Reintroducing ‘extinct’ species – Parallels with Geoengineering?

October 3rd, 2008

Posted by: admin

In the same issue of Wired that Steve Raymer appears in, there’s an interesting article about efforts to reintroduce species to areas where they (or their closest biological cousins) roamed thousands of years ago.  Granted, I’m not the Prometheus writer best suited to speak to this, but I think there are some interesting parallels between efforts like those described in “Pleistocene Park: Where the Auroxen Roam” and geoengineering proposals like those discussed in a Time article from last year: seeding the oceans with iron, placing mirrors in orbit, or other schemes worthy of science fiction (a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode did mention atmospheric scrubbers, but as a plot point and not a policy suggestion).

I want to know whether I have perceived something correctly about this issue.  While the article at best implies this, it would appear that these efforts to reintroduce long absent megafauna (such as bison and primitive horses) are somewhat different than the efforts to reintroduce other species (such as the recent reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone region), or the efforts to fight invasive species.  Given the size of the animals involved, the time gap between disappearance and re-introduction, and the significant travel distances involved, this appears to be a different scope of intervention than fighting the spread of snakefish in the Potomac or reintroducing various smaller species into the wild.  The level of potential impact, and the kind of control required, seem qualitatively different.  There is also a bit of presumption that these efforts would produce some natural/wild state – something hard to assess given the lack of records from when these animals roamed large and free.  The lack of engagement with policy implications is disappointing, but not surprising.

The reintroduction of megafauna reminds me of geoengineering proposals occasionally thrown about as ways to address various global ills, climate change being one of them.  Roger has some concerns with how geoengineering has been used in climate change discussions, and it seems to me that the lack of consideration of policy, scientific and technical considerations is very similar to what is going on with these efforts to shape or engineer ecosystems.  Both geoengineering and megafauna reintroduction – as currently handled – so both a lack of deep thinking and an unearned faith in technological fixes.  I am not suggesting that the ideas are without merit. I want to make the point that some experiments, by their very nature, cannot be held in laboratory conditions and require a lot more consideration beyond the proper experimental protocol.

14 Responses to “Reintroducing ‘extinct’ species – Parallels with Geoengineering?”

    1
  1. Mark Bahner Says:

    I don’t see the problem. With 19th century technology, it took only a few decades to nearly render the American bison extinct.

    So if the megafauna don’t work, just kill them all. It’s not like they can hide.

    P.S. I don’t see how “seeding the oceans with iron” is worthy of Star Trek. The technology to do so was probably available even in the 19th century.

  2. 2
  3. docpine Says:

    It seems to me that megafauna and geoengineering are most fundamentally different in the sense that that geoengineering is a technology directed toward a widely acknowledged problem (climate change). Invasive species control and reintroduction of species extirpated since Euroamericans entered the scene reflect society’s desire to conserve the environment as it was when they entered the scene. Don’t get the magafauna thing, though, it seems like a technology in search of a problem to justify spending time on it.

    I always wonder about opportunity costs.. could the scientists working on megafauna contribute more to society by working on renewable energy or plant breeding or organic pest control or some technology related to a problem recognized by society? Just a thought. To me it is always about investigator-driven rather than society-driven research.

  4. 3
  5. David Bruggeman Says:

    For what it’s worth, the existing bison population in Yellowstone was transported there in the late 19th century.

    One reason I thought there were some similarities between the megafauna reintroduction and geoengineering is that they are both seeking to change the target environments. Introducing large animals to areas that didn’t have them will change the landscape, as will geoengineering projects.

    I think the megafauna projects are of a different kind than agricultural projects, mainly due to the degree of control possible. Regardless, they both have risks, particularly of plants or animals ranging far from where they are ’supposed’ to be.

    I suspect the way to persuade these researchers to shift to work on items with more utility requires a shift in motivation – arguably the hardest kind of shift to make.

  6. 4
  7. Mark Bahner Says:

    “Don’t get the magafauna thing, though, it seems like a technology in search of a problem to justify spending time on it.”

    I guess we need to first agree on what is being discussed before we can decide on whether we agree or disagree.

    When I read “megafauna reintroduction” I was thinking specifically of bringing animals that are currently struggling in other areas of the world into the United States, ala this article:

    http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-hswild184388301aug18,0,5646571.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

    …and this Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park

    From that Wikipedia article:

    “In 2005, ecologist Josh Donlan, from Cornell University, proposed a Pleistocene Park on the North American great plains in 50 years. Proposed species include the Bolson Tortoise, Bactrian Camel (for American camel), Przewalski’s horse, cheetah (for Miracinonyx), lion (for American lion) and Indian elephant (for Columbian Mammoth).”

