Odds & Ends II, also the last lecture
Note: I will try to post more details on the exam by next Thursday (4/29)
Also, I would prefer to get everyone's paper by April 29th, as originally scheduled. But if
you need a few more days, you may hand it in anytime up until 12:00 noon (no later!),
Tuesday, May 4th (in my mailbox, right next to the MMB office).
I. Social factors:
One of the obvious issues we haven't discussed yet is that social values are
different in different societies.
What we value in the U.S. may not be what is valued elsewhere (it's
gotten us into quite a bit of trouble in the past, and even today).
For instance, John Muir's approach to conservation may totally alienate
someone from a different culture.
A simple example is that values of wildlife might change quite a bit
depending on wether one is hungry or well fed (particularly if one's family
is hungry as well).
Some simple examples:
In the U.S. snakes are often despised. Rattlesnake roundups are a
popular event. In India, cobras are often held in very high regard
(almost sacred).
Dogs are favorite pets in the U.S. In many parts of south-east Asia,
they're food.
McDonald's has had a difficult time breaking into India since cows
are considered sacred (they sell burgers made with something else
in India).
Even in the U.S. our attitudes towards nature can be shaped by such things
as:
- living in rural areas, where there is more contact with nature (this
could be good, or bad from a conservation perspective).
- we've already mentioned tigers and grizzlies and things like this
(if you live here, you're all in favor of protecting tigers and
grizzlies. If you live in the Sunderbans or Yellowstone, you may
think otherwise!)
- people in rural areas also may exploit nature more. This is all
right so long as it is sustainable. But the same folks may resent
"city-dwellers" telling them what to do.
Values can often change, hopefully for the better.
- A good part of the environmental movement's success has been
due to the changing of people's values.
- Education is at the heart of this!
- Again, a simple examples:
- Wolves used to be despised. Remember your fairy tales?
It's not the "good wolf" that features in most of these.
- Recently our attitudes towards wolves has
"improved" considerably (except maybe for those
folks still living near wolves).
- This is one of the biggest sources of hope for the future - that we
can educate and hopefully change people's values towards their
environment.
- a lot of work remains to be done (what does a starving
African care about dessertification? All he wants to do is
get wood so he can cook a meal for his family).
- still, without hope we should stop right now!
II. The problem of subspecies and hybrids:
So what do we do with subspecies? Should these get the same consideration as
full species?
- in an ideal world, the answer would be yes.
- the problem is that there are limited resources.
- we should try to keep subspecies in mind when we set about
conservation, but if there is a choice between saving a species or saving a
sub-species, the species takes priority.
- An example of a sub-species that went extinct is the Dusky sea-side
sparrow (A subspecies of the sea-side sparrow).
- On the other hand, as one web site points out, this even was a bit
of a disaster.
- The Dusky-sea-side sparrow was considered a separate species,
but upon further research, it was merged with the sea-side sparrow.
- Once this merger took place, birders lost interest in the bird, and
any concern disappeared until it was too late. If biologists
(taxonomists) hadn't merged it, it's quite possible that pressure
from birders and ornithologists would have helped save this
subspecies.
- the whole thing is a little silly, depending entirely on whether or
not the dusky was a supspecies or species. Not a good
conservation ethic.
- in fairness, attempts were made to set up a captive breeding
program and/or to restore marshes (flooded or drained), but they
were too late (5 males were all that could be recovered by the time
an attempt was made).
- Nevertheless, as a subspecies, it was probably not a tragic a loss
as otherwise (the taxonomists were probably right). Still, it seems
pointless since the funds were there, just applied too late.
The authors of your text argue strongly for saving subspecies. A very powerful
argument for doing this is to help preserve genetic diversity.
- And if at all possible, an attempt to save sub-species should be made.
- Yet, if one has enough resources to save either a species or sub-species, it
seems evident that there really isn't a choice.
- (of course we're assuming all else being equal, and that, for
example, we'll be equally successful with either one).
What about hybrids?
The answer here is a little more difficult. Is it possible to reproduce the
hybrid easily?
