How Should We Be Applying Applied Ecology?

Posted on January 13, 2009 by Matt Embrey in Nature & Science

I read an article in the AP yesterday that has had me thinking about human impact on the environment. We often hear about the horrible things Evil Corporations do to the environment, but this was a case of good intentions gone wrong.

The story takes place on the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island nestled between Antarctica and Australia. It is the natural home to tundra-like vegetation, birds, seals and penguins. The island was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1933 and a World Heritage Site in 1997 but now it is largely known as an environmental disaster due to ill-executed ecological management.

Here’s the story in an organic nutshell:

In the early 1800’s, man brought cats to the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island and they quickly became feral. In 1878, the rabbits arrived, and as rabbits do they multiplied and took over the island wreaking havoc on the native vegetation. The rabbits provide an abundant food source for the cats but that did not balance out and both populations ballooned.

By the late 1960’s the Australian authorities introduced the Myxoma virus to thin out the rabbit population. It worked; the rabbit population dwindled from 130,000 to about 20,000 by the 1980s, and the vegetation recovered. The only problem was that now there weren’t enough rabbits to sustain the feral cat population, so they turned to indigenous birds.

By 1985 the Australian authorities feared the birds extinction and sprung into action again, and by 2000 eradicated the entire feral cat population. Now without the cats to control the rabbit population, despite the Myxamotosis, their population surged again causing even more damage than before.

Recognizing that past efforts to restore balance have not been comprehensive enough, experts estimate that to do it right will cost 24 million Australian dollars (17 million USD).

The question I have is are any animal eradication projects environmentally responsible?

Clearly we have an interest in preserving natural habitats, and the natural diversity of wildlife however I don’t think it’s clear how far we should go to intervene.

I think it is safe to say we should do everything we can to prevent the introduction, especially by human means, of invasive species, but once it’s done can we effectively reverse the damage?

Most people think of invasive species as human introduced threats, and most of the time they are, however, some invasive species happen naturally. For example, a natural disaster could wipe out one of two competing species allowing the latter to thrive unchecked, and impact the ecosystem as an invasive species. In this case it is natural but is it any less devastating?

These are not rhetorical questions. I pose the question because I really don’t know where the line is. On the one hand I want to preserve the rich ecological diversity this planet is blessed with and feel as a environmental stewards we are responsible for what happens in our environment. On the other hand, as an animal lover, I understand that death is part of the natural order, however I have a tough time accepting the idea of massive animal eradication programs.

Let me know what you think?

Sources: AP, AFP & Diversity and Distribution (PDF)

Tags:

Animals, Ecology, nature, Wildlife

13 Responses to “ How Should We Be Applying Applied Ecology? ”

Sara

13. Jan, 2009

It’s a very difficult dilemma. In a way, no species is original - they all evolved or migrated at some point. And, of course, you can extend this debate to humans - just look at the controversy with that.

I certainly don’t know the answer. I tend to take a utilitarian view - whatever is best, on balance, or causes least harm, on balance. But I suppose assessing that is most of the battle.

Reply to this comment
David@TheGoodHuman

13. Jan, 2009

I am not sure of the “correct” thing to do either - and while I am For making changes in situations where we might lose a species or something like that, I am also Against messing with Mother Nature. Sure, in this instance man brought those creatures to the island, but maybe whatever happens to them is supposed to happen because they are not supposed to be there. Eventually, everything returns to the way it “should” be, so maybe it’s better to leave things like this alone? Not sure if there is a right or wrong answer on this - can any scientists or biologists weigh in?

Reply to this comment
Adam Shake

13. Jan, 2009

You pose two very good questions, and as you’ve pointed out, these are rather “hindsight” questions, as we can all agree that introducing invasive (non-native) species into a biosphere is always a bad idea. But let’s assume (like you have) that this has already taken place.

The question I have is are any animal eradication projects environmentally responsible?

This poses an interesting problem. How do we rate the “worth” of one species over another? When we eradicate animals, we are placing a negative worth on them compared to the ones we are trying to save. In this case, we are trying to save the species that is indiginous to the area and eradicate the one that we let loose on the native animal population.

To answer your question, I would not condone an animal eradication project without some serious thought and study as to how it will effect a possible chain reaction. (like the one you pointed out) Too often, people or organizations react based on their vested interests without studying the outcome of their actions. So yes, (but only after complete study of possible effects, and only if we (humans) were the ones who caused the problem in the first place.

Your second proposed idea “natural disaster could wipe out one of two competing species allowing the latter to thrive unchecked, and impact the ecosystem as an invasive species. In this case it is natural but is it any less devastating?” is also interesting because it implies that we “own” nature. How?

