Should we reintroduce previously extinct species

[Skycaptain]

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/england-wildcats-rewilding-devon-derek-gow-extinct-a8929311.html

 

I'm all in favour of a controlled reintroduction here. Farmers aren't, although the damage wildcats will do is minimal. Probably as they eat crop damaging herbivores they'll be an asset. 

 

Bear in mind that the Scottish wildcat, a different species altogether, is one of the rarest mammals in the world, there are less than 100 pure wildcats surviving because they interbreed with domestic cats. Scottish Wildcats are the world's smallest big cat, and English wildcats, are the same size 

 

The main thing is they're too small to kill lambs, but chicken and pheasant farmers may be unhappy 

[AllTimeBubble]

I think reintroduction is mainly a positive as long as it is slow and controlled, however with some species, It's original habitat may be gone or have changed dramatically, so in that case it may not be a good idea to reintroduce. In every other scenario though, it's a plus, as long as it hasn't been so long that the species' role has been replaced in the ecosystem, dont want to introduce an alien species by accident.

[Scottthespy]

That depends on the species...in this case, was it a once vital part of the ecosystem that disappeared quickly and the effects are still being felt? Are these crop destroying herbivores it eats a massive problem, are there things that depended on eating the wildcat that are now struggling? Are certain species once controlled by the wildcat now causing *other* species the wildcat never bothered to get out competed? If things like that are happening, yes. 

 

Canada did something similar way back when we killed off all our timber wolves. The deer population, that they had been eating, got out of control, ate all the grass, the bushes, the trees. The banks of rivers, missing those roots, eroded away and became wide and shallow flood plains. The other herbivores ran out of food. It did massive damage to huge swaths of the northern Canadian ecosystem. So we borrowed wolves from elsewhere, a few dozen, and protected them until they grew, and generations later we have thousands of wolves and things are good again.

 

But...is the ecosystem now used to the lack of wildcat, now balanced and doing fine? Will reintroducing it cause the same issues as invasive species? Then no, sad as it is, don't bring it back.

 

Tangentially related; never bring back a long extinct species that's adapted to a completely different climate than that which currently exists. I see a lot of talk about 'bringing back mammoths' and other animals from that general area that we have genetic material from, and it just boggles my mind that people think this is somehow a good idea.

[AllTimeBubble]

4 minutes ago, Scottthespy said:

 

Tangentially related; never bring back a long extinct species that's adapted to a completely different climate than that which currently exists. I see a lot of talk about 'bringing back mammoths' and other animals from that general area that we have genetic material from, and it just boggles my mind that people think this is somehow a good idea.

Exactly! Like it wasnt only hunting that wiped out the mammoths, Earth was getting out of the ice age and it's still getting warmer. There is no way in hell mammoths would survive in our current climate

[Grumpy Alien]

I’ve seen Jurassic Park. I know how these things go...

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Reintroduce the wolves.

[Karst]

I think it's generally a good idea, but there are undoubtedly ways it could go wrong.  Keep in mind, this kind of thing is very hard to reverse.

 

The more controversial question is whether deliberately introducing new species to an ecosystem can work out well, or if it will always result in an invasive species taking over- for example, kudzu, which was introduced to fight erosion, but began to crowd out native plants and even cause structural damage to the buildings it climbed.

[RoseGoesToYale]

When I read the title, I thought this was going to be about reconstructing ancient DNA and somehow growing dodo birds or something . Hmm... I already have reservations about humans significantly mucking about with animal populations. Species evolve and go extinct of their own accord, through natural selection, cross breeding, habitat changes. Unfortunately, we humans have done fowled up natural selection, prevented breeding with cages and fenced land, and destroyed the environment. I don't really know if they should or not, it could go fine, or irreversibly damage other animal populations. If humans want to play gods, as it were, they better be ready to handle the enormous responsibility of the consequences.

[Shyni]

Given how much biodiversity humanity is wiping out through habitat destruction and climate change, reintroducing extinct species to fill niches that have been made vacant due to our actions is, in my opinion, a positive way to try to combat the negative impacts we've had on the environment. However, I think it's something we need to do cautiously, as a last resort, and with precision. Where possible, we should only introduce species back to habitats where they previously and recently existed, and we should always try to prevent extinctions first. But, if we can prevent ecosystem collapse through introducing extinct species, then I feel we have a duty to do so, particularly if when it's our fault that ecosystem is failing in the first place.

