5 ms·

Controversial take but I absolutely don’t see the point of reintroductions. Ecosystems are dynamic equilibrium. Reintroductions are just a different kind of man

Controversial take but I absolutely don’t see the point of reintroductions. Ecosystems are dynamic equilibrium. Reintroductions are just a different kind of man-made arbitrary modification. Loss of biodiversity is a good indicator that something wrong is happening but biodiversity in and of itself is not a particularly interesting aim. The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to diversity if things are left to themselves.

constGard 4y ago
In some cases reintroduction can be positive because certain species were selectively hunted, the factors involved in habitat loss have been reversed, or the species might play an important role in habitat restoration.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nextaccountic 4y ago
It may take thousands of years for the ecosystem to recover by itself. Human destruction of habitats is a faster mechanism, and will always win if we do nothing to revert it. Also, biodiversity is a good thing in itself. There's nothing wrong with recovering ecosystem. The Amazon forest was man-made, for example. It doesn't make it any less important.
- geysersam 4y ago
  > The Amazon forest was man-made Was it?
  - shaboinkin 4y ago
    I raised my eyebrow at that comment and found [1] and [2] which mentions evidence of human influence in the region, though I can't watch that BBC doc in my region, the paper is pretty interesting in there appears to be some lost civilization buried under the trees. That paper is from 2003 so I'd imagine there's more up to date research somewhere out there. I'd consider the statement "man-made" to be massively exaggerated unless proven otherwise. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0122njp https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0122njp [2] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Amazonia-1492%3A-Pristine-Forest-or-Cultural-Parkland-Heckenberger-Kuikuro/43f654040d5ed50327242f203c4379de2c629403 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Amazonia-1492%3A-Prist...
Scarblac 4y ago
> The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to diversity if things are left to themselves Yes, but that takes hundreds of thousands of years, for mistakes we made on the order of a hundred years ago up to now. And we need working ecosystems now or too many species will go extinct, then we are in danger too and it will become many millions of years before something similar is back.
advantager 4y ago
Left to their own devices, wild mammals have to cross significant human barriers (roads, neighborhoods, fencing, etc.) to repopulate certain natural areas which they have been exterminated from. Where I live in Southern Arizona, re-population efforts for bighorn sheep have been successful in the mountain ranges near cities (Tucson). Access to these ranges from nearby "naturally" populated areas (50+ mile distances) requires crossing the interstate, fenced in train tracks, ranches, and extensive urban development. Since their extermination from certain areas, this has not happened naturally (and is arguably not possible). I think similar arguments could be made for the Mexican Wolf population in the southwest. I agree in principle that ecosystems will re-equilibrate on their own, but given the current state of human development certain areas would remain off-limits for various animals without human intervention, maybe leading to certain species or subspecies becoming extinct. I'm no wildlife biologist but would defer to one on this topic.
- justincormack 4y ago
  Same with reintroduction of beavers to the UK, it is an island they won’t get here (unlike some birds). We also need some predators for deer other than humans here.
- ajuc 4y ago
  European motorways (at least new ones) are built with bridges for animals. Like this: https://www.crazynauka.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/microsoftteams-image-79-1.jpg https://www.crazynauka.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/microso... And that's in a country with 120 people per square kilometer compared to 36 people per square kilometer in US. Matter of regulation.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    America has those too, but they’re enormous and expensive because we’re dumb. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/animals-are-using-utahs-largest-wildlife-overpass-earlier-expected-180976420/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/animals-are-using-...
    - 4y ago
anonymous_sorry 4y ago
> The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to diversity if things are left to themselves. In the long run. But in the long run, we are all dead. And considering the amount of time it takes for a new species to evolve, not only are we all dead, but so are the next hundred thousand generations of our offspring. This is a personal view, but to me the return to diversity in a few million years is pretty meaningless. Biodiversity is a goal in itself, for several reasons. Most selfishly, the greater variety of life, the more raw genetic material there is for humanity to put to use, and the more survival strategies there are for us to learn about. Things like enhancing crop yields, nutrition, and disease resistance. Food, medicines and medical research are just the most obvious practical benefits. Again, a personal view, but to me diversity is also aesthetically pleasing. Diversity provides interest and a richness to life that combats monotony and boredom. I also find it pleasing to think I might leave a place more varied and interesting than I found it. Increasing the range of a species, increases its resilience to extinction. That has to be balanced against any negative effects on other parts of the ecosystem (everthing has gotta eat...). Introducing a species to somewhere new has a chance of being quite harmful, but reintroducing a species to somewhere it recently became extinct much less so. It may perturb the new equilibrium (if a few decades is enough time for an equilibrium to establish), but is pretty unlikely to be harmful to biodiversity. It is more likely to be helpful. The recovery of pine martens in Ireland has helped the recovery of red squirrels, for example (admittedly at the bloody expense of the invasive grey).
