One of the methods mentioned in the article is the Relocation of certain members of a species to a different area, specifically pregnant females. Females with diverse genetics are brought to a different group of that species to repopulate elsewhere, allowing that different group to pass on their genes as well. For the purposes of the assignment, I’ll call this method “Maternal Relocation.” Another method mentioned in the article is what I’ll call “Predator Prevention.” The predators of a specific species are directly managed to benefit the species which they are hunting. If a single predator is found to be preying more heavily than conservationists deem safe for the hunted species, that predator is killed.
Both of these methods are meant, in all goodness, to save an endangered and human-loved species. Both methods also obviously require large amounts of human intervention in natural events, be it good or bad. They also both require large amounts of technology, like radar and GPS, to monitor animal activity. This requires a fairly large amount of data-crunching, as well as data analysis. Conservationists must consider many factors when deciding whether or not to implement either method.
But there are some key differences between the two methods. Maternal Relocation requires direct intervention with the species itself. If anything goes wrong, that could result in the death of one or more members of the species, bringing them even closer to extinction. Predator Prevention, on the other hand, requires the manipulation of the number of predators hunting the species. Different groups of animals are killed, without ever touching the species itself. It could be argued that an innocent animal is killed simply for attempting to survive in a harsh world. Predator Prevention also, obviously, involves the death of an animal, which is not featured in Maternal Relocation.
I believe that Maternal Relocation both has a greater chance of success and is more morally sound and acceptable than Predator Prevention. With Maternal Relocation, if conservationists deem that they incorrectly moved a number of animals, they can always relocate them again. You can’t reverse the death of an animal, as with Predator Prevention. There’s no saying that conservationists couldn’t make a mistake and accidentally kill off too many animals, possibly having dire consequences on the predator species. Additionally, animal rights groups would most likely not agree with the method, and possibly protest, which could further slow down programs attempting to protect endangered species.
Because of the Maternal Relocation method (which just-so-happens to be appropriate for this section,) groups of bighorn sheep that would not normally meet are being brought together to mate. Without human intervention, the California desert’s vast tracts of land and large mountains would have prevented sheep populations from mixing. Isolated groups would evolve separately from their also-isolated counterparts. Eventually, after thousands of years, their DNA would have become so different that they could not naturally produce fertile offspring together, essentially becoming different species. This phenomenon is referred to as geographic isolation. Maternal Relocation makes this nearly impossible, so groups of bighorn sheep will all have breed together at some point. This would not allow for enough time to pass for geographic isolation to truly occur. However, conservationists are attempting to artificially produce much-needed diversity by relocating pregnant females that have been found to be genetically diverse. While this is not necessarily as effective as natural geographic isolation, it’s certainly better than nothing.
The definition of a “wild” animal and the guidelines that may make it such are not entirely clear. I would personally define a wild animal as being an animal whose habitat and living space is not within a human-built area. This means that a lion living in a wildlife refuge center would not be a wild animal. A lion living on the African plains near a human settlement would be wild, because the humans are essentially living on the lion’ territory. It could, however, be argued that a wild animal is one that is not under the direct influence of humans. This would make the restored populations referenced in the article not wild. I would disagree with this, because although the restored populations are heavily influenced by humans, they still roam free, and are not fed by humans, nor do they rely on humans for their survival.