[Guest]

Let's bring back as many as possible, especially the biggest of the dinosaurs. I've always felt that my house needs a large turret mounted cannon to protect the ol' homestead. 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

https://pleistocenepark.ru/

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/features/yak-calf-born-in-pleistocene-park-will-a-hybrid-elephant-mammoth-be-next/

[Sally]

4 hours ago, Scottthespy said:

Tangentially related; never bring back a long extinct species that's adapted to a completely different climate than that which currently exists. I see a lot of talk about 'bringing back mammoths' and other animals from that general area that we have genetic material from, and it just boggles my mind that people think this is somehow a good idea.

It boggles my mind that they think it's possible.  If the animal is truly extinct, there are no  surviving members of that group, and therefore there is no genetic material from which to rebuild.  

[Epitaph]

No, I don't figure we should. As perhaps sad as it is to see a species go extinct, especially because of our actions, I think a major problem with human beings is that they're too intent on controlling natural systems, especially ecosystems. A lot of our environments are they way they are currently because people either intentionally or ignorantly modified them to begin with.

 

We can't truly fix the problem by modifying things further. The natural systems around us are self regulating, and if left alone, will reconstitute themselves. They won't bring back extinct species, but I figure that if a species is extinct, it should be left extinct. They were wiped out for a reason, whether it be natural or manmade. Introducing them back will only further destabilize things. People don't like to admit it, but they can't predict how an ecosystem will react even if their intent is good.

 

Case and point, Cane Toads and Australia.

[Skycaptain]

We have had several successful reintroductions. The Red Kite was hunted out of existence in these parts, but has been brought back. It's not doing anything like the harm to farm animals as some people thought. 

 

Whatever species you want to reintroduce I think the two main concerns are is there habitat space, and is there food? 

[AllTimeBubble]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

It boggles my mind that they think it's possible.  If the animal is truly extinct, there are no  surviving members of that group, and therefore there is no genetic material from which to rebuild.  

I saw a documentary where they found a preserved mammoth that still had some DNA in tact, crazy I know. But that was years ago so I doubt anything came from it

[Skycaptain]

@AllTimeBubble, I believe they did try to use Mammoth DNA to clone one, but either the DNA was damaged/incomplete or the cloning technology wasn't adequate. Anyways no Mammoth.

 

Trying this really was a mammoth task 

[AllTimeBubble]

40 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

@AllTimeBubble, I believe they did try to use Mammoth DNA to clone one, but either the DNA was damaged/incomplete or the cloning technology wasn't adequate. Anyways no Mammoth.

 

Trying this really was a mammoth task 

Ohh, it is interesting how close they came though, science is amazing.

 

I see what you did there 😄

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

44 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

@AllTimeBubble, I believe they did try to use Mammoth DNA to clone one, but either the DNA was damaged/incomplete or the cloning technology wasn't adequate. Anyways no Mammoth.

 

Trying this really was a mammoth task 

 

A 60 Minutes story on CBS about a month ago reported that they still intend to reintroduce mammoths (or a mammoth hybrid at least) at Pleistocene Park.

[AllTimeBubble]

5 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

A 60 Minutes story on CBS about a month ago reported that they still intend to reintroduce mammoths (or a mammoth hybrid at least) at Pleistocene Park.

That's the true question:

 

I dont think a mammoth would survive today, even a hybrid. The climate is just do different; too hot, plus there are different predators around and different food sources, it would disrupt the ecosystem too much.

It could, maybe, live a happy life in captivity though, depending of course on what method of cloning will be used, if SCNT, I doubt itll survive to adulthood. 

What do you think?

 

[Scottthespy]

1 hour ago, AllTimeBubble said:

That's the true question:

 

I dont think a mammoth would survive today, even a hybrid. The climate is just do different; too hot, plus there are different predators around and different food sources, it would disrupt the ecosystem too much.

It could, maybe, live a happy life in captivity though, depending of course on what method of cloning will be used, if SCNT, I doubt itll survive to adulthood. 

What do you think?

 

Modern predators aren't much of a problem for mammoths, they're too big and thickly armored for the smaller animals today. It'll be the heat and lack of food that threaten 'wild' mammoths, and a captive one would need to be kept in a controlled so that's either cruel (if going with a small area) or extremely costly (if opting to climate control a large enough area). The time, effort, and money could all be better spent on bolstering ecosystems that human activity has destabilized in the present. Or on feeding people, fixing roads, healthcare research, any number of more practical things.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

5 hours ago, AllTimeBubble said:

What do you think?

 

They are not anthropocentrically trying to clone an extinct species for sustained human amusement--it is not Jurassic Park. They are trying to restore an ecosystem to cool the atmosphere, slow down global warming, and save all life on Earth. I do not think that the permanent survival of the animals is the vision. I don't have any reason to believe it would not work.

 

We already do such things all the time, don't we? Like a few years ago an insect that could end the citrus fruit industry in the U.S. appeared. One of the responses to the threat was introducing into the environment other insects that are the pest's enemies.