maria2 4y ago
Wolf reintroductions to Yellowstone, for instance, totally changed the ecosystem for the better. Animals evolved to keep each other in check. If you remove one animal, but not its prey, then the prey can cause an even greater loss of biodiversity by excessive proliferation. In the case of Yellowstone’s wolves, their absence allowed elk to proliferate. Elk then ate too much vegetarian, which prevented forests from developing. The lack of forest lead to a decline in song bird and beaver populations. The decline in beavers lead to a decline in dams, which removed key habitats for other animals. To flip your question on its head: the reintroduction of wolves was clearly beneficial for Yellowstone. What is the argument against reintroducing the wolf, or reintroductions in general?
- smm11 4y ago
  Having been very, very close to this issue when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, the vocal opposition to this was that a handful of ranchers near Yellowstone who are very much Welfare Queens didn't want to loose cows to wolves that were on the other side of the fence.
  - ticviking 4y ago
    Not sure its fair to call them "welfare queens" but no one likes to see their livelihood threatened.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      If I remember correctly wolves returning to Yellowstone generated 5 million dollars each year to the area only by the increase in tourists. Plus environmental benefits
      - edgyquant 4y ago
        This has nothing to do with the livelihood of the farmers
        4y ago
mastersummoner 4y ago
This is mentioned in other responses, but keep in mind that frequently, it's urban sprawl which endangered these animals in the first place. We're not going to start closing up our cities to let animals come back. But we can take steps to make the environments around them more hospitable: bridges under highways, reserved areas for wildlife. Once these are in place, some reintroductions to kick-start the process makes more sense. A lot of the animals being reintroduced were key parts of the ecosystem before they were eliminated in areas, and their absence can lead to unexpected imbalances. Reintroductions makes sense in this context. Or at least, introducing another animal which fills a similar niche.
burkaman 4y ago
Maybe the most famous example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign That is an extreme case, but sometimes the best way to correct a human-caused error is a human-caused solution. Nature will always find an equilibrium, but probably not an equilibrium that works well for us unless we nudge it. Reintroducing sparrows is clearly better than accepting the natural equilibrium of "locusts are everywhere and we can't grow food anymore".
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Yes but that’s just another manipulation of an ecosystem to suit human activity. Fundamentally I remain unconvinced by most of the answers which boil down we want to reintroduce these species because it suits us from an aesthetic point of view or it fosters our own desire for a return to a state we judge more pristine or authentic. It’s basically the 19th century craze for zoo but adapted to modern taste.
  - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
    It's not really clear what your position is. Are you against any sort of human intervention? Or are you in favour of conservation but not restoration? (Try not to break stuff, but don't fix things we've broken). Or do you think it's justifiable to perturb ecosystems for economic reasons, but not to attempt to restore them for aesthetic reasons (car parks are Ok, but safari parks are not)?
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      I'm fine with conservation which is after all mostly stopping or limiting our harmful activities so they are sustainable. In a lot of way, it's the reverse of an intervention. Meddling is not fixing things we have broken. It's just altering things again but in a way we find intellectually pleasing. I don't think trying to bring back ecosystems to their previous state as inherent value. I don't value nature for nature sake generally speaking. That's a rich urban dweller idea of morality. My issue with the human impact on Earth - climate change and what it does to the biosphere - is that it's unsustainable and will have a massive impact on our way of life if nothing is done. I don't really care about wild mammals in Europe outside of their rise being a signal that other things are doing better.
nine_k 4y ago
Bad equilibria exist. If a better equilibrium that involved some currently gone animal us known to have existed and have been better, a reintroduction is an obvious step back to it.
geysersam 4y ago
That takes a long time though... Not sure why we should wait for entirely new ecosystem pathways to develop over millions of years when we can just reintroduce key species extinct from the area.

