would likely benefit many other plants and animals. Researchers suggest that we should approach by turning our attention towards more of ecosystems rather than just only species. There has been a software program developed suited for this purpose that aims to maximize the effectiveness of conservation reserves by considering not only the presence of endemic species and the level of conservation threats but also factors such as the cost of protection and “complementarity”—the contribution of each new reserve to existing biodiversity protections. Even thought it may seem great, some factors like climate change can easily make our job more difficult as it can shift species ranges and static boundaries which may not offer the best long-term protection for some species. Climate change, population expansion and other global pressures on biodiversity are mostly from human contributions and the continuation of this will cause more and more species to require heroic measures for survival. Sadly, what we are doing right now is not a good thing as we constantly sit and watch many of these species suffer in misery while we are inadvertently causing deterioration in many environments at large magnifying scales. The more we do this, the more difficult it will get as it can be both expensive and tiring to save much of the species that may enter extinction and also resource will become scarce in which the entire human race will struggle before we know it.
Many species around the globe play important roles in our ecosystems but we can't save them all. Looking closely at ways to save the species is quite huge in our hands. It has been a long controversial issue to agree on a certain way to save them. Keeping some species alive while we let others perish will still harm the stability of the ecosystems as it requires every single factor or what we call roots that are interconnected to one another. Going to every species in the world by physically saving them isn't an effective way. Instead, we can mix that with saving the ecosystems so that both the species and its ecosystems or habitats are protected and maintained. Basically what this purpose is that species that don't have homes or place to live can be fostered and facilities can be made to take care of them while we are also preserving the land of species that need them for survival as many depend on it. The main point is that the more we can manage our environments better by not replacing their land for the construction of houses and cities, pollution to their land like its our garbage dump, and reducing harmfully dangerous chemicals toward the atmosphere.