[Sally]

6 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

@AllTimeBubble, I believe they did try to use Mammoth DNA to clone one, but either the DNA was damaged/incomplete or the cloning technology wasn't adequate. Anyways no Mammoth.

 

Trying this really was a mammoth task 

That's pretty good, SkyC, and it wasn't X-rated!   

[Sally]

I wonder if some scientists somewhere are keeping DNA of members of species that are in danger of going extinct.  

[daveb]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

I wonder if some scientists somewhere are keeping DNA of members of species that are in danger of going extinct.  

Yep. The largest, but far from only one, is apparently the one at the San Diego Zoo (they call it the Frozen Zoo).

[Celyn: The Lutening]

On 5/26/2019 at 1:13 AM, Shyni said:

Given how much biodiversity humanity is wiping out through habitat destruction and climate change, reintroducing extinct species to fill niches that have been made vacant due to our actions is, in my opinion, a positive way to try to combat the negative impacts we've had on the environment. However, I think it's something we need to do cautiously, as a last resort, and with precision. Where possible, we should only introduce species back to habitats where they previously and recently existed, and we should always try to prevent extinctions first. But, if we can prevent ecosystem collapse through introducing extinct species, then I feel we have a duty to do so, particularly if when it's our fault that ecosystem is failing in the first place.

All of this. If we know that the extinction was our fault, and we have a really good idea of what the ecosystem should be like, we have a moral responsibility to make it so.

 

Australia and Tasmania should resurrect the thylacine (though there are continued reports of Tasmanians seeing them, I hope they're true).

 

On a less controversial note, the wildlife sanctuary I used to volunteer with, bred bilbies for release in an area that they were extinct in for about a decade. The difference between that and resurrecting a fully extinct species is just time and difficulty.

[SorryNotSorry]

There's an ethical side to this question.

 

What if we bring back, for example, extinct birds like the passenger pigeon, the great auk, or the ivory-billed woodpecker, only to find that they'd no longer fit in with today's ecosystems? That would be just as bad as driving them to extinction in the first place.

 

If resurrecting extinct species could benefit any number of ecosystems, great. But I don't think it should be done just so we could confine them to zoos and gawk at them.

[Sally]

On 5/26/2019 at 9:30 PM, daveb said:

Yep. The largest, but far from only one, is apparently the one at the San Diego Zoo (they call it the Frozen Zoo).

I'm very happy to learn that.  

[Guest]

This a interesting topic but I don't know enough about the ecosystem of the UK to say if the reintroduction of that cat species makes sense or not. Anyway you should be careful with influencing an ecosystem like that. The good thing is that cats are predators, so they won't ruin the vegetation with their overpopulation. But all actions in ecology need a long time to establish. For example it takes at least 40 years until rivers recover from a former pollution. So it is very difficult to predict the outcome of the reintroduction.

 

On 5/26/2019 at 2:13 AM, Shyni said:

Given how much biodiversity humanity is wiping out through habitat destruction and climate change, reintroducing extinct species to fill niches that have been made vacant due to our actions is, in my opinion, a positive way to try to combat the negative impacts we've had on the environment.

I totally agree that humans destroyed a lot biodiversity in last 150 years. But before industrialization the activity of humans sparked that biodiversity that we are losing today. If there were no humans, the entire continent of Europe would be covered with beech forest. Many plants like orchids and many grasses wouldn't survive in this environment. Only the deforestation and pasture farming created suitable habitats for most of our flora and fauna. In 1850 there was a maximum of living species in Europe. For that reason is 1850 the ideal states, regarding to the amount of species, for conservation.

 

But be careful with the number of species because it doesn't have be meaningful. For example you have a grassland with 25 grasses, 25 yellow, 25 blue and 25 white blooming individuals of a species. The amount of species would be 4 and this ecosystem would be intact and feeding insects. But if you have a grassland with 97 grasses, 1 yellow, 1 blue and 1 white blooming individual of a species you would still get a absolute amount of 4 species. But in this case it would be a highly disturbed ecosystem. 

 

Apart from that I don't think it is a good idea to bring back extinct species that were extinct for such a long time. If you want to save recently extinguished species it is a valid option for me but I don't want to end up with Jurassic Park.

[Skycaptain]

In this particular case the species was driven to extinction by ignorance. In the agrarian economy of time people blamed wildcats for killing livestock. It never occurred to them that they were actually killing a few hundred mice and rats for every chicken. 

 

It's why the idea of reintroducing wolves is much more controversial. There's a proven history there that they do frequently attack sheep. However, as a balance, the thinking is that they will control the deer population. In Britain tens of thousands of deer are culled every year just to keep the population under control, yet venison is difficult to sell to consumers