constGard 4y ago

In some cases reintroduction can be positive because certain species were selectively hunted, the factors involved in habitat loss have been reversed, or the species might play an important role in habitat restoration.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nextaccountic 4y ago

It may take thousands of years for the ecosystem to recover by itself. Human destruction of habitats is a faster mechanism, and will always win if we do nothing to revert it. Also, biodiversity is a good thing in itself. There's nothing wrong with recovering ecosystem. The Amazon forest was man-made, for example. It doesn't make it any less important.

geysersam 4y ago
> The Amazon forest was man-made Was it?
- shaboinkin 4y ago
  I raised my eyebrow at that comment and found [1] and [2] which mentions evidence of human influence in the region, though I can't watch that BBC doc in my region, the paper is pretty interesting in there appears to be some lost civilization buried under the trees. That paper is from 2003 so I'd imagine there's more up to date research somewhere out there. I'd consider the statement "man-made" to be massively exaggerated unless proven otherwise. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0122njp https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0122njp [2] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Amazonia-1492%3A-Pristine-Forest-or-Cultural-Parkland-Heckenberger-Kuikuro/43f654040d5ed50327242f203c4379de2c629403 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Amazonia-1492%3A-Prist...

Scarblac 4y ago

> The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to diversity if things are left to themselves Yes, but that takes hundreds of thousands of years, for mistakes we made on the order of a hundred years ago up to now. And we need working ecosystems now or too many species will go extinct, then we are in danger too and it will become many millions of years before something similar is back.

advantager 4y ago

Left to their own devices, wild mammals have to cross significant human barriers (roads, neighborhoods, fencing, etc.) to repopulate certain natural areas which they have been exterminated from. Where I live in Southern Arizona, re-population efforts for bighorn sheep have been successful in the mountain ranges near cities (Tucson). Access to these ranges from nearby "naturally" populated areas (50+ mile distances) requires crossing the interstate, fenced in train tracks, ranches, and extensive urban development. Since their extermination from certain areas, this has not happened naturally (and is arguably not possible). I think similar arguments could be made for the Mexican Wolf population in the southwest. I agree in principle that ecosystems will re-equilibrate on their own, but given the current state of human development certain areas would remain off-limits for various animals without human intervention, maybe leading to certain species or subspecies becoming extinct. I'm no wildlife biologist but would defer to one on this topic.

justincormack 4y ago
Same with reintroduction of beavers to the UK, it is an island they won’t get here (unlike some birds). We also need some predators for deer other than humans here.
ajuc 4y ago
European motorways (at least new ones) are built with bridges for animals. Like this: https://www.crazynauka.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/microsoftteams-image-79-1.jpg https://www.crazynauka.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/microso... And that's in a country with 120 people per square kilometer compared to 36 people per square kilometer in US. Matter of regulation.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  America has those too, but they’re enormous and expensive because we’re dumb. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/animals-are-using-utahs-largest-wildlife-overpass-earlier-expected-180976420/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/animals-are-using-...
  - 4y ago

anonymous_sorry 4y ago

> The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to diversity if things are left to themselves. In the long run. But in the long run, we are all dead. And considering the amount of time it takes for a new species to evolve, not only are we all dead, but so are the next hundred thousand generations of our offspring. This is a personal view, but to me the return to diversity in a few million years is pretty meaningless. Biodiversity is a goal in itself, for several reasons. Most selfishly, the greater variety of life, the more raw genetic material there is for humanity to put to use, and the more survival strategies there are for us to learn about. Things like enhancing crop yields, nutrition, and disease resistance. Food, medicines and medical research are just the most obvious practical benefits. Again, a personal view, but to me diversity is also aesthetically pleasing. Diversity provides interest and a richness to life that combats monotony and boredom. I also find it pleasing to think I might leave a place more varied and interesting than I found it. Increasing the range of a species, increases its resilience to extinction. That has to be balanced against any negative effects on other parts of the ecosystem (everthing has gotta eat...). Introducing a species to somewhere new has a chance of being quite harmful, but reintroducing a species to somewhere it recently became extinct much less so. It may perturb the new equilibrium (if a few decades is enough time for an equilibrium to establish), but is pretty unlikely to be harmful to biodiversity. It is more likely to be helpful. The recovery of pine martens in Ireland has helped the recovery of red squirrels, for example (admittedly at the bloody expense of the invasive grey).