    This is outside my field, but the cheetah is at least endangered, even if it’s not in immediate threat of extinction:

    http://www.african-safari-pictures.com/endangered-cheetah.html

    *That’s* what I’m talking about. I’m talking about taking megafauna that are clearly endangered in their current locations (e.g. mountain gorillas in Africa, tigers in India, pandas in China) and providing “parks” that are of sufficient size in other areas of the world to reasonably simulate their current habitat.

    I don’t see that as “technology in search of a problem” at all. I think the problems for these megafauna in their current habitats are clear. And I don’t want to see them reduced to captivity in zoos.

    I lived for several years in Roanoke, VA. Believe it or not, the Roanoke VA had a Siberian Tiger for many years. It apparently didn’t have sufficient “papers” to fit into any breeding program.

    It was an absolutely magnificent animal, but the circumstances were incredibly sad:

    http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/95361

    She spent something like 5 years in an *aardvark* cage. (Maybe 30 by 50 feet in size???) Then, at a cost of something like $100,000 a new “habitat” was built for her. But even that was at most 1/2 an acre.

    She wore a path all around the outside of her enclosure, just pacing around and around. Very, very sad.

  8. 5
  9. docpine Says:

    Grizzlies used to be in California, they are on the state flag; reintroducing them, even though they more recently used to be than megafauna, would change the landscape..

    Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone changed the landscape due to elk’s behavior changing, which has a variety of impacts on plants. Introducing chestnut blight (unintentionally) had a massive impacts on landscapes and cultures of the eastern US.

    Fundamentally there are two questions to ask about introductions or reintroductions, first “why do it?” and second, “is it worth the risk to the environment and to people?”

    I don’t hear much about the former question..perhaps the answer is “because someone thinks they can.” Not, to my mind, a compelling reason. So we never have to get to the second question.

  10. 6
  11. David Bruggeman Says:

    So, to what extent do geoengineering discussions effectively address the first question and get to the second question? My sense was that they don’t, but I don’t claim any special knowledge here.

  12. 7
  13. Mark Bahner Says:

    “Don’t get the magafauna thing, though, it seems like a technology in search of a problem to justify spending time on it.”

    I guess we need to first agree on what is being discussed before we can decide on whether we agree or disagree. When I read “megafauna reintroduction” I was thinking specifically of bringing animals that are currently struggling in other areas of the world into the United States, ala this article:

    http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-hswild184388301aug18,0,5646571.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

    …and this Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park

    From that Wikipedia article: “In 2005, ecologist Josh Donlan, from Cornell University, proposed a Pleistocene Park on the North American great plains in 50 years. Proposed species include the Bolson Tortoise, Bactrian Camel (for American camel), Przewalski’s horse, cheetah (for Miracinonyx), lion (for American lion) and Indian elephant (for Columbian Mammoth).”

    This is outside my field, but the cheetah is at least endangered, even if it’s not in immediate threat of extinction:

    http://www.african-safari-pictures.com/endangered-cheetah.html

    *That’s* what I’m talking about. I’m talking about taking megafauna that are clearly endangered in their current locations (e.g. mountain gorillas in Africa, tigers in India, pandas in China) and providing “parks” that are of sufficient size in other areas of the world to reasonably simulate their current habitat.

    I don’t see that as “technology in search of a problem” at all. I think the problems for these megafauna in their current habitats are clear. And I don’t want to see them reduced to captivity in zoos. I lived for several years in Roanoke, VA. Believe it or not, the Roanoke VA had a Siberian Tiger for many years. It apparently didn’t have sufficient “papers” to fit into any breeding program. It was an absolutely magnificent animal, but the circumstances were incredibly sad:

    http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/95361

    She spent something like 5 years in an *aardvark* cage. (Maybe 30 by 50 feet in size???) Then, at a cost of something like $100,000 a new “habitat” was built for her. But even that was at most 1/2 an acre. She wore a path all around the outside of her enclosure, just pacing around and around. Very, very sad.

  14. 8
  15. TokyoTom Says:

    “The reintroduction of megafauna reminds me of geoengineering proposals …. Both geoengineering and megafauna reintroduction – as currently handled – so both a lack of deep thinking and an unearned faith in technological fixes.”

    While I understand that you might see some similarities between geoengineering and various “rewilding” proposals (particularly as summarized in the press), the differences are very large. Geoengineering involves direct tinkering with geophysical systems in order to have a planetary-wide effect (by university or government-funded scientists or by entrepreneurs hoping to sell some type of carbon offset into a market that relies on government fiat), whereas actual rewilding efforts are much more the product of the direct activities of people who may be thinking big, but are focussed only on changing how their own land is managed.

