Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Saving One Species Can Kill Another

Everyone wants to save endangered species, but not everyone thinks about the effects saving one species can have on another. Scientists in Montana’s Centennial Valley learned this the hard way when they blocked off streams to create ponds for the endangered trumpeter swans, only to eliminate the breeding ground of the rare Arctic grayling. Because of this, the grayling population has significantly decreased, causing the federal government to consider adding it to the endangered species list. To alleviate some of the loss, the scientists have blocked off aggressive cutthroat trout from entering the streams of Red Rock Creek, where another population of grayling lives. They believe that the cutthroats have been stealing the grayling’s source of food, and that by blocking them from the grayling stream the grayling population will rise. How will this, however, affect the cutthroat population?
So far, scientists have come up with several successful solutions to save each individual species (i.e. dam the stream to create ponds for the swans, block off the cutthroats in the Red Rock Creek), but not so many to save all the populations overall. A possible solution to this is to breed these rare and endangered species in separate locations and, in the fishes’ case, just “re-stock” if too many die. Maybe relocating the cutthroats, which are not native to the Red Rock River, to a separate pond or stream might help, as well. The problem with this is that no matter what scientists do, some other species is going to be affected. This is an imperfect science, so the outcome of every decision and experiment will be unclear. If the cutthroats are moved to a separate stream, the cutthroats might threaten the other native fish. Breeding these animals in labs or separate locations can be expensive, as well.

Personally, I hate fish, so I could care less whether the little suckers live or die. I do think that the lack of insight shown in this situation is worrisome, however, and scientists do need to find ways to better help increase one species without negatively affecting another. I don’t think anyone wants an entire species to become threatened for the sake of another.

3 comments:

  1. Personally I think that we human are stepping into too much cases. Just let the nature do its own work maybe? Like you said Annie, scientist haven't been figuring out how to save one specie without hurting the others but breeding them in lab would be way too expensive. However I do think that relocation is the best way to save them all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree completely Annie. We often just think about the one species we would be saving but forget to look at the harmful consequences. However, even if scientists try to consider other species, the ecosystem is a chain so it will in some shape or form have an affect on them. Hopefully scientist consider that when they go about saving endangered species because in reality they could be the ones causing some animals to go endangered. I agree that it’s not worth an entire species becoming threatened for the sake of another but if they consider other animals in their solution of saving endangered animals it will have a big impact.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Cammie that we are somewhat in over our heads. There are so many cases of endangered species affecting other species and we just can save them all. I suppose taking them to another area is the best option, considering the cutthroats aren't even native to Red Rock Creek

    ReplyDelete