maria2 4y ago

Wolf reintroductions to Yellowstone, for instance, totally changed the ecosystem for the better. Animals evolved to keep each other in check. If you remove one animal, but not its prey, then the prey can cause an even greater loss of biodiversity by excessive proliferation. In the case of Yellowstone’s wolves, their absence allowed elk to proliferate. Elk then ate too much vegetarian, which prevented forests from developing. The lack of forest lead to a decline in song bird and beaver populations. The decline in beavers lead to a decline in dams, which removed key habitats for other animals. To flip your question on its head: the reintroduction of wolves was clearly beneficial for Yellowstone. What is the argument against reintroducing the wolf, or reintroductions in general?

smm11 4y ago
Having been very, very close to this issue when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, the vocal opposition to this was that a handful of ranchers near Yellowstone who are very much Welfare Queens didn't want to loose cows to wolves that were on the other side of the fence.
- ticviking 4y ago
  Not sure its fair to call them "welfare queens" but no one likes to see their livelihood threatened.
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    If I remember correctly wolves returning to Yellowstone generated 5 million dollars each year to the area only by the increase in tourists. Plus environmental benefits
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      This has nothing to do with the livelihood of the farmers
      - 4y ago

mastersummoner 4y ago

This is mentioned in other responses, but keep in mind that frequently, it's urban sprawl which endangered these animals in the first place. We're not going to start closing up our cities to let animals come back. But we can take steps to make the environments around them more hospitable: bridges under highways, reserved areas for wildlife. Once these are in place, some reintroductions to kick-start the process makes more sense. A lot of the animals being reintroduced were key parts of the ecosystem before they were eliminated in areas, and their absence can lead to unexpected imbalances. Reintroductions makes sense in this context. Or at least, introducing another animal which fills a similar niche.

burkaman 4y ago

Maybe the most famous example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign That is an extreme case, but sometimes the best way to correct a human-caused error is a human-caused solution. Nature will always find an equilibrium, but probably not an equilibrium that works well for us unless we nudge it. Reintroducing sparrows is clearly better than accepting the natural equilibrium of "locusts are everywhere and we can't grow food anymore".

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Yes but that’s just another manipulation of an ecosystem to suit human activity. Fundamentally I remain unconvinced by most of the answers which boil down we want to reintroduce these species because it suits us from an aesthetic point of view or it fosters our own desire for a return to a state we judge more pristine or authentic. It’s basically the 19th century craze for zoo but adapted to modern taste.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  It's not really clear what your position is. Are you against any sort of human intervention? Or are you in favour of conservation but not restoration? (Try not to break stuff, but don't fix things we've broken). Or do you think it's justifiable to perturb ecosystems for economic reasons, but not to attempt to restore them for aesthetic reasons (car parks are Ok, but safari parks are not)?
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    I'm fine with conservation which is after all mostly stopping or limiting our harmful activities so they are sustainable. In a lot of way, it's the reverse of an intervention. Meddling is not fixing things we have broken. It's just altering things again but in a way we find intellectually pleasing. I don't think trying to bring back ecosystems to their previous state as inherent value. I don't value nature for nature sake generally speaking. That's a rich urban dweller idea of morality. My issue with the human impact on Earth - climate change and what it does to the biosphere - is that it's unsustainable and will have a massive impact on our way of life if nothing is done. I don't really care about wild mammals in Europe outside of their rise being a signal that other things are doing better.

nine_k 4y ago

Bad equilibria exist. If a better equilibrium that involved some currently gone animal us known to have existed and have been better, a reintroduction is an obvious step back to it.

geysersam 4y ago

That takes a long time though... Not sure why we should wait for entirely new ecosystem pathways to develop over millions of years when we can just reintroduce key species extinct from the area.