If nature wipes out one species due to natural disaster, disease etc.. and another species grows at a rate that is harmful to the environment, to say that this is devastating, is to place our own value system on nature. When we say “Nature Is…” we place ownership on it and when we do that, we allow ourselves the freedom to manipulate it.

In short:

1. If we cause a problem, we are bound by moral and ethical reasons to try to correct it, but only after studying our actions impact on the problem.

2. If we are not the cause of the problem, but it is “Nature Itself” that has created the situation, then I think that we are also bound by moral and ethical reasons to let nature run her course.

Excellent article, and sorry for being so long winded.

Adam Shake

Reply to this comment
Tim

13. Jan, 2009

Matt- You raise a valid point. My take on it is this: Finding ‘balance’ however it is defined, is a social endeavor. Humans have decided what the proper ecological balance of things is in many cases. But doing so — finding that balance — is like hitting a moving target.

The example I like to use has to do with the eradication of wolves from American West. Without natural predators, deer and elk populations have skyrocketed. If you go to Rocky Mountain National Park you will see an elk herd that is much larger than the park can sustain. As a result, this year the park service just started a culling program to thin the heard. In stead of another human intervention like this to restore the ecological ‘balance’ I would argue what we need is a reintroduction of wolves.

Reply to this comment
Hugh

13. Jan, 2009

There’s a sense here of already being too far down the path to just let things go. It’s a variation on an old cliche, in this case, “damned if you do more, damned if you don’t do more.” My opinion is that while further animal eradication programs are an unpleasant thought, there may be further unanticipated consequences for suspending the cleanup of a major man-made mini disaster. This is a sad lesson in the unintended byproducts of our best intentions, but one we can’t just put aside until a more stable environment is achieved.

Reply to this comment
BCH

13. Jan, 2009

I know some animal rights groups are opposed to removing invasive species, which is an interesting position. I generally think we should try to minimize ecological harm as much as possible.

Reply to this comment
Matt Embrey

13. Jan, 2009

@BCH - Agreed, but given a problem that already exists whats the best way to do it? Killing off 100,000 cute little bunny rabbits, or letting them ravage all of the native vegetation at an unsustainable rate?

Reply to this comment
Levi Novey

13. Jan, 2009

I think we have a responsibility to try to solve the problem, even in these instances where we keep seeming to do more harm than good.

Reply to this comment
Justin

14. Jan, 2009

I think it would be best to let Nature repair itself and for us to stop trying to fix things all together.

Reply to this comment
Margo

14. Jan, 2009

Thank you for presenting this article, I feel it is needed to consider this side of the environmental issue. All too often it is overlooked.

Quite honestly, I feel humans often mess things up when we become involved.

I live in an area famous for “controlled burns” in the forests. The idea is for the forest service to burn a selected area, and only that selected section of a forest.

Why, you ask? After the Yellowstone fire, suddenly people learned fires aren’t always bad. You’ve heard the phrase “beauty from ashes?” It’s true. Fire can bring newer, richer, thicker growth. Some pine cones only release their seeds in the intense heat of fire, and the forests here are rife with this kind of tree.

Having controlled burns is an idea with merit. That said, however, let me point out that we have to be aware of natural conditions. Only 3 summers ago one such controlled burn was planned for a certain day. This day turned out to be windy, hot and dry–all undesirable conditions for keeping a fire under control.

Did the forest service reschedule? No, the fire went ahead as planned. Then they were surprised when the fire spread to areas outside their planned boundaries.

This is just one example of how a good idea can go wrong if common sense, careful study AND flexibility are not included in the plans….

Reply to this comment

Site's linking to this post:

Eco Links to Green your Weekend 15-01-09 | EcoSalon - The Green Gathering

16. Jan, 2009

[...] GreenUPGRADER poses a timely question: with all the power at our fingertips to alter ecological systems, what should we be doing? What is enough, what is too much, and what is right and wrong? Join the discussion and give your opinion on where the line should be. [...]

Reply to this comment
Quick Green Reads For The Weekend Volume One Hundred. | The Good Human

16. Jan, 2009

[...] The story takes place on the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island nestled between Antarctica and Australia. It is the natural home to tundra-like vegetation, birds, seals and penguins. The island was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1933 and a World Heritage Site in 1997 but now it is largely known as an environmental disaster due to ill-executed ecological management. [...]

Reply to this comment
Geoengineering: Giving the Earth a Push | EcoSalon - The Green Gathering

29. Jan, 2009

[...] plundering of natural resources to informed scientific trials - the exciting new field of applied ecology - has been a painful one, littered with devastating mistakes that are still going on. But will it [...]

Reply to this comment