- for example, if the "parents" of the hybrid are not endangered and
can yield offspring anytime one wants, then a concerted effort to
save the hybrid is probably not that important, particularly if this
turns out to be expensive.
- We already talked about the Red Wolf a little. It is thought to be
the result of a cross between coyotes and wolves.
- Genetic information shows fairly clearly that the Red
Wolf is a hybrid.
- Nevertheless, there is still cause for controversy:
- Some morphological evidence and analysis of
fossils shows the Red Wolf having been around for
about 700,000 years.
- Increased hybridization between the Red Wolf and
existing Coyote populations have blurred the
genetic picture a little, though the analysis has taken
this into account and still found no evidence for the
Wolf being a separate species.
- Recovery efforts are also further confused by the fact that
Red Wolf populations that are released are diluted by
further hybridization with Coyotes.
- A lot of money has been spent on Red Wolves so far, and
many folks are saying it could be better spent elsewhere if
it's just a hybrid:
- The idea is that we can "reproduce" them anytime
by crossing Coyotes and Gray wolves, though that
doesn't seem to have worked that well (this should
give us pause!).
One of you also wrote your paper on a species of Agave that is
might very well be a hybrid - I'll save the details for the
presentation since this is a paper to be presented.
Result: the issue is not clear. One could make an argument either way,
but:
- if it is obviously a hybrid, and can "re-created" any time by
allowing the "parent" species to breed, it probably doesn't warrant
full protection/consideration (if the parent species are fairly
common).
III. Silliness with political boundaries
Does it make sense for a country (or state) to list an animal as endangered or
threatened if this animal is quite common elsewhere?
- suppose that the range of an animal barely makes it into (say) Virginia.
Is it justifiable to list this as endangered? If it is common (even a pest)
elsewhere?
- Virginia seems to break things down into two categories, giving the
global state of the organisms, followed by te state state (sorry) of the
animal.
- For example, the Purple finch is fairly common elsewhere, but is
listed as extremely rare (and of concern) in Virginia.
- It is not clear (from perusing Virginia's web sites) what this
means - is Virginia actively trying to protect the Purple finch?
- Remember the Virginia whitetail deer population that we discussed as
being listed in CITES by Guatemala? Should it be listed?
- the answer is not clear. For example, Guatemala is clearly
interested in preserving its population.
- However, probably no one else is!!
- Another example from Virginia is the Wood turtle (several folks at GMU
have been working on this one).
- Listed as threatened in Virginia, but not at the Federal level.
- Does this make sense? We're kind of at the extreme southern end
of it's natural range. Does it still make sense?
- The best answer: Maybe!
- The problem is that we probably want to keep it in Virginia, yet
the population as a whole is doing okay (sort of). Do we want to
expend lots of money on this?
III. Conclusions
Hopefully, we've learned a little about:
- the problems
- there are many. We discussed lots of examples of species that
went extinct, are going extinct, are threatened, endangered, etc.
- let's also not forget that the problems are often caused simply by
people trying to survive.
- (Incidentally, I have a LOT less sympathy for folks who are
causing problems in an effort to make lots of money!)
- a way to look at the problems
- we've discussed ways of looking at populations, analysis of the
problems including:
- life tables to try and figure out which way a population is
headed.
- the causes of lack of genetic diversity
- how to apply the above to try and figure out what to do
- hopefully, a way to deal with some of the problems:
- ways of setting up reserves (incl. size)
- reasons to conserve (after all, you can't do anything unless you
can convince people of the reasons to conserve).
- other ways of dealing with problems (captive breeding, raising,
etc.)
- throughout we've emphasized that to do anything, we need to know the
biology of what we want to do. Don't forget that!
- Finally, two comments:
1) Consider the cost of doing nothing. What will the world be like
100 years from now? Remember, too, that the problem isn't just
dealing with the conservation of organisms. This may mean some
sacrifices, particularly in developed nations (should we be driving
quite so many SUV's? consuming quite so much paper? steel?
plastic? etc.), but again, what are the alternatives? Is it right that
we squander the world's resources?
2) A religious perspective - see the handout. I find it heartening
that our different faiths can agree on some things!