Stopping Extinctions?
From Microcosm Aquarium Explorer
The Aquarium Ecologist
By John Tullock
May 16, 2008
In case your calendar isn’t marked, the biodiversity preservation movement officially turns 35 this year. President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into law on December 28, 1973. That same year, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, commonly known as CITES, was adopted on March 3.
Although the issues addressed by these two landmark achievements continue to create controversy, it seems well established that preventing extinctions remains an important societal goal, if polls are to be believed. It therefore behooves us to ask: What progress we have made in this regard in the past three and a half decades? The unfortunate answer is, “Not much.”
[edit] Invisible Disappearances
There are 1,326 species on the endangered and threatened species lists as of April, 2008. Since 1973, only 41 listed species have been subsequently de-listed, and some of these were for technical reasons, not the result of recovery efforts. Many species have gone extinct while awaiting listing, and countless others will probably become extinct before they are even discovered, much less sufficiently studied to warrant listing.
Often these delays result from political wrangling, but many groups of animals and plants languish for lack of study. Our current supply of taxonomists is not sufficient even to carry out the task of identifying all the species within the borders of the United States, and many who are based here study their subjects in far-flung localities rather than their own backyards. Thus, many species will remain at risk for the foreseeable future, and the rate of extinction will continue to climb.
Climate change, of course, will only magnify the problem.
[edit] Pathways to Recovery
Almost everyone agrees that habitat protection is the best way to ensure the survival of species, whether endangered or not. Ironically, however, analysis of the work done in the years since the ESA was passed shows that the species affected most positively (as measured by de-listing, downlisting, or at least improved population size) are those for which an intensive, species-specific recovery plan is invoked, rather than those supposedly protected by the big tent of an ecosystem-scale project.
In all likelihood, a combination approach, protecting habitat while focusing extra recovery effort on the most seriously imperiled species, works best of all. This appears to be the case in native fish restoration efforts with which I am familiar. When a stream, for example, comes under protection as part of a reserve or park, water quality typically improves after a few years. Such improvement paves the way for restoring the fish fauna through captive propagation and release efforts.
The ESA can also have negative consequences, a fact opponents of species protection often cite to justify weakening or eliminating the Act or some of its provisions. A typical case is the propensity of landowners to cut pine forests rather than risk them being declared habitat for the endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The tragedy of this kind of thinking is that some tracts are undoubtedly cut needlessly, as landowners poorly conversant with biology generally, much less the specific needs of one rare bird, over-react and destroy forest the birds would never visit anyway. And, of course, the habitat alterations affect every species living in the pines, not just the woodpecker.
[edit] Property vs. Preservation
Endangered species issues have engendered some of the most bitter political disputes in American history. Mention the endangered Snail Darter (Percina tanasi) or the threatened Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in a crowd, and someone is likely to get his or her political toes stepped on, regardless of the position you declare. Biodiversity issues are particularly touchy, I think, because preservation may require altering or suspending some of our cherished notions of personal property rights.
“A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.”
A developer of my acquaintance once told me ruefully, “A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.” More than anything else, biodiversity issues are land use issues.
So species preservation becomes more about political persuasion than about conservation biology. To make progress in protecting biodiversity, it is often necessary to justify laying aside some perceived benefits of other potential uses of a given habitat. More progress could be made in this regard if we environmentalists did a better job of offering up those justifications in terms easily comprehended by non-scientists.
Whether we are talking about snail darters or corals, too often preservationists preach mostly to the choir. We need to broaden our horizons.
Image Credits: US Fish & Wildlife Service
[edit] Comments?
Microcosm Aquarium Explorer invites correspondence from its readers.
For publication, a letter should include the writer's name, hometown, state/province, and country.
Please send to:
letters@microcosmaquariumexplorer.com
John Tullock is a marine zoologist, author and consultant. His enormously popular Natural Reef Aquariums and numerous other books and articles, have focused upon the aquarium hobby and industry for two decades.
The Aquarium Ecologist:
- Aquarium Science to the Rescue
- Saving Rare Fishes with Captive Breeding
- Stopping Extinctions?