    Geoengineering may at some point involve property rights (rights to be rewarded for a carbon offset), but rewilding is actually underway and very much depends up real property rights now held by particular persons.

    At least in the US, although the rewilding discusssions have several strands, including concerns about saving wildlife under threat elsewhere, the chief roots were in the 1987 “Buffalo Commons” analysis/proposal of the Poppers regarding stresses in development of the high plains, which has sparked a 25-year old discission, and ample analysis.

    http://advancedconservation.org/library/donlan_etal_2006.pdf
    http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/barlow.html
    http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/travel/08journeys.html
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/22/MN39309.DTL
    http://www.gprc.org/buffalocommons.html
    http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/popper/ (click on his “Buffalo Commons” tab)
    http://roguepundit.typepad.com/roguepundit/2005/08/rewilding_north.html

  16. 9
  17. David Bruggeman Says:

    I guess I don’t see the scale differences you describe as very meaningful, because even those small areas influenced by rewilding can have larger effects. Similarly, is there some technical or scientific aspect of geoengineering that makes it inherently global in scope? I can see that perhaps the major projects currently discussed and debated are global in scope, but why aren’t there (or why couldn’t there be) regional geoengineering projects such as interventions in fault lines or similar geological manipulations?

  18. 10
  19. TokyoTom Says:

    David, climate change mitigation can of course be local (as in policies that affect land use), but mitigation activites as such are unlikely to tak place on any significant scale without government action that has the effect of pricing carbon and valuing offsets.

    This is quite different from rewilding, which is being spearheaded by people who are primarily acting on their own initiatives, for their own purposes and at their own expense. Sure, there may be external costs, but they are more of the nature of those who burn coal or intentionally or inadvertently release exotic species, without regard or responsibility for the consequences.

  20. 11
  21. Mark Bahner Says:

    “Fundamentally there are two questions to ask about introductions or reintroductions, first “why do it?” and second, “is it worth the risk to the environment and to people?”

    I don’t hear much about the former question..perhaps the answer is “because someone thinks they can.” Not, to my mind, a compelling reason. So we never have to get to the second question.”

    OK, but what if the answer to the first question is, “We should bring in endangered animals from other areas of the world to fill ecological niches that were wiped out previously. The reasons for doing this are:

    1) It gives those endangered megafauna more of a chance of surviving as a species, if they exist in more places,

    2) We don’t want those endangered megafauna to exist just in zoos, outside of the areas where they are endangered,

    3) They fulfill an ecological niche that was previously wiped out,

    4) It’s potentially a money-making opportunity, and

    5) It raises awareness of the animals and their ecosystems.

    Do you think that answer to the first question warrants going on to the second question?

  22. 12
  23. David Bruggeman Says:

    I’m more persuaded by projects involving endangered species as opposed to extinct species or their closest equivalents. I think there needs to be more reasons than those that are relatively self-serving, either to the animals or the people who would profit from the venture. I think they are out there (say if the changes to the ecosystem wrought by the reintroduction have tangible boosts to air and water quality), I’m just not aware of them.

    My concern is that answering the first question in the affirmative may short-circuit the discussion and avoid the second question.

  24. 13
  25. TokyoTom Says:

    “I think there needs to be more reasons than those that are relatively self-serving, either to the animals or the people who would profit from the venture. I think they are out there (say if the changes to the ecosystem wrought by the reintroduction have tangible boosts to air and water quality), I’m just not aware of them.

    My concern is that answering the first question [“why do it?”] in the affirmative may short-circuit the discussion and avoid the second question [“is it worth the risk to the environment and to people?”].”

    In other words, you don’t believe that people ought to be able to do what they want with their own property, subject to liability for the damages that they cause to others. Under our system of property and government, people are allowed to have their own preferences and to act in a way that advances them, generally without pre-clearing them with government. Zoos, game parks and wildlife refugees all have their roots in the preferences of private owners. Today, groups like The Nature Conservancy and wealthy individuals like Ted Turner are leading the way in the reintroduction of the bison and restoration of tallgrass and other prairie landscapes, just a private landowners have lead the way in restoring trout streams.

    You might desire to regulate this behavior because it might impose externalities on third persons, but in doing so, you are essentially drawing an analogy with local pollution. The scale of the activity and of the argued externality is an order of magnitude different from geoengineering.

  26. 14
  27. David Bruggeman Says:

    My take on the initial Wired article that prompted the post is that these rewilding efforts will not be restricted to enclosed spaces and will, once the populations are proven viable, will roam on the landscape. If these projects are restricted to private enclosed spaces, I think they’re doomed to fail. At a minimum, the projects wouldn’t be rewilding but a different form